MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898445871 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n11p148

Relations Among L2 Learning Motivation, Language Learning Anxiety, Self-efficacy and Family Influence: A Structual Equation Model

2018· article· en· W2898445871 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huei-Ju Shih, Shan-mao Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStructural equation modelingAnxietySelf-efficacyLanguage acquisitionSocial psychologyContext (archaeology)Foreign language anxietyDevelopmental psychologyForeign languageMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) has been widely researched and used to explain L2 learners’ motivational behaviors. However, important factors such as language learning anxiety, self-efficay and possible family influence need to be scrutizized in relation to L2MSS in order to expand our understanding of the second language learning process. This study used a structural eauation modeling approach to test a hypothesized model that contained the L2 Motivational Self System, family influence, L2 learning anxiety, and self-efficacy as the latent variables in a context of foreign language learning. A total of 473 Taiwanese high school students participated in the study. With Amos version 22.0, the current study analyzed the proposed model. The results assured the validity of the hyposized model among these students. This model revealed that family influence played a significant role in affecting learners’ future self guides. Self guides served as a good predictor for the L2 learners’ self-efficacy. In addition, the ought-to L2 self contributed to a higher level of anxiety while the ideal L2 self and L2 learning experience both lowered the level of English learning anxiety.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207