Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom: An Ecological Perspective 9781783091560

Citation preview

Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editor: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers and teachers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom An Ecological Perspective

Jian-E Peng

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Peng, Jian-E., 1972- author. Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom: An Ecological Perspective/Jian-E Peng. Second Language Acquisition: 76 Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English language--Study and teaching--Chinese speakers. 2. English language--Study and teaching--China. 3. Second language acquisition. 4. English language--Study and teaching--Chinese speakers--Social aspects--China. 5. Classroom management--China. 6. Communication in foreign language education--China. I. Title. II. Series: Second language acquisition (Clevedon, England); 76. PE1130.C4P49 2014 428.0071–dc23 2013041726 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-155-3 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2014 Jian-E Peng. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the CPI Group.

Contents

Figures and Tables Abbreviations Acknowledgements

ix xiii xv

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

1

1

Introduction English Language Teaching in China Overview of the Research Methodological Framework Organisation of the Book

3 4 5 7 9

2

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2 L2 WTC Research Situated in Second Language Acquisition Landscape A Cultural Perspective on L2 WTC An Ecological Perspective on L2 WTC Summary

11 28 32 37

Part 2: The Big Picture: Interrelationships between WTC, Communication Confidence, Motivation, Learner Beliefs and Classroom Environment (Phase 1: Questionnaire Survey)

39

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment Instrumentation Preparation: A Pilot Study Participants and Research Context

41 41 45

3

v

11

vi

Contents

Profiles of Participants’ WTC in English in the Language Classroom An Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling Modelling the Many Facets of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment Model Reliability and Validity Summary 4

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC: A Full Structural Model A Model of WTC and its Antecedents Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment Summary Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations (Phase 2: A Multiple-Case Study)

5

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations The Multiple-Case Study Establishing Trustworthiness The Four Focal Students and Their English Language Class Manling: ‘My Problem is “What I Should Communicate?”’ Weitao: ‘I’m Still Studying English for Examinations’ Dongmei: ‘The Class is Like Backwater’ Zefeng: ‘Group Discussion is of No Use At All’ Developmental Nature of WTC in EFL Classrooms Summary

6

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations Learner Beliefs and Motivations as Distal Individual Context Cognitive, Linguistic and Affective Factors as Proximal Individual Context Classroom Environment as Situational Social Context Frequency Count across Cases Summary

48 52 55 68 70 72 72 82 91

93 95 95 97 98 99 103 107 110 114 115 116 118 125 134 139 142

Contents

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings 7

8

vii

143

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond Integration of Overall Findings An Ecological Interpretation of WTC in the EFL Classroom Situated Conceptualisation of WTC in the EFL Classroom Summary

145 145 148 154 157

Concluding Remarks Overall Findings Theoretical Implications Methodological Implications Implications for Educational Practice Future Research

158 158 160 161 162 164

Appendix 1: Factor Loadings

167

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

171

Appendix 3: Correlation Matrix for the Structural Model

177

Appendix 4: Interview Guide

179

Appendix 5: Classroom Observation Scheme

180

Appendix 6: Learning Journal Framework

183

Appendix 7: Coding Scheme

184

References

189

Index

203

Figures and Tables

Figures Figure 2.1 Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547) ......................................................................... 13 Figure 2.2 Variables moderating the relation between DC and WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom (Wen & Clément, 2003: 25) ... 29 Figure 2.3 Schematic theoretical framework for the present research .... 37 Figure 3.1 Measurement model of WTC in English ................................. 56 Figure 3.2 Measurement model of communication confidence in English ................................................................................... 59 Figure 3.3 Measurement model of motivation to learn English............... 61 Figure 3.4 Measurement model of learner beliefs ..................................... 64 Figure 3.5 Measurement model of classroom environment ..................... 66 Figure 4.1 Hypothesised relationships among WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment .......................................................74 Figure 4.2 Structural model of English classroom communication. ........ 78 Figure 5.1 Temporal fluctuations in Manling’s WTC in English in class ...................................................................................... 102 Figure 5.2 Manling’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and hand-raising ............................................................................. 103 Figure 5.3 Temporal fluctuations in Weitao’s WTC in English in class 106

ix

x

Figures and Tables

Figure 5.4 Weitao’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and handraising ....................................................................................... 107 Figure 5.5 Temporal fluctuations in Dongmei’s WTC in English in class .......................................................................................... 109 Figure 5.6 Dongmei’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and hand-raising ..............................................................................110 Figure 5.7 Temporal fluctuations in Zefeng’s WTC in English in class .......................................................................................112 Figure 5.8 Zefeng’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and handraising. .......................................................................................113 Figure 6.1 Direct facilitating and debilitating effect of the themes on WTC ....................................................................................141 Figure 7.1 Quantitative variables and qualitative themes explored in this research ............................................................................. 146 Figure 7.2 An ecological model of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom .......................................................................... 148 Figure 7.3 Situated conceptualisation of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom .................................................................................. 156

Tables Table 2.1 Summary of the scale of What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) ...................................................................................... 33 Table 3.1 Distribution of the participants in the main survey study ...... 47 Table 3.2 Descriptive statistics of summated score for WTC in English (n = 567) ........................................................................ 48 Table 3.3 Frequency of responses to WTC in English (n = 567) ............. 50 Table 3.4 Symbols for variables and their relationships in SEM .............. 53 Table 3.5 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of WTC and items (n = 503) ...................................................................................... 57 Table 3.6 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of communication confidence and items (n = 503).................................................. 59

Figures and Tables

xi

Table 3.7 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of motivation and items (n = 503) ............................................................................ 62 Table 3.8 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of learner beliefs and items (n = 503) ......................................................................... 65 Table 3.9 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of classroom environment and items (n = 503) ..................................................... 68 Table 3.10 Internal reliability and construct reliability of each subscale 70 Table 4.1 Composite variables of the latent variables ............................... 73 Table 4.2 Revision steps and fit indices for the structural model ............ 76 Table 4.3 Standardised parameter estimates for the structural model and effect size .............................................................................. 79 Table 4.4 Effect size of standardised direct effects ................................... 80 Table 4.5 Standardised direct, indirect and total effects for the structural model .......................................................................... 81 Table 5.1 Demographic information of the participating students .......... 97 Table 6.1 Classroom Scenario 1: Weitao’s voluntary role-play ............... 127 Table 6.2 Classroom Scenario 2: Zefeng’s reduced communication ...... 130 Table 6.3 Classroom Scenario 3: Dongmei’s suppressed hesitation ....... 132 Table 6.4 Frequency count for themes across cases ................................ 139 Table 6.5 Frequency count for direct effect of themes on WTC across cases ................................................................................ 140

Abbreviations

ADF AIC AMOS ANOVA BALLI BELCLACOMM BELENGLEA CA CES CET CET-4 CET-6 CFA CFI CI CLT CR CTIS DC df EAP EFA EFL EL ELT ES EXTEREGU FLCAS FLL GFI GLS ICEQ

Asymptotically distribution free Akaike information criterion Analysis of Moment Structures Analysis of variance Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory Beliefs about classroom communication Beliefs about English learning Communication anxiety Classroom Environment Scale College English Test College English Test Band 4 College English Test Band 6 Confirmatory factor analysis Comparative fit index Confidence interval Communicative language teaching Construct reliability Chinese Teacher Immediacy Scale Desire to communicate Degrees of freedom English for academic purposes Exploratory factor analysis English as a foreign language English Lounge English language teaching Effect size External regulation Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale Foreign language learning Goodness-of-fit index Generalised least squares Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire

xiii

xiv

Abbreviations

ID IDENREGU IELTS INTRMOTI KMO L1 L2 LEI MANOVA MAR Max MCAR MCI Min ML MNAR PAF PC R2 RMSEA SD SDT SEM SLA SLSAS SMC SPSS SRMR b STUCOHE TASKORIEN TBLT TEASUPP TLI ULS WIHIC WTC WTCFFACT WTCMFACT a Δdf Δc2 c2

Individual difference Identified regulation International English Language Test System Intrinsic motivation Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin First language Second language Learning Environment Inventory Multivariate analysis of variance Missing at random Maximum Missing completely at random My Class Inventory Minimum Maximum likelihood Missing not at random or nonignorable Principal axis factoring Perceived communication competence used to stand for SMC or b 2 Root mean-square error of approximation Standard deviation Self-determination theory Structural equation modelling Second language acquisition Second language speaking anxiety scale Squared multiple correlation Statistical Package for Social Sciences Standardised root mean-square residual Standardised regression coefficient Student cohesiveness Task orientation Task-based language teaching Teacher support Tucker–Lewis index Unweighted least squares What Is Happening In This Class Willingness to communicate Willingness to communicate in form-focused activities Willingness to communicate in meaning-focused activities Cronbach’s index of internal consistency Difference in degrees of freedom Difference in chi-square values Computed value of a chi-square test

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my great gratitude to the students who participated in the research, in particular, the four students who were willingly involved in the multiple-case study. Without their participation, this book would not have been possible. I also thank the teachers from the eight participating universities in this research for their assistance with the data collection. Many scholars and colleagues have granted me help along the journey of this research. I would like to thank Dr Lindy Woodrow for her tremendous help, professional knowledge and wisdom that have inspired me to accomplish this research and elicited my best as a researcher. My gratitude also goes to Dr Aek Phakiti, Professor Brian Paltridge, Dr Huizhong Shen, Professor Peter MacIntyre, Dr Jenefer Philp and Dr Kamlaitip Pattapong for their help and constructive feedback on this research. My deepest gratitude also goes to Professor David Singleton, Laura Longworth, Dr Xuesong (Andy) Gao and Professor Weiping Wen for their assistance and instruction on the preparation of this manuscript. I thank the Ministry of Education of China (MOE) and the University of Sydney for their support of this research project. This book was supported by MOE Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Project No. 13YJA740041).

xv

Part 1 The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

1 Introduction The impetus for the research reported in this book originated from my classroom experience as an English language teacher in China. More often than not, I observed that, while some students actively engaged in the class activities that I smugly believed were interesting, others preferred to stealthily read a brick-thick vocabulary book hidden under the textbook or handouts in front of them. I was also puzzled that sometimes the same lesson plan highly motivated one class group, yet was responded to with indifference by another. Truly, individual students are different, yet somehow there seem to be ‘secret elements’ going on in a classroom setting which regulate the extent of student involvement. Students’ active participation constitutes a motivating atmosphere facilitative to the undertaking of teaching and learning. What then makes students willing or unwilling to engage in oral English communication in class? This question prompted the inquiry in this research project. This research set out to investigate willingness to communicate (WTC) in English language classrooms among Chinese university students who learn English as a foreign language (EFL). WTC in a second language (L2) is a relatively new individual difference (ID) variable that has been extensively studied in recent years (MacIntyre, 2007; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Wen & Clément, 2003; Yashima, 2002, 2009). It is conceptualised as a state of being ready to engage in L2 communication in particular situations with particular persons (MacIntyre et al., 1998), which directly predicts L2 communication behaviour. High L2 WTC, that is, learners’ high willingness to ‘talk in order to learn’ (Skehan, 1989: 48), can prompt learners to seek out L2 communication opportunities that extend from the classroom context. Frequent communication practice can, in turn, enhance learners’ selfconfidence. Therefore, L2 WTC is a factor facilitating L2 acquisition and also a desired non-linguistic outcome in the process of language learning (MacIntyre, 2007). MacIntyre et al. (1998) argued that fostering learners’ L2 WTC should be the target of language instruction. The L2 WTC theory is of particular relevance to English language teaching (ELT) in China. Similar to other EFL contexts, English is primarily learned as a curriculum subject in China. Students have scarce authentic situations to speak English outside the classroom. This contextual constraint on language acquisition may be compensated for by students creating an intrinsic willingness to use English. Such a desire from within may drive them to seek out and take advantage of any opportunities that arise inside

3

4

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

and outside class to practise English, such as chatting with an Englishspeaking peer online or undertaking voluntary work at international events. Frequent self-initiated L2 communication may facilitate language learning and bring about non-linguistic outcomes such as favourable attitudes and enhanced confidence (Clément et al., 2003), which in turn sustains language learning efforts. In this sense, WTC in EFL contexts has the potential to trigger a virtuous circle of linguistic, cognitive and psychological development in the process of language learning. Therefore, the creation of WTC among EFL learners is of paramount importance in educational settings.

English Language Teaching in China English language has been enjoying a prominent status in China’s education system. In the past decades, China has undergone profound development in its economy, trade, science and technology, creating a high demand for competent English language users from all walks of life. In the mid 1990s, English language education became a compulsory subject from Grade 3 in elementary school to junior high school (Cheng, 2008). It is a compulsory subject in national entrance examinations to colleges and universities. Competence in English is an asset that is greatly valued in the job market (Jin & Yang, 2006) and a ticket to overseas studies, which has been the goal of an increasing number of students in recent years (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006). This need for English stemming from educational policy, societal demand and personal development has somehow led to a ‘craze’ (Zhao & Campbell, 1995: 382) for English in China. At the tertiary education level, English is a compulsory subject for all non-English majors, who are required to study English at least in the first two years. Their English proficiency is tested by the biannual College English Test (CET), which is a nationwide, standardised written test at two levels: Band 4 (CET-4) and Band 6 (CET-6). In many universities, undergraduate students are required to pass CET-4, and postgraduate students to pass CET-6 to obtain their final degree (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b). Therefore, passing this national examination is likely to be a major concern for most students. The CET certificate has become a criterion in the evaluation of college graduates’ English proficiency by the public, and on many occasions a prerequisite for employment (Jin & Yang, 2006). Despite the prestige of English, which is recognised by both teachers and students, ELT in China is facing challenges. On the one hand, the traditional approach to ELT, which emphasises discrete structural knowledge and the use of translation, has been found to be ineffective in producing communicative competence in students (Hu, 2002). To gear Chinese ELT towards contemporary language pedagogy, top-down reforms at various levels have been launched, introducing the principles and practices advocated in communicative language teaching (CLT). The government-directed

Introduction

5

curriculum for college English (Higher Education Division of the Ministry of Education, 2007) highlights the enhancement of listening and speaking skills. Classroom instruction, accordingly, is taking on more communicative features by incorporating oral activities such as oral presentations and group or pair discussions. On the other hand, this pedagogical effort is not always met with committed participation. For instance, it is not unusual for students to question the value of ‘talking’ in class for them to pass the CET. They often show passive oral involvement in class (Hu, 2002; Yu, 2001), and such non-participation and reticence are dissonant with the innovative curriculum and frustrate many teachers. The challenges for ELT in China may partly result from the discrepancy between the Chinese culture of learning and the tenets of the Westernoriginated CLT approach (Hu, 2002; Rao, 1996). CLT places a unique focus on language use, meaningful communication and interaction (Anderson, 1993), whereas traditional Chinese approaches to language learning concern mastery of knowledge, with a focus on grammar, vocabulary and written discourses (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b; Hu, 2002). In the Chinese culture, learning is considered as a process of accumulating knowledge rather than constructing knowledge (Hu, 2002). Cortazzi and Jin (1996a) stated that Chinese students are accustomed to being mentally rather than verbally active in class. Wen and Clément (2003) attributed Chinese students’ unwillingness to communicate in class to Chinese cultural influences. However, there are also strong views opposing the stereotyping of Chinese learners as being passive and submissive, and relying on rote-learning (Biggs, 1996; Cheng, 2000; Shi, 2006). Gu and Schweisfurth (2006) argued that situation-specific factors other than culture alone should be considered to explain students’ learning behaviour. Thus, a closer look at both the individual and contextual factors that possibly account for EFL learners’ L2 WTC is mandated to avoid any stereotyped assumptions and to shed light on ELT in China and other similar EFL contexts.

Overview of the Research In targeting the university students in the Chinese EFL classroom context, this research aimed to explore WTC in English; its relationships with other individual and contextual factors; and its fluctuations over time and across classroom situations. To fit into this specific context, this research drew on hybrid theoretical perspectives from second language acquisition (SLA), Chinese indigenous culture and an ecological paradigm which underscores the relatedness of human behaviour with the environment. I employed a mixed methods approach throughout the overall research project, which involves three phases. A quantitative questionnaire survey preceded by a pilot study was carried out in the first phase, followed by a qualitative multiple-case study in the second phase. L2 WTC was speculated to possess

6

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

trait and state characteristics (Dörnyei, 2005), with the former being stable and enduring, and the latter transient and situation dependent. If trait WTC was captured in the current quantitative survey, then the multiple-case study was intended to reveal the nuance of state WTC across situations. In the final phase, I integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings, based on which meta-inferences were made. This research addressed the following five questions: (1) To what extent are the participants willing or unwilling to communicate using English in their language class? (2) What is the underlying factor structure of the measures of WTC in English, communication confidence in English, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment? (3) What are the interrelationships between WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment? (4) Does the participating cases’ WTC in the language classroom fluctuate over time and across situations? If yes, what are the factors underlying such fluctuations? (5) To what extent does the combination of quantitative and qualitative findings extend the understanding of WTC in Chinese EFL classrooms? The survey study served three subpurposes. First, from the survey results a general picture about the participants’ perceptions of their willingness or unwillingness to communicate using English was generated. Second, I intended to establish the psychometric properties, or the reliability and validity of the measures of the five variables in question, namely, WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment. This was achieved by identifying and validating the factor structure of the items for each scale. The factor structure refers to the dimensions of a latent variable underlying a battery of items supposed to reflect this variable. The dimensions of the five variables measured by their related scales were preliminarily identified in the pilot study using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and then validated in the main survey study using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Validating the factor structures of the constructs is an important prerequisite before testing their relationships (Hair et al., 2006). The third purpose was to explore the interrelationships between WTC and the other four variables using structural equation modelling (SEM) in the main study. SEM is a multivariate statistical technique for estimating the theoretical robustness of proposed relationships between multiple variables (Jöreskog, 1993). In the multiple-case study, I tracked the trajectories of WTC changes in the classrooms of four participating students over seven months in order to explore the dynamic and situational nature of WTC in English. A multiple-case study is an instrumental case study involving several cases

Introduction

7

with the main purpose of investigating a phenomenon or situation with less interest given to individual cases (Stake, 2005). The multiple-case design enables cross-case comparison and contrast which strengthens research findings. Another important consideration in a case study is its boundary. A case is usually embedded in and blurred within its context (van Lier, 2005) and thus, according to Miles and Huberman (1994: 25), researchers need to identify its boundary, that is, to decide ‘what will not be studied’. This study targeted individual students taking an English course in their university English class. This study’s boundary defined the classroom as the context within which the activities of the four focal students, their teachers and classmates were observed. Multiple sources of data were obtained through non-participant classroom observations, semi-structured interviews and learning journals recorded by the participating students. Compared with the close-ended survey in the first phase, interviews with individual students provided me with the flexibilities to elicit the participants’ perspectives, whereas classroom observations served well to supplement contextualised information and triangulated evidence to self-reported data. Learning journals that were regularly kept by the participants greatly facilitated me to trace the developmental trajectories of their WTC over this seven-month inquiry. In the final stage, meta-inferences were made by integrating the quantitative and qualitative findings obtained in the previous phases. The breadth and depth of this research pursued, respectively, by the survey and the multiple-case study jointly contributed to a more comprehensive and contextualised understanding of WTC in Chinese EFL classrooms.

Methodological Framework The research has adopted a mixed methods approach, which characterises a quantitative survey followed by a qualitative inquiry. Quantitative and qualitative methods have long been recognised as a dichotomy reflecting two camps of philosophical stance, also known as the paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 2000) or world view (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative methods reflect the positivism or post-positivism, for which there is truth in the world that can be discovered through scientific methods, which usually involves reducing ideas into ‘a small, discrete set of ideas to test, such as the variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions’ (Creswell, 2009: 7). This camp emphasises objectivity in collecting data, testing hypotheses and revising theories. In contrast, the assumption underlying qualitative methods is that knowledge comes from a complexity of subjective meanings constructed by individual experiences. Researchers need to ‘rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied’ (Creswell, 2009: 8). Qualitative research is often conducted in an open-ended way which focuses

8

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

on revealing participants’ voices and the sense they make of the process in specific research contexts. The mixed methods approach, as the third method situated between the quantitative–qualitative continuum (Dörnyei, 2007b; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), represents a philosophy of pragmatism. A pragmatic stance rejects the notion that any single method can access the truth (Maxcy, 2003). Many researchers pursue answers to problems by maximising the utility of any method regardless of its underlying epistemology. Researchers have called for a shift in focus from paradigmatic debate to the actual research problem, utilising any methods available to obtain knowledge about the problem (Creswell, 2009; Dörnyei, 2007b; Morgan, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The current mixed methods design was guided by ‘methodological purposiveness’ (Richards & Morse, 2007: 25), that is, the research purposes decided the most suitable approach. The first four research questions involved testing the interrelationships between several variables, and exploring the fluctuations in WTC over time and across situations and the factors underlying such fluctuations. The two major purposes were, respectively, confirmatory and exploratory in nature, which demand a mixed methods design (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). A large-scale survey to test the interrelationships between variables coupled with a longitudinal-like qualitative inquiry exactly met the confirmatory and exploratory research purposes. More importantly, the two methods did not stand alone but were integrated to inform, triangulate and complement each other, which contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of WTC in the local classrooms. The integration of the two methods that allows meta-inferences (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2008) is of central importance, as Sandelowski (2003) emphasised that, metaphorically, the merging of quantitative and qualitative entities is like blending apple juice and orange juice to create a new type of fruit juice. The multiple-case study in the second phase involved four participating students over seven months. The case study method is suitable for researching ‘changes in complex phenomena over time’ in specific contexts (van Lier, 2005: 195). It is particularly suitable for uncharted research avenues because it can often achieve ‘a high degree of completeness, depth of analysis and readability’ (Dörnyei, 2007b: 155). The developmental nature of L2 WTC, which is rather underinvestigated, can be tracked and documented by focusing on one or several cases. Case studies also contribute to what quantitative measures cannot achieve (Punch, 2005), which enables in-depth probing of learners’ actual rather than self-reported learning and communication profiles in class. Scholars in the field of SLA have proposed that a case study is a desirable component in a mixed methods design (Dörnyei, 2007b; Duff, 2007).

Introduction

9

Organisation of the Book This book consists of eight chapters. Chapter 2 is organised around the presentation of the theoretical perspectives underpinning this research. I first review L2 WTC research that has been situated in the SLA landscape. The evolution of the concept of WTC, the seminal L2 WTC model (MacIntyre et al., 1998) and the measures of L2 WTC are presented, followed by a review on research into L2 WTC in relation to self-confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and other variables. I then introduce, from a cultural perspective, a revised L2 WTC model in the Chinese context (Wen & Clément, 2003), and four aspects of Chinese indigenous culture that are speculated to influence L2 WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom. An ecological perspective is then presented, from which I argue the necessity for considering the classroom environment in L2 WTC research. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model, which is the overall framework for integrating the research findings, is finally introduced. Chapter 3 presents the many facets of the variables explored in the survey in the first research phase, which are WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment. I first introduce the instrumentation used in the survey and present contextual information about the survey. The profiles of the survey respondents’ WTC are then described. The dimensions of these variables that emerged and were confirmed in this study are also presented. Chapter 4 describes in detail the interrelationships between the five variables revealed by the SEM results. This chapter portrays a general picture of the interdependence of the individual and contextual variables in relation to WTC in Chinese EFL classrooms. Some of the data reported in this chapter were originally published in Language Learning, co-authored with Lindy Woodrow (Peng & Woodrow, 2010). Chapters 5 and 6 take a deeper look at WTC in English as situated in classroom settings. Chapter 5 provides detailed descriptions of the four students participating in the multiple-case study, including their past English learning experience, their attitude towards English learning and their participation in extracurricular activities. Following this, temporal fluctuations in their WTC over the study period recorded in their self-reported journal entries and my classroom observations are described. Chapter 6 reports on the cross-case analyses results. Themes emerging from the data which were found to underlie the students’ WTC fluctuations are presented. The facilitating and debilitating effects of these themes on WTC are also classified. Some of the data reported in Chapters 5 and 6 were originally published in System (Peng, 2011, 2012). Chapter 7 concerns the meta-inferences drawn from the findings of the two research phases in light of the ecological perspective. I first examine the convergent, complementary, expanding and divergent findings of

10

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

the multiple-case study in comparison with the survey results to reach a more comprehensive understanding of WTC. These findings are then interpreted from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model, based on which I propose an ecological model of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom. Finally, extending on the existing theorising in L2 WTC, a situated conceptualisation of WTC in the EFL class is proposed. Chapter 8 concludes the book by addressing the theoretical, methodological and educational implications of this research, and suggestions are given for future research.

2 Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2 This chapter presents the theoretical framework of this research and reviews empirical research in pertinent areas. This research has drawn on theoretical perspectives from second language acquisition (SLA), Chinese culture of learning and communication and an ecological paradigm. In the following sections, I first introduce the concept of willingness to communicate (WTC) in a second language (L2), a heuristic L2 WTC model and the operationalisation of L2 WTC. Then I review the research into L2 WTC and its relation to other variables in the field of SLA, based on which I argue for a cultural perspective and an ecological perspective for the current research. Since this research targeted Chinese university students, Chinese indigenous cultural heritage is particularly relevant to the understanding of the participants’ WTC inside the English language classroom. Four main cultural aspects are particularly addressed: respect for the teacher, learning through memorisation, other-directed self and face concern. I then further contend that with its focus on language classrooms, this research entails an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; van Lier, 2002), which highlights the relatedness between human behaviour and development and the surrounding environment. I then present in detail Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model, which serves as an overarching framework for the interpretation of the research findings. Finally, this chapter concludes with a summary of the hybrid theoretical framework underlying the current research.

L2 WTC Research Situated in Second Language Acquisition Landscape The concept of WTC has evolved from the research area of first language (L1) communication to SLA. While L2 WTC conceptually links to other factors such as social situations, the majority of the research has been conducted within the SLA domain with an explicit focus on enlightening L2 teaching and learning.

Evolution of WTC from L1 to L2 communication The concept of WTC originated in L1 communication research in North America. Building on earlier work on ‘unwillingness to communicate’ 11

12

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

(Burgoon, 1976), ‘predisposition toward verbal behaviour’ (Mortensen et al., 1977) and ‘shyness’ (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982), McCroskey and associates (McCroskey & Baer, 1985; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991) conceptualised WTC as a stable propensity that predisposes individuals to engaging in interpersonal communication. WTC in L1 was considered a personality trait reflecting individuals’ tendencies to engage in communication when given free choice (McCroskey & Baer, 1985). We may often observe that some people are talkative whereas others are quiet. McCroskey and Richmond (1991) explained that verbal communication is about volitional choice that is cognitively processed, and such cognition is largely determined by individuals’ personality. Grounded on prior research in personality and psychology, McCroskey and Richmond (1987, 1991) further proposed several antecedents of L1 WTC including traitlike individual variables and cultural divergence. These trait-like variables are introversion, anomie and alienation, self-esteem, communication competence and communication apprehension. However, there was not much empirical evidence to support the direct effect of these ‘genetically based’ (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2002: 25) antecedents of L1 WTC. MacIntyre’s (1994) L1 WTC study marked an important step in examining the effects of those antecedents on L1 WTC. MacIntyre (1994) used path analysis to hypothesise the relations of L1 WTC and its antecedents. His model showed that communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence directly influenced L1 WTC, whereas anomie, selfesteem and introversion only indirectly influenced L1 WTC via the first two variables. There was no link between alienation and L1 WTC. MacIntyre’s (1994) study was uniquely significant in two aspects: (a) it identified the immediacy of communication apprehension and perceived communication competence with the WTC construct; and (b) it initiated a methodological avenue exploring directional or causal relationships among variables using a path analysis. This statistical endeavour has greatly influenced subsequent empirical L2 WTC research. MacIntyre and associates further applied the concept of WTC to the L2 context, advocating the promotion of communication intention and frequency among L2 learners to enhance L2 acquisition. Using path analysis, MacIntyre and Charos (1996) conducted a pioneering study that hypothesised the joint effect of L2 WTC and L2 motivation on L2 communication frequency. They also expected that perceived competence and L2 anxiety directly influenced L2 WTC. Their model provided a good fit to the data, supporting the plausibility of these proposed relations. Their findings constituted evidence for extending the WTC construct from L1 communication to L2 learning (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). In contrast to L1 WTC that was taken as a trait (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991), L2 WTC has been conceptualised at the levels of trait and state. Trait WTC is a relatively stable personality characteristic, whereas state WTC

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

13

represents a temporary condition that is easily changed. Presumably, an individual has full L1 competence, so his or her disposition to talk seems to reflect a stable personality trait that is less influenced by outside factors. On the contrary, L 2 WTC is more state-like because L2 communication involves more uncertainty; for instance, individuals’ L2 competence may range from zero to full competence (MacIntyre et al., 1998). It is not uncommon that a talkative person remains silent in an L2 conversation situation or an L2 class. Even in the L1 educational setting, MacIntyre et al. (1999: 227) concluded from their study that trait WTC prepared students with the tendency to approach communication, whereas in specific situations it is state WTC that ‘predicts the decision to initiate communication’.

The heuristic L2 WTC model The theory of L2 WTC was proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998: 547) who conceptualised L2 WTC as ‘a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2’. This definition emphasises a state of ‘readiness’ rather than an innate ‘tendency’, implying the situation-dependent nature of the state of being ready. MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposed an L2 WTC model (see Figure 2.1) that integrates an array of linguistic, communicative and social psychological variables that influence L2 WTC and L2 use.

1 Layer I

Desire to 3 4 State communicate Situated Antecedents Communicative with a specific Self-Confidence person

Interpersonal Motivation 8

Layer V

Layer VI

Behavioural Intention

Willingness to Communicate

5 Layer IV

Communication Behaviour

2

Layer II

Layer III

L2 Use

Intergroup Attitudes

6 Intergroup Motivation 9 Social Situation

7 Motivational Propensities L2 Self-Confidence 10 Communicative Competence

11 12 Intergroup Climate

Personality

Affective-Cognitive Context

Social and Individual Context

Figure 2.1 Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547)

14

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

Figure 2.1 shows that this pyramid-shaped model consists of six layers reflecting the degree of proximity of the variables to the top layer, L2 use (Box 1). L2 WTC (Box 2) on Layer II (Behavioural Intention) is posited as the immediate predictor of actual L2 communication. It is perceived as the final step before overt action, i.e. communication (MacIntyre et al., 2001). This implies that if learners have strong L2 WTC, they tend to seek out more opportunities for L2 communication. Because these opportunities cannot be fully created by teachers, MacIntyre et al. (1998) argued that what could be and should be created in the classroom is learners’ L2 WTC, which can prompt them to engage in L2 communication outside the classroom. This model, as Yashima (2012) pointed out, posits L2 proficiency as a means to fulfil communicative goals instead of an end itself. Empirically, a number of studies have shown that L2 WTC directly predicted L2 communication frequency (Clément et al., 2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Yashima et al., 2004) and even Japanese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ English proficiency (Matsuoka, 2006). In cross-cultural settings, Gallagher (2013) has recently identified the predicative role of L2 WTC on daily hassles, including communication difficulties, social isolation and time and financial constraints among Chinese-speaking sojourners in the UK. This suggests that L2 WTC is also an important construct facilitating the L2 learners’ acculturation in other cultural contexts. Layer III (Situated Antecedents) comprises two situational variables: desire to communicate with a specific person (Box 3) and state communicative selfconfidence (Box 4). The former is deemed to be related to one’s affiliation or control motives. Affiliation refers to the intention to socialise with those who are physically close or attractive. The control motive occurs when one seeks to influence others’ behaviour. The magnitude of this desire varies across different situations. Self-confidence is a construct proposed by Clément (1980, 1986), which consists of perceived competence and a lack of anxiety. Similar to the trait-state dimensions of WTC discussed previously, state self-confidence on this layer represents a feeling of confidence temporarily experienced at a particular time. Layer III conveys the hypothesis that desire to communicate (DC) and state confidence experienced at a specific moment directly influence L2 WTC at a particular time. The lower three layers in this model reflect enduring influences on L2 communication. Layer IV (Motivational Propensities) is about motivation enacted at three levels: the interpersonal (Box 5), intergroup (Box 6) and self levels (Box 7). Likewise, affiliation and control are perceived to constitute the motivation in interpersonal and intergroup communications. The concept of ‘intergroup’ (see also Layers V and VI) refers to different ethnic communities speaking dominant or minority languages inside a multi-ethnic society. Finally, self-confidence on this level, compared with the state confidence on Layer III, captures the relatively stable trait confidence. It refers to the ‘overall belief in being able to communicate in the L2 in an adaptive and

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

15

efficient manner’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 551), which also comprises selfperceived competence coupled with a lack of anxiety. Layers V and VI contain variables more remote to communication situations. On Layer V, intergroup attitudes (Box 8) include integrativeness, fear of assimilation and motivation to learn the L2. Integrativeness, which is a key concept in Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model, refers to learners’ intention or desire to identify with the L2 community. Fear of assimilation, on the contrary, is related to learners’ concerns that acquiring L2 competence may threaten their L1 identity. These two opposing attitudes coexisting within learners may promote or restrain L2 communication. Social situation (Box 9) refers to situational factors such as the participants, setting, purpose, topic and channel of communication that impact on L2 communication. Communicative competence (Box 10) is a cognitive factor which comprises five aspects elaborated in SLA: linguistic competence, discourse competence, actional competence, sociocultural competence and strategic competence (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995). The bottom layer consists of two variables: intergroup climate (Box 11) and personality (Box 12). Intergroup climate is defined by the structural characteristics of the community and their perceptual and affective correlates. Structural characteristics refer to the representation of the L1- and L2-speaking members in a community. Perceptual and affective correlates involve ‘the attitudes and values regarding the L2 community and the motivation to adapt and reduce social distance between ethnic groups’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 556). Personality is discussed broadly in terms of authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. The former refers to being submissive to authority and the latter to perceiving one’s own ethnic group as superior to others. The ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1993) personality theory of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to new experience are also included in this category. Factors on this layer function to set the stage for L2 communication, but do not directly determine L2 WTC in particular situations (MacIntyre et al., 1998). This heuristic model synthesises multiple variables ‘in an organic manner’ (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003: 621), which has contributed a valuable social–individual–situational theoretical framework for L2 WTC research. Many ensuing L2 WTC studies have been informed by it and have contributed abundant empirical evidence supporting the relationships between L2 WTC and the variables situated in this model. There are two issues, however, worth considering when applying this model to research with EFL students in monolingual and monocultural contexts. First, this model seems to underscore the importance of inter-ethnic relationships in shaping attitudes and motivation. Among the 10 antecedents of L2 WTC, 3 are intergroup variables (i.e. intergroup motivation, attitudes and climate), occupying a high proportion of conceptual attention. However, these intergroup variables may be less relevant in societies

16

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

where multi-ethnic groups do not exist. For instance, for Chinese students, English-speaking communities are remote to their life. They mainly learn English as a school subject, and may not readily develop the attitudes of integrativeness or fear of assimilation towards the English-speaking community. Therefore, these variables may not have similar explanatory power in China or other similar EFL contexts. Moreover, the influence of local cultural heritage on L2 WTC was not explicitly addressed in this model. Interpersonal communication, be it in L1 or L2, is inevitably influenced by the cultural norms shared in specific cultures, as expressed in Hall’s (1959: 169) well-known remark, ‘culture is communication and communication is culture’. Cultural divergence was proposed as an antecedent of L1 WTC (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991). Empirical evidence has shown that L1 WTC differs substantially across cultural groups (Barraclough et al., 1988). MacIntyre (2007: 572) has also drawn attention to the ‘culturally conditioned restraining forces on communication’ when addressing the culture-dependent aspects of L2 WTC discussed in Wen and Clément (2003). Therefore, as MacIntyre et al. (1998) noted, this heuristic model serves more as a starting point than an end product in L2 WTC research.

Operationalisation of L2 WTC L2 WTC has been widely measured by adopting or adapting McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) WTC scale originally developed for L1 communication. This L1 WTC scale consists of 20 items, measuring WTC in 4 communication contexts (i.e. public, meeting, small group and dyad) with 3 types of receivers (i.e. stranger, acquaintance and friend). Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which (from 0% to 100%) they are willing to communicate with certain interlocutors in certain contexts when completely free to do so. The high reliability of this scale was reported in both L1 WTC research (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Baer, 1985) and L2 WTC research (MacIntyre et al., 2002, 2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) L1 WTC scale, however, may apply to an L2 setting but not necessarily to a foreign language context. Notably, while L2 or SLA have been used as umbrella terms covering second language and foreign language contexts (Ellis, 2008b), a distinction between the two types of learning is often made. In a second language learning context the target language plays ‘an institutional and social role in the community’, whereas in a foreign language learning context the target language is not used in the community and is primarily learned in the classroom (Ellis, 2008b). With that said, it is obvious that the communication situations described in McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) scale (e.g. ‘talk with a garbage collector in the L2’) can be frequently encountered in an L2 context but are far removed

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

17

from a foreign language context, not to mention inside the classroom. For example, situations such as ‘talk[ing] with a stranger while standing in line’ are less likely to happen in class. The application of this generic scale has been questioned in Cao and Philp’s (2006) study in a New Zealand L2 classroom. In an EFL classroom in Hong Kong, respondents reported confusion about ‘whether they should “imagine” if they would communicate in situations they do not normally meet’, e.g. ‘talking to a service station attendant (in English)’ (Asker, 1998: 164). I contended elsewhere (Peng, 2013) that in EFL contexts, WTC inside and outside class needs to be measured differently. While the former requires situation-specific scale items, the latter may be captured accurately by including items describing ‘natural situations’ for communication in English (e.g. ‘when sitting next to a foreigner on a train’) (cf. Peng, 2013: 288). Oriented towards the language classroom context, two L2 WTC scales have recently been developed. MacIntyre et al. (2001) designed a scale measuring L2 WTC in four skill areas of speaking, reading, writing and listening both inside and outside the classroom. Weaver (2005) pointed out that some items in this scale (e.g. ‘A stranger enters the room you are in, how willing would you be to have a conversation if he talked to you first?’) are heavily influenced by the L1 WTC scale and describe situations not frequently occurring in class. Based on interviews with students and teachers, and examinations of textbooks used in different English classes in Japan, Weaver (2005), using the Rasch model, developed a scale measuring L2 WTC in speaking situations (17 items) and writing situations (17 items) in the English class. A statistical analysis of 490 university students’ responses to this scale supported its validity, reliability and psychometric usefulness. It is noteworthy, however, that interlocutors were not made explicit in many of the scale items, as seen in items such as ‘[i]nterview someone in English asking questions from the textbook’ (Weaver, 2005: 415). The word ‘someone’ may be diversely interpreted by respondents as either ‘the teacher’ or ‘classmates’, which could affect the measure of L2 WTC that has been shown to vary across interlocutors (cf. Cao, 2011; MacIntyre et al., 2011). Despite the ambiguous wording, given its statistically supported psychometric properties, Weaver’s (2005) L2 WTC scale may be a promising tool in the EFL classroom context.

