Explicit Affective Strategy Instruction to Develop Speaking Performance of Egyptian EFL University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of explicit affective strategy instruction on the speaking performance of Freshmen English majors at Faculty of Education, Suez University, Egypt. The design of the study is a pre-post quasi experimental one. The instrument is a pre/post speaking performance test (designed by the researcher). Participants were eighty Freshmen English majors, randomly divided into two groups: a control group (N=40) and an experimental one (N=40). During the experiment, the experimental group was explicitly taught some affective strategies (lowering anxiety, encouraging yourself and monitoring emotions) while the control group was taught using the traditional method. All participants were tested using the pre/post speaking performance test before and after the intervention. The difference between the post test’s mean scores of the control and experimental groups were calculated using Independent Samples t-test and the difference in the mean scores between the pre- and post tests of speaking performance was calculated for each group separately using Paired Samples t-test. A significant difference was found between the post test’s mean scores of the control and the experimental groups in favor of the experimental group. Moreover, a significant difference was found between the mean scores of the pre and post test of the experimental group in favor of the post test. It was concluded that participants’ level of speaking performance significantly improved after receiving the explicit affective strategy instruction.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".