Perceptive Determination of Motivating and Demotivating Factors in Learning EFL Among Saudi Freshmen Studying at Taif University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This empirical survey aims at exploring Saudi freshmen students’ instrumental and integrative motivational orientation to learn English as a foreign language as well as to identify what demotivational factors negatively affect their language learning. A 38-item self-developed strongly-agree to strongly-disagree Likert-scale questionnaire was administered to 133 Saudi freshmen students from a Saudi university to generate data related to their motivational and demotivational factors. Data analyses were done to calculate percentages and means through descriptive analyses to measure the participants’ preferences for various questionnaire items. The results of this quantitative investigation have revealed that Saudi freshmen students bear stronger instrumental motivation along with a reasonably high integrative motivation and have demonstrated mild negative effect towards learning English caused by various demotivational factors. Among the primary instrumental motivational orientations of Saudi freshmen, the role of English language to enable them to better understand their textbooks and reference material, effectively interact with foreigners during their international travels and enhanced chances to secure better job have been ranked the highest. The results of this survey have disclosed an interesting fact that the participants of this study have exhibited extremely positive attitude towards the target language. The descriptive analyses also suggest that Saudi freshmen have moderate inhibitory factors against learning the target language related to understanding English language teachers, difficult English textbooks, difficult English grammar and vocabulary and lack of chances of practicing the target language outside the university setting. The participants have mentioned that no major hinderances are caused by inappropriate behavior of their teachers and peers as well as lack of teaching aids. Some pedagogical implications and suggestions have been drawn based on the findings of this empirical survey.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".