Investigating the dynamics of change in second language willingness to communicate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For years, researchers have viewed willingness to communicate (WTC) as a personality-based, trait-like tendency and employed quantitative measures, seemingly overlooking the WTC changes during communications. A new line of inquiry, however, has taken a dynamic approach to investigating the WTC changes and the factors triggering them during communications. The present mixed-methods study incorporated an idiodynamic method with 20 Farsi-speaking English as a Second Language participants who performed three-minute speaking tasks, rated their WTC changes, and attended stimulated recall interviews. A between-subjects repeated measures analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference in the participants’ WTC from task to task. The WTC variation patterns were also clustered into seven categories that visualized the dynamics of WTC changes. In vivo coding of the stimulated recall interviews produced seven different categories of factors including possession of supporting ideas, individual, contextual, organizational, lexis-related, and grammar-related factors as well as the participants’ perceptions of their performance.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it