Psychological Tools Affecting Increasing Motivation to Learn Two Foreign Languages
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 problem of the formation and development of motivation to learn occupies one of the central places in educational institutions. Its relevance is due to the priority areas of development and modernization of education. In the article, the authors analyzed the motivation for learning a foreign language, the factors that affect it. Analysis of the literature revealed two main factors that can increase students' motivation to learn a second foreign language. The authors examined the maximum effectiveness of increasing student motivation to learn a second foreign language as a synergy of three components: the teacher's personality, which can create a safe motivating environment, focusing on other people's culture and the connection between two foreign languages. The authors proposed psychological and methodological tools to increase the motivation of students to learn two foreign languages. A distinctive feature is the synergy of 3 components (personality of the teacher, safe motivating environment and connection between two foreign languages). This toolkit was tested in 2 stages during 2019-2021 and showed its effectiveness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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