The Impact of Online Interactive Tasks on L2 Willingness to Communicate: the Case of Arabic Speaking Learners

By Khaled El Ebyary

Department of Curricula and Methods of Instruction

Damanhour University, Egypt

The Impact of Online Interactive Tasks on L2 Willingness to Communicate: the Case of Arabic Speaking Learners

By Khaled El Ebyary

Department of Curricula and Methods of Instruction

Damanhour University, Egypt

Abstract

The inherent focus of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) is to help learners communicate in English and therefore, the question of why some learners are willing to communicate more than others in language tasks has often occupied the minds of teachers. Research on Willingness to Communicate has primarily been undertaken in traditional language classrooms, which involve face-to-face communication tasks. However, the literature has suggested that such classrooms often do not offer as much communicative practice as desired. The use of technology has become ingrained in our daily lives and has encouraged all sorts of online communication, which makes an interest in WTC online a sine qua non of TEFL research. This research suggests that what has been rather glaring is the absence of sufficient understanding of possible relationships between WTC and an increasing use of technology and hence the urge to give another quizzical look. The study involved 32 students in a language classroom at an English Department in a faculty of education in Egypt. The study aimed to investigate the impact of using online interactive tasks via Facebook messenger on participants’ WTC. Data collected focused on comparing participants’ WTC with teachers and peers in traditional and online tasks, and whether any change in WTC patterns as a result of the use of the online mode is transferrable to the traditional classroom. The study used pre-post study questionnaires, focus groups and online tasks to collect data. Results indicated that WTC can be enhanced through the use of online communication.

Keywords: Willingness to communicate (WTC)- Self-perceived Communication Competence (SPCC)- online interaction

یهدف تعلیم اللغة الانجلیزیة بوصفها لغة اجنبیة إلى مساعدة المتعلمین على استخدامها فی مواقف التواصل مع الآخرین، وتعد الرغبة فی التواصل متطلبا أساسیا لحدوثه قد یتوفر لدى بعض المتعلمین دون غیرهم،  وقد أشار عدد من الدراسات السابقة إلى أن أنشطة التواصل داخل قاعات الدرس التقلیدیة عادة لا توفر فرص التواصل المطلوبة؛ لذا تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى الکشف عن أثر استخدام بعض أنشطة التواصل اللغوی عبر برنامج التواصل الاجتماعی "فیسبوک" على الرغبة فی التواصل، والکشف عن مدى امتداد تلک الرغبة إلى مواقف التواصل العادیة خارج نطاق برامج التواصل الاجتماعی.  وتشیر النتائج –التی بنیت على إجراء عدد من الاستبانات، والمقابلات البؤریة، ومهمات طبقت من خلال الإنترنت–  إلى تحسن ملحوظ لدى عینة الدراسة المؤلفة من ٣٢ طالبا فی قسم اللغة الإنجلیزیة بکلیة التربیة جامعة دمنهور.

Introduction

Looking at research related to the concept of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) takes us back to the 1970’s when Burgoon (1976), a researcher in first language (L1) communication, and, later, McCroskey and Bear (1985) investigated unwillingness to communicate. More than four decades ago Burgoon (1976, p. 76) defined unwillingness to communicate in L1 as ‘enduring and chronic tendency to avoid or devalue oral communication’. Following the same line of thought, McCroskey and Baer (1985) describe WTC as one’s general personality orientation towards talking. These researchers further explain that L1 WTC is a stable attitude toward communication when a person feels free to communicate. Earlier L1 communication research mainly referred to affective factors such as predisposition to verbal behaviour (e.g. Mortensen, Arntson, & Lustig, 1977) and shyness (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) as determinant factors, but later research identified diverse variables that affect L1 WTC such as communication competence, self-efficacy, introversion, communication anxiety, and cultural diversities (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). To Xie (2011, p. 19), L1 WTC is ‘personality-based, trait-like predisposition which was relatively consistent across a variety of communication contexts and types of receivers’.

Over the last few decades or so, research on spoken and written WTC with other interlocutors (e.g. teacher or peer(s) has attracted the attention of TEFL researchers. In fact, Dörnyei (2005, p. 210) claims that improving L2 learners’ WTC is ‘the ultimate goal of instruction’. Although this concept of WTC became familiar in the mid-1980s, it was MacIntyre and Charos (1996) who explicitly brought the concept into the field of L2 language research. Nevertheless, a manifestation of the association between L1 and L2 WTC is multi-layered given the diversity of the social and motivational elements involved in each. This is why researchers (e.g. MacIntyre, Baker, Clément and Donovan, 2003) claim that WTC patterns in L1 cannot be transferred to L2. In other words, the drives for L1 and L2 acquisition are significantly dissimilar in the sense that L1 is acquired and used in everyday communication while L2 might be learned for various reasons (e.g. jobs, passing tests…etc.) including communication. Having said that, it is not uncommon to claim that almost any L2 language teaching context aims to develop learners’ communicative ability in the target language. In fact, there has been a consensus that maximizing exposure to opportunities of language use is viewed as a priority for language learners. However, evidence from WTC research has suggested that traditional classrooms often do not offer students as much communicative practice as desired (Dornyei, 2005). This is particularly true of EFL contexts in which access to native speakers is often limited, if not non-existent.

Equally important is a claim put forward also by Dörnyei (2005) who asserts that avoiding communication in L2 by communicatively competent students is also common. Syed (2016) supports this idea by stating that in order for learners to become successful L2 users, they not only have to have competence and motivation, but a higher WTC in the target language is also needed. The inherent argument here is that an L2 learner, competent or not, can be willing or unwilling to participate in written or spoken communication using L2. Hence, an understanding of the nature of students’ WTC in any L2 teaching situation is a prerequisite and a determinant factor in students’ communicative activities.

On the other hand, almost all language learners now are tech-savvy and efforts made by teachers alongside students to benefit from the proliferation of technology and social networking sites available to them is sometimes useful, but this also necessitates an understanding of whether or not the different online synchronous and asynchronous environments can enhance L2 WTC. Research has suggested that anxiety levels L2 learners feel in L2 communicating are decreased in online settings.

