The Relationships among Motivation, Learning Styles and English Proficiency in EFL Music Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This paper reports a study on the relationships among motivation, learning styles and English proficiency in a Chinese context. 308 students who studied English as a foreign language (EFL) were sampled from seven departments in Xinghai Conservatory of Music. Quantitative data were collected through an on-line survey to address three questions: 1) Do music students have a particular learning style preference? 2) What are the relationships among motivation, learning styles and English proficiency? 3) How could EFL teachers better accommodate students’ motivation and learning styles to improve their English proficiency? Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests showed that music students varied a lot in their preferences of learning styles, thus problematising the practice of using one learning style to gloss over the preferences of music students. Correlation analyses demonstrated that a) motivation and English proficiency was moderately correlated; b) none of the learning styles was correlated with English proficiency, except that active students performed slightly worse in the final exam; c) students who favoured the visual style were found to be less motivated. In light of these findings, we discuss the methods of grouping students and revamping EFL course content from English for General Purposes to English for Specific Purposes for music students.</p>
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.
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 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it