MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187317771 · doi:10.1177/00336882211035590

Sustaining Short-Term Exchange Students’ Willingness to Communicate in Second Language in Multilingual Classrooms

2021· article· en· W3187317771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fei Deng, Jian‐E Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueRELC Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to communicatePsychologyPerceptionMathematics educationTerm (time)Qualitative researchForeign languagePedagogySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores changes in willingness to communicate in a second language (L2 WTC) inside multilingual classrooms among short-term exchange students. Data were collected from eight Chinese exchange students studying in three universities in Canada and two instructors teaching in one of these universities through in-depth interviews. Qualitative content analysis was conducted and three patterns of WTC changes were found: positive, negative, and no apparent changes. Three main factors underlying these changes were identified, which include students’ perceptions of values in speaking up, sense of fitting in, and classroom environment. The two instructors from the host university provided positive comments and supportive suggestions regarding international students’ L2 WTC and oral participation in multilingual classrooms. This study highlights the importance of sustaining short-term exchange students’ L2 WTC through concerted efforts from students and teachers for maximizing the effectiveness of study abroad programs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRELC JournalSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207