INDUCED ANXIETY. AND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRON MENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effects of both integrative motivation and anxiety on computerized vocabulary acquisition using a laboratory analog procedure as a microcosm of second language learning. An attempt was made to induce anxiety in one group of subjects by videotaping them while learning. Individual differences in integrative motivation were measured by aggregating relevant scales. Subjects higher in integrative motivation showed superior vocabulary acquisition and tended to initiate a translation more quickly than did those lower in integrative motivation. The anxiety manipulation did not appear to influence behavior during the learning trials. A second set of analyses revealed that subjects with more positive attitudes tended to respond more quickly and consistently to the attitude items. The results are discussed in terms of the operational definition of integrative motivation and its relation to anxiety. lndividual differences in second or foreign language learning have been attributed to both cognitive and aflective factors. Initially, educational researchers were con-cerned primarily with the study of cognitive factors uch as aptitude and intelligence (Carroll, 1963; Henmon, 1929). Over the past hree decades, however, a considerable body of research as been directed toward the role of affective variables, such as motivation and anxiety. The role of motivation in the language learning process has locused primarily on attitudinal./motivational characteristics that tend to coffelate with various asDects of This research was supported by $ant no. 410-904195 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ol Canada for research on the topic 'Attitudes, rootivation aod anxiety in second language learning." We would like to thank A. Cassidy and V. calbraith for their invaluable assistance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".