This chapter reports the results of the descriptive statistics, t-tests, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analyses. In response to the research questions addressed in the study, the chapter contains the following five parts: (1) levels of SWTC and its relevant predictors, (2) SWTC and background variables, (3) SWTC and learner factors, (4) SWTC and situational factors, and (5) relations among SWTC and its predictors.
Levels of SWTC and Its Predictors
The following section is mainly concerned with the results of descriptive analyses of the levels of SWTC and its relevant predictors (i.e., shyness, motivation, confidence, climate, teacher immediacy, and language proficiency). Before discussing the above issues, the author reported the results of the reliability tests on the instruments, and then the mean scores of the scales on SWTC and its predictors.
After checking for and deleting missing values of the returned copies of the finalized questionnaire, the author colleted four hundred and fifty-nine valid copies of the questionnaire, and found that all of the developed scales on SWTC and its predictors had high (>.70) reliability coefficients. Alpha value of SWTC scale was .7764 and those on shyness, motivation, confidence, teacher immediacy and climate were .8267, .9060, .9525, .8616, and .8068 (see Appendices 30 to 35).
To compare the mean scores of the scales on SWTC and its predictors and those of their subscales, the author computed new mean scores by utilizing the data collected and divided each mean score by the number of items in each individual scale, for example, N=8 for shyness scale.
Next, based on the results of descriptive statistics, the levels of SWTC and its relevant predictors of shyness, motivation, confidence, climate, teacher immediacy, and language proficiency were reported in the following sections.
SWTC
This section presents the results of descriptive statistics on the SWTC scale (see Table 16). First, the study found that students had a moderate mean score of SWTC (M=3.4842; SD=.6231). Second, they had a moderate level of topic familiarity (M=3.3014, see Table 16) and positive feedback (M= 3.5939, see Table 16).
Table 16 Mean and Standard Deviation of SWTC Scale
Variables Label Item Number Mean SD SWTC SWTC 3.4842 .6231 Topic topic a58, a59, a60 3.3014 .7262 Feedback Fback a61, a62, a63, a64, a65 3.5939 .6645 Total Scale SWTC
First, students’ moderate levels of SWTC were probably related to students’
limited experience in speaking to foreigner instructors inside or outside schools.
Another possible reason was that they seemed to be passive learners with low desire to speak up in L2 (Tsui, 1996; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Wen & Clement, 2003).
Besides, the researcher found that students did not have high SWTC in discussing personal experiences and knowing correct answers to teachers’ questions (M of item 58 and 60= 2.8257 and 3.7298, see Table 17).
Table 17 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of SWTC Scale Items
Item (valid N= 459) Mean SD 58. I am more willing to speak up when our class talk
about personal or outside-class experiences. 2.8257 1.009 59. I have higher WTC when I am well-prepared before
classes. 3.3486 .9670 60. I have more WTC when I know correct answers to
English teachers’ questions. 3.7298 .9257
Table 17 (Continued.)
Item (valid N= 459) Mean SD 61. When English teachers listen to me carefully, I am more
willing to express my ideas. 3.5512 .8711 62. When my group members encourage me, I have higher WTC. 3.5294 .8544 63. When working with high proficiency classmates,
I have more WTC in discussion. 3.4357 .8551 64. When teachers give positive feedbacks, I have more WTC to
answer other questions. 3.7298 .8417 65. When I actively answer teachers’ questions and get extra
scores, I have higher WTC to answer questions in L2. 3.733 .9131
Similarly, their SWTC was moderate when they were well-prepared before classes (M of item 59= 3.3486, see Table 17). It seemed that students would have higher SWTC when they felt comfortable, ready, and excited about the topics under discussion. The finding supported the results of Kang’s (2005) and Cao and Philp’s (2006) studies with the emphasis that it is significant to select appropriate topics under discussion, especially those familiar to the students.
After the comparison of the students’ response to items 61 t o 65 (see Table 17), the researcher found that students had moderately high SWTC if their teachers gave them positive feedbacks and if they actively answered teachers’ questions and got extra scores (M of item 64 and 65= 3.7298 and 3.733, see Table 17). Besides, their SWTC was moderate if they had group members’ encouragement and teachers’
attentive listening (M of items 62 and 61= 3.5294 and 3.5512, see Table 17). They also had moderate SWTC when they worked with high proficiency students (M of item 63= 3.4357, see Table 17). The results demonstrated that the students might be more willing to communicate due to social supports from their teachers and
classmates as significant others.
