"Crêpes on Friday": Examining Gender Differences in Extrinsic Motivation in the French as a Second Language Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing evidence that males are less motivated than females to learn second languages, research in this area has yet to investigate gender differences in two of the most well-known elements of motivational theory: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Using data from a large-scale study by Kissau (2006), the researcher further explores the issue of male disinterest in second language studies by investigating gender differences in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation amongst adolescent students studying French in Canada. A total of 490 students studying French as a second language in Grade 9 completed a survey. The quantitative data from the surveys were then further explored in interviews with students andteachers.Resultssuggestthatone’smotivationalorientationisanimportantfactorin the decision to study French and that boys are perceived to be less intrinsically and more extrinsically motivated than their female peers. Due to the suggested benefits of an intrinsic orientation, suggestions for how to develop intrinsically motivated behaviors amongst boys in the second language classroom are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".