Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts

Accepted Manuscript Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-class, out-ofclass, and digital contexts Ju Seong Lee, Jun Chen Hsieh PII:

S0346-251X(18)30911-4

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.002

Reference:

SYS 2076

To appear in:

System

Received Date: 4 November 2018 Revised Date:

19 February 2019

Accepted Date: 7 March 2019

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.S., Hsieh, J.C., Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts, System (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.system.2019.03.002. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-

class, out-of-class, and digital contexts Ju Seong Lee Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

RI PT

Jun Chen Hsieh1 National Central University, Taiwan Abstract

SC

This study explores the relationship between affective variables (L2 self-confidence, L2

anxiety, L2 motivation, and grit) and willingness to communicate (WTC) in in-class, out-of-

M AN U

class, and digital contexts. Drawing on a quantitative research design and a sample of 261 Taiwanese EFL undergraduate students, two major findings were identified. First, students with higher levels of grit and L2 confidence had higher L2 WTC in all three communicative settings. It suggests that 1) if EFL students remain steadfast and persistent in learning and

TE D

using English despite setbacks, and 2) if they are confident about communicating in English, they tend to initiate English communication in both digital and offline settings. Second, lack of L2 anxiety was a significant predictor of students’ L2 WTC in non-digital environments

EP

(in-class and out-of-class contexts), but not in the digital setting. This suggests that contemporary EFL students may feel more comfortable with digital methods of

AC C

communicating than conventional offline approaches, whether they use L1 or L2. The study also implies that digital environments may provide social support and additional psychological benefits, which potentially contribute to creating the least L2 anxietyprovoking environment for EFL students. Drawn from these findings, pedagogical implications for ELT are also provided.

1

Corresponding author. No. 300, Zhongda Road, Zhongli District, Taoyuan City, Taiwan 320. E-mail address: [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in inclass, out-of-class, and digital contexts

RI PT

Abstract This study explores the relationship between affective variables (L2 self-confidence, L2

anxiety, L2 motivation, and grit) and willingness to communicate (WTC) in in-class, out-ofclass, and digital contexts. Drawing on a quantitative research design and a sample of 261

SC

Taiwanese EFL undergraduate students, two major findings were identified. First, students

M AN U

with higher levels of grit and L2 confidence had higher L2 WTC in all three communicative settings. It suggests that 1) if EFL students remain steadfast and persistent in learning and using English despite setbacks, and 2) if they are confident about communicating in English, they tend to initiate English communication in both digital and offline settings. Second, lack of L2 anxiety was a significant predictor of students’ L2 WTC in non-digital environments

TE D

(in-class and out-of-class contexts), but not in the digital setting. This suggests that contemporary EFL students may feel more comfortable with digital methods of

EP

communicating than conventional offline approaches, whether they use L1 or L2. The study also implies that digital environments may provide social support and additional

AC C

psychological benefits, which potentially contribute to creating less L2 anxiety-provoking environment for EFL students. Drawn from these findings, pedagogical implications for ELT are also provided.

Keywords: affective variables; willingness to communicate; communicative contexts

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1. Introduction

Since the first connection between first language willingness to communicate and applied linguistics was established during the 1990s, the topic of WTC in a second language

RI PT

(L2 WTC) has long received considerable attention. Based on the initial model of WTC in an L2 context (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998), to date, L2 WTC research has been examined broadly from trait-like (Yashima, 2002) and dynamic and situated (Kang,

SC

2005) perspectives. In particular, due to the important role of psychological factors in L2 communication, some researchers have investigated the relationship between L2 WTC and

M AN U

affective variables, such as L2 self-confidence (Léger & Storch, 2009), speaking anxiety (Cha & Kim, 2013), motivation (Yu, 2011), and grit (Author and Co-author, 2019). More recently, as contemporary young EFL students are increasingly involved in practicing English in various digital settings (Richards, 2015), attempts have been made to bridge the

TE D

connection between Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and L2 WTC in formal (Reinders & Wattana, 2014) and informal digital contexts (Author, 2019), hoping to provide a clearer picture of L2 WTC.