Based on the discussion above, the results of the study indicated that students had moderate levels of SWTC in L2 and its components (i.e., topic familiarity and positive feedback). It seems that they lacked high SWTC, and theories on SWTC need to take variations of SWTC among students into account to determine the effect ways to enhance students’ SWTC as a central teaching goal (Kang, 2005).
Shyness
After reversing scoring of positively worded statements on students’ self- or peer-perceived talkativeness, several main findings were noted. First, it was found that students had a moderate level of shyness (M=3.3851; SD=.6835, see Table 18).
Table 18 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Revised Shyness Scale Variables Label Item Number Mean SD Shyness Shyness 3.3851 .6835
quietness quietness a1, a4, a7 3.5765 .7142 talkativeness non-talkativeness a2, a3, a5, a6, a8 3.0061 .8281 Total Scale Shyness
Note: With the reversed scores on the talkativeness scale, the scale was renamed as non-talkativeness. The higher mean score of non-talkativeness student had, the more shyness they performed.
The second finding was that they had a moderate level of quietness and talkativeness in class (M=3.5765 and 3.0061, see Table 18). One possible reason was that they cared about how their classmates evaluated their quiet and talkative behaviors, and they did not like to have much talk in an L2 class. The results of the analyses of items 1 and 4 (M=3.057 and 3.316, see Table 19) indicated that the students were shy and quiet persons, and they probably disliked to talk in L2.
Table 19 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Shyness Scale Items
Item (valid N= 459) Mean SD 1. In English classes, I am a shy person. 3.057 1.011
2. In English classes, other classmates think I am talkative. 2.381 1.049 3. In English classes, I am a very talkative person. 2.436 1.060 4. In English classes, I tended to be very quiet. 3.316 1.046 5. In English classes, I am more talkative than other classmates. 2.351 .965 6. In English activities, I talk more than other classmates. 2.698 1.061 7. In English classes, other classmates think I am very quiet. 3.472 .907 8. In English classes, I talk more than most classmates do. 2.257 1.022
Besides, from their classmates’ perspective, the participants were perhaps not talkative (M of items 2= 2.381) and kept quiet in class (M of item 7= 3.472, see Table 19). The findings suggested that when senior high instructors attempt to reduce students’ shyness in L2, it seems essential to encourage students to have more mutual understanding of their own as well as their classmates’ personality traits of quietness and talkativeness.
Motivation
This section presents the results of mean scores and standard deviations of the motivation scale items. It was found that the mean score of motivation was moderate (M= 3.3166, SD= .5749, see Table 20). The finding appeared to support the results of the past research (e.g., Peng, 2002). It seemed that senior high students’ motivation was not high (around the average of 3.0 in this study).
Table 20 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Motivation Scale Variables Label Item Number Mean SD
Motivation Motivation 3.3166 .5749 ALE attitude a9, a10, a11, a12, a13 3.7139 .7401 a14, a15, a16, a17, a18
MI intensity a19, a20, a21, a22 2.6716 .6358 DLE desire a23, a24, a25, a26 3.4510 .7687
Total Scale Motivation a1, a4, a7
Comparing the mean scores of the subscales (i.e., attitude, intensity, and desire) of motivation (see Table 20), it was found that the students in this study had higher levels of attitude and desire (M= 3.7139 and 3.4510) but a lower level of intensity (M= 2.6716, See Table 20). One possible reason for their low intensity was that as seen in Table 21, the students probably did not work harder than other classmates (M of item 19 =2.650) or review the new vocabulary and concepts they learned in English classes (M of item 20= 2.93).
Overall, students had a positive attitude toward learning English (Table 21).
Examining the mean scores of 9, 10, 16, and 17 (M =3.473, 3.340, 3.919, and 3.680, see Table 21), the researcher found that the students in this study had happy learning experiences. They had interests in learning a foreign language (M of items 13 and 14=
3.442, and 3.416, see Table 21).
Moreover, they agreed that English is an important part of the school programs (M of item 11= 4.242) but disagreed with the statement “Learning English is a waste of time (M of item 16= 2.081). Although they believed that English should be taught at school (M of item 25=3.872) and they concentrated on school subjects (M of item 24= 3.427), they seemed to be reluctant to self-study in English after school or spend much time learning English (M of items 21 and 22= 2.880 and 2.946). This may indicate that although they wanted to learn English, they did not study English very diligently and were not willing to spend long hours self-studying it after schools.
