Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the teachers’ perceptions as to what extent learners should be involved in decision making processes concerning the general aspects of learner autonomy. The primary aim of the research was to find out learning autonomy perceptions of Turkish prospective teachers of English. It is also aimed to explore the effect of gender on the views held by prospective English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers. To this end, a total of 88 senior students (54 females, 34 males) in the Department of English Language Teaching (ELT) at Ondokuz Mayıs University participated in this study. Data were collected by the questionnaire “Learner Autonomy: the Teachers’ Views” developed by Camilleri (1997). The obtained data were analyzed and interpreted in the form of percentage level for related items. The results of this study indicated that EFL student teachers seem to be ready to take more responsibility and control for their own learning in certain aspects of learner autonomy, whilst in some other areas they still demand teacher’s support and guidance. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that overall males and females held similar views about learner autonomy in EFL context. However, a significant gender-based difference was reported in three items.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".