英語課堂之情境溝通意願與其相關因素的初步探討

全文

(1)CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The notion of willingness to communicate (WTC), which was initially defined as the probability of one’s tendency to initiate to communicate (McCroskey & Baer, 1985; McCroskey & Richmond, 1990), has been gradually seen as a crucial factor in the L1/L2 learning and communication (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998). With more emphases given to the role of interaction in the language learning, teaching and communication process, the tendency to communicate embedded in the term of WTC attracted L2 researchers’ attention. Some pointed out the importance of WTC from the perspective of language learners’ functional use of L2 in the language development (e.g., Skehan’s emphasis of ‘talking to learn” in 1989, see Swain, 1995) whereas others considered the significance of enhancing learners’ WTC as a fundamental goal of L2 language learning and instruction (MacIntyre et al., 1998; Kang, 2005). Still others proved that WTC could effectively predict communication frequency in L2 (Hashimoto, 2002; Huang, 2004; Yashima, 2004). Recently, WTC has been utilized as a more reliable variable than motivation (Cao & Philp, 2006) to account for the individual differences in communication behaviors (e.g., initiating L2 talks) among L2 learners (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Inside the classrooms, language instructors may find some students with high motivation show low WTC and keep reticent (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Tsui, 1996; Wen & Clement, 2003). It seems that motivation is “not necessarily sufficient” for starting communication whereas WTC could better predict the functional use of L2 than the former variable (Matsuoka & Evans, 2005, p. 3). L2 researchers have tested and confirmed the validity of MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model of WTC (see Appendix 1) and several other available WTC theories (Cao & Philp, 2006; Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; Huang, 2004; Kim, 2004; 1.

(2) Matsuoka, 2006; Weaver, 2005; Wen & Clement, 2003; Yashima, 2002) in explaining the diversity of WTC in L2 communication. From the interactive perspective of WTC, they insisted that the ultimate WTC involve trait WTC and situational willingness to communicate (SWTC, see Kang 2005). They examined and confirmed that one’s WTC behaviors might be influenced by a number of enduring and situational factors (MacIntyre et al., 1998), which in fact can be classified into learner and situational factors. The former factors included students’ proficiency and perceptions of language competence, communication anxiety, and personality trait of introversion and extroversion (Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; Huang, 2004; Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). The latter involved the variable of teacher immediacy (Hsu, 2005; Hsu, 2006; Lin, 2003; Shih & He, 2005; Wang, 2007; Wang & Hsu, 2007), access to resources in L2 tasks (Weaver, 2004), interactional contexts, and familiarity with interlocutors and topics (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005). Among these researchers, only Cao and Philp (2006) examined situational variables from Kang’s (2005) perspective, including topics, interlocutors, and speaking contexts (see Appendix 2). They pointed out that in addition to the variables of topics, interlocutors, and speaking contexts, L2 students’ SWTC might be influenced by learner factors (e.g., confidence) and other situational factors (e.g., group sizes). Since they did not examine the joint effects of learner variables and situational factors on SWTC, it seems worthwhile to explore how learner variables may interact with situational variables in generating SWTC. Besides, it would be essential to get a deeper understanding of the interrelations among learner factors and situational variables in determining SWTC from the students’ and instructors’ perspectives. Such an understanding might help elaborate the nature and the complexity of SWTC in L2 and increase the functional uses of L2. One additional advantage is an improvement on L2 instructors’ teaching effectiveness 2.

(3) (Hashimoto, 2002; Hsu, 2006) by means of a “pedagogical intervention” intended to increase learners’ SWTC (Kang, 2005, p. 5). It is noted that it is not clear about what variables may determine EFL learners’ SWTC levels. Regardless of the proposed SWTC models and theories mentioned above, not many of the past SWTC researchers investigated the construct of SWTC from Kang’s (2005) perspective as mentioned above and few of them explored the interrelations among its potential predictors in the EFL contexts. Therefore, the lack of sufficient research to clarify the issues from EFL learners’ perspectives offers the background for conducting the current study.. Statement of the Problem The role of motivation in predicting the success in the SLA aroused a lot of controversy. Literature revealed that a number of L2 motivation researchers relied on Gardner’s (1985) motivational theories to explain whether integrative motivation is superior to instrumental motivation to predict L2 learners’ success in the SLA. One essential argument was that integrative motivation is a necessary condition to achieve a certain level of L2 proficiency such as in the immersion programs (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993). Nevertheless, others (e.g., Warden et al., 2000) found conflicting reports and stressed the role of instrumental orientation to learn an L2 in the EFL contexts. The inconsistent results as discussed above indicated that integrative and instrumental motivations are likely to be invalid predictors of the success in the SLA. Some scholars started to point out the significance of expanding the scopes of the recent motivation theories. Dornyei (2001), in an attempt to expand the horizon in the motivational study has pointed out WTC as an issue for further exploration. To respond to the call for new motivational research directions from interdisciplinary perspectives, several L2 3.

(4) researchers constructed alternative motivational frameworks based on MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model of WTC, in which WTC involves trait WTC and SWTC (see discussions in the Background section). Some examined the role of motivation as an immediate antecedent of WTC and its relations to other variables (e.g., confidence). With exception of Hashimoto (2002), most of them found that motivation and confidence are two salient predictors of WTC (Cetinkaya, 2005; Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). For example, Cetinkaya (2005: 132) pointed out, “In Japanese, Korean, and Turkish contexts, it seems like students’ motivation to learn English is not directly related to their willingness to communicate but rather, is indirectly related” through one component of confidence---that is, students’ perceptions of language competence. However, the above mentioned scholars and the SWTC researchers paid little attention to the effects of learner factors (e.g., motivation and confidence) and other situational factors on SWTC from Kang’s (2005) perspective (see discussions in the Background section). There are several possible reasons. One potential reason is that there is a lack of reliable scales developed based on SWTC theories (Kang, 2005) to remedy the weakness (e.g., lack of generalizations to a larger population) in conducting the observational and interviewing studies on SWTC (Cao & Philp, 2006). It seems that the past L2 researchers lacked the interests in generalizing their research findings (e.g., based on Kang’s SWTC model in 2005) to “a larger population” (Kim, 2004, p. 83). Another reason may be that it is very time-consuming and challenging to develop a reliable and valid scale on SWTC and to conduct both quantitative and qualitative studies of SWTC in L2 to observe the relations of SWTC to the learner variables and those to situational factors (Cao & Philp, 2006). Based on the discussion above, it seems appropriate for the present author to apply quantitative research methods to examining students’ SWTC levels and the relations among SWTC and its predictors 4.

(5) (e.g., learner and situational factors) with consideration of time limits and generalization of the research findings. It is also noted that a few WTC researchers in Taiwan paid their attention to studying the role of motivation (Huang, 2004) and teacher immediacy in determining EFL students’ WTC levels (e.g., Lin, 2003; Hsu, 2005; Hsu, 2006; Shih & He, 2005; Wang, 2007; Wang & Hsu, 2007). Nevertheless, it seems that these researchers paid less attention to the relations between SWTC and motivation and those between SWTC and teacher immediacy. It is warranted to explore these issues in the future. Moreover, literature revealed that shyness plays a role in determining the amount of L2 talks and in explaining the diversity of the uses of help-seeking strategies among learners in the classroom instruction (Syau, 2001; Zheng, 2002). However, the relations between SWTC and shyness as avoidance behaviors due to social anxiety (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) have been less researched. It seems worthwhile to explore the impacts of shyness on SWTC in an L2 classroom. Similarly, the nature of classroom climate in an EFL context and its relations to SWTC are seldom examined by L2 researchers in Taiwan. Literature suggested that the classroom climate plays a vital role in determining the levels of students’ motivation, WTC, and interpersonal relationships between teachers and students and among peers in L2 interactions (Chang & Lin, 2001; Chang & Chang, 2003). Nevertheless, insufficient attention is paid to the effects of students’ preparedness (Fassinger, 1995) on climate and the relations between SWTC and climate, which may stimulate more researchers’ attention. Based on the discussion above, it seems that similar to the past SWTC scholars, L2 researchers in Taiwan paid less attention to the relations among SWTC, and the situational and learner factors as discussed previously. It is warranted to explore the issue for further studies. Since it is too ambitious to investigate the relationship 5.