EP

Despite the wide array of studies on L2 WTC, two research gaps seem particularly

AC C

prominent: First, existing L2 WTC research pays considerable attention to face-to-face environments, such as the in-class context (in which students often talk with familiar interlocutors, such as teachers and peers, in relatively predictable L2 scenarios) and the outof-class context (in which they are likely to communicate with unfamiliar acquaintances or strangers in somewhat unpredictable situations). However, such a probe into rapidly emerging digital contexts (in which they communicate with familiar or unfamiliar interlocutors, both verbally and in written form, by means of digital devices and resources) remains underexplored (Author & Co-author, 2019). Second, the relationship between

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT affective variables (L2 self-confidence, speaking anxiety, motivation, and grit) and L2 WTC in three different communicative contexts (in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings) has yet to be fully clarified in the empirical research. To address these gaps, the present study aims to examine the relationship between affective variables and L2 WTC in in-class, out-of-class,

RI PT

and digital contexts. Along with pedagogical implications for ELT, the results of this study will contribute to advancing our understanding of the link between affective variables and L2

SC

WTC in three different communicative contexts.

M AN U

2. Literature Review

2.1. Willingness to communicate in a second language

McCroskey and Baer (1985) developed the original WTC construct to account for

TE D

how individual traits might influence L1 communication. Since the connection between L1 WTC and applied linguistics was initially established in the 1990s (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996), L2 WTC has been generally understood as “a readiness to enter into the discourse at a

EP

particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547).

AC C

To date, numerous subsequent studies have supported MacIntyre et al.’s (ibid) theoretical model, from two dimensions: 1) a trait-like dimension in which L2 WTC has been investigated in relation to L2 self-confidence (Hashimoto, 2002; Yashima, 2002; Yu, 2011), anxiety (Cha & Kim, 2013; Hashimoto, 2002; Yu, 2011), motivation (Cha & Kim, 2013; Hashimoto, 2002), and international posture (Lee, 2018; Yashima, 2002); 2) a dynamic and situated dimension that examines joint influences of personal (a.k.a. individual characteristics) and contextual factors, such as interlocutors (Cao, 2011; Lee, 2007; Léger & Storch, 2009;

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Peng, 2012), topics (Cao, 2011; Kang, 2005), tasks (Cao, 2011), teachers (Cao, 2011; Khajavy, Ghonsooly, Fatemi, & Choi, 2016), and linguistic factors (Cao, 2011). As today’s EFL students are increasingly involved in practicing English in a range of digital settings (Richards, 2015), recent attempts have been made to establish the link

RI PT

between L2 WTC and CALL. For example, in a study conducted by Reinders and Wattana (2014), 30 Thai EFL university students played a multiplayer online role-playing game

(MMORPG), Rangnarok Online, for a total of nine hours in the course of six weeks. As a

SC

result of the intervention session, the participants not only reduced their level of L2 anxiety but also increased their level of L2 confidence and L2 WTC. In a qualitative follow-up study,

M AN U

Reinders and Wattana (2015) found that EFL students seemed to be more reticent in a L2 classroom situation because they often worried about making grammatical errors and being negatively judged by their teachers and peers. In contrast, in a digital game environment (in which EFL students used pseudonyms and avatars while playing MMORPG with other

TE D

players), they generally felt “safe,” “relaxed,” and “open” and consequently generated more L2 WTC and interaction among other English users. While the aforementioned two studies took place in a CALL lab setting, Author (2018,

EP

2019) has recently attempted to examine L2 WTC in extramural CALL environments in

AC C

which EFL students autonomously practiced English in a range of out-of-class, digital settings that were independent of a formal L2 program (a.k.a. informal digital learning of English [IDLE] contexts1). These studies have highlighted the emerging manner in which contemporary EFL students practice English, using their own initiative, and applying assorted digital resources (e.g., social media or MMORPG) or other tools (e.g., laptop computer or smartphone). These are L2 activities that are not driven or structured by other persons, such

1

A more detailed discussion regarding its conceptual framework, pedagogical implications and similar terminologies can be found in Reinders and Benson (2017) and Author (2018a). In this study, the concept of L2 WTC in IDLE contexts refers to L2 WTC in digital contexts.

