MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790624748 · doi:10.5539/ass.v14n4p38

EFL Students’ Burnout in English Learning: A Case Study of Chinese Middle School Students

2018· article· en· W2790624748 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Ma, Dan Wu, Wang Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Teacher Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutPsychologySignificant differenceMathematics educationChinaMiddle levelScale (ratio)Medical educationPedagogyClinical psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to explore the English learningburnout of Chinese middle school students to provide solutions to reduce it. Foreign Language Classroom Burnout Scale (FLCBS) is used to make an investigation into 212 middle school students of different grades in No. 10 Middle School in Xi’an city in China. After both qualitative and quantitative analyses of data collected from the questionnaires, it finds out that: 1) a medium level of English learning burnout exists in the students of No.10 Middle School (M=53.80). 2) In terms of grade, three grades have no statistically significant differences in burnout (p=0.377>0.05). 3) As for gender, there is statistically significant difference (p=0.001<0.05). The male’s total burnout is higher than the female’s, especially in Low Efficiency (p=0.006<0.05). 4) There is statistically significant difference in English learning burnout between different majors (p=0.001<0.05). The learning burnout of science students is higher than that of art students, especially in Depletion and Low Efficiency. Based on the research findings, it puts out such suggestions for teachers to lower down students’ English learning burnout as building up students’ confidence, adopting new teaching methods, and improving the relationship between teacher and students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEducational Methods and Teacher DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207