Task Motivation in Process: A Complex Systems Perspective
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
Abstract: While many studies into task-based interaction have been conducted within a cognitive-linguistic perspective, few have been conducted with the aim of investigating learners’ task motivation. Framed within a complex systems approach, the principle objectives of this classroom-based study were to provide a complexity description of task motivation and to identify how various socio-affective and task condition-related elements interact together to influence learner motivation during different types of tasks. The elements include task enjoyment, effort, success expectancy, relevance, emotional state, perceived difficulty, perceived group work dynamic, and specific aspects related to the structure and content of tasks. Participants for the study consisted of 38 Korean intermediate learners of English in a conversation course as part of a TESOL certificate program. Data were collected through questionnaires during the course, at pre- and post-task, and as well, through post-task interviews. Supporting the notion that task motivation functions as a complex system, learners’ motivation decreased as a result of different combinations of socio-affective variables acting together rather than in isolation. Task conditions related to cognitive complexity and topic, furthermore, were shown to function as important control parameters in the shaping of the motivational patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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