L2 WTC in relation to self-confidence Self-confidence, which is situated in Layer II (state confidence) and Layer III (trait confidence) in MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model, was found to be the most immediate predictor of L2 WTC. This construct was originally proposed by Clément and associates (Clément, 1980, 1986; Clément & Kruidenier, 1985) in their social context model. The model postulates that motivation and L2 achievement are mediated by self-confidence which arises

18

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

from the social characteristics of a community in multi-ethnic settings. Social characteristics are addressed in terms of ethnolinguistic vitality and frequency of L2 contact. Ethnolinguistic vitality refers to the status and the demographic representation of and institutional support given to the communities coexisting in the society (Clément, 1980). Frequent and pleasant contact with the L2 community is viewed as an important condition for L2 confidence. Clément et al. (1994) identified that self-confidence was a significant motivational subprocess among 301 Hungarian high school EFL learners. Self-confidence comprises perceived competence and a lack of anxiety. Perceived competence is a cognitive component which concerns learners’ self-evaluation of their L2 skills. MacIntyre et al. (1998) contended that, compared with actual competence, self-perceived competence is a stronger predictor of L2 performance. In L2 communication situations, individuals usually choose to communicate or avoid doing so based on self-judgement of their L2 competence rather than on concrete objective evidence. Language anxiety, which is the affective component of self-confidence, has been widely researched in SLA (MacIntyre, 1999; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999; Young, 1991). It refers to the uncomfortable feelings or negative emotional reactions when learning or using the L2. There are generally three conceptual levels of anxiety: trait, state and situation specific (MacIntyre, 1999; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989). Trait anxiety refers to a stable predisposition to feeling nervous; state anxiety is the temporary nervous feeling experienced at a specific time; and situation-specific anxiety is usually triggered by specific situations. Delivering a speech or speaking with the teacher in an L2 are anxiety-provoking situations. Language anxiety has been conceptualised to be situation specific and is closely tied to L2 learning or using situations (Horwitz, 2001; MacIntyre, 1999). MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) pointed out that foreign language anxiety causes deficits in language performance, and repeated scenarios of being anxious within language contexts lead to situation-specific anxiety. Horwitz et al. (1986: 128) conceptualised foreign language anxiety as ‘a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process’. They developed the widely used Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) that measures anxiety at three dimensions: communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. Communication apprehension arises from interpersonal interactions; test anxiety is related to the fear of failing the course; and fear of negative evaluation is the apprehension about being negatively evaluated by others. Language anxiety has been recognised as a major detrimental variable inhibiting language achievement and performance. According to Horwitz et al. (1986), L2 learners with a high anxiety level may display avoidance behaviour in their L2 learning, such as missing class, postponing assignments

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

19

or avoiding conveying complex messages using their L2. Language anxiety is significantly negatively correlated with course grades or language performance among various learners of Japanese (Aida, 1994; Machida, 2001; Saito & Samimy, 1996), French (Coulombe, 1996; Phillips, 1992), Spanish (Sellers, 2000), Arabic (Elkhafaifi, 2005) and English (Liu, 2006; Woodrow, 2006). The debilitating force of language anxiety is more conspicuous in L2 oral communication situations. Learners’ L2 oral performance is likely to be constrained by limited linguistic resources. Learners may find it hard to fully express ideas which they could articulate well in their native language. The significant negative effect of anxiety on oral achievement or performance has been reported (Machida, 2001; Phillips, 1992; Woodrow, 2006). In Kim’s (1998) study with 57 Korean EFL college students, the participants were considerably more anxious in the conversation class than in the reading class. Woodrow (2006) researched 275 international students enrolled in an English for academic purposes (EAP) course in Australia and reported significantly negative correlations between speaking anxiety and oral assessment scores in the form of the International English Language Test System (IELTS). In Woodrow’s (2006) study, speaking anxiety in class and out of class was measured using the Second Language Speaking Anxiety Scale (SLSAS) and validated using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Another similar concept is communication apprehension. In L1 communication research, communication apprehension was defined as ‘an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons’ (McCroskey, 1984: 13). Horwitz et al. (1986) specified communication apprehension as a component of foreign language anxiety. In L2 WTC studies, the anxiety arousal was sometimes termed communication apprehension (see MacIntyre et al., 2003) or language anxiety (see Clément et al., 2003; MacIntyre et al., 2002). Communication anxiety is probably the most used term in L2 WTC studies (cf. Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). Yashima (2002) stated that communication anxiety captures the anxiety associated with L2 communication in either social or educational situations. This term was used to label anxiety in the current research to avoid cross-disciplinary confusion. In L2 WTC research, perceived competence and language anxiety have been examined either as separate variables (MacIntyre et al., 2002, 2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) or as components of self-confidence (Clément et al., 2003; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004). It has been consistently found that they strongly correlate or predict L2 WTC (MacIntyre et al., 2002; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2011; Yashima, 2002). MacIntyre and Charos’ (1996) path model supported the direct influence of the two variables on L2 WTC. The detrimental effect of foreign language anxiety on L2 WTC among Chinese university students was also reported (Chu, 2008; Liu & Jackson, 2008). Between these two variables, anxiety negatively affects

20

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

perceived competence. Empirical evidence has indicated that anxiety arousal biases perceived competence both in L1 (MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre et al., 1999; McCroskey et al., 1977) and L2 communication (Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre et al., 1997). MacIntyre et al. (1997) examined anxiety, perceived L2 competence and actual L2 competence in a study with 37 anglophone students learning French as an L2 and reported that anxious students tended to underestimate their competence. Perceived competence and anxiety were found to differ in their relationship with L2 WTC. In their study with 59 anglophone university students in Canada using a multiple regression analysis, MacIntyre et al. (2003) found that, for learners with non-immersion programme experience, perceived competence predicted L2 WTC more strongly, while communication anxiety was a stronger predictor for those with immersion experience. Likewise, differing degrees of correlations between L2 WTC and these two variables were also observed in Baker and MacIntyre’s (2000) study with 71 immersion students and 124 non-immersion students in a junior high school in Canada. They speculated that non-immersion students do not have frequent chances to use their L2 and thus their perceived communication competence is low, whereas for immersion students, anxiety is a more salient factor because they are faced with high expectations to acquire the L2 (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; Yashima, 2012). These findings also suggest that the relationship of the two variables with L2 WTC is not stable and L2 WTC research needs to consider learners’ L2 contact and experience (MacIntyre et al., 2002). Self-confidence encompassing perceived competence and a lack of anxiety has been consistently found to directly influence L2 WTC in different contexts, such as Canada (Clément et al., 2003), Iran (Ghonsooly et al., 2012), Japan (Fushino, 2008; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004), Korea (Kim, 2004) and Turkey (Cetinkaya, 2005). Yashima (2002) conducted a study with 297 Japanese university students and analysed the data using structural equation modelling (SEM). In Yashima’s well-fitting model, the path leading from confidence to L2 WTC was significant, indicating the direct effect of confidence on L2 WTC. This result was consistently supported in Kim’s (2004) study with 191 Korean EFL university students and Cetinkaya’s (2005) study with 356 Turkish college students, both of which employed SEM. More recently, Ghonsooly et al. (2012) examined 158 Iranian university students’ L2 WTC using SEM. In their structural model, communication confidence also directly predicted L2 WTC. Similar to the operationalisation of L2 WTC, communication anxiety and perceived competence are often measured using items adopted from McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) L1 WTC scale. For example, items in this scale have been adapted to measure how anxious and competent the respondents perceive they are in certain situations (i.e. public, meeting, small group and dyad) with certain interlocutors (i.e. stranger, acquaintance and friend). Consequently, L2 WTC, perceived competence and anxiety are often

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

21

measured using items with identical content. This probably could enhance comparison. However, it may also cause confusion or respondent fatigue if careful instruction is not available. Besides, as previously argued, the items in this L1 WTC scale are less relevant to EFL classroom contexts, and similar cautions should be taken when its items are used to measure perceived competence and anxiety.

L2 WTC in relation to motivation and attitudes Motivation and attitudes are factors closely related to L2 WTC. L2 motivation research from the 1960s until the 1990s was greatly influenced by the Canadian social psychological approach proposed by Gardner and associates (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). This approach draws on social milieu factors such as attitudes and cultural beliefs to account for language learning (Dörnyei, 2005). According to Gardner’s (1985) well-known socio-educational model, language achievement is influenced by motivation and language aptitude. The core notion is integrative motive, which has tripartite components: integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation and motivation, with the first two influencing the last one. Integrativeness refers to individuals’ inclination to identify with the L2 community, which is operationalised by integrative orientation, attitudes towards the L2 community and interests in foreign languages. Attitudes towards the learning situation subsume learners’ evaluation of the language teacher and the L2 course. Motivation is measured by L2 learners’ desire to learn the L2, the effort invested and the attitude towards learning. The core tenet of this model is that ‘attitudes related to an L2 community exert a strong influence on one’s L2 learning’ (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003: 61). This model has substantially informed L2 motivation research (see Dörnyei [2005] for recent reviews; see Masgoret and Gardner [2003] for a meta-analysis on empirical studies). L2 WTC theorising and early research were consistent with the tenets posited in the socio-educational model. In their L2 WTC model, MacIntyre et al. (1998) postulated that the effect of motivation and attitudes on L2 WTC is indirect and channelled through other variables. This speculation has been supported by rich empirical evidence. In many L2 WTC studies, motivation and attitudes were investigated using the operational definitions in the socio-educational model (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre et al., 2002, 2003). The correlation between motivation/attitudes and L2 WTC has been widely established. Baker and MacIntyre (2000) reported significant correlations between the three variables. Such correlations were also observed by MacIntyre et al. (2002) in 268 English-speaking high school students learning French and by MacIntyre et al. (2003) in 27 anglophone university students with immersion French programme experience. Tannenbaum and Tahar (2008) conducted a study with 143 Jewish and Arab sixth-grade

22

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

children in Israel who were learning Hebrew or Arabic as a target language. In this research site where historical conflict between the Jewish and Arab communities exists, they identified significant positive correlations between the three variables. However, from a statistical perspective, a correlation analysis does not pinpoint any directional effect. In my previous study (Peng, 2007a) with 174 college students in an intensive English language programme in China, the results of a multiple regression analysis showed that integrative motive only explained a small proportion of the variance of L2 WTC. A number of other studies employing SEM consistently revealed that motivation indirectly influences L2 WTC via communication confidence, while attitudes directly impact on L2 WTC (Cetinkaya, 2005; Ghonsooly et al., 2012; Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). In many studies, another attitudinal construct, international posture (Yashima, 2002), was used as an alternative to integrativeness in EFL contexts. International posture refers to learners’ interest in or ‘favourable attitudes toward what English symbolizes’ (Yashima, 2002: 57). Yashima (2002) argued that given the pervasiveness of English, EFL learners are less likely to identify with any specific L2 community and their attitudes towards communities connected by English may be more pertinent to their motivation to learn English. International posture was reflected by intercultural friendship orientation, interest in international vocation/activities, interest in foreign affairs, intergroup approach/avoidance tendency (Yashima, 2002) and ‘having things to communicate with the world’ (Yashima, 2009: 156). Yashima and associates (Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004) found that international posture directly influenced L2 WTC and motivation, while motivation indirectly impacted on L2 WTC through communication confidence. These results were replicated by Cetinkaya (2005) and Ghonsooly et al. (2012). Kim’s (2004) study in the Korean context replicated the indirect effect of motivation on L2 WTC, whereas the direct effect of international posture on L2 WTC was not identified. Such discrepancy in results may be attributed to the way that the variables were operationalised. For instance, motivation was measured by motivational intensity and desire to learn English in Yashima (2002), whereas attitude towards learning English was also an operational component of motivation in Kim (2004). Despite these previous findings concerning the relationships between L2 WTC and motivation, the adequacy of the socio-educational model in capturing the motivation of learners across diverse geographical or cultural backgrounds has been widely challenged since the 1990s (Dörnyei, 1990, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Foreign language learners who mainly learn the target language as a school subject have little authentic interaction with the L2 community (Dörnyei, 1990). This is especially true for Chinese EFL students whose English language learning is closely tied to examinations. Dörnyei (1990) argued that foreign language learners may not have

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

23

sufficient L2 experience to develop the for-or-against attitudes towards the L2 community. Warden and Lin (2000) reported a lack of integrative motivation in their study with 500 Taiwan EFL university students. Hence, there is a need for diverse perspectives on motivation to allow for more insights into L2 WTC of EFL learners. The current research considers Noels and associates’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Noels, 2001; Noels et al., 2000) derived from the selfdetermination theory (SDT) in educational psychology (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002) as an informative framework. The SDT assumes that human beings have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the need for volitional control over one’s behaviour; competence is the need for exercising one’s capacities; and relatedness is the need for close bonds or attachments with others. Deci and Ryan (2000) stated that satisfying these three basic needs will facilitate intrinsically motivated behaviour and the integration of extrinsic motivations. Within the SDT, intrinsic motivation pertains to enjoyment and a feeling of satisfaction associated with an activity. It is composed of three substrates: knowledge, accomplishment and stimulation, respectively, referring to motivations for gaining new knowledge, for achieving goals and for the rewarding sensation when performing the task (Noels et al., 2000). Intrinsically motivated learners will embrace activities that have the potential to evoke their creativity or challenge their current competence. Extrinsic motivation refers to regulations that are separated from the enjoyment of the activity itself. It consists of four types of regulation: external, introjected, identified and integrated, which are situated along a continuum of self-determination. External regulation refers to the performance of an activity that is regulated by external incentives (e.g. for a better job). Introjected regulation represents reasons associated with learners’ self-induced pressure to perform an activity (e.g. feeling guilty if they cannot speak English). With identified regulation, performing an activity is driven by goals internalised as personally important. Integrated regulation, representing the highest degree of self-determined regulation, is a state of fully assimilating an activity into one’s values, beliefs or the self. The last type of regulation is relatively understudied because it may only be evident among advanced language users (Noels, 2001). The rationale for choosing the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation framework for the current research was twofold. First, the tenets of the SDT are consistent with the ecological perspective adopted in this research (which is presented later). The SDT takes an organismic dialectical perspective and views human beings’ basic psychological needs, including autonomy, competence and relatedness, as being either supported or thwarted by environmental contingencies (Ryan & Deci, 2002). From the ecological perspective, the totality of individuals should be examined in their interaction with the environment (van Lier, 2002). Inside the classroom social environment in a Chinese cultural context, the need for relatedness seems particularly relevant

24

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

to classroom dynamics. Deci and Ryan (2000) speculated that learners in a collectivistic culture value relatedness and group norms, and tend to internalise the choices made by others. According to Wen and Clément (2003), group cohesiveness, teacher support and attachment to in-group members are factors influencing Chinese students’ WTC inside the classroom. These factors obviously correspond to relatedness within the SDT. Compared with the macro inter-ethnic perspective implied in the socioeducational model, the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation framework offers a ‘cognitive perspective’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 74) focused on the micro classroom context. It is more suitable for the current monocultural and monolingual research context. Noels (2009: 299) noted that the SDT represents ‘the experiences of language learners across different contexts’. This framework for L2 motivation has been widely applied in EFL contexts (Chu, 2008; Wu, 2003; Yashima, 2009). Yashima (2009) found that the higher degree of selfdetermined types of extrinsic motivation (identified and integrated regulations) correlated most strongly with L2 WTC and international posture.

L2 WTC in relation to learner beliefs Research interest in learner beliefs in SLA started in the 1980s in an effort to understand what learner beliefs lead to good learning behaviour. In empirical research, because of the complexity involving human beings’ mental conception, the concept of learner beliefs was deemed ‘elusive’ (Barcelos, 2003a: 7) which is difficult to define. It has been researched under the terms metacognitive knowledge (Wenden, 1987, 1998), culture of learning languages (Barcelos, 1995) and culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a). Overall, the learner beliefs that have been studied may fit into two categories: cognitive beliefs and sociocultural beliefs. Research into the cognitive dimension of learner beliefs focused on what learners believe about the nature of language and language learning. From this perspective, learner beliefs were often viewed as equivalent to metacognitive knowledge (Wenden, 1987, 1998, 1999). Wenden (1991: 163) defined metacognitive knowledge as ‘the stable, statable although sometimes incorrect knowledge that learners have acquired about language, learning and the language learning process’. These beliefs may be shaped by learners’ past experience (i.e. instructional experience) (Ellis, 2008b). Mori (1999) investigated the beliefs of 187 college students in the USA learning Japanese as a foreign language and reported that beliefs about language learning were distinct from epistemological beliefs (i.e. beliefs about learning in general). Her study also indicated that learners who believed that the target language is easy, or accepted multiple and ambiguous answers were likely to outperform those who held the opposite belief. The sociocultural dimension of learner beliefs has recently received increasing attention (Alanen, 2003; Barcelos, 2003a). Barcelos (1995: 40)

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

25

termed sociocultural beliefs as the culture of learning languages, referring to ‘learners’ intuitive implicit (or explicit) knowledge made of beliefs, myths, cultural assumptions and ideals about how to learn languages’. Cortazzi and Jin (1996a: 169) defined the culture of learning as the ‘taken-for-granted frameworks of expectations, attitudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good learning, about how to teach or learn, whether and how to ask questions’, which have their roots in specific cultures. Cortazzi and Jin’s (1996a) articulation of the Chinese culture of learning was classified as learner beliefs about SLA in Barcelos (2003a). The sociocultural perspective on learner beliefs highlights that language learning does not happen in a cultural vacuum, and learner beliefs are borne out of particular sociocultural contexts. Kalaja (1995: 192) contended that equating metacognitive knowledge with learner beliefs is problematic, since this view perceives beliefs as ‘cognitive entities to be found inside the minds of language learners’. Alanen (2003) proposed that a beliefs system is a psychological and cultural tool mediating human activity. Cognitive and sociocultural beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Learner beliefs bear both cognitive and sociocultural dimensions (White, 2008). Inside a classroom setting, when learners strongly believe that certain classroom methodologies (e.g. playing games) are inappropriate, this belief reflects their cognitive conception, that is, what they know or believe about teaching and learning (Wenden, 1999). It may also reflect a cultural source; for instance, in the Chinese cultural context, playing games is traditionally not a component of formal classroom teaching (Rao, 1996). Furthermore, the classroom setting is not only a place for language learning, but also a mirrored society to which specific social norms apply. Learners’ beliefs about how to socialise in a society are simultaneously lived out in the daily classroom context. In this regard, the cognitive and sociocultural dimensions of learner beliefs seem to be relational and inseparable. Learner beliefs are not static but emergent, dynamic and contextual (Barcelos, 2003a; Ellis, 2008a). Learners’ belief systems are often reinforced or modified during the process of interacting with the social context. The developmental nature of beliefs has been articulated in many studies (Benson & Lor, 1999; Dufva, 2003; Kern, 1995; Tanaka, 2004; White, 1999, 2008). Kern (1995) reported sizeable changes in the beliefs of 180 university learners of French in the USA over one semester’s study. He observed that the participants increasingly endorsed, for instance, the belief that ‘if mistakes in the beginning are allowed they are hard to avoid later’. Woods (2003: 208) argues for a ‘process-based and dynamic orientation’ to learner beliefs research, focusing on the interaction between learners and the teacher in the language classroom. Early research in this area mainly identified types of learner beliefs. Horwitz (1988) designed the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), which measures five areas of beliefs: difficulty of language learning;

26

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

foreign language aptitude; the nature of language learning; learning and communication strategies; and motivation and expectations. Extending on the BALLI, Sakui and Gaies (1999) validated a beliefs instrument in their study of Japanese university students using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Four factors were identified in this instrument: beliefs about a contemporary (communicative) orientation to learning English; about a traditional orientation to learning English; about the quality and sufficiency of classroom instruction; and about foreign language aptitude and difficulty. Learner beliefs constitute a promising avenue in L2 WTC research. L2 WTC, according to MacIntyre et al. (2001), is conceptually akin to behavioural intention in Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action and its extension theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2005). This theory proclaims that behavioural intention is determined by a personal factor (personal evaluation of the consequences of performing a behaviour) and a social factor (subjective norms). Both of these factors involve individuals’ beliefs about the consequences of performing certain behaviour and beliefs about how significant others evaluate this behaviour. The latter type of beliefs in particular is consistent with the foregoing discussed sociocultural beliefs. Dörnyei (2005: 209) postulated that learner beliefs are ‘inherently linked to WTC’. Recently, the relation between L2 WTC and learner beliefs, while being understudied, has been accorded research attention. Fushino (2008) contributed a concept of beliefs about L2 group work to capture Japanese university students’ beliefs about the value and usefulness of group work, and about traditional instruction orientation. Her SEM analysis indicated that beliefs about L2 group work significantly indirectly influenced WTC in L2 group work via communication confidence in L2 group work. Fushino (2010) speculated that given their indirect effect on WTC, beliefs about L2 group work should be located in Layer IV in MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) L2 WTC model. My qualitative inquiry (Peng, 2007b: 257) also indicated that the beliefs of Chinese university students (e.g. ‘If you speak up too much the others will loathe you’) influenced their WTC inside the class. Given the broad conceptual range of beliefs, the variable of learner beliefs in this research was conceptualised as learners’ value judgment on how English should be learned and taught (cognitive aspect) and what learning and communication behaviour is appropriate in the English classroom (sociocultural aspect). This conceptualisation distinguishes learner beliefs from other concepts in the literature, such as self-efficacy beliefs (Graham, 2006; Yang, 1999) and motivational beliefs (Yang, 1999). This distinction is important to avoid conceptual overlap because self-confidence and motivation were also variables examined in this research. The present research considered learner beliefs as a more preferable variable than integrativeness or international posture in explaining WTC in class. As argued previously, integrativeness was less applicable in the EFL context.

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

27

International posture captures generic attitudes towards what English symbolises (Yashima, 2002) and does not specifically relate to the classroom context. In contrast, the learner beliefs conceptualised in this research were more relevant to the understanding of classroom WTC. In addition, beliefs inform attitudes (Mantle-Bromley, 1995). Delving into learners’ belief systems or the source of their attitudes could reveal more insights. As Benson and Lor (1999) stated, teachers need to understand learner beliefs if they are to influence learners’ attitudes and behaviour.

Qualitative research of L2 WTC Another salient methodological avenue in this area is the adoption of qualitative research approaches, which have revealed many more individual and contextual factors related to L2 WTC. In particular, classroom contextual factors in educational settings have been investigated. In Saint Léger and Storch’s (2009) study with 32 students learning French in an Australian university, competitive and threatening classroom environments were reported to affect L2 WTC. Kang (2005b) conducted a qualitative study with four Korean students attending a conversation partner programme in the USA. Based on the data collected through semi-structured interviews, video-taped conversations and stimulated recall, she contended that L2 WTC emerged situationally as an interactive effect of three psychological conditions, namely, excitement, responsibility and security, and three situational variables, namely, topic, interlocutors and conversational context. Cao and colleagues (Cao, 2011; Cao & Philp, 2006) contributed to the knowledge of how various factors live out and interact to create WTC in New Zealand’s L2 classrooms. Cao and Philp (2006)’s study with 10 students found that situational L2 WTC was influenced by a range of contextual factors including group size, familiarity with interlocutor(s), interlocutor(s)’ participation, familiarity with topics under discussion, self-confidence, medium of communication and cultural background. More recently, Cao (2011) advanced further in-depth evidence obtained through classroom observations, stimulated recall interviews and reflective journals. Adopting an ecological perspective, she highlighted that individual, linguistic and classroom environmental factors interdependently coalesce to impact on L2 WTC in class. Fluctuations in L2 WTC were also identified in her studies. Although no absolute patterns emerged, Cao (2006) observed that L2 WTC generally increased as a result of enhanced familiarity with interlocutors and instructional practices. More recently, other qualitative methods have been initiated to research L2 WTC. MacIntyre et al. (2011) used the focused essay technique to elicit situations where 100 adolescent French immersion students reported most and least willing to communicate using French. The data revealed the participants’ ambivalence about communicating in the target language, that is,

28

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

they were most or least willing to communicate in similar or even identical situations. Examples of the situations are communicating with teachers and friends at school, with family or encounters with media. MacIntyre and Legatto (2011) conceived of WTC as a dynamic system and developed an idiodynamic approach to studying momentary changes in WTC among six English-speaking learners of French. They video-taped the participants’ performance in eight tasks, recorded their self-rating changes in WTC during the tasks and accounts for the changes. This study reveals complex moment-to-moment interconnectedness between WTC and factors such as anxiety and searching the memory for vocabulary. Instead of examining causal relationships between WTC and other variables, the increasing attention to the dynamic and situated nature of L2 WTC is in accordance with what Ushioda (2009) regards as ‘person-in-context’ perspective and also the ‘social turn’ in SLA research (Atkinson, 2002; Block, 2003).

A Cultural Perspective on L2 WTC A particular line of inquiry in L2 WTC is the consideration of learners’ indigenous cultural backgrounds. Wen and Clément (2003) advanced a model accommodating Chinese indigenous cultural influence on L2 WTC. They argued that MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model was based on research conducted in Western countries and did not entirely match the Chinese local context. To account for Chinese EFL learners’ WTC in class, they modified MacIntyre et al.’s model by relocating some variables. Wen and Clément (2003) particularly separated the DC from L2 WTC in their model (see Figure 2.2), which are situated on Layer III and Layer II, respectively, in MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model. They argued that desire denotes ‘a deliberate choice or preference’ while willingness focuses on ‘the readiness to act’ (Wen & Clément, 2003: 25). Following the conceptualisation of L2 WTC as ‘a readiness to enter into discourse’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547), Wen and Clément (2003) contended that DC does not necessarily lead to readiness. As shown in Figure 2.2, the one-way arrow leading from DC to WTC and the four vertical arrows coming between the horizontal arrow suggest that although Chinese students may have a preference to speak English in class, their preference does not necessarily develop into a state of being ready to do so. This process can be hindered by many factors, such as classroom societal factors, personality factors, motivation orientation and affective perceptions. Wen and Clément (2003) further interpreted students’ learning and communication behaviour from the Chinese cultural perspective. They posited that ‘(Confucian) cultural values are the dominant force shaping the individual’s perception and way of learning, which is manifested in L2 communication’ (Wen & Clément, 2003: 18). This revised L2 WTC model is an important framework for accounting for L2 WTC from an emic cultural perspective.

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2 Societal Context

29

Motivational Orientation

- Group cohesiveness

- Affiliation

- Teacher support

- Task-orientation

DC

WTC

Personality Factors - Risk-taking - Tolerance of ambiguity

Affective Perceptions - Inhibited monitor - Positive expectation of evaluation

Figure 2.2 Variables moderating the relation between DC and WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom (Wen & Clément, 2003: 25)

Cultural factors have also been investigated in the EFL classroom context. Consistent with Wen and Clément’s (2003) cultural perspective, I identified elsewhere (Peng, 2007b) eight themes that are related to L2 WTC, which were speculated to bear a Chinese cultural influence (i.e. communicative competence, language anxiety, risk-taking, learners’ beliefs, classroom climate, group cohesiveness, teacher support and classroom organisation). Pattapong (2009) reported that in the Thai EFL classroom context, L2 WTC was a process of reciprocal interaction between cultural practices and cultural mentalities existing both internal and external to L2 learners. Matsuoka (2006) proposed a latent construct, predisposition against verbal behaviour, to account for Japanese students’ innate inhibition from verbal behaviour. Her study showed that this construct, which was measured by introversion and communication apprehension, exerted a negative effect on L2 WTC. Matsuoka’s study is original in quantitatively testing cultural influence on L2 WTC. In the current research context, the influence of Confucian philosophy and values is pervasive and functions as collectively accepted ideologies and behavioural norms. In what follows, I elaborate on four aspects of Chinese culture of learning and communication that are considered of particular relevance to the present research: respect for the teacher, learning through memorisation, other-directed self and face concern. In the traditional Chinese culture, the teacher is highly respected. From teachers’ own perceptive, they should act as role models to cultivate moral behaviour among students (Gao & Watkins, 2001). This socially defined

30

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

sacred role has bestowed a high hierarchical status on the teacher. The old saying, yi ri wei shi, zhong shen wei fu, ‘A teacher for a day is a father for life’, expresses the authoritarian role of the teacher. In the classroom, the teacher is usually viewed as the authority that is respected and not challenged or confronted. The teacher is expected to be knowledgeable, competent in presenting knowledge and responsible for monitoring students’ progress (Brick, 2004), while students should be attentive, disciplined in class and master the knowledge transmitted by the teacher. A teachercentred classroom culture is typical in educational institutions. Starting from their primary school, students are not supposed to take the initiative to voice opinions or ask questions in class unless invited to do so (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a). This ‘submissive way of learning’ (Wen & Clément, 2003: 19) is apparently contrary to contemporary approaches to teaching where authentic communication in class is advocated. For instance, in a communicative language teaching (CLT) context, role-play is considered beneficial for promoting L2 competence, whereas it was reportedly resisted by Chinese students because in their perceptions, playing is not learning and the teacher in this case is seemingly not doing his or her job of transmitting knowledge (Yu, 2001). As Hu (2002) pointed out, in the perceptions of Chinese teachers and students, learning is a serious enterprise involving effort but not entertainment. Learning through memorisation, imitation and repetition rather than interaction is another marked feature of the Chinese culture of learning. These learning approaches, according to Cortazzi and Jin (1996a), have to do with the way that students learn their L1 in which a rather fixed order is followed, starting from learning the Chinese characters and words before moving on to develop sentences and texts. This learning style is thus naturally extended to learning a new language. It can be commonly observed that Chinese students spend a large amount of time repetitively memorising or reciting English vocabulary, grammatical sentences and texts. While many researchers argue that this style involves deep learning which leads to profound understanding (Biggs, 1996; Marton et al., 1996), these repetitive approaches may work effectively for learning L1 or content subjects in general but are insufficient for foreign language learning in particular. If the nature of language learning is for effective communication, the lack of interaction and language use is unlikely to foster communicative competence. This is probably one of the reasons why many Chinese students who are good at grammar-based written examinations still have difficulty in communicating effectively (Wen & Clément, 2003). Other-directed self-construal typically characterises the culture of communication in China. Self, in Western culture, is ‘an independent entity with free will, emotions, and personality’ (Gao, 1996: 83). In Chinese culture, however, an individual self is incomplete and needs to be understood

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

31

in relation to the other party (Sun, 1991). The hierarchical relationships observed in Chinese society particularly nurture the other-directed self. People occupying low positions are expected to show respect and submission to those in higher positions. Other-directed self-construal often makes people inclined to endorse solidarity and social belongingness. Keeping a low profile is a crucial way to stay unified with the community, because the philosophy derived from Taoism and Confucianism, han xu, ‘being reserved and implicit’ and zhong yong, ‘modesty’ are, however undiscernible, practised in social life. In other words, modesty and humbleness are socially observed norms in interpersonal communication (Gao, 1998). This cultural trait may predispose individuals not to be assertive or display vastly different communication behaviour in class. Face protection is an important concern in Chinese society. Face refers to ‘an individual’s claimed sense of positive image in a relational and network context’ (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998: 53). Chinese people are sensitive to their public image and concerned about what others think of them. ‘Losing face’ will bring disgrace and humiliation on a person and even reduce him or her to being unaccepted socially (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998). Face concern may particularly influence students’ communication behaviour in class. As Dörnyei (2007a: 723) pointed out, the language classroom is an ‘inherently face-threatening environment’. With limited L2 competence, students face risks of making mistakes and being ridiculed or negatively evaluated by others. Because self-construal in this culture is other-directed, negative attitudes and evaluations from others can impinge on one’s face and self-esteem. To avoid these risks, students often adopt face-saving strategies such as silence or communication reduction (Liu, 2001). This largely explains the low risk-taking often observed with Chinese EFL learners (Peng, 2007b; Wen & Clément, 2003). Scholars have further speculated that Chinese students are reluctant to initiate questions with their teacher because they want to save face for teachers by not challenging their authority (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a; Liu & Littlewood, 1997). Therefore, face concern may be an important aspect affecting WTC inside Chinese EFL classrooms. Notwithstanding the necessity of a cultural perspective on learners’ WTC, two issues are noteworthy. First, I have no intention to claim that one culture is superior to any other. Further, the influence of Chinese indigenous culture on WTC addressed above should not be viewed as static or a universal explanation of any learning and communication behaviour. For instance, recent studies have demonstrated that communication-oriented pedagogy is embraced by contemporary Chinese students (Littlewood, 2010; Shi, 2006). This indicates that culture is fluid and dynamic. In modern societies, local culture is inevitably influenced by other cultures in the process of intercultural communication and exchange. Regarding how WTC is lived out in the classroom setting, a close look at classroom contextual contingencies is mandated to avoid falling into cultural stereotypes.

32

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

An Ecological Perspective on L2 WTC The individual, situational and cultural effects on L2 WTC previously discussed rightly justify an ecological perspective. Ecology refers to the ‘study of the relationships between all the various organisms and their physical environment’ (van Lier, 2002: 144). Central to the ecological paradigm is the consideration of the dynamic interaction between human beings and their environment. The ecological perspective is compatible with the pervasive social turn in the SLA research landscape and it keeps abreast of other theories of its kind, such as sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978) and sociocognitive perspective (Atkinson, 2002). These perspectives, albeit with their own theoretical foci, acknowledge the situated nature of learning and cognitive development embedded in individuals’ interactions with contexts. In light of the ecological perspective, the language classroom is not just a gathering place for learning but a micro social setting where the teacher and learners interact as social members who communicate, negotiate and compromise with each other. As Breen (2001: 128) noted, a language classroom is ‘an arena of subjective and intersubjective realities which are worked out, changed, and maintained’. Inside this context, learners’ psychological and linguistic factors are not isolated from the social and interpersonal relations built up in the classroom. Tudor (2001) argued for an ecological perspective to relate classroom dynamics to individual students’ subjectivity or perceptions which derive from past experience and other sociocultural influences outside the immediate classroom. The ecological paradigm informed the current research at two stages: First, it inspired the consideration of classroom environment as a variable in the survey, the first research phase. Second, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) ecosystems model was adopted as an overarching framework for interpreting the blended results obtained from the survey and the follow-up multiplecase study.

Dimensions of language classroom environment Research into the classroom psychosocial environment is an established area in educational research (Fraser, 2002). Most classroom environment studies have been conducted in maths or science classes with secondary or high school students. Mostly, these studies have aimed to examine associations between the environment and cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Fraser, 1994), to evaluate educational innovations (Khoo & Fraser, 1998) or to find out discrepancies between student and teacher perceptions of actual and preferred environments (Wong & Fraser, 1996). Classroom environment research has been highly influenced by Moos’ (1979) seminal work, in which classroom environment was conceptualised

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

33

to comprise three dimensions: (a) relationship; (b) personal growth or goal orientation; and (c) system maintenance and change. The relationship dimension assesses students’ perceptions of their attentiveness and willingness to participate in class activities, student cohesion and the degree of support from the teacher. The personal growth or goal orientation dimension measures task orientation (i.e. achieving academic objectives) and competition among students. The system maintenance and change dimension assesses ‘the extent to which the environment is orderly and clear in its expectations, maintains control, and responds to change’ (Moos, 1979: 16). A conspicuous feature of classroom environment research is the large number of scales that have been developed, for instance, the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and the Classroom Environment Scale (CES) that emerged in the late 1960s and, more recently, the Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ), My Class Inventory (MCI) and What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) (see Fraser, 2002). The WIHIC scale was developed and refined by Fraser and associates (Aldridge & Fraser, 2000; Fraser et al., 1996), and has been widely used in Australia (Zandvliet & Straker, 2001) and Canada (Raaflaub & Fraser, 2002) and cross-validated in Asian countries and regions such as Singapore (Chua et al., 2001), Korea (Kim et al., 2000), Malaysia (Zandvliet & Man, 2003) and Taiwan (Aldridge et al., 1999; Aldridge & Fraser, 2000). The WIHIC consists of seven 8-item scales assessing student cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, investigation, task orientation, cooperation and equity. Table 2.1 displays a summary of the dimensions of this scale under Moos’ (1979) schema and sample items. The measures of classroom environment originating in educational research have implications on research of language classrooms. Palacios (1998) adapted the CES scale and found that classroom environment significantly impacted on language anxiety. Kubanyiova (2006) adapted the CES Table 2.1 Summary of the scale of What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) Dimension

Scale (no. of items)

Relationship

Student cohesiveness (8) Teacher support (8)

Personal growth/ goal orientation

System maintenance and change

Involvement (8) Investigation (8) Task orientation (8) Cooperation (8) Equity (8)

Sample item I know other students in this class. The teacher takes a personal interest in me. I explain my ideas to other students. I carry out investigations to test my ideas. I pay attention in this class. I work with other students in this class. I am treated the same as other students in this class.

34

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

and reported no effect of classroom environment on a group of in-service EFL teachers’ cognitive and behavioural changes. Burden and Williams (1998) investigated the language classroom environment in a comprehensive school in England using the ICEQ. They pointed out that Fraser and associates’ classroom environment scales were applicable to language classrooms, although adjustments were needed to account for the difference between science and language learning. It appears that classroom environment research in general education can shed light on SLA research, which is still underinvestigated (Burden & Williams, 1998). Three dimensions of the language classroom environment were considered pertinent to classroom WTC in this research: teacher support, student cohesiveness and task orientation. These dimensions correspond to the three components (i.e. the teacher, learners and learning tasks) which were proposed as interplaying elements underlying language classroom reality by Clément et al. (1994) and Williams and Burden (1997). Teacher support captures the teacher’s help, friendliness, trust and interest in students (Dorman, 2003). Inside the language classroom, the teacher undoubtedly exerts a major influence on students’ learning psychology and behaviour. Wen and Clément (2003) argued that teacher support, especially teacher immediacy, is a major factor influencing L2 WTC. Teacher immediacy refers to students’ perceptions of their degree of physical and psychological closeness to their teacher (Richmond et al., 1987). Perceptions of teacher immediacy were found to have a direct influence on students’ affective learning and/or cognitive learning (Andersen, 1979; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b). Zhang and Oetzel (2006a) developed a Chinese Teacher Immediacy Scale (CTIS) to measure Chinese students’ perceptions of teacher immediacy behaviour. In educational motivation research, the relationship between the teacher and students is an important factor contributing to classroom social environment that, in turn, influences learning motivation (Boekaerts, 2001; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Wosnitza & Nenniger, 2001). Student cohesiveness taps into how students know, help and support each other (Dorman, 2003). It is a factor perceived to greatly influence classroom interaction and learning (Clément et al., 1994; Wen & Clément, 2003). Dörnyei and associates (Dörnyei, 2007a; Dörnyei & Murphey, 1999, 2003) introduced insights from the field of group dynamics (Forsyth, 1999) to argue for the importance of generating group cohesiveness in the L2 class. In contemporary language classrooms, learning activities are typically conducted through pair work or group work (Dörnyei, 2005). Learners in a cohesive group feel encouraged and secure to proceed with studying and performing learning tasks. Scholars have contended that group cohesion is one of the most indispensable dimensions of a successful language class (Clément et al., 1994; Dörnyei, 1997; Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003). Senior (2001: 251) noted that a good language class is exemplified by ‘the presence of a feeling of social cohesion within the class as a whole’.

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

35

Task orientation refers to the importance of performing tasks (Dorman, 2003) and the usefulness of the learning tasks. Extending the definition of task orientation in Fraser’s environment research, perceived usefulness was added to the conceptual range of task orientation. Perceived usefulness of tasks in the language class may be related to a focus on meaning or form. In the language class, meaning-focused tasks draw learners’ attention to message exchanging in authentic interaction, whereas form-focused tasks explicitly address structural knowledge of the target language. While focusing on meaning was advocated as a way to promote natural language acquisition (Krashen & Terrell, 1988), more researchers contended that form-focused activities should be embedded in meaning-based lessons (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2002; Long, 1998). Attractive and useful tasks and an emphasis on performing tasks can conceivably intrigue student engagement. Kubanyiova (2006) found that tasks characterised by meaningfulness, personal relevance and a reasonable degree of difficulty are likely to promote performance quality. Wu (2003) observed that moderately challenging tasks could increase perceived competence and promote motivation.

Nested ecosystems model The ecological paradigm reflected in American psychologist Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model was used in this research as an overarching framework for interpreting the merged findings from the survey and multiple-case study at the final stage. This model explores human behaviour and development within and across a set of nested and interdependent structures called ecosystems. Development is defined as ‘a lasting change in the way in which a person perceives and deals with his environment’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1979: 3). There are four layers of environment: micro-, meso-, eso- and macrosystems ranging from an immediate face-to-face setting to the overarching social and cultural contexts. To preserve the authenticity and integrity of these terms, the definitions of these ecosystems in Bronfenbrenner (1993) are presented as follows: •

•

Microsystem: ‘a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social, and symbolic features that invite, permit, or inhibit, engagement in sustained, progressively more complex interaction with, and activity in, the immediate environment’. (Bronfenbrenner, 1993: 15) Mesosystem: ‘the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings containing the developing person. Special attention is focused on the synergistic effects created by the interaction of developmentally instigative or inhibitory features and processes present in each setting’. (Bronfenbrenner, 1993: 22)

36

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

•

Exosystem: ‘the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least one of which does not contain the developing person, but in which events occur that indirectly influence processes within the immediate setting in which the developing person lives’. (Bronfenbrenner, 1993: 24) Macrosystem: ‘the overarching pattern of micro- meso- and exosystems characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other extended social structure, with particular reference to the developmentally instigative belief systems, resources, hazards, lifestyles, opportunity structures, life course options and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in such overarching systems’. (Bronfenbrenner, 1993: 25)

•

In a nutshell, the microsystem refers to the immediate setting in which a person’s behaviour/development is under study. A language classroom, for instance, would be such a system where individual and contextual factors interact to influence one’s behaviour/development. The mesosystem comprises the interconnection between two or more settings containing the developing person. It could be viewed as a system of microsystems. The exosystem involves the linkages between two or more settings, at least one of which does not contain the person but influences his or her behaviour in the immediate setting. The macrosystem encompasses the overarching patterns of the characteristics (e.g. belief systems, lifestyles or social structures) underlying the previous systems. The application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystems model in SLA research has been promising. van Lier (2004) commented on the usefulness of this model in tracking the linkages between the ecosystems. van Lier (2003) applied this model to examine the interdependent forces influencing the use of computer technology in language classes. Kang (2005a) drew on this model to interpret her research findings, indicating a close interaction between individual factors and environmental factors that influence L2 communication behaviour. Cao (2009) also subscribed to this model to explain the dynamic nature of L2 WTC in language classrooms. There are at least three tenets in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological paradigm that are informative to empirical research. First, the notion of interaction refers not only to the organism–environment interaction, but also to the interaction within each set. Special attention should be accorded to the attributes of both the person and the environment that invite or inhibit the course of cognitive development. These characteristics jointly affect developmental processes, for better or for worse. Second, the interaction between the developing person and the environment is not additive but synergistic. Synergism refers to the fact that the joint effect of personal and environmental forces is greater than the sum of the individual effects. Bronfenbrenner (1993) pointed out that many analytic models treat these factors as separate in their own domains and ready

Hybrid Perspectives on WTC in an L2

37

Figure 2.3 Schematic theoretical framework for the present research

for algebraically summing. Ecological research should address the reciprocal interactive effects situated in the environment. Finally, belief systems and culture are important factors influencing developmental processes. According to Bronfenbrenner (1993, 1995), the belief systems about the relation between self and the environment held by the person under study and the beliefs held by significant others in the environment will reduce or enhance the developmental processes. It is important to conceive belief systems not only as developmental results, but also as dynamic forces shaping development. Culture is a significant factor that embeds individuals’ behaviour and development. Bronfenbrenner (1993) noted that it is critical for research models to represent characteristics of a particular culture. In summary, this research drew on a hybrid theoretical framework integrating perspectives from SLA, Chinese indigenous culture and the ecological paradigm (see Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3 shows that these perspectives are not mutually exclusive but interlinked. To illustrate, variables in SLA, such as learner beliefs, also have a sociocultural root that can be addressed from the cultural perspective. Individual variables such as self-confidence and motivation in SLA correspond to the factors of an organism in the ecological paradigm. Beliefs and culture are also highlighted in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model. In Figure 2.3, the one-way arrow points to the area of the intersection of the three perspectives which represents the theoretical underpinnings of this research. This area mainly covers the bulleted items under each perspective domain. This selective focus was intended to render the current research manageable and revealing.

