MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2614859191 · doi:10.1111/1467-9922.53225

Learning Spanish as a Second Language: Learners’ Orientations and Perceptions of Their Teachers’ Communication Style

2003· article· en· W2614859191 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueLanguage Learning · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyFeelingSocial psychologyPerceptionAutonomyCompetence (human resources)Context (archaeology)Self-determination theory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The data for this study were collected while I was carrying out postdoctoral research at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB); it was a project I had long considered doing while in graduate school but postponed to work on studies more germane to my dissertation research. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Department of Spanish and Portuguese and the Department of Communication at UCSB for providing me with the opportunity to learn whether Self‐Determination Theory was relevant outside of the Canadian French‐English context. The first purpose of the study was to examine a model in which perceptions of autonomy support and informative feedback from teachers sustain generalized feelings of autonomy and competence, which in turn support feelings of intrinsic motivation. The results supported this contention and interestingly also indicated that perceptions of the teacher as negative or as congenial had only a small, indirect role in supporting learners’ motivation. These results point to specific behaviors that teachers could exhibit to enhance their students’ motivation. The second purpose was to follow up a study by Noels, Pelletier, Clément, and Vallerand (2000) by examining how the integrative orientation relates to the intrinsic and extrinsic orientations. Although some scholars had suggested that the integrative/instrumental distinction paralleled the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction, others argued that these motivational constructs represented different processes. Nobody, however, had addressed the question empirically, although the earlier Noels et al. study had suggested that external regulation and the instrumental orientation were very similar. This study focused on the integrative orientation and its link with the intrinsic/extrinsic orientations. The results indicated that the integrative orientation was most strongly correlated with intrinsic motivation and the more self‐determined types of extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified regulation). By no means, however, could the integrative and intrinsic orientations be considered one and the same construct. The integrative orientation was shown to be a better predictor of intergroup variables (e.g., aspects of contact and ethnic identity) than the intrinsic/extrinsic orientations. Conversely, the intrinsic orientation turned out to be a better predictor of more immediate variables (e.g., motivational intensity, intention to persist in Spanish study, and attitudes toward Spanish) than did the integrative orientation (although it too independently predicted the first two of these variables). This pattern of results suggested to me that it might be feasible to think of at least three interrelated types of orientations. The first group included reasons inherent in the language learning process, such as whether learning the language is fun, engaging, challenging, or competence enhancing. The second category included extrinsic reasons for language learning lying on a continuum of self‐determination, including external pressures, internalized pressures, and self‐expressive reasons. Following the results of Noels et al. (1999) , the instrumental orientation would likely be a member of this group. The third group comprised integrative reasons relating to positive contact with the language group and perhaps eventual identification with that group. Stated otherwise, the first two types of orientations might be described as an interpersonal motivational substrate, and the last type as an intergroup substrate. My current research is focused on understanding how contextual factors might explain when these different motivational substrates are more or less important for accounting for variations in learners’ performance. Some of this research concerns how learning a foreign language differs from learning a heritage or second language; how relevant others, such as teachers, parents, peers, and members of the language community, influence the reasons why an individual wants to learn a new language; and how cultural values might moderate the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in motivation. [The present article first appeared in Language Learning , 51 (1), 2001, 107–144]

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,067
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,262
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle