A Correlational Study Between Some Motivational Constructs and EFL Writing Performance in a Blended Learning Environment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the correlation between some motivational constructs and writing performance of EFL university students. Participants were female students enrolled in an English language writing course at Zulfi College of Education. Participants studied writing essays in a blended learning environment i.e., in regular classroom lectures and online via Desire2Learn (D2L) learning tools. Participants’ writing motivation was measured by a Motivational Writing Questionnaire (MWQ). Their writing performance was assessed by an EFL Writing Performance Test (WPT). For analyzing data, SPSS was used. A Pearson correlation analysis was calculated to explore the correlation between four writing motivational constructs: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and effort, and writing performance. Findings indicated a significant and positive correlation between writing motivational constructs and writing performance in a blended learning environment.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| 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 it