Learning Strategies of Students Attending a “Second Chance” School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted in Quebec with 608 students (aged 16-19) in four “second chance” schools of the greater Montreal area. The objectives were twofold: (a) to identify the strategies of these students in the context of five learning activities; and (b) to compare the strategies of students who had withdrawn from school after their mandatory attendance period (age 16-17) with those of students exceeding the age limit for high school (age 18-19). Results from a self-reported questionnaire in French show that the students lack many learning strategies, particularly for two of the five activities. The differences between the two groups always favor the older students and pertain to a specific aspect of the activity. These results argue for differentiation in research and classroom practices according to the activities presented to the students and according to the two age groups.Cette étude a été réalisée au Québec auprès de 608 élèves (âgés de 16 à 19 ans) de quatre écoles de « raccrocheurs » de la région métropolitaine de Montréal. La recherche a poursuivi deux objectifs : (a) identifier les stratégies des élèves « raccrocheurs » dans le cadre de cinq activités d’apprentissage; et (b) comparer les stratégies des élèves qui avaient abandonné l’école après la période de fréquentation obligatoire (16-17 ans) à celles des élèves qui avaient dépassé l’âge limite de fréquentation de l’école secondaire (18-19 ans). Les résultats à un questionnaire validé en français indiquent que tous les élèves, en général, disent avoir recours à un nombre restreint de stratégies d’apprentissage, notamment dans deux des cinq activités. Les différences entre les deux groupes favorisent toujours les élèves plus âgés et sont pertinentes pour un aspect spécifique de l’activité. Ces résultats militent en faveur d’une différenciation de la recherche et des pratiques pédagogiques selon les activités présentées aux élèves d’une part, et les deux groupes d’âge d’autre part.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 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".