Korean L2 speakers’ regulatory focus and oral task performance
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
Abstract The L2 motivation self system posits that motivation emerges from the dynamic interactions among a learner’s ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, and situated learning experience. Only a few studies to date have investigated the individual and combined impact of trait-based and task-induced motivation (i. e., situational motivation related to the immediate learning environment) on L2 performance. Therefore, the current study explored whether Korean L2 speakers’ trait-based and task-induced regulatory focus impacted their oral task performance. Vietnamese university students ( N =62) studying Korean as a foreign language completed a questionnaire to assess their L2 instrumentality as being oriented toward prevention or promotion. They were randomly assigned to promotion or prevention task-induced conditions, and then carried out an oral task. The results indicated that whereas the participants’ general motivational tendencies did not impact their task performance, the task-induced prevention condition facilitated faster speech rate (i. e., fluency) and lower error rate (i. e., accuracy) than the promotion condition. Implications for further studies 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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