An Investigation of Learning Style Preferences on the Students’ Academic Achievements of English
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
This study aims to investigate whether there are any statistically significant correlation between perceptual learning styles and achievement. Raising learners’ awareness regarding their learning styles and preferences, which develops the better understanding of the learning achievement, and help instructors become more conscious of some factors affecting academic achievement. Additionally, the study assists instructors to identify their student’s preferred learning styles that can affect their achievement. Furthermore, no study up to now has been conducted in Jordan which investigates the relationship between the learning styles on the achievement of EFL at the tertiary level. The data was collected through the learning style preferences questionnaire and it was analyzed using statistical techniques, Descriptive statistics showed that: 1). The most preferred learning styles followed the auditory style, group learning style, kinesthetic style and visual style. 2). The finding also revealed that there was no statistically significant correlation between learning style and achievement. Additionally, both showed similar references for kinesthetic and visual styles. Based on these findings, some recommendations have been made.
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 | 0.067 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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