MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388515796 · doi:10.1093/applin/amad071

Emotional, Attitudinal, and Sociobiographical Sources of Flow in Online and In-Person EFL Classrooms

2023· article· en· W4388515796 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Marc Dewaele, Peter D. MacIntyre, Iman Kamal Ahmed, Alfaf Albakistani

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Linguistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyForeign language anxietyAnxietyForeign languageSocial psychologyClass (philosophy)MoodNationalityImmigrationMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flow reflects an optimal balance of challenge and skill, which is exhilarating and addictive. The current study investigates the role of three learner emotions (enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom) on the proportion of class time in flow among 165 Arab and Kurdish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in both in-person and online classes. Statistical analyses revealed that Foreign Language Enjoyment (FLE), and more specifically, the dimension Personal FLE, was a significant positive predictor of flow, while Foreign Language Boredom was a significant negative predictor. Contrary to previous research, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety had no significant negative effect on flow. Further analyses showed that students’ nationality and their attitudes toward English and their English teacher had significant effects on their time in flow. It thus seems that flow becomes possible when the teacher manages to get learners in the right emotional mood, allowing those who enjoy themselves intensely to rise to a state of flow, both in in-person and online classes.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied LinguisticsSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207