MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942392020 · doi:10.30845/ijll.v6n1p3

Exploring International Students’ Motivations and Identity Construal With Regard To Learning English in the Canadian Context: A Poststructuralist Account 2019

2019· article· en· W2942392020 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammed Almazloum, Monther Almeqdadi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Linguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstrual level theoryContext (archaeology)Identity (music)PsychologySocial psychologySociologyGeographyAestheticsArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative case study explored the influence of second language (L2) learning on an international student's identity construction and self-conception. Such exploration contributed to poststructuralist discussions vis--vis the adequacy of structuralist models to L2 learning motivation, given postmodernist conditions of globalization and English globality. An interdisciplinary framework 'discourse'-'discourse theory' and its methodological tool, critical discourse analysis, in concert with the poststructuralist, sociological construct 'investment' was utilized. Using this framework enabled us toexplore the perception of an L2 learner' smotivation to learn English and his identification with the language, its culture, and speech community. Analysis of data collected through a semi-structured interview revealed that the learner associated learning English with diverse discourses: nationalism, religiosity, interest in travel and world culture, access to global sources of information, communicating and affiliating with people of linguistic and cultural diversity. These findings speak to the complexity of language education, learner's motivation, and identity formation.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Language & LinguisticsSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207