Target Language Use in Communicative English Lessons: The Emotional Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lessons for developing students' communication skills have been recently introduced to university English education in Japan, and the lesson format has become student-centered. As lessons are given in English and students have more opportunities to practice speaking in English, there are likely to be controversies over the proper balance between the use of the target language (TL) and the first language (L1) in EFL classrooms. However, no clear consensus concerning the relationship between these has been reached yet. The present research investigated the factors that were related to TL/L1 use among Japanese university students. A questionnaire containing background information and a five–point Likert scale of anxiety was filled in by 252 students. Following this, individual interviews with five students were conducted. The results revealed that while the advantages of L1 use for the students were reported, the students had negative feelings about their use of the L1 due to decreasing the contact with the TL and/or increasing peer and self–pressure. Therefore, students should gradually become accustomed to English–only instruction in an unthreatening environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".