Exploring the motivation and classroom engagement of college learners of English for academic purposes: A participatory action research intervention
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
Learners of English for academic purposes (EAP) encounter various academic and social challenges in their learning pursuits. To explore collaborative ways of energizing their learning behaviour, an intervention was designed and implemented through the participation of 18 EAP learners and their teacher in a Canadian college classroom for one semester. Adopting a participatory action research framework, the group formed a community in which power was gradually shared and collaborative changes were made to lesson design and delivery. Moreover, the learners participated in the design and implementation of social activities in which they interacted with other members of the public and investigated their mini-research projects. Data were collected through recurrent experience sampling surveys ( n = 449), semi-structured interviews, and the researcher’s journal and field notes. Results indicated an overall increase in classroom engagement and motivation after implementing the intervention despite the fluctuations of the former and the occasional stagnation of the latter. Furthermore, a linear mixed-effects analysis of repeated measures data revealed significant differences between the learners’ engagement levels before and after implementing the intervention. Finally, the concepts of motivation and engagement and their timescales were complementary, revealing noteworthy information about the learners’ desire to participate in classroom activities, as well as their actual participation in activities.
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 | 0.014 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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