Teacher Motivation Strategies, Student Perceptions, Student Motivation, and English Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated language teaching strategies, as reported by teachers and students, and the effects of these strategies on students' motivation and English achievement. The participants consisted of 31 English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers and their students ( N = 694) in Catalonia, Spain. The teachers and students rated the frequency of use of 26 strategies in their classes. In addition, the students were tested on their attitudes, motivation, and language anxiety with the mini‐Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993 ) and completed objective tests of English achievement. The results indicated that the teachers and students agreed on the relative frequency of some strategies but not on the frequency of other strategies and that, although the teachers' reported use of motivational and traditional strategies was not related to the students' English achievement, attitudes, motivation, or language anxiety, the students' perceptions of these strategies tended to be related to their attitudes and motivation at both the individual and class levels. In addition, when the students were the unit of analysis, there was a negative correlation between the students' ratings of the frequency of traditional strategy use and English achievement. Path analysis indicated that integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, and instrumental orientation predicted the motivation to learn English and that motivation was a positive predictor of English achievement, whereas attitudes toward the learning situation and language anxiety were negative predictors of English achievement. Hierarchical linear modelling analysis confirmed these findings but indicated that the effects of strategies are much more complex than previously thought. Strategy use as reported by the teachers did not influence the regression coefficients for any of the predictors, but strategy use reported by students had a positive effect on the predictability of motivation on English achievement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".