Exploring the motivational mechanisms of growth beliefs on perseverance among EFL students: The role of ideal and ought‐to L2 selves
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
Abstract Perseverance of effort is essential for success in learning a second language (L2). While past research has examined how motivational beliefs (e.g., growth mindset) influence L2 learners’ perseverance, their generalizability and underlying motivational mechanisms remain unclear. This study investigated the relationship between growth language mindsets and perseverance of efforts in L2 learning, as well as whether this relationship can be explained by the ideal L2 self and ought‐to L2 self. A cohort of 740 EFL students from four universities in China completed a questionnaire. The results revealed that EFL learners with higher levels of growth language mindsets showed greater levels of perseverance in language learning. Furthermore, mediation analysis indicated that growth language mindsets indirectly predicted perseverance through both the ideal L2 self and the ought‐to L2 self. These results suggested that the motivational mechanisms associated with growth language mindsets are complex, involving both ideal and ought‐to images of the L2 self, which in turn could contribute to sustaining perseverance in L2 learning. Theoretical and practical implications for researchers and language teachers are discussed in light of these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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