Summary In this chapter, I have presented the three theoretical perspectives that underpinned the current research: the SLA perspective, the Chinese

38

Part 1: The Research of Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

indigenous cultural perspective and the ecological perspective. I first artistically reviewed the theories and empirical research in L2 WTC and their relation to other variables. Following this, I addressed several aspects of the Chinese culture of learning and communication that were assumed to be pertinent to the understanding of Chinese EFL students’ WTC in class. The ecological paradigm that gave rise to the consideration of the language classroom environment and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model were then discussed. The hybrid theoretical framework guiding the current research was finally summarised. In the next part, I will first present the conceptual dimensions of the five variables examined in the survey study in the first research stage: WTC, communication confidence, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment. Their interrelationships that were tested using SEM will also be reported. The results obtained in the survey provide the big picture of how WTC in class was influenced by individual and classroom contextual factors. The quantitative measures based on a large sample size also comparatively enhance the generalisability of the research results.

Part 2 The Big Picture: Interrelationships between WTC, Communication Confidence, Motivation, Learner Beliefs and Classroom Environment (Phase 1: Questionnaire Survey)

3 Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment As outlined in the previous chapters, this mixed methods research started with a large-scale questionnaire survey in the first phase (May–June 2007). The purpose was to explore the interrelationships between willingness to communicate (WTC) in English and four other individual and contextual variables: communication confidence in English (i.e. perceived competence coupled with a lack of anxiety), motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment. As in typical quantitative surveys, the first step is to choose the instrumentation and establish its psychometric properties or its reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure, while validity can be interpreted as the accuracy of a measure. This chapter first reports the process of preparing the instrumentation in a pilot study, followed by an introduction to the participants and the eight participating universities. Then the profiles of the participants’ WTC as indicated by the survey data are presented. The results of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) are also reported, which present in detail the many facets, or in a technical sense, the factor structure of the five variables being measured. This chapter concludes by addressing the reliability and validity of the measurement of the variables, which is indispensable to the testing of their interrelationships at the next stage using structural equation modelling (SEM). The survey results reported in this chapter aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) To what extent are the participants willing or unwilling to communicate using English in their language class? (2) What is the underlying factor structure of the measures of WTC in English, communication confidence in English, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment?

Instrumentation Preparation: A Pilot Study The current research used a questionnaire consisting of several scales adapted from the literature, which was piloted with a group of students before the main study. This pilot study was conducted in May 2007. Its 41

42

Part 2: The Big Picture

purposes were twofold: (a) to scrutinise, reduce and refine the scale items; and (b) to preliminarily identify the factor structure underlying each scale intended to measure the variables. Factor structure refers to the dimensions of a latent variable underlying an instrument. The results provided a referencing basis for specifying the measurement models of these variables in the main study. The participants in the pilot study were freshmen and sophomore undergraduate students from University A, which was a key provincial comprehensive university and one of the eight participating universities in this research. These students were not recruited in the main study, yet they represented the same sample pool. A total of 330 participants were recruited from 12 intact classes: 209 males, 118 females and 3 participants with no gender information. While 7 participants did not provide age information, the average age of the remaining 323 participants was 20.07 years. The participants were all non-English majors. The scale of WTC in English consisted of 15 items adapted from Weaver’s (2005) scale measuring WTC in speaking situations in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms in Japan. The psychometric properties of this scale were reported as satisfactory. The scale items were modified by explicitly specifying interlocutors in each situation. For instance, for the original item ‘Ask someone in English how to pronounce a word in English’, ‘someone’ was replaced with ‘the teacher’, because, conceivably, students may have differing WTC when conversing with the teacher and classmates. Communication confidence was captured by two subscales measuring communication anxiety (CA) and perceived communication competence (PC). The CA scale consisted of 10 items, of which 6 items were adapted from Woodrow’s (2006) in-class speaking anxiety scale that was validated using a CFA. Another four items were from Horwitz et al.’s (1986) items measuring anxiety stemming from problems in comprehension. These items were included because EFL speakers’ CA may in part result from comprehension problems. Since there was no PC scale suitable for the current research, the 15 items in the WTC scale served as the template measuring PC, following the common practice in second language (L2) WTC research (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Yashima, 2002). In order to avoid potential confusion caused by the similar content of the two scales, the PC scale was designed as a 6-point can-do type scale ranging from 0% to 100% (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95% and 100%, respectively). This scaling turned out to have offered insufficient options for the respondents, and thus in the main study it was revised to cover 11-points ranging from 0%, 10%, and so on up to 100%. The motivation scale with 18 items was adapted from Noels et al. (2000), measuring intrinsic motivation for knowledge, achievement and stimulation,

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

43

and three dimensions of extrinsic motivation including external regulation, introjected regulation and identified regulation. The learner beliefs scale was composed of 18 items, of which 13 items were adapted from Sakui and Gaies (1999) and the remaining 5 items were constructed to capture the cultural beliefs identified in Peng (2005) as related to Chinese students’ L2 WTC. Since this research examined the effect of learner beliefs on WTC, only items with polarity or those assumed to facilitate or debilitate L2 WTC were used. Items such as ‘It is easier for children than adults to learn English’ were perceived to lack any directional relationship with L2 WTC and were thus excluded. Items reflecting traditional pedagogic approaches (Sakui & Gaies, 1999) or beliefs perceived to debilitate L2 WTC were reversely coded, so that this scale captured the beliefs that are possibly associated with high L2 WTC. Classroom environment was measured by 21 items based on Fraser et al. (1986, 1996). Because some items have been reported to have content overlap and low discrimination (Dorman, 2003), modifications were made to match the university language classroom setting. Four items measuring teacher immediacy (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006a), one measuring group cohesion and two items related to English course evaluation (Clément et al., 1994) were adapted into this scale. A questionnaire consisting of 97 items in total and a demographic information section was then developed. The items, except for the PC items which were constructed as a can-do type scale (Bandura, 1995), were modified to a 6-point Likert scale to avoid neutral responses. I translated the questionnaire into Chinese, which was verified by an authorised Chinese– English translator. The Chinese-version questionnaire was administered to the participants during their regular class time. They were fully informed that their participation was optional and no identifiable information would be revealed. The questionnaire took 30–35 minutes to complete. The data collected were first screened for missing values and outliers. Little’s test showed a non-significant p value (p > 0.05), indicating that the data were missing completely at random (MCAR). Outliers may affect the variance and covariance of the data set, bias data analysis and lead to ungeneralisable results. Univariate outliers were inspected by examining histograms of variables and multivariate outliers were identified using the Mahalanobis distance (p < 0.001) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Listwise deletion was used to delete outliers and cases with missing values. Data screening procedures resulted in 305 valid cases for WTC in English, 306 for communication confidence, 299 for motivation, 311 for learner beliefs and 319 for classroom environment. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was run on each scale using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 15.0 for Windows. Assumptions for factorability of the data were sufficiently met, because Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of

44

Part 2: The Big Picture

sampling adequacy was above 0.06 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and values on the diagonal of the anti-image correlation matrix were all above 0.5 (Field, 2005). Principal axis factoring (PAF) was selected as the method of extraction. An oblimin solution was used for rotation because all the factors in this study tap human beings’ perceptions that are unlikely to be uncorrelated. The determination of the number of factors to be retained was based on the joint considerations of parsimony (i.e. a model with relatively few common factors) and plausibility (i.e. a theoretically explainable model) (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Four criteria were used for determining the optimal number of factors to retain: (a) eigenvalues greater than 1; (b) the scree plot of eigenvalues; (c) factor loadings greater than |0.30|; and (d) substantive interpretability of the factor structures. Items with cross-loadings, low loadings or low communality were removed for reasons of parsimony and data reduction. The results of EFAs yielded a two-factor solution for WTC in English, accounting for 60.72% of the variance. Item content suggested that the first factor (WTC1) reflected WTC when the participants engaged in meaning-focused activities (e.g. doing a role-play) and the other factor (WTC2) captured WTC when the participants engaged in form-focused activities (e.g. learning words). Thus, the two factors were named WTC in meaning-focused activities and WTC in form-focused activities, respectively. The rotated factor loadings, the eigenvalue and the internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) for WTC in English and all other variables are shown in Appendix 1. A one-factor solution was identified for CA and PC, each with six items accounting for 59.06% and 56.22%, respectively, of the variance. The retained items of the two scales that presumably reflected communication confidence were put together and a factor analysis was performed. A clean two-factor structure was obtained, explaining 58.15% of the variance of communication confidence. This result lent support to the plausibility of specifying CA and PC as observed variables of communication confidence in SEM in the main study. The initial EFA result suggested a three-factor structure for motivation, rather than the expected six-factor structure. The first factor (MO1) encompassed the three intrinsic motivation subfactors (knowledge, accomplishment and stimulation). Therefore, MO1 was named ‘intrinsic motivation’. The second (MO2) and third (MO3) factors corresponded to external regulation and identified regulation and were named accordingly. The three items reflecting introjected regulation either cross-loaded on MO1 and MO3 or had factor loadings lower than 0.30, and were finally dropped. The threefactor structure accounted for 64.84% of the variance of motivation. Based on the feedback obtained from the participants, two items were added to the main study to capture external regulation. These were Items D23 (‘In order

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

45

to increase my chances of winning scholarship or prize in my university’) and D26 (‘In order to prepare myself for the application to overseas universities in the near future’). A two-factor structure was found for learner beliefs, explaining 37.63% of the variance of this variable. According to the items loading on the factors, the first factor (LB1) was named ‘learner beliefs about classroom communication’ and the second factor (LB2) was named ‘learner beliefs about English learning’. The expected three-factor solution was identified for classroom environment, accounting for 57.81% of the variance. The three factors, CE1, CE2 and CE3 were named ‘task orientation’ (TASKORIEN), ‘student cohesiveness’ (STUCOHE) and ‘teacher support’ (TEASUPP) accordingly. Based on the pilot study results, an anonymous questionnaire was constructed, which included a demographic section and scales measuring the variables in question (see Appendix 2). There were 56 items in total, of which 10 items measured WTC in English, 6 items CA, 6 PC, 12 items motivation to learn English, 9 items learner beliefs and 13 items classroom environment.

Participants and Research Context The large-scale questionnaire survey commenced in June 2007, which was near the end of the academic year 2006–2007 in China. A total of 579 university undergraduate students participated in this main survey, including 218 males, 357 females and 4 participants who did not give gender information. Age information for 33 participants was missing. The average age of the rest of the participants was 20.5 years. All were non-English majors in their first or second year of study who had to study English as a required subject. The participants were recruited from intact class groups from eight universities. The academic majors of these participants included: (a) clinical medicine; (b) business and financial administration; (c) marketing; (d) Chinese literature; (e) Japanese language; (f) engineering; and (f) computer science. The eight universities were selected from the more socioeconomically developed regions, that is, along the southern and eastern areas of China, as schematised in Hayhoe (1996). This was because in China there exist considerable regional discrepancies in socioeconomic development (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b), which can give rise to marked differences in infrastructural resources, perceived value of English and English language teaching (ELT) practices across regions (Hu, 2003). ELT in the less-developed regions is still characterised by more structured lectures and less classroom interaction (Hu, 2005). Language classrooms in the more socioeconomically developed regions are expected to be influenced by modern teaching methods and provide oral interaction opportunities necessary for the current investigation into WTC.

46

Part 2: The Big Picture

The participating universities were chosen using a proportional stratified sampling technique (Neuman, 2003). Three strata of universities, known as three tiers in this context, which confer bachelor’s degrees were identified (Admission Office of Guangdong Provincial Committee, 2006) according to their admission scores: (1) the first tier, which is mostly national key universities that attract students with high matriculation scores; (2) the second tier, which is mainly general universities that have the second priority in student admission following the first tier of universities; and (3) the third tier, which is mainly independent colleges. Independent colleges refer to institutions jointly run by regular higher education institutions and social forces that offer a bachelor’s degree education (Ministry of Education, 2005). As such, students from these colleges are also classified as university students. Student applicants need to pass the admission scores to be enrolled in these colleges, although these scores are set lower than those in the first and second tiers of universities. The number of universities selected from each stratum represented the relative proportion of the universities of this stratum among the three strata. The participants were recruited from two intact classes from each university (labelled from A to G; see Table 3.1), one class in Year 1 and another in Year 2. There were 16 classes of students involved. By the time this survey commenced, the Year-2 students in University E had finished their English lessons, thus the participants from this university were all first-year students. The distribution of the participants is shown in Table 3.1. Information on the eight universities is summarised as follows. The first stratum was represented by Universities A and B. University A is a key comprehensive university in southern China. In 2002, this university launched a reform of its ELT, dedicated to enhancing students’ English communicative competence by providing curricula and co-curricula activities. University B is also a key comprehensive university in eastern China. It is renowned for its long-standing history and excellence in foreign languages teaching, such as English, Japanese, French and Korean. These two universities enjoy the privilege of admitting students with high overall entrance examination scores. Universities C, D, E and F were from the second stratum. University C is located in south-eastern China. It is a public higher education institute with a focus on the fields of finance and economics. Most of its programmes are related to economics, administration, science, engineering, law, literature and arts. University D is also a public institution located in south-eastern China. It is a provincial university of engineering with a focus on engineering, science and physics. University E is a provincial university of technology located in eastern China. It has adopted contemporary education concepts such as ‘student-centred’ and ‘ability training’, with a focus on developing quality education. University F is a metropolitan university of agriculture, with a focus on the disciplines of fishery, agriculture and food. Students

National key comprehensive

Provincial finance and economics

Provincial engineering

Provincial technology Metropolitan agriculture

Private science and technology

Private technology

B

C

D

E F

G

H

Total

National key comprehensive

University type

A

University First Second First Second First Second First Second First First Second First Second First Second First Second

University year n 24 26 33 60 33 42 43 36 63 30 43 49 24 30 43 305 274

Table 3.1 Distribution of the participants in the main survey study

12 18 9 6 12 15 5 31 37 7 7 13 14 5 27 100 118

n (males) 12 8 24 54 21 27 35 5 25 23 36 36 10 25 16 201 156

n (females)

4

1

3

Not specified

579

73

73

73

63

79

75

93

50

Total

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment 47

48

Part 2: The Big Picture

admitted to these four universities may have scored lower than those who have been admitted to Universities A and B. The third stratum was represented by Universities G and H, which are two independent colleges located in south-eastern China. These two colleges were selected to represent the increasing student population in independent colleges in China (Pan, 2007). They provide education in the disciplines of technology, economics, law, medicine and engineering.

Profiles of Participants’ WTC in English in the Language Classroom The first question that the current research sets out to answer is to what extent the participants were willing or unwilling to communicate in their English language class. To this end, a summated score on the 10 WTC items for each participant was computed; the descriptive statistics of the summated scores are shown in Table 3.2. The analysis of WTC reported in this section was based on the data of 567 respondents after data screening following the procedures in the pilot study. Since there is no established norm in published research for evaluating the WTC level, the WTC profiles of the participants were interpreted from the ratio of the mean WTC score to the full score, following Liu and Jackson’s (2008) practice in their L2 WTC study. Given that this was a 6-point scale comprising 10 items, the full score on this scale was 60. Following Liu and Jackson’s (2008) interpretation, a total score of more than 80% of the full score, which is 48 (i.e. 60% × 80%) implied strong WTC; while a total score of 60%–80% of the full score, which is between 36 and 48, represented moderate WTC. In this study, the mean score (40.10), along with the median (41.00) and mode (37.00), was greater than 36 (60% of the full score) and lower than 48 (80% of the full score). This suggests that the participants in this study were moderately willing to communicate in English in the language class. This finding corresponds to Liu and Jackson’s (2008) conclusion that most of the Chinese university participants in their study showed a willingness to participate in interpersonal conversations in class. However, the current participants’ reported level of WTC is somewhat different from the low level of Chinese students’ L2 WTC when compared with their Western counterparts found in other studies (Asker, 1998; Peng, 2007b). It was reported that Chinese students displayed lower L2 WTC than students in Table 3.2 Descriptive statistics of summated score for WTC in English (n = 567)

Summated WTC score

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Median

Mode

Skewness

Kurtosis

10

60

40.10

9.65

41.00

37.00

–0.51

0.36

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

49

the USA, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Micronesia (Asker, 1998) and Canada (Peng, 2007b). This discrepancy is reasonable since these previous studies made cross-cultural comparisons that involved different contexts. Western classrooms tend to be student centred and communication oriented (Rao, 1996), which emphasise not only academic achievement but also social communicative competence (Liu, 2002). In contrast, in this context, classroom teaching is more teacher centred, and high attention or mental activity rather than verbal activity is required of the students (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a). It is understandable that Chinese students may display more ‘thoughtful silence’ (MacIntyre, 2007: 572) or silence indicative of respect for the teacher (Liu, 2002), both of which may wind up akin to un-WTC. These sociocultural variations translated into classroom settings can cloud findings in crosscultural comparisons of L2 WTC. Different L2 WTC scales used in L2 studies may also partly lead to different results. Asker (1998) used McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) WTC scale to measure generic L2 WTC in public, meetings, small groups and dyads with a stranger, an acquaintance and a friend, rather than in classroom settings. Peng (2007b) adapted MacIntyre et al.’s (2001) classroom WTC scale measuring L2 WTC in the speaking, listening, reading and writing skill areas. The current study, however, adapted Weaver’s (2005) scale and only examined WTC in speaking in the classroom setting. In other words, the latent construct underlying different instruments in these studies was not identical, which could lead to different results. To further explore the participants’ WTC at item levels, frequency responses to the WTC scale items were examined. The proportions of the respondents who endorsed the six options on the WTC scale items were calculated. Table 3.3 presents the frequency of the responses to the items. In order to obtain a general picture of the respondents’ WTC, scores for 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. definitely not willing, probably not willing and perhaps not willing) were collapsed to represent ‘unwillingness’ and scores for 4, 5 and 6 (i.e. perhaps willing, probably willing and definitely willing) were aggregated to represent ‘willingness’. The summed frequencies (Σ) of ‘unwillingness’ and ‘willingness’ are also presented. In the WTC scale, Items WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC9 and WTC10 captured students’ WTC when engaging in meaning-focused activities. As seen in Table 3.3, 43% of the participants expressed unwillingness to do role-plays at their desk (Item WTC1) and 45% were unwilling to do roleplays in front of the class (Item WTC4). Likewise, 40% of the participants were unwilling to translate a spoken utterance from Chinese into English in group work (Item WTC10) or give a short self-introduction without notes to the class (Item WTC9). However, when asked to give a short speech about one’s hometown with the help of notes (Item WTC3), the percentage of participants indicating willingness rose to 71%. A large proportion of the respondents (81%) expressed that they were perhaps, probably or definitely

To do a role-play in English at my desk, with my peer (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). To ask the teacher in English to repeat what he/she just said in English because I didn’t understand. To give a short speech in English to the class about my hometown with notes. To do a role-play standing in front of the class in English (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). To ask my group mates in English how to pronounce a word in English. To ask my peer sitting next to me in English how to say an English phrase to express the thoughts in my mind. To ask my group mates in English the meaning of word I do not know. To ask my peer sitting next to me in English the meaning of an English word. To give a short self-introduction without notes in English to the class. To translate a spoken utterance from Chinese into English in my group.

Item (I am willing…)

6

7

5

6

5

6

9

3

4

8

1a

13

13

8

7

9

10

10

9

7

13

2

21

20

16

15

17

17

26

18

8

22

3

Unwillingness

40

40

29

28

31

33

45

30

19

43

S

31

25

28

29

28

27

27

30

24

26

4

20

22

23

23

22

21

16

21

28

18

5

9

13

20

21

18

19

12

20

29

14

6

Willingness

Note: Values represent percentages. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number and thus may exceed or not add up to 100. a 1 = definitely not willing; 2 = probably not willing; 3 = perhaps not willing; 4 = perhaps willing; 5 = probably willing; 6 = definitely willing.

WTC10

WTC9

WTC8

WTC7

WTC6

WTC5

WTC4

WTC3

WTC2

WTC1

No.

Table 3.3 Frequency of responses to WTC in English (n = 567)

60

60

71

73

68

67

55

71

81

58

S

50 Part 2: The Big Picture

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

51

willing to ask the teacher to repeat himself or herself when they could not understand the teacher (Item WTC2). Items WTC5, WTC6, WTC7 and WTC8 were related to WTC when engaging in form-focused activities. Compared with the previous cluster of six items, a larger proportion of the respondents indicated a tendency to communicate in the situations described in these four items (ranging from 67% to 73%). Items WTC7 and WTC8 pertained to asking group-mates or physically proximal peers for meanings of words. Many respondents reported that they were perhaps, probably or definitely willing to ask group-mates (73%) or peers sitting next to them (71%) the meanings of words. In cases of asking group-mates about pronunciation (WTC5) and asking physically proximal peers for English phrases (WTC6), over half of the respondents (67% and 68%, respectively) expressed their tendency to do so. This result indicates that the participants were more willing to communicate in controlled situations with a linguistic focus such as words or pronunciation than in less-controlled activities such as role-plays. The result is consistent with previous literature about Chinese students’ reluctance to engage in role-plays or games in class (Hu, 2002; Yu, 2001). For students in this context, the pragmatic need to score well in examinations (Simpson, 2008) might predispose them to opting for ‘knowledge-addition’ activities. Because English examinations in China are mostly in written form with a focus on discrete linguistic components, role-plays or games in class might not be viewed as relevant to this need. Also, maybe these communicative activities were not equally familiar to the participants. For instance, the participants might not have felt comfortable performing in front of the class. Hence, their WTC in these situations was low. These results also revealed that the participants were less willing to communicate in English in linguistically demanding situations (e.g. giving a speech without notes). This may be because higher risks of making mistakes or looking foolish were perceived in these situations. Wen and Clément (2003) speculated that Chinese students are generally low risk-takers, being overcautious about correction and hesitant to speak up when uncertainty exists. Such low risk-taking is partly associated with their concerns about negative evaluation from their teacher or peer students (Horwitz et al., 1986), which could pose a threat to their ‘face’. In this context, self-construal is highly linked with ‘face’, one’s image or esteem as perceived by the public. Students would naturally avoid linguistically demanding situations where risks of being ridiculed exist. What was unexpected was that many participants expressed their willingness to ask the teacher to repeat what was said. This result seemed to be inconsistent with some researchers’ observations that Chinese students are inactive in asking questions in class (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a; Littlewood, 1999). However, it also echoes other researchers’ arguments that Chinese students are not passive learners and asking

52

Part 2: The Big Picture

questions is part of the Confucian doctrine (Cheng, 2000; Shi, 2006). The current finding has many implications. One may conclude that under the Western cultural influence which has emerged (Yang, 2006) along with rapid social changes in China (Shi, 2006), asking the teacher questions in class was not an issue for the participants and they were willing to do so. Because this result was based on only one questionnaire item, it is premature to arrive at any conclusion. This result was further explored in the secondphase multiple-case study of this research, and was addressed by integrating the contextual evidence obtained in the second phase.

An Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling For the purposes of validating the factor structure of the instruments and testing the interrelationships between the five variables, I employed SEM using AMOS 7.0. CFA, which is a special case of SEM, was initially performed to validate the measurement model of each variable. A full structural model showing the interrelationships between the five variables was then specified and tested. SEM is a multivariate technique for examining interrelationships between multiple variables. It improves on other conventional statistical approaches such as multiple regression and path analyses. SEM fulfils the analytical functions of these approaches while rectifying their inherent deficiencies. A multiple regression analysis only permits specifying one dependent variable, while SEM allows several dependent variables within a single model to be examined. As an extension of the regression analysis, a path analysis can estimate two or more dependent variables; however, it treats single-measured variables as the exact indicators of the latent variable without estimating measurement errors. Since measurement errors are ubiquitous in social and behavioural research (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006), SEM excels in giving more stable estimations by accounting for error variance. An SEM model is typically composed of measurement models of several latent variables and a structural model. A structural model tests dependence or causal relationships among a group of latent variables. It is recommended that the measurement models for each latent variable be validated before testing the full structural model (Hair et al., 2006; Jöreskog, 1993). In the present study, the measurement models of the five variables were first validated before testing a structural model that hypothesised the relationships among these variables. Testing measurement and structural models generally includes five steps: model specification, model identification, model estimation, testing fit and model respecification and modification (Bollen & Long, 1993). Model specification involves formulating a theoretical model based on the literature. A model can be specified, according to Hair et al. (2006: 711), grounded on theories that are generated from three sources: ‘prior empirical research’,

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

53

‘past experiences and observations of actual behaviour, attitudes, or other phenomena’ and ‘other theories that provide a perspective for analysis’. A measurement model is specified by assigning several observed variables as indicators of a latent variable. A structural model establishes relationships among several latent variables. In the present study, the measurement models were specified based on the literature and the empirical results of the pilot study. After all measurement models had been validated, a structural model was specified grounded on the theoretical and empirical evidence documented in the literature. Models in SEM are often displayed in path diagrams, with specific symbols representing variables and their relationships. A latent variable is often displayed as an ellipse and an observed variable as a rectangle. The measurement error associated with an observed variable and the residual of an endogenous latent variable is displayed as a circle. Endogenous variable refers to the dependent latent variables whose variance is caused by other variables in the model, which is contrasted with exogenous variable whose variance is explained by factor(s) outside the model. Residual is the variance of an endogenous variable unexplained by the model. A single-headed arrow indicates a causal or dependence relationship, while a double-headed arrow signals a correlated relationship. The basic symbols are presented in Table 3.4. Model identification refers to whether unique values can be found for the parameters to be estimated. If a model is to be identified, there should be ‘more unique covariance and variance terms than parameters to be estimated’ (Hair et al., 2006: 772). This means that the model should have a positive degree of freedom (df). All the models tested in the present study Table 3.4 Symbols for variables and their relationships in SEM Symbol

Variable and/or relationship Latent variable/construct: abstract concept or factor that cannot be observed or measured directly Observed variable: measured value (an item or question) used as indicator of latent variable Measurement error associated with observed variable; or residuals of endogenous latent variable Dependence relationship pointing from a cause (latent variable) to an effect (observed variable) Dependence relationship pointing from a cause (latent variable to an effect (latent variable) Correlated relationship between two latent variables Correlated relationship between measurement errors

54

Part 2: The Big Picture

were identified. Model estimation involves using appropriate estimation techniques based on the nature of the variables. Once a model has been specified and identified, iterative estimation procedures must be processed and converged on a set of parameter estimates in a way that the difference between the sample variances and covariances and the implied variances and covariances derived from the parameter estimates are the smallest possible. Maximum likelihood (ML) is the most commonly used technique and it assumes normality in data distribution (Kline, 2005). It has been observed that ML can produce unbiased estimates given a reasonable sample size and normally distributed data (Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). While ideal normal distribution is preferred, many statisticians have argued that ML is a robust estimation method even when non-normality exists, especially with large sample size (Hau & Marsh, 2004; Hu et al., 1992). Hu et al. (1992: 355) noted that with nonnormally distributed variables, ‘the ML method worked when sample sizes were equal or greater than 500’. It is less likely in social sciences to have perfect normally distributed data due to the complexity of human perceptions and behaviour. Testing model fit involves evaluating the models by interpreting the model fit with reference to a number of fit indices. A number of goodness-of-fit indices (GFI) have been proposed to assess how adequate a model fits the empirical data. Determining model fit in SEM, however, is not straightforward and entails a consideration of multiple criteria. In the present study, the chi-square (χ2) value was reported to give a clue about the model fit. In SEM, a non-significant χ2 (p > 0.5) indicates good fit because this statistic tests the null hypothesis that the model fits the population variances and covariances matrix perfectly. However, because the χ2 statistic tends to inflate with large sample size, the normed χ2 (χ2/df) which is less biased by sample size was considered, with a value below 3 deemed acceptable (Carmines & McIver, 1981). Other fit indices were also considered in the present study. The standardised root mean-square residual (SRMR) is a measure of the discrepancies between the sample and the population variances and covariances. It ranges from 0 to 1, with values of 0.06 or less indicating good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) is a test of the discrepancy per df. A small value of 0.06 or less is considered desirable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To address the precision of the RMSEA, 90% confidence interval (CI) of this value was also examined. The upper bound of the RMSEA 90% CI of 0.08 or below is indicative of acceptable fit (Byrne, 2001). The comparative fit index (CFI) compares the tested model fit with the fit of an independence model (i.e. a model in which variables are uncorrelated). This statistic ranges from 0 to 1, with a value of 0.90 or above signalling a good model fit (Byrne, 2001; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Other fit indices

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

55

used to assist model evaluation were the GFI and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). Values over 0.90 for each of them are indicative of good model fit (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Model respecification and modification usually occurs when the fit indices suggest poor model fit. Model misfit can be detected by examining standardised residuals and modification indices (Byrne, 2001). Standardised residuals refer to the difference between observed correlation/covariance and the estimated correlation/covariance matrix, with values greater than 2.58 indicative of model misspecification (Byrne, 2001). Modification indices reflect each non-estimated relationship in a model. A modification index value exceeding 3.84 indicates that the χ2 would significantly drop if the corresponding parameter was estimated (Holmes-Smith, 2008). Modification can be made by dropping observed variables or changing the number of latent variables in measurement models, and deleting or adding paths in a structural model. Every time a change is made, the modified model is re-evaluated. This is classified as a model-generating approach in Jöreskog (1993), which focuses on finding a substantively meaningful and statistically well-fitting model. The present study adopted this approach. Model evaluation and modification was not only based on statistical principles but also, more importantly, grounded on theoretical justification (Byrne, 2001; Kline, 2005).

Modelling the Many Facets of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment The preliminary factor structures obtained through EFAs in the pilot study, along with the literature, served as the basis for model specification in the CFAs. Similar to the procedures in the pilot study, cases with missing values and outliers were removed. There remained 567 valid cases for WTC in English, 373 for CA, 566 for perceived competence, 567 for motivation, 554 for learner beliefs and 554 for classroom environment. For the CFAs and the subsequent SEM, 503 valid cases were used. The distribution normality of the data was assessed at the univariate and multivariate levels. All univariate distributions were generally normal, as indicated by the values of skewness and kurtosis which were generally within the range of –1 and +1 (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Mardia’s coefficient was used to check for multivariate normality. While there is no universally accepted cut-off value of Mardia’s coefficient that indicates nonnormality, a general indication is that the higher this coefficient, the more severe the non-normality is. It was suggested that absolute values of kurtosis indices greater than 20.00 may be problematic for ML (Harrington, 2009). Mardia’s coefficient for the measurement models of the present study ranged from 3.17 to 18.89, indicating a slight deviation from ideal

56

Part 2: The Big Picture

multivariate normality. This coefficient for the structural model, however, dropped to 9.39. Since these values were below 20.00 which did not indicate extreme non-normality unsuitable for ML (Harrington, 2009; Kline, 2005), and since this study involved a large sample, ML was chosen as the estimation method.

Dimensions of WTC in English The model for WTC in English was estimated with a two-factor structure reflecting WTC in meaning-focused and form-focused activities. The items loading on WTC in meaning-focused activities (WTCMFACT) described WTC when students are performing activities where message exchanging is accentuated, such as giving a speech about their hometown. The four items loading on WTC in form-focused activities (WTCFFACT) described WTC when students engage in activities in which certain linguistic features (e.g. vocabulary and pronunciation) are discussed, such as asking group-mates how to pronounce a word. The initial model indicated a moderate fit to the data. Item WTC1 was removed due to its cross-loadings. An error covariance was included for two types of activities which might involve the interference of first language (L1). The fit indices for the final model are: χ2/df (79.85/25) = 3.19, RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI = 0.05–0.08), SRMR = 0.05, GFI = 0.97, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.97 and CFI = 0.98. The model for WTC is shown in Figure 3.1. Table 3.5 presents the descriptive statistics of the two dimensions of WTC and their related items.

.23 e1

Ask teacher to repeat (WTC2)

.47 .50

e2

Give speech to class with notes (WTC3)

.70

.54 e3

.74

Role play before class (WTC4) .62

e4

Introduce self to class without notes (WTC9) .56

e5

WTC in meaningfocused activities

.79 .65 .75

Ask group mates pronunciation (WTC5)

.81 .57

e6

.65

Translate spoken utterance in group (WTC10)

.81 WTC in formfocused activities

.82 .78

Ask peer next to me a phrase (WTC6)

e7

.68 Ask group mates word meaning (WTC7)

e8

.62 Ask peer next to me word meaning (WTC8)

Figure 3.1 Measurement model of WTC in English

.52 e9

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

57

Table 3.5 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of WTC and items (n = 503) Item

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

WTCMFACT WTC2 WTC3 WTC4 WTC9 WTC10 WTCFFACT WTC5 WTC6 WTC7 WTC8

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

4.00 4.54 4.20 3.69 3.83 3.74 4.18 4.13 4.15 4.25 4.20

1.02 1.33 1.31 1.38 1.41 1.30 1.18 1.39 1.34 1.35 1.35

–0.31 –0.85 –0.32 –0.12 –0.22 –0.17 –0.55 –0.44 –0.41 –0.52 –0.47

–0.09 0.15 –0.58 –0.57 –0.77 –0.60 –0.03 –0.49 –0.49 –0.33 –0.39

Note: WTCMFACT = WTC in English in meaning-focused activities; WTCFFACT = WTC in English in form-focused activities.

Figure 3.1 shows that WTC in English involved two intercorrelated factors: WTCMFACT and WTCFFACT. Items WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC9 and WTC10 loaded on WTCMFACT, with the loadings ranging from 0.47 to 0.79. Items WTC5, WTC6, WTC7 and WTC8 loaded on WTCFFACT, with the loading ranging from 0.78 to 0.82. The factor loadings were all statistically significant. The inter-factor correlation coefficient was 0.57 and statistically significant (p < 0.05). This two-factor structure appeared to reflect the existing literature that has contrasted meaning-focused and form-focused instruction in the language class (Doughty & Williams, 1998). In meaning-focused instruction, learners are engaged in activities where the exchange of meaning and information is the priority and the language serves as a tool to this end. In form-focused instruction, on the other hand, activities are designed to draw learners’ attention to specific linguistic features while the focus on the communication is maintained. A focus on form is also contrasted with what is known as a focus on forms, which involves the treatment of linguistic elements as isolated objects to be taught out of context. It was found that an exclusive focus on meaning was less effective than incorporating a form-focus in language lessons (Norris & Ortega, 2000). In the current context where English is formally instructed and assessed as an academic subject, one may expect that students would display different levels of WTC in form-focused and meaning-focused activities. For example, if a student is concerned about passing the College English Test, he or she will exhibit higher WTC when engaging in activities where linguistic knowledge such as vocabulary is the focus. As can be seen in Figure 3.1, the item with the highest loading (0.79) on WTCMFACT is ‘I am willing to give a short self-introduction without

58

Part 2: The Big Picture

notes in English to the class’ (WTC9) and the item with the highest loading (0.82) on WTCFFACT is ‘I am willing to ask my group mates in English the meaning of a word I do not know’ (WTC7). The focus embedded in the first activity appears to be meaning oriented, whereas the second is form oriented. The overall WTC score for the second dimension of WTC (i.e. WTCFFACT) is higher than that for the first dimension (i.e. WTCMFACT), which corresponds to the results of the frequency analyses of item responses previously reported. While the data indicate that the participants exhibited higher communicative intention when engaging in activities bearing a focus on linguistic features or elements, I would not rule out other interpretations. First, the communicative value of the form-focused activities remains unclear. In other words, the scale items could not reveal the extent to which the students really communicated intended meaning using English when engaging in form-focused activities such as repeating words. They might complete these activities simply with brief phrases or expressions. It is also likely that their responses to the WTC items reflected their willingness to take part in the lesson, instead of their WTC, especially in the current monolingual classroom where students could always use their L1 to compensate for their L2 deficiencies. These possibilities warrant further attention in future research.

Dimensions of communication confidence in English Communication confidence was specified as a two-factor model composed of CA and PA, each having six items. The initial analysis showed that all the factor loadings for the two factors were above 0.60, indicating that the items converged well on their designated variables. Two pairs of error terms were allowed to co-vary: the error terms of PC17 and PC18 and the error terms of CA13 and CA14. The first pair of items described students’ perceived ability to ‘do a role-play in English (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant)’ at their desk (PC17) and in front of the class (PC18). Similar item content justified their error covariance. As for the second pair, CA13 described students’ anxiety when doing role-play in front of the class, and CA14 was about anxiety when giving an oral presentation to the class. It was likely that students who were anxious when performing in English in front of the whole class would experience anxiety when speaking English in a similar situation. The fit indices for the final model are: χ2/df (159.85/51) = 3.13, RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI = 0.05–0.08), SRMR = 0.04, GFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.96 and CFI = 0.97. The final model is shown in Figure 3.2. The descriptive statistics of the two dimensions of communication confidence and their related items are presented in Table 3.6. Figure 3.2 shows that communication confidence comprised two factors: CA and PC. The loadings for CA ranged from 0.64 to 0.74, and the

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

59

.50 e1

Teacher asks question (CA11) .71

.43 e2

e3 .35 e4

Speak to teacher informally (CA12) .41

.65

Role play before class (CA13) .41

.64

Oral presentation before class (CA14)

.74

.64 communication anxiety

.62 Role play with peer at desk (PC17) .79

.54 e5

Formal discussion in class (CA15)

.70

Role play before class (PC18)

.81

-.54

.5 6 e8

.71

.49 e6

e7

.65

Speak up without prepation (CA16)

Tell group mates story (PC19) .69

.84 Perceived communication competence

.83

Give peer next to me directions (PC20)

.81

e9

e10

.66 Self introduce to class without notes (PC21)

.83

e11

.69 Translate spoken utterance in group (PC20)

e12

Figure 3.2 Measurement model of communication confidence in English

Table 3.6 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of communication confidence and items (n = 503) Item

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

CA CA11 CA12 CA13 CA14 CA15 CA16 PC PC17 PC18 PC19 PC20 PC21 PC22

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3.40 3.02 2.93 3.34 3.68 3.42 4.00 55.96 58.05 55.07 50.38 58.93 59.80 53.54

0.81 0.99 1.12 1.09 1.10 1.03 1.19 17.84 20.77 20.32 20.12 21.18 22.65 19.84

0.04 0.20 0.14 0.06 0.01 –0.08 –0.20 –0.21 –0.02 –0.05 –0.06 –0.14 –0.19 –0.03

–0.14 –0.08 –0.35 –0.37 –0.42 –0.23 –0.42 –0.16 –0.24 –0.24 –0.24 –0.42 –0.54 –0.19

Note: CA = communication anxiety; PC = perceived communication competence.

60

Part 2: The Big Picture

loadings for PC ranged from 0.79 to 0.84, which were all substantially high and statistically significant (p < 0.05). CA was reflected by items capturing anxiety arousal in class associated with speaking and listening comprehension. PC was indicated by items relating to self-evaluation of competence in classroom communication. The inter-factor correlation coefficient was –0.54, indicating that an increase in CA would be accompanied by a decrease in PC. While CA and PC were measured at different scales, the participants’ average CA (mean = 3.4) and PC (mean = 55.96) were above the midpoint value of the possible maximum score (i.e. 6/2 = 3 and 100/2 = 50, respectively), as indicated in Table 3.6. The participants reported the highest level of anxiety when speaking up without preparation (CA16) and the least anxiety when speaking informally to their English teacher during classroom activities (CA12). They felt most competent when ‘giv[ing] a short self-introduction without notes in English to the class’ (PC 21) and least competent when telling group-mates in English about the story of a television show (PC19). This implies that speaking up in class using the target language, particularly without sufficient preparation, was highly anxiety provoking for the participants. Meanwhile, students would perceive higher L2 competence when given familiar topics, such as self-introduction, while tasks involving prolonged L2 discourse could easily reduce their selfevaluated competence. This two-factor structure attests to the proposition that CA and PC were conceptual components of communication confidence (Clément, 1980, 1986; MacIntyre et al., 1998). In many L2 WTC studies (MacIntyre et al., 2002, 2003; Yashima, 2002), CA and PC are usually measured by the same item templates adapted from the WTC scale (McCroskey & Baer, 1985). The current study measured CA and PA using different instruments, and it also confirmed that communication confidence encompassed a positive level of PC coupled with a lack of CA. This result contributes empirical support to the factorial validity of communication confidence.