As reduced anxiety levels may increase WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998), the aim of this study is to examine the effect of using online interactive tasks on L2 learners’ WTC. To do so, the study involved students in a traditional language classroom at the English Department of a faculty of education in Egypt as participants. The study focused on a) identifying WTC patterns with teachers and peers inside and outside their traditional classroom, b) examining participants’ Self-perceived Communication Competence or SPCC (own opinions of how well equipped they are to communicate in a given situation), c) investigating participation patterns in a number of online communicative tasks via Facebook messenger, d) examining the extent to which change, if any, in WTC patterns and SPCC as  a result of participation in the online interactive tasks might transfer to the offline mode, i.e., inside/outside the classroom.

Literature Review

The concept of WTC, as stated earlier in this research work, was originally initiated in L1 to explore tendency towards oral communication. Early conceptualization of the phenomenon identified self-perceptions, communication competence, introversion, communication apprehension and cultural diversity as personality trait variable indicative of WTC (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Since the 1980’s and up till now, many researchers showed interest in extending WTC to L2 (e.g. MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011; Yashima, 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004; Yashima, 2018), and creating/enhancing WTC has been viewed as ‘a proper objective for L2 education’ (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998, p. 547).

Mechanism of L2 WTC

Research on WTC has been concerned with investigating its mechanism and in this respect a number of models have been developed. These models introduced variables that seem to explain how WTC operates. However, they also demonstrate the complexity and multi-directionality of the phenomenon.

MacIntyre et al. (1998), as mentioned earlier in this research work, extended WTC research to the L2 situation and tried to explain individual and contextual stimuli in the choice of whether or not to initiate or join in L2 communication. Unlike McCroskey & Richmond (1991), MacIntyre et al. (1998) viewed WTC in L2 as a combination of personality traits and as situation dependent. They claim that WTC intensely entails a behavioural intention which leads to the communication behaviour when the individual has the control over his behaviours.

In their study, the researchers developed a six-layer pyramid shape model (see figure 1), which they describe as more of a starting point than a comprehensive description. The model sheds light on the relationships between factors affecting interactive behaviours.

The model can be explained in the light of the top three layers versus the three layers at the bottom. The top three (i.e., L2 use, L2 WTC, self-confidence, and desire to engage in communication with another individual or a group) characterise state variables. The bottom three layers (interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation, self-confidence, intergroup attitudes, social situation, communicative competence, intergroup climate and personality) are permanent variables in every communicative situation. To deconstruct the relationship between the six layers within the pyramid, an explanation of the way these were ordered is necessary. The adjacency of L2 use (layer I) and WTC (layers II) indicates a dependent relationship. That is to say, intention to communication results in L2 use. Situational antecedents (layer III) involve predictors of WTC (i.e. desire to engage in communication with one person/group and state self-confidence) and hence L2 use. Self-confidence however, is generally based on the learner’s perceived communicative competence, also known as Self-perceived Communication Competence (SPCC). Motivational properties (layer IV) includes interpersonal motivation (intention to establish, and interest in establishing, communication with the interlocutor) and intergroup motivation (motivation to engage in conversation(s) with others in a group, most likely from a different social, cultural or linguistic backgrounds). Self-confidence is the learner’s perception of his/her ability to communicate in L2 and it is generally stable across communicative situations. The affective-cognitive context (layer V) involves intergroup attitudes, which represent the extent to which a learner wants to integrate into the L2 context/community and this often entails the pressure and fear of losing one’s own identity. The more motivated an individual is, explain MacIntyre et al. (1998), the more he/she is likely to control such pressures. Furthermore, intergroup attitudes are often influenced by factors such as level of satisfaction with speaking L2, group members’ age, gender, social class, in/formality, topic, consequences…etc. Social and individual context (layer VI) includes personality traits (e.g. openness to new experiences) and intergroup climate (relationship between L1 and L2 communities/cultures).

Criticism of MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model included linearity and psychological versus contextual variable balances (MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011).  To Dörnyei (2005, p. 208), although the suggested model ‘offers a clear representation of the multiple layers and variables feeding into the behavioral intention of WTC, it fails to describe the interrelationship and the weighting of the various components’. In other words, the model does not show how different model elements interact with each other and whether or not any of the variables has more weight than others.

A more recent WTC model, which significantly influenced EFL research, was suggested by Wen and Clement (2003). They thought MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model was based on data obtained in the West and, therefore, culture has a major role in the construct of WTC. Analysing data collected from Chinese students, Wen and Clement (2003) thought MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) pyramid model does not explicitly explain how Chinese L2 learners’ WTC operates. While MacIntyre et al. (1998) view the intention or desire to communicate (DC) as a direct originator of L2 WTC, Wen and Clement (2003) contend that in order to move from intention to talk to L2 use, a number of factors intervene.

To Wen and Clement (2003), the move from DC to WTC in L2 is restricted by four types of variables. These are a) societal context, b) motivational orientation, c) personality factors and d) affective perceptions. Two elements control societal context: group cohesiveness and teacher support. Group cohesiveness identifies the extent to which a learner is motivated and affiliated with others in a group. Being the interlocutor, teacher support includes involvement, immediacy and attitude. While involvement refers to the value of interpersonal relationship and interaction between the teacher on one side and the learners on the other, immediacy comprises the teacher’s verbal and non-verbal willingness to attend to learners’ demands. The second set of variables in Wen and Clement’s (2003) model is Motivational Orientation, which includes affiliation and task orientation. Affiliation is the extent to which an L2 learner is willing to talk to an interlocutor (e.g. teacher or peer), which is, more or less, what MacIntyre et al. (1998) referred to as ‘affiliation motives’. Task orientation is the environment in which an L2 learner can engage in meaningful talk with other interlocutors. In other words, learners seem to evaluate tasks in terms of those they can more easily engage in, as opposed to tasks which can be too difficult or which lead them to lose face.  A third set of variables is represented by personality factors such as taking the risk to talk in L2 and tolerance of ambiguity, which can be a determinant of whether or not learners avoid or accept taking part in conversational situations. As for affective perceptions, they comprise ‘inhibited monitor’, which refers to learners’ deliberate attempt at applying L2 rules while speaking L2, and ‘expectation of positive evaluation’ referring to a need for positive reinforcement on the side of their interlocutors. However, although Wen and Clement’s  (2003) model reconceptualised the WTC concept in EFL contexts, it could not account for some influential elements such as interactional context, physical location and the topic involved (Syed, 2016). Additionally, the model does not explain how variables in the model interact with each other.

