Identifying Affirmative Beliefs about English Language Learning: Self-Perceptions of Thai Learners with Different Language Proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretically, beliefs about English language learning have a psychological factor, such as predicting the rate of success or failure among learners in the classroom context. However, learners with different levels of language proficiency may perceive such beliefs in a different way, which may lead to the development of special needs, in terms of emphasizing their sustainable language development. The present study aims a) to investigate self-reported beliefs about English language learning among both low and high proficiency Thai students in university-level Foundation English courses, b) to identify the most prevalent affirmative beliefs among both student groups, and c) to identify the similarities and differences in their beliefs. The findings revealed that for low-proficiency students, vocabulary was an essential aspect of English language learning, while for high-proficiency students, regular practice was the key to their success. They also believed that anybody could speak English, when given the opportunity to practice speaking. The most prevalent affirmative beliefs among both sets of students were a) that anybody can speak English if given the opportunity and the time to practice, b) studying in a country where English is spoken as a native language will increase their language proficiency, and c) they want access to information resources in English. There were ten major differences between their beliefs (i.e. to learn English well, one must know at least one other foreign language, and be good at mathematics and sciences). Such findings would be a valuable resource to assist in the redesigning of English language courses, especially general English at the tertiary level, for learners with different levels of language proficiency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".