L2 learning motivation from a sociocultural theory perspective: Theory, concepts, and empirical evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this 10-month interview study, I focus on five Korean adult ESL visa students’ ESL learning motivation from a Vygotskian sociocultural theory perspective (Vygotsky, 1978). The participants were young adults who had been in Toronto, Canada for less than one month at the inception of the study. I regard L2 motivation as an L2 learner’s conscious realization of personal significance of an L2-related activity. The longitudinal emergent case study approach revealed that two distinctive types of motivation exist among the participants: job-related and context-specific motivations. The two motivations have dialectical relationships with the participants’ ESL learning, beliefs, and L2 communities. In some cases, job motivation, however, was the manifestation of Korean societal voice that English is the world language. A new concept, sensitization, is proposed as the typical instances of context-specific motivation and as the transformation point from environments to affordances (van Lier, 2000). The study implies that by adopting an SCT perspective, we focus on the mediational nature of L2 learning motivation and advance from the prevailing reductionistic paradigms in L2 motivation research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".