Other WTC studies suggests that it is a function of situation-bound circumstantial factors such as topic of communication, interactants involved, the communicative group, and cultural setting. Here Kang (2005) interrogated previous definitions of L2 WTC suggesting the construct should not be thought of as a static theoretical framework due to its changeable nature. To Kang (2005), WTC is ‘an individual’s volitional inclination toward actively engaging in the act of communication in a specific situation, which can vary according to interlocutor(s), topic, and conversational context, among other potential situational variables’ (p. 291).

As seen in figure 3, Kang (2005), L2 learners’ psychological state and situational variables are responsible for their WTC. She acknowledged variables such as security, excitement and responsibility as psychological conditions influencing WTC.

Summary

Researchers in the area (Cao, 2009, 2014; Kang, 2005; Pattapong, 2010; Peng, 2014) went beyond the three models discussed above and a number of factors have been identified as influential to WTC.

Cao (2014) summarized the research in this area by referring to three major dimensions. These are psychological, contextual and linguistic factors (Cao, 2014, p. 798) (see figure 4). While the psychological factors are internal affective characteristics, contextual factors refer to aspects influencing, or being influenced by, the learner, and linguistic factors mainly focus on elements of language proficiency.

WTC in the age of Web 2.0

In 2005 Dörnyei (2005) suggested that L2 research still has numerous unanswered questions including whether WTC ends at the start of communication or lingers at every conversational turn, and how evidently the separate processes of L2 acquisition and L2 use can be related to WTC. Similarly, Chapelle (2001) explains that recent technological developments have transformed the classroom so that language interaction could not only mean spoken interaction but also electronic interaction. Moreover, most L2 learners now are not only broadly skilled in the use of new technology, but also fully expectant that technology will be available in all aspects of their learning. In fact, an overview of the WTC research area suggests that most previous studies were undertaken in traditional classroom, especially in relation to Asian students studying in English speaking countries. However, recent technological developments have transformed the classroom so that language interaction can not only mean spoken interaction but also electronic interaction.

The proliferating effect of Web 2.0 technology (.e.g. websites, weblogs, wikis, mobiles chat services etc.) allows users to communicate in various ways. Such ubiquitous forms of interaction that take place online have, this researcher claims, failed to draw the attention of many WTC researchers. This researcher also claims that such area of research poses a number of questions that L2 researchers still need to answer. Some of these are ‘are learners’ WTC patterns in a traditional class likely to change if communication takes place online in spoken or written forms?’; ‘what is the nature of L2 learners’ Self-perceived Communication Competence (SPCC) as a major component of WTC in an online communication mode?’; ‘do all the factors which impede/facilitate WTC, as identified in the literature, come in to play in the same way in an online communication situation?’; and ‘if WTC patterns change in an online mode, to what extent are such patterns transferrable to the offline mode?’.

In fact, there is a need to carry out research that explores the effects of all sorts of computer-mediated-communication (CMC) on learners’ WTC. Few studies in this realm have been undertaken. Pursuing the idea that lack of willingness constrains actual interaction and language production, a study by Freiermuth and Jarrell (2006) examined the impact of chatting on WTC. The study compared two groups of Japanese female learners where one group carried out a face-to-face task and the other group carried out the same task by chatting online. Adapting a qualitative approach, data were collected via student-produced discourse, responses to post-test questions and a count of words produced by students in the online and face-to-face tasks. Major results indicated that online chatting provided a more comfortable environment that enhanced learners’ WTC and provided an extra platform for learner-teacher interaction.  

A study over 13 weeks using blogs at a university in New Zealand was conducted by Alm (2016) in which he examined whether blogging would have an impact on WTC. The study involved 28 native English speakers learning German. These learners were classified according to the European Framework as B2. Blogging was an off-class weekly activity in which each participant had his/her own blog. Alm, (2016) suggested that blogging in L2 can establish a protected space for self-reflection and interaction. Students’ entries to the blog weighed 30% of the final course mark. Results indicated that blogs provided a protected space for L2 communication and reduced their speaking anxiety. Alm (2016) concluded that ‘Situational L2 self-confidence (low anxiety and high perceived competence) and affiliation motives (the desire to speak to a person) are the most immediate determinants of L2 WTC and it appears that blogs have provided a space, which supported both variables’. Equally positive is a study conducted by Reinders & Wattana (2015) in which the researchers were interested in the impact of gameplay on students’ WTC. Five students participated in a fifteen-week game-based learning program at a university in Thailand. Interviews were used and results indicated that digital gameplay can lower affective barriers to learning and increase willingness to communicate.

Thus, it would seem that the wealth and availability of technological tools to teachers and students continue to grow at astounding rates; and L2 communication and interaction that take place online requires an understanding of the potential relationship between use of such tools and WTC.

The Current Study

Methodology

As this section will explain, this study aligned itself to a mixed methods paradigm in which pre-post questionnaires, focus group interviews and online tasks were used. More details on such tools are given in the following section.

Research Questions

The overarching aim of this study was to examine the impact of online interactive tasks on learners’ WTC in L2. Therefore, the following research questions and sub-questions were formulated:

1. What is the nature of WTC among a sample of L2 learners at the English department at a faculty of education in Egypt?

1.a. How do participants view their Self-Perceived Communication Competence (SPCC)?

1.b. What is the nature of participants’ in, and out of, classroom WTC with teachers and peers and how far is such willingness indicative of actual communication behaviour?

2. What is the nature of participation in the online tasks via Facebook messenger?

2.a. What is the nature of participation in teacher moderated online tasks?

2.b. What is the nature of participation in peer moderated online tasks?

3. To what extent is WTC online transferrable to traditional classrooms? (What are the participants’ views on potential transferability of WTC from the online to the traditional classroom settings?)

Context & Participants

The research was carried out in a faculty of education in Egypt. Participants in this study (N 32) were first year students at the English Department who enrolled on an 8 week conversation course. According to the course description, the course is intended to help EFL students boost their conversational English in an interesting and fun environment. Classes are intended to be interactive and student-centred, and students should be encouraged to communicate in pairs and in groups.  Conversation classes aim to help students improve their speaking skills (e.g. fluency and pronunciation). Therefore, some of the course objectives include a) helping students to use English to communicate in mainly familiar situations using some language functions, b) expressing own opinion and hold discussions with the teacher and peers and c) making use of a range of language function to avoid communication breakdown. This group of participants was female-dominant (77% females) which reflected a genuine demographic characteristic of the research context. Therefore, gender was not considered as a variable in this study. In order to better understand the nature of participants’ WTC and their participation in the online tasks, it was important to understand which of their everyday activities might involve use of English.