Dimensions of motivation to learn English A three-factor model for motivation including external regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation was estimated. The initial model did not fit the data well. Items MO23 and MO26 loaded low on their assigned factor (0.38 and 0.26, respectively). These two items had been added to the measures after the pilot study, eliciting two reasons for English learning: ‘winning scholarships’ (MO23) and ‘preparing for overseas study’ (M26). Due to their low loadings, they were removed from the analysis. In addition, an error covariance was allowed between Items MO32 and MO33. Item MO32 indicated that learning English is ‘for the pleasure I experience when surpassing myself in my English studies’, while MO33 is ‘for

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

61

.88 .49 e6

For satisfaction in knowing new things (MO30)

.94 .70

.69 e7

Enjoy feeling of knowing English community (MO31)

e8

.65 For pleasure in surpassing myself in English study (MO32) .54

.44 e9

.86

.83

.80

For high feeling in hearing English (MO34)

e1

.74 For future better salary (MO25)

e2

.54 Intrinsic motivation

.61 To speak more than one languages (MO27)

.74

For enjoyment in grasping difficult construct (MO33) .69 .48

e10

.26

External regulation

For future prestigious job (MO24)

.78 .62

Identified regulation

.75

e3

.56 For personal development (MO28)

e4

.68 .83

Be a person who can speak English (MO29)

e5

Figure 3.3 Measurement model of motivation to learn English

the enjoyment I experience when I grasp a difficult construct in English’. These two items both captured rewarding feelings about overcoming difficulties in English learning, and might correlate with each other. The revised model indicated an adequate fit to the data, as suggested by the fit indices: χ2/df (106.03/31) = 3.42, RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI = 0.06–0.08), SRMR = 0.04, GFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.96 and CFI = 0.97. This model is illustrated in Figure 3.3. At this stage, because there were only two observed variables for external regulation and three observed variables for identified regulation, it was worthwhile specifying a competing model collapsing the two factors as a factor of extrinsic motivation. This was considered because theoretically external regulation and identified regulation were two dimensions of extrinsic motivation. Thus, a competing model was specified: Items MO24, MO25, MO27, MO28 and MO29 reflected extrinsic motivation, and Items MO30, MO31, MO32, MO33 and MO34 reflected intrinsic motivation. The error terms of MO24 and MO25 were co-varied as the modification indices suggested. Compared with the three-factor model, the fit indices of this competing model, however, were less adequate: χ2/df = 4.74, RMSEA = 0.09 (90% CI = 0.07–0.10), CFI = 0.96 and GFI = 0.94, which were beyond the acceptable level. Therefore, the previous three-factor model was retained. As shown in Figure 3.3, motivation consists of three factors. External regulation was reflected by Items MO24 and MO25 measuring utilitarian reasons for learning English, whose factor loadings were 0.94 and 0.86, respectively. Identified regulation was indicated by Items MO27, MO28 and MO29 describing the extent to which learners internalise English learning as personally relevant, whose loadings were 0.78, 0.75 and 0.83, respectively. Intrinsic motivation had five indicators (Items MO30, MO31, MO32, MO33 and MO34) eliciting enjoyment or feelings of satisfaction as reasons

62

Part 2: The Big Picture

for learning English, with loadings ranging from 0.69 to 0.83. The factor loadings were all statistically significant (p < 0.05). The correlation coefficients of external regulation with identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were 0.54 and 0.26, and the correlation coefficient between the latter two factors was 0.62. Table 3.7 presents further descriptive statistics of the three dimensions of motivation and their related items. Apparently, the average score for external regulation (4.23) was higher than both the mean score for identified regulation (4.16) and that for intrinsic motivation (2.97). One may see that on the continuum of intrinsic–extrinsic motivation, the current participants’ English learning was generally motivated by extrinsic reasons, either for entirely utilitarian incentives or because they accepted the fact that, nowadays, English plays an important role in their life (i.e. identified regulation). This can be evidenced by the highest mean score for Item MO28 (4.75) that reflects identified regulation. Meanwhile, the mean scores of items assigned to intrinsic regulation, ranging from 2.83 to 3.15, are relatively lower than the mean scores of other items. It seems that the participants had yet to develop enjoyment and satisfaction to bolster their English learning. This three-factor structure was different from the original six-factor structure in Noels et al.’s (2000) study: three factors of intrinsic motivation (knowledge, accomplishment and stimulation) and three factors of extrinsic motivation (external regulation, introjected regulation and identified regulation). The three factors of intrinsic motivation in this study converged well into one factor denoting intrinsic motivation. This, however, confirms Noels’ Table 3.7 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of motivation and items (n = 503) Item

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

EXTEREGU MO24 MO25 IDENREGU MO27 MO28 MO29 INTRMOTI MO30 MO31 MO32 MO33 MO34

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

4.23 4.31 4.16 4.16 3.70 4.75 4.03 2.97 2.88 3.15 3.09 2.91 2.83

1.04 1.05 1.14 1.22 1.58 1.15 1.51 1.23 1.51 1.48 1.49 1.49 1.53

–0.11 –0.13 –0.22 –0.26 –0.18 –0.73 –0.40 0.24 0.45 0.24 0.20 0.26 0.39

–0.52 –0.47 –0.46 –0.68 –1.00 –0.07 –0.77 –0.66 –0.78 –0.88 –0.97 –0.93 –0.87

Note: EXTEREGU = external regulation; IDENREGU = identified regulation; INTRMOTI = intrinsic motivation.

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

63

(2001) statement that the three types of intrinsic motivation are not expected to vary in terms of self-determination. While external regulation and identified regulation were retained as separate factors, introjected regulation did not emerge as a distinct factor in this study. This result, to some extent, reflects the findings of a recent qualitative study reported by Noels (2009), in which introjected regulation was only identified in a small proportion (1%) of the full research sample. Two implications can be considered regarding the tenability of introjected regulation in the current context. On the one hand, the original three items reflecting introjected regulation (i.e. ‘I would feel ashamed if I couldn’t speak to my English-speaking friends’; ‘Because I would feel guilty if I didn’t know English’ ; ‘to show to myself that I’m a well-educated citizen because I can speak English’) may not apply to the participants. In this EFL context, students do not necessarily have ‘English-speaking friends’. Because English is not used as a medium of daily communication, students may not develop guilty feelings due to their communication deficiency in English. Moreover, university students have embarked on professional study and may envision how important or unimportant English is to their future careers. In other words, they may adopt a practical perspective rather than unconditionally embracing the ideological view that being able to speak English means being well educated. On the other hand, introjected regulation may nonetheless exist among Chinese EFL students, especially if it is conceptualised in terms of somewhat guilty feelings towards their parents or families for not learning English well. Because English learning is directly related to school achievement, students may have self-induced pressure to pass or excel in examinations. Therefore, in the current context, what students have internalised may be a specific motivation to pass examinations instead of a motivation to learn English in general. This examination-driven motivation clearly reduces their tolerance for communicative tasks and enhances their appreciation of test-oriented approaches, which partly explains the differing WTC in form-focused and meaning-focused activities. Therefore, it may have rendered more explanatory power to the current study if introjected regulation had been operationalised in this regard. With that said, more empirical investigations are needed to examine the multifaceted dimensions or possible conceptual overlap (Noels, 2009) of self-determined regulations.

Dimensions of learner beliefs Learner beliefs were estimated as a two-factor model consisting of beliefs about English learning (BELENGLEA) and beliefs about classroom communication (BELCLACOMM). The initial model provided an adequate fit to the data. However, Item LB35 loaded low (0.37) on its underlying factor. This item stated, ‘You should not say anything in English until you can speak

64

Part 2: The Big Picture .18

e1

Teacher provide Chinese explanation (LB36)

.43

.38 e2

Learning English is learning grammar (LB37) .67

e3

Learning English is a matter of translation (LB38) .51

e4

.62 Beliefs about English learning

.82

.22 Learn little by participating communication (LB40)

.71 .47 .56

e5

.64

Understanding English necessitates translation (LB39)

.80 Beliefs about classroom communication

.78

Frequently speaking up is show off (LB41)

e6 .61

Frequently speaking up is loathed by others (LB42) .64

e7

.41 Don't speak up without teacher invitation (LB43)

e8

Figure 3.4 Measurement model of learner beliefs

it correctly’, which originated in Horwitz’s (1988) Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory. It seemed that this item did not match the perceptions of modern university students who may have become familiar with and thus identify with communication-oriented concepts in English learning. This item was then dropped. The final model fit the data well. The fit indices are: χ2/df (44.49/19) = 2.34, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI = 0.03–0.07), SRMR = 0.04, GFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.96 and CFI = 0.98. Figure 3.4 illustrates the final model. As seen in Figure 3.4, Items LB36, LB37, LB3 and LB39 indicated BELENGLEA, with loadings ranging from 0.43 to 0.82. These items elicited students’ beliefs about learning and teaching, which corresponded to the factor of beliefs about a traditional orientation to learning English in Sakui and Gaies’ (1999) study. Items LB40, LB41, LB42 and LB43 reflected BELCLACOMM, with loadings ranging from 0.47 to 0.80. These items described students’ beliefs about classroom communication, which may bear a Chinese cultural influence (Peng, 2007b). The loadings for Items LB36 and LB40 were comparatively low but statistically significant (p < 0.05). The inter-factor correlation coefficient was 0.56. Table 3.8 shows the descriptive statistics of the two dimensions of learner beliefs and their related items. It should be noted that items in this scale were reversely coded, which means that higher scores on this scale reflect less agreement with the traditional conceptions about English learning described in the items. As can be seen, the mean score for BELENGLEA (4.12) and that for BELCLACOMM (4.49) were both above the midpoint value of the possible maximum score (i.e. 6/2 = 3). This indicates that the participants generally disagreed with the traditional beliefs assumed

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

65

Table 3.8 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of learner beliefs and items (n = 503) Item

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

BELENGLEA LB36 LB37 LB38 LB39 BELCLACOMM LB40 LB41 LB42 LB43

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

4.12 3.29 4.44 4.56 4.20 4.49 4.12 4.61 4.47 4.75

0.94 1.30 1.26 1.19 1.26 0.88 1.18 1.09 1.20 1.15

–0.31 0.17 –0.72 –0.80 –0.37 –0.64 –0.30 –0.99 –0.86 –1.00

–0.31 –0.92 –0.16 0.14 –0.65 0.36 –0.34 0.84 0.14 0.64

Note: Items in this scale were reversely coded. BELENGLEA = beliefs about English learning; BELCLACOMM = beliefs about classroom communication.

to hinder English learning and communication. Their strong disapproval went to the following statements: ‘[s]tudents should not speak up without being invited by the teacher’ (LB43, mean = 4.75); ‘[t]he student who always speaks up in class is showing off his/her English proficiency’ (LB41, mean = 4.61); and ‘[l]earning English is mostly a matter of translating from Chinese’ (LB38, mean = 4.56). This closer look at the participants’ beliefs and also the literature should provide preliminary encouraging news to researchers and language teachers. Coincidently, in Fushino’s (2010) study of Japanese university students’ WTC in L2 group work, the participants also scored higher than the midpoint value of the maximum score (i.e. 5/2 = 2.5) on a 5-point Likert scale measuring their positive beliefs about the value and usefulness of group work and about innovative instruction. It appears that modern university students tend to shake off the constraints of traditional conceptions and become flexible to modern teaching ideology. This could contribute to the pressing need for competent English users against the backdrop of globalisation of which English has become an important part (Lamb, 2012), and also the wide acceptance of communicative language teaching (CLT) around the world. Even in the domain of education in general, Boekaerts (2001: 20) recognised the trend that ‘teachers are massively changing their teaching practice’ to improve on the traditional teacher-fronted teaching and promote social interaction in class. This, on the other hand, does not rule out another possibility that these beliefs expressed in a written questionnaire may not necessarily regulate behaviours in real-life situations. The extent to which the participants’ expressed beliefs were practised in their learning and communication in situ requires context-rich evidence. Therefore, these results will be examined against the findings obtained in the more contextsensitive multiple-case study in the second research phase.

66

Part 2: The Big Picture

The validated two-factor measurement model of learner beliefs indicates that the factor structure of this scale was tenable. This result attests to the feasibility of conceptualising this construct in terms of BELENGLEA and BELCLACOMM. As reviewed in Chapter 2, learner beliefs have a broad conceptual range (Dörnyei, 2005), such as motivational beliefs (Yang, 1999) or self-efficacy beliefs (Graham, 2006; Yang, 1999). Because this research simultaneously investigated motivation and communication confidence, this narrow focus of beliefs was necessary to avoid a conceptual overlap.

Dimensions of classroom environment A three-factor model for classroom environment was estimated, respectively, TEASUPP, STUCOHE and TASKORIEN. The initial analysis indicated that the model provided a moderate fit to the data. However, a potential correlation of the error terms of Items CE45 and CE52 was suggested in the analytic output, which indicates that these two items might share a common variance that was unexplained by their underlying factors. Item CE45 stated, ‘The teacher asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions’. Item CE52 stated, ‘Tasks designed in this class are attractive’. It was very likely that if the teacher asked thought-provoking questions during task performance to engage students, students would perceive the tasks attractive. Given the potential overlap in item content, CE52 was removed from further analysis. The resulting model provided an adequate fit, as can be seen from the fit indices: χ2/df (135.36/51) = 2.65, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI = 0.05–0.07), SRMR = 0.05, GFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.95 and CFI = 0.96. The model is shown in Figure 3.5. .41 e1

Teacher is patient (CE44)

.64 Make friends in this class (CE48)

.49

.64

.80

.42 e2

e3

e4

Teacher question solicits viewpoints (CE45) .55

e5

.73 .65

.85 Teacher support

.74

Teacher responds timely to student concerns (CE46) .45

Student cohesiveness

.85

.67

.72 Work well with other class members (CE50)

.52

.77

Teacher smiles while talking (CE47)

Be friendly to class members (CE49)

.51

.77 .33

.72

Help others having troubles with work (CE51)

.71 .51

.60

.51

Know what to accomplish (CE53)

Tasks are useful (CE54)

Activities are clearly and carefully planned (CE55)

Assignments are clear (CE56)

e9

e10

e11

e12

Figure 3.5 Measurement model of classroom environment

e7

.27

Task orientation .58

e6

e8

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

67

As seen in Figure 3.5, the first factor, TEASUPP, was reflected by Items CE44, CE45, CE46 and CE47, with loadings ranging from 0.64 to 0.74. These items measured TEASUPP or immediacy behaviour perceived by students. The second factor, STUCOHE, was indicated by Items CE48, CE49, CE50 and CE51, with loadings ranging from 0.52 to 0.85. These items captured the help and warm emotion perceived among students. Items CE53, CE54, CE55 and CE56 were indicators of the third factor, TASKORIEN, with loadings ranging from 0.58 to 0.77. These items measured the extent to which the tasks were useful and task performance was emphasised in class. The factor loadings were all statistically significant (p < 0.05). The correlation coefficients of TEASUPP with STUCOHE and TASKORIEN were 0.49 and 0.77, and the correlation coefficient between the latter two factors was 0.51. Among the three factors, TEASUPP and TASKORIEN had a relatively high correlation. This result confirms former empirical findings that the subscales in the classroom environment inventory overlapped (Dorman, 2003). According to Dorman (2003), because the proposed dimensions of classroom environment are not mutually exclusive, high correlations among them are expected. In this study, it was understandable that TEASUPP and TASKORIEN correlated highly because both factors were related to teaching practice, that is, how a teacher plans the learning tasks and delivers his or her lesson. Nevertheless, this empirical result suggests that further refinement of this instrument is needed (Dorman, 2003) to enhance discrimination among the subscales. Table 3.9 presents the descriptive statistics of the three dimensions of classroom environment and their related items. The mean scores of the three dimensions were all higher than the midpoint value of the possible maximum score (i.e. 6/2 = 3): 4.65 for STUCOHE, 4.57 for TEASUPP and 4.22 for TASKORIEN. The item with the lowest mean score is CE54 (3.93), which elicits the usefulness of learning tasks. It can be inferred that, overall, the participants appraised their language class in a positive light. This is a pleasant finding because a positive learning experience is crucial to maintaining learners’ motivation. Dörnyei (2007a: 719) emphasised the necessity of eliminating boredom and creating a pleasant environment in class in order to provide ‘sufficient inspiration and enjoyment’ and sustain learners’ long-term commitment to L2 learning. However, the high mean scores on this scale may also be a result of the participants’ overevaluation of the classroom environment for the sake of being polite, which is what is termed social desirability bias (Neuman, 2003). They were likely to do so to maintain harmony and avoid confrontation, which is a typical Chinese cultural trait (Gao, 1998). Of note is that the comparatively low score for TASKORIEN, in particular the low score for CE54, indicates that many participants were not quite satisfied with the learning tasks in class. This may raise concerns about the design and implementation of tasks in the EFL classrooms. While, in essence,

68

Part 2: The Big Picture

Table 3.9 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of classroom environment and items (n = 503) Item

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

TEASUPP CE44 CE45 CE46 CE47 STUCOHE CE48 CE49 CE50 CE51 TASKORIEN CE53 CE54 CE55 CE56

2.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

4.57 4.89 4.01 4.48 4.91 4.65 4.71 4.94 4.77 4.18 4.22 4.04 3.93 4.37 4.54

0.79 0.96 1.06 1.01 1.05 0.82 1.04 0.89 0.94 1.14 0.83 1.08 1.05 1.06 1.06

–0.36 –0.82 –0.08 –0.35 –0.75 –0.37 –0.63 –0.57 –0.64 –0.11 –0.20 –0.14 –0.04 –0.34 –0.48

Kurtosis –0.32 0.61 –0.81 –0.44 –0.20 –0.27 –0.17 –0.23 0.20 –0.86 –0.37 –0.64 –0.51 –0.42 –0.29

Note: TEASUPP = teacher support; STUCOHE = student cohesiveness; TASKORIEN = task orientation.

both CLT and task-based language teaching (TBLT) highlight the use of meaningful tasks to promote communication in a natural way, it is equally emphasized that learners are guided to attend to linguistic elements (Ellis, 2000). It is likely that tasks activating superficial interaction without targeting explicit ‘knowledge’ are deemed useless. This somehow explains why role-plays or games that are readily accepted in Western L2 classes may be rejected by the Chinese EFL learners. As Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu (2011) pointed out, the purpose and logic behind tasks should be clearly defined and the attainment of accuracy should be given due weight; however, these remain challenges for communicative or task-based language classes. The three-factor structure of classroom environment was aligned with the original conceptual formulation of this scale based on Fraser et al. (1996). It is also consistent with William and Burden’s (1997) social constructivist model in which teachers, learners, tasks and contexts are key factors that interact to influence the learning process.

Model Reliability and Validity Establishing reliability and validity is a major concern in quantitative research. In a questionnaire survey, reliability refers to the homogeneity of the items on a scale. If a scale is reliable, each item on this scale should

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

69

have a reasonable correlation with other items and the scale score. This is known as internal consistency reliability, which is usually measured with Cronbach’s alpha (α). This type of reliability measures the degree to which a set of variables or items reflects a single latent variable. The alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, indicating no internal reliability to perfect reliability. Generally, a value of 0.70 or above is considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2006). This traditional reliability statistic, however, is only calculated from simple correlations. It does not account for the possible effects of latent variables and measurement errors. To better capture the measurement properties of a scale, I also calculated model-based construct reliability (CR) in the present study. CR is more advantageous because it estimates model parameters, especially measurement errors. This coefficient can be calculated manually using the formula in Hair et al. (2006: 777):

CR =

⎛ n ⎞ ⎜ ∑ λi ⎟ ⎜ n =1 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠

2

2

⎛ n ⎞ ⎛ n ⎞ ⎜ ∑ λi ⎟ + ⎜ ∑ δi ⎟ ⎜ i =1 ⎟ ⎜ i =1 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

where λi is the standardised factor loading and δi is the error variance associated with the observed variable. A value of 0.70 or higher indicates good CR. Construct validity is usually evaluated from two aspects: convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity refers to the extent to which the instrument items purported to measure the same construct are in agreement (Bagozzi et al., 1991). A set of items shows convergent validity if all its factor loadings on the construct are statistically significant (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Segars, 1997). Discriminant validity refers to the distinctiveness of the measures of different constructs (Bagozzi et al., 1991). Within a CFA framework, Brown (2006) noted that correlations between constructs above 0.80 or 0.85 indicate poor discriminant validity. Generally, goodnessof-fit indicated by the fit indices contributes evidence of construct validity (Holmes-Smith, 2008). The results of CFAs in this study supported the model reliability and validity. Table 3.10 presents the estimates of Cronbach’s α and CR for each factor (i.e. subscale of the latent variables). The estimates of Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.74 to 0.93, and the CR estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.92, which all exceeded the recommended level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006). No inter-factor correlations exceeded 0.80. The five measurement models all exhibited reasonably good fit to the data, which supported the construct validity underlying the instruments (Holmes-Smith, 2008).

70

Part 2: The Big Picture

Table 3.10 Internal reliability and construct reliability of each subscale Latent variable WTC in English Communication confidence in English Motivation to learn English Learner beliefs

Classroom environment

Subscale WTC in meaning-focused activities WTC in form-focused activities Communication anxiety Perceived communication competence External regulation Identified regulation Intrinsic motivation Beliefs about English learning Beliefs about classroom communication Teacher support Student cohesiveness Task orientation

Cronbach’s α

Construct reliability

0.82 0.89 0.84 0.93

0.82 0.89 0.83 0.92

0.89 0.82 0.88 0.74 0.76

0.90 0.89 0.87 0.75 0.77

0.77 0.83 0.79

0.77 0.85 0.79

Summary In this chapter, I have presented the findings related to the participants’ profiles of WTC in their English language class. The frequency analysis of their responses to the questionnaire indicates that the participants were generally willing to communicate using English in class. The participants who reported higher WTC in form-focused classroom activities outnumbered those who expressed WTC in meaning-focused activities. This chapter also reported the underlying factor structure or conceptual dimensions of WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment, which are the main variables examined in the first research phase. The underlying factor structures of the measures of these variables are: two factors for WTC (i.e. WTCFFACT and WTCMFACT), two factors for communication confidence (i.e. CA and PC), three factors for motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation, external regulation and identified regulation), two factors for learner beliefs (i.e. BELENGLEA and BELCLACOMM) and three factors for classroom environment (i.e. TEASUPP, STUCOHE and TASKORIEN). The reliability and validity of these factor structures were supported. The examination of the dimensions of these variables also revealed salient findings. The participants’ expressed WTC in form-focused classroom activities were higher than that in meaning-focused activities. Their level of extrinsic motivation, which encompasses external regulation and identified regulation, was higher than that of intrinsic motivation. Overall, the

Dimensions of WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Classroom Environment

71

participants tended to disagree with presumably traditional beliefs about English learning and communication. In addition, they reported generally favourable perceptions of classroom environment, although their rating of task orientation was lower than that of teacher support and student cohesiveness. These sketches of the participants’ motivational and psychosocial conditions and their perceptions of their learning environment provide the basis for further exploration of the dependence relationships between the individual and contextual variables. In the next chapter, I will report their interrelationships which were hypothesised and evaluated using SEM. The interactive effect of communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment on WTC will be examined in detail.

4 Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC: A Full Structural Model Chapter 3 has provided a portrait of the survey respondents’ willingness to communicate (WTC) in their language class. It has also presented the conceptual dimensions, or the factor structures of the five variables investigated in this study: WTC in English, communication confidence in English, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment. The psychometric properties of the instruments were validated, which satisfied the prerequisite for testing a full structural model. This chapter reports on the interrelationships between these variables that were hypothesised and tested using structural equation modelling (SEM). The results contributed important insights into the interconnectedness between these variables; in particular, the prediction of WTC by the other four variables. This chapter addresses the following research question: What are the interrelationships between WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment?

A Model of WTC and its Antecedents With reference to SEM procedures, a full structural model hypothesising the interrelationships between WTC, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment was specified and evaluated. Due to the large number of scale items involved which would add to the model complexity, composite variables for the subscales of each latent variable were formed (Kishton & Widaman, 1994; Little et al., 2002). This was done by combining the scores on items in a subscale and dividing the total score by the number of items. In other words, the dimensions of a latent variable were aggregated to be the indicator variables of this latent variable. Table 4.1 shows a summary of the composite variables for the latent variables. The correlation matrix for these composite variables is shown in Appendix 3. There were 12 composite variables indicating 5 latent variables in the structural model. The descriptive statistics of these 72

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

73

Table 4.1 Composite variables of the latent variables Latent variable

Composite observed variables

WTC in English

In meaning-focused activities (WTCMFACT) In form-focused activities (WTCFFACT) Communication con- Communication anxiety (CA) fidence in English Perceived communication competence (PC) Motivation to learn External regulation (EXTEREGU) English Identified regulation (IDENREGU) Intrinsic motivation (INTRMOTI) Learner beliefs

Classroom environment

About English learning (BELENGLEA) About classroom communication (BELCLACOMM) Teacher support (TEASUPP) Student cohesiveness (STUCOHE) Task orientation (TASKORIEN)

No. of items

Items used

5

WTC2, 3, 4, 9, 10

4

WTC5, 6, 7, 8

6

4

CA11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 PC17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 MO24, 25 MO27, 28, 29 MO30, 31, 32, 33, 34 LB36, 37, 38, 39

4

LB40, 41, 42, 43

4 4 4

CE44, 45, 46, 47 CE48, 49, 50, 51 CE53, 54, 55, 56

6 2 3 5

composite variables have been presented in Chapter 3 (see Tables 3.5–3.9). All values of skewness and kurtosis for the composite variables were within the range of –1 and +1, indicating that these composite variables were normally distributed (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Model specification was based on theoretical grounds. According to Hair et al. (2006), there are three sources of theories: prior research, past experiences and other theories that provide perspectives for the analysis. While the relationships between some variables have been investigated in previous research, some others, such as classroom environment, had not been integrated into a second language (L2) WTC model prior to this study. As such, model specification was grounded not only in L2 WTC theories but also empirical research and other theories in related areas. The hypothesised structural model is shown in Figure 4.1. Communication confidence was hypothesised to directly influence WTC in English, as suggested by L2 WTC theories (MacIntyre et al., 1998) and abundant empirical evidence (Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). Meanwhile, MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic L2 WTC model indicates that motivation exerted an indirect influence on L2 WTC. There is recent evidence that motivation influences L2 WTC through its effect on communication confidence

74

Part 2: The Big Picture

Learner beliefs WTC in English Classroom environment

Motivation to learn English

Communication confidence in English

Figure 4.1 Hypothesised relationships among WTC in English, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment

(Fushino, 2010; Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). Therefore, paths leading from motivation to communication confidence, and from confidence to WTC in English were specified. The variable of learner beliefs was hypothesised to directly influence motivation. Learner beliefs were conceptualised in this study as a value judgement on English learning and communication in class, which may be gained through experience and socialisation in certain sociocultural backgrounds. In an L2 learning context, it has been speculated that learner beliefs can influence motivation (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Riley, 1997). It was expected that learners who endorsed positive beliefs about learning and communication would be more motivated. Thus, a direct path from learner beliefs to motivation was proposed. Classroom environment was hypothesised to directly influence WTC in English, communication confidence and learner beliefs. Of the three components of classroom environment, teacher support was speculated to influence L2 WTC (Wen & Clément, 2003). Cohesiveness perceived by students was found to influence students’ L2 WTC in group work or whole-class discussion (Peng, 2007b). There is also empirical evidence that teachers’ supportive behaviour could minimise learners’ anxious feelings and promote affective learning (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b). Meanwhile, it is likely that tasks, as the building blocks of classroom learning, can influence students’ self-perceptions. It has been observed that moderately challenging tasks could enhance young learners’ perceived competence (Wu, 2003). Therefore, paths leading from classroom environment to WTC and confidence were, respectively, hypothesised. Finally, researchers have suggested that learner beliefs are influenced or shaped by prior experiences (Ellis, 2008b; White, 2008). It was found that students who had experience in communicative

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

75

classes showed more positive beliefs about classroom communication and interaction (Hu, 2003). Therefore, a path from environment to beliefs was also added. The hypothesised structural model was tested using a maximum likelihood (ML) estimation and evaluated using similar procedures to those in the confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) reported previously. Model modification was adopted based on theoretical and empirical grounds. The model modification steps and fit indices are shown in Table 4.2. To compare the initial theoretical model with the subsequent revised models, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was also considered. This fit index is particularly useful for model comparison in post hoc analyses. The model with the smallest AIC is the one most likely to replicate in the population (Kline, 2005). As seen in this table, the initial hypothesised model provided a low to moderate fit to the data. The chi-square/degree of freedom (χ2/df) and root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were 3.79 and 0.08, respectively, which were higher than the acceptable level. The Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) (0.88) was lower than 0.90. The results indicated that there was room for model modification. The modification indices in the output of the SEM analysis suggested a direct effect of learner beliefs on communication confidence, and another direct effect of classroom environment on motivation. Model modification was performed based on theoretical considerations. In this study, learner beliefs were conceptualised to be strongly associated with sociocultural influences in the Chinese cultural context. Therefore, when certain communicative behaviour is believed not to conform to social norms or expectations, students tend to feel anxious or less confident if they are about to initiate such behaviour. For instance, if a student endorses the belief that ‘always speaking up in class will be loathed by other classmates’ (Item LB42), he or she may feel anxious before or when volunteering to speak up multiple times. Thus, a path from beliefs to confidence was added. Similarly, it is understandable that an active and engaging environment may stimulate students’ motivation to learn English. In educational psychology there is evidence regarding the influence of classroom situations on students’ motivational behaviours (Volet & Järvelä, 2001; Wosnitza & Nenniger, 2001). Thus, a path from environment to motivation was also added. As seen in Table 4.2, the goodness-of-fit of the model improved substantially when the two paths were added. Adding the path from beliefs to confidence produced a significant drop in χ2 (∆χ2(1) = 33.63). The addition of the path from environment to motivation also caused a significant drop in χ2 (∆χ2(1) = 22.59). The AIC of the final model was of the lowest value, suggesting that this model was more parsimonious and preferable. Inspection of other fit indices showed that they were all satisfactory (χ2/df = 2.74, standardised root mean-square residual

Initial model Revision 1: Add a path from beliefs to confidence Revision 2: Add a path from environment to motivation

48 47

46

125.82

df

182.04 148.41

χ2

0.00

0.00 0.00

p

2.74

3.79 3.16

χ2/df

0.06

0.08 0.07

RMSEA

Table 4.2 Revision steps and fit indices for the structural model

0.05

0.06 0.05

RMSEA (90% CI) low

0.07

0.09 0.08

RMSEA (90% CI) high

0.05

0.07 0.07

SRMR

0.95

0.91 0.93

CFI

0.96

0.94 0.95

GFI

0.92

0.88 0.91

TLI

189.82

242.04 210.41

AIC

76 Part 2: The Big Picture

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

77

[SRMR] = 0.05, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.95, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.96, TLI = 0.92). The RMSEA was 0.06 (90% CI = 0.05–0.07), suggesting that the final model may be a reasonable representation of the structural relationships in the population. Figure 4.2 provides a schematic representation of this final model. The added paths are presented as dotted lines, indicating their ‘data-driven’ nature. The structural model, as shown in Figure 4.2, consists of the measurement models of the five latent variables and their interrelationships. In the measurement models, the composite variables are the indicators of the latent variables. The values above or below the rectangles enclosing the observed variables are squared multiple correlations (SMC; R2), referring to the variance of the observed variables explained by the latent variable. The values beside each path leading from one latent variable to another are regression coefficients or path coefficients, indicating the magnitude of the dependence relationships between a pair of variables. For instance, the coefficient for the path from communication confidence to WTC is 0.69. The regression coefficients for the paths in this model are all significant at the level of 0.05 or below. The R2 for each endogenous latent variable was also computed, which stands for the proportion of their variance accounted for by the structural model (Byrne, 2001). It is a significant measure of the meaningfulness of the proposed model in explaining the latent constructs under investigation. The R2 for the four endogenous latent variables (WTC, confidence, motivation and environment) in this structure model is shown in Table 4.3. To aid the interpretation of the practical significance of the parameter estimates in the structural model, magnitude-of-effect (ME) estimates (f2) for each variable were also calculated. The effect size (ES) can be used to estimate whether the statistically significant findings are meaningful, in other words, whether it has capitalised on sample-specific variance. In this study, Cohen’s f2 index was computed to estimate the ES of R2. The equation to compute f2 is: f2 = R2/1 – R2. The guidelines on the interpretation of f2 are: f2 = 0.02 as small effect; f2 = 0.15 as medium effect; and f2 = 0.35 as large effect (Cohen, 1992: 157). Table 4.3 shows the R2 associated with the latent and observed variables and its ES. The error variance associated with each observed variable and the residuals of each endogenous variable are also presented, which equals 1 – R2. As seen in this table, the structural model explains 61.6% of the variance of WTC in English (f2 = 1.60) and 53.8% of the variance of communication confidence (f2 = 1.17), which were of large ES. This implies that this model significantly and practically explains the variance of WTC and communication confidence inside the English classroom. Thirteen percent of the variance of motivation (f2 = 0.16, medium ES) and 10.9% of the variance of learner beliefs (f2 = 0.12, small ES) were explained, revealing that this model does not substantially account for these two variables. In addition, the R2 values of all observed variables (displayed in upper case) ranged

.59

.81

.73

.25

EXTEREGU .81

IDENREGU

.90

Motivation to Learn English

.29

.50

Classroom Environment

.33

.68

.58

.38

.19

.42 .69

WTC in English

.62

CA

–.57

.33

PC

.59

.85

.53

.72

Communication Confidence in English

.66

.33

INTRMOTI

.15

.18

Learner Beliefs

BELCLACOMM

.44

WTCMFACT

WTCMFACT .35

.71

Figure 4.2 Structural model of English classroom communication. Note: WTCMFACT = WTC in meaning-focused activities; WTCFFACT = WTC in form-focused activities; CA  =  communication anxiety; PC  =  perceived communication competence; EXTEREGU  =  external regulation; IDENREGU  =  identified regulation; INTRMOTI  =  intrinsic motivation; TEASUPP  =  teacher support; STUCOHE  =  student cohesiveness; TASKORIEN = task orientation; BELENGLEA = beliefs about English learning; BELCLACOMM = beliefs about classroom communication

TASKORIEN

.65

STUCOHE

.35

TEASUPP

.53

BELENGLEA

.46

78 Part 2: The Big Picture

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

79

Table 4.3 Standardised parameter estimates for the structural model and effect size Latent/observed variable WTC in English Communication confidence Motivation to learn English Learner beliefs WTCMEANFOC WTCFORMFOC CA PC EXTEREGU IDENREGU INTRMOTI BELENGLEA BELCLACOMM TEASUPP STUCOHE TASKORIEN

Squared multiple correlations (R2)

f2 index

Error/residual variance

0.616 0.538 0.130 0.109 0.714 0.347 0.329 0.526 0.249 0.808 0.332 0.456 0.436 0.533 0.348 0.653

1.604 1.165 0.156 0.122 2.497 0.531 0.490 1.110 0.332 4.208 0.497 0.838 0.773 1.141 0.534 1.882

0.384 0.462 0.87 0.891 0.286 0.653 0.671 0.474 0.751 0.192 0.668 0.544 0.564 0.467 0.652 0.347

Note: WTCMFACT = WTC in English in meaning-focused activities; WTCFFACT = WTC in English in form-focused activities; CA  =  communication anxiety; PC  =  perceived communication competence; EXTEREGU = external regulation; IDENREGU = identified regulation; INTRMOTI = intrinsic motivation; BELENGLEA = beliefs about English learning; BELCLACOMM = beliefs about classroom communication; TEASUPP = teacher support; STUCOHE = student cohesiveness; TASKORIEN = task orientation

from 0.249 to 0.808 with a medium to large ES. This further attests to the validity of the measurement models. To further explore the interrelated relationships between the variables, the direct, indirect and total effects implied in the model were examined. Direct effects refer to the direct impact of one variable on another, which is reflected by single-headed arrows or paths in a model. Indirect effects are ‘the effects between two variables that are mediated by one or more intervening variables’ (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006: 7). Total effects are the combined direct and indirect effects of a predictor variable on a predicted variable. While direct effects are of primary interest in most SEM research, indirect effects are often insufficiently addressed (Bollen, 1987; Holbert & Stephenson, 2002). Raykov and Marcoulides (2006) cautioned that unless indirect effects are considered, the relationship between two variables in a structural model cannot be fully explained. Direct effects can be interpreted as the standardised regression coefficient (ß). ß measures the extent to which an independent or predictor variable influences a dependent or predicted variable. The interpretation of

80

Part 2: The Big Picture

this coefficient in SEM is similar to a regression analysis: if ß is 0.05, the predicted variable will increase by 0.05 standard deviations for each standard deviation increase in each predictor variable. Table 4.4 presents ß for each structural path, the R2 (i.e. ß2) and the ES of the R2 applying Cohen’s f2 index. The R2 statistic here indicates the amount of variance of the predicted variable explained by the predictor variable. As seen in Table 4.4, communication confidence was the strongest predictor of WTC, with ß reaching 0.69 (R2 = 0.48, f2 = 0.92), which was of large ES. From this result, it can be inferred that when students are less anxious in communicating in English and perceive themselves as competent, they are more likely to be willing to engage in classroom communication using English. Motivation significantly predicted communication confidence (R2 = 0.14, f2 = 0.16) with a medium ES, suggesting that motivation was a significant and meaningful predictor of confidence. Likewise, learner beliefs significantly predicted motivation (R2 = 0.02, 2 f = 0.03) with a small ES. This suggests that this variable was not a strong predictor of motivation. The influence of learner beliefs on communication confidence, however, was of medium ES (R2 = 0.18, f2 = 0.22), which reveals that learner beliefs reasonably predicted learners’ confidence in participating in classroom communication. Classroom environment exerted a significant and direct influence on WTC in English (R2 = 0.03, f2 = 0.03, small ES), communication confidence (R2 = 0.04, f2 = 0.04, small ES), learner beliefs (R2 = 0.11, f2 = 0.12, small ES) and motivation (R2 = 0.08, f2 = 0.09, small ES). However, all the influence was of small ES, indicating that although the influence of classroom environment was non-trivial, it might not predict the dependent variables to a meaningfully large extent. Indirect effects in SEM are statistically estimated as the product of the standardised direct effects that comprise them (Kline, 2005). For Table 4.4 Effect size of standardised direct effects Path Communication confidence → WTC Motivation → communication confidence Learner beliefs → motivation Learner beliefs → communication confidence Classroom environment → WTC Classroom environment → communication confidence Classroom environment → learner beliefs Classroom environment → motivation

Regression coefficient (ß)

R2

f2 index

0.687 0.377 0.154 0.422 0.178 0.192

0.472 0.142 0.024 0.178 0.032 0.037

0.894 0.166 0.025 0.217 0.033 0.038

0.329 0.286

0.108 0.082

0.121 0.089

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

81

example, learner beliefs had two possible standardised indirect effects on WTC (see Figure 4.2). One was estimated as the product of ß for two paths: learner beliefs → communication confidence and communication confidence → WTC, or 0.42 × 0.69 = 0.29. Another was estimated as the product of ß for three paths: learner beliefs → motivation, motivation → communication confidence and communication confidence → WTC, or 0.15 × 0.38×0.69 = 0.04. Accordingly, the standardised indirect effects of learner beliefs on WTC were 0.33 (0.29 + 0.04). The interpretation of this result is that WTC was expected to increase by about 0.33 standard deviations for each standard deviation increase in learner beliefs via the prior effects of beliefs on motivation and confidence. As a result, although learner beliefs did not directly influence WTC, its relationship with WTC was duly explained. In this study, the standardised direct, indirect and total effects were computed by Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS), which is shown in Table 4.5. In the same vein, the ES size for the total effects was also computed using Cohen’s f2 index (f2 = R2/1 – R2). As seen in Table 4.5, the four variables in the structural model differed in the magnitude of their effect on WTC. Communication confidence exerted the largest effect on WTC with a strong magnitude (0.69, R2 = 0.57, f2 = 0.89, large ES). Motivation and learner beliefs only exerted an indirect effect on WTC (respectively, 0.26, R2 = 0.07, f2 = 0.07; 0.33, R2 = 0.11, f2 = 0.12,) with a small ES. While the direct effect of classroom environment on WTC was of small ES, its total effect on WTC (0.49, R2 = 0.24, f2 = 0.32) reached a medium ES. Table 4.5 Standardised direct, indirect and total effects for the structural model Predictor variable

Predicted variable

Communication WTC confidence Motivation WTC Communication confidence Learner beliefs WTC Motivation Communication confidence Classroom WTC environment Learner beliefs Motivation Communication confidence

Direct effect

Indirect effect

Total effect

R2

f2 index

0.687

0.472

0.894

0.259

0.259 0.377

0.067 0.142

0.072 0.166

0.330

0.330 0.154 0.480

0.109 0.024 0.230

0.122 0.025 0.299

0.492 0.329 0.336 0.458

0.243 0.108 0.113 0.210

0.321 0.121 0.127 0.044

0.687

0.377

0.154 0.422 0.178 0.329 0.286 0.192

0.058 0.315 0.051 0.266

82

Part 2: The Big Picture

In addition, the total effect of classroom environment on motivation (0.336, R2 = 0.11, f2 = 0.13) and communication confidence (0.46, R2 = 0.21, f2 = 0.04) remained of small ES. The total effect of learner beliefs on communication confidence was 0.48 (R2 = 0.23, f2 = 0.30), reaching a medium ES.

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment The full structural model tested against the survey data shows complex interrelationships between WTC, communication confidence, motivation, learner beliefs, and classroom environment. Confidence and motivation are the two most frequently investigated antecedents of L2 WTC. This survey study also initiated the inclusion of learner beliefs and classroom environment in an L2 WTC model. The final model provided an adequate fit to the data, supporting the interrelationships between these variables.

