An Investigation of University Students’ Willingness to Communicate in English in Relation to Some Learner Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, scientific studies on willingness to communicate have been carried out in many countries such as America, Canada, England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, China, Iran and Turkey. Despite many studies on willingness to communicate in the world and our country, university students’ willingness to communicate has not been studied by researchers. With this in mind, this study aimed to examine the randomly selected 328 students’ willingness to communicate at a state university in the Western part of our country in relation to some student variables. In the present study, the willingness to communicate scale developed by McCroskey (1992) was used as a data collection instrument. The first part of the scale contained personal information such as age, gender, major, and having direct contact with English-speaking people at the university. In the second part of the scale, there were 20 items measuring students' willingness to communicate in English. However, eight filler items were not analyzed. The results of the study showed that students had moderate WTC in English. While it was found in the study that learner variables such as major and having direct contact with English speaking people had effect on university students’ willingness to communicate in English, learner variables such as age and gender were not found to have effect on their WTC in English.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".