Is willingness-to-speak more of a context-sensitive nature or personality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental issue of L2 research is how to boost the students’ willingness to communicate in classroom settings in order to improve their oral performance and thus further enhance the effectiveness of Second Language Teaching (SLT). Nevertheless, most research which has been conducted in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or Study Abroad situations in countries such as Canada, Japan, Korea and China were carried out using quantitative methods. The purpose of this study was to examine affective variables as predictors of second language (L2) use in Turkish by Iranian students whose first language is Persian. This article investigates results and antecedents of willingness to communicate (WTC) employing an exploratory study in a Turkish university. The three subjects of the research completed a questionnaire and took part in a semi-structured interview. The questions aimed at finding if the situational or personality traits enhanced their WTCs and also to provide the answer to the question whether the context of the second language use affects their willingness to speak. The article provides an overview of previous research into WTC and motivation in Iran and Turkey as the context for these three case studies. In this study, six factors, both trait and situational, were identified as having an effect on these students’ WTC in both countries: self-perceived competence; personality; anxiety; motivation and the importance of Turkish; and the learning context. Based on these findings, pedagogical implications for English teaching and learning were also suggested to increase willingness to communicate.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".