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT as L2 teachers. Both studies found positive correlations between students’ engagement in various types of IDLE activities and L2 WTC. In a qualitative follow-up study, considering MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) framework, as well as the nature of digital communication, Author (2019) defined L2 WTC in digital contexts as “a readiness to enter into the oral and written

RI PT

discourse in the extramural digital context at a particular time with a specific person or

persons, using a L2” (p. 5). In digital environments, as the researcher observed, “Korean EFL students tend to have high L2 anxiety and are reluctant to initiate L2 interaction in the

SC

presence of other superior English Korean interlocutors.... This phenomenon seems heavily influenced by both socio-educational (e.g., Korea’s K-12 educational instruction) and

M AN U

interlocutor factors (e.g., EFL Korean peers).” This observation suggests that individual (anxiety), contextual (interlocutors), and socio-educational factors (teachers’ instruction) seem to simultaneously influence Korean EFL students’ L2 WTC in digital interaction environments, an interpretation that is consistent with a dynamic and situated perspective

EP

2.2. Affective variables

TE D

(Cao, 2011; Peng 2012).

AC C

Affective variables such as L2 self-confidence, speaking anxiety, motivation, and grit have been found to play significant roles in affecting L2 WTC as well as actual L2 communicative performance. As regards L2 self-confidence, which is understood as “the overall belief in being able to communicate in the L2 in an adaptive and efficient manner” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 551), Hashimoto (2002) found that L2 self-confidence had a direct influence on L2 WTC among 56 Japanese ESL undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in an American university. She also found that students with a higher level of L2 selfconfidence had a higher level of L2 motivation, thus leading to increased L2 use in the

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT classroom. Lee (2007) also found that L2 self-confidence in English grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation correlated significantly with oral participation (MacIntyre et al.’s [1998] equivalent is Layer 1 – communication behavior) in the classroom among 131 East Asian students enrolled in an American university. In a study that was conducted on 243 Iranian

RI PT

EFL students majoring in English, Khajavy et al. (2016) also found that students with a

higher level of L2 self-confidence had a higher level of L2 WTC in the classroom. Pyun, Kim, Cho, and Lee (2014), who studied 104 Korean-as-a-Foreign-Language (KFL) students in an

SC

American university, found that students’ L2 self-confidence significantly correlated with their L2 oral communicative proficiency (MacIntyre et al.’s equivalent is Layer 1). In a study

M AN U

that was carried out on advanced French learners enrolled in an Australian university, Léger and Storch (2009) found that L2 self-confidence could fluctuate as their L2 fluency and vocabulary knowledge increased toward the end of the semester.

With respect to L2 anxiety, Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) define it as “a distinct

TE D

complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (p. 128). Much previous research has suggested a negative association between L2 anxiety and L2 WTC

EP

(Cha & Kim, 2013; Hashimoto, 2002; Khajavy et al., 2016; Lee, 2007; Léger & Storch, 2009)

AC C

and actual L2 communicative performance (Horwitz et al., 1986; Pyun et al., 2014). However, Trang, Baldauf, and Moni (2013) revealed that L2 teachers lacked awareness of or rarely considered this issue in the L2 classroom. In that regard, interventional studies such as MacIntyre et al. (2003) and Lee (2018) have been conducted, which have shown that immersion and study abroad programs could reduce L2 learners’ anxiety. With the advent of new technology, Satar and Özdener (2008) examined the effects of text- and voice-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools on EFL students’ L2 anxiety levels. The researchers found that only the text chat group reduced their L2 anxiety to a significant level

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT due to the nature of the written forms of CMC, which allowed EFL students to pause, reflect, and prepare their utterances during the interaction. Reinders and Wattana (2014) showed that in a lab setting MMORPG played a significant role in reducing EFL students’ L2 anxiety. However, whether that translates into L2 WTC in out-of-class, digital (IDLE) settings

RI PT

remains to be seen.

