The Effect of Sentence-Making Practice on Adult EFL Learners’ Writing Anxiety A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing anxiety is one of the most essential factors influencing language learning. The current study is to explore the effect of sentence-making practice on reducing writing anxiety of two classes of adult EFL learners, one in low-intermediate level (LI learners), the other in high-intermediate level (HI learners). Two classes received two-week sentence-making practice, before completing the questionnaire designed specifically for the present study and attending the semi-structured interview. The descriptive statistics and independent t-test demonstrate that both mean scores of two classes are below 3 points, showing that they are in low or moderate anxiety levels. Moreover, the mean scores of HI class are lower than LI class in all four dimensions (classroom experience; while-writing experience; feedback experience; further effects), despite no significant difference, except for in the third dimension (feedback experience). Both statistic results and qualitative analysis with learners’ attitudes towards sentence-making practice illustrate that the learners in two classes have less writing anxiety after sentence-making practice, and this teaching method has also brought beneficial effects on learners’ writing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".