The Relationship among Iranian EFL Learners’ Self-efficacy, Autonomy and Listening Comprehension Ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the interrelationships among EFL learners’ self-efficacy, autonomy and listening comprehension ability. Ninety female learners of intermediate level participated in the study. They were between 16 and 24 years old. In order to obtain the required data on the three variables (i.e., self-efficacy, autonomy, and listening comprehension ability), the researchers, after administering a standard language proficiency test to ensure the participants’ homogeneity, used Listening Self-efficacy Beliefs Questionnaire, Listening Autonomy Questionnaire, and Listening Proficiency Test, respectively. First, the participants were asked to complete the two self-report scales, after which they were given a listening comprehension test to attain their listening comprehension ability. The data were analyzed using three Pearson’s Product-moment correlation coefficients to assess the relationships among the research variables. The findings revealed that there was a positive correlation among Iranian EFL learners’ listening self-efficacy beliefs, listening autonomy, and listening comprehension ability. Accordingly, it is suggested that building self-efficacy and autonomy in listening comprehension is crucial to ensure the success of EFL learners in listening comprehension.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".