MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976842386 · doi:10.32674/jis.v9i3.749

Exploring Oral English Learning Motivation in Chinese International Students with Low Oral English Proficiency

2019· article· en· W2976842386 on OpenAlexaff
Deyu Xing, Benjamin Bolden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Students · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationPsychologyExpectancy theoryLanguage proficiencyMathematics educationValue (mathematics)Academic achievementInterpretation (philosophy)NarrativePedagogySocial psychologyEthnic groupLinguisticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study employed narrative inquiry to understand the oral English learning motivation of Chinese international students with low oral English proficiency through their academic acculturation stories. Expectancy-Value Theory served as the theoretical framework to inform the study design and the interpretation of results. Findings suggest all participants’ motivation for oral English learning increased as a result of the newly acquired high subjective value of spoken English during their academic acculturation. However, they experienced high levels of psychological stress during their academic acculturation due to their low oral English proficiency. Further, participants’ perceived expectancy of success for learning oral English declined as their academic acculturation progressed, negatively influencing their oral English learning motivation. Implications for various stakeholders are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International StudentsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207