MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W315351942 · doi:10.1163/27730840-03302007

Language Learner Motivation: Comparing French Class Attitudes of Scottish and Canadian Secondary Pupils

2001· article· en· W315351942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Norman Diffey, L. L. Morton, Amy Wolfe, J. Tuson

Bibliographic record

VenueScottish Educational Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAttributionDiscriminant function analysisForeign languageClass (philosophy)Biology and political orientationSample (material)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyMathematics educationPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey and interviews conducted with 150 pupils (aged 13 to 15 years) studying French in a Scottish and a Canadian secondary school revealed many commonalities in the motivational profiles that emerged. However a stepwise discriminant function analysis also revealed some differences. The Canadian pupils’ attributions of success and tendency towards negative attitudes to teachers suggest an overall higher degree of teacher dependency. They also showed a higher interest in foreign languages consistent with higher ratings for instrumental orientation, which may be linked with socio-political differences between the countries in the perceived value of learning another language. Group interviews conducted with volunteers from each sample provided qualitative data for the differentiated and the non-differentiated variables. Findings of the study, it is suggested, reinforce the importance of addressing the social aspect of foreign language study particularly among adolescents.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScottish Educational ReviewSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207