The effect of confidence on WTC This study found that communication confidence exerted the strongest direct effect on WTC. This result indicates that inside the language classroom, when students perceive a high level of competence to communicate in English and experience a low level of anxiety, they tend to be willing to engage in English communication. MacIntyre et al. (1998) placed state confidence as an immediate antecedent of L2 WTC in their heuristic model. The current result constitutes important empirical evidence supporting this relationship. It is also consistent with many L2 WTC studies across different contexts, such as Canada (Clément et al., 2003), Japan (Fushino, 2008; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004), Korea (Kim, 2004), Turkey (Cetinkaya, 2005) and Iran (Ghonsooly et al., 2012). These compliant findings lend weight to the claim that communication confidence defined by perceived competence coupled with a lack of anxiety is a primary and universal precursor to L2 WTC regardless of regional diversity. Communication anxiety (CA) and perceived communication competence (PC), when taken separately, appeared to contribute differently to communication confidence, and accordingly to WTC in class. The full structural model (Figure 4.2) shows that PC had a higher absolute loading (0.72) than CA (–0.57) on communication confidence. This implies that the participants’ communication confidence was more correlated with their perceived competence than with anxiety, and hence the magnitude of the correlation between PC and WTC was stronger than that between CA and WTC (see also Appendix 3). This result compared favourably with MacIntyre and associates’ (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre et al., 2003)

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

83

findings that for non-immersion students, PC was a stronger predictor of L2 WTC. They argued that students in non-immersion contexts are exposed to limited use of their L2 and thus their perceptions of their competence is a stronger determinant of WTC. In this study, the participants were from an English as a foreign language (EFL) context and similarly, had insufficient L2 contact. PC was also found to be a stronger predictor of confidence and hence WTC. The differing effects of PC and CA were also identified in other EFL contexts (Ghonsooly et al., 2012; Yashima, 2002). This, to some extent, supports Cheng’s (2000) argument that lack of required foreign language proficiency is one of the key reasons for Asian students’ reticence in class. The confirmed salient effect of confidence on WTC pinpoints the important role of affect in L2 communication. Oral communication in a new language involves much spontaneity and uncertainty, which can pose a threat to individuals’ selves or their ego. Many scholars even contend that L2 learning and communication involve a reconstruction or an alteration of selves (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; Williams & Burden, 1997). Therefore, affective factors such as anxiety and self-perceptions of competence can be decisive in preparing learners to engage in L2 communication. In addition, although this questionnaire survey might have provided only a snapshot of the participants’ affective profiles, it revealed variations of the participants’ CA and PC implicated in specific classroom activities and tasks described in the scale items. This implies that the immediate effect of confidence on WTC may ebb and flow across situations, which would be further explored contextually in the follow-up case study.

The effect of motivation on confidence and WTC The structural model indicates that motivation and learner beliefs directly influenced confidence and exerted indirect effects on WTC. If the participants’ confidence is considered to exert a transient effect on their WTC, then motivation and beliefs may be perceived to be two important sources of their confidence. The indirect effect of motivation on WTC via its direct effect on communication confidence confirmed in this study is consistent with the existing literature (Cetinkaya, 2005; Ghonsooly et al., 2012; Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). Previous L2 WTC studies operationalised motivation using Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model, whereas the present study applied the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation framework (Noels et al., 2000). Such an aligning result strongly supports the constant relationships between motivation, confidence and L2 WTC. In MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) theoretical model, motivation was also an enduring instead of an immediate antecedent of WTC. These findings imply that while motivation is closely related to L2 WTC, students with motivation to learn English may not necessarily be willing to communicate using English. This is understandable in the Chinese EFL

84

Part 2: The Big Picture

context. English study for most students in China is to meet the immediate need to pass examinations rather than to satisfy communicative purposes. Therefore, learner motivation may be more manifested in acquiring testrelated skills such as vocabulary, reading and writing than in speaking. While communication competence is increasingly working its way into the language curriculum, the importance of English-speaking skills is still overshadowed by the pressing needs faced by students to succeed in examinations. In other words, motivation and L2 WTC are two closely related but conceptually distinct constructs in the current EFL context. The direct effect of motivation on confidence suggests that a motivated student is likely to have a higher perception of his or her competence and a lower level of CA. Although motivation does not necessarily lead to oral competence in English, it may foster academic success in other aspects, such as high course grades or academic awards. Accumulated academic success can boost one’s self-evaluation and develop one’s self-confidence in interacting with others; as Yashima (2002: 62) pointed out, ‘studying gives learners confidence in communication’. Therefore, although motivation may not have an immediate effect on L2 WTC, the wholesome psychological foundation it lays down is indispensable to sustaining the ‘long and often tedious learning process’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 65). This study also confirmed the plausibility of the coexistence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations among EFL students and their joint influence on L2 communication. In MacIntyre et al.’s (2011) qualitative study of L2 WTC, the French immersion students’ journal entries also indicate a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motives. It may well be that in the current context, the juxtaposition of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations more accurately account for students’ learning and communication behaviour than either one of the two. In particular, externally regulated reasons are not too trivial to be ignored. Of the three types of motivation examined in this study, identified regulation seemed to play a prominent role. In the full structural model (Figure 4.2), identified regulation had the highest loading on motivation, implying that the participants’ motivation was more reflected by identified regulation than external regulation and intrinsic motivation. That is to say, in their English learning, the participants were more pragmatically self-determined than being purely driven by external incentives or innate pleasure. They were aware of the role of English in their personal development and internalised it into their motivational system, which may reflect the mentality of modern university students. Under fierce academic competition, passing examinations is still a priority on their learning schedule. On the other hand, exposure to media and education may also convince them of the importance of English and increase their identification with this language. Situated between external regulation and intrinsic motivation, identified regulation probably has the strongest momentum to push students towards academic success and, in turn, enhance their confidence.

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

85

The effect of beliefs on motivation, confidence and WTC The variable of learner beliefs exerted a direct effect on motivation and confidence, and an indirect effect on WTC. The significant influence of beliefs on motivation is in accordance with the literature (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Riley, 1997; Ushioda, 2001). Ushioda (2001: 121) pointed out that in the arduous process of learning an L2, ‘learners’ belief structure can play a crucial role in limiting the motivational damage and sustaining involvement in learning’. Riley (1997) also proposed that learner beliefs directly shape motivation. These findings suggest the power of individuals’ ideology in influencing their learning and communication behaviour. In this context, the sociocultural beliefs harboured by the learners are particularly relevant and powerful in explaining learner motivation. It makes perfect sense that if students believe that they can learn little by engaging in classroom communication or that class time should be given to grammar lectures, they may expend reduced efforts in a communicationoriented class. When these long internalised beliefs run against a communicative class where linguistic knowledge gives way to communication practice, students’ motivational propensity may drop. In the same vein, beliefs about interpersonal communication in classroom contexts can also influence learners’ motivational thinking. Such beliefs as ‘frequently speaking up is a behaviour of show-off’ (Item LB41), which I also identified elsewhere (Peng, 2007b), can undermine the enjoyment or feelings of satisfaction that one may otherwise derive from active participation in class. Because the Chinese culture values zhong yong ‘moderation’ and discourages assertiveness, students may refrain from distinct verbal behaviour. The mentality of this subconscious conformity to cultural norms could reduce individuals’ motivational capacity, particularly when the class as a group is not verbally active. In short, learner beliefs are largely learnt experiences nurtured in specific sociocultural contexts, which have a profound albeit not necessarily perceptible influence on students’ English learning and communication. Beliefs about English learning and communication also directly influenced communication confidence. An examination of the beliefs elicited in the questionnaire can provide succinct explanations. When students endorse the belief that linguistic elements such as grammar or translation should be the focus, they may emphasise linguistic features and, accordingly, over self-monitor their language use (Wen & Clément, 2003). As Wen and Clément (2003: 23) noted, Chinese students ‘tend to monitor themselves all the time, constantly checking their output against their conscious knowledge of English’. The fact is that excessive attention paid to monitoring for errors in one’s inner or overt speech could result in and be worsened by what Skehan (1996) called the trade-off between accuracy, fluency and complexity of speaker production. In real communication situations, such

86

Part 2: The Big Picture

overconcern about correctness would render students prone to feelings of anxiety or linguistic incompetency. Similarly, beliefs about classroom communication impacted on the participants’ confidence about their L2 communication. As previously addressed, in the Chinese culture of communication, individuals tend to behave in conformity with others instead of being vastly different. They tend to keep a low profile rather than being he li ji qun ‘like a crane standing among chickens’ (Gao, 1998: 166). Under this cultural influence, if a student believes that frequently speaking up in class is despised by others, he or she may develop uneasy feelings or anxiety before or during speaking up due to his or her acute perception of others’ judgement, be it real or imaginary. It takes much courage to overcome this anxiety about ‘breaking social norms’ especially when others are remaining silent. Likewise, if a student believes that he or she should not initiate questions to the teacher without being invited, he or she may feel anxious about asking the teacher a question out of necessity. Therefore, such culture-fuelled beliefs can have a controlling effect on self-confidence in specific classroom situations. Despite their important role, learner beliefs only exerted an indirect effect on WTC. This indicates that students’ belief systems may operate in a covert way, which subconsciously shapes rather than consciously influences communicative tendency or behaviour. White (2008: 121) points out that the role that beliefs play in language learning may not be ‘immediately obvious or evident’. The current finding was also in line with Fushino’s (2008, 2010) SEM results. In Fushino’s (2008) study conducted in Japan, the questionnaire respondents’ beliefs about L2 group work only indirectly influenced WTC in L2 group work via communication confidence in L2 group work. In this study, while the participants generally disagreed with the traditional beliefs (see Chapter 3), their beliefs did not exert a significant direct effect on WTC. This indicates that positive learner beliefs may prepare individuals for ideological alignment to contemporary educational ideology, such as the tenets advocated in the CLT framework, yet the extent to which individuals act on their beliefs is compounded by many other factors that have more immediate effects on WTC. The lack of direct effect of beliefs on WTC may also be attributed to the complex nature of learner beliefs that was not captured by close-ended scale items in this questionnaire survey. Learner beliefs have been widely argued to be both ‘stable and dynamic’ and ‘situated yet generalisable’ (Barcelos, 2011: 285). They are continually constructed and refined in social interaction, during which, as Alanen (2003: 62) pointed out, some beliefs become tools mediating action while others remain ‘content item(s)’ with little regulatory function. The cyclical relationship between beliefs and action has been detailed in Navarro and Thornton’s (2011) study with Japanese EFL learners in a self-directed learning context. The cross-sectional nature of the current survey was inherently insufficient to explore the contextual

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

87

relationship between beliefs and communicative behavioural tendency among the participants. This reinforces the importance of recognising learner beliefs as dynamic and context-responsive in SLA research. The dynamic and situation-dependent nature of learner beliefs was explored in the multiple-case study in the second phase of this research.

The effect of environment on WTC, confidence, beliefs and motivation The role of classroom environment in the structural model was most prominent. It exerted both a direct and an indirect effect on WTC, communication confidence and motivation, and a direct effect on learner beliefs. While there is no precedent statistical evidence defining the relationship between classroom environment and L2 WTC, their direct relation observed in this study corresponds to the findings of qualitative studies (Cao, 2008; Pattapong, 2009; Peng, 2007b). These qualitative studies found that teacher factors such as teaching methods, teacher involvement, task types and classroom climate as environmental elements have an influence on L2 WTC. It is intuitively likely that a pleasant and encouraging environment focusing on task commitment can promote willingness to practise English communication. Of the three components, task orientation was the strongest indicator of classroom environment (see Figure 4.2). This means that the participants’ perceptions of the importance of completing tasks and the tasks’ usefulness correlate most with their perceived environment. This is understandable because as university students, the current participants were intellectually mature, had clear learning goals and had developed the ability to appraise the match between classroom tasks and their goals. The low ratings on the item eliciting the usefulness of learning tasks, as reported in Chapter 3, also reflect their critical appraisal of learning tasks available in class. Consequently, when the meaning they assign to learning tasks contradicts what is intended by the teacher, their communicative intention could easily be discouraged. The small ES of the direct influence of classroom environment on WTC, however, warrants further discussion. There may be two possible explanations here. First, it implies that the statistically significant correlation of the two variables is comparatively less meaningful in practice. The significant relationship may have been the artefact of the specific sample, which cannot be readily generalised to a whole population. One reason for this may be that more classroom contextual factors were not specified in the survey instrument. This is unavoidable because the complexity of a language classroom can hardly be exhaustively and conclusively represented in scale items. On the other hand, responses to the environment scale in this survey might have been biased by the participants’ cultural traits. In this cultural context, teachers are often viewed as the authority in class who should be

88

Part 2: The Big Picture

respected. Also, Chinese people tend to be concerned for others’ face when handling interpersonal relationships (Gao, 1998). Therefore, when asked to evaluate their teachers and the lessons delivered, the participants might not have been willing to give harsh comments even if they had negative experiences. This could have resulted in measurement bias and influenced the relationship estimates between the two variables. Future research needs to particularly consider such possible cultural influence that may induce bias in specific research contexts. Nevertheless, the combination of the direct and indirect effects of environment on WTC was of practical significance. This result suggests that although environment alone is not sufficient to bring about an immediate increase in students’ WTC, its influence is routed through other individual factors, such as confidence and motivation, which, in turn, causes a variation in WTC. In other words, classroom WTC is a function of the joint effect of environmental factors and individual factors, which supports the ecological perspective that posits the interconnectedness between individuals and their surrounding environment. Due to individual idiosyncrasies, the same environment or lesson plans can bring about differing communicative engagement of different learners. This study also confirmed a positive effect of environment on confidence, indicating that a pleasant learning environment can heighten learners’ perceived competence and lower their anxious feelings. This result confirms many empirical findings concerning the effect of classroom environment on students’ affect (Krishnan & Hoon, 2002; Wu, 2003). From learners’ diaries, Krishnan and Hoon (2002) identified the link between learners’ confidence and the learning environment, which comprises the teacher, other learners, activities and materials. In Wu’s (2003) quasiexperimental study, students attending classes characterised by instructional support and moderately challenging tasks reported higher perceived competence. Therefore, it seems that classroom teaching should not only focus on cognitive enhancement, but also attach equal importance to creating a conducive environment that caters to learners’ affect. Among the motivational techniques that Dörnyei (2007a: 728) proposed for classroom teaching, an important one is ‘protecting the learners’ self-esteem and increasing their self-confidence’. Contrastively, however, Clément et al.’s (1994) study identified no correlations between self-confidence and perceived class atmosphere. This may be attributed to the different scales used and the different environmental dimensions measured. This study mainly adapted items from classroom environment research in the educational domain. Classroom atmosphere in Clément et al.’s (1994) study was measured by students’ evaluation of the teacher and the course, with group cohesion being separated as another factor; whereas, in this study, student cohesiveness was treated as one environmental dimension. Despite the lack of correlation, however, Clément et al.

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

89

(1994: 442) emphasised that ‘good classroom atmosphere promotes student involvement and activity while moderating anxiety and promoting selfconfidence’, which best echoes the current result. The direct effect of environment on beliefs indicates that the learning environment plays a role in shaping or changing learner beliefs. As White (2008: 124) put it, beliefs are ‘part of students’ experiences and interrelated with their environment’. Hu (2003) found that students with previous experience in communicative classes were more likely to develop a communication-orientation belief system. The relationship between classroom environment and learner beliefs also implies that learner beliefs are not stable but contextual and evolving (Barcelos, 2003; Benson & Lor, 1999; White, 1999). It is fair to infer that having been frequently situated in an active, encouraging and cohesive classroom environment, students may be less likely to endorse traditional culture-based beliefs, such as ‘frequently speaking up is a showing off’, and be able to see values in learning through communication. It should come as no surprise that their teacher and peers, who are essential elements of the learning environment, are important resources for the construction and modification of their beliefs. Classroom environment directly influenced motivation. This result corresponds to many observations on how the teacher, the group and the learning tasks could influence student motivation in the fields of SLA and educational psychology (Kubanyiova, 2006; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b). Classroom environment was conceptualised in three aspects in this study: teacher support, student cohesiveness and task orientation. Boekaerts (2001) argued for research attention to students’ responses and meaning-making of classroom environmental cues. Of these cues, teacher support is an important one. A number of studies have found that teacher support is an influential factor on motivation (Boekaerts, 2001; Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Previous studies also found that teacher immediacy, which is one aspect of teacher support, was positively related to motivation (Christophel, 1990; Richmond, 1990). Zhang and Oetzel (2006b) distinguished affective learning and cognitive learning, with the former focusing on learners’ attitudes and feelings and the latter on the acquisition of knowledge and information. In their study with 421 Chinese university students in the discipline of education, teacher immediacy had a strong direct effect on affective learning that, in turn, affected motivation and cognitive learning. Although their study differs from the current one in terms of domains and measurements, the relationship between teacher immediacy and motivation was identified. Student cohesiveness, which was another environmental aspect in this study, had been proposed to be an element of a motivational classroom environment (Dörnyei & Murphey, 1999, 2003). Dörnyei (2007a: 721) pointed out that acceptance, commitment to the tasks and group pride are the main factors contributing to the ‘internal gelling force’ that holds the group

90

Part 2: The Big Picture

together. The sense of closeness and belonging can undoubtedly enhance learner motivation, particularly in the here-and-now classroom situations. While the direct effect of task orientation on motivation has not been widely tested, language learning tasks are consensually considered entwined with L2 motivation (Dörnyei, 2002; Dörnyei & Tseng, 2009; Kubanyiova, 2006). William and Burdens (1997: 125) pointed out that ‘the greater the value that individuals attach to the accomplishment of or involvement in an activity, the more highly motivated they will be’ to engage in it and sustain efforts to succeed in it. Taguchi et al. (2009) even argued that for many Chinese students, their ultimate goals play a decisive role in regulating their learning. Following this logic, they may have high expectations of the usefulness of learning tasks for the sake of attaining their goals. The importance of the perceived value of activities, according to William and Burdens (1997), has been given little attention in motivational research. This study only focused on students’ appraisal of task orientation. It might have offered more explanatory power if more aspects of appraisals, such as levels of difficulty or perceptions of control in task performance (Boekaerts, 2001) had been included. In addition, despite the confirmed effect of tasks on motivation, no unambiguous conclusions can be drawn regarding what types of tasks create high degrees of motivation, because individual learners have their own agenda and preferences. As Boekaerts (2001) stated, students’ appraisal of learning activities is confounded with their beliefs, expectations and attributions. The emergent relationship between environment and motivation from the current empirical evidence is informing. Regardless of how complex, multifaceted and dynamic the learner motivation is, creating a pleasant and stimulating classroom environment seems to be within the control of teachers and deserves great efforts. An inspiring classroom environment is likely to promote motivation, in particular long-term engagement in language learning. As Dörnyei (2007a: 719–720) pointed out, ‘boring and systematic teaching can be effective in producing, for example, good test results, but rarely does it inspire a life long commitment to the subject matter’. Such motivation from within and fostered by the classroom environment is the optimal non-linguistic outcome that every teacher should desire to achieve. What should be noted is that this study applied a model generation strategy (Jöreskog, 1993) wherein an initial model was specified, tested and modified, as is common with SEM. The post hoc analyses rendered the study exploratory in nature (Byrne, 2001). The data-driven relationships between beliefs and confidence, and between environment and motivation require further empirical evidence to support their stability. In addition, from a statistical perspective, although the final structural model demonstrated an adequate fit to the data, it cannot be interpreted as a ‘true’ model because, statistically, many more models may fit the same data (Thompson, 2000). The SEM technique only allows researchers to state that the resulting

Interrelationships between WTC, Confidence, Motivation, Beliefs and Environment on WTC

91

goodness-of-fit statistics provide evidence that the proposed model cannot be rejected.

Summary Based on the SEM analysis, this chapter has reported the interrelationships between WTC, communication confidence, motivation to learn English, learner beliefs and classroom environment among the survey participants in the first research phase. The results showed that communication confidence was the strongest predictor of WTC, indicating that boosting self-perceived competence and reducing CA in class is profoundly important to create learners’ communication intention using the target language. Motivation exerted a direct effect on confidence and an indirect effect on WTC, indicating that although motivation may have a non-significant immediate influence on WTC, language teachers can foster motivation among learners so as to enhance their communication confidence. Learner beliefs about English learning and classroom communication demonstrated their direct influence on learners’ communication confidence and motivation, which, in turn, affected WTC. Classroom environment was an important contextual variable that exerted a direct effect on WTC, confidence, motivation and learner beliefs. This survey study has depicted the complex interrelationships between these variables. The novelty of this study was its initial attempt to include classroom environment and learner beliefs about English learning and communication into a model to account for EFL learners’ WTC in class. The variable of learner beliefs in a broad sense substituted for the integrative attitudes in the socio-educational model, since I argued for taking a step back to trace learners’ belief systems that possibly influence their attitudes. Ushioda (2012: 61–62) also justifies a shift in focus from socio-psychological attitudes to motivational cognitions, which refer to ‘the kinds of beliefs, self-perceptions, and thinking patters that affect students’ engagement in (or disengage from) learning’. Motivation in this study was operationalised from the intrinsicextrinsic motivation framework. The final model provided a reasonable fit to the data and explained a large proportion of the variance of WTC, which attests to the plausibility of the interrelationships between these variables and, in particular, the power of the classroom contextual variables and other individual variables in accounting for EFL learners’ WTC in class. The ecological perspective attaches primary interest in examining the interrelatedness between individuals and the surrounding environment, which was supported by the current results. What is noteworthy is that, from this perspective, these variables may have potentially reciprocal relationships (e.g. L2 WTC may in turn influence classroom environment). Such reciprocal relationships were not tested in the structural model. The reasons are twofold: First, from a statistical perspective, it is meaningless to

92

Part 2: The Big Picture

test a saturated model that hypothesises all possible relationships among all variables (Kline, 2005). Second, the structural model was based on crosssectional data, which were not suitable for testing reciprocal relationships in SEM (Hair et al., 2006). In brief, this large-scale survey has offered a snapshot of the big picture on the interrelationships between the individual and contextual variables of interest. If a questionnaire is considered to capture the trait level of L2 WTC, its state level was thereby explored in the following multiple-case study that adopted a situated lens. The findings of the multiple-case study are reported in the ensuing two chapters. The next chapter presents the fluctuations in WTC over time and across classroom situations with the focus on four participating students.

Part 3 A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations (Phase 2: A Multiple-Case Study)

5 Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations The second phase of this research involved a multiple-case study carried out over a span of seven months in University A, one of the participating universities in the survey. Four students were invited to participate. Its purpose was to complement, triangulate and expand on the quantitative results of the survey in the first stage. This multiple-case study was largely qualitative with an in-depth inquiry into students’ perceptions. In this chapter, I will first introduce the sources of data and the techniques used to enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis. I then provide contextual information about the participating students’ English language classes. The profiles of the four students are then described and the temporal fluctuations in their willingness to communicate (WTC) in class over time and across situations are finally reported and analysed. Chapters 5 and 6 jointly address the following research questions: does the participating cases’ WTC in the language classroom fluctuate over time and across situations? If yes, what are the factors underlying such fluctuations?

The Multiple-Case Study This multiple-case study started at the beginning of the autumn semester in 2007. I contacted related classroom teachers and their students in September 2007. Data collection spanned from October 2007 to April 2008, which covered the first semester to the mid second semester in the academic year 2007–2008. The research site was University A in southern China. I collected data through semi-structured interviews, non-participant classroom observations and learning journals regularly kept by the participants. There were six sessions of semi-structured interviews conducted individually with each of the four students. These interviews constituted the primary data source. In the first semester, I carried out four interview sessions with each student at the beginning, the middle and the end of the semester. Another two sessions were held at the beginning and in the middle of the second semester. The first session, which was held two days before the first observation, focused on building a rapport with the focal students, inquiring about their previous experience and perceptions of English learning and communication. Other sessions were carried out shortly after each classroom observation, so that what was observed in 95

96

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

class and recorded in journal entries was still fresh and could be explained by the students. The interview questions comprised the questions listed in the interview guide and specific questions tailored to individual focal students. The interview topic guide is included in Appendix 4. All interviews were conducted in Chinese and digitally recorded. Each session lasted about 20–30 minutes. There were 24 interview transcriptions that I later translated into English. I also conducted 16 non-participant observations in the participating students’ class in order to obtain contextualised information to triangulate and supplement the self-reported data collected from journals and interviews. The focal students’ voluntary or nominated English speaking in whole-class or group/dyad situations was observed. In addition, their nonverbal actions such as hand-raising and the behaviour of other students in the classroom were also observed. In the first semester, four observations were conducted in the classes in which each pair of students sat, which amounted to eight observations. In the second semester, however, the four focal students all enrolled in different classes. Accordingly, two observations were conducted individually with each student in their classes, which also amounted to eight observations. Using an observation scheme (see Appendix 5), I jotted down tallies according to the number of times that the recorded behaviour occurred. In some situations such as ‘speak English in group/pair’, tallies were made at bi-minutely intervals. I also made qualitative observations by taking field notes during and immediately after class to record puzzling or critical scenarios. Many of the observed scenarios, after probing the students further during follow-up interviews, produced rich findings. However, because ‘only observable phenomena can be observed’ (Dörnyei, 2007b: 185) and WTC is a covert state and difficult to observe, the inherent weakness of observation constrains my observations to simply functioning to supplement the understanding of the actual communication context rather than gauging WTC. I also supplied the focal students with a journal framework (see Appendix 6) and asked them to make entries soon after the class to recall and record the classroom environment and their perceptions, feelings and performance in class. The journal entries were collected on a fortnightly basis. Generally, the students recorded one entry per week. A total of 87 journal entries were collected, among which 23 were contributed by the first student, 22 entries by the second student and 21 entries each by the third and fourth students (see Table 5.1 for the student profiles). A qualitative content analysis was employed. The data analysis was an iterative process involving reading, coding and revising the codes as more waves of data were collected during the research period. NVivo 8.0 was used to facilitate the analytical process of coding, querying and matrix presentation. I also utilised annotations and memos to record my immediate comments, summaries of interviews and reflexive thinking.

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

97

Table 5.1 Demographic information of the participating students Case No.

1

2

3

4

Name Gender Age University year Class Level of WTC WTC score

Manling Female 19 First Class 1 High 60 Medical college Clinical medicine

Weitao Male 20 First Class 1 Low 45 Medical college Clinical medicine

Dongmei Female 19 Second Class 2 High 59 Business school Business administration

Zefeng Male 20 Second Class 2 Low 29 Engineering college Communications engineering

College Major

Establishing Trustworthiness I am aware that verifying the validity of an analysis is an important consideration for qualitative researchers. The notion of validity in qualitative studies has been referred to as trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), credibility (Merriam, 1998) or confirmability (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I adopted four verification procedures to enhance the trustworthiness of this study: data triangulation, thick descriptions, disconfirming evidence and inter-coder agreement (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data triangulation was achieved by drawing together multiple sources of data to overcome potential bias that might arise from the use of a single data source (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). The students’ reports in interviews and journal entries were analysed against the classroom observation records and field notes. The observations in return informed the follow-up interviews. This reciprocal informing process of the different data enhanced the generation of analytical insights. I also tried to provide thick descriptions to help enhance readers’ understanding of the participating students (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Dörnyei, 2007b). Through situating the students in their language classroom and providing contextualised information about their overt behaviour and covert psychological thinking, I aimed to connect the reader to the experiences documented in the research context. The three typical strategies recommended by Richards and Morse (2007) for collecting data to build thick descriptions were used: observations, interviews and journals. Along the data collection and analysis process, I was alert to disconfirming evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2000) that potentially revealed the complexity of reality and enhanced the credibility of the research accounts. Identifying disconfirming evidence in this study involved establishing preliminary categories and themes and then searching for consistent or inconsistent

98

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

evidence in the data (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles & Huberman, 1994). This procedure was assisted by the software NVivo. Upon completion of the initial coding, I searched for disconfirming evidence while rereading the data, based on which initial thematic categories were compared, dropped or merged, and inconsistent evidence was analysed and interpreted. Inter-coder agreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was also established by inviting another researcher in this area to code one randomly selected interview transcription. She was first presented with the coding scheme and a detailed explanation about the scheme. Then, she independently and manually coded the transcription. The coding results were compared and an inter-coder agreement of 93.88% was obtained, which was above the threshold of 90% recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994: 64).

The Four Focal Students and Their English Language Class Extreme or deviant case sampling strategy (Dörnyei, 2007b) was employed to select the participants in this multiple-case study. That is, students in a class group with the highest and lowest WTC in English were selected. In light of this sampling strategy, common elements identified across deviant cases can represent ‘real core components of the experience’ (Dörnyei, 2007b: 128). In other words, if WTC and its identified predictors held across cases of high- and low-WTC profiles, the research findings could be deemed plausibly stable. There were four focal students selected, two from a Year-1 class (Class 1) and two from a Year-2 class (Class 2). The WTC scale used in the previous survey was administered to the two class groups. The students who scored the highest and lowest on the scale in each class and consented to participate were invited. Table 5.1 shows their demographic information and their scores on the WTC scale. The names of the students were replaced with pseudonyms for ethical reasons. The WTC scale comprised 10 items rated at 6 points, so a full score on this scale is 60. As seen in Table 5.1, the two highWTC cases, Manling and Dongmei, reported a full and nearly full score (60 and 59, respectively), whereas of the two low-WTC cases, Weitao (Year-1) scored 45 and Zefeng (Year-2) scored 29. The English classes that the pair of first-year students attended differed in the two semesters. In Semester 1, Manling and Weitao, who were medical majors, were in an intensive English language programme targeting students’ communicative competence. According to the curriculum, students should finish two self-study reading chapters per week in a computer laboratory. Additionally, they attended English classes that were characterised by a variety of learning tasks and much oral interaction. The teaching team was composed of three local English teachers and one international teacher

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

99

from the United Kingdom. Observations were conducted in one local female teacher’s classes. Her classes were generally communication oriented, with activities such as oral presentation, group project or role-plays organised. Active student participation in her class was often observed. In Semester 2, Manling and Weitao were placed in different classes, studying a medical English course taught by a team of 10 teachers (9 local teachers and 1 international teacher from Singapore). I observed the classes of two local female teachers. The lesson content was centred on English for medical science. Their classes were mixed with teacher lectures and oral activities. Of note, students’ classroom participation was counted towards their final course grade. According to my observations, each time a student volunteered verbal participation, for instance, volunteering to spell a medical word, the teachers instantly recorded the name of this student. This action apparently sent an explicit message to the students that their participation was being monitored. My observations showed that the students generally demonstrated active participation in these classes. The second-year pair of cases, Dongmei and Zefeng, were enrolled in the same class in the first semester, which was taught by a local female teacher. In the second semester, Dongmei attended classes taught by an American male teacher, and Zefeng studied with another local female teacher. I observed the classes of these three teachers. Their class mode appeared to be teacher fronted and textbook based, following a structured schedule of teaching the textbook unit by unit. Group discussions were occasionally blended with lectures. As I observed, the students in these classes seldom volunteered to speak up or answer questions. On many occasions, they did so only when being called on by the teacher. In what follows, I will portray the profiles of each participating student, including their past English learning experience, their participation in extracurricular English activities and their perceptions of English teaching and learning. Students’ past experience and activities outside the class, from the ecological perspective, are important sources for understanding their learning and communication in class, which constitute components of the ecosystems model that will be presented in Chapter 7. I will also describe the fluctuations in their WTC as indicated by their self-report and my classroom observations. In this chapter and the succeeding one, the students’ statements, either from interviews or journal entries, are cited in italics (except for indented excerpts) to provide ‘thick descriptions’ of the findings.

Manling: ‘My Problem is “What I Should Communicate?”’ Manling was the high-WTC student of the first-year pair. She was a 19-year-old female student, majoring in clinical medicine. She started

100

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

learning English from junior high school and had six years of experience in formal English classes before entering the university. She seemed to have a great interest in English. As reported, when she was a little girl and watched people speaking English on the television, she had dreamt of being able to speak English fluently someday. Manling expressed her expectation to speak more English in class. She described her experience in the high school classroom as ‘learning’ a lot while speaking little. The only opportunity for speaking English was reading texts aloud as requested. Thus, she concluded that at that time ‘it would look weird speaking English with classmates’ (Manling, Interview 1, 6 October 2007). Upon entering the university, the English classes were more communication oriented, which seemed to meet her expectation. However, a severe problem that she had in class was allegedly a lack of logical argument towards topics under discussion. She was often bewildered about what to communicate and questioned her ideas as ‘naïve’ or ‘superficial’, which greatly hindered her WTC in class. In her interviews, she often uttered such comments as ‘I didn’t know much about the topic and had no idea what to say’ and ‘I couldn’t organise my thoughts logically’. Manling actively participated in extracurricular English activities. She was a member of the English Union, an on-campus student community that organised weekly English activities. She also visited the English Lounge (EL), another community promoting English communication on campus. These activities seemed not only to have satisfied her interest in English, but also inspired her to study harder when she saw her deficiency in her oral English ability. As she mentioned, ‘I found I didn’t know many things they talked about. This drove me to make up the knowledge’ (Manling, Interview 6, 18 April 2008). Even when she was not in the English intensive programme in the second semester, she hoped to be a competent member of the English Union by improving her oral English skills: I hope to enhance my oral English ability, because I am in the English Union and I hope I can amount to something there.[...] You know, when I was interviewed for application for membership, I spoke a lot because I was well prepared. I gave them the impression that I am quite talkative. But when actually attending their activities, I spoke little. I want to improve my oral English. (Manling, Interview 5, 4 March 2008) While seemingly enjoying the communicative classes in the first semester, Manling complained about two aspects of these classes. First, the class schedule was too demanding. The students were left with little time to digest the content of the textbooks: ‘That’s almost duck-stuffing education. [...]In fact if we have enough time to study, the textbooks are good’ (Manling,

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

101

Interview 3, 7 December 2007). Second, the English course was not organised systematically. Comparatively, the medical English class in the second semester gave her a ‘steady’ and ‘substantial’ feeling: Manling: Last semester, everyday our study was quite loose, and the course was not systematic. I think it was difficult to master the knowledge intended to be learnt. Peng: Is the class schedule in this semester systematic? Manling: Yes, courses such as chemistry, physics, and medical English are all related to medical science. The class goal is very clear, unlike last semester’s English class. Peng: How was the class like last semester? Manling: It was like a radiation. We touched every topic about everything. Peng: So which kind of classes do you like better, last semester or this semester? Manling: It’s not a matter of which one I like better. It’s just, I feel enriched and reassured in the current class. But last semester, I had no sure idea about what I was learning. (Manling, Interview 5, 4 March 2008) Despite the comfortable feeling she had, Manling also pointed out in her last interview that the knowledge-oriented curriculum of the medical English course did not encourage her to develop her oral skills: Peng: Do you think the medical English class this semester is fostering your English communicative competence? Manling: No. Although I have been learning knowledge in class, it did not arouse my awareness that I should enhance my language ability. (Manling, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) Manling’s communicative tendency in class declined over the seven months of this study. Figure 5.1 shows the course of the fluctuations. The solid line points downwards, starting at 60% and ending at 50%, indicating that on the whole Manling’s WTC level decreased. The peaks and valleys of the curved line suggest that her WTC waxed and waned much in dayto-day classroom situations, with the highest reaching 100% and the lowest touching 30%. In each semester, however, her WTC was increasing, as indicated by the two rising dotted lines. The higher vertical position of the first dotted line in relation to the second one indicates that her WTC in the first semester was higher than that in the second semester. The graphic fluctuations in Manling’s WTC find support in the textual and observation data. In the first semester, Manling revealed that at the start she was very willing to engage in classroom communication, whereas later on her WTC dropped because she could not fit in with the open form of the communicative classes, and lacked confidence when seeing some of

102

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

Figure 5.1 Temporal fluctuations in Manling’s WTC in English in class

her classmates who were good at thinking and speaking in English: ‘I felt doubtful about my ability.[...] I saw, wow, they actually are quite strong. I felt selfabased’ (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). Near the end of this semester, as reported, her WTC rose again because she adjusted herself and gained rewarding feelings in oral communication: At the beginning of this semester, we simply found the materials and read them out [when giving presentations] in class. Later on, we recited them. Now I can talk about them without looking at the notes. My feeling now is different. I feel good. (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008) Manling acknowledged in the second semester that her WTC in the medical English class was not strong because the class focused on transferring knowledge: ‘I think it has little to do with oral communication’ (Manling, Interview 5, 4 March 2008). The slight increase in her WTC in this semester was probably related to some specific classes in which communicative activities were conducted. For instance, Manling recorded her delight with her oral presentation in the class on 26 March and the role-play on 18 April. That is, her increased WTC witnessed near the end of this study was likely to be specific to particular classroom contexts. The fluctuations in Manling’s WTC were to some extent reflected in the six observations I made in her classes. Figure 5.2 shows the frequency of Manling’s voluntary verbal and non-verbal hand-raising behaviour. As seen in this figure, in the first semester Manling volunteered more communicative behaviour in the first and fourth observations than in the second and third observations. These records basically correspond to

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

103

Observations on Manling (High-WTC) 21

22 20

18

18

18 16

14

14 Voluntary public speaking

11

12 10 8 6

Hand raising

4

4 2

Voluntary non-public speaking

6 3

2 0

0

0

1 0

0

0

1

1

0 2007-10-08 (1st)

2007-11-05 (2nd)

2007-12-03 (3rd)

2008-01-07 (4th)

2008-02-29 (5th)

2008-04-18 (6th)

Figure 5.2 Manling’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and hand-raising. Note: Observations made in the first semester: the first, second, third and fourth; observation made in the first half of the second semester: the fifth and sixth

her self-report. In the second semester, while instances of her non-public speaking rose slightly, they were, as I observed, mostly related to her responses in chorus when pronouncing medical words. The frequency of her voluntary speaking up, such as answering questions, was less than that in the first semester. In other words, her communication in the secondsemester classes involved shorter and simpler discourses in English. As the results stand, however, the issue of non-verbal hand-raising behaviour observed in this study needs to be addressed. While hand-raising to volunteer answers is believed to indicate WTC in the second language (L2) context (Cao & Philp, 2006; MacIntyre et al., 1998), hand-raising behaviour per se as a sign of WTC may depend on situations in the current research context. In classes where international teachers were present, hand-raising clearly expressed students’ intention to use English communicatively. Such an intention, however, would become equivocal with local Chinese teachers, since students might have meant to address the teacher in their mother tongue. This caution should be taken when interpreting the observation data of the four students in this study, and also reminds researchers of the ‘unobservability’ of the WTC construct.

Weitao: ‘I’m Still Studying English for Examinations’ Weitao was the low-WTC student of the first-year pair. He was a 20-year-old male student, majoring in clinical medicine. He started formal English education from Grade 5 in primary school and had been learning

104

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

English for seven years before entering the university. He reported that in his high school English class, there was usually a five- to ten-minute short discussion section, although many of the students talked in Chinese instead of English. Such prior experience, however, seemed to have a counter-effect on Weitao’s WTC in class because, as reported, he was often laughed at in high school for his mistakes in oral speech. Obviously, he became very sensitive to this, which made him quite anxious about speaking English in class: I was kind of afraid of losing face when speaking English in front of the class.[...]Because I often make mistakes in prepositions and grammar in my expressions, in high school my classmates often laughed at me. I am kind of scared. (Weitao, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) Weitao mentioned that he was not interested in learning English. He believed that as a medical student, being able to read in English may suffice: ‘To a medical student, it is more important to be able to read and comprehend English materials’ (Weitao, Interview 5, 1 March 2008). He confessed that he studied English mostly for examinations, which was also the way he perceived the education system in China: ‘Now our education is mainly exam-oriented. All of us care about scores’ (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2007). Although in the first semester he occasionally attended extracurricular English activities run on the campus, he only observed and seldom spoke English there. Thus, he actually had little oral practice outside the classroom: Peng: Recently have you participated in any English activities outside the class? Weitao: Sometimes I went to the English Clan organised by the English Union. Peng: Do you like the activities there? Weitao: I went there because I felt like being a part of it. But when I was there, I seldom talked with others. Peng: Why not? Weitao: Because many of the students were from other classes and not quite acquainted with me. I do not feel accustomed to talking with strangers in English. Peng: Then what did you do there? Weitao: I was just a bystander there. They spoke English when carrying out activities. I just listened to them. (Weitao, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) Weitao expressed similar criticism of the communicative curriculum in the first semester:

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

105

I think I can’t keep up with the course.[...]Because each passage is very long and has many new words. I have no time to review or memorise the new words. When a new word appears in the text, I can simply know what it means. When it is taken out [of context], I easily forget its meaning. (Weitao, Interview 3, 7 December 2007) At the beginning of the second semester, Weitao expressed his preference for the teacher-fronted lectures compared with the English class he attended in the first semester, because the former gave him clear learning goals: Peng: I saw in this Monday’s class your teacher mainly explained new words and nominated each of you to answer questions. Do you like this teaching mode? Weitao: Yes, I do. I think it gives us a clear learning target. If the class simply focuses on fostering students’ interest and leaves them to study on their own, the students who have no interest will become at lost and have no idea about how to learn English. (Weitao, Interview 5, 1 March 2008) At the mid-term stage, however, Weitao strongly complained that the curriculum goal of the medical English course was equivocal, making him confused about whether he was studying English or medical science: Recently I feel more and more at lost. I don’t know what I should learn, because there are too many medical words.[...]Now in the medical English class, I don’t know whether I’m studying medical science or English, because some teachers spoke Chinese more than English. (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) Weitao reported a sharp decline in his WTC over the period of seven months, as shown in Figure 5.3. The steep downwards solid line, which starts at 60% and ends at 30%, indicates a vast decrease in his WTC. The peaks and valleys of the curved line suggest that his WTC ebbed and flowed greatly in day-to-day classroom situations, with the highest reaching 100% and the lowest touching 0%. His WTC appeared to decline in the first semester and increase in the first half of the second semester. The first dotted line is vertically higher than the second one, indicating a much higher WTC level in the first semester. These fluctuations in Weitao’s WTC were supported by the textual and observation data. Weitao reported that at the beginning he was not willing to speak English due to his anxiety about being laughed at. Later, he got used to the class mode and became willing to talk. His WTC, however, was not sustained when he started to prepare for the end-term examination and the national standardised College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) in the near future. He again viewed English learning as a compulsory task:

106

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

Figure 5.3 Temporal fluctuations in Weitao’s WTC in English in class

This semester learning English has become interesting to me, but recently I have to prepare for exams. I feel learning English is suddenly a task again.[…] My willingness to speak English is again not high. (Weitao, Interview 4, 11 January 2008) In the second semester, Weitao expressed lower WTC and refuted the importance of oral English ability to him: ‘You know, not every student will be going or studying abroad. Thus, the speaking aspect is not important’ (Weitao, Interview 5, 1 March 2008). The increase in his WTC in the mid second semester, as observed, was related to communicative activities such as oral presentations in particular classes. Figure 5.4 shows the frequency of Weitao’s voluntary verbal and nonverbal hand-raising behaviour. The first three occasions produced similar records. More voluntary non-public speaking, however, was observed on the fourth occasion, which at first sight did not match his reported drop in WTC. This discrepancy was due to two reasons. First, as Weitao reported, the topic (i.e. discussing group-mates’ personality) in this class stimulated his communication interest. That is, his voluntary verbal behaviour in this class was transient and did not represent his general WTC level in that period. The second reason is that when he reported reduced WTC in the fourth interview (11 January 2008), he might have been referring to other classes temporally later than this observed one (7 January 2008). The increasing voluntary behaviour on the last two occasions was basically consistent with Weitao’s self-report and related to the communicative activities such as role-play, according to my observations on the two classes.

