A Study on the Relationship among Senior High School English Learners’ Prefabricated Chunks, Writing Anxiety and Writing Achievements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English writing can be affected by students’ affective factors and their prefabricated chunks. Recently, many researchers have studied the relationship between writing anxiety and English writing achievements, prefabricated chunks and writing anxiety, and prefabricated chunks and English writing achievements. However, there are few studies on the relationship among these three variables. This research aims to answer the following questions: 1. What is the current situation of senior high English learners’ prefabricated chunks, writing anxiety and writing achievements? 2. What are the correlations among their prefabricated chunks, writing anxiety and writing achievements? 3. Does writing anxiety play a mediating role between prefabricated chunks and writing achievements? If so, to what extent? Based on the affective filter hypothesis and prefabricated chunks theory, this study chose 174 senior high English learners to complete the English writing anxiety questionnaire and a mid-term test. The results show that: 1. Senior high English learners’ prefabricated chunks are at a middle level. Their writing anxiety is at a relatively high level. And their writing achievements are at a medium level. 2. There is a negative correlation between prefabricated chunks and writing anxiety, between writing anxiety and writing achievements. And prefabricated chunks and writing achievements are positively correlated with each other. 3.Writing anxiety has a mediating effect between prefabricated chunks and writing achievements. The mediating effect is 9.82%. Finally, some pedagogical suggestions are advanced for the teaching of English writing in senior high schools. And the limitations and some suggestions to the future studies are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".