Investigating Indonesian EFL Learners’ Learning and Acquiring English Vocabulary
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of how EFL learners’ learning and acquiring English vocabulary has become the popular issue since English has considered as an International language in Indonesian schools. In this study, the researchers focused on verifying learners’ strategy in enhancing their English vocabulary. This study was quantitative research that employed longitudinal survey. The subject of this study was learners of junior high school in Parepare. The data gained through questioner, which was distributed to 100 students at the junior high school in Parepare. The findings indicated that the EFL learners’ strategy in learning English vocabulary such as doing the assignment, practicing English pronunciation, learning English tenses, practicing English dialogue, English translation exercise, reading English text, memorizing and writing practice. In addition, the Indonesian EFL learners acquired English vocabulary through the dictionary, reading English book, listening to and watching English songs and movies, playing the game, the internet, and reading English advertisement.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.122 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it