The Effect of Real-World Evaluation on Self-Controlled Learning, Independence, and Self-effectiveness Among EFL Learners with Some Psychological Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through authentic evaluation, the current study attempted to foster self-controlled learning, independence, and self-effectiveness among some Saudi EFL students. Sixty EFL students were chosen for this research study and split equally into an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG). The respondents' self-controlled learning (SCL), independence (I), and self-effectiveness (SE) were then evaluated using three questionnaires before the treatment. The control group received the treatment using non-real-world evaluations, whereas the experimental group participants received instruction using real-world evaluations. Three post-tests were given to both groups after they had been taught 16 English passages to assess how the treatment had affected their capacity for self-controlled learning, independence, and self-effectiveness. The experimental group students were given an attitude survey to gauge their opinions on using real-world evaluations inside EFL classes. According to the ANCOVA results, significant differences existed between the control group and experimental group post-tests. The findings showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in the self-controlled learning, independence, and self-effectiveness post-treatment tests. The outcomes also demonstrated that the experimental group had a favorable attitude toward the use of real-world evaluation in EFL programs. The study concluded that integrating real-world evaluation into EFL instruction may benefit EFL students positively. The results of the study have some implications for EFL instructors and curriculum developers because if they take into consideration the effects of real-world evaluations, they can increase the students’ self-control, autonomy, and self-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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".