MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316242953 · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n5p33

Willingness to Communicate in English among Iranian EFL Students

2016· article· en· W2316242953 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Aliakbari, Mohsen Kamangar, Reza Khany

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to communicatePsychologyCommunicative competenceCompetence (human resources)AnxietyStructural equation modelingCommunicative language teachingForeign languageSocial psychologyMathematics educationPedagogyLanguage education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been written on the determinants that can expedite or hinder learners’ willingness to communicate in second and foreign language contexts. Though the literature is abundant with studies on many of these variables, little if any can be found to have targeted EFL students of private institutes in Iran. An effort was made in this study to examine the simultaneous impact of anxiety, self-confidence, communicative competence, and international posture on 194 Iranian EFL students’ willingness to communicate. To this end, a structural equation modeling analysis was used to examine the proposed model of the study. The results revealed that students’ willingness to communicate is directly related to their attitude toward the international community, their perceived linguistic competence and self-confidence. The study concludes with certain pedagogical implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207