MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168577225 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v11n4p12

EFL Learners’ Affect, Engagement, Misbehaviours, and Achievement: A Classroom Observation Perspective

2021· article· en· W3168577225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bo Yang, Christo Moskovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Test (biology)Student engagementAcademic achievementMathematics educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most previous research examining the correlation between affect and achievement of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) has relied on questionnaire and/or interview data. The current study, conducted in a Chinese EFL context, chose to explore this relationship on the basis of quantitative and qualitative classroom observation data, with a special focus on learners’ classroom engagement and misbehaviours. The participant sample involved the EFL learners and teachers in six classes at a key and a non-key university in Northwest China. Data in relation to participants’ affect, engagement, and misbehaviours were collected via classroom observations, including some video-recording. The participating students’ College English Test-Band 4 (CET-4) scores were used as a measurement of EFL achievement. Participants’ affect, engagement, and achievement formed a reciprocal relationship; the latter was negatively connected with misbehavious. Rather than gender, type of school (key vs. non-key university) had significant effects on the variables being examined. Data revealed that teachers, peers, and classroom environment were also influential factors in explaining the differences in the relationship between the identified variables.

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)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207