Analysing the Writing Skill Self-Efficacy of Students at English and German Language Teaching Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study set out to examine the writing skill self-efficacy of students studying at English and German Language Teaching Departments in terms of various variables. Survey model, one of the quantitative research methods, was preferred. Participants who study at English and German Language Teaching Departments at a university in Turkey were the samples of the research. 103 students, in total, participated in the research, and 62.1% of them were female and 37.9% of them were males. As the data collection instruments in the research, “self-efficacy scale of writing skills for foreigners learning Turkish as a second language” and “personal information form” were used. The scale had two dimensions as “expression and morphological characteristics of writing” and “using grammar rules in writing”. As a result of the research, there were significant differences only in self-efficacy in using grammar rules dimension. In addition, female participants compared to males; participants studying German Language Teaching compared to English Language Teaching; and the fourth grade participants compared to the third grades were determined to have higher writing skill self-efficacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".