Data about participants showed that none of them has ever visited an English-speaking country and they all attended state schools. In terms of language proficiency, the group was homogenous as they all finished their secondary school certificate and they all met the entry level required to join the English Section at the faculty. While some participants did not have any English-related activities beyond the classroom, the majority reported daily engagement with English-related activities other than those connected to their study. As seen in table 1, watching British or American films was top of their activities as 28 participants out of 32 watched such films almost every day. Similarly, 17 listened to English songs, 14 chatted in English with Arabic native speakers (mainly peers from university) and 6 chatted in English with English native speakers.

All participants rated their computer and internet skills as either excellent or very good. They all had active Facebook accounts, which were three years old or more. Furthermore, participants also had active accounts on other social networking sites (SNS) such as Twitter, Wiki …etc. (see figure 5).

It is worth mentioning here that research on WTC has mainly focused on L2 learners from Asian backgrounds. This does not suggest that results from Asian contexts would necessarily be extendable to L2 learners from the Egyptian context or help in anticipating the characteristics of the participants involved in this research. However, such research has established that WTC is impacted by L1 cultural characteristics.

Study Design and Instruments

As the study aimed to examine the effect of using online interactive tasks via Facebook messenger on participants’ WTC, one group pre-post-test design was employed in which one intact class, i.e. first year students at an English Department at a Faculty of Education in Egypt took part. Participants were used as one whole group and no control group was used. The study involved two questionnaires, focus group interviews and three online tasks. In the following paragraphs, each of these instruments is discussed in detail.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires have been widely used in WTC research, especially, as explained by   Zarrinabadi1 and Tanbakooei (2016), Likert-type questionnaires. The current study involved two questionnaires: the WTC questionnaire (which will also be referred to here as the pre-study questionnaire) and the post study questionnaire. Pre-post questionnaires in research are generally used to evaluate the effect of an instructional intervention (e.g., a course or a program) by considering participants’ opinions of potential alterations in their knowledge, skills and attitudes, and possibly future behaviour and aspirations.

Aiming to collect baseline data, the overarching aim of the pre-study questionnaire was to draw a profile of participants’ WTC with teachers and peers in and out of the traditional classroom. Adopting a questionnaire from studies carried out in an English speaking country was not possible as many items within such questionnaires (e.g., interest in international vocation/activities, perception of adjustment…etc.) were beyond the focus of this study. However, the WTC questionnaire involved in this study was informed by items from Peng and Woodrow (2010), Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu (2004), and Alm (2016). The questionnaire focused specifically on a) in and out of class WTC with teachers and peers, b) perceived communicative competence and b) use of online tools. It included three sections. Section one focused on collecting demographic data and information about participants’ past experiences (e.g. private vs. state schooling, previous visiting English speaking countries…etc.). Section two collected data about WTC and section three dealt with computer skills and use in relation to L2.

The post study questionnaire collected follow-up information on participants’ WTC after online tasks were applied so that this data could be compared to data from the pre-study questionnaire in the analysis phase. In addition, some open-ended items were used to collect data about participants’ views on their participation with peers and the teacher in the online tasks as well as views on possible transfer of any change in WTC to traditional classrooms. Responses in the open-ended questionnaire were categorised according to emerging themes. The pre and post study questionnaires items were translated into Arabic in order to increase the return rate. Forward and backward translation procedures were carried out in order to establish accuracy of translation (see Appendix A).

Groups, tasks and setting

This study, as mentioned earlier, involved 32 undergraduate participants who had similar levels of English proficiency. This assumption is based on their entry requirement to the English Section. In the initial orientation, the teacher explained to the participants that group work tasks would be carried out via Facebook messenger in order to provide discussion opportunities related to in class material and would be used in a way that specifically facilitated extended discussion beyond the four walls of the classroom. Since participation in the in-class group work is non-compulsory, the teacher also explained that participation in the online tasks was still optional. This was essential to the current research work so that any data collected about participation in the online tasks would represent as much genuine intention to participate as possible on the part of participants. Since one of the course goals was to focus on developing communication skills, three online tasks were developed and used synchronously with four Facebook groups of participants (see Appendix C). Therefore, the tasks used in this study involved elements of language functions that were intended to help students maintain a conversation on a given topic. The tasks corresponded with themes presented in the course textbook. The topics chosen for the online tasks and task types aligned with the WTC literature. In other words, previous WTC research (Cao, 2006; Kang, 2005) suggests the desire to talk and willingness to participate seem to increase when topics are interesting, familiar, useful and intelligible. Similarly, WTC seems to be enhanced when the task is doable and not too difficult (Pattapong, 2010). On the other hand, sensitive and culturally inappropriate topics, suggests Cao (2009), seemed to impede WTC.

Students were split randomly into four Facebook based groups with eight participants in each. Grouping was based mainly on the class register. The four groups were further split at random into two teacher-moderated groups and two peer-moderated groups. The rationale was to examine whether or not the online presence of the teacher might have an impact on participation and possibly WTC. In the teacher-moderated groups, he invited participants to their groups, briefed them and provided task set-ups. In the peer-moderated groups, the peer emulated the teacher in inviting participants to their groups, briefing them and providing task set ups. However, it was intended in this study that instructions for the tasks in both the teacher-moderated and the peer-moderated task did not involve any requirements in terms of minimum/maximum number of posts per participant/group. In other words, no instructions were given about obligation to post/respond or about the length of any given response. Furthermore, it was also necessary that moderators made no attempts to target lurkers to participate. This enabled the researcher to elicit meaningful data on learner-to-learner and learner-to-teacher entries in each group, as this researcher will explain later. Tasks were carried out on a weekly basis in which a thematic probe was posted by the class teacher (in the teacher moderated groups) and peers (in the peer moderated groups), and participants were then given time to interact.

Focus group interview

This study involved the use of focus group interviews as a qualitative tool to collect data from participants about their opinion and perceptions of their WTC in the online tasks and the extent to which such experience might be transferred to traditional classroom settings in the future. Two semi-structured focus group interviews were scheduled in this study; one involved participants in the teacher-moderated groups and the other included those in the peer- moderated groups. The focus group interview environment was interactive and all participants were encouraged to express their views and discuss them with each other. These interviews were audio-recorded and the data was then transcribed verbatim.