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

107

Observations on Weitao (Low-WTC) 22 20 18 16 Voluntary public speaking Voluntary non-public speaking Hand raising

14 12

10

10 7

8 5

6

5

4

2

4

3

4

3 2

0

0

0

0

6

2

2

1

0

0 2007-10-08 2007-11-05 2007-12-03 2008-01-07 2008-02-27 2008-04-16 (1st) (2nd) (3rd) (4th) (5th) (6th)

Figure 5.4 Weitao’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and hand-raising. Note: Observations made in the first semester: the first, second, third and fourth; observation made in the first half of the second semester: the fifth and sixth

Dongmei: ‘The Class is Like Backwater’ Dongmei was the high-WTC student of the second-year pair. She was a 19-year-old female student majoring in business administration. Having started formal English learning in junior high school, Dongmei had seven years’ experience in English learning by the time this study commenced. She was seldom required to speak English in high school English classes. In her opinion, it was common that the high school curriculum focused on English linguistic knowledge for the sake of preparing students for the college entrance examination. Regardless of this prior learning experience, in the university Dongmei displayed an active profile in English learning and communication both inside and outside class. She was the leader of the above-mentioned EL, and once coorganised a Halloween party on the campus. These activities seemed to have exerted a stimulating effect on her English learning and sense of well-being: The recent Halloween Party hosted by the EL was actually organised by me and another colleague. I felt great about this and got a lot to share later in my English class. (Dongmei, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) In Dongmei’s opinion, the effective way to study English was to ‘chat more, write more and read more’ (Dongmei, Interview 6, 23 April 2008). She volitionally exploited opportunities to use English outside class. As reported, she extended her English use by taking advantage of modern technology,

108

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

such as browsing and reading material on the internet and chatting with English-speaking people on the chat software Skype: ‘I am using the Skype. I chat with foreigners almost everyday.’ (Dongmei, Interview 1, 6 October 2007). She also wrote English essays on her blog, which is a discussion site or a personal diary that individuals publish on the internet: I have joined some on-line organisations. They send me some good and interesting emails. I browse many e-mails written in English everyday. I have a blog, on which I’ve written some essays [in English]. (Dongmei, Interview 4, 26 December 2007) While displaying great interest and willingness to learn and use English, Dongmei was critical about the English classes in the first semester. She believed that while the curriculum goal of enhancing communicative competence was a good intention, it was not carried out in an effective way. She particularly criticised the teacher that she studied with, commenting that the teacher should not inflexibly stick to her teaching schedule without considering actual daily classroom situations: Peng: Can you describe the communicative activities in your recent English classes? Dongmei: Besides group discussions, still group discussions (laughed). Peng: Do you like this form of activity, group discussion? Dongmei: Mm, I think it should be good. It’s just, the teacher shouldn’t organise the class according to what she has planned. She should organise the class centring on the students. Peng: What did you mean by ‘centring on the students’? Dongmei: I meant the teacher should take into account how the students’ state of mind is like at a particular class time, or whether the topic can boost students’ enthusiasm. She should try better means to do so. (Dongmei, Interview 3, 5 December 2007) Regardless of her initial interest in participating in classroom communication, it seemed that Dongmei’s enthusiasm was mostly impaired by the inactive atmosphere that she constantly perceived in classes. She even depicted the class as ‘backwater’ in one of her journal entries: I didn’t have much passion to use English today. The class was like backwater. Most students kept quiet. I felt I was infected. (Dongmei, Entry 3, 18 October 2007) Dongmei’s communicative tendency appeared to remain comparatively high over the whole period, but fluctuations were also witnessed. Figure 5.5 displays the trajectory of her WTC changes. The solid line, which starts at

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

109

Figure 5.5 Temporal fluctuations in Dongmei’s WTC in English in class

90% and ends at 80%, indicates her relatively high level of WTC. The narrower peaks and valleys of the curved line, ranging from a high of 90% to a low of 60%, also show that the fluctuations in her WTC were less than those of Manling and Weitao. Nevertheless, it is still discernible that her WTC declined in the first semester while it remained constant in the first half of the second semester, as indicated by the first dotted line pointing downwards and the second dotted line remaining almost horizontal. This trajectory of Dongmei’s WTC was supported by the textual and observation data. Her initial high WTC was expressed in her journal entries and interviews. However, Dongmei later reported her low WTC as a consequence of the teacher and reticent classroom environment: Peng: From the beginning of this semester till now, are there any changes in the degree of your willingness to engage in classroom communicative activities? Dongmei: Generally speaking, the degree was high at the beginning of this semester. Then it fell to an ordinary level. Sometimes when I felt tired or sleepy, my willingness was very low. Peng: How about now, at the end of the semester? Dongmei: Now I am still at a low state. Peng: What do you think are the factors or reasons leading to these changes you experienced? Dongmei: One reason may be I do not like the teacher’s class very much. Another is that I have been affected by the overall atmosphere. (Dongmei, Interview 4, 26 December 2007)

110

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations Observations on Dongmei (High-WTC)

22 20

18

18

16

15

16

Voluntary public speaking Voluntary non-public speaking Hand raising

14 12

10

10 7

8 6 4 2

4

7

4

6

4 3 2

2 0

0

1

1 0

0 2007-10-08 2007-11-05 2007-12-03 2007-12-24 2008-02-27 2008-04-21 (1st) (2nd) (3rd) (4th) (5th) (6th)

Figure 5.6 Dongmei’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and hand-raising. Note: Observations made in the first semester: the first, second, third and fourth; observation made in the first half of the second semester: the fifth and sixth

In the second semester, Dongmei frequently reported high WTC, which seems to be attributed to her appreciation of the classes taught by the international teacher: Communicating with the foreign teacher is a process of learning. I tried to understand his talk, and also make myself understood. Any progress made is quite encouraging to me. (Dongmei, Entry 13, 27 February 2008) The development of Dongmei’s WTC was reflected in the observations I made in her classes, as shown in Figure 5.6. In the first semester, Dongmei exhibited less voluntary verbal behaviour in the fourth observation occasion than in the previous three occasions, corresponding to her reported decline in her WTC. In the second semester, her voluntary non-public speaking was less frequent than in the first semester. However, based on my observations, this was because there were fewer opportunities for group or pair discussions in the two observed class sections. This again raises the caution that behaviour cannot be equated with WTC, because regardless of their WTC, students’ communication behaviour somehow depends on the contingencies available in a specific class.

Zefeng: ‘Group Discussion is of No Use At All’ Zefeng was the low-WTC student of the second-year pair. He was a 20-year-old male student majoring in communications engineering. He

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

111

also had a seven-year history of formal English learning. While he had been cooperative throughout this study, Zefeng was distinct from the other three students for the indifferent and even cynical attitudes that he often displayed when talking about English teaching and learning. Zefeng reported no activities such as group discussion in his high school English class. Although he mentioned that he disliked English, Zefeng acknowledged that in high school he did like English because he had a good relationship with his English teacher and had to prepare for the college entrance examination. For Zefeng, the transition from high school to university seemed not to have been smooth. In his first English class, he was required by the international teacher to give a public self-introduction in English, which was a bitter experience for him: Zefeng: When I started my English class here, just in the first English class, I felt bored and didn’t want to learn English. But I forced myself to do so, yet I still felt bored. Then I said to myself ‘forget it’. Peng: Could you reflect on why you felt bored in the first English class? Zefeng: We were required to introduce ourselves in the first class. I had to instantly come up with the introduction remarks. I ended up just standing there very stupidly, not knowing what to say. With my mouth open, I said ‘Hi, da jia hao, wo jiao du ze feng (Hi, how do you do? My name is Du Zefeng.)’. Peng: You mean you introduced yourself in Chinese? Zefeng: Yes. My teacher, who was a foreign teacher, asked me to say it again in English. Then I said ‘Hello, I’m Du Zefeng’, and I couldn’t speak more. (Zefeng, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) As Zefeng reported, after the first class, he soon disliked and became resistant to communicative classes. He believed that he studied English for examinations and communicative activities were of no use: ‘With discussion we can easily kill time, but we can’t learn anything’ (Zefeng, Interview 1, 6 October 2007). Zefeng did not participate in any extracurricular English activities for the alleged reason that he had to assign his time to study subject courses. However, one may easily discern his lack of interest in involving himself in any English activities outside the class from the following interview extract: Peng: Did you participate in any English activities recently? Zefeng: No. The study load of my content area courses is heavy. I don’t even have the time to study English. Peng: The English Festival is currently being held. Have you gone there? Zefeng: (Laughed) I haven’t even heard of it. The teacher gave us announcements sometimes. I have no idea what it is.

112

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

Peng: Have you ever visited the English Lounge? Zefeng: I don’t know where it is (laughed). (Zefeng, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) In Zefeng’s perception, the university curriculum was insufficient to boost oral competence. He commented that if the university meant to improve students’ listening and speaking ability, listening and speaking should be singled out and assessed as a separate course. In the integrated classes they were attending, Zefeng said oral English was not a focus and he could pass the course without any effort: Zefeng: If the university administration really wants to improve our listening and speaking ability, I think it’d be better to single out Listening and Speaking as a course. Peng: If so, would you be more willing to speak English? Zefeng: I wouldn’t be more willing. Maybe I would force myself to do so. When I have no other choices I will force myself to study. Now in our current situation, I just like to muddle through. To some extent the majority of us would like to muddle through. (Zefeng, Interview 4, 26 December 2007) Zefeng’s WTC in the English class went through many fluctuations over time, as can be seen from Figure 5.7. The solid line points upwards, starting at 20% and ending at 50%, indicating that, generally, his WTC was on the rise. The peaks and valleys of the curved line suggest that his WTC waxed and waned greatly in day-to-day classroom situations, with the highest reaching 80% and the lowest touching 0%. His WTC appeared to decline

Figure 5.7 Temporal fluctuations in Zefeng’s WTC in English in class

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

113

in the first semester while sustaining a constant level in the first half of the second semester, as indicated by the first dotted line pointing downwards and the second one remaining almost horizontal. The lower vertical position of the first dotted line compared to the second dotted line indicates that his WTC in the first semester was lower than that in the second semester. The interviews and journal entries also showed an increase in Zefeng’s WTC in the second semester. He reported that in the second-semester classes, he felt more relaxed because there were less discussion activities and the teacher seldom asked questions. ‘This time I dared to say my performance was OK.[...] It was not bad today. I was kind of willing to communicate’ (Zefeng, Entry 15, 13 March 2008). Although it seemed that he was reluctant to admit that his WTC increased in this semester, changes in his WTC are perceptible in the following conversation between us: Zefeng: I felt I do speak now. Sometimes I spoke a couple of sentences in a half jokingly way. Peng: In group discussions? Zefeng: Yes, when the sentence suddenly came to my mind. Peng: Under what situations would you suddenly think of an English sentence? Zefeng: I have no idea (laughed). It’s hard to tell. It’s just like the sentence suddenly fell down from the sky. (Zefeng, Interview 5, 7 March 2008) I also noticed the fluctuations in Zefeng’s WTC in my observations, as shown in Figure 5.8. It is evident that in the first four observations he Observations on Zefeng (Low-WTC) 22 20 18 15

16 14 12 10 8 5

6 4 2

5 2

Voluntary public speaking Voluntary non-public speaking Hand raising

2

0

0 2007-10-08 2007-11-05 2007-12-03 2007-12-24 2008-02-27 2008-04-21 (1st) (2nd) (3rd) (4th) (5th) (6th)

Figure 5.8 Zefeng’s observed voluntary verbal behaviour and hand-raising. Note: Observations made in the first semester: the first, second, third and fourth; observation made in the first half of the second semester: the fifth and sixth

114

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

displayed limited voluntary non-public speaking behaviour using English. In the first half of the second semester, his voluntary non-public speaking behaviour increased remarkably, although he still displayed no voluntary public speaking behaviour or even hand-raising in the classes that were observed.

Developmental Nature of WTC in EFL Classrooms Based on the detailed portraits of the four participating students, it is fair to conclude that in the local classroom, WTC fluctuated greatly and was intricately linked with language classroom contexts. Broadly speaking, for the two first-year students, their first-semester English classes were communication oriented. Communicative activities such as oral presentation, role-plays and group discussions were frequently carried out. The medical English classes in the second semester, however, primarily focused on medical terminology and knowledge, with most of the class time given to teacher lectures. These two types of classroom environment provided uneven opportunities for oral interaction, which accordingly led to differing WTC. For the pair of second-year cases, Dongmei and Zefeng, their first-semester classes were often criticised by them as dull or stressful. In contrast, they expressed their approval of the second-semester classes. Dongmei experienced inspiration when studying with the international teacher, while Zefeng endorsed the relaxed atmosphere in class. Both of them exhibited increased WTC in the second semester. The WTC changes observed with the four students suggest that classroom contexts can set the keynote for students’ communicative intention. These findings lend support to the theorising that L2 WTC is not stable but situation dependent (MacIntyre et al., 1998). The fluctuations in WTC identified in this study exemplify the dynamic nature of L2 WTC underscored by MacIntyre and Clément (2008). Cao (2006) also observed that L2 WTC among L2 learners in an intensive language programme fluctuated over one month along with the participants’ increasing familiarity with their interlocutors and pedagogical practices. While universal patterns of WTC changes were not reported, the findings of this study and previous research indicated that L2 WTC can change over time (Cao, 2006) as its antecedents or influential factors fluctuate (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; Cao, 2006). Although this study detected no universal patterns in the four focal students’ WTC fluctuations, it conveyed a clear message that classroom affordances strongly underlie the developmental trajectories of the students’ WTC. Affordance refers to ‘a particular property of the environment that is relevant – for good or for ill – to an active, perceiving organism in that environment’ (van Lier, 2000: 252). Affordance is relational, reflecting the way

Four Cases and their WTC Fluctuations

115

that individuals relate the environment to themselves or, more specifically, their expectations or needs. In this sense, classroom contingencies matching individuals’ mentality or expectations could fuel their momentary WTC. Moreover, if the four students are placed on a developmental timeline, the two first-year students’ WTC can approach either of the second-year students’ WTC, pending the affordances that are available and accessible to them. For instance, if Manling were continually exposed to communication-oriented classes to which she maintained favourable attitudes, she might become another ‘Dongmei’ in her second-year study and sustain her WTC inside and outside class. On the other hand, her WTC might otherwise reduce to the level of Zefeng’s if positive classroom affordances were no longer within her reach. In this sense, learners’ WTC in the educational context is always dynamic and prone to the interaction between environmental and individual factors.

Summary In this chapter, I first introduced the data sources in the multiple-case study and the steps taken to enhance the trustworthiness of the data analysis. I then provided contextual information about the English classes that the four participating students attended over the seven-month period of study. Detailed portraits of their past English learning experience and their participation in extracurricular activities in the university were then presented, followed by a close examination of the fluctuations in their WTC across classroom situations. The findings of this study suggest that WTC in this English as a foreign language (EFL) educational context was dynamic and associated with multiple factors internal and external to individual students. These factors seemed to be interdependent instead of being separate. It is impossible to fully understand what stimulates or holds back students’ communication intention in a new language without considering these factors when students are situated in specific communication contexts. While the withincase analysis reported in this chapter reveals the particularities of the four students, I also took a step further to conduct cross-case analyses to identify factors underlying the fluctuations in the participating students’ WTC. In the cross-case analyses, more interest was given to the phenomenon under study than to individual cases, which is a defining characteristic of a multiple-case study (Stake, 2005). The identified individuals and contextual factors that contributed to the students’ WTC fluctuations are presented in the next chapter.

6 Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations The previous chapter revealed that the four focal students participating in the multiple-case study exhibited fluctuations in their willingness to communicate (WTC) over time and across classroom situations. The present chapter reports the results of the cross-case analyses, which focused on identifying factors that accounted for the students’ WTC fluctuations. The interview transcriptions, journal entries and classroom observations were analysed to provide triangulation and supplements for the cross-case analyses. The unit of analysis on the transcriptions and journal entries was ‘meaning units’ (Ratner, 2002). Ratner (2002: 169) defined meaning units as ‘coherent and distinct meanings’ that ‘preserve the psychological integrity of the idea being expressed’. Strings of words, sentences or even paragraphs that reflected an integrative meaning were coded as one instance. Meanwhile, when a sentence indicated two themes, one instance of each of the two themes was also coded. For example, the remark ‘It was good in this period of time, because these days in many classes it was my turn to give presentations. The feeling when speaking on the stage was really fantastic’ was coded as two categories: ‘feeling good’ and ‘tasks’ because obviously this sentence mentioned both the speaker’s feeling and what she did in her recent classes. I cyclically read, coded and categorised the data utilising NVivo 8.0. The functions of annotation, memo and the ‘see also’ link of NVivo were used to aid my analyses. Annotations are brief notes added to sections of the data to record the researcher’s immediate comments. I also wrote memos to store summaries of the interview sessions and my reflexive thinking. The function of the ‘see also’ link enabled me to make connections among relevant data, memos and other files. In this process, a coding scheme that maximised its representation of the data was derived (see Appendix 7). When the coding was finished, the coding matrix query function was performed to obtain coding matrixes, which summed up the instances in tables across themes. These matrixes were particularly useful for crosscase analyses.

116

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

117

I also defined two types of relationships between the identified themes and WTC in NVivo: facilitating and debilitating relationships. The two types of relationships were used to code, respectively, any meaning unit that reflected a direct effect of the themes on WTC, or where such an effect was self-evident in the context. For example, a remark ‘In the beginning I had my thoughts but I wouldn’t say them out because I felt scared’ was coded under the theme of ‘affective factors’ and also as an instance of ‘debilitating relationship’, indicating affective factors debilitating WTC. This was contrasted with some instances where no such direct effect was mentioned, although it might be logically inferred. For example, the remark ‘I have no interest in English’ was only coded as ‘interest’ under the theme of motivation, and no direct relationship was coded, although logically low interest could debilitate WTC. In the meantime, however, caution should be taken when interpreting the frequency of the themes. First, the frequency of the themes does not imply the magnitude of the importance of the themes. Because these themes were elicited in the journal framework and the interviews, their frequency was a function of the number of journal entries recorded by the cases and the number of times the themes were discussed in the interviews. Second, the number of times that these themes were brought up did not imply their direct effect on WTC, although a relationship might be speculated. Six major themes associated with WTC and its dynamic fluctuations emerged from the data: learner beliefs, motivation, cognitive factors, linguistic factors, affective factors and classroom environment. These themes were labelled, where appropriate, with the terms used in the previous survey and the literature to maximise the integration of these findings with the quantitative results and the existing literature. The frequency count of the relationships of these themes with WTC, which will be presented later, indicated that learner beliefs and motivation exerted much less direct impact on WTC than did the others. That is, the six factors differed in their proximity to WTC. In this sense, these themes appeared to fit into three contexts in relation to WTC: distal individual context (i.e. learner beliefs and motivation), proximal individual context (i.e. cognitive, linguistic and affective factors) and situational social context (i.e. classroom environment). This classification was also informed by MacIntyre and Clément’s (2008) call for exploring how distal influences of variables on second language (L2) WTC develop into proximal influences on a thento-now timeline. In the following sections, I will present the conceptualisations, categories and illustrative narrations for each theme. Three observed classroom scenarios followed with the participating cases’ accounts in interviews are also cited as supporting evidence.

118

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

Learner Beliefs and Motivations as Distal Individual Context The themes of learner beliefs and motivation arising from the data represent the implicit ideology and thinking patterns espoused by students. While motivation and learner beliefs are also dynamic and ever changing, they seem to be comparatively more enduring than affective factors such as anxiety or excitement that one may experience in specific situations. MacIntyre et al. (1998) conceptualised attitudes and motivation to be enduring influences on L2 WTC. Learner beliefs, which were investigated as a substitute for attitudes, were considered even more remote to communication situations. Hence, learner beliefs and motivation appear to constitute distal individual context that predicts WTC in the classroom.

Learner beliefs Learner beliefs refer to students’ opinions or value judgement about English learning, teaching, communication and appropriate classroom communication behaviour. It has two subthemes in this study: beliefs about English learning and about classroom communication behaviour. The first subtheme represents students’ personal philosophy about how English should be learned and taught, while the latter is associated with their value judgement about how students should behave inside the language classroom. The four students seemed to share the belief that structural linguistic knowledge should not be ignored in class. Zefeng strongly voiced his opinion that knowledge of grammar and vocabulary should be taught in class: Now we are going to take examinations such as the Public English Test. I want to learn more about grammar, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension to gain improvement in these areas. But personally I feel I’ve learned nothing in class. (Zefeng, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) Weitao upheld a similar viewpoint, although his focus was more on vocabulary and explanation of texts. Dongmei believed that it was necessary to teach writing knowledge although it may not be interesting. Manling emphasised that facets of basic knowledge such as grammar and writing techniques need to be treated equally in class: The teacher should not ask you to speak English and not care about your pronunciation, grammar and things like that. (Manling, Interview 1, 6 October 2007)

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

119

The four students differed in their opinions about whether communicative activities are needed in class. The two low-WTC cases, Zefeng and Weitao, tended to believe that communicative activities were of little use and not needed. In this regard, Weitao’s belief had wavered across classroom contexts (Peng, 2011). At the start of the first semester, he seemed to enjoy the communicative classes. He reported his belief that communicative interaction was helpful to English learning: [Oral communication in English] is important, because in terms of written English, we have learned English for a long time in our high school. But we are quite weak in the oral aspect. It is really helpful to improve our English through oral practice. (Weitao, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) When Weitao was continually exposed to immense amounts of classroom communication, he even reported that learning English had become a habit. In one of his entries, he rated his WTC as 100% and gave the following reflection: Today we designed a questionnaire about agents on campus and conducted interviews among the classmates. I liked this activity. [...] When interacting with each other, I talked actively to my classmates. (Weitao, Entry 7, 19 November 2007) When the final examination was approaching and he envisioned the nationwide College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) in the distant future, as previously reported, Weitao seemed to lose his enthusiasm for communication. In the medical English classes during the second semester, he strongly resisted any classroom interaction, believing that ‘group discussion won’t lead to any learning result’ (Weitao, Interview 5, 1 March 2008). Unexpectedly, however, when overwhelmed by mechanical lectures and difficult medical vocabulary and texts, Weitao swerved back to the belief that oral activities were needed, although the function of these activities, in his opinion, was simply to sustain students’ enthusiasm: Now I think it is better to have more activities and interaction in class. [...] I think the function of communicative activities is to raise our enthusiasm and activate the interaction among students. (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) Comparatively, the two high-WTC students, Manling and Dongmei, consistently believed that developing communicative competence through interactive activities in class was necessary: Now in the English class, when immersed in the linguistic environment, we can be brave enough to open our mouth to speak English,

120

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

and our oral competence will get better. (Manling, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) The function [of the English class] is to create an all-English environment and expose us to such a linguistic environment… [and] to enhance our oral English competence. (Dongmei, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) The above findings suggest that communicative activities were not universally rejected, which would reassure many language teachers. Students’ beliefs about communicative activities need to be interpreted dialectically. Zefeng in this study probably represented those university students who are resistant to learning through communication as described in the literature (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a; Rao, 1996). Their resistance may partially lie in their belief that communicative activities such as role-plays or games are associated with ‘elements of entertainment’ (Hu, 2002: 96) and not part of the learning process. For students such as Manling and Dongmei, however, communicative activities were considered necessary for creating a motivating environment to develop their communicative competence (more discussions are presented in the section ‘Classroom Environment as Situational Social Context’). This confirms Shi’s (2006) finding that Chinese students favoured classroom activities to assist their English learning. Therefore, beliefs should be examined within actual classroom situations rather than being oversimplified as a cultural stereotype. The four students more or less expressed their belief that substantial learning in the English class was limited. Zefeng had the strongest opinion: ‘Anyway lots of students think they can’t learn things in this university’s English class. Just muddling through it is fine’ (Zefeng, Interview 4, 26 December 2007). Weitao and Manling expressed similar opinions when reflecting on their communicative classes in the first semester: ‘Last semester, however, I had no idea what I learned’ (Weitao, Interview 5, 1 March 2008). Dongmei attributed only 30%– 40% of her progress in English to the language class. However, she elaborated on her belief that English learning was an osmosis process and efforts invested both inside and outside class were needed for substantial learning: I think now in the university we should emphasise the practical ability, such as the communicative competence. Maybe inside the class if you speak more, think more and participate more, you have benefited from it. If some students don’t have high expectations of themselves, or they themselves don’t like English, […] they won’t study much outside the class. In class they won’t actively participate either. So, in their opinion, they haven’t learned much in the English class. (Dongmei, Interview 6, 23 April 2008) Regarding appropriate classroom behaviour, the students believed that they should not initiate questions to the teacher during their lectures in

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

121

order not to interrupt the teacher or not to be resented by fellow students. Weitao added that he would consider whether his question sounded worthwhile to others: ‘if I have a question that I don’t understand and I don’t know whether other students understand, I will not dare to ask the teacher’ (Weitao, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). Manling and Dongmei reported that they would ask the teacher after the class, while Weitao and Zefeng said they would ask classmates or figure out the answers themselves: Manling: When I have a question, I will write it down and ask the teacher after class. Peng: Why don’t you ask the teacher immediately? Manling: Mm, this is how I always do. I won’t ask the teacher when I have questions in class because that will interrupt the teacher’s train of thought. (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008) Notably, beliefs seemed to have changed with classroom experience. Manling, in her last interview, expressed that students should initiate questions to the teacher anytime in class because this was what teachers would encourage: Peng: What do you think if someone interrupts the teacher during the lecture? Manling: It seems teachers encourage this. It doesn’t matter much. Peng: You mean your teachers encourage this behaviour? Manling: Yes. I mean if you don’t understand something or the teacher speaks too fast, or the teacher is wrong, you should immediately point it out. (Manling, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) However, a closer look at the data showed that reported beliefs did not necessarily bring about the corresponding behaviour. For instance, although Manling articulated the above belief, her entries revealed that she did not behave accordingly: ‘When there was something I don’t know, I’d like to stay silent’ (Manling, Entry 16, 29 February 2008). Overall, the four students regarded it as acceptable if other students frequently spoke up or answered questions in class, yet they themselves tended not to do so. One reason they all put forward is that they should give opportunities to others and avoid dominating class communication. As Manling noted, ‘I want to leave the opportunities to others. [...] If I don’t volunteer, the teacher will call on others’ (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). Another reason expressed by Manling and Zefeng is that other students would have negative attitudes towards such ‘overactive’ behaviour, especially in a silent class: ‘others will think you are a crank’ (Zefeng, Interview 4, 26 December 2007); ‘Usually I would answer questions no more than twice’ (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). From Dongmei’s perspective, however, actively speaking up

122

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

when others are silent in class would not incur negative attitudes and was not a concern to her: ‘Because they are unwilling to speak up, someone does, it’s just good’ (Dongmei, Interview 4, 26 December 2007). Despite her alleged ignorance of others’ judgement, Dongmei was observed behaving slightly differently in actual situations, which is reported in Table 6.3. The exemplified mismatch between beliefs and action presented above implies that the effect of learner beliefs on communication behaviour in class is likely to be indirect. Other more proximal factors, for instance, classroom atmosphere, topical familiarity and students’ state confidence at a specific moment, could all join to determine the extent to which their beliefs energise action. The students’ voiced concerns about initiating questions to the teacher or frequently speaking up in class are consistent with the literature about Chinese students’ communication behaviour in class (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a; Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998; Littlewood, 1999). These findings may be explained by the ideology of ‘obedience, harmony, and congruence with good orthodoxies’ shared in the Chinese society (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a: 196). Since students are generally expected to be respectful to the teacher and disciplined in class, questioning the teacher in class tends to be considered ‘expressing public disagreement’ (Littlewood, 1999: 84) or rude or disrespectful (Rao, 1996). In situations of initiating questions, students such as Weitao expected their questions to be worthwhile to others. This echoes Cortazzi and Jin’s (1996a: 191) speculation that compared with Western students who are used to spontaneous questions, Chinese students value ‘thoughtful questions which they ask after sound reflection’. Such mentality can impact on their self-confidence and restrain their intention to speak up in class. This study generated contextual evidence concerning the changing practices of the Chinese culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a; Jin & Cortazzi, 2006) in relation to learner beliefs. For instance, Manling voiced her belief that students should initiate questions to the teacher in class, which attests to Brick’s (2004) observation that Chinese students are now familiar with the Western approaches to language teaching and learning. Confirming White’s (2008) articulation, changing beliefs in this study were found to be interrelated with the students’ experience and specific classroom environment. Weitao’s beliefs about the necessity for communicative activities varied in different classrooms, from favouring to opposing and back to favouring. This also corresponds to existing empirical results that learner beliefs are constructed and modified by learning settings and learner experiences (Barcelos, 2003a; Tanaka, 2004; White, 1999).

Motivation The conceptualisation of motivation in the current study was not constrained to any specific typology in the literature, in order to maximise its

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

123

representation of the data. As such, following Ushioda’s (2008) definition, motivation was defined as that which moves students to make certain choices to engage and persist in their English learning. Accordingly, interests, expectations or goals in learning, learning attitudes and study effort invested as reported by the participating students were classified under this theme. Interest in English learning appeared to be the category that best distinguished the focal students with high and low WTC in English. Dongmei and Manling’s active participation in extracurricular English activities reflects their high interest in learning English and knowing the culture of its community. Their interests were also expressed in their remarks, such as ‘[with higher English proficiency] I can make some foreign friends and know about their culture so that I can increase my knowledge’ (Dongmei, Interview 1, 6 October 2007). In contrast, Weitao and Zefeng confessed a lack of interest in English learning: ‘I don’t feel like speaking English in class. [...] If interest was the only possible motive, I wouldn’t [even] study English’ (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2008). Although Weitao expressed his interest in the first-semester communicative classes to a certain extent, such interest seemed to subside shortly after he started the teacher-fronted medical English classes in the second semester, as previously reported. The students with high and low WTC also differed in their expectations about English learning and their learning attitudes. Dongmei and Manling both expected a high level of communicative competence: This teacher is an American. No matter whether his class is boring or not, I am always attentively listening to him, because he speaks fast. His speech is quite challenging. Therefore, I will try to understand him or learn his pronunciation and intonation. (Dongmei, Interview 5, 1 March 2008) On the other hand, Zefeng and Weitao only expected to pass the course: Anyway it doesn’t matter much whether I study or not [in class], as long as I can pass [the course] and graduate. (Zefeng, Interview 6, 23 April 2008) After all I can read and understand the content of some English magazines now. So I don’t expect a high level of English proficiency. (Weitao, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) Accordingly, Zefeng and Weitao displayed obvious examination-oriented attitudes in their English learning, whereas Dongmei and Manling refuted the notion of learning for the sake of examinations: I think examination is always the No. 1 priority. (Zefeng, Interview 6, 23 April 2008)

124

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

I won’t go memorise things for the sake of exams. That is very boring and not efficient. (Dongmei, Interview 6, 23 April 2008) In terms of the study efforts invested, Dongmei actively put her energy into English learning inside and outside the class. She seemed to envision that she would be competent in English in the future and, accordingly, she deliberately put effort into learning: I am going to work in a foreign trade company as an intern this summer vacation. [...] I have searched online and organised lots of materials about business English. I hope I can absorb them. (Dongmei, Interview 5, 1 March 2008) The other three students, however, often condemned themselves for being lazy and not studying hard. The reason for their ‘laziness’ was often reported as a lack of external pressures (i.e. from the teacher) forcing them to learn. It appeared that external motivational drive, as reported, was necessary for sustaining their learning efforts: Without pressures I can accomplish nothing, really. (Zefeng, Interview 6, 23 April 2008) I think in last semester, I had a feeling that it was up to me whether I studied or not because there was little pressure. [...] I myself won’t study unless I’m faced with stress. (Weitao, Interview 5, 1 March 2008) Although the data were coded using an inductively originated scheme, the students’ motivational profiles reflected by these categories of motivation can be roughly classified along the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation continuum specified in the literature (Noels, 2001, 2009). For instance, if high interest was viewed as indicative of intrinsic motivation and purely examination-oriented attitudes as indicative of extrinsic motivation, Manling and Dongmei might be more intrinsically motivated, whereas Weitao and Zefeng were examples of extrinsically motivated students whose English learning is largely examination driven. The latter two students’ motivational thinking ties in well with the extrinsic motivation identified among a group of students from Taiwan in the studies by Chen et al. (2005) and Warden and Lin (2000). They reported that the participants’ English learning was mainly motivated by the fact that English is a required course. In the meantime, it is noteworthy that the two seemingly intrinsically motivated students, Manling and Dongmei, also displayed characteristics of extrinsic motivation. For instance, while showing her great interest in English, Dongmei reported that she learned English to prepare herself for her future career. This implies that different dimensions of motivation may coexist within a student and, particularly in the English as a foreign

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

125

language (EFL) context, there is not necessarily a trade-off between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. As Noels (2001: 49) stated, various motivational orientations along a self-determined continuum can coexist within a learner who may ‘endorse several reasons for learning a language’. The current findings further imply that in the Chinese EFL context, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are both necessary for language learning achievement. The participating students reported that they need external pressures to push them to study English. Benson and Lor’s (1999) interview data also indicated that the participants from Hong Kong admitted that they preferred to be ‘pushed’ to learn English. Ushioda (2008: 22) argued that extrinsic motivation such as examination success is beneficial in some educational contexts and thus should not be disregarded as ‘inherently less effective and less desirable’. Meanwhile, while extrinsic motivation may work to ‘push’ students towards language attainment in the short term, intrinsic motivation is more worthwhile in sustaining learning efforts in the long run. More importantly, intrinsic motivation, that is, the enjoyment and satisfaction attached to language learning, may prompt learners to engage in more L2 communication and authentic use. Dongmei in this study exemplified a typical case whose English learning and communication was driven by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The data also indicated that learner beliefs and motivation, as the two themes underlying WTC in class, were interrelated. For instance, Zefeng and Weitao who reported negative beliefs about classroom communication, showed less interest, fewer efforts and lower expectation in English learning. In contrast, Dongmei and Manling who expressed positive beliefs about oral communication, showed more motivational impetus and perceived greater value in English communication. The close relationship of beliefs and motivation is evident in the term ‘motivational beliefs’ proposed by Yang (1999: 532), with a motivational dimension injected into belief systems. Ushioda (2001) linked learner beliefs with motivation using the concept of motivational thinking. The close relationship between beliefs and motivation has also been recognised in the literature (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Riley, 1997). They seem to coalesce and interact with each other to prepare students with a certain ‘psychological base’ that may be stable and remote, yet its effect on classroom communication is channelled through other more proximal factors.

Cognitive, Linguistic and Affective Factors as Proximal Individual Context The themes of cognitive, linguistic and affective factors were related to the psycho-cognitive conditions that the students experienced in day-today classroom settings. In MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model, state

126

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

communicative self-confidence, which comprises momentary feelings of competence and a lack of anxiety, was conceptualised to exert a transient influence on L2 WTC. The current study suggested that cognitive factors also affected WTC in specific classroom situations.

Cognitive factors Cognitive factors refer to students’ background knowledge or skills in reasoning and critical thinking that influence their ability to initiate or carry on communication in English. It was mainly reflected by topical knowledge, topical interest and cognitive or critical thinking ability. Topical knowledge refers to the background knowledge about the topics under discussion. Lack of topical knowledge was frequently reported to have caused unwillingness to communicate. The focal students often reported their problems with topics that were broad or unrelated to their life, such as ‘how to distinguish race from cultural aspects’ (Manling, Interview 3, 7 November 2007) and ‘home schooling’ (Zefeng, Interview 3, 5 December 2007). Familiar topics related to daily life, on the other hand, often stimulated high WTC: Everyone was talking about Chinese Lunar New Year legends and related customs and their opinions. Because I had things to say, I had the highest degree of willingness. (Manling, Entry 6, 12 November 2007) I think [my willingness to speak English] was higher in the second period. Because we discussed each other’s personality in the group, we could say anything we thought of. (Weitao, Interview 4, 11 January 2008) Topical interest was another category closely associated with WTC in English. The students expressed more communicative enthusiasm if the topics were interesting: ‘if it’s the topic I like, I will be willing to speak’ (Zefeng, Interview 3, 5 December 2007). In an entry, Manling recorded how she entirely changed from feeling disinterested and removed from group discussion to devoting great enthusiasm due to her interest in the topic: I suddenly had my interest back because that issue they brought up was exactly what I care about most! Instantly I was like another person, being actively involved in their discussion. (Manling, Entry 7, 19 November 2007) Cognitive or critical thinking ability was also a notable category. According to my observations, discussions or debates on certain topics or issues were common activities in class. The students reported that a lack of dialectical argument that precluded their participation in meaningful

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

127

interaction could hinder their WTC in English. Manling often referred to a state of ‘cognitive block’, that is, she did not know what to talk about: But my mind is not swift. When they finished their speech, I couldn’t immediately come up with thoughts to communicate with them. (Manling, Interview 3, 7 December 2007) Zefeng mentioned that he might be willing to talk if he had ready opinions or ideas. In a scenario observed in the medical English class, Weitao actively volunteered to role-play in front of the class a conversation between him in the role of a ‘patient’ and his peer playing a ‘doctor’ (as noted in Chapter 4, voluntary participation was awarded with course grade incentives). Since Weitao did little talking in the conversation, the teacher requested him to speak more before he could get a grade incentive. Table 6.1 describes this scenario, followed by Weitao’s interview excerpt reflecting on this scenario. Table 6.1 Classroom Scenario 1: Weitao’s voluntary role-play Teacher: Thank you, Doctor, for your prescription. (Turning to Weitao) Do you have anything to add? Weitao: (Pause for 2 seconds) No. Teacher: You haven’t talked much. If you don’t say anything you will get no mark. Weitao: (Thinking for 10 seconds and facing the ‘doctor’) Thank you. (All laugh)

That day I raised my hand often because classroom performance is counted towards our course grade. In fact, it would be better to say something casually. Later, I thought maybe I was not feeling comfortable standing there.[…] I wanted to talk but had nothing to say. (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) This excerpt reflects the fact that insufficient cognition in medical situations or interpersonal communication situations in this type of scenario was one of the reasons causing Weitao to turn his voluntary participation into reduced communicative output. Undoubtedly, there were other themes such as motivation and affective factors conveyed in this excerpt, which are not elaborated here. The role of cognitive factors such as topical knowledge and topical familiarity in boosting L2 WTC was consistent with the findings of a number of qualitative studies (Cao, 2009, 2011; Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005b). Sufficient background knowledge and ‘familiarity with a certain register’ (Cao, 2011: 471) could enhance self-confidence and provide students with feelings of security in communication (Kang, 2005b). This cognitive aspect in L2 communication is also highlighted in Yashima’s (2009: 155) recent

128

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

argument, ‘unless one has something to say about a topic or opinions to express about an agenda, one does not have an urge to communicate’. She even added a new dimension labelled ‘having things to communicate to the world’ to the concept of international posture. This dimension basically parallels the cognitive factors identified in this study. Insufficient critical thinking ability partly leads to cognitive difficulty. For instance, Manling often reported difficulty in thinking up good arguments or questions. A possible explanation for this may be that students are accustomed to receiving knowledge but less ready to acquire knowledge through questioning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a) or formulate their own answers to questions (Brick, 2004). In other words, in the language class, students may have been used to taking in linguistic knowledge but less to developing critical thinking and dialectic ability so as to enter into authentic discourse using English. Another possibility is that students’ cognitive ability may be consumed by the efforts to retrieve linguistic knowledge when communicating due to their inadequate L2 competence, which can reduce their capacity to process information or formulate thoughts. Jin and Cortazzi (2006: 14–15) aptly emphasised that ‘cognitively, English learning should cultivate critical and evaluative thinking’. They proposed a participation-based model in which a ‘cognitive engagement’ dimension was particular emphasised. In light of this cognitive engagement, students should engage in active thinking of the ideas presented in texts and support their opinions with ‘examples, reasons, evidence, or reference to sources’ (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006: 16). Apparently, such cognitive skills are not only important to the current discussion of confidence and L2 WTC, but should be essential qualities of any educated professional in modern society.

