Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Learning Strategies In Proficient And Less Proficient Readers In Medicine

Authors: Majid Nemati; Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan; Anis Ashrafzadeh;

Learning Strategies In Proficient And Less Proficient Readers In Medicine

Abstract

The current study aimed to diagnose the probable significant differences in the use of language learning strategies among medical-text readers of opposite sex from different levels of proficiency. 120 (N=120) participants were randomly selected from Azad Medical University of Mashhad: 60 medical students (age range 23-25; 30=male and 30=female) and 60 professors (age range 45-55; 30=male and 30=female). They took the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire. Their responses to the 50 items on the questionnaire were totaled and sets of scores were obtained for overall, direct, indirect, memory, cognitive, compensative, metacognitive, social, and affective strategies. Independent samples t-tests were performed for the analysis of the data. Results after analysis of the data showed that male and female respondents in each proficiency group used the same learning strategies. However, as far as individual direct and indirect sub-strategies are concerned, two significant differences were found: (1) male and female proficient readers used compensative strategies differentially, with females using these strategies more frequently; The same also held for less proficient readers, but in this case, it was the male group that used these strategies more frequently; and (2) only in the case of proficient readers did male readers use affective strategies more frequently.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!