Procedures and data collection

Data analysed in this paper were derived from the WTC questionnaire, the focus group interviews, the threaded online discussion and the post study questionnaire on participants’ views on participation on the online tasks and their WTC. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. The present study followed ethical considerations at all stages of data collection and data analysis. Information sheets, in which participants were informed about the aims and the procedures of the study were distributed. Consent forms were circulated in week one of the term and were signed by all the participants. As participation was voluntary, participants were made aware they could withdraw at any time of data collection and up to two weeks after data was collected. They were also assured of anonymity and confidentiality and use of pseudonyms to replace their Facebook user names. Furthermore, participants were informed that data would be used merely for research purposes. In terms of data analysis, thematic and numerical analyses were undertaken. Descriptive statistics was used to obtain the frequency count and mean for posted messages across the groups and for the whole class.

Results

In this section, findings of the current study are presented based upon the sequence followed in the research question.

The nature of participants’ WTC

The first research question was ‘what is the nature of WTC among a sample of L2 learners at the English Department at a faculty of education in Egypt?’. This question included two sub-questions about participants’ Self-Perceived Communication Competence. Data in this realm focused on how participants at the English section positioned themselves in relation to language competence, which is viewed in the literature as a crucial factor directly influencing one’s WTC (see Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; Gałajda, 2017; Lockley, 2013; Yashima, 2002). Data on how the participants involved in this study envisaged their self-perceived communication competence was obtained via the WTC questionnaire (see appendix A). First, participants were asked to individually rate their overall communication competence as they perceived it on a 6-point scale from excellent to very weak. The scale points were identical to those used in their formative and summative assessments. Data analysis showed that while none of the participants rated their overall ability as ‘very weak’, only one participant thought he/she was ‘excellent’ and another participant thought he/she was ‘very good’. The majority of participants (66%) however, rated their ability in L2 as ‘good’ and 25% thought they were ‘average’ (see figure 6). The second way to elicit data on perceived L2 communication competence was another 3-point rating dis/agreement scale that involved 8 items. These items focused on participants’ views of their L2 communication abilities in class and out of class (see figures 7, 8, 9 and 10).

Data revealed that most participants (60%) would feel nervous if they are asked to speak in English in class and 39% would even be embarrassed if they make speaking mistakes in such a situation, which is not uncommon among EFL students in many contexts. Conversely, 46% of participants would feel less nervous to speak outside classrooms as opposed to 23% who stated that they feel less so. Interestingly, a high proportion of participants chose ‘Don’t Know’ as answers to a) being embarrassed when making speaking mistakes (49%) and b) feeling nervous before speaking either in class (31%) or outside (22%) – (see figure 7). In other words, they were not sure how to rate each of these traits.

A similar angle in the data compared participants’ WTC with peers and teachers in and out of class. As seen in figure 8 above, a high percentage (58%) of participants expressed fear of not understanding peers speaking in English in class, but much less fear of doing so outside classrooms (19%). Data also showed that less fear of not being understood (20%) is expressed by participants. Yet, 53% thought they don’t know whether they would be understood or not (see figure 8). Following the same line of thought, 72% and 63% correspondingly did not know whether or not they could express views in English in and outside classrooms (see figure 9).  In relation to communicating with teachers however, a high percentage (69%) thought they could self-express views outside class as opposed to 29% who thought they could do so in class. In the same way, 61% and 22% chose ‘Don’t Know’ to their perception of either ability (see figure 10).

Participants’ WTC in/out of class

The second sub-question in this study examined the nature of participants’ in and out of classroom WTC with teachers and peers, and the extent to which such willingness is indicative of actual communication behaviour. Self-reported data is presented in the following paragraphs.

WTC with teachers

The WTC questionnaire collected data on participants’ WTC patterns with their teacher. In this respect, a strong WTC with the teacher in class using L2 with was shown. Here, 44% were ‘strongly willing’ and 40% were ‘willing’ as opposed to 12% ‘unwilling’ and 3% ‘strongly unwilling’. Conversely, a strong unwillingness (44% strongly unwilling and 37% unwilling) to participate in communicative activities with teachers outside the classroom was reported (see figure 11). Because speaking with teachers can be a generic term, participants were asked in the WTC questionnaire whether they might initiate a communication with the teacher in and/or out of class. Here, a strong unwillingness to communicate inside the classroom was demonstrated in the data. The majority of participants (38% and 42%) were either ‘strongly unwilling’ or ‘unwilling’ to do so (see figure 12).  Such unwillingness aligns with findings on participants’ perception of their SPCC earlier in this paper in which the majority of them expressed feelings of nervousness, embarrassment and fear of losing face. On the other hand, participants showed a strong willingness to initiate communication in any way (e.g. by asking questions, raising points) in the target language outside the classroom. In fact, 34% were ‘strongly willing’ and 44% were ‘willing’ to initiate conversations with their teachers outside class.

As the data collected from the questionnaire reflected participants’ willingness/ unwillingness to communicate with teachers inside and outside the classroom, further information was needed about previous opportunities in which participants’ communicative behaviour has ever gone beyond the intention, i.e. willingness/unwillingness. Therefore, a number of questionnaire items asked participants to report whether or not they have ever communicated with teachers in L2 inside and outside the classroom. As seen in figure 10, a high percentage of participants either ‘rarely’ (26%) or ‘never’ (51%) spoke in English with their teachers inside the classroom. Only 16% chose ‘often’ and 19% selected ‘sometimes’. The same patterns were also maintained outside the classroom where 28% ‘rarely’ and 37% ‘never’ spoke in L2 with their teachers outside class (see figure 13). Following the same line of thought, the study examined participants’ experiences with initiating communication with the teacher in L2 inside and outside the classroom, for example asking their teachers questions. Data analysis clearly showed that most participants either ‘rarely’ (31%) or ‘never’ (37%) embarked on such experiences inside the classroom. In terms of using L2 to initiate communication outside class, 24% chose ‘often’ and 20% selected ‘sometimes’. Data from the focus group interviews support this evidence as some students thought they often find opportunities to ask questions. However, the urge to ask such questions was not necessarily derived by WTC, but it rather emerged from the nature of the context being exam-oriented and these were students keen on scoring better in their summative assessments (see figure 14).

