A transcendental phenomenology on existential positive psychology (EPP) and L2 education: Setting a practical agenda for regulating students’ well-being and ill-being
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 contributions of positive psychology (PP) to the study of second and foreign language (L2) emotions have received considerable scholarly attention in recent years. In response to the criticism that it adopted a limited viewpoint, PP has broadened its perspective. Existential positive psychology (EPP) is a branch of PP that can address prior critiques and inform English as a foreign language (EFL) learning, particularly the dialectical relationship between positive and negative emotions. Focus group interview data from eight experienced EFL teachers were analyzed to produce a five-dimensional model, including agendas and sample pedagogical practices. The five layers are “assigning meaningful, relevant, and authentic classroom tasks,” “providing personalized learning paths and plans for learners,” “empowering learner agency, choice, and responsibility,” “admitting and facing existential adversities/feelings,” and “cultivating a culture of positivity and appreciation.” The findings are discussed in light of PP and EPP, and implications are provided for EFL teachers, policymakers, and teacher educators to raise their awareness and knowledge of the EPP contribution to learner emotionality.
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 | 0.001 | 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