Achievement Goal Theory: A Perspective on Foreign-Language-Learners' Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been recognized that varying achievement goals elicit varying motivational patterns with varying behavioral consequences. Several sets of contrasting goal orientations have been proposed to explain differences in language students' achievement behaviors. A total of 135 third-year (n = 54 male; n = 81 female) students in a preservice English teacher education program participated in this study of goal orientation. The proposed goal orientations were measured by adapting the Goal Orientation Scale developed by Skaaalvik (1997) for the L2 learning domain, and students' language achievement was measured by a TOEFL test. Results indicated that students placed most emphasis on task mastery goals and that this was related to language achievement. Task mastery goals are negatively correlated with work-avoidance. Self-defeating ego orientation is positively correlated with both work-avoidance and self-enhancing ego orientation. The analysis also suggested that male students had a stronger tendency to avoid work.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".