MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595494732 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p89

An Investigation of Learner Autonomy in Turkish EFL Context

2017· article· en· W2595494732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dilek Çakıcı

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishLearner autonomyAutonomyContext (archaeology)PerceptionPsychologyEnglish as a foreign languagePedagogyMathematics educationEnglish languageForeign languageLanguage educationPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207