(6) between SWTC and all of the potential variables influencing SWTC, the researcher decided to investigate the relations of SWTC to 3 learner factors (i.e., motivation, confidence, and shyness) and those to 2 situational variables (i.e., teacher immediacy and classroom climate). Due to lack of research on SWTC and the chosen five variables as its predictors, the researcher’s specific hypotheses were informed by a limited body of theory and research regarding SWTC (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005). The dominant theoretical perspective of the relations between SWTC and its potential predictors is Kang’s (2005) perspective. Some additional guidance for the assumptions of the interaction between SWTC and its predictors (e.g., learner and situational variables) is provided by Cao and Philp (2006). It is hypothesized that a significant and systematic relation might exist among SWTC (Kang, 2005) and the aforementioned learner and situational factors, and that none of the chosen predictors of SWTC alone could significantly account for the diversity of SWTC levels among students in an EFL context. Thus, a SWTC model is proposed and to be tested (see Figure 1) in this study.. Learner factors. Trait WTC WTC SWTC. Situational factors topic. interlocutor. context. Figure 1 A Proposed SWTC Model in This Study. In addition, to test the validity of the proposed SWTC model (see Figure 1) it is very essential to develop reliable and valid instruments to measure SWTC and the chosen predictors before conducting the main study (see Chapter 3). First, due to the 6.

(7) lack of available SWTC scales, a generic SWTC scale was author-tailored based on SWTC theories (Kang, 2005). Besides, the researcher also developed three scales on learner factors predicting SWTC. Partially duplicating Kim’s (2004) study, the researcher adopted and revised Kim’s (2004) motivation and confidence scales to measure EFL students’ perceptions of the levels of motivation and confidence (see Chapter 3). Besides, McCroskey Shyness Scale (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) was adopted and revised to examine students’ shyness in the EFL classes. One reason was that the scale items were designed to capture behavioral aspects of shyness, which is related to SWTC. They were different from other scales items developed to examine cognitive or emotional domains of shyness from psychologists’ perspectives (Su, 1995) and to explore the variables affecting the consequence of shyness from EFL researchers’ viewpoints (Syau, 2001; Zheng, 2002). Moreover, the researcher developed scales to tap the levels of situational factors (i.e., climate and teacher immediacy) affecting SWTC. The researcher in this study adopted not only Hsu’s (2001) climate scale items but also Fassinger’s (1995) with the emphases on teacher support, peer support, and students’ preparedness in determining climate (see Chapter 3). Besides, it is noted that the use of Gorham’s (1988) verbal immediacy has been questioned due to the lack of validity (Hsu, 2006; Robinson & Richmond, 1995) and “actual flow of talks and activity comprising a teaching-learning encounter” (Rubin, 2002, p. 415; cited in Hsu, 2005, p. 19). To be specific, there are some drawbacks (e.g., a potential gap between the observed and students’ self-reported immediacy) in the uses of scales on immediacy. Despite the limitations, the researcher decided to revise Sanders and Wiseman’s (1990) immediacy scales’ items and added several items based on the results of empirical studies of immediacy to capture students’ perceptions of the levels of teacher. 7.

(8) immediacy (e.g., Lin, 2003; Hsu, 2005; Hsu, 2006; Shih & He, 2005; Wang, 2007; Wang & Hsu, 2007). Purpose of the Study The present study was conducted for multiple purposes. The first aim was to develop a reliable and valid scale on the components of SWTC as well as the variables of motivation, shyness, confidence, climate, and teacher immediacy predicting SWTC. The second goal is to examine the relationships between SWTC and learner variables (i.e., confidence, motivation, and shyness) and those between SWTC and situational factors (i.e., teacher immediacy and climate). The third aim is to investigate the relations among SWTC, situational factors, and learner variables as previously mentioned from Kang’s (2005) perspective. Specifically, the author of the study attempted to explore the best predictors of SWTC, and investigate whether there is a systematic and significant relationship among SWTC and its predictors in this study.. Research Questions In this study, the following three key research questions are addressed. RQ1: What are the relationships between senior high students’ situational willingness to communicate (SWTC) and such learner factors as motivation, confidence, and shyness in the EFL contexts of Taiwan? RQ2: What are the relationships between senior high students’ situational willingness to communicate (SWTC) and such situational factors as teacher immediacy and climate in the EFL contexts of Taiwan? RQ3: What are the best predictors of situational willingness to communicate (SWTC) when learner factors and situational variables are considered together? 8.

(9) Significance of the Study So far, the roles of topics, interlocutors, and speaking contexts in determining students’ SWTC levels have not been much researched at the secondary education level in Taiwan. The past SWTC researchers demonstrated the dynamic and complex nature of SWTC in their studies of a limited number of the university students’ SWTC in the ESL contexts (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005). Nevertheless, the results of their studies did not offer any information about EFL learners’ SWTC from the perspective of topics, interlocutors, and speaking contexts (Kang, 2005). Therefore, the results of the present study might help us capture senior high learners’ SWTC levels in the EFL classes in Taiwan and clarify the relationships among SWTC and situational factors of topics, interlocutors, and speaking contexts. Another significance of the study is the development of the scales measuring SWTC and its predictors (i.e., shyness, motivation, confidence, climate, and teacher immediacy). The measures used in this study may offer reliable and valid tools for future studies of SWTC in an EFL context. Moreover, it is anticipated that the results of the study will clarify whether there is a systematic and significant relation among SWTC and the chosen learner variables (i.e., motivation, shyness, and confidence) and situational factors (i.e., climate and teacher immediacy). The results of multiple regression analyses will help us seek the best predictors of SWTC. By capturing the differences of their predictive powers on SWTC, the author of the study expects to give pedagogical implications to the senior high EFL instructions in Taiwan in generating and sustaining L2 learners’ high SWTC, and attaining success in L2 communication. Additionally, the results might extend the scope of the theories on SWTC.. 9.

(10) Definition of Terms Situational WTC (SWTC) The concept of situational willingness to communicate (SWTC) refers to ones’ psychological readiness or volition to initiate discourse with specific persons in specific speaking contexts. Based on MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic WTC model, SWTC refers to state-levels of WTC (MacIntyre, 2007). In contrast to other researchers (Wen & Clement, 2003), Kang (2005) argued that SWTC is composed of three situational antecedents (i.e., topics, interlocutors, and speaking contexts). Cao and Philp (2005) described SWTC as “state WTC” or “behavioral WTC.” Despite the controversy over the definitions as discussed above, the author of this study adopted Kang’s (2005) conceptualization of SWTC, and defined it as senior high students’ perceptions of their readiness or volition to initiate L2 talks about different topics with their EFL teachers and classmates across interactional contexts (whole class or group activities) in Taiwan. It is noted that based on Kang’s (2005) SWTC model, the researcher developed an SWTC scale in which SWTC was defined by two components--- that is, topic familiarity and positive feedback (see Chapter 3). Teacher Immediacy (TI) Teacher immediacy (hereafter TI) refers to one’s perceptions of instructors’ cognitive choices of specific verbally (Gorham, 1988) and nonverbally (Andersen, 1979) affinity-seeking strategies to narrow down the physical and/or psychological gaps between teachers and students. Both verbal immediacy and nonverbal immediacy may play a role in facilitating positive student-teacher interpersonal relations (Hsu, 2005; Hsu, 2006; Lin, 2003; Shih & He, 2005; Wang, 2007; Wang & Hsu, 2007) and instructors’ teaching effectiveness (Hashimoto, 2002; Hsu, 2006). Besides, from the perspective of Chinese culture, TI can be instructional, personal, and relational (Zhang, 2005; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006). 10.

