Is Technology Paving the Way for Autonomous Learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shift towards communicative, learner-centered approaches to teaching has resulted in attention being drawn to promoting autonomy as a capacity for independent learning. Taking responsibility for their own learning enables students to break down barriers to learning that appear in teacher-directed environments. With independence and interdependence as its two interrelated aspects, autonomy has its roots in interaction with others in social contexts, and it is now looked upon as being certain abilities that facilitate the navigation of learning through higher degrees of motivation, creative thinking, and conceptual learning. Thanks to technology, language learners easily access authentic materials for out-of-class learning. However, this paper aims to argue that where promoting autonomous learning is concerned, it cannot be enough per se; proper guidance is crucial, and the interrelation between pedagogy and technology has to be explored so that enough attention is paid to the affordances of certain technological tools to enable language learners to become more autonomous.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".