Investigating Tertiary Level EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate in English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate Turkish EFL learners’ perceived levels of willingness to communicate (WTC) in English inside and outside the classroom. The study also aimed to explore whether there is a statistically significant difference between their in-class WTC in English and out-of-class WTC in English. The study, which employed a quantitative research design, was conducted with the participation of 701 EFL learners enrolled in the departments of Tourism Guidance and Tourism Management at Balıkesir University Faculty of Tourism located in Balıkesir, Turkey. The data collection instrument included a scale which measures the participants’ perceived levels of WTC in English. The data were analyzed descriptively through IBM SPSS 21. The findings of the study indicated that EFL learners have a moderate level of WTC in English. The findings also showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the participants’ perceived levels of their in-class WTC in English and their out-of-class WTC in English. It was found that they are more willing to communicate in English outside the classroom than they are inside the classroom. In the light of the findings, some practical recommendations were also noted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".