(11) In this study, TI refers to Taiwanese senior high school students’ perceptions of their EFL teachers’ verbal and nonverbal aspects of immediacy behaviors inside the classrooms. It is hypothesized that TI is positively related to SWTC in L2. Classroom Climate in L2 The concept of classroom climate refers to one’s mental contexts in which different types of learning experience might result from a variety of psychological feelings (e.g., liking) of the communication contexts. Dornyie (2001) suggested that climates might determine L2 motivation, and a supportive climate may result from sufficient supports from the peers and teachers as significant others (Hsu, 2001), which is emphasized in Wen and Clement’s (2003) WTC model from the perspective of Chinese culture. Fassinger (1995) argued that in addition to teachers’ and peers’ support, the variable of student’s preparedness perhaps played a profound role in influencing climate, especially the chilly one from the instructional communication perspectives. In this study, climate refers to senior high EFL learners’ perceptions of their socio-psychological contexts, and it is defined to have three situational components: teacher support, peer support, and students’ preparedness. To be specific, it is assumed that the increase of support from teachers and peers might result in a more supportive climate. Besides, when students are more prepared for course contents, they might have a better climate. It is also hypothesized that climate is positively related to SWTC in L2. Shyness in the EFL class Based on McCroskey and Richmond (1982) conceptualization of shyness, the construct is defined as one’s avoidance due to social anxiety, which might result in low SWTC. From their perspective, shy students may keep quieter or talk less than other classmates. Zheng (2002) and Syau (2001) investigated the roles of shyness in 11.

(12) affecting the amount of L2 talks in English classes, and the impacts of shyness on the uses of help-seeking strategies. In this study, following McCroskey and Richmond (1982), the researcher defined shyness in the EFL class as one’s avoidance behaviors when he or she is afraid of having negative evaluations from peers in L2 interactions. Besides, shy students may be those who perform quiet or shy behaviors when they had low SWTC than their classmates. It is considered that learners’ shyness might be the function of their personality traits, quiet/ talkative behaviors, and peers’ agreements on the statements depicting others’ quiet or talkative behaviors (see Chapter 3). Moreover, shyness is seen to be negatively related with SWTC in this study. Organization of the Study The dissertation is composed of five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction of background, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, research questions, definitions of terms and organization of the study. Chapter two contains a detailed literature review of theoretical backgrounds of WTC constructs, approaches to defining WTC, L2 WTC and communication models. It also reviews studies on the relations between WTC and background variables (e.g., gender, schools’ prestige and locations, and students’ perceptions of language proficiency), between learner factors and WTC and between situational factors and WTC. The final part of this chapter contains a summary of empirical WTC research in the L2 contexts, and introduces empirical WTC and TI studies in Taiwan. Chapter three offers information about the research design (participants and instruments) and methodology (data analysis) in the main study. Chapter four displays the findings of the quantitative data analyses. Finally, Chapter five is the conclusion part of the present study with a summary of the main results and limitations. Besides, pedagogical implications and suggestions for future studies are given at the end of the chapter. 12.

(13) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This section contains literature reviews of the key theoretical foundations of WTC constructs, approaches to defining WTC, and the proposal of WTC and communication models. Besides, it introduces theories and studies regarding the relations of WTC to the following variables: background variables (i.e., gender, schools’ prestige and locations, students’ perceptions of their listening, speaking, reading, and writing competence), learner variables (i.e., shyness, motivation, and confidence), and situational variables (i.e., climate and teacher immediacy). Finally, empirical WTC studies conducted in the L2 contexts and previous WTC and TI studies in Taiwan were reviewed accordingly.. Theoretical Foundations of Developing WTC Construct Based on Matsuoka and Evan’s (2005) comprehensive review article on WTC studies, there are three primary foundations for the development of the construct of WTC---that is, Burgoon’s (1976) proposal of unwillingness to communicate (UWTC), Mortensen et al.’s (1977) notion of “predisposition toward verbal behavior” (PVB) and McCroskey and Richmond’s (1982) concept of “shyness” as social anxiety (see MacIntyre et al., 2002, p. 539; Matsuoka, 2006, p. 4). They are introduced as follows: The origin of the studies on WTC and the available WTC models (e.g., the heuristic WTC model proposed by MacIntyre et al., 1998) is related to Burgoon’s (1976) notion of UWTC. McCroskey and Baer (1985) conceptualized WTC as a counterpart of UWTC. WTC is defined as “the probability of engaging in communication when free to choose to do so” (McIntyre et al., 1998, p. 546). The second foundation of WTC construct is related to Mortensen et al.’s (1977) conceptualization of PVB from L1 communication perspectives. The notion of PVB is treated as a determinant of one individual’s communication frequency across speaking 13.

(14) contexts. Although McCroskey (1997) reported the correlation between UWTC and PVB was not as high as reported by Mortensen et al. (1977), some EFL researchers paid attention to how frequency of L2 use was determined by L2 WTC in Japanese contexts (Yashima, 2002) or in the learning situations in Taiwan (Huang, 2004). The third main theoretical foundation of WTC is associated with the studies on the shyness construct. Some authors defined shyness as social anxiety (Leary, 1983). Others insisted a shy behavior be the function of personality traits (e.g., an internally experienced discomfort) and timidity and less talk (e.g. externally observable quiet behaviors). McCroskey shyness scale was thus developed (McCroskey et al., 1982; Matsuoka & Evans, 2005, p. 6). Nevertheless, the instrument is seldom utilized to measure students’ shyness in L2 interactions (Matsuoka & Evans, 2005). Based on the discussion above, the theories of the UWTC, PVB, and shyness constructs provided significant bases of the development of WTC theories and those of empirical studies of WTC in L1 and L2 communication.. Approaches to Defining WTC: Trait-Like, Situational or Interactive Three main approaches to defining WTC can be identified based on diverse theoretical positions: trait-like, situational, and interactive perspectives (see Table 1). The following section contains introductions to these approaches accordingly. Trait-like perspective of WTC As shown in the second column of Table 1, Burgoon’s (1976) notion of UWTC provided a significant theoretical foundation of the construct of WTC in L1 as discussed in the previous sections. Besides, WTC is originally seen as a trait-like construct as related to the “variability in talking behaviors” (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990; cited in Cetinyaka, 2005, p. 17).. 14.