WTC with peers

In relation to participants’ willingness to use the target language with peers in their group work either inside or outside the classroom, data analysis revealed that 75% of participants were ‘strongly willing’ and 22% were ‘willing’ to speak with group members in English inside the classroom. Comparatively, only 3% were ‘strongly unwilling’ to do so (see figure 15). In relation to WTC with group members outside the class, lower percentages reported strong willingness (28%), and 56% were ‘willing’. Yet, 10% were ‘strongly unwilling’. Evidence from the focus group interviews sought further understanding of participants’ responses and reasons such as lack of time due to having to commute daily to university and lack to access to working spaces in the premises were mentioned. Other culturally bound reasons showing less preference of working in mixed-gender groups outside the classroom were also given by many female participants. As participation in group work could vary depending on nature of tasks, assigned roles and the like, questionnaire data also looked at participants’ willingness to initiate L2 conversation by asking peers questions during group work in/out of class. Once again, a strong willingness was demonstrated in relation to both inside and outside the classroom (see figure 16).

However, the literature has always recognized WTC as ‘an intention’, but whether or not such intention is realized in real language classroom contexts could be a different story. This is why this study collected data about the extent to which participants had a chance to put their willingness into practice. In other words, they were asked in the questionnaire about the extent to which they do what they say they are willing to do. A general tendency towards rare engagement in communicative activities in L2 inside and outside the classroom was demonstrated by the majority of participants and even a higher percentage (72%) never used L2 in front of the whole class (see figure 17). However, data analysis also revealed that sometimes some participants would ask their peers questions using L2 when they are engaged in group work.

In summary, data analysis on participants’ WTC showed a strong feeling of willingness to communicate in L2 with teachers inside classrooms, but there was also a strong unwillingness to initiate such communication. Furthermore, data analysis also suggested that a general feel of unwillingness to communicate with teachers in L2 outside the classroom was common among participants, but these participants were willing to initiate communication in L2 outside classes by asking questions that mainly focused on final assessments. Equally important, however, was data comparing willingness as an attitude with actual communication. In fact, data revealed that actual communication in L2 with teachers was either scarce or non-existent.

Participation in online tasks

While the first research questions in this study examined participants’ perceived language competence and patterns of WTC with teachers and peers inside and outside the classroom, and compared such patterns with frequency of actual communication in L2, the second research question focused on examining participation in the online tasks when the teacher was moderating online talk as opposed to when a peer was doing so. In this section, results on each of these themes are introduced.

Participation in teacher-moderated online tasks

As mentioned earlier in this study, two teacher-moderated groups (i.e. group A and B) were involved with eight participants in each. Data collected focused mainly on examining students’ participation and possible impact of such participation on WTC in L2 at a later stage. As groups involved in this study were moderated by either the teacher or a peer, it was equally important that the data analysis looked into whether or not online presence of the teacher might have an impact on participation. As seen in table 2 below, the teacher had 3 entries in each of the two teacher-moderated groups in which he invited participants, briefed them and provided task set-ups and closures (see Appendix B).

As for group A, in all three tasks an aggregated figure showed that 76 entries were logged as meaningful entries and 13 were social participation (e.g. greetings, emoji or confirmation of participation).

Group B witnessed a higher participation rate in relation to on-task participation (i.e. 110 entries) as well as social participation (19 entries). One participant in group A posted neither on task nor socially and 2 participants in group B showed social participation only.

Among the 76 entries logged in group A, 6 on-task entries addressed the teacher and these seemed to occur early in the task. All of these were followed by responses to and from peers rather than the teacher. For example, the prompt in task 1 was “Do English language teachers need to learn how to use technology? If no, give reasons. If yes, what technology do they need to know about more and why? (Remember to use academic language in your posts)”. In response to this prompt, two students posted the following:

Noha

I completely agree with that Dr Ahmed and I think that the teacher should know every new about technology As teacher the students shoul d learn from him not the verse This age is the age of technology so the teacher should know the requirements of his age so the teacher need to learn the technology to help his students

Samaa

According to using technology. I completely agree with Noha that teachers do need to learn how to use technology. They must deliver lessons attractively, especially when they deal with students who are professional users of technology. Teachers also need to know more more about computer as the most available facility. In addition to what computers provide from very interesting programs such as hot potatoes and power point.

Data collected from the focus group interviews showed that although participants seemed to respond to each other and not to the teacher later in the tasks, they generally assumed that the teacher was present and was reading each post. This might account for the higher number of posts in the teacher moderated groups. This finds support in that some participants were aware of such presence and wanted to register their presence anyway by either making only short entries or stating the obvious. Examples of these were:

Example A

Alaa

Mmmm!!

Example B

Noura

I think that English teachers have to be aware of the technology.

However, to some other participants awareness of the online presence of the teacher sometimes impinged their willingness to add some posts to the thread and they were afraid of making mistakes and consequently losing face. These participants felt that their posts would be indicative of language ability and they thought the teacher’s presence suggested a judgemental attitude towards participants’ posts. This was explicitly expressed by some participants in group A who posted neither on task nor social posts and the two participants in group B who showed social participation only.

Participation in peer-moderated online tasks

As mentioned before in the methodology section, moderators (the class teacher and peer moderators) did not probe or encourage lurkers in the online task.

In the peer moderated groups, participant 1 and 9 acted as peer moderators (PM) in groups C and D correspondingly. They both emulated the teacher in inviting participants to groups, briefing them and providing task set-ups and closures. The total number of entries in group C was 51 and in group D there were 57 (see table 3).

Compared to teacher-moderated groups, table 3 suggests that the number of posts seemed to decrease in the peer-moderated groups. Yet, two important observations about such posts were noted. First, participants seemed to focus more on making meaningful participation and to care less about spelling, punctuation and grammar. Such posts were also drawn-out, included self-repairs and provided more information to peers. Examples of these are:

Esraa

In my opinion teachers need a lot of training to use new technology and get the most benfit from any proramme may help them on computer ,tap ,etc such as power point,word and all microsoft programmes ,also programmes that use in preparing exams and check answers automatically like hotpotatos , this need agreat effort from the teacher first and strong will to accept new chages that come to life and cope with it

Huda

Mmmm!! I have strong believe that the teacher need to deveolp himself whatever his field is ,he always need to practise all ways that make him perfect one He should search about the technological methods that manage him to teach to the students well These methods like internet researches ,pictures on the student's tablet ,programmes on computer and so on The result of using technology is making the teacher active and professional in his work

Huda

At first sorry,l mean belief not believe Esraa ,l also agree with you that responsibles should provide teacher with all facilities that manage him to do his work well ,provide him with the training courses that learn him the new methods that benefit him in his work and tell him the new ways that he should follow by the prodicals,but l think that the teacher shouldn't depend only on what the responsibles provide He should also search for the sutible methods that he need .He should be a creative more than a teacher all his work to indoctrinate information to his students

Mo

yes,the teacher must be a ware of all the fields of modern technology in order to develop himself and educational process itself and in addition to ongoing research that are responsible for professional development to cope with the technological methods. These methods like;using computers,smart boards,active learning and tablets . Educational establishments should supply schools with these things to make the process more easy,effective and active .

