Students’ Personal Initiative towards their Speaking Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims at finding out students’ personal initiative towards their achievement in speaking English. This research was conducted in an English department at a university in North Sulawesi Indonesia. The data were obtained from the sixth semester students in English Language and Literature study program of academic year 2015/2016 consisting of 21 students. In obtaining the data about students’ personal initiative, a questionnaire was distributed, and for the speaking performance, the data were obtained from students’ scores in Public Speaking subject. To find out the relation between these two variables, Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient formula was used. The result of this research shows that there is a correlation between students’ personal initiative towards their speaking performance with the value of = (0.52) categorized as a moderate correlation. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that personal initiative of students was important to be considered as one of several determination factors for students’ achievement in English speaking skill. It is suggested that students encourage themselves for taking initiative to speak, and for the teacher to give the students correction and suggestion to help them develop themselves.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".