Chinese University EFL Learners’ Foreign Language Writing Anxiety: Pattern, Effect and Causes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the result of a study on Chinese university EFL learners’ foreign language writing anxiety in terms of general pattern, effect and causes. 1174 first-year students answered the 26-item Foreign Language Writing Anxiety Scale (FLWAS) (Young, 1999) and took an English writing test, 18 of whom were invited for semi-structured interviews. The results showed that 1) FLWAS had three principal components—low confidence in English writing (FLWAS1), dislike of English writing (FLWAS2) and English writing apprehension evaluation (FLWAS3), 2) the whole sample, as well as male and female students, were generally confident in and liked English writing, and were not apprehensive of having their English writing evaluated, 3) significant differences existed between male and females students, and among different proficiency groups in all the FLWAS scales, 4) foreign language writing anxiety significantly negatively affected students’ performance in the English writing test, and 5) a number of factors contributed to the students’ foreign language writing anxiety.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".