L2 motivation research has gone through an almost 60-year journey (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, 2017) and scholars have proposed different

SC

conceptualizations of motivation, such as the Socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985), Selfdetermination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), Vygotskian sociocultural theory (Ushioda, 2003),

M AN U

and the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009). These researchers have identified motivation as an important element in initiating and sustaining students’ L2 learning, in addition to assisting them in achieving their linguistic goals. In general, motivation has been shown to positively influence students’ L2 communicative behavior and, potentially, develop

TE D

their L2 communication skills. For example, Hashimoto (2002) showed that L2 motivation was found to influence the quantity of L2 use in the classroom. Similarly, Cha and Kim (2013) found that L2 motivation exerted a direct impact on L2 WTC, which in turn

EP

influenced the frequency of L2 use in a Korean EFL classroom, as well as L2 speaking

AC C

proficiency. However, different results have also been found in other contexts. For instance, in Chinese and Iranian EFL contexts, L2 motivation exerted an indirect influence on L2 WTC through L2 anxiety and self-confidence (Khajavy et al., 2016; Yu, 2011). This result suggests that although a higher level of L2 motivation may not seem to directly facilitate EFL students’ participation in a classroom setting, it may affect their levels of L2 anxiety and selfconfidence, thereby resulting in more L2 WTC. In an American KFL context, students’ L2 motivation had no significant relationship to their degree of classroom risk-taking in L2 speaking or actual oral performance (Pyun et al., 2014). These mixed findings seem to

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT suggest that L2 motivation may play a different role in language learners’ communication behavior, depending on their L2 learning context. As hinted earlier, and as indicated by some scholars (Gardner, 2006), it seems difficult to define the term ‘L2 motivation’ due to its complicated and multifaceted nature. However, since the current study focuses on the

RI PT

relationship between affective variables and L2 WTC, we concur with and have adopted Gardner’s (1985) definition of motivation, namely: “…the extent to which an individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so, and the satisfaction

SC

experienced in this activity” (p. 10).

Grit, which is defined as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals,” (Duckworth,

M AN U

Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007, p. 1087), has received much interdisciplinary attention. Despite recent criticism concerning the validity of the grit scale and the predictive power of its scale on performance (Credé, Tynan, & Harms, 2017), grit studies from a wide array of disciplines have generally suggested that grittier individuals, whether they were public high

TE D

school 12th graders, West Point cadets, America’s national spelling bee finalists, or sales representative workers, tended to work and study longer and more persistently than those with less grit, which resulted in higher professional and academic performances (Duckworth

EP

et al., 2007; Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson, 2011; Eskreis-Winkler,

AC C

Shulman, Beale, & Duckworth, 2014). In applied linguistics, Keegan (2017) claimed a positive relationship between grit and L2 performance. More recently, Author (2018), and Author and Co-author (2019) provided empirical evidence to support Keegan’s claim, which showed that grit was found to be a significant predictor of Korean and Indonesian EFL students’ L2 WTC. However, the association between grit and L2 WTC has yet to be fully verified in other EFL contexts by means of empirical evidence. To date, studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of L2 motivation (Cha & Kim, 2013; Hashimoto, 2002; Khajavy et al., 2016) and grit (Author & Co-author, 2019),

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT as well as a lower level of L2 speaking anxiety (Cha & Kim, 2013; Dewaele, Witney, Saito, & Dewaele, 2018; Hashimoto, 2002; Khajavy et al., 2016) had higher L2 WTC inside the classroom. Affective variables, such as L2 self-confidence and risk-taking, were also found to play significant roles in increasing students’ L2 WTC outside the classroom (Author, 2018).

RI PT

In addition, Author (2018) has also found that students with a higher level of L2 self-

confidence had higher L2 WTC in digital settings. Having reviewed previous studies, two research gaps were identified: First, current L2 WTC research seemed to have mainly

SC

concentrated on non-digital contexts (inside and outside the classroom), thereby neglecting rapidly emerging extramural, digital contexts. Second, the empirical relationship between

M AN U

affective variables (L2 self-confidence, speaking anxiety, motivation, and grit) and L2 WTC in three different communicative contexts (in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings) appears to be an important but unexplored research area. That being said, the present study set out to

TE D

address the following two research questions (RQ):

RQ1: To what extent do affective variables correlate to EFL students’ L2 WTC in in-

EP

class, out-of-class and digital contexts?

AC C

RQ2: What affective variables are significant predictors of EFL students’ L2 WTC in in-class, out-of-class and digital contexts?