Table 21 Mean and Standard Deviations of Motivation Scale Items
Item (valid N= 459) Mean SD 9. Learning English is really great. 3.473 1.022
10. I really enjoy learning English. 3.340 1.031 11. English is an important part of the school program, 4.242 .8413 12. I plan to learn as much English as possible. 3.961 .8323 13. I love learning English. 3.442 1.034 14. I hate English. 3.416 1.083
Table 21 (Continued.)
Item (valid N= 459) Mean SD 16. Learning English is a waste of time. 2.081 .9061
17. I think that learning English is dull. 2.320 1.086 18. When I leave school, I shall give up learning
English entirely because I am not interested in it. 1.863 .9089 19. I work harder than other classmates. 2.650 .9491 20. I often think about or review the new vocabulary
and concepts I learn in English classes. 2.930 .8985 21. I self-study in English after school. 2.880 .9489 22. I spend much time learning English. 2.946 .9503 23. When I have assignment in English, I try
to do them immediately. 3.312 .8622 24. During English classes, I am absorbed in
what is being taught and concentrated on
my subject. 3.427 .8544 25. I believed absolutely English should be taught
at school. 3.872 1.011 26. I find studying English more interesting than
other subjects. 3.194 1.022
Also, participants suggested that they might not give up learning English entirely when they left school (M of item 18= 1.8627), and they planned to learn as much English as possible (M of item 12= 3.961). It suggested that they had some desire and plans to learn more English after graduation from schools or at school.
In addition, they seemed to be willing to spend time on subject other than English (M of item 15= 3.529). The finding suggested that the students might want to spend their time learning English as well as other subjects.
It is noted that the results of the study indicated that the students had lower intensity (M=2.6716) than those (e.g., the low achievers) in Peng’s (2001) research (M=2.91). The discrepancy might result from different students’ backgrounds (e.g., studying in metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools). This study included
students in Taipei City but also others in central and southern Taiwan, which was not considered in Peng’s (2001) study. It suggested that schools’ locations might be related to students’ intensity.
Confidence
This section presents the results of analyses of the mean scores and standard deviations of the confidence scale items (see Table 22).
Table 22 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Confidence Scale Items Variables Label Item number Mean SD
Confidence 2.687 .6653 Anxiety anxiety B1, B2, ….., B12 3.328 .7464 Competence competence C1, C2, ….., C12 2.704 .5460 Total Scale confidence
In this study, one finding was that students had the low mean score of the confidence scale (M= 2.687<3.0). Students might lack sufficient confidence in speaking L2 to different types of people (strangers, acquaintances, and friends).
The second finding was that the students had low competence (M = 2.704 <3.0, see Table 22). It seems that students considered themselves as low competent learners.
By examining the mean scores of the competence scale, it was also found that students had insufficient competence when they had a small group conversation with a group of strangers (M of item 1= 2.9826, see Table 23) and with strangers (M of item 5= 2.5381, see Table 23). Besides, as shown in Table 23, students perceived higher competence to talk in English to one of their friends (M of item 7= 3.0436) than to a small group of friends (M of item 12= 2.8976).
Table 23 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Confidence Scale Items Item (valid N= 459) anxiety competence
M SD M SD 1. Have a small-group conversation
in English with a group of strangers. 3.444 1.103 2.9826 .8435 2. Give a presentation in English to a
group of strangers. 4.0283 .9606 2.4553 .9059
Table 23 (Continued.)
Item (valid N= 459) anxiety competence
M SD M SD 3. Have a presentation in English to a
group of friends. 2.8715 1.040 2.8039 .8570 4. Talk in English in a large meeting
among strangers. 4.3682 .9584 2.3028 .9609 5. Have a small-group conversation
in English with strangers. 3.7298 1.018 2.5381 .8916 6. Talk in English in a large meeting
among friends. 3.3769 1.021 2.7211 .8771 7. Talk in English to friends 3.4052 1.035 3.0436 .8978 8. Talk in English in a large meeting
with acquaintances. 3.2353 1.016 2.7538 .8529 9. Talk in English to acquaintances. 3.6885 1.056 2.5185 .8799 10. Give a presentation in English to
a group of acquaintances. 3.1329 1.034 2.8126 .8765 11. Talk in English to strangers. 3.6057 1.053 2.6166 .9091 12. Talk in English to a small
group of friends. 2.8105 1.066 2.8976 .8843
Note: The scores of anxiety scale were reversed, and the scale was renamed as non-anxiety based on Yashima’s (2002) concept of confidence as a combination of low anxiety and high competence.