(15) Table 1 Approaches to Defining WTC: Trait-Like, Situational, or Interactive Perspectives Main characteristics of WTC Trait like Burgoon’s (1976) concept L1 UWTC of UWTC; McCroskey and Richmond WTC in L1 (1987) defined WTC as “personality-based, trait-like predisposition relatively consistent across a variety of communication contexts and types of receivers”, see McCroskey and Richmond, 1990, p. 73) 1. WTC in L2 was a WTC in L2 “personality based (including predisposition toward UWTC In approaching or avoiding L2) the initiation of communication when free to do so” (McCroskey, 1992, p. 17, cited by Hashimoto, 2002., p. 38) 2. MacIntyre (1994) found communication apprehension and self-perceived communicative competence as predictors of WTC 3. Kim (2004) found Korean college students’ WTC was perceived by students to be more likely to be trait-like than situational; Notes:. situational. interactive. 1. McCroskey et al., 1985; MacIntyre et al., 2001 and 2003--- because students might change WTC across cultural settings such as in (non-)immersion and home-stay programs; 2. Cao and Philp (2006) validated the significance of contextual factors (whole-class, group, and dyadic activities) in influencing situational willingness to communicate (SWTC); 3. Kang (2005) proposed a SWTC model; 4. Lin (2003) and Hsu (2006) examined TI and WTC.. 1. In McIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic WTC model, WTC refers to one person’s “readiness to enter into discourse at particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (p. 547) 2. Wen and Clement (2003)— Chinese L2 learners’ UWTC/ reticence;. 1. WTC in L1 does not guarantee WTC in L2 (McCroskey et al., 1998, p. 54) while they “are likely to be independent” (MacIntyre et al., 2003; Cao & Philp, 2006, p. 481) 2. WTC may be detrimental or positive to the SLA process (Lin, 2003); 3. Desire to communicate (DC) and WTC are seen as located at two ends of the continuum (Wen & Clement, 2003); 4. Unlike traditional research, Wang’ study (2004) was concerned with the effect of students’ oral performance on WTC, and Hashimoto’s (2002) found a direct path from WTC to motivation.. From a trait-like perspective, it is argued that a person’s WTC might remain stable with the changes of speaking contexts and interlocutors. Since 1980s, research findings have confirmed the viewpoint. Empirical studies revealed that WTC in L2 might be triggered by learner factors such as personality, introversion, self-esteem, 15.

(16) communication competence, and apprehension (Kim, 2004; MacIntyre 1994; Matsuoka, 2006; Yashima, 2002). One comprehensive model is proposed by MacIntyre (1994), who suggested that the construct of trait WTC was closely related to “such attributes as communication competence, introversion-extraversion, self-esteem, and so forth” (ibid, see Figure 2).. Figure 2 MacIntyre’s (1994) Proposal of the WTC Model. Recently, several researchers have employed WTC to account for the diversity of L2 students’ reticent communication behaviors. McCroskey (1992: 17) defined WTC in L2 as a “personality based predisposition toward approaching or avoiding the initiation of communication when free to do so” (cited by Hashimoto, 2002, p. 38). Although both situational and learner factors may influence one’s WTC, Korean students’ WTC was more perceived as trait-like than situational since it was “more likely to be consistent across L2 communicative contexts rather than situational depending on L2 contexts” (Kim, 2003, p. 146). However, the approach to defining WTC as trait-like is open to criticism due to the ignorance of the role of situational variables influencing WTC in L2. Since it is never denied that a person’s WTC might be influenced by situational factors (e.g., topic, interlocutors, and contexts) (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005), some researchers highlighted the effects of situational factors on WTC. Such a situational perspective is introduced in the following lines. 16.

(17) Situational perspective of WTC From the situational perspective of WTC, it is believed that learners’ WTC might change across cultural or interactional settings. For example, McCroskey et al. (1985) proved there was a great diversity of WTC among college students studying in the immersion/ non-immersion program. MacIntyre et al. (2001) explored the variations of the home-stay students’ WTC. Recently, Cao and Philp (2006) had conducted a comparison study of L2 students’ SWTC across contexts (e.g., whole class, group, and dyadic activities). Other authors investigated how a situational variable of teacher immediacy was correlated with WTC in the EFL contexts (Lin, 2003; Hsu, 2006). Based on the discussions above, it is found that the first and second approaches to defining WTC could not account for the interactive effects of leaner factors and situational factors on WTC in L2 communication. This offers a vital background for the development of the third (interactive) approach to defining WTC, which is to be discussed as follows: Interactive Perspective of WTC To avoid the potential drawback of the trait-like and situational perspectives of WTC as mentioned above, some authors stressed the significance of the third (interactive) perspective of WTC. Pinpointing the dual (both trait and situational) characteristics of WTC, MacIntyre et al. (1998) developed a heuristic model of WTC in L2 from the western-based communication perspective. Later, extending the heuristic model, Wen and Clement (2003) proposed a Chinese culture-specific WTC framework. Despite different theoretical positions, it is argued that the ultimate WTC in L2 is complex and dynamic due to the potential joint effects of learner variables and situational factors on WTC in L2 (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005). Besides, it seems difficult for L2 researchers to examine the relations among WTC and a great number of affective factors, especially by means of interviews (Cao 17.

(18) & Philp, 2006) or structural equation model (SEM) analyses (Cetinkaya, 2005; Kim, 2005; Matsuoka, 2006; Yashima, 2002). Despite the above mentioned difficulty, Kang (2005) and Cao and Philp (2006) stressed a need for considering learner variables and situational factors predicting trait WTC and SWTC in L2 interactions. To respond to Kang (2005) and Cao and Philp (2006), the author of the study rested on correlational and regression analyses to identify interrelations among learner variables (shyness, motivation, and confidence) and situational factors (teacher immediacy and climate). By means of illustrating the potential sequence priority among the above variables, she expected to throw light on SWTC theories from the interactive perspective. L2 WTC and Communication Models This section is concerned with the proposed WTC and communication models as related to the current study (Kim, 2004; Kang, 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Wen & Clement, 2003). MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) Heuristic Model Though MacIntyre and Charos (1996) proposed a model of L2 communication that was applied to French as a second language situation in Canada (see Figure 3), McIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model of WTC construct (see Appendix 1) is one of the most comprehensive WTC models available for L2 researchers so far.. Figure 3 Model of L2 Communication Applied to French as an L2 in Canada (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) 18.

(19) Within MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) framework, twelve variables are separately arranged in six layers of a pyramid shape. For example, L2 use, which is located in the top of the WTC pyramid, is seen as the consequence of WTC, which is situated in Layer II. As to the remaining ten factors, they are arranged in Layer III to Layer VI. They are considered to be effective predictors of WTC in L2. A complex interrelationship exists between the factors across layers within the WTC pyramid. For example, Layer III contains two immediate antecedents of WTC: desire to communicate with a specific person and state of communicative self-confidence. They are situational determinants of WTC, which are intricately related to “motivational propensities” (MacIntyre et al., 1998) such as L2 self-confidence and motivation variables (i.e., interpersonal and intergroup motivation) located in Layer IV. Besides, the previously mentioned five variables are considered to be related to another two types of predictors of WTC located in the bottom layers. They are affective-cognitive contextual factors arranged in Layer V (intergroup attitudes, social situation, and communicative competence) and those related to social and individual contexts (intergroup climate and personality) as situated in Layer VI. It is noted that that the variables located in layers IV, V, and VI have enduring influences on WTC and they are considered as more distant predictors of WTC compared with those as proximal antecedents of WTC arranged in layer III. The validity of the heuristic WTC model (MacIntyre et al., 1998) has been tested by several authors (Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; Huang, 2004; Kim, 2005; Matsuoka, 2006; Weaver, 2005; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004). They examined the interrelations among affective variables (e.g., motivation, confidence, and international posture), WTC, and frequency of L2 use. Nevertheless, they did not explore the complexity of WTC in the EFL classroom interactions L2 from Chinese culture perspectives (Wen & Clement, 2003). 19.

(20) Based on the discussion above, MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model contributes to identifying twelve significant communication variables and arranging them in six layers of the pyramid of WTC to illustrate proximal and distant antecedents of WTC as well as L2 use as a consequence of WTC. Besides, since the heuristic model of WTC does not consider the determinants of WTC from non-western perspectives, it is warranted to test the applicability of alternative communication models to different cultural contexts. The following introduced another comprehensive WTC model (Wen & Clement, 2003) that extended MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model. Wen and Clement’s (2003) WTC Model Although a number of studies confirmed the validity of MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) WTC model as previously discussed, Wen and Clement (2003) proposed a WTC model from a non-western cultural perspective (see Table 2). Table 2 Wen and Clement’s (2003) Identification of Cultural Origins of UWTC in Chinese Society Cultural origins of UWTC underlying the value of interpersonal relations from cultural/ Confucian viewpoints. Potential crucial variables. Classroom behaviors. 1. Other-directed self face-protected orientation (e.g., jen as a key element related to social self and evaluation from significant others in Chinese value of Confucianism; insider effect (sense of belonging and psychological distance) 2. A submissive way of learning (e.g., submission to authority). 1. submission to social expectation (e.g., an avoidance of negative opinions) and ; other-directedness with identification of ingroups and outgroups; 2.teachers as the authority responsible for L2 language stimulation and modeling in that students are poor mastering of grammars and self-correction. As shown in Table 2, it is argued that Chinese students’ reticent or UWTC behaviors might be characteristic of submission to social expectations (e.g., avoidance of negative evaluations). Their senses of ingroups and outgroups are perhaps related to their perceptions of social and psychological distances among interlocutors (e.g., 20.

