MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Motivational Strategies

2024· other· en· W4400736575 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsYorkville University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivation is a key element in L2 teaching, including EAL (English as an additional language), and extensive research has highlighted a relationship between learner motivation and success. Although scholars have captured the construct of learner motivation variously, a consensus exists regarding its major features. Adopting the learner‐centered approach to EAL teaching, a set of motivational strategies can be developed according to the needs and demands of a language program. The selection of these strategies is guided by the sociocultural dynamics of instructional settings by conducting needs assessment for motivational teaching. An overarching approach is motivation‐sensitive teaching (MST) that helps create enabling conditions for motivation. To employ MST, a strategy‐based regime can be actualized with three interlinked macrostrategies: Promoting learners' involvement in the program, creating a safe atmosphere for learners in the class, and making language learning pleasurable and interesting. These macrostrategies lay the foundation for MST and incorporate learner motivation into pedagogy that harnesses the learner's self as an immense resource for motivation.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.327 · 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