Besides, it was found that the students had less competence talking in English in a large meeting among strangers (M of item 4= 2.3028) and giving a presentation in English to a group of strangers (M of item 2= 2.4553). However, they were more competent talking in English in a large meeting with acquaintances and friends (M of items 6 and 8= 2.7211 and 2.7538) and having a presentation in English to a group of friends (M of item 3= 2.8039) or a group of acquaintances (M of item 10= 2.8126).
The discussion above showed that students might feel more competent having a small-group conversation, giving presentations, or talking in L2 in a large meeting with those they knew (i.e., friends or acquaintance). However, they felt less competence talking with strangers in the same speaking contexts.
The third finding was that students had a moderate level of anxiety (M = 3.328, see Table 22). As seen in Table 23, the students had high anxiety when they gave a
presentation in English to a group of strangers (M of item 2= 4.0283) and when they talked in English in a large meeting among strangers (M of item 4= 4.3682). However, they had moderate levels of anxiety in having a small-group conversation in English with a group of strangers (M of item 1= 3.444) and talking in English to strangers (M of item 11= 3.6057). Besides, it is noted that talking to a small group of friends (M of item 12= 2.8105) and having a presentation in English to a group of friends (M of item 3= 2.8715) were two of the least anxiety-provoking situations.
The results of the study indicated that the learners did not have severe anxiety in communicating with those they knew (e.g., friends) whereas it was the most
anxiety-provoking to communicate with strangers in the formal settings (e.g., in L2 presentations and in large L2 meeting).
Climate
In this study, students were found to have a moderate mean score on climate scale (M= 3.502; SD= .4631, see Table 24).
Table 24 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Climate Scale Items Variables Label Item Number Mean SD Climate Climate 3.5020 .4631
Peer Support peer a43, a45, a47, a49 3.5027 .6187 Teacher Support teacher a44, a46, a 48, a50, 3.7084 .5748
a51, a52, a53
Preparedness preparedness a54, a55, a56, a 57 3.1400 .6543 Total Scale Climate
It was also found that students had a moderate level of teachers’ support (e.g., 3.7084) and students’ preparedness (M= 3.1400, see Table 24). Likewise, students had a moderate level of peer support (M= 3.5027, see Table 24). It seemed that they
required themselves to be prepared for course contents and assignment, and felt comfortable to learn with their teachers and classmates with social support.
Besides, as seen in Table 25, the students disagreed that their speech was seldom interrupted by their English teachers (M of item 48= 2.4227), but they agreed that their instructors were inspiring persons (M of item 46= 3.4815), and encouraged them to speak more English (M of item 44= 3.5229, see Table 25) and ask questions (M of item 53= 3.9717). It seemed that the students might be angry with their teachers interrupting their talks in class. Nevertheless, they probably felt pleasant due to being inspired to learn more English in creative in-class activities or being encouraged to initiate students’ questions and speak more in L2.
Table 25 Mean Scales and Standard Deviations of Climate Scale Items
Item (valid N= 459) M SD 43. My classmates encourage one another. 3.4205 .9822
44. Our English teacher encourages us to speak English. 3.5229 .8383 45. My classmates do not have mutual respects. 2.4684 1.0025 46. Our English teacher is an inspiring person. 3.4815 .8873 47. My classmates like to complete L2 tasks in groups. 3.4466 .7811 48. Our speech is seldom interrupted by English teachers. 2.4227 .8359 49. Our English teacher allows us to look at notebooks in tasks 3.6122 .9564 50. My classmates are closely acquainted with one another. 3.8780 .7891 51. Our English teacher answers to our questions clearly. 3.8911 .7827 52. Our English teacher is humorous. 3.6362 1.009 53. Our English teacher helps us express opinions and
ask questions. 3.9717 .7424 54. I am well-prepared for assignments. 3.2854 .9753 55. I am well-prepared for course contents. 3.6863 .8473 56. I have good comprehension of course contents. 3.2789 .9136 57. I understand English teacher’s questions. 3.3094 .9110
Table 25 also displayed that the students disagreed with the statement “My classmates do not have mutual respects” (M of item 45= 2.4684), and they suggested
that their classmates liked to complete L2 tasks in groups (M of item 47= 3.4466). It seemed that they wanted to establish a good rapport with their classmates showing respects to another. Moreover, they were more likely to speak more freely in groups probably believed that in groups, “they are not under so much pressure as they are when asked to speak in front of the whole classes” (Harmer, 2007, p. 182).