3. Method

3.1. Context and participants

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A total of 261 EFL undergraduate students (Male = 84, 32.2%; Female = 177, 67.8%) from one comprehensive university in central Taiwan took part in the survey. All students represented a variety of non-English disciplines (e.g., finance, social work, and law). The mean age of the participants was 19.54 years, ranging from 19 to 22. Fifty-nine percent of the

RI PT

students (n = 154) were freshmen, 30.3% (n = 79) sophomores, 8.4% (n = 22) juniors and 2.3% (n = 6) seniors. At the time of this study, 96.2% of the students (n = 251) reported no

overseas experience in English-speaking countries, and 3.8% (n = 10) reported having spent

SC

less than one year in any English-speaking country. In the sample, 46% of the students (n = 120) had been learning English for more than ten years, 18% (n = 47) for eight to nine years,

M AN U

20.7% (n = 54) for six to seven years, and 15.3% (n = 40) for three to five years. The participants included students from nine intact elective English classes, all grouped at the B1 level according to their performance in the school’s placement test. Judging from the Common European Framework of Reference, their achievement approximated a B1 level

EP

3.2. Instrument

TE D

(threshold or intermediate; Council of Europe, May 2016).

AC C

The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part, participants were asked to respond to 21 items vis-à-vis four affective variables: L2 self-confidence (6 items), L2 anxiety (6 items), L2 motivation (4 items), and grit (5 items). Items for L2 self-confidence were adopted from Pyun et al. (2014), and were used to gauge to what extent EFL learners felt confident about understanding English and interacting with others in English. Items pertaining to L2 anxiety were adopted and modified from Horwitz et al. (1986) and Pyun et al. (2014) and were employed to measure the extent to which EFL students felt nervous about speaking English or being exposed to others’ evaluations. Since the focus of this study

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT centered on EFL students questionnaire items, such as “when speaking in Korean, I can get so nervous that I forget things that I know,” were changed to “when speaking in English, I can get so nervous that I forget things that I know.” Items for L2 motivation were adopted and modified from Gardner (1985), Gardner et al. (1997), and Pyun et al. (2014) and

RI PT

designed to assess EFL students’ desire to learn English, as well as their attitude about

learning English. Answers to questionnaire items regarding L2 self-confidence, L2 anxiety and L2 motivation scales were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “Strongly

SC

disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree.” Questions concerning grit were adopted from the work of Duckworth and Quinn (2009) and were used to assess students’ consistency with regard to

M AN U

interests and perseverance of effort, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Not like me at all” to 5 “Very much like me.” In the second part, 12 items for the L2 WTC scale were selected and adopted from Author (2018) and Peng (2013)2 and were employed to measure EFL students’ L2 WTC in in-class (4 items), out-of-class (4 items), and digital contexts (4

TE D

items) on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Definitely not willing” to 5 “Definitely willing.” In particular, in light of Author’s (2019) definition of L2 WTC in digital contexts, sub-scale items 9-12 contain written and spoken production produced by the respondents.

EP

Question items in parts 1 and 2 are shown in the Appendix. The third part was designed to

AC C

elicit students’ demographic data, such as gender, academic year, length of time studying English, and overseas experience. Prior to implementation of the survey, four SLA and two educational researchers

assessed the content validity of the question items. The construct validity and reliability of the instrument were also checked using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbach’s alpha (฀). At the outset, four negatively-keyed items, such as grit items 2, 4, and 5, plus motivation item 2 were reverse-scored. Before running EFA, the normality and factorability 2

Peng (2013) developed and validated a context-specific L2 WTC scale for Chinese EFL students, with accepted reliability. 11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT of the sample were evaluated. As shown in Table 1, the data of the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and both Skewness and Kurtosis (between -2 and +2) were normally distributed. Additionally, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.92, exceeding the accepted threshold of 0.5, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS) met statistical

RI PT

significance (χ2 = 5004.76; df = 53; p < 0.001), indicating an appropriate factor analysis. Therefore, the dataset of this study was suitable for conducting EFA.

