Willingness to Communicate in an ESP Class: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate how the students are willing to communicate in an ESP class. This in-depth study employed students’ TOEIC scores as a reference to select the subjects of the study. An in-depth interview was used as the main research procedure together with the primary data. The in‐depth interview allowed the us to develop deeply into social and personal matters that the students have experienced in communicating in English. For the sake of an effective interview, a set of questions related to the WTC was prepared prior to the implementation of the interview. This study found that students’ willingness to communicate in L2 is not solely due to proficiency. Yet, other factors such as interlocutors, classroom activities, topics, tasks, classroom contracts, and teaching media are the factors that also influence students ’WTC in ESP classrooms. It is expected that this study can provide recommendations in order to improve communication. This study was conducted at a State Polytechnic based in Malang, Indonesia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".