The Effects of L2 Chinese Learners’ Perceived Writing Anxiety on Their L1 Use within L2 Writing Performance among English Major Students in a Chinese University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning to write fluently and expressively in English is widely proved to be one of the most difficult skills for Chinese EFL learners to master due to their L2 writing processes are impeded by various obstacles, among which L2 writing anxiety and their L1 use are two indispensable factors that should be accounted. Hence, the purpose of this study was to explore the relations among L2 learners’ perceived writing anxiety and the use of L1 Chinese learners within their L2 writing performance of English major students. 226 L1-Chinese sophomores of English major students enrolled in Department of Applied English at a university in China participated. A mixed methodology of (Quantitative +qualitative) approaches was employed to collect data through SLWAI (Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory), think-aloud protocol and semi-structured interview so as to elicit the dynamic thinking process of L2 Chinese learners’ perceived writing anxiety and their L1 use within L2 writing performance on an English argumentative writing task. The findings revealed that L2 Chinese learners’ perceived writing anxiety was positively correlated with their L1 use amount but negatively correlated with L2 writing performance. However, in terms of a minor part of the participants, L2 Chinese learners’ perceived writing anxiety and their L1 use amount were positively correlated with L2 writing performance. Implications are that the study not only investigated the relations among L2 English major students’ perceived writing anxiety and their L1 use within L2 writing performance, but shed lights on the pedagogical field of L2 writing by proposing some effective measures to improve students’ L2 writing performance based on their different anxiety sources.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".