MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117805383 · doi:10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.1.6

Second language writing anxiety, computer anxiety, and performance in a classroom versus a web-based environment

2011· article· en· W2117805383 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

VenueStudies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyGrammarPsychologySecond language writingLanguage acquisitionDistance educationComputer-Assisted InstructionMathematics educationLanguage proficiencySecond languageLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the impact of writing anxiety and computer anxiety on language learning for 45 ESL adult learners enrolled in an English grammar and writing course. Two sections of the course were offered in a traditional classroom setting whereas two others were given in a hybrid form that involved distance learning. Contrary to previous research, writing anxiety showed no correlation with learning performance, whereas computer anxiety only yielded a positive correlation with performance in the case of classroom learners. There were no significant differences across learning environments on any measures. These observations are discussed in light of the role computer technologies now play in our society as well as the merging of socio-demographic profiles between classroom and distance learners. Our data suggest that comparisons of profiles between classroom and distance learners may not be an issue worth investigating anymore in language studies, at least in developed countries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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