MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400505104 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n6p244

Examining Foreign Language Learners’ Speaking Anxiety: The Case of English L2 Learners

2024· article· en· W4400505104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norah Al Hanake

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationForeign languagePublic speakingAnxietyPsychologyWorryVocabularyPromotion (chess)Computer scienceMathematics educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examining speaking anxiety in learners of foreign languages is important not only for the learners but also for teachers and curriculum designers. The study aimed to examine foreign language learners’ speaking anxiety in 100 M.A. students at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The survey was directed to M.A. students. The study used the PSCAS. The findings demonstrated that a variety of factors, including a limited vocabulary, pronunciation difficulties, social pressure, a lack of confidence, and negative past experiences, might contribute to speaking anxiety. Together, these components create a complex web of worry that keeps students from being open to vocal communication. However, the study also discovered several practical strategies that M.A. candidates could employ to boost their speaking confidence and lessen their speaking anxiety. These strategies included role-playing games, conversations in small groups, the use of technology, group projects involving collaborative speaking, regular constructive criticism, availability of interactive language labs, practical language application, progressively more difficult assignments, cultural immersion programs, and workshops on public speaking. By using these strategies, students can establish a supportive learning environment that promotes language proficiency and confidence. Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations were proposed, such as integration of supportive learning environments, utilization of technology, implementation of practical language application, training in public speaking, gradual complexity in assignments, and promotion of positive thinking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207