MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021964158 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v10n2p1

Perceptions of the Effect of an EAP Course on English Self-efficacy and English Proficiency: Voices of International Students in China

2020· article· en· W3021964158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, Zeyuan Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaEnglish languagePerceptionPsychologyMedical educationLanguage proficiencyEnglish for academic purposesIntervention (counseling)Mathematics educationPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The English language has become an essential means for communication and studies for international students globally. With the increasing number of international students trooping to China to study diverse courses which are taught in the English medium, there is a need to address challenges faced by international students from non-native English speaking countries. The study adopted an embedded mixed-method approach where face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions were conducted on freshmen international students taking English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in a specific faculty of a university in China. The interviews were supplemented by the Questionnaire of English Self-Efficacy (QESE) to measure their perceived English self-efficacy after the course. An online questionnaire on English Course Evaluation (ECE) was used to measure the students’ assessment of the course. The findings of the study offer insights into the effect of the intervention, challenges faced by students during the course, and suggestions on things to consider during the implementation of English courses for non-native English students in the future.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207