The Use of Language Learning Strategies through Smartphones in Improving Learner Autonomy in EFL Reading among Undergraduates in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language learning strategies (LLS) and learner autonomy (LA) are believed to achieve a sustainable long-life learning process leading to a more reading competence (O’malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). LA is a pedagogical imperative inasmuch as language is largely an autonomous activity (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). This study examines the improvement of LA through the explicit use of LLS in EFL reading in a mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) environment among English as a foreign language (EFL) readers enrolled in Preparatory Year program at Najran University in Saudi Arabia. To this end, a questionnaire adapted from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), was administered to 32 students to measure their reading strategy use mediated by smartphones in EFL reading context. The data analysis revealed moderate averages (60%) of LLS (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies) among EFL undergraduates in EFL reading context. Consequently, these results may restrain the improvement of LA in virtual learning environments, mostly teacherless platforms, where learners need to have these strategies to help them control and manage their own language learning in almost independent learning settings, freedom in time, place, access to resources, and material choices. It is recommended that LA be improved through a strategy use instruction mediated by smartphones in EFL reading context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.047 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".