MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382490630 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n6p25

Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Students Towards Online Communication in EFL

2023· article· en· W4382490630 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norah Banafi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnglish Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyThe InternetExploratory factor analysisMathematics educationExploratory researchStructural equation modelingMedical educationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online learning refers to education that occurs through the Internet using technological tools such as tablets, smartphones, laptops, and PCs. This study intends to determine how structural equation modeling (SEM) can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the variables included in the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) model concerning online communication in English as a foreign language (EFL). An exploratory study was conducted with 112 female undergraduate English language program (ELP) students at the King Khalid University of Saudi Arabia. A KAP questionnaire was distributed to those students using a Google form. The data analysis was carried out using SPSS version 20. The SEM analysis was conducted using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) software version 5.0. The results showed that the mean score of KAP toward online communication in EFL was 3.78, 3.90, and 3.70, respectively. The mean practice score is lower than the mean knowledge and attitude score. The SEM analysis demonstrated that the variables used in the KAP model are positively related (p<0.05). Variables used in the KAP questionnaire are adequately fit to evaluate the ELP students’ KAP toward online communication in EFL. Hence, policymakers can utilize these variables to assess the students’ KAP toward online communication in EFL at HEIs. The findings of KAP can aid universities in framing and implementing appropriate strategies to motivate online communication and enhance the student’s English language skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicEnglish Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207