Learner Differences among Children Learning a Foreign Language: Language Anxiety, Strategy Use, and Multiple Intelligences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study mainly investigates language anxiety and its relationship to the use of learning strategies and multiple intelligences among young learners in an EFL educational context. The participants were composed of 212 fifth- and sixth-graders from elementary schools in central Taiwan. Findings indicated that most participants generally experienced a mild level of anxiety in the EFL classroom. However, at least a quarter of the full sample experienced an above-average level of anxiety when learning the target language. These students tended to be most anxious when (1) feeling that other students had better English performance, (2) being called on to speak in the English class, and (3) feeling afraid of being left behind in the English class. Overall, students were most likely to feel anxious due to worry over inadequate language performance and fear of being evaluated negatively by others. Furthermore, the current findings indicated a significant negative correlation between language anxiety and strategy use among the young EFL children. Students who had greater strategy use were less likely to feel anxiety. Interestingly, the use of social strategies had the strongest relationship with language anxiety among the young learners. Another learner variable, multiple intelligences, was found to be significantly related to both strategy use and anxiety; its relationship with strategy use seemed to be much stronger than that with anxiety. All six strategy categories were found to have significant correlations with multiple intelligences. Implications derived from the results are discussed in the paper.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".