(21) peers or teachers). Besides, it is assumed that Confucian values of interpersonal relations may result in the beliefs that language teachers are the authority being responsible for L2 stimulation and modeling, and facilitating students’ mastering grammar with self-corrections. Figure 4 demonstrated that there is a continuum with desire to communicate (DC) at one hand and with willingness to communicate (WTC) at the other hand in L2 interactions. Based on Wen and Clement’s (2003) WTC framework, the former (DC) is a “deliberate choice or preference” to initiate talks. Variables locating on the continuum may influence the relations between DC and WTC (see Figure 4). These factors were motivational orientation (e.g., affiliation and task-orientation), affective perceptions (inhibited monitor), personality factors (e.g., risk-taking and tolerance of ambiguity) and societal contexts (e.g., group cohesiveness and teacher support).. Societal context --group cohesiveness ---teacher support. Motivational orientation ---affiliation ---task-orientation. DC------------------------------------------------------------------------ WTC Personality Factors ---risk-taking ---tolerance of ambiguity. Affective perceptions ---inhibited monitor ---positive expectation of evaluation. Figure 4 Variables Moderating the Relation between DC and WTC in Chinese EFL Classrooms (adopted from Wen & Clement 2003; see Figure 4 in Matsuoka & Evans 2005, p. 8).. The discussion above demonstrated that Wen and Clement’s (2003) WTC framework is a communication model accounting for the diversity of WTC among Chinese learners. However, only a few researchers (Hsu, 2006) examined its applicability to the EFL contexts such as in Taiwan. Future scholars may pay more attention to this research topic.. 21.

(22) Kim’s (2004) L2 Communication Model Unlike the authors as mentioned above, Kim (2004) examined Korean students’ WTC in L2. Duplicating Yashima’s (2002) study, Kim relied on two theoretical foundations--- that is, MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic WTC model and Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational theories to account for the diversity of WTC among Korean EFL learners. The main results of Kim’s (2004) study indicated three significant paths from attitude to motivation, from motivation to confidence, and from confidence to WTC in L2 (see Figure 5). The research findings supported the validity of applying MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) WTC model to accounting for Korean students’ WTC in L2.. WTC in L2. **.83. Confidence. *.80 Attitudes (International Posture). **.78. English learning Motivation. Figure 5 Kim’s (2004) L2 Communication Model. Kim (2004) pointed out that there was no direct relation between motivation and WTC, and between WTC and attitudes. The finding did not totally correspond to the results of Yashima’s (2002) study. It is probably because “the selected university students’ motivation to learn English was more related to written English than oral English” (Kim, 2005, p. 151). Regardless of the inconsistent results as discussed above, the author of the study paid attention to how salient predictors of trait-like WTC (e.g., motivation and confidence) might influence situational willingness to communicate (SWTC) in Taiwan’s senior high EFL contexts.. 22.

(23) Kang’ (2005) Situational WTC (SWTC) Model This section introduced Kang’s (2005) situational willingness to communicate (SWTC) model (see Appendix 2), which is different from available WTC models (Kim, 2004; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Wen & Clement, 2003) as previously discussed. As shown in Appendix 2, Kang (2005) considered that topic, interlocutor, and speaking contexts are three situational antecedents of SWTC. Three key psychological antecedents of SWTC are excitement, responsibility, and security. The ultimate WTC is defined by trait WTC and SWTC (See Appendix 2). Though there are a number of potential “situational” variables influencing SWTC construct (Kang, 2005), Cao and Philp (2006) extended Kang’s (2005) SWTC model by observing the potential variables determining both trait and situational aspects of WTC in L2. In addition to classroom observations, Cao and Philp (2006) utilized interviews as well as a revised trait-like WTC questionnaire to collect L2 students’ self-reports about the predictors of WTC in L2. The results suggested that despite the potential gaps between actual and reported WTC behaviors, the top five significant factors influencing WTC were group sizes and self-confidence, followed by familiarity with interlocutors, interlocutor participation, and degrees of topic preparation. Two additional factors were cultural backgrounds and medium of communication. The results of Cao and Philp’s (2006) study confirmed the dual characteristics of WTC (e.g., trait-like and state, see MacIntyre et al., 1998; Kang, 2005; Kim, 2004), and partially supported Kang’s (2005) SWTC model in which SWTC is considered to have three situational components. They are topic, interlocutors, and contexts (see Appendix 1). Nevertheless, it is noted that a development of self-report SWTC questionnaires probably can remedy the weakness (e.g., lack of generalization of research findings to large population, see Kim 2005, p. 83) of qualitative approaches (e.g., classroom 23.

(24) observations and interviews). This motivates the author of the study to construct an SWTC scale (see Chapter 3).. Background Variables and WTC This section reviews literature on WTC and such background variables as gender, school variables (e.g., schools’ locations and prestige), and students’ perceptions of listening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiency respectively. The Role of Gender L2 researchers provided limited information about the impact of gender on WTC. Baker and MacIntyre (2000) examined the diversity of WTC among Canadian high school immersion and non-immersion students learning French as L2. The results suggested that the former had higher competence and WTC, and female non-immersion learners were motivated to learn L2. However, no significant gender effects on motivation in L2 (French) were found when learners studied in the immersion programs. Later, MacIntyre et al. (2002) conducted an empirical study of seventh to ninth graders’ WTC in an immersion program. The results indicated that females were more willing to communicate than males although L2 learners’ motivation declined from grade 7 to grades 8 and 9. In contrast to the above mentioned authors studying immersion students, Huang (2004) examined EFL students’ WTC studying in a central-Taiwan private university. One significant finding was that compared to male students, females had more motivation, WTC, and L2 use. The discussions above indicated that there is insufficient information about the effect of gender on SWTC in the L2 contexts such as in Taiwan, which motivates the author of the study to explore the correlations between SWTC and gender. 24.

(25) The Role of School Variables: Locations and Prestige Most of the past research on WTC in L2 scarcely examined the relations between SWTC and school variables (e.g., schools’ locations and prestige). For example, a few EFL researchers examined college/university students’ WTC levels in the northern (Lin, 2003; Hsu, 2005; Wang & Hsu, 2007) and in central Taiwan (Huang, 2004). Nevertheless, none of them explored whether students studying in the metropolitan areas (e.g., in Taipei) had higher SWTC (Kang, 2005) compared to those students attending non-metropolitan schools (e.g., in Nantou). . Besides, it is recognized that prestigious schools in the metropolitan areas are chosen by junior high graduates scoring higher in the Basic Competence Tests as crucial entrance exams of senior high schools in Taiwan. Based on the reasons mentioned above, the author of the study speculated that students attending prestigious and metropolitan schools may have higher SWTC.. The Role of Students’ Perceptions of Language Proficiency The past research on WTC in L2 scarcely examined the relations between WTC and students’ perceptions of language proficiency (e.g., writing, speaking, reading, and listening competence). Lin (2003) investigated the impacts of students’ perceived TI and their language proficiency levels (e.g., advanced, intermediate, and basic) on university students’ WTC in the EFL contexts in Taiwan. It is noted that in Lin’s (2003) study, students’ language proficiency was defined based on two primary tests scores. They were students’ scores in speaking and listening tests from the intermediate-level General English Proficiency Tests, and those in reading and writing tests in the college entrance exam. Although she considered students’ competences in four skills as the fundamental bases of placing the participants into three proficiency levels, she did not observe how WTC could be 25.

