MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171222004 · doi:10.5539/jel.v10n4p70

The Relationship Between Writing Anxiety and Writing Self-Efficacy of Students Learning Turkish as a Foreign Language

2021· article· en· W3171222004 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmet Başkan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishPsychologyForeign language anxietyAnxietyForeign languageSelf-efficacyScale (ratio)Mathematics educationPedagogyMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicineLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed to determine the relationship between writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy of students learning Turkish as a foreign language. The study sample consisted of 247 international students at B1 and B2 levels at the Turkish Education Application and Research Center of a foundation university. The Writing Anxiety Scale for Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language, developed by Şen and Boylu (2017), was used to determine students’ writing anxiety. There were 13 items and two factors on the scale: Action-Oriented Anxiety and Environmental Oriented Anxiety. The Writing Self-Efficacy Scale for Turkish Students who Learn Turkish was developed by Büyükikiz (2012) to determine the students’ writing self-efficacy. This two-factor scale had 16 items and explained 56.85% of the variance. The research was designed based on the relational screening model. SPSS 21.0 package programs were used to analyze the data. The study results indicated a significant positive relationship between writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy of students who learned Turkish as a foreign language. Besides, there was no significant difference between the Turkish learners’ scores from the writing anxiety scale and their language level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207