Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate Korean university-level EFL learners’ learning style preferences. The characteristics of their learning style preferences and implications for effective English learning were examined through the quantitative analysis of 496 subjects’ responses to a learning style survey and their English achievement and term-end performances. The findings indicate that Korean learners’ auditory style preference is noticeable, and visual and individual learning styles are also considered to be primary learning styles, whereas tactile, kinesthetic, and group learning styles are less favored. This suggests that the learners want to learn English with more emphasis on a visual-driven independent style than on an experience-driven collaborative style. Additionally, a majority of the learners tend to maintain or reinforce their preferences throughout the course, and they tend to obtain relatively better English achievement results than learners who substantially change their preferences. In terms of learners’ awareness of their identified learning styles, the findings show that style-aware group performed better than the unaware group. However, any generalization regarding the relationship between learning styles and English achievement or performance should be avoided. Importantly, generalizations regarding ethnic groups’ learning style preferences should be discussed cautiously; instead, learning styles should be discussed relative to the learning context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".