Linguistic factors Linguistic factors refer to the linguistic resources that were necessary for engaging in classroom communication in English. Difficulty in oral expression was a frequently addressed factor, causing the participating students’ reduced WTC or resorting to their first language: ‘Sometimes I felt I couldn’t express myself clearly, and would use Chinese’ (Weitao, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). Zefeng added that if he had the linguistic resources at his disposal, he would be more willing to communicate: ‘I would be willing to speak if it was within my ability’ (Zefeng, Entry 9, 3 December 2007). Due to such perceived linguistic insufficiency, some students tended to seek compensation by writing down utterances before speaking up. They were more willing to speak when having written discourse at hand: Peng: If you were given more time, would you like to talk? Zefeng: Unless I could write down my ideas on paper before I speak. (Zefeng, Interview 2, 7 November 2007)

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

129

The following excerpt from one of Manling’s entries also explicitly describes her preference for written prepared talk. This may be because she felt secure when equipped with written discourse. However, as this excerpt shows, one may easily lose opportunities to speak up due to insufficient time assigned for preparation: In the impromptu speech at the beginning, upon seeing the second topic, I immediately felt I had things to say. But I was unwilling to raise my hand because I wanted to write down my thoughts first. When I finished my writing, however, others had finished their speech. (Manling, Entry 9, 5 December 2007) Difficulty in comprehension is another factor hindering WTC. Due to discrepant linguistic proficiency and possibly non-standard pronunciation of fellow students, the four students mentioned that sometimes it was difficult to understand what their classmates were saying in English, which affected their communicative commitment. Zefeng reported his problem in understanding his group-mates who were good at English: They always speak English fast and I sometimes can’t understand them, and then I can’t respond to them. (Zefeng, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) When I was listening to other groups’ report, I couldn’t quite understand the content, and felt confused. The class was attentively listening. But in the questions and answers session, they weren’t active. (Manling, Entry 17, 7 March 2008) The linguistic problems that the students experienced during conversation, as suggested by the data, might be partly attributed to the ‘translation process’ involved in thinking. Some students reported that they often formulated thoughts in the Chinese language and translated them into English before speaking. Yet, due to the great differences between the two languages, this translating process often seemed to be counterproductive: Before expressing my thought, I would firstly think in Chinese, think for a while, and convert them into English. But when doing so, there were many words I couldn’t express. (Manling, Interview 3, 7 November 2007) The unanimously admitted problem with linguistic resources provides evidence for Cheng’s (2000) argument that Asian students’ reticence is largely due to a lack of language proficiency, especially productive linguistic skills. More often than not, it is learners’ perceived proficiency or competence in specific situations with specific tasks that impinges on or facilitates their WTC. Language teachers may often find that some students

130

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

with relatively sufficient L2 competence choose to avoid L2 communication because, among other reasons, they do not perceive the necessary competence in themselves. Compared with actual competence, learners’ perceptions of their competence may be more readily related to their communication intention. MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) theoretical L2 WTC model and abundant evidence have elucidated the role of perceived competence in influencing WTC, based on both quantitative (Cetinkaya, 2005; Kim, 2004; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004) and qualitative studies (Cao & Philp, 2006).

Affective factors Affective factors refer to the emotional reactions or psychological concerns that students have before or when engaging in classroom communication in English. A variety of affective factors were identified in the data. The most obvious one was anxiety or a nervous feeling. The four students, except Dongmei, often expressed this feeling: I had a very strong desire to say my thoughts. However, my nervous feeling overcame my desire. (Manling, Entry 11, 12 December 2007) I had my thoughts but I wouldn’t say them out because I felt scared. (Weitao, Interview 4, 11 January 2008) Such anxiety arousal was most evident in a classroom scenario observed with Zefeng (see Table 6.2) and his interview excerpt related to this scenario. Table 6.2 Classroom Scenario 2: Zefeng’s reduced communication T: Why did the boy commit suicide? … Z: I don’t know. He’s a crazy man. T: (Not hearing clearly) He’s a great man. Why did he commit suicide? Z: He must crazy. He must be crazy. T: So, tell us the reason. Z: wo zhen de bu zhi dao ‘I really don’t know’. (All laugh) T: If you were Neil, would you kill yourself? Z: I’ll do what my father say. … T: I don’t know what you mean. Z: Maybe I’ll kill myself. (All laugh) T: Is that a good way? Z: Yeah.

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

131

In this class, he was called on to answer a question about a recently viewed movie Dead Poet’s Society. Yes, the teacher misheard me. […] later she seemed to keep questioning me. At that time I became very nervous. […] At that moment I said that simply in order to quickly sit down. If I had to keep talking with her in that way, seriously I would collapse. (Zefeng, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) This excerpt indicates that Zefeng was experiencing great anxiety when standing up, being misunderstood and questioned by the teacher. In order to quickly conclude this conversation, he gave an answer entirely opposite to his original opinion. As a result, negotiation of meaning, which should be the focus of communication, gave way to only a few exchanges of sentences due to the unbearable anxiety that Zefeng experienced at this moment. In contrast, when feeling relaxed or free the students tended to be more willing to speak English. For instance, Weitao often expressed the feeling of ‘being free’ in group discussion situations and would talk more. Zefeng described his WTC level as reaching a ‘normal’ level in the second semester because he felt less anxious in class: Peng: Compared with last semester, is your willingness to communicate in this semester’s class stronger or weaker? Zefeng: It seems there is not much change. It’s about the same. Peng: Just now you said you did voluntarily speak English now. Zefeng: Those sentences suddenly came to my mind. I didn’t intend to speak. Peng: Is such ‘suddenly came to mind’ phenomenon more frequent this semester or last semester? Zefeng: This semester. Peng: What do you think are the reasons causing this change? Zefeng: I think because the class is so relaxing. When I felt relaxed, my mind just wondered wildly. It seemed I didn’t do much thinking but [those English sentences] just popped out. (Zefeng, Interview 5, 7 March 2008) Other typical affective factors were related to how the students appraised the significance or degree of obligation for them to communicate. Weitao felt willing to speak up when he believed he had a good viewpoint on the topic under discussion, possibly because he perceived his contribution in such a case was significant to others. Otherwise, he would remain silent: Peng: For what reason you did not speak up even though you wanted to? Weitao: Mm, I have this thought. For instance, when the teacher brings up a topic, even though I know about it or want to talk about it, I will, however, feel that what I am to say is not the best and others will talk about

132

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

it better than I do. Maybe I tend to envision such situations. (Weitao, Interview 4, 11 January 2008) Likewise, in situations where they felt obligated to communicate, the students exhibited higher WTC. Dongmei often attributed her active communication to the feeling of obligation: ‘in order to avoid the awkward silence, I would try to give my answers’ (Dongmei, Entry 16, 19 March 2008). Weitao expressed a similar sense of responsibility once when his group-mates were not able to answer the questions raised by other groups after their group presentation: I knew a little about the topic and I thought I should answer those questions, because I felt quite losing face standing up there in such a chaos. (Weitao, Interview 3, 7 December 2007) Concern about negative evaluations or the attitudes of others is another salient category. It seemed that the students were, consciously or subconsciously, alert to and aware of others’ potential evaluation of and attitudes towards their performance. When they anticipated that their communication performance might be negatively viewed as being ‘poor’ or ‘showing off’, their WTC in English was likely to drop. The belief about not to speak up frequently in class, which was reported previously, was largely related to these concerns: ‘I was concerned that others would think I like to show off, or that I’m always preempting others’ (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). Although Dongmei denied her concerns about others’ attitudes, the following scenario observed in the second semester (see Table 6.3) indicates that somehow she was no exception. In this scenario, after they listened to an audio text, the teacher asked students to indicate their listening comprehension by raising hands. Dongmei’s reflection on this scenario is also provided. Table 6.3 Classroom Scenario 3: Dongmei’s suppressed hesitation Teacher: Who understood at least half? (Silence, no action) Teacher: 25 percent? (Silence, no action) Teacher: 10 percent? (Silence, no action) Teacher: Did anybody understand anything? (Silence, no action. The teacher played the audio a second time) Teacher: Now who understood at least 50 percent? Dongmei: (Silence for 2 seconds, raised her hand)

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

133

[I] just felt that others were not raising their hands and, if I did, there would be a feeling of being different. […] This feeling is weird. […] Some of them might think, ‘You’re not that excellent. How dare you raise your hand?’ Or they might wonder, ‘Is this girl genuinely so excellent?’ […] But the second time I thought, ‘Anyway this is the first English class. They don’t know me. They’ll know me better later’. (Dongmei, Interview 5, 1 March 2008) Although this scenario was not directly related to verbal behaviour, this excerpt illustrates a vivid psychological process that Dongmei went through within that short period of time, from being concerned about others’ attitudes to overcoming such concerns. The three themes of cognitive, linguistic and affective factors lived out in classroom situations were also interrelated. Impairment in one aspect would weaken the others. For instance, as evident with Manling, cognitive factors such as lack of topical knowledge aroused affective concerns, which in turn undermined perceived language proficiency. A high level of anxiety would also impinge on cognitive and linguistic resources that were otherwise available to students, which thereby biased their self-evaluated language proficiency. The interactive relationships between anxiety and perceived competence have also been widely documented (Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre et al., 1997, 1998). The wide scope of affective factors, such as feeling anxious, relaxed or good, or obligated to communicate revealed in this study roughly correspond to the security, excitement and responsibility identified as psychological antecedents of L2 WTC in Kang (2005b) and learners’ emotion reported in Cao (2011). As expected, anxiety was frequently reported to inhibit WTC. Zefeng, for instance, often expressed his anxiety towards speaking English in class. A number of studies have demonstrated the detrimental effect of anxiety on WTC (Liu & Jackson, 2008; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Yashima, 2002). Kang (2005b) used security instead of state self-confidence, and excitement instead of interest to emphasise the fleeting nature of these psychological encounters emerging from specific situations. This study also showed that the affective factors waxed and waned across situations. In terms of concerns about other’s negative attitudes, it appeared that in the local classroom, the students went through a subconscious process of appraising the significance or obligation of speaking up before they took action. They might not like to speak up unless they perceived their contribution valuable or significant to others. This mentality of other-directed self predisposes them to evaluate their own behaviour in the eyes of significant others. In this sense, the face concerns undoubtedly exerted a debilitating effect on their WTC (Peng, 2007b; Wen & Clément, 2003). Interestingly,

134

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

however, concerns with saving the teacher’s face may sometimes help generate WTC in students, as seen in Dongmei, who ascribed her speaking up to breaking the embarrassing silence for the teacher. Although the positive influence of this other-face concern on WTC was identified with only one participant in this study, it implies that, similar to the evolving nature of ‘culture’, cultural influence on WTC is fluid and dynamic, and should not be taken as unidimensionally positive or negative.

Classroom Environment as Situational Social Context Classroom environment refers to the classroom context where the teacher and students interact as social members centring on learning tasks in pursuit of fulfilling classroom goals. This theme was mainly represented by the following categories: classroom atmosphere, teacher factors, interlocutors and communicative situations, group-mates’ participation and tasks. These categories, however, by no means conclusively represent the complexity of a foreign language classroom. Classroom atmosphere is defined as the mood, emotions or climate sensed and shared by the class group, which is created by the degree of involvement and participation of all parties involved. The atmosphere in a class seems to be an ongoing co-construction by the teacher and students. The findings indicate that perceptions of the classroom atmosphere were more experiential than rational. As found in this study, the participating students always seemed to possess a ready impression of the classroom atmosphere without having to consciously gauge it against any criteria. Classroom atmosphere was reported as an important dimension of the classroom social environment. An enthusiastic atmosphere where students actively participated always boosted the students’ WTC in English, which was evident in Manling and Weitao’s report in the first semester: When many classmates raised hands and the atmosphere was good, I felt very willing to speak up. (Weitao, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) Last Thursday in Ms. Liu’s class, there was a debate contest. She divided the class into two groups. My enthusiasm was high, and I quite desired to speak up, although what I talked was messy. [...] I was pushed by that atmosphere, the class atmosphere. (Manling, Interview 3, 7 November 2007) Dongmei and Zefeng, however, often complained about the dull atmosphere in the first semester: ‘It was extremely dull. [...] Most of the time we were all silent. I had no idea how I passed the time of the two periods’ (Zefeng, Entry 3, 22 October 2007). Dongmei described the impact of the classroom atmosphere on students’ psycho-emotional reactions as a ‘holistic or scale effect’ which could set the tone of the WTC of the students as a whole group:

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

135

Because nobody initiates to answer the question at the very beginning, the intention or enthusiasm of the students as a whole will thus be hindered. (Dongmei, Interview 1, 6 October 2007) Teacher factors including teaching styles, teaching methods and classroom procedures were reported as determinant factors of the classroom environment. The four focal students particularly appreciated teacher support and immediacy behaviour, such as giving feedback on writing, giving Chinese explanations in class, talking with students in Chinese during the break, being humorous or telling jokes and stepping down from the platform instead of sitting in the teacher’s chair: ‘She liked to talk with us, talking jokes with us. After class she discussed things with us using Chinese. So we felt the distance between us is closer’ (Zefeng, Interview 5, 7 March 2008). On the other hand, Weitao complained about the indifferent attitudes of some teachers in the second semester because they simply mechanically delivered lectures: Our teachers just kept talking and explaining things. It seems students’ reaction did not matter to them at all. This dampened our enthusiasm. (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) The students particularly emphasised that a humorous teaching style could lighten the social atmosphere in class: In his class the foreign teacher often told jokes, which pushed our enthusiasm. (Weitao, Interview 6, 18 April 2008) Occasional humour is helpful in relaxing the classroom atmosphere. (Dongmei, Entry 21, 23 April 2008) Communicative situations with different interlocutors also emerged as a dimension of the classroom environment which affected WTC. Two types of situations, group or dyad discussions and whole-class conversations, were identified. In the first situation, the interlocutor was a peer(s); while the second situation often involved answering questions or initiating questions with the teacher. There were other possible situations such as communicating with the teacher in private. However, the aforementioned two types of situations most represented the data collected with the four students. Most of the students expressed higher WTC when talking with peer students in a group or dyad than with the teacher in whole-class situations. There were two reasons conveyed in the data: First, they felt constrained when talking with the teacher because of their concerns about being negatively evaluated: ‘I think what I’ll talk about are just superficial ideas in the teacher’s eyes. I don’t quite dare say them out’ (Manling, Interview 4, 11 January 2008). Second, as previously described, speaking to the teacher usually happened

136

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

in public situations, with the whole class attending. Such situations were described as anxiety provoking: When I was standing up, I felt as if my mind had gone totally blank. When discussing with others seated, I had a clear mind. (Zefeng, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) Group-mates’ participation involves how students perform, cooperate with or show acceptance to fellow members when working as a group to fulfil discussion or other tasks. The students reported that the degree of participation or cooperation of group-mates affected their WTC: ‘In group discussion I am always willing to talk because our group is very active’ (Manling, Interview 2, 7 November 2007). What the data suggested was that the negative effect seemed to outperform the positive effect. For instance, Zefeng and Dongmei happened to be in the same learning group twice in the first semester. Zefeng admitted that while being influenced by Dongmei who persisted in speaking in English in group discussion, he nonetheless always spoke in Chinese. Dongmei, however, confessed that she was often affected by Zefeng and other group members and reverted to Chinese: I was infected by him. Because he kept talking to me in Chinese, sometimes I was passively affected by him. (Dongmei, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) Acceptance from group members is another factor affecting WTC. In group work, the students seemed to be sensitive to other members’ attitudes. Manling reported that her WTC declined when she sensed that her group-mates talked to her with an insincere attitude: ‘They responded to me with a sarcastic tone. In this situation, I was very unwilling to talk’ (Manling, Interview 3, 7 December 2007). Likewise, Weitao attributed the ebbs of his WTC to his group-mates’ lack of respect for his opinions: But our group leader, although I gave many suggestions, she didn’t listen to me or accept my ideas. She just kept talking and talking. In this situation, I became very unwilling to talk. (Weitao, Interview 3, 7 December 2007) Tasks refer to the learning activities organised in the class targeted at either structural knowledge or communicative ability. Although the students did not display consensus on what types of tasks they liked, the data revealed that when meaningful interaction was involved, most students showed high WTC. Manling and Weitao both reported a 100% situational WTC in the class on 19 November 2007 (see Figures 5.1 and 5.3). As recorded in their journal entries, on that day they were required to design a questionnaire and conduct face-to-face interviews with peers. It was the interview part that boosted their WTC to the highest point:

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

137

The atmosphere was very ardent. Our classmates were extremely interested in this activity and showed strong desire to speak English … [I was most willing to speak English] when interviewing each other using the questionnaire designed. We exchanged questions and answers. We were genuinely communicating using English. (Weitao, Entry 7, 19 November 2007) It also appeared that the meaningfulness of communicative tasks was always scrutinised by the students. They tended to resist the tasks that were not well designed or carried out, or only promoted superficial participation. For instance, Dongmei criticised that group discussions in the firstsemester classes were not well organised and failed to fulfil their intended purpose of promoting students’ communicative competence. Similarly, regarding a weekly role-play called ‘talk and show’ performed by learning groups, Manling criticised it as failing to trigger meaningful interaction and simply functioning to entertain the class: Maybe it was a little funny, but too ridiculous. It just provided us with fun. (Manling, Interview 2, 7 November 2007) The findings reported above succinctly elucidate the role of classroom environment as the immediate social context for the emergence of WTC in English. Tudor (2001: 35) noted that the classroom is a ‘socially defined reality and is therefore influenced by the belief systems and behavioural norms of the society of which it is part’. In this social environment, classroom atmosphere is the prominent factor influencing WTC. The perceived atmosphere seemed not to come from conscious evaluation but to be subconsciously sensed from the participation of the whole class group. As reflected by Dongmei, if at the beginning the teacher’s questions were met with silence from the whole class, individual students’ enthusiasm would be hindered. Participants in my earlier qualitative inquiry (Peng, 2007b) also highlighted that the beginning of a semester is a critical period for the teacher to establish a relaxing and active climate. Once the grand ‘tone’ of a class is set, for instance, when the class is frequently haunted by silence, individual students are likely to stay the same way and not be willing to behave actively or assertively. Taken together, an array of factors related to the teacher, conversational situations and interlocutors, group-mates’ participation and tasks jointly contributed to classroom environment. Teacher immediacy behaviour such as humour and jokes was highly endorsed by the focal students. This is consistent with the idea that humour can reduce classroom tensions and create a relaxing environment (Chiasson, 2002). Kubanyiova (2007: 255) found that ‘humour, personalised digressions from more structured dialogues’ were effective motivational teaching strategies. This is even the case

138

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

in current classrooms where the teacher exerts a determinant influence on how the class proceeds. Wen and Clément (2003) noted that teacher attitudes and behaviour are crucial in creating a conducive classroom environment to boost Chinese students’ WTC. Whole-class communication situations were generally related to lower WTC compared with group or dyad communication situations. This may be because in the whole-class situations, the interlocutor is the teacher and all the class members. These situations are more anxiety provoking. In contrast, as reported by the students, their anxiety dropped in group or dyad situations. Liu and Jackson (2008) also reported that many Chinese students were apprehensive about public speaking in their English class, which hindered their L2 WTC. Group-mates’ participation and cohesiveness behaviour such as acceptance, cooperation and commitment of group members significantly boosted WTC. Both Manling and Weitao reported that their WTC in group work was impaired when they sensed a lack of sincerity or acceptance from their peers. These findings confirm that group cohesiveness is an important classroom contextual factor (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Peng, 2007b; Wen & Clément, 2003). Task is also an important factor. Generally, tasks that triggered meaningful interaction and productive linguistic output were more related to high WTC, which is consistent with Kubanyiova’s (2006) observation that meaningful and personally relevant tasks are likely to engage students. As previously addressed, this study revealed that communicative activities were not downright resisted. While the two low-WTC students showed negative attitudes towards communicative activities, the occasional resistance observed with the two high-WTC students appeared to originate from their appraisal of the meaningfulness of the activities. For instance, Manling showed high enthusiasm for activities involving meaningful discussions and linguistic output, and only criticised the activities that failed to trigger productive interaction. It could be argued that student resistance may be derived more from situations where games or role-plays lack the guidance of a well-planned syllabus than from their unconditioned rejection of this teaching approach. The environmental aspects identified above are apparently not isolated but interact with each other to constitute a situational social context that creates moment-to-moment WTC. How the teacher designs the tasks, manages the class and engages students will cause differing student participation, which soon establishes the atmosphere, be it active or dull. The permeating classroom atmosphere in return pushes or drags individual students’ WTC in English and participation. Manling and Weitao’s English class on 19 January 2007 was a typical example of how these classroom factors converged into favourable driving forces that pushed the two students’ WTC in English to its highest point.

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

139

It is fair to conclude that the foreign language classroom is a complex entity that necessitates a situated perspective. It is problematic to speculate on what types of tasks or teaching methods definitely exert a positive or negative effect on WTC without looking into the specific classroom context. As Tudor (2001: 42) noted, ‘each class is unique’. Williams and Burden (1997: 43) pointed out that the factors composing the classroom context ‘all interact as part of a dynamic, ongoing process’. Classroom environment thus is a situational context which brings about variations in students’ in-class WTC.

Frequency Count across Cases The themes and their effect on WTC in English were coded using NVivo 8.0. The ‘coding matrix query’ function of NVivo produced the number of instances of the codes, which were then counted for cross-case analyses. In the following sections, I present two types of frequency counts: the frequency of instances coded under each theme, and the frequency of instances coded under ‘facilitating relationship’ and ‘debilitating relationship’. The first type of frequency of instances reflects the number of times the themes were identified in the data. The latter type reflects the number of times a direct relationship between the themes and WTC in English was addressed by the participating students or embedded in the data.

Frequency count for themes Table 6.4 presents the frequency count of the instances of themes for the four students. The percentage of the count for each student is also provided. Table 6.4 Frequency count for themes across cases Manling

Learner beliefs Motivation Cognitive factors Linguistic factors Affective factors Classroom environment

Weitao

Dongmei

Zefeng

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

27 40 54

21 27 50

28 34 26

22 23 24

34 32 14

26 22 13

40 42 15

31 28 14

129 148 109

100 100 100

27

31

18

20

6

7

37

42

88

100

43

37

25

22

10

9

38

33

116

100

169

30

146

26

130

23

112

20

557

100

Note: Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number and thus may exceed or not add up to 100.

140

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

Cross-case comparison can be made by a left-to-right inspection of this table. As seen in Table 6.4, the most frequent theme emerging from the data was classroom environment (n = 557), followed by motivation (n = 148) and learner beliefs (n = 129). The themes of learner beliefs, motivation and linguistic factors were mostly represented in Zefeng’s data, which had the largest percentage of counts (31%, 28%, and 42%) of the four participating students. The themes of cognitive and affective factors (50% and 37%) were mostly represented in Manling’s data. Notably, among the four students, Dongmei had addressed least issues related to linguistic and affective factors (7% and 9%). It is necessary to reiterate, however, that the frequency of the instances coded under these themes was not indicative of any absolute magnitude of the importance of the themes, because the frequency was partly related to the number of entries entered by the students and the number of times that these themes were discussed in the interviews. Moreover, because it was unlikely that every remark by the students was linked to WTC, the frequency of these themes did not imply their influence on WTC. The direct influence of these themes on WTC reported by the students or embedded in the data is presented in the next section.

Frequency count for relationships between themes and WTC Table 6.5 presents the frequency count of the instances of the facilitating or debilitating effect of the emerging themes on WTC for the four students. The percentage of the count for each student is also provided.

Table 6.5 Frequency count for direct effect of themes on WTC across cases

Learner beliefs Motivation Cognitive factors Linguistic factors Affective factors Classroom environment

Manling n %

Weitao n %

Dongmei n %

Zefeng n %

Total n %

2 5 49

18 36 48

1 4 25

9 29 24

4 4 14

36 29 14

4 1 15

36 7 15

11 14 103

100 100 100

17

28

13

21

5

8

26

43

61

100

35

38

24

26

10

11

24

26

93

100

90

32

86

31

73

26

30

11

279

100

Note: Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number and thus may exceed or not add up to 100.

Distal and Proximal Influences on WTC Fluctuations

141

As seen in Table 6.5, the frequency of direct influence of motivation (n = 11) and learner beliefs (n = 14) on WTC was much less than that of classroom environment (n = 279) and cognitive, linguistic and affective factors (n = 103, n = 61, n = 93). This indicates that the proximal individual factors and situational social factors exerted more direct influence on WTC in class than the distal individual factors. Among the four students, the direct influence of cognitive and affective factors on WTC was mostly represented in Manling’s data (48% and 38%, respectively), while the direct influence of linguistic factors on WTC was mostly represented in Zefeng’s data (43%). The direct effect of classroom environment on WTC mostly emerged from Manling and Weitao’s data (32% and 31%, respectively). Similarly, Dongmei addressed the direct effect of linguistic and affective factors on WTC least (8% and 11%, respectively). Finally, the direct facilitating and debilitating effects of the themes on WTC are visually displayed in Figure 6.1. As can be seen, learner beliefs and motivation exhibited a comparatively small direct influence on WTC. Affective and linguistic factors exerted a more debilitating than facilitating effect on WTC. The facilitating effect of cognitive factors was larger than their restraining effect on WTC. Classroom environment appeared to exert much more influence on WTC. Its facilitating and debilitating direct effects were almost equally addressed in the data. Limitations of this multiple-case study should be noted. The rich data obtained from this study only focused on four students. Hence, no attempt was made to generalise the findings to larger groups of learners. Instead, through revealing the particularities of students with high and Direct influences of themes on WTC 160 141 138

140 120 100 80

Facilitating Debilitating

68

67

60

50 36

40

25 11

20 0

5

11

9

0 Learner beliefs

Motivation

Cognitive factors

Linguistic factors

Affective factors

Classroom environment

Figure 6.1 Direct facilitating and debilitating effect of the themes on WTC

142

Part 3: A Situated Lens: WTC Fluctuations over Time and Across Classroom Situations

low WTC situated in specific classroom contexts, I intended to generate a contextualised understanding of how WTC among Chinese EFL learners fluctuates over time and across situations, rather than prescribe any universal law in this regard.

Summary In this chapter, I reported the findings from cross-case analyses, which concern the themes identified as contributing to fluctuations in WTC in the multiple-case study. Generally, three strands of factors were summarised from the data and they were categorised to three contexts according to their presumed proximity to WTC in class: (a) learner beliefs and motivation in a distal individual context whose influence on WTC seemed to be remote; (b) cognitive, linguistic and affective factors in a proximal individual context whose effects were more direct and instant; and (c) classroom environment that represents situational social context where learners interacted as social members. The frequency count for the direct effect of the themes on WTC supported this classification. More importantly, the factors in each context were not independent from each other; instead, they interacted to create differing levels of WTC over time and across situations. Changes in one factor also brought about variations in others. From the ecological perspective, the interaction between organism and environment and the interaction within each set all contribute to the development of individuals. The interaction between the themes across the above-mentioned three contexts will be further explored in the next chapter. In Part 4 of this book, I will integrate the findings obtained from the quantitative study in Phase I and the qualitative multiple-case study in Phase II to generate new insights into WTC within the Chinese EFL classroom context.

Part 4 Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings

7 WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond The general purposes of this research were to understand the willingness to communicate (WTC) profiles of Chinese students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) inside their language class and factors that influenced their WTC. I employed a mixed methods approach, with a large-scale quantitative survey conducted in the first phase followed by a multiple-case study in the second phase. This mixed methods approach allows quantitative and qualitative findings to inform each other from which researchers can generate meta-inferences (Bryman, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2008). Sandelowski (2003) aptly analogised the merit of mixed methods to obtaining a new type of juice by blending apple juice and orange juice. In what follow, I first summarise the convergent, complementary, expanding and divergent findings obtained with the mixed methods. Then I apply Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model to interpret the blended quantitative and qualitative findings, based on which an ecological model of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom is proposed. Grounded on the rich empirical evidence harnessed in this research and prior second language (L2) WTC theories, I finally propose a situated conceptualisation of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom. In this last research phase, the integration and interpretation of the findings from the quantitative survey and the qualitative multiple-case study address the last research question: to what extent does the combination of quantitative and qualitative findings extend the understanding of WTC in Chinese EFL classrooms?

Integration of Overall Findings The quantitative results obtained from the survey and the qualitative findings from the multiple-case study to some extent converged with each other. First, the variables examined in the survey correspond to similar themes that were inductively identified as underlying WTC in the qualitative data, which is illustrated in Figure 7.1. As seen in this figure, the quantitative variables of learner beliefs, motivation and classroom environment have corresponding qualitative themes, although these qualitative themes have a much wider range of thematic content derived from the contextualised qualitative data. The qualitative equivalent of communication confidence warrants particular discussion. Of the two components of communication confidence, perceived communication competence seems to represent a combination 145

146

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings Quantitative variables

Quantitative themes

WTC in English Learner beliefs

Learner beliefs

Motivation

Motivation

Communication confidence Perceived communication competence Communication anxiety Classroom environment

Distal individual context

Cognitive factors Linguistic factors

Proximal individual context

Affective factors

Classroom environment

Situational social context

Figure 7.1 Quantitative variables and qualitative themes explored in this research

of cognitive and linguistic factors identified in the qualitative data. Of note, perceived competence is conceptualised to be a cognitive component of selfconfidence referring to one’s ‘self-evaluation of L2 skills’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 551). This research suggests that in authentic classroom communication, self-perceived L2 skills are not sufficient for one’s sense of competence. Students also need to possess cognitive factors such as topical knowledge and critical thinking ability before they perceive themselves as able to enter into communication. In other words, cognitively having things to communicate and linguistically possessing the resources are two prerequisites for students to develop self-perceived competence. In addition, communication anxiety, which is the affective component of communication confidence, corresponds to one aspect of the affective factors in the qualitative themes. Second, the relationships of WTC in English and other variables confirmed in the survey were consistent with the qualitative findings. The survey results showed that learner beliefs and motivation indirectly influenced WTC, while communication confidence directly affected WTC. The multiple-case study also indicated that the effect of beliefs and motivation on WTC was remote, whereas cognitive, linguistic and affective factors exerted a more proximal effect on WTC. The structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis indicates that the classroom environment exerted a direct and an indirect effect on WTC, which was supported by the high frequency of codes for the direct relationship between classroom environment and WTC in the qualitative data. Moreover, the qualitative findings provided contextual evidence to the quantitative results. The themes which arose from the data added rich thematic content to the prescribed variables tested by the questionnaire items in the survey. For instance, while communication anxiety was theoretically

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond

147

specified as a key affective factor influencing L2 WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998), the wide range of affective factors identified in the qualitative data, such as feeling anxious, relaxed or good, or obligated to communicate, provided a more in-depth and detailed portrait of the psychological process that students may go through before taking the volitional choice to enter into classroom communication in English. When integrated together, it is clear that the survey results were significantly enriched by the qualitative data. The classroom environment, as the survey results indicated, only exerted a small direct effect on WTC, which suggests that the direct relationship between the two variables might be unstable or impractical. Environment was indicated by three dimensions in the survey: teacher support, student cohesiveness and task orientation. The qualitative data, however, presented more contextual factors that contributed to the perceived environment. Among these, classroom atmosphere, which captures the general mood shared by the whole-class group, was highlighted by the students as a salient factor setting the tone for classroom participation. The experiential atmosphere in class was not explicitly measured by the questionnaire items, which may partially explain the small size of the direct effect of classroom environment on WTC. Besides, a wider range of dimensions such as communication situations and interlocutors, group-mates’ participation and tasks emerging from the data also complemented the understanding of classroom environment. The qualitative findings also expanded on the quantitative results by exploring the temporal development of WTC. The multiple-case study disclosed that WTC inside the language class fluctuated over time and across classroom situations, which was a function of the interplayed personal and contextual influences. These qualitative findings pointed to the situational and developmental nature of WTC in the educational setting. If the crosssectional survey measured the trait level of L2 WTC, then the in-depth qualitative inquiry could be deemed to have explored the state level of WTC over a prolonged timeline, with the latter substantially supplementing the former. I also observed a divergence between the quantitative and qualitative findings, which inspired me to delve into the reasons behind the divergent evidence. In the survey, many respondents endorsed different degrees of willingness to ask the teacher to repeat what he or she said when they did not understand, which is a situation described in Item WTC2 in the questionnaire. In the multiple-case study, however, the focal students were relatively conservative about initiating questions with the teacher in class. This divergence may result from the different ways in which such a perception was elicited. Perceived WTC elicited with the questionnaire may be decontextualised, that is, it was not elicited in real communicative situations, although such situations were described in scale items. In contrast, what the students reflected in their interviews or journals in the multiple-case study was more situated in specific classroom settings. Particularly, it was

148

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings

in whole-class communication situations that they expressed a reluctance to initiate questions. Therefore, such divergent findings were not contradictory of each other but instead revealed the context-bound nature of WTC.

An Ecological Interpretation of WTC in the EFL Classroom Based on the integration of the overall findings, I am proposing that WTC inside Chinese EFL classrooms be holistically interpreted from an ecological perspective. The ecological paradigm underscores the relatedness of human behaviour and its environment. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model (i.e. microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem) is a particularly useful framework for interpreting how multiple factors influence WTC inside the language classroom. In this research, the language classroom was the microsystem where students’ WTC in English was of interest and thus occupied the research focus. The existence of meso-, exo- and macrosystems that exerted an influence on the classroom WTC, which was suggested by the data, are also addressed. Built on the ecosystems framework, an ecological model of WTC inside the Chinese EFL classroom was interpreted, which is semantically represented in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 An ecological model of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond

149

Figure 7.2 shows the four interrelated ecosystems interpreted from the data, ranging from the innermost language classroom (i.e. microsystem) to the outermost sociocultural context (i.e. macrosystem). In the following sections, definitions of the ecosystems and relevant empirical findings are presented with reference to Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) model (see also van Lier, 2003).

At the microsystemic level In Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) ecosystems model, microsystem refers to the patterns of roles, relations and activities experienced by a developing person in a face-to-face environment containing other persons with distinctive characteristics. The inner rectangle in Figure 7.2 displays the microsystem. The variables tested in the survey or their qualitative counterparts constitute this system. Considering the wider conceptual range of the factors obtained from the multiple-case study, in Figure 7.2, I used the qualitative themes as labels for the elements in the microsystem. Hence, the microsystem appears to enclose the distal individual context, proximal individual context and situational social context. Individual themes under each context in relation to classroom WTC have been presented in the previous chapters. Figure 7.2 posits that the interaction between the distal individual context and the situational social context leads to variations of the proximal individual context, which gives rise to the emergence of WTC in class. To be specific, it is speculated that the extent to which students who bring with them certain belief systems and motivational orientations identify with the situational contingencies may exercise transient cognitive, linguistic and affective conditions that either facilitate or debilitate their WTC in specific classes. The one-headed arrow from classroom environment to WTC signals the direct effect of environment on WTC as found in this research. The two curved shaded arrows suggest that an individual’s situational psychocognitive experiences in turn influence his or her beliefs, motivation and classroom social environment. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) ecological theories highlight the importance of inspecting both the organism–environment interaction and the interaction within each set. In the current research, the themes within the three contexts were found to interact with each other rather than being isolated, as discussed in Chapter 6. The interactions between these three contexts are further speculated in the following text. First, the distal individual context interacts with the situational social context. Each student, before entering each class, has his or her unique subjectivity or beliefs and motivational orientations that are probably formed by past experiences, learning needs or expectations. The extent to which his or her subjectivity converges with the classroom reality may influence his or her participation or engagement. Individuals’ participation or engagement thus contributes to the social environment as a whole. For instance, if each student

150

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings

persistently withdraws from English communication in class, as Zefeng (low-WTC case) did in this research, the classroom environment will be negatively affected and become reticent and unsustainable for communication. Classroom environment, in turn, can influence beliefs and motivation. The direct influence of environment on beliefs and motivation was confirmed by the SEM results of the survey. The qualitative findings also suggest that beliefs and motivation changed across classroom contexts, which was most evident in the case of Weitao (low-WTC case), as presented in Chapter 6. Therefore, although it makes intuitive sense that one’s beliefs are less changeable, one’s surrounding environment has a role to play. Significant others, such as the teacher and close friends, or a rewarding classroom experience are important sources for the construction and re-construction of learners’ beliefs and motivational thinking. A large number of studies (Boekaerts, 2001; Hu, 2003; Kubanyiova, 2006; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Wu, 2003) have shown the interplay between individual and classroom factors in the learning process. Second, the interaction between the distal individual context and the situational social context leads to various transient cognitive, linguistic and affective conditions within students, which give rise to situational WTC in moment-to-moment classroom situations. This consecutive effect was statistically supported by the quantitative results that the effect of classroom environment went through beliefs, motivation and communication confidence before reaching WTC, as shown in Figure 4.2. The qualitative findings also indicated that different classroom environments created contrasting feelings; for instance, Zefeng’ feelings ranged from being anxious and having low WTC to feeling relaxed and having higher WTC in different classrooms. The immediate influence of cognitive, linguistic and affective factors or their quantitative equivalent communication confidence on WTC was invariably supported by the current quantitative and qualitative findings. Finally, the proximal individual context may also reciprocally act on the situational social context and the distal individual context. When students feel cognitively interested, linguistically confident and/or affectively comfortable, their engagement in classroom communication is likely to increase. Enthusiasm initiated by several students can inspire others in a class group, which then helps bring about a pleasant classroom atmosphere, which was indicated in the qualitative findings in this research. Frequent active engagement can also create a satisfied and rewarding feeling within individual students, which changes their beliefs about English learning and communication and increases their motivation. Such experiences, as White (2008) and Ushioda (2001) proposed, play a significant role in shaping learner beliefs and motivation. Therefore, from a temporal perspective, the organism–environment relationships are reciprocal. While the interaction between the themes could be discerned in the excerpts cited throughout this book, here I use Manling (i.e. the high-WTC student) to exemplify the intertwined interaction between the themes.

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond

151

Despite her relatively high level of motivation and interest in learning English, she often reported low WTC when confronted with unfamiliar topics, which also increased her anxiety about speaking. When reflecting on the class on 7 November 2007, in which her WTC reached 100%, she credited her topical interest (a cognitive factor), ability to express herself (a linguistic factor), the interesting task and the keen classroom atmosphere (environmental factors), as seen in her journal entry: When the face-to-face interviews were being carried out, the class atmosphere became very active.[…] When interviewing others, I kept asking question after question until he/she was kind of annoyed. But I just couldn’t help it. As soon as I’d finished one question, I thought of another one, and I could also use English to express them.[…] Today was really productive. (Manling, Entry 7, 19 November 2007) What is noteworthy is that the reciprocal relationships of these themes were speculated from an ecological perspective. Although the SEM results provided evidence for some relationships between the themes, this statistical technique discourages any attempt to specify relationships between every single variable (see Chapter 4). The reciprocal relationships shown in Figure 7.2 were largely interpreted from observations made in the whole research project. This does not preclude the possibility that other relationships between the themes have not been included. Therefore, the schematic interactional relationships in Figure 7.2 are for heuristic purposes rather than claiming statistical significance.

At the mesosystemic level The mesosystemic level involves the interaction of a number of microsystems where the developing person is a participant. The data revealed the linkages between the classroom setting and other settings containing the participants, which suggested the existence of a mesosystem. This could be found in the fact that students’ past learning experience and participation in extracurricular activities exerted a significant effect on their WTC in the microsystem, the immediate English class. Negative experience, in particular, exerted a detrimental effect on WTC. Weitao’s experience of being laughed at and Zefeng’s experience of looking foolish while speaking English, as reported in Chapter 5, all indicated that subtle negative influences from the mesosystem could affect WTC inside the microsystem, the ‘now’ English class. This is consistent with the literature in which an L2 learning experience was emphasised as an influential factor on beliefs (White, 2008) and motivation (Ushioda, 2001), an executive motive for language learning (Dörnyei, 2005) and a component of an L2 motivational selfsystem (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009).

152

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings

Students’ activities outside the language classroom also fit in the mesosystem. Extracurricular activities represent an extended platform for practising authentic communication using English, which may impact on in-class communication. It was found that through participating in extracurricular English activities, the two high-WTC students, Dongmei and Manling, developed a high degree of interest and motivation, and displayed high WTC in class. Dongmei not only joined on-campus communities and organised English activities, but she also utilised various resources, such as blogs, Skype and the world wide web to create opportunities to use English. These out-of-class activities in return enhanced her self-confidence and boosted her WTC in class. In the domain of L2 learning, the tenets of ‘practice makes perfect’ proposed by Seliger (1977: 263) and ‘talk in order to learn’ by Skehan (1989: 48) all point to the crucial role of communicative interaction in language development. This element in the mesosystem is even more important in the Chinese EFL context where opportunities for students to engage in English communication in real life are clearly insufficient.

At the exosystemic level The exosystem involves linkages between two or more settings, at least one of which does not contain the developing person. The linkages between the classroom setting, the curriculum design and course evaluation criteria that arose in the data were perceived to constitute the exosystem, because the decision making on these policies is outside the classroom where students are not present. The policies concerning curriculum content and schedule, and course assessment influence learning and communication in class. Curriculum stands for the guidelines for daily teaching and learning practice. In the multiple-case study, both Manling and Weitao complained about the fast pace of the intensive course in the first semester, which left them with little time to digest the textbooks. They often had insufficient time to preview and review the vocabulary and texts, and their WTC was reduced when discussions or activities were centred on the textbooks. Zefeng expressed that his WTC might be higher if oral English was taught and assessed as a separate course, because in that case he would be pushed to brush up on his English oral skills. Apparently, although these elements are remote to the microsystem, they can influence students’ learning and communication behaviour in class. The influence of course evaluation criteria is also evident. As reported in Chapter 6, Manling and Weitao displayed transient active participation in the medical English class due to the course grade incentives for classroom participation. Such course evaluation criteria, however, seemed to fail to promote intrinsic engagement and sustain WTC in English, as observed with the low WTC reported by these two students in the second semester.

