The Effectiveness of an Engaging Program to Reduce Saudi Female University EFL Students’ Foreign Language Anxiety and to Enhance Their Motivation to Learn English at Taif University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching a language is a complex but interesting process. It involves teacher, learner, curriculum, and learning environment. Also this process is affected by certain social, cultural and psychological factors. This study is aimed at investigating the effectiveness of a proposed program for developing EFL learners’ engagement in learning English. The sample of this study consisted of 103 females (M = 19.260, SD = 0.876 years), it was divided into two groups; the experimental group consisted of 53 girls and the control group consisted of 50 girls. Students’ engagement was measured by the Handelsaman, Briggs, Sullivan, and Towler (2005) questionnaire, while their foreign language anxiety was measured by the Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) questionnaire. Students’ motivation was measured by Gardner’s (1985) Attitude and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB). The research applied continued for three months which included the proposed program. The data proved that there were statistically significant differences between the experimental group and the control group on the post-test of the engagement questionnaire, the foreign language anxiety scale as well as the students’ motivation dimensions, showing a significant increase in students’ engagement and motivation in favor of the experimental group. The findings also indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the pre-test and post-test results for the experimental group on the students’ engagement and motivation. This shows that the experimental group had an increase in skills after having participated in the program as seen on the post-test. In light of these results, the study provides a number of procedural recommendations that may contribute to raising the degree of the importance of students’ engagement and motivation training for the students with foreign language anxiety. The paper concludes that more training should be given in using all engagement activities by embedding them in regular classroom activities. Suggestions are offered for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".