Understanding Students’ Learning Strategies as an Input Context to Design English Classroom Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learners’ individual differences in learning English as a foreign language with large-mixed ability classes needsa great attention in increasing their communicative language skills. One of Learners’ differences is learningstrategies. Learning strategy has a great role to promote students’ autonomy. It is one of front liners indeveloping communicative skills of English. Understanding students’ learning strategies becomes a strategic andimportant issue to gain brilliant ideas to design classroom activities and then, to promote students’ autonomy.The study conducted with students in two senior high schools, SMA Negeri 15 and SMA Negeri 16 MakassarSouth Sulawesi Province, Indonesia found that students only used meta-cognitive strategies at a high frequencyand memory, cognitive, compensation, affective, and social strategies at a medium frequency. In meta-cognitivestrategies, students have several degrees of autonomy promotion by independently organizing and evaluatingtheir learning progress, although other five learning strategies need intensively great efforts to support theirautonomy. Further implications of the study in English foreign language teaching and learning in the context ofimplementing school based curriculum in Indonesia are also discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".