(26) predicted by students’ perceptions of their proficiency (e.g., reading, speaking, listening, and writing competence). In contrast to Lin (2003), some authors reported conflicting findings on proficiency and WTC. Yashima (2002) suggested no direct correlation between WTC and English proficiency, which might be predicted by motivation. Matsuoka (2006) deployed CASEC (i.e., Computerized Assessment System of English Communication, which involves tests on vocabulary, listening, dictation, and idioms) to test Japanese learners’ English communicative proficiency levels. The results of Pearson correlation analyses with significance two-tailed (p<.05) indicated that WTC was not related to any proficiency subscales. Huang (2004) utilized multiple regressions to analyze the effects of English proficiency levels on the relationships among English learning motivation, WTC in English, and frequency of communication in English. One main finding was that WTC seemed to be a stronger predictor of frequency of communication in English for those high and low English proficiency students compared with those with mid-level English proficiency. Due to the lack of information about the relations between SWTC (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005) and students’ perceptions of reading, writing, listening, and speaking competence (Lin, 2003; Matsuoka, 2006), it stimulates the author of the study to investigate the role of senior high school EFL students’ perceptions of their own proficiency levels in influencing SWTC. To sum up, the discussions above indicated that it is not clear about the correlations between SWTC and the aforementioned background variables (i.e., gender, schools’ locations and prestige, and students’ perceptions of reading, writing, listening, and speaking proficiency). It is promising to clarify their interrelationships.. 26.

(27) Learner Factors and WTC This section contains the literature reviews of the theories and empirical studies with respect to the relations of WTC to such learner factors as confidence, motivation, and shyness. They are introduced in the following lines.. The Role of L2 Self-confidence Literature on WTC suggests that confidence in L2 can be conceptualized either as a trait or a state. Similar to shyness (McCroskey et al., 1982) and communication apprehension (anxiety), confidence might be researched from trait, state and situation-specific perspectives (Cetinkaya, 2005; Kim. 2004; MacIntyre, 2007; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Yashima, 2002). Based on MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model of WTC, both trait and situational confidence may influence WTC independently. Despite the different levels of confidence, a number of L2 researchers had examined the roles of self-confidence in influencing the success in the second language learning and communication processes. Some authors (e.g., Ganschow & Sparks, 1991) defined confidence as students’ perceptions of the ease influencing the SLA process, especially in experiencing learning difficulties (Kim, 2004, p. 57). Others maintained that confidence, which is probably confined by cognitive variables such as perceived self-competence (competence) and communication apprehension (anxiety), can predict L2 learners’ attitudes to the target community members (Cetinkaya, 2005; Kim, 2004; Matsuoka, 2006; Yashima; 2002). Still others found confidence is a predictor of language achievement (Cheng et al., 1999; MacIntyre et al., 1997). Similarly, the past literature showed conflicting perspectives of the relations between anxiety and competence, which are defined as two components of L2 27.

(28) self-confidence as discussed above. Yashima (2002) and Kim (2004) demonstrated that these two constructs were negatively correlated. Nevertheless, based on results of quantitative analyses, Cetinkaya (2005) found that L2 university students’ anxiety in Turkey did not correlate with their perceived competence. Specifically, since the correlation coefficient between competence and anxiety was near zero (standardized regression coefficient was -.08), it seems that Cetinkaya’s (2005) findings did not confirm the existence of L2 confidence (Kim, 2005; Yashima, 2002). It is noted that there may be a gap between the “perceived” and “actual” WTC (Cao & Philp, 2006) and between “self-reported” and “observed” confidence in that quantitative and qualitative data might show different results (Cetinkaya, 2005). Despite the different conceptualizations of confidence mentioned above, the author of the study partially duplicated Yashima (2002) and Kim’s (2004) study, and she defined confidence as a combination of low anxiety and high competence. It is hypothesized that confidence can predict SWTC (Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005).. The Role of Motivation Motivation is frequently seen as a reliable predictor of the success in the SLA process (Kim, 2004; MacIntyre, 2007). A number of L2 researchers relied on Gardner’s (1985) motivational theories to examine the nature of motivation influencing the success in the SLA. Some found that integrative motivation was superior to instrumental motivation in the prediction of L2 success (see Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Kim, 2004, p. 51). Others authors (Warden et al., 2000) stressed instrumental motivation could predict EFL students’ WTC and L2 use. Based on the discussion above, it seems controversial to identify the key roles of integrative and instrumental motivation as predictors of the success in the SLA. It is speculated that. 28.

(29) the integrative and instrumental dichotomy of motivation might not help predict L2 use in the learning success (Cao & Philp, 2006). Recently, Dornyei (2001) had stressed the need for motivation researchers to expand the scope of L2 learning motivation theories by combining theories from other research fields into the SLA fields. It is suggested that L2 motivation studies should not operate independently from other research (e.g., communication) fields (Dornyei, 2001). To respond to the call for the interdisciplinary research on WTC, several authors succeeded in combining MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic WTC models with Gardners’ (1985) socio-educational model of L2 motivation and tested the proposed WTC model (Kim, 2004; Yashima, 2002). It is noted that empirical studies revealed inconsistent findings of the relations between motivation and WTC in L2. For example, Kim (2004) and Yashima (2002) indicated that motivation is indirectly related to WTC via L2 confidence. By contrast, Hashimoto’s (2002) research finding indicated that there was a direct path from WTC to motivation and the result implied that WTC probably had motivational properties. Regardless of inconsistent findings on WTC and motivation, it is noted that the past authors did not explore how motivation is related to SWTC, and it is worthwhile to explore the issue in the future studies.. The Role of Shyness According to the psychological theories (King, 1994; Su, 1996), shyness is constantly seen to be related to the variables of social skill deficiency or social anxiety. From the skill deficiency perspective, students who are socially inadaptive could be shy or withdrawn in different speaking contexts. They are often unpopular among class peers. In social anxiety studies, shyness can be treated as a type of human behaviors resulting from negative self-evaluations (Leary, 1983). Besides, shyness 29.

(30) can be situation-bound and it is seen as “a product of the desire to present a certain image of oneself and uncertainty that one can achieve the desired image” (Shepperd & Arkin, 2004, p. 308). It is noted that L2 research offered little information about effective management strategies for handing shy students compared to education studies. A number of education scholars (King, 1994; Su, 1996; Tsai, 1999) maintained effective teachers should appropriately utilize management skills to help shy students increase participations whereas L2 authors paid little attention to the relations among WTC, shyness, and management in L2 communication. In the field of second language studies, there is a lack of systematic introductions to the role of shyness in influencing one’s behaviors (e.g., WTC and L2 use) in L2 learning and communication. Exclusive of some empirical EFL studies of shyness (e.g., Syau, 2001; Zheng, 2002), Ellis (1994) reviewed a great amount of research on the relations of several personality variables (e.g. self-esteem, risk-taking, empathy, sensitivity to rejection, inhibition, anxiety, and introversion/ extroversion) to second language learning. It seems that shyness is not a central topic in the SLA studies. In addition, literature revealed that the relations between WTC and shyness are less researched than those between WTC and introversion/extraversion in L1 talks (McCroskey et al., 1990) and in L2 interactions (Cetinkaya, 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Matsuoka, 2006). Two possible reasons are noted. The first one is that it is perhaps difficult to distinguish introversion from shyness although the latter is usually considered as a personality trait of introversion. It is acknowledged that an introvert student might be shy to speak L2 whereas a student’ shyness is not necessarily related to introversion. Regardless of the discrepancy between shyness and introversion, researchers paid less attention to the impact of the former than that of the latter on WTC in the EFL contexts (Matsuoka, 2006). 30.

