[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-600826-105":59,"doc-detail-600826-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","dinamika-ilmu-vol-17-no-2-students-evaluation-of-their-english-language-learning-experience","DINAMIKA ILMU - Vol. 17 No. 2 - Students' Evaluation of their English Language Learning Experience","","Research focused on how students evaluate their English language learning experience after completing a programme, comparing 10 “good” and 10 “weak” students. Data came from 20 semi-structured interviews and were examined through qualitative analysis. Findings reveal different views between groups regarding proficiency level and contributing factors to success or difficulty, while shared perspectives appear on preferred teaching approaches, learning strategies, and classroom experience. Results inform pedagogy by offering insights to support achievement.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/dinamika-ilmu-vol-17-no-2-students-evaluation-of-their-english-language-learning-experience/600826/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/dinamika-ilmu-vol-17-no-2-students-evaluation-of-their-english-language-learning-experience/600826.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"mieayamfan","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the main focus of the study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study examined students’ evaluation of their English language learning experience after completing their programme, emphasizing proficiency level, contributing factors, teaching approaches, learning strategies, and classroom experience.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How was data collected and analyzed?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Data were collected through 20 semi-structured interviews with 10 “good” students and 10 “weak” students, then analyzed qualitatively to compare viewpoints across groups.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What differences and similarities were found between “good” and “weak” students?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"They differed in views about proficiency level and factors behind success or lack of success. They shared similar opinions on preferred teaching approaches, learning strategies, and classroom experience.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},600826,1792091459,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},962090893677,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","DINAMIKA ILMU  \nVol. 17 No. 2, 2017 P-ISSN: 1411-3031; E-ISSN: 2442-9651  \nStudents' Evaluation of their English Language Learning Experience  \nM. Maizatulliza  \nUniversiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia  \n[e-mail: maizatulliza@fbk.upsi.edu.my](e-mail: maizatulliza@fbk.upsi.edu.my)  \nR. Kiely  \nUniversity of Southampton, United Kingdom  \ne-mail: [r.kiely@soton.ac.uk](r.kiely@soton.ac.uk)  \nAbstract  \nIn the field of English language teaching and learning, there is a long history of investigating students’ performance while they are undergoing specific learning programmes. This research study, however, focused on students’ evaluation of their English language learning experience after they have completed their programme. The data were gathered from 20 semi-structured interviews with 10 ‘good’ students and 10 ‘weak’ students emphasizing on factors which contributed to their proficiency level, preferred teaching approaches and learning strategies as well as their overall learning experience. The qualitative analysis indicated some different views between the ‘good’ and the ‘weak’ students in terms of their proficiency level and the contributing factors to their success (or lack of) in learning English. They however, shared similar opinion on preferred teaching approaches, learning strategies and classroom experience. The results have implications for pedagogy as they highlight some insights which may facilitate success in English language learning.  \nKeywords: language learning; learning strategies; students' evaluation  \nA. Introduction  \nIn the field of English language teaching and learning, there is a long history of investigating students’ performance while they are undergoing specific learning programmes – a process and product research. Following this trend are research studies focusing on, for example, effective techniques and methods (Schuetze, 2015; Wei, 2015; Shintani, 2013) as well as effective learning strategies (Yeldham & Gruba, 2016; Graham [et.al](et.al), 2010; Chen, 2009). While these investigations proved to be beneficial, the data presented were limited to the specific tasks in focus. For instance, Schuetze (2015) discovered that spacing technique (the process) helped students gain vocabulary for both short-term and long-term memory (the product) . The specific process was designed specifically to measure its effectiveness on a chosen group of products.  \nIn this research study, instead of focusing on the process and the product, we intend to look at only the product – students learning outcomes which position them as ‘good’ and‘weak’ students – their thinking and their accounts of practice with regards to the followings:  \na) their proficiency level;  \nb) factors that contributed to their proficiency level;  \nc) preferred teaching approaches;  \nd) preferred learning strategies; and  \ne) preferred classroom learning experience.  \nB. Literature Review  \nIn many countries, second or foreign language learning normally comes in the form of a formal programme in schools or higher learning institutions. The programmes adapt various approaches to language teaching and learning such as the Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT) . In Malaysia for example, the prescribed syllabus document specifies that the teaching and learning of English should focus on developing students’ communicative ability and attention to linguistic forms is to aid communication (Curriculum Specifications, 2003) . One of the main issues related to CLT is the focus on form (FoF) practice (Spada & Lightbown, 2008; Loewen, 2005; Ellis [et.al](et.al), 2002). Ellis [et.al](et.al) (2002) define ‘focus-on-form’(FoF) as “…the treatment of linguistic form in the context of performing a communicative task”(p1). According to them, whenever the needs arise, teachers should shift their attention from the communicative activities to some linguistic features – grammar, lexical, phonological. FoF practice emphasises the communicative purposes of lea","cbCaiq9ttvpMwk5y","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiq9ttvpMwk5y","pdf",368983,18,"English","# Abstract\n# A. Introduction\n# B. Literature Review","[{\"question\":\"What was the main focus of the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study examined students’ evaluation of their English language learning experience after completing their programme, emphasizing proficiency level, contributing factors, teaching approaches, learning strategies, and classroom experience.\"},{\"question\":\"How was data collected and analyzed?\",\"answer\":\"Data were collected through 20 semi-structured interviews with 10 “good” students and 10 “weak” students, then analyzed qualitatively to compare viewpoints across groups.\"},{\"question\":\"What differences and similarities were found between “good” and “weak” students?\",\"answer\":\"They differed in views about proficiency level and factors behind success or lack of success. They shared similar opinions on preferred teaching approaches, learning strategies, and classroom experience.\"}]","DINAMIKA ILMU - Vol. 17 No. 2 - Students' Evaluation of their English Language Learning Experience | PDF",45]