Esraa

I agree with you and appreciate your opinion completly ,but I think the ministry should provide teachers with new techniques and hold training courses for new teachers , also devolpe schools and supply them with new techniques

Esraa

Certainly, you have apoint on that issue all what I want to say both teachers and administrators should work together and co-operate to acheive the most benfit to students , cause one hand can't clap

Huda

I'm agree with you Esraa that's right ,l wish the educational process arises as it is the first step to change and develop everything around us

Loleta

Yes English language teachers need to learn how to use technology .Teacher needs to know more about applying technology in classroom by using Data Show,Smart Board,Laptop,and new applications to show lessons in front of students with pictures in attractive way,teacher should encourage students to use Distance Learning.Students can use Tablets to study educational content easily instead of carrying books.both of teacher and students should be trained well to save time and effort,communicate with each other,share ideas,express themselves and benefit from various methods of learning.

Noha

I completely agree that the teacher should know every new about technology As teacher the students shoul d learn from him not the verse This age is the age of technology so the teacher should know the requirements of his age so the teacher need to learn the technology to help his students

Some of the posts referred peers to sources related to the tasks. An example from task 1 included useful links to important technology that can be used in the classroom such as Kahoot. Examples of such posts were:

Lobna

Yes , l think that English language teachers need to learn How to use technology. Generally, the good teacher has to be conovoyed with his student's minds because new generations know how to use technology very well,so the teacher needs to know it to talk to them in the language that they love.

Lobna

What do you think about these

???

Data from the focus group interviews also showed that participants’ awareness that their groups did not include the teacher made them more forthcoming and shared information in their posts about several sources they know. However, quite a few participants still preferred the presence of the class teacher in the online conversation. This, the researcher suggests, was somehow governed by the context being exam oriented and that their participation in all classroom based and non-classroom based tasks should involve the teacher as this would affect their grades.

Impact of online tasks on WTC

The third research question in this study aimed to examine a) the extent to which exposure to communicative tasks in the online mode (teacher led and peer led) had any effect on participants’ WTC and SPCC and b) the likelihood of any change in WTC patterns with teachers and peers inside and outside the classroom in traditional communicative situations. In doing so, this section uses data from the post study questionnaire, which is cross referenced with data collected in the pre-study questionnaire –i.e. the WTC questionnaire, and the focus group interview. 

Data obtained in the pre-study questionnaire showed that while most participants (66%) rated their perceived language ability in L2 as ‘good’ and 25% as ‘average’, only one participant thought he/she was ‘excellent’ and another participant thought he/she was ‘very good’ (see figure 3). Data collected from the post study questionnaire required students to rate their perceived language competence after completing all the online tasks. Analysis of such data revealed a slight change as fewer participants viewed themselves as average (21%) and slightly more perceived their competence as either ‘very good’ (4%) or ‘good’ (69%) (see figure 18).

Following the same line of thought, data on WTC with teachers and peers in the pre-study questionnaire was compared to that obtained in the post study questionnaire. The pre-study questionnaire referred to a general feeling of WTC with teachers in class (44% ‘strongly willing’ and 40% ‘willing’) and a parallel feeling of unwillingness to communicate with the teacher outside the class (44% strongly unwilling and 37% unwilling). The same patterns were generally maintained in the post study questionnaire in relation to WTC with the teacher in class. However, a slight change in their attitudes towards communicating outside the classroom was observed as 16% were ‘strongly willing’, 24% were ‘willing’, 33% were still ‘unwilling’ and 27% were ‘strongly unwilling’ (see figure 19). Similarly, while the pre-study questionnaire revealed a strong unwillingness to initiate communication with teachers inside the classroom and a strong willingness to initiate communication in any way (e.g. by asking questions, raising points) in the target language outside the classroom, development in students willingness to initiate communication inside and outside classrooms was observed (see figure 20).

As for WTC with peers, analysis of the pre-study questionnaire suggested a strong willingness to communicate with peers inside the classroom (75% were ‘strongly willing’ and 22% were ‘willing’). However, lower percentages of willingness were reported outside the class (18% were ‘strongly willing’ and 56% were ‘willing’). As seen in figure 21, the same pattern of willingness was maintained, but there was a general increase in participants’ WTC with peers outside the classroom (32% were ‘strongly willing’ and 61% were ‘willing’). In a similar manner, development in participants’ willingness to initiate communication with peers inside and outside the classroom was evident (see figure 22). Equally important was the data obtained from the focus group in the post study questionnaire, which helped this researcher understand the data further. Analysis of such data suggested that affordances of the technology used (Facebook here) helped participants to overcome the cultural elements and contextual constraints, which seemed to impinge communication with peers outside the classroom earlier. One participant in the peer moderated group explained her views in this respect which translated as ‘doing the task online was great because I felt more relaxed as the group was not moderated or observed by the teacher which made me feel less threatened’. Another response in the same group was ‘contributing to the conversation in the online group was not dominated by anyone and I had the choice of taking turns…in the classroom I often wanted to contribute, but my peers generally don’t observe me or maybe I’m not able to show them my willingness to contribute, but in the online task I just decide to write and I can see other peers writing when it says such and such is typing’. On the other hand, some preference of moderating the online tasks by teachers was expressed in the open ended question. Being educated in a highly exam-oriented context made the online presence of the teacher seen as a default even though his role was viewed as being judgemental rather than developmental by some participants. One participant in the teacher moderated group stated ‘I started typing several times and was always thinking of the possibility of making mistakes’. Another response was ‘I often had details to provide but I tried to stick to short and simple responses as the teacher was reading and I didn’t want to make mistakes’. 