(31) The second possible reason is related to the lack of a “consensus measure” of shyness in L1 and L2 communication (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982, p. 461; Su, 1995). Several available instruments were developed to measure shyness from psychologists’ perspectives (e.g., the Cheek and Buss scale, Zimbardo scale, and Su’s shyness scale, see details in Su’s article in 1995). It is noted that McCroskey Shyness scale was proved to be a highly reliable instrument measuring shyness and could distinguish the concept of communication apprehension from that of shyness as an avoidance of communication (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982). Nevertheless, the tool had not been applied to the studies of WTC and shyness in L2. Moreover, a few researchers in Taiwan explored the construct of shyness in the EFL contexts. Zheng (2002) investigated the effectiveness of the Three-in-one Strategy Program whose goal was to reduce shy EFL students’ anxiety, and it was found that there was a negative relation between achievement and shyness. Syau (2001) was another author investigating shy students’ academic helping-seeking behaviors in Taiwan’s senior high schools. The result suggested that similar to girls, shy students tended to seek executive help whereas others asked help for instrumental motivations when encountering difficulties in their assignments. Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that there is a lack of validity tests on the McCroskey Shyness Scale (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982), and the role of shyness in influencing SWTC could be a central concern of the L2 classroom researchers. Thus, the author of the study was motivated to revise McCroskey Shyness Scale and investigate students’ shyness in the EFL contexts. It is also expected to explore how shyness might predict SWTC in an L2 classroom.. 31.

(32) Situational Variables and WTC The following sections introduce literature on two situational factors (i.e., climate and teacher immediacy) predicting WTC accordingly. Although five social variables of “the participants, the setting, the purposes, the topic, and the channel of communication” can be identified as determinants of WTC (Kim, 2005, p. 73), this section only reviewed related studies on the role of climate and teacher immediacy in influencing WTC in L2. The Role of Climate Classroom climate is a vital social contextual variable that may influence one’s L2 motivation as a predictor of the success in the L2 learning and communication. According to Dornyei (2001), climate can refer to one’s mental contexts in which one may have a variety of learning experiences and psychological feelings of the learning situations. Climate may indirectly determine ones’ L2 motivation. Besides, a supportive climate helps teachers reduce students’ anxiety (Dornyei, 2001, p. 121). Hsu (2000) developed an L2 climate scale in which climate was defined as related to teacher support and peer support, and the results demonstrated that climate was a determinant of students’ questioning in L2 communication. The authors emphasized the significant roles of teachers and peers in generating supportive climates. Besides, little information is reported about the relations between SWTC and climate. MacIntyre et al. (1998) and Wen and Clement (2003) pointed out the profound role of “group cohesion” (Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1994) in influencing the variables of intergroup attitudes and intergroup climate. Nevertheless, the aforementioned authors seldom examined the effect of climate on SWTC. It is noted that unlike previous authors, Fassinger (1995) examined the determinants of the “chilly climate” in the classroom interactions. From his perspective, a classroom climate was bound to such variables as professor traits (e.g., 32.

(33) supportiveness, approachability, and welcoming discussions), students’ traits (e.g., confidence, preparation, and comprehension), class traits (e.g., interaction norms such as classmates’ listening attentively”), peer support, and friendship. Moreover, little research attention is paid to the role of climate in influencing SWTC in the EFL context of Taiwan. Chang and Lin (2001) compared the differences between whole language and traditional teaching methods in terms of L2 motivation, strategy, and climates in a junior high school in Taichung. They observed six-nine seventh graders’ perceptions of the previously mentioned constructs. One profound finding was that learners studying in the whole language classroom had increased awareness of the different climates due to changes of teaching methods (e.g., whole language and traditional instructions). They were more likely not to be afraid to talk to their teachers inside or outside the classroom communication. Chang and Chang (2003) investigated the effects of multiple intelligence teaching and portfolio assessment on achievement, motivation, learning strategy, and English class climate in a junior high school in central Taiwan. The results indicated that a great number of the students in their study reported a better classroom climate in multiple-intelligence teaching than that in the traditional instructions. Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that there seems insufficient information about the relations between climate and SWTC in the EFL context of Taiwan. Besides, that there is no consensus measure of climate in the EFL studies. Hsu (2001) developed a climate scale in which climate had two components: teacher support and peer support in students’ questioning. Chang and Lin (2001) and Chang and Chang (2003) utilized a revised climate scale mainly based on Yeh’s (1992) climate study. According to this climate scale, the construct of class climate was defined to have four components. They were teacher support, peer support, unions, and satisfaction levels. There seemed to be no agreed scales on L2 climate. 33.

(34) The discussions above showed that despite different conceptualization of climate, it is worthwhile to take Fassingers’ (1995) perspective of the roles of teachers, peers, and students themselves in influencing climate, and to develop a climate scale measuring L2 learners’ perceptions of climate as a predictor of SWTC in the future.. The Role of Teacher Immediacy (TI) The construct of immediacy has been the most researched one in the communication studies. Immediacy, which was initially constructed by Mehrabian (1969), refers to a person’s interpersonal communication behaviors that may reduce the psychological distance between interlocutors by means of enhancing physical or psychological closeness or nonverbal messages. From Mehrabian’s (1969) perspective, immediacy and liking are positively related as “two sides of the same coin” (Andersen, 1979; cited in Lin, 2003, p. 14). Later, a line of communication researchers examined the nature of immediacy in the classroom contexts. Andersen (1979) first conceptualized the construct of teacher immediacy (TI) by incorporating Mehrabian’s (1969) concept of immediacy into teacher talks. From Andersen’s (1979) perspective, TI referred to instructors’ nonverbal behaviors intended for reducing physical or psychological distances between teachers and students. However, such a conceptualization is likely to ignore the verbal aspect of teachers’ immediacy behaviors. Later, to remedy the shortcoming of Andersen’s conceptualization of TI, Gorham (1988) supplemented the nonverbal components of TI with verbal immediacy as strategies for the increase of closeness between interlocutors in the classrooms. Recently, Hsu (2005) maintained that teachers’ approaching (i.e., immediacy) behaviors may facilitate student-teacher relationships in L2 classroom interactions.. 34.

(35) A number of researchers identified multiple functions of TI in L2 communication. For example, the use of verbal TI might help L2 instructors elicit learners’ ideas and viewpoints, incorporate “student input into course and class design,” communicate “availability,” and enhance “their ‘humanness’ via humor and self-discourse” (Gorham, 1988, p. 52). Besides, L2 teachers’ use of immediacy might encourage students to engage themselves more in the learning task and increase their motivation (Christophel, 1990). TI may influence aspects (e.g., behavioral, affective, and cognitive) of learning, and four models (learning, motivation, affective, and arousal) have been proposed (see a recent review in Lin, 2003). However, the above mentioned TI authors did not account for the cultural effects on students’ perceptions of TI. As a result, some researchers started to reexamine the construct of TI from cross-cultural perspectives. Myers, Zhong, and Guan (1998) indicated that American students differed from Chinese learners with respect to their perceptions of TI. Unlike the western scholars, Zhang (2005), and Zhang and Oetzel (2006) contributed to conceptualizing three functions (e.g., instructional, relational, and personal) of TI construct from the perspective of Chinese culture (See Table 3).. Table 3 Chinese Teacher Immediacy Scale Items and Factor Loadings Dimension Instructional Immediacy (1) is committed to teaching (2) is well-prepared in teaching (3) is passionate about teaching (4) answers questions earnestly (5) is patient in teaching. Factor loadings .61 .75 .75 .72 .72. 35.

