MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895753203 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n1p357

An Investigation of Willingness to Communication in ESL Classroom: A Quantitative Study of Elementary Students in Pakistan

2018· article· en· W2895753203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Muhammad Kalyar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to communicatePsychologyTask (project management)Social communicationMathematics educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates willingness to Communicate (WTC) in ESL classroom of elementary students of higher Secondary School Qazi Ahmed, Pakistan. This current study used close ended questionnaire, adopted from McCroskey (1992). The participants of the study belong to the higher Secondary School Qazi Ahmed. The current study has 300 participant from different grades like 100 learners from six grade, 100 from seven grades, and 100 participants belong to eight grades. These participants were all between11 year to 15 years of age. The data was analyzed through SPSS version 20 (statistical for social science) in order to find out the ratio and percentage of learners’ willingness to communication. The results revealed that a learner learns target language because he/she has to communicate with target community for different purposes. This study finds out the individual differences of learners’ willingness to communication (WTC) which is a basically free will for communication that promotes to the integrative motivation and some time, it prefers instrumental motivation to be used.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207