MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968297247 · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n9p55

Writing Anxiety Among Saudi Female Learners at Some Saudi Universities

2019· article· en· W2968297247 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nafilah M. Aloairdhi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyApprehensionGrammarSecond language writingMathematics educationAffect (linguistics)Test anxietyMillerStatistical analysisMedical educationSecond languageLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Writing is an important skill in language learning and in academic achievement. The level of writing anxiety could affect students' achievements positively or negatively. This research aimed to examine the writing anxiety among Saudi female learners enrolled in English language departments at some Saudi universities. It also aimed to identify the sources of writing anxiety. To this end, a mixed method study was designed in which Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) Scale by Daly and Miller (1975) and an open-ended question were used to collect necessary data from 105 randomly selected learners. For data analysis, two different statistical procedures in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and a specific formula suggested by Daly and Miller (1975) were applied. Coding was applied to qualitative data. The results indicated that the participants (N = 105) experience moderate level of writing anxiety. In addition, the main sources of writing anxiety were evaluation, generating ideas, grammar, time pressure, and lack of confidence.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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