Language Learning Strategies of English for Specific Purposes Students at a Public University in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on strategy research have shown the usefulness and importance of language learning strategies (LLS) for ESL and EFL learners. However, research on content-based learners in relation to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) has yet to be undertaken. This study, therefore, investigated the learning strategies of students at a public English medium university in Malaysia. The study was mainly motivated by concerns about the standards of English of graduates of Malaysian universities. These concerns have also been expressed by the university authorities. The purpose of the research was to investigate the patterns of LLS as reported by the students according to gender, courses, and undergraduate programmes. A total of 312 students from three degree programmes participated in this study. Their learning strategies were investigated based on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990). The findings of the study indicated that the students from the different degree programmes differed in the use of LLS. However, there was no statistically significant relationship between LLS and gender.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".