Teachers’ Strategies for Decreasing Students’ Anxiety Levels to Improve Their Communicative Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students’ high levels of foreign-language classroom anxiety (FLCA) are reported to have a negative impact on their target language performance in classrooms. There are some anxiety studies from the students' perspective in the existing literature, but few from the teachers' perspective, particularly in Japan. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate how teachers managed students' levels of anxiety, which may lead to an improvement in their communication skills. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with six teachers. Various strategies that teachers could use to decrease students’ levels of anxiety were introduced. In communicative lessons, students need to practice speaking and listening in class as much as possible to improve these skills in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context. Therefore, teachers should use various methods to increase the opportunities for students to speak a target language in class, and to create an unthreatening classroom environment in which students can speak without hesitation. In addition, teachers could use group dynamics effectively to ensure seamless classroom management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".