Perception of Malaysian Learners on the Use of Written Communication Strategies in Mandarin, French and Japanese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the perception of Malaysian learners on the use of written communication strategies in French, Mandarin and Japanese language learning. The subjects consisted of 2nd and 3rd year Malaysian students at Universiti Putra Malaysia. A total of 173 subjects participated in this study. The main instrument used was a 2-section questionnaire on the demographic and the perception on the use of written communication strategies. The items for the questionnaires on the perception of learners on communication strategies were adapted from Dörnyei (1995) Taxonomy of Communication Strategies. The overall findings indicated that the learners perceived to be using the written communication strategies moderately. The results across the three languages further indicated that ‘appeal for help’ and ‘topic avoidance’ were perceived to be frequently used by French, Mandarin and Japanese learners. It was suggested that further intensive research should be conducted to look into the commonly used communication strategies to develop a comprehensive framework for the incorporation of communication strategy in French, Mandarin and Japanese language learning instruction, materials and tasks for Malaysian learners.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".