In addition, the students showed positively attitudes to their preparedness (see Table 25). Although they were well-prepared for course contents and assignments (M of items 55 and 54= 3.2854 and 3.6863, see Table 25), they had moderate comprehension levels of course contents (M of item 56= 3.2789) and their instructors’
questions (M of item 57= 3.3094). It seemed that they needed more appropriate activities to improve their understanding of course contents and teachers’ questions.
Teacher Immediacy
This section presents several findings about TI and its components. First, it was found that students perceived moderate TI (M= 3.5708, see Table 26). One possible explanation was that their English instructors interacted with the students by adapting their language to their audience (e.g., students), and paying attention to the kind of language students were likely to understand.
Table 26 Mean and Standard Deviation of the TI Scale Items
Variables Label Item Number Mean SD TI TI 3.5708 .5318 Verbal immediacy (VI) verbal a27, a28, ... a35, a39, .., a42 3.5926 .7852 Nonverbal immediacy (NVI) nonverbal a36, a37, a38 3.5658 .5327 Total Scale TI
The second finding was that the students perceived moderate levels of NVI (M=3.5926 and SD= .7852, see Table 26) and a moderate level of VI (see Table 26)..
It seemed that the students showed moderately positive attitudes to the way that their instructors talked to them to establish a good student-teacher relationship by means of VI and NVI strategies.
Examining the mean scores of items 36, 37 and 38 (M= 3.5839, 3.3943 and 3.7996, see Table 24), the author of the study found that the students’ teachers were probably humorous and had a variety of facial expressions and gesture. They perhaps utilized different tones in the management of teaching. For example, they might speak louder to be audible, and to ensure the students at the back of the class can hear them as those sitting at the front of the class. Sometimes, they might stop to speak quietly as “a way of getting students’ attention” when they said something important (Harmer, 2007, p. 36). It seemed that the students probably understood teachers’ personality traits (e.g., humor), and teachers’ voices and/or gestures as reliable communicative devices to express their emotions and teaching attitudes, and to draw learners’
attention to instructors’ talks.
Moreover, the study found that students probably had positive perceptions that their English teachers used “we” to refer to all students (M of item 30=3.6732, see Table 27), and liked their teachers’ code-switches between Mandarin, English, and Taiwanese (M of item 41= 3.878, see Table 27). It seemed that the students might not expect that their teachers always acted as a controller giving grammar explanations, and they showed positive attitudes to their instructors’ changes of their different roles, especially in the use of the pronoun “we” and students’ mother tongue such as Mandarin or Taiwanese as L1) to have closer psychological or social distances.
Table 27 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Teacher Immediacy (TI) Scale Items
Item (valid N= 459) M SD 27. English teachers use their personal examples. 3.4728 .9066
28. English teachers encourage us to speak English. 3.8519 .8305 29. English teachers discuss about our assignments or
personal questions during breaks. 3.6841 .8426 30. English teachers use “we” calling us. 3.6732 1.0162 31. English teachers ask how we feel about an assignment
and praise students’ work. 3.6166 .8847 32. English teachers welcome us for asking questions by phone. 3.1307 .8256 33. English teachers often help us express our opinions. 3.4444 .9004 34. English teachers praise students for good performance. 3.4837 .8799 35. English teachers choose appropriate topics due to students’
feeling tired. 3.5098 .9765 36. English teachers utilize gestures and keep smiling. 3.5839 1.0038 37. English teachers’ tones are dull and boring. 3.3943 1.0875 38. English teachers have fixed facial expressions and
tense body positions. 3.7996 .9151 39. English teachers announce the time for dismissing classes
with a careful consideration of the class schedules. 2.9281 1.0265
with a careful consideration of the class schedules. 2.9281 1.0265