Discussion and conclusion

This study examined the impact of online interactive tasks on L2 learners’ WTC, which is described as ‘readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using L2’ (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998, p. 547). A closer investigation of the WTC phenomena suggests complexity and non-linearity of the factors involved. Equally important is the contextual constraints as seen by the learners and the teachers. For example, the literature seems to suggest a fluctuating relationship between Self-perceived Communicative Competence (SPCC) and WTC. Results of the current study provided a profile of participants’ WTC showing that most of them perceived their language competence as ‘good’. Participants also reported strong WTC, as well as a strong desire to initiate talk, with teachers inside the classroom. This agrees with Kim’s (2004) study of 200 Korean students whose WTC was highly predicted by a higher perceived communicative competence. However, participants in the current study also reported a strong unwillingness to communicate, as well as less desire to initiate talk, with teachers outside the classroom. This still agreed with results of other studies (e.g. MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011), which indicated that learners with lower perceived competence (i.e. students) avoided communication with interlocutors with advanced proficiency levels (i.e. teachers). This is confirmed by other results in the present study showing that a high percentage of participants ‘rarely’ spoke with teachers either inside or outside the classroom, which makes WTC and the desire to initiate talk unindicative of actual L2 use. Such results therefore, confirm the inherent argument put forward in the literature and in this study that an L2 learner, competent or not, can be willing or unwilling to participate in communication using L2. A similar angle examined in this study was WTC with peers. Based on the results obtained in this study, similar claims about WTC and actual communication with teachers inside and outside the classroom can be drawn out to include WTC and actual communication with peers.

Further results in the current study revealed that many participants were not sure about elements of their language abilities (e.g. understanding/being understood by peers, expressing views when speaking with teachers). Such results confirm the relationship between an L2 user and other interlocutors in the communicative situation inside and outside the classroom. In this respect, research suggests that familiarity with other interlocutors, attention of interlocutors, interest and partaking in the conversation, proficiency in L2, native language, age and sex can be factors which interact to decrease or increase learners’ WTC (Kang 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998; MacIntyre et al., 2003; MacIntyre et al., 2011; Wen & Clement, 2003; Zarrinnabadi, 2014). Participants in the current study seemed to be similar to those in Wen and Clement’s (2003) in which ‘other-directed self’ and ‘submissive way of learning’ seemed to influence students’ WTC. Other-directed self was found to have origins in the collectivist orientation of Chinese culture. In this case learners’ minds are full of questions such as a) what other interlocutors would think of me, b) how they would evaluate my behaviour, c) how they would react to my L2 use…etc. The social and psychological distance prevented learners from practising the L2 with significant others, that is, teachers and peers. Moreover, submission to authority of a teacher was another cultural feature strictly preventing WTC. This was particularly evident in their participation in the online tasks. Participants seemed to provide more meaningful on-tasks entries when they communicated with interlocutors familiar to them (i.e. peers) although less attention was given to language accuracy in their participation. Additionally, participants in the teacher moderated groups explained in the focus group interviews that they always assumed the teacher was reading their entries, which they thought would be indicative of their language ability.

On the other hand, data from the post study questionnaire involved in this study showed a positive change in the way participants viewed their SPCC, as fewer participants rated themselves as average and slightly more thought their competence as either ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Data on WTC with teachers and peers in the post study questionnaire however, showed a similar pattern to data in the pre-study questionnaire particularly in terms of in-class WTC, but a positive change in their attitudes towards communicating outside the classroom. Such results are in conformity with Freiermuth and Jarrell’s (2006), Reinders & Wattana’s (2015) and Alm’s (2016) studies in which the online environment provided a more comfortable environment than face-to-face conversations and, consequently, enhanced WTC.

The study therefore emphasized the complexity and multi-directionality of WTC. However, it also provided evidence that WTC can be enhanced through the use of an online communication platform (Facebook in our case) and that the online environments, which are likely to be asynchronous, would permit learners to be more willing to communicate. Although there is not enough evidence that such environments can represent less risk of loss of face, evidence in the current study suggested that participants perceived the online tasks as opportunities for communication. In fact, evidence in the current study revealed that the use of Facebook messenger as a platform for the online task received very positive feedback from the participants, thus suggesting it would be a promising virtual tool and environment to promote interaction in English learning and WTC in L2. More activities using Facebook groups should be assigned for learners to practice and use communicative language. Promoting awareness of available online tools and modelling effective use of the tools are suggested to help enhance learners’ WTC.

References

Alm, A. (2016). Creating willingness to communicate through L2 blogging. CALL-EJ, 17(1), 67-79.

Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311-341.

Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The Unwillingness-to-Communicate Scale: development and validation. Communication Monograph, 43, 60-69.

Cao, Y. (2009). Understanding the Notion of Interdependence, and the Dynamics of Willingness to Communicate. (PhD), The University of Auckland. Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm 

Cao, Y. (2014). A socio-cognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 789-814.

Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, Electronic Version, 480-493.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189-212.

Gałajda, D. (2017). Communicative Behaviour of a Language Learner: Exploring Willingness to Communicate (Second Language Learning and Teaching. Poland: Springer International Publishing

Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277-292.

Lockley, T. (2013). Exploring self-perceived communication competence in foreign language learning.   Retrieved from https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt/article/view/4945/5042

MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135–142.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2003). Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 587–605.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & , & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(149–171).

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal, 33, 458-468.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72-77.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. Both-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition and anxiety (pp. 19–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C. B., J. E. (1985). Willingness to Communicate: The Construct and Its Measurement. (ED265604). from ERIC

Mortensen, C., Arntson, P., & Lustig, M. (1977). The measurement of verbal predispositions: Scale development and application. Human Communication Research, 3, 146-158.

Pattapong, K. (2010). Willingness to communicate in second language: a qualitative study of issues affecting Thai EFL learners from students’ and teachers’ points of view. The University of Sydney Retrieved from http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/doctoral_studies/completed_theses/2010/Pattapong.shtml 

Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to Communicate in English: A Model in the Chinese EFL Classroom Context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834-876.

Peng, J. (2014). Willingness to communicate in Chinese EFL University Classroom: An Ecological Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2015). Affect and Willingness to Communicate in Digital Game-Based Learning. ReCALL, 27, 38-57.

Syed, H. (2016). Dynamics of variables underlying Willingness to Communicate (WTC) in English (L2): A case study of postgraduate business students at a university classroom in Sukkur, Pakistan.  

Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16, 18-38.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The Japanese EFL Context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.

Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The Influence of Attitudes and Affect on Willingness to Communicate and Second Language Communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119–152.

Yashima, T. M., Peter D. and  Ikeda, Maiko. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22(1).