(36) Table 3 (Continued.) Dimension. Factor loadings. Instructional Immediacy (1) is committed to teaching. .61. (2) is well-prepared in teaching. .75. (3) is passionate about teaching. .75. (4) answers questions earnestly. .72. (5) is patient in teaching. .72. Relational Immediacy (6) understands students. .68. (7) treats students fairly and equally. .70. (8) respects students. .68. (9) don’t hurt students’ self-respect. .71. (10) encourages students. .72. (11) provides timely response to students’ concerns. .72. Personal Immediacy (12) has good morality. .61. (13) sets a good example for others. .75. (14) is approachable. .75. (15) conducts oneself well. .72. The first type of TI was instructional immediacy, which referred to teachers’ uses of immediacy cues to show great patience, responsibility, passion, and commission to teaching. In contrast, the counterparts of instructional immediacy contained instructors’ non-immediacy due to “mechanical and boring” teaching methods, “inadequate preparation for teaching”, and “an irresponsible teaching attitude” (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006, p. 228). The second type of TI refers to teachers’ caring about and showing respect to students, and avoiding “bias against certain students” (ibid., p. 229), which might result in students’ perceptions of “relational immediacy.” As to the third type of TI, personal immediacy refers to “the use of communication behaviors associated with instructors’ personal attributes and characteristics, like idiosyncratic personality, 36.

(37) morality and scholarship” (Zhang & Oeztel, 2006, p. 229). This type of immediacy is significant for Chinese students. The main reason is that from their perspectives, “teachers are deemed as a role model, authority, and parent for students” (ibid). It is noted that the three types of TI behaviors as mentioned above are treated as “three sides of an immediacy triangle” (Zhang & Oeztel, 2006, p. 229). Recently, a line of L2 authors in Taiwan paid attention to exploring the relations between TI and WTC from an interdisciplinary perspective. Partially duplicating Lin’s (2003) study, Hsu (2006) utilized a revised scale based on Menzel and Carrell’s (1999) “Willingness to Talk in Class Scale.” Wang and Hsu (2007) and Hsu (2005) investigated university students’ perceptions of TI and WTC. Wang (2007) explored how situational variables (e.g., seating locations) might influence the relations between TI and WTC based on a one-year classroom observation in a central Taiwan junior high school. Despite different research aims of the above authors, one consistent finding is that there was a positive correlation between TI and WTC. Based on the discussion above, L2 researchers examined TI from different perspectives (see Table 4).. Table 4 Approaches to Researching Teacher Immediacy (TI) Perspectives. Main focuses. 1. linguistic. Nonverbal immediacy and liking are. Authors Mehrabian (1971). related 2. instructional. a. Nonverbal aspects of TI were initially conceptualized; b. Both verbal and nonverbal TI are equally stressed.. Anderson (1979); Gorham (1988). 3. interpersonal. Approaching is a strategy to maintain relations.. Mottet and and Richmond (1997). 37.

(38) Table 4 (Continued.) Perspectives 4. learning*. Main focuses. Authors. Immediacy is related to aspects of learning. A. Andersen (1979). (behavioral, affective and cognitive)--- from. B. Christophel (1990);. perspectives of (A) learning, (B) motivation, (C). Richmond (1990);. affective, and (D) arousal models;. Frymier (1994); Christopher and Gorham (1995); C. Rodriguez et al. (1996) D. Kelly and Gorham (1995). 5. cross-cultural. 6. culture-specific. 7. interdisciplinary. American students differed from Chinese learners with. Myers, Zhong and Guan. respect to their perceptions of instructor immediacy. (1998). TI can serve not only instructional and relational. Zhang (2005); Zhang and. functions but also personal ones.. Oeztel (2006). TI and WTC are related. Lin (2003); Hsu, (2006); Wang and Hsu (2007); Wang (2007). Note: The present study did not review articles on TI and distant education (see Lin’s review in 2003).. It is noted that Hsu (2005) pointed out three perspectives of verbal immediacy--linguistic, instructional communication, and interpersonal viewpoints (see Table 4). However, Hsu’s (2005) classification of the TI studies was not complete due to the lack of updating the TI research from learning, cross-cultural, culture-specific, and interdisciplinary perspectives (see the bottom four lines of Table 4). By means of adding four new approaches to Hsu’s (2005) identification of approaches to researching TI, the researcher of this study summarized seven approaches to TI research (see Table 4). Based on the development of approaches to examining TI as mentioned above, it is unclear how TI may influence SWTC. This motivated the author of the study to examine the relations between TI and SWTC in an L2 classroom. 38.

(39) Empirical WTC Research in the L2 Contexts This section surveyed empirical studies of WTC in the L2 contexts exclusive of L1 WTC research as previously discussed (see Table 5) and the Taiwan-oriented WTC studies, which are to be discussed in the next sections.. Table 5 Summary of the Selected WTC Research in L1 Authors (Year). Burgoon (1976) McCorskey & Richmond (1990). McCroskey & Richmond (1991) MacIntyre (1994) McCrosky (1997) MacIntyre and Charos (1996) MacIntyre et al. (2001). Main focus and findings. Both anomie and alienation were related to WTC, but they were not causal factors to WTC. Cultural differences were found in terms of the correlations between WTC and introversion (-.19 to -.43), between WTC and self perceived communication competence (.44 to .80), and between WTC and communication anxiety/apprehension (-.44 to -.52). Five antecedents of WTC in L1 were Introversion, self-esteem, communication competence, apprehension, and cultural diversity. “WTC is based on a combination of greater perceived communicative competence and a lower level of communication apprehension” (Yashima, 2002, p. 55). Personality, affect, and attitude were predicators of WTC. Significant paths were provided from motivation to L2 WTC, from L2 anxiety to L2 WTC, and from self-perceived communication competence to L2 WTC and communication frequency. Motivation and social support could predict WTC.. A number of western researchers examined some of the twelve variables listed in the heuristic WTC model (MacIntyre et al., 1998, see Appendix 1). Some of them explored gender and WTC in immersion programs (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000). Others observed the impacts of social support and language learning orientations (MacIntyre et al., 2001) and those of anxiety and motivation on WTC and communication frequency in L2 (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Unlike the previous authors, a few researchers in Turkish and Asia areas had paid gradual attention to examining WTC and predictors from L2 learners’ viewpoints. Some conducted both qualitative (e.g., observations and interviews) and quantitative 39.

(40) studies (e.g., structural equation model, multiple regressions or correlational analyses) to explore the predictors of L2 WTC in the Japanese (Weaver, 2004; Yashima, 2002) and Turkish EFL contexts (Cetinkaya, 2005). Others demonstrated such variables as motivation, confidence, international posture, and personality could predict WTC in the L2 contexts in Japan (Hashimoto, 2002; Matsuoka, 2006; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004) and in Korea (Kim, 2005). Most of the above authors suggested the reliability of the use of MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model in accounting for the diversity in WTC among L2 students, but they paid little attention to Wen and Clement’s (2003) WTC model. It is noted that based on MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic WTC model and Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model of motivation, Yashima (2002) coined a new construct of international posture (e.g., attitude towards L2 situations) and observed its relations to WTC and other variables (i.e., confidence, motivation, and L2 proficiency). The results indicated that international posture was directly to WTC and it might influence WTC via motivation. However, Yashima’s (2002) findings mentioned above were not supported by those of Kim’s (2005) and Hashimoto’s (2002) studies. The former indicated that no direct relation existed between international posture and WTC, and the latter found a direct path from WTC to motivation (see Figure 6).. Figure 6 Hashimoto’s (2002) Proposal of WTC in Japanese ESL contexts. 40.