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond

153

Therefore, course assessment criteria need to target cultivating internal interest, motivation and commitment to L2 communication, which is more beneficial to long-term language development.

At the macrosystemic level At this level, overarching educational, social and cultural factors are considered as joint influences on the innermost microsystem, the language classroom. van Lier (1988) argued that the classroom should be studied as part of the larger social-cultural context. Chinese indigenous cultural heritage is perceived as a permeating influence shaping Chinese students’ ‘perception and way of learning, which is manifested in L2 communication’ in class (Wen & Clément, 2003: 18). L2 WTC in the current EFL context is a concept crossing the disciplines of learning and communication, and students’ L2 WTC is inevitably influenced by the Chinese culture of learning and interpersonal communication. Grounded on the rich data obtained in this research, it can be discerned that concerns about showing respect to the teacher, face-saving, avoiding negative judgement and conforming with the majority, among many others, are major culturally nurtured traits that may possibly hinder students from translating their ‘desire to communicate’ (Wen & Clément, 2003) into action. The increasing importance of English as a world language and the significance of national English examinations are also constituents of the macrosystem. In this new era, English as the most popular medium of international communication is widely recognised in Chinese society. This has formed the societal expectation of competent English language users. Meanwhile, the university students’ scores on the College English Test (CET) Bands 4 and 6 are significant indicators of their level of English proficiency which is evaluated by society or, more specifically, potential employers (Jin & Yang, 2006). Because oral skills are not yet a mandatory component of the CETs (Jin & Yang, 2006), students like Zefeng and Weitao in this research may prioritise their English learning to enhancing their discrete linguistic knowledge, such as vocabulary, for the sake of passing high-stakes examinations. Under the influence of the educational system and nationwide endorsement of the CETs, students’ willingness to enhance their oral competence can be undermined. In summary, with the application of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model, a more complete and contextualised picture of the factors influencing Chinese students’ WTC in the English classroom was obtained. The current research lends support to Cao’s (2011) proposition concerning the interdependence between individual, environmental and linguistic factors that influence WTC in English as a second language (ESL) classrooms. It also echoes Ushioda’s (2009) call for capturing the mutually constituent relationship between persons and the context or culture, without viewing the latter as stable or located externally to the person.

154

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings

From the ecological perspective, Chinese university students’ WTC inside the English classroom cannot be accounted for purely by their cultural heritage, motivation, anxiety or classroom environment alone. Instead, it is influenced by the dynamic interaction of these individual and environmental factors. Such interaction is not additive but synergistic, which means that the joint person–environment effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects. This implies that WTC in English needs to be understood as dynamically constructed by the totality of the person and the environment. Ushioda’s (2008: 25) perspective that motivation is ‘socially constructed or constrained, rather than simply influenced, positively or negatively, by the social context’ also applies here to the understanding of WTC in the EFL classroom. It seems legitimate to conclude that WTC in the language class is nurtured by, and thus fluctuates because of the interaction between factors internal and external to individual learners, and inside and beyond the classroom walls. What is noteworthy is that the present research was a preliminary attempt to explore L2 WTC from an ecological perspective. The operationalisation of the nested ecosystems is only specific to this research and far from being conclusive. Many more factors in the ecosystems (e.g. family influence) may also contribute to learners’ WTC and warrant attention in future research. In addition, drawing on the ecosystems model, this research has provided more food for thought than any shortcut solutions to boost WTC in EFL classrooms. While creating a classroom conducive to L2 communication could be realised by bottom-up innovation in the microsystem, it is argued that promoting students’ L2 WTC would also require top-down intervention from other ecosystems.

Situated Conceptualisation of WTC in the EFL Classroom Based on the current research findings and prior theorising in L2 WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998; Wen & Clément, 2003), a situated conceptualisation of WTC seems to fit in the Chinese EFL classroom. L2 WTC was defined as ‘a readiness to enter into discourse’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547). When the five themes under the individual contexts identified in this research are projected into the conceptualisation of WTC, the themes cognitive factors, linguistic factors, affective factors, motivation and learner beliefs may represent five aspects of readiness: cognitive, linguistic, affective, motivational and cultural readiness. Cultural readiness is used to connote learner beliefs. This speculation was also extended on my previous proposition (Peng, 2007b) grounded on empirical findings. I would further define the five aspects of readiness based on the current findings. Cognitive readiness refers to the state of possessing the amount of topical knowledge, interests and critical thinking ability adequate for entering into discourse using English. Linguistic readiness is the state of possessing

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond

155

the linguistic resources necessary for entering into discourse using English. Affective readiness captures the state of overcoming anxious or uncomfortable feelings and concerns before entering into discourse using English. Motivational readiness depicts the state of possessing the driving force or volitional impetus required for entering into discourse using English. Finally, cultural readiness refers to the state of being conscious of minimising the impact of the home culture which is incompatible with the target language learning and communication in the classroom community. By projecting the five themes that were initially taken as antecedents of L2 WTC into the conceptualisation of readiness, I attempted to highlight the indispensability of the five aspects of readiness in creating high levels of WTC in the EFL classroom. Instead of viewing them as individual precursors to L2 WTC, I would argue that they are the ‘quintuplet’ of an established system that is closely related to L2 WTC. Hopefully, this proposition will raise an immediate awareness of the multifold readiness that an EFL learner has to harness with great effort before he or she is willing to speak English in order to learn. WTC in English inside the Chinese EFL university classroom is proposed to be situationally defined as a readiness to speak English in various classroom situations, which is the last step before volitionally taking or creating opportunities for purposes of English learning or communication. Its fullest play subsumes cognitive, linguistic, affective, motivational, and cultural readiness within the immediate classroom context. This definition emphasises the importance of volitionally taking communicative opportunities, because students’ communication in the EFL classrooms may be more teacher initiated in the form of teacher questioning than self-prompted. In other words, due to the submissive way of learning (Wen & Clément, 2003) probably embraced by the students, they might not willingly initiate impromptu communication with the teacher (e.g. when they have questions). Thus, when, for instance, the teacher invites the class to answer questions, students need to take opportunities to volunteer responses if they hope to maximise their communication in the limited class time. Therefore, it is a criterion behaviour that WTC predicts. The situated understanding of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom context is illustrated in Figure 7.3. The dotted circle in this figure resembles WTC in English in various classroom situations, which is a system open to further empirical evidence. There are several implications embedded in Figure 7.3. First, it proposes that while many Chinese university students may have the desire to communicate (DC) in English, they need to be equipped with the relevant forms of readiness to develop such a desire into WTC. This proposition is grounded on Wen and Clément’s (2003) theory and is supported by the current empirical evidence. Second, starting with the DC, students may develop their WTC in group or dyad situations; but to reach the point of WTC in front of the whole class, they need to take a further step. As reported in Chapter

156

Part 4: Blending ‘Apple Juice’ and ‘Orange Juice’: Integration of Overall Findings

Motivational readiness Cognitive readiness

Cultural readiness

WTC in English in group/dyad

WTC in English in whole class

Desire to communicate in English Linguistic readiness

Affective readiness

Figure 7.3 Situated conceptualisation of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom

6, the focal students’ WTC was clearly lower in whole-class communication situations, possibly due to the inherently anxiety-provoking nature of these situations. Finally, the dotted circle connecting the five components of readiness depicts that these aspects of readiness synergistically interact with each other instead of being in isolation. The pinnacle of WTC in specific moments may encompass the five aspects of readiness. The current findings indicate that failures in the development process from DC to WTC may be attributed to the lack of some aspects of readiness. More specifically, different stages in this process may entail a differing magnitude of the five forms of readiness. Generally speaking, university students may be willing to communicate in groups or a dyad if they are cognitively ready (e.g. having the background knowledge or critical opinions) and/ or motivationally ready (e.g. expecting to learn and improve their English). Moreover, for the WTC to be sustained, linguistic readiness is also needed. In whole-class communication situations, however, Chinese students may need more aspects of readiness. For instance, in the first classroom scenario (see Table 6.1) observed in the multiple-case study, Weitao appeared to be motivationally ready since his voluntary performance was extrinsically driven by the course grade incentive. Due to insufficient cognitive and possibly affective readiness, however, he failed to sustain his WTC, because as he confessed, he had no more information to communicate and felt uneasy on the stage. In the second scenario (see Table 6.2), Zefeng seemed to possess cognitive readiness since he apparently had his opinions, but he may need, among other aspects, affective readiness (i.e. overcoming his anxiety) to communicate his opinions to the teacher. In the third scenario (see Table 6.3), Dongmei displayed a typical process of developing towards cultural readiness. From being concerned about others’ negative attitudes to overcoming such concern, Dongmei successfully reduced her home culture influence and

WTC Inside the Language Classroom and Beyond

157

proceeded to behave in a manner that she thought was appropriate in a foreign language class. The subtle mental struggle she went through represents what is called crossing an individual ‘rubicon’, a metaphor for committing oneself to L2 communication (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998; MacIntyre, 2007). To pass this personal ‘rubicon’, students seem to need to possess affective and cultural readiness besides the other forms. Inside Chinese EFL classrooms, cultural readiness warrants more attention. Students need to have an overt awareness of the obstacles related to sociocultural factors that cause their anxiety and inhibit them from speaking up. With such an awareness, they could consciously put aside possible concerns related to their cultural upbringing so as to take or create communicative opportunities to practise oral English. To this end, consciousness about cultural variations must be raised. Cortazzi and Jin (1996a: 173) argued that instead of ‘using language as a vehicle to learn about culture’, we can reversely ‘use cultural ways of learning to learn the (foreign) language’. However, while proposing cultural heritage as an influential factor, I have no intention of oversimplifying culture to be either a problem or a panacea to decode Chinese students’ communicatative behaviour in the language class. Culture is fluid, dynamic and ever evolving. My intent has been to raise such an awareness of cultural differences so that students may be emancipated from any sorts of cultural constraints to attain maximum L2 achievement.

Summary This chapter presented my interpretation and meta-inference of the blended findings obtained from the survey and multiple-case study. I first examined how the quantitative and qualitative findings informed each other by exploring convergent, divergent and supplementary evidence. The overall findings were then interpreted with reference to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model, based on which I put forward an ecological model of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom. In this model, I argued that WTC in the language classroom – the microsystem – emerges and fluctuates as a function of the joint effects of multiple factors internal and external to students and inside and beyond the classroom walls. I finally proposed a situated conceptualisation of WTC in the EFL classroom, which emphasised the interrelated and synergistic relationships between five aspects of readiness before students engage in actual communication in class: cognitive, linguistic, affective, motivational and cultural readiness. In the next chapter, I will conclude this book by summarising the contribution of this research to the field of L2 WTC research and discuss its implications for pedagogical practices and future research.

8 Concluding Remarks The previous chapters reported on this mixed methods research of willingness to communicate (WTC) in the English language classroom in the Chinese context of English as a foreign language (EFL), including the fluctuations in WTC and its influential factors. In this chapter, I first present the overall findings of this research and its major contributions. Implications for research methodology, educational practice and future research are then discussed.

Overall Findings This research drew on hybrid theoretical perspectives from second language acquisition (SLA), Chinese indigenous culture and the ecological paradigm that underscores the relatedness of human behaviour with its environment. Its principal purposes were to explore WTC in English; the interrelationships between WTC and other individual and contextual factors; the fluctuations in WTC over time and across classroom situations; and factors underlying such fluctuations. This investigation revealed that, in general, the participants in the survey were moderately willing to communicate using English in their language class. They expressed relatively higher WTC in form-focused activities than in meaning-focused activities. Upon the establishment of the psychometric properties of the measures of the variables of interest, a structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis on the survey data showed that communication confidence (i.e. perceived communication competence coupled with a lack of anxiety) exerted the strongest direct influence on WTC. Motivation (i.e. external regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) directly affected confidence and indirectly affected WTC. Learner beliefs (i.e. beliefs about English learning and about classroom communication) exerted a direct influence on motivation and confidence and an indirect influence on WTC. Classroom environment directly influenced WTC, confidence, motivation and beliefs. These variables substantially explain WTC inside the language class. The results indicate the plausibility of considering individual and classroom contextual variables in accounting for EFL learners’ WTC. The qualitative findings from the multiple-case study complemented and expanded the quantitative results by generating rich descriptions and contextualised evidence. The dynamic nature of WTC in English was reflected in the large fluctuations in WTC among four participating students over 158

Concluding Remarks

159

seven months and across situations. Six themes emerging from the data were found to underlie these fluctuations. These themes were speculated to constitute three contexts according to their proximity to WTC in class: distal individual context (i.e. learner beliefs and motivation), proximal individual context (i.e. cognitive, linguistic and affective factors) and situational social context (i.e. classroom environment). The qualitative findings indicate that while belief systems and motivational thinking may shape learners’ learning and communication behaviour, in the language class, learners’ momentary cognitive, linguistic and affective conditions embedded in the classroom environment provide a direct effect on situational WTC. Variations of these individual and environmental contingencies lead to the ups and downs of students’ WTC in class. The quantitative and qualitative findings were further integrated and interpreted with reference to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model. Within this ecosystems model framework, factors both inside and beyond the immediate classroom were identified as influencing WTC, based on which I articulated an ecological model of WTC relevant to Chinese EFL university classrooms. This model purports that the totality of learner beliefs, motivation and classroom environment synergistically interact with each other, which leads to various psycho-cognitive conditions among individuals and, accordingly, differing levels of situational WTC. Factors beyond the microsystem of the classroom were also found to influence WTC inside the immediate classroom, such as past experience, extracurricular activities, course evaluation criteria, curriculum design, high-stakes examinations and Chinese sociocultural factors. Based on the current findings and previous second language (L2) WTC theorising, I proposed a situated conceptualisation of WTC in English in Chinese EFL university classrooms. This research provides a cultural and ecological understanding of WTC among Chinese EFL students. Chinese culture appeared to be a significant influence on classroom WTC. Cultural heritage such as respect for the teacher, other-directed self and face concern may predispose students to be conservative and less vocal or assertive in class. Learning through memorisation and repetition, with communication being marginalised may not be sufficient for developing communicative competence. Raising cultural awareness among students and encouraging them to free themselves from possible cultural constraints while learning the target language seem essential. With that said, there was no intention to claim the superiority of any culture. Instead, this research emphasises an ecological consideration of contextual factors inside and beyond the language classroom. The findings suggest that in this EFL context, WTC in English needs to be explored as dynamically co-constructed by the totality of students, the immediate learning environment and the larger sociocultural context. Oversimplifying WTC or ‘un-WTC’ as a cultural trait or as a result of anxiety or perceived competence alone is problematic and dangerous.

160

Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom

Researching WTC is of paramount significance to EFL learners. First, WTC is an important learner variable facilitating language acquisition (MacIntyre, 2007). If language learning is for effective communication and the pedagogical aim of enhancing students’ communicative competence is to be fulfilled, promoting students’ WTC would be the first step. L2 learners with high WTC are expected to engage in frequent communication (Clément et al., 2003; Yashima et al., 2004) or have high language achievement (Matsuoka, 2006). EFL learners, however, may not develop reasonable levels of WTC necessary for enhancing their communication skills because English is not their medium of daily communication. If they do reach the culmination of WTC, however they will gain advantages by creating or seeking opportunities to use English both inside the class (e.g. volunteering answers and engaging in discussion) and outside the class (e.g. reading English newspapers, watching English movies or volunteering at international festivals or events). As MacIntyre (2007) emphasised, WTC is not only a factor facilitative of L2 learning but equally a non-linguistic outcome that educators would desire to achieve among language learners. Creating WTC among EFL learners can also prepare them for international communication encounters. Increasing globalisation is propelling international mobility. Chinese students have constituted one of the most significant groups in international educational markets (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006). However, overseas Chinese students are not necessarily ready to acculturate into the host culture, as their cultural background and ways of learning have been reported to be dissonant with the educational expectations of the host country. Liu (2002) observed that in US classrooms, Chinese students’ silence as a way to show respect, politeness and modesty is often misunderstood as a lack of respect and independent thinking or communicative competence. Therefore, research efforts are mandated to demystify Chinese students’ WTC by delving into its influential factors, and in the meantime promote their readiness to enter into international educational systems. Gallagher’s (2013) study with a group of Chinese sojourners in the UK found that students who were willing to initiate L2 communication encountered less cross-cultural daily challenges, such as social isolation and communication difficulties.

Theoretical Implications The current research contributes to the protocol of the existing L2 WTC theorising. It indicates that communication confidence (i.e. perceived communication competence combined with a lack of communication anxiety), motivation, learner beliefs and classroom environment largely explain WTC in English inside Chinese EFL classrooms. More importantly, this research has identified additional cognitive dimensions of perceived communication competence: topical knowledge, topical familiarity and critical thinking

Concluding Remarks

161

ability. The current findings suggest that EFL students need to perceive a relative amount of cognitive knowledge/competence and linguistic resources before they are comfortable with their communication competence in specific situations. This cognitive aspect of perceived competence is particularly pertinent to EFL learners whose cognitive capacity may be unduly consumed by the search for appropriate language when communicating in their L2. This research proposes that, theoretically, WTC in the EFL classroom appears to comprise five forms of readiness to enter into English discourse: cognitive, linguistic, affective, motivational and cultural readiness. Although cognitive and linguistic readiness may orient students to be willing to communicate, a lack of other aspects such as affective and cultural readiness can nonetheless hinder them from crossing their personal ‘rubicon’ to enter into L2 communication. By anatomising the ‘readiness’ in MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) conceptualisation of L2 WTC, I intended to highlight the magnitude of the interrelatedness of these aspects of readiness and suggest that WTC in EFL classrooms be viewed as a complex system instead of a single individual trait. This speculation is open to further theoretical and empirical exploration. This research utilises mixed methods to explore the breadth and depth of the trait level and state level of WTC. More importantly, it indicates that WTC in English inside the language classroom is not static, but fluctuates over time and across situations. It attests to the developmental and situational nature of L2 WTC (Cao, 2011; Kang, 2005b). Unlike WTC in the first language, which was perceived as a personality trait, the contextualised data from this research show that foreign language learners’ WTC changes as a function of the interaction of individual and classroom environmental factors. The situational characteristic of WTC justifies the significance of examining environmental contingencies to understand students’ WTC in specific classes. The hybrid theoretical framework integrating perspectives from SLA, Chinese indigenous culture and the ecological framework appears to be instrumental in accounting for WTC inside Chinese EFL classrooms. In particular, the ecosystems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) demonstrated its explanatory power in examining individual learners’ language learning and communication behaviour not in a social vacuum but as embedded in the social structure both inside and beyond the classroom setting. This ecological paradigm, while it has not been widely applied in SLA research, is informative for future research.

Methodological Implications This research demonstrates the usefulness of using mixed methods for investigating WTC in Chinese EFL classrooms. The sophisticated statistical analyses enhanced the psychometric properties of the instrumentation used in the survey and the reliability and validity of the results. The exploratory

162

Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom

factor analyses (EFAs) employed in the pilot study were useful for identifying the factor structures underlying the scales while reducing redundant and inappropriate questionnaire items. The confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) performed on the main study data validated the factor structures of the scales. The interrelationships among the variables were explored using SEM. At the time of its commencement, this research was the first effort to demonstrate the feasibility of including classroom environment and learner beliefs into an L2 WTC model and to test their simultaneous relationships. This research was also the first attempt in L2 WTC research to show the usefulness of integrating a large-scale survey with a prolonged multiple-case study. This integration fulfilled the purposes of obtaining a snapshot and a developmental trajectory of WTC in English among Chinese university students. The qualitative themes identified from the textual data supplemented rich contextual evidence. Given the implicit nature of the WTC construct which may not be readily observed, the combination of a quantitative survey employing robust psychometric analyses and a qualitative in-depth inquiry utilising multiple sources of data allowed a fuller understanding of WTC.

Implications for Educational Practice Drawing on the ecological paradigm, I have proposed an ecological model of WTC in the Chinese EFL classroom. This model provides a heuristic framework for assessing the cause of, and possible solutions to, students’ detachment from EFL classroom communication. By recognising that L2 WTC is situated in a range of ecosystems, teachers are better able to determine which system is likely to act on students’ classroom WTC and implement interventions accordingly. Starting from the microsystem, the teacher could examine not only student’s beliefs, learning motivation and communication dispositions, but also the affordances available in the classroom environment. With other systems scrutinised, a frustrating L2-speaking experience, for example, may be found to be a major cause of reticence. Teachers can thereby offer effective support by, among other practices, showing empathy or encouraging students to share their personal stories and beliefs about foreign language learning. More specifically, the teacher may adopt various ways to boost moment-to-moment WTC in the language class. The following are some possible techniques to promote students’ WTC in their L2: (1) Providing scaffolding for students to develop cognitive and linguistic readiness. As shown in this research, cognitive and linguistic inadequacy greatly restrained WTC in class. This could be improved if the teacher were to announce the topic for discussion in advance, for instance, one week before the class, so that the students would have enough time to prepare by reading extensively on the topic or even

Concluding Remarks

163

writing up their opinions. The teacher could also assign sufficient time for group discussions, so that students could exchange ideas and organise their thoughts before being invited to report to the class. With sufficient cognitive and linguistic resources, students might feel secure and less anxious to speak up in class. (2) Designing meaningful communicative tasks and keeping the class on track. As mentioned before, university students are more mature than those in high school, and they are able to critically appraise the quality or value of a language class, albeit with reference to their own beliefs or expectations. Therefore, learning tasks and activities need to be geared towards productive output, with explicit foci on specific skills and competence. For instance, if the genre of news report is targeted, the teacher can require students to conduct news story interviews on campus and later report to the class. Explicit instructions on this genre need to be supplied by the teacher prior to and following the task. Such types of intellectually meaningful and challenging tasks are likely to trigger high WTC among university students. On the other hand, because activities such as games or role-plays inducing a limited sense of achievement could easily be considered superficial, they should be used with caveats. The teacher as an important communicator needs to ‘clearly explain the purposes and rationale behind each activity and class’ (Barcelos, 2003b: 194) for students to identify with the affordances created and available in class. In other words, pedagogies in light of communicative language teaching (CLT) with whatsoever variations in practice may need contextualised adaptation in the EFL classroom. (3) Building a rapport with students. The psychological distance between the teacher and students can be shortened by the teacher’s immediacy and engagement behaviour. This research showed that students often consider that speaking to the teacher in English is intimidating, possibly due to the traditionally endorsed authoritative figure of teachers. Teachers can increase their bond with students by using humour and jokes in class and frequently communicating with students after class. Sharing their own learning experience or life history with students is, for instance, a good starting point to get acquainted with students. In addition, the teacher needs to attend to students’ needs and wants and, accordingly, dynamically adjust his or her lesson plans or classroom management to provide optimal learning opportunities. Instead of rigidly following their lesson plans, teachers can flexibly adjust their schedule according to the specific immediate situations in the class, so as to elicit maximum student engagement and enthusiasm. (4) Encouraging cooperation and acceptance among the class group. This can be realised by, at the beginning of a semester, asking students to share their experiences, perceptions and expectations so as to increase mutual understanding. Establishing group norms that value tolerance

164

Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom

and risk-taking (Dörnyei, 2007a) is also important to create a comfortable and conducive environment where students will not be ridiculed or criticised when they make mistakes, lag behind or excel. As reported previously, active participation is sometimes criticised as ‘showing off’. Similarly, Dörnyei (2007a: 723) pointed out that elite students in contemporary classrooms may be called names such as ‘nerd’ or ‘swot’. Therefore, the group norms need to explicitly specify favourable and forbidden behaviour and the consequences of breaking these norms. Within smaller learning groups, which often consist of, for instance, five or six students, the teacher can urge individual members to assume different responsibilities when carrying out group tasks. The teacher can also enhance goal orientedness among each learning group, that is, their identification with the official goal and boost their sense of group honour. High WTC may be created when group members are cohesively committed to achieving an ideal learning outcome. (5) Encouraging reflective thinking on beliefs and motivation to learn and communicate in English. The influence of learners’ belief systems and motivation, or motivational cognitions (Ushioda, 2012) may be covert but permeating. They influence the way that students assign meaning to classroom learning activities, their engagement in communication and their sustainable investment. Although one’s belief/motive system is acquired from many years of education and societal discourses about learning and may not change dramatically (Gao, 2010), this research did reveal its reconstruction along with the accumulation of students’ learning experience. The teacher can guide students to reflect on their belief/ motive system by building learning portfolios. The portfolios can include the students’ showcase writings, achievement records and journal entries recording their beliefs and motivational thinking. In addition, the teacher may invite students to discuss their perceptions of Western culture in comparison with Chinese culture, drawing their attention to the possible beneficial and restraining influences of their home culture on English language learning and communication. Finally, given the escalating globalisation in which English plays a significant role, the teacher needs to broaden students’ horizons and foster a world view or international posture (Yashima, 2002) among students. EFL students may develop high levels of WTC when they internalise the value of English communicative competence and willingly transcend examination orientation in setting their learning goals.

Future Research This research only considered two aspects of learner beliefs: beliefs about English learning and about classroom communication, which were perceived to be particularly relevant to this research context. This narrow

Concluding Remarks

165

conceptualisation was necessary to avoid a conceptual overlap with other variables such as motivation and communication confidence. The relationships of learner beliefs with other variables should be interpreted within this narrow conceptual framework. This does not, however, imply that other types of beliefs are irrelevant to the understanding of classroom communication. Given the increasing awareness of the influence of learner beliefs on motivation and learning behaviour (Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003; Riley, 1997; White, 2008), investigating a wider strand of learner beliefs is a worthwhile direction for future L2 WTC research. Also, while the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation framework was found to apply to the current EFL context, future research is warranted to explore motivation in relation to L2 WTC from other theories such as the L2 motivational self-system theory proposed by Dörnyei and associates (see Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009). This theory may offer an insightful perspective for connecting future self-guides and identity with EFL learners’ language learning. If we accept that L2 learning and communication involve a reconstruction or an alteration of selves (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; Williams & Burden, 1997), then the cultivation of WTC in an L2 probably demands a certain degree of learners’ acceptance of such a reconstruction of selves or identity, albeit not necessarily in a tangible way. Although recent research is starting to investigate the linkage of the L2 self with L2 WTC (Ryan, 2009; Yashima, 2009), it is not classroom based and thus is removed from the immediate classroom contexts. It is a promising avenue for future studies to explore how the L2 motivational self is played out in immediate classroom situations. It is also worthwhile for researchers to take a step further and systematically investigate the effect of WTC on the development of language proficiency among EFL students. Often, these students are, first and foremost, expected to succeed in various English proficiency tests before they ultimately attain communicative competence in this target language. Ellis (2012: 324) recently argued that ‘greater participation does not necessarily translate into more learning’ and emphasised ‘input-based instruction’ and a focus on ‘willingness to listen closely’. The notion of L2 WTC has been broadly proposed to encompass the four skill areas of speaking, listening, reading and writing (MacIntyre et al., 2001). Researchers and language teachers may endeavour to investigate whether and how WTC in these four areas would jointly bring about L2 learning gains. This direction for future inquiry can clearly have important implications for language teaching practices. Another area of future research emerging from this research is the operationalisation of the classroom environment. Future research may benefit from operationalising the classroom environment from a wider range of aspects beyond teacher support, student cohesiveness and task orientation, which were the three components of environment that were quantitatively

166

Willingness to Communicate in the Chinese EFL University Classroom

tested in this research. The current qualitative findings showed that many other aspects, such as classroom atmosphere, teaching practices and communication situations, constitute important dimensions of students’ perception of the classroom environment. Future research may consider these classroom aspects using quantitative methods to account for classroom WTC. Future research will also shed more light on L2 WTC if teachers’ views and opinions are investigated. Although L2 WTC is an individual difference variable representing the last psychological step before action, inside the classroom context, the teacher is intricately associated with students’ WTC. Through eliciting both the teacher’s ‘etic’ perspective and students’ ‘emic’ perspective regarding unfolding classroom teaching and learning episodes, more insights can be gained on how the teacher and students attach meaning to classroom affordances for the creation of WTC. Finally, a vital area of future research relates to exploring L2 WTC among different cohorts or on a longitudinal basis. The qualitative findings provide significant evidence that WTC fluctuates over time and across situations. Future research may explore WTC fluctuations with different cohorts (i.e. high school and university students), or by administering questionnaires over a longitudinal time frame. WTC changes can thus be quantitatively explored by examining invariant structural relationships or latent growth curve models, which can be robustly tested using SEM (HolmesSmith, 2008).

Appendix 1: Factor Loadings Factor loadings, eigenvalue and reliability for WTC (n = 305) WTC item WTC4

WTC9 WTC3 WTC10 WTC2

WTC1

WTC8 WTC7 WTC5 WTC6

Eigenvalue Cronbach α

I am willing to do a role-play standing in front of the class in English (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). I am willing to give a short self-introduction without notes in English to the class. I am willing to give a short speech in English to the class about my hometown with notes. I am willing to translate a spoken utterance from Chinese into English in my group. I am willing to ask the teacher in English to repeat what he or she just said in English because I didn’t understand. I am willing to do a role-play in English at my desk, with my peer (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). I am willing to ask my peer sitting next to me in English the meaning of an English word. I am willing to ask my group-mates in English the meaning of a word I do not know. I am willing to ask my group-mates in English how to pronounce a word in English. I am willing to ask my peer sitting next to me in English how to say an English phrase to express the thoughts in my mind. 5.006 0.86

WTC1

WTC2

0.933

0.149

0.830

0.045

0.752

0.024

0.578

0.236

0.435

0.156

0.426

0.256

0.095

0.974

0.034

0.954

0.141

0.683

0.165

0.642

1.066 0.90

Note: WTC1 = WTC in English in meaning-focused activities; WTC2 = WTC in English in formfocused activities. Factor loadings above .30 are shown in bold.

167

168

Appendix

Factor loadings, eigenvalue and reliability for communication confidence (n = 306) Confidence item CA14 CA13 CA15 CA11 CA16 CA12 PC20 PC17 PC22 PC19 PC18

PC21

When giving an oral presentation to the rest of the class. When taking part in a role-play or dialogue in front of my class. When asked to contribute to a formal discussion in class. When the teacher asks me a question in English. When I have to speak without preparation in English class. When speaking informally to my English teacher during classroom activities. I am able to give my peer sitting next to me directions to my favourite restaurant in English. I am able to do a role-play in English at my desk, with my peer (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). I am able to translate a spoken utterance from Chinese into English in my group. I am able to tell my group-mates in English about the story of a television show I saw. I am able to do a role-play standing in front of the class in English (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). I am able to give a short self-introduction without notes in English to the class.

Eigenvalue Cronbach α

CA

PC

0.847

0.046

0.802

0.003

0.772

0.047

0.753 0.733

0.041 0.027

0.658

0.055

0.154

0.836

0.034

0.755

0.074

0.755

0.055

0.739

0.086

0.680

0.182

0.622

5.486 0.89

1.492 0.88

Note: CA = communication anxiety; PC = perceived communication confidence. Factor loadings above .30 are shown in bold.

Factor loadings, eigenvalue and reliability for motivation (n = 299) Motivation item

MO1

MO2

MO3

MO32

0.896

0.004

0.024

0.840

0.004

0.012

0.812

0.036

0.011

MO31

MO30

For the pleasure I experience when surpassing myself in my English studies. Because I enjoy the feeling of acquiring knowledge about the English-speaking community and their way of life. For the satisfied feeling I get in finding out new things.

Appendix

MO33 MO34 MO24 MO25 MO0a MO29 MO27

MO28

For the enjoyment I experience when I grasp a difficult construct in English. For the ‘high’ I feel when hearing English spoken. In order to get a more prestigious job later on. In order to have a better salary later on. Because I have to pass English examinations. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can speak English. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can speak more than one language. Because I think it is good for my personal development.

Eigenvalue Cronbach α

169

0.794

0.013

0.014

0.777

0.029

0.035

0.084

0.917

0.079

0.052 0.084

0.889 0.532

0.082 0.105

0.006

0.023

0.869

0.005

0.103

0.772

0.044

0.135

0.570

4.903 0.91

2.193 0.80

1.019 0.78

Note: MO1 = intrinsic motivation; MO2 = external regulation; MO3 = identified regulation. a Item MO0 was removed in the main study due to high skewness. Factor loadings above .30 are shown in bold.

Factor loadings, eigenvalue and reliability for learner beliefs (n = 311) Beliefs item LB42 LB41 LB43 LB40 LB38 LB39 LB37 LB36

The student who always speaks up in class will be loathed by other classmates. The student who always speaks up in class is showing off his or her English proficiency. Students should not speak up without being invited by the teacher. I learn little by participating in communication activities in class. Learning English is mostly a matter of translating from Chinese. To understand English, it must be translated into Chinese. Learning English is mostly a matter of learning grammar rules. In English classes, I prefer to have my teacher provide explanations in Chinese.

LB1

LB2

0.899

0.177

0.778

0.044

0.561

0.005

0.407

0.151

0.059

0.667

0.064

0.596

0.023

0.554

0.077

0.440 (Continued)

170

Appendix

Beliefs item LB35

a

You should not say anything in English until you can speak it correctly.

Eigenvalue Cronbach α

LB1

LB2

0.244

0.283

2.354 0.75

1.033 0.65

Note: LB1 = learner beliefs about classroom communication; LB2 = learner beliefs about English learning. a Item E35 was retained because its content is about concerns with fl uency which is important to the study. Factor loadings above .30 are shown in bold.

Factor loadings, eigenvalue and reliability for classroom environment (n = 319) Environment item CE54 CE52 CE53 CE55 CE56 CE50 CE49 CE48 CE51 CE46 CE44 CE47 CE45 Eigenvalue Cronbach α

Tasks designed in this class are useful. Tasks designed in this class are attractive. I know what I am trying to accomplish in this class. Activities in this class are clearly and carefully planned. Class assignments are clear so everyone knows what to do. I work well with other class members. I am friendly to members of this class. I make friends among students in this class. I help other class members who are having trouble with their work. The teacher provides a timely response to students’ concerns. The teacher is patient in teaching. The teacher smiles at the class while talking. The teacher asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions.

CE1

CE2

CE3

0.812 0.787

0.050 0.075

0.069 0.018

0.648

0.120

0.061

0.533

0.036

0.203

0.441

0.134

0.171

0.031 0.065 0.098

0.902 0.858 0.768

0.056 0.056 0.172

0.210

0.507

0.051

0.049

0.047

0.892

0.070 0.091

0.050 0.162

0.670 0.550

0.217

0.058

0.536

6.107 0.84

1.544 0.85

1.030 0.83

Note: CE1 = task orientation; CE2 = student cohesiveness; CE3 = teacher support. Factor loadings above .30 are shown in bold.

Appendix 2: Questionnaire Questionnaire Survey on English Classroom Communication in Chinese Universities Gender: Male Female Grade: One Two Age: Name of University: Academic major: File No.:

(for the researcher only)

THIS SHEET WILL BE REMOVED FOR DATA ANALYSIS

Part I Willingness to communicate in English inside the language classroom Directions: The following statements describe some communicative situations/ tasks in an English class. Please indicate how willing or unwilling you are to engage in these communication activities using English. Please put a ‘9’ in the box that best describes your feelings. 1 = Definitely not willing

2 = Probably not willing

4 = Perhaps willing

5 = Probably willing

3 = Perhaps not willing 6 = Definitely willing

Statements

Willingness

Example: I am willing to sing an English song. 1. I am willing to do a role-play in English at my desk, with my peer (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). 2. I am willing to ask the teacher in English to repeat what he or she just said in English because I didn’t understand.

171

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Continued)

172

Appendix

Statements

Willingness

3. I am willing to give a short speech in English to the class about my hometown with notes. 4. I am willing to do a role-play standing in front of the class in English (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). 5. I am willing to ask my group-mates in English how to pronounce a word in English. 6. I am willing to ask my peer next to me in English how to say an English phrase to express the thoughts in my mind. 7. I am willing to ask my group-mates in English the meaning of a word I do not know. 8. I am willing to ask my peer next to me in English the meaning of an English word. 9. I am willing to give a short self-introduction without notes in English to the class. 10. I am willing to translate a spoken utterance from Chinese into English in my group.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Part II Communication anxiety in language classroom Directions: Please indicate how anxious you may feel when you communicate with the teacher and classmates in the following situations using English in your classroom. Please put a ‘9’ in the box that best describes your feelings.

1 = Not at all anxious 4 = Moderately anxious

2 = Very slightly anxious 5 = Very anxious

3 = Slightly anxious 6 = Extremely anxious

Statements

Anxiety

11. When the teacher asks me a question in English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. When speaking informally to my English teacher during classroom activities. 13. When taking part in a role-play or dialogue in front of my class. 14. When giving an oral presentation to the rest of the class.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. When asked to contribute to a formal discussion in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. When I have to speak without preparation in English class. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendix

173

Part III Perceived communication competence in English Directions: A number of situations are described below that involve classroom communication using English. Please rate your confidence from 0 to 100 that you can adaptively and efficiently communicate with the teacher and classmates using English. Please put a ‘9’ in the box that best describes your degree of confidence. 0 10 Cannot do at all

20

30

40

50 60 70 Moderately certain can do

80

Statements

90

100 Certain can do

Confidence

17. I am able to do a role-play in English at my desk, with my peer (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). 18. I am able to do a role-play standing in front of the class in English (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant). 19. I am able to tell my group-mates in English about the story of a television show I saw. 20. I am able to give my peer sitting next to me directions to my favourite restaurant in English. 21. I am able to give a short self-introduction without notes in English to the class. 22. I am able to translate a spoken utterance from Chinese into English in my group.

  0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100   0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100   0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100   0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100   0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100   0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Part IV Motivation to learn English Directions: The following statements describe some reasons for learning English. Please indicate to what extent these statements correspond with your own reasons for learning English. Please put a ‘9’ in the box that best describes your feelings.

1 = Not at all true of me

2 = Very slightly true of me

4 = Moderately true of me

5 = Very much true of me

3 = Slightly true of me 6 = Extremely true of me

174

Appendix

Why are you learning English? Statements

Correspondence

23. In order to increase my chances of winning a scholarship or a prize in my university. 24. In order to get a more prestigious job later on.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

25. In order to have a better salary later on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. In order to prepare myself for applying to overseas universities in the near future. 27. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can speak more than one language. 28. Because I think it is good for my personal development.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can speak English. 30. For the satisfied feeling I get in finding out new things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

31. Because I enjoy the feeling of acquiring knowledge about the English-speaking community and their way of life. 32. For the pleasure I experience when surpassing myself in my English studies. 33. For the enjoyment I experience when I grasp a difficult construct in English. 34. For the ‘high’ I feel when hearing English spoken.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Part V Learner’s beliefs about English learning Directions: The following statements describe some beliefs people have about learning English. Please indicate to what extent you agree with these statements by a putting a ‘9’ in the box that best describes your feelings. 1 = Strongly disagree 4 = Slightly agree

2 = Disagree 5 = Agree

3 = Slightly disagree 6 = Strongly agree

Statements 35. You should not say anything in English until you can speak it correctly. 36. In English classes, I prefer to have my teacher provide explanations in Chinese. 37. Learning English is mostly a matter of learning grammar rules.

Agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendix

38. Learning English is mostly a matter of translating from Chinese. 39. To understand English, it must be translated into Chinese.

175

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

40. I learn little by participating in communication activities in class. 41. The student who always speaks up in class is showing off his or her English proficiency. 42. The student who always speaks up in class will be loathed by other classmates. 43. Students should not speak up without being invited by the teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Part VI Classroom environment Directions: The following statements describe some characteristics of a language classroom. Please indicate how often you feel in this way in your English language classroom by putting a ‘9’ in the box that best describes your feelings. 1 = Never 4 = Often

2 = Rarely 5 = Usually

3 = Sometimes 6 = Always

Statements

Frequency

44. The teacher is patient in teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. The teacher asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 46. The teacher provides a timely response to students’ concerns.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

47. The teacher smiles at the class while talking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 48. I make friends among students in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 49. I am friendly to members of this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 50. I work well with other class members. 1 2 3 4 5 6 51. I help other class members who are having trouble with their work. 52. Tasks designed in this class are attractive.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Continued)

176

Appendix

Statements

Frequency

53. I know what I am trying to accomplish in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 54. Tasks designed in this class are useful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 55. Activities in this class are clearly and carefully planned. 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. Class assignments are clear so everyone knows what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Thank you very much!

Appendix 3: Correlation Matrix for the Structural Model

1.00 0.50** –0.36** 0.46** 0.12** 0.35** 0.31** 0.33** 0.27** 0.27** 0.27** 0.33**

1

1.00 –0.23** 0.28** 0.11* 0.26** 0.27** 0.25** 0.22** 0.25** 0.23** 0.23**

2

1.00 –0.46** –0.11* –0.20** –0.23** –0.24** –0.23** –0.16** –0.17** –0.17**

3

5

1.00 0.16** 1.00 0.37** 0.47** 0.32** 0.22** 0.26** –0.01 0.21** 0.01 0.20** 0.11* 0.27** 0.14** 0.31** 0.17**

4

1.00 0.51** 0.21** 0.10* 0.20** 0.23** 0.23**

6

1.00 0.17** 0.06 0.14** 0.15** 0.17**

7

1.00 0.45** 0.09* 0.15** 0.07

8

1.00 0.29** 0.23** 0.20**

9

1.00 0.42** 0.60**

10

1.00 0.45**

11

1.00

12

*p