A Correlational Study of the English Listening and Speaking Anxiety in Rural Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English proficiency amongst Malaysian is debatably on a decline. Possible causes of this phenomenon are extensively argued. Thus, renewed interest towards English language anxiety, an internal factor of learners’ level of intensity in listening and speaking skills, can sometimes be overlooked. An investigation was conducted on selected secondary schools' students in Selangor, a state in Malaysia. The schools lacked facilities and meagerly equipped with basic resources and facilities. A total of 311 non-national examination takers students from three different schools were selected. A set of questionnaire were distributed which adopted a composite of foreign language anxiety surveys, measuring their level of anxiety towards the English language classroom according to the four language skills (reading, listening, speaking, writing). The results were measured and the scores were tabulated. A correlation was established between the listening anxiety and speaking anxiety skill from the scores. This finding explored the possibility of reducing language anxiety in two skills by intervening in only one instance which can be helpful in reducing the time spent on managing the English language classroom anxiety. However, further studies should be conducted in order to improve the validity of this result.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".