Motivational Orientations and Learning Strategies among Undergraduate Students in Study Circle Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In line with the vision and mission of the International Islamic University Malaysia, the study circle (halaqah) course is designed to improve undergraduate students in all aspects (intellectual, moral, spiritual, social, and physical) as well as develop their communication and critical thinking skills. Learning motivation and learning strategies are essential to achieve the desired learning outcomes of the course. Thus, this research aims to assess the students’ perception on their learning motivational orientations (i.e., self-efficacy and task performance and task value) and learning strategies (i.e., elaboration and peer learning). This research employed the quantitative approach in which a survey design method was used. A sample of 329 undergraduate students randomly selected form the students registered in study circle (halaqah) course were asked to complete sub-scales adopted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Descriptive statistics using mean scores and standard deviations, t-test and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient were used in the data analysis. The students, regardless of gender, showed high level of learning motivational orientations in taking the study circle in terms of interest, importance and utility. They were motivated and confident to understand and perform the study circle tasks. Elaboration and peer learning strategies were used to perform such tasks. There was also a large positive relation between learning motivational orientations and learning strategies. Further qualitative and quantitative researches were recommended to get more in depth information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".