L2 Motivation and Personality as Predictors of the Second Language Proficiency: Role of the Big Five Traits and L2 Motivational Self System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the predictability of the L2 proficiency by personality and L2 motivational self system variables among 141 Iranian EFL university students. Participants completed Transparent Bipolar Inventory (Goldberg, 1992) as a personality measure, L2 motivational self system (Papi, 2010), and a self-rated measure of second language proficiency. Regression analyses showed that extroversion and openness to experience accounted for 13% of the variance in L2 proficiency; and ideal L2 self and L2 learning experience accounted for 35% of the variance in L2 proficiency. Further, extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness explained 25% of the variance of in ideal L2 self; neuroticism and conscientiousness explained 24% of the variance in ought-to L2 self; and conscientiousness and extroversion explained 26% of the variance in L2 learning experience. Hierarchical regressions also showed that L2 motivation is a more powerful predictor of L2 proficiency. Key words : Second language proficiency; Big Five traits; Ideal L2 self; Ought to L2 self; L2 learning experience; Motivation
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it