By means of principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation, EFA was performed

SC

on the original 42 items, which together elicited the nature of L2 self-confidence (8 items), L2 anxiety (6 items), L2 motivation (8 items), grit (8 items), L2 WTC inside classroom (4

M AN U

items), L2 WTC outside classroom (4 items), and L2 WTC in a digital context (4 items). Communalities (above 0.5), factor loading (above 0.4), eigenvalues (above 1), scree plot (checking a plot of the eigenvalues for definitive “discontinuities”), the cumulative percentage of variance (above 60%), and theoretical support for the extracted factor structure

TE D

were applied as a cut-off for determining the number of factors and selecting items (Cattell, 1966; Hair et al., 1995; Kaiser, 1974). Consequently, both the eigenvalues (1.13) and analysis of the scree plot yielded a seven-factor solution, which explained 66.3% of the common

EP

variance. As regards item selection, 9 problematic items (2 items from self-confidence, 4

AC C

from motivation, and 3 from grit) were removed for analysis, based on the above-mentioned criteria. Although values of factor loading for grit 4 (0.35), grit 5 (0.38), and L2 WTC outside the classroom 4 (0.30) and values of communalities for L2 self-confidence 6 (0.37) and L2 motivation 2 (0.42) were relatively low, these items were retained due to theoretical alignment (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2012). With respect to reliability, values of Cronbach’s ฀ (above 0.7) provided evidence of adequate internal consistency for each scale (Hair et al., 1995).

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3.3. Data collection

After the Institutional Review Board’s approval had been obtained, potential participants were informed by the second author and instructors during the 2017-2018

RI PT

academic year of the purposes, steps, benefits and risks of the study. Only students who had signed consent forms were invited to respond to the survey. Three different communicative contexts might have appeared confusing to the respondents. Hence, before the survey the

SC

researcher (also one of the authors) explicitly explained ‘in-class,’ ‘out-of-class,’ and ‘digital contexts,’ along with relevant examples (see Appendix). The participants who agreed to

M AN U

voluntarily take part in the study filled in an online questionnaire.

3.4. Data analysis

TE D

Descriptive data were first examined to show the demographic nature of the participants and to describe their degree of affective variables and L2 WTC. To address RQ1, a Pearson’s Correlation analysis was performed to analyze the relationship between affective

EP

variables and L2 WTC in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts. To answer RQ2, three

AC C

hierarchical (blocked) multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the predictive power of four affective variables on L2 WTC in 1) in-class, 2) out-of-class, and 3) digital contexts. The blocks (or groups), in order, included demographic and affective variables. Demographic variables, which were treated as categorical data due to their uneven distributions (e.g., 96.2% of the students had no overseas experience), were included in the first model in order to control their potential influence on the dependent variable.

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4. Results

4.1. Descriptive data

RI PT

Table 1 shows that respondents reported above-neutral levels of L2 self-confidence (M = 3.30, SD = 0.60), L2 anxiety (M = 3.20, SD = 0.66), and L2 motivation (M = 3.17, SD = 0.62), as the mean score was above 3 (neutral agreement) on a five-point Likert scale. This

SC

indicates that students had generally high levels of L2 self-confidence, anxiety and

motivation with respect to studying or using English. In particular, the value of grit 4 (M =

M AN U

2.29, SD = 0.72; “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one”; it was reversed-coded) was scored lowest. As regards L2 WTC, L2 WTC in digital contexts (M = 3.52, SD = 0.80) was scored highest, followed by L2 WTC outside the classroom (M = 3.07,

TE D

SD = 0.75) and L2 WTC inside the classroom (M = 2.86, SD = 0.85).

AC C

EP

Table 1 EFA, reliability, and descriptive data. Constructs Items FL h2 Skew Self-confidence 1 0.60 0.50 -0.25 2 0.82 0.73 -0.26 3 0.43 0.60 -0.04 4 0.52 0.56 -0.06 5 0.68 0.64 -0.33 6 0.45 0.37 -0.58 Speaking anxiety 1 -0.60 0.52 0.34 2 -0.68 0.65 0.20 3 -0.77 0.74 -0.30 4 -0.77 0.68 -0.11 5 -0.77 0.68 -0.11 6 -0.65 0.67 -0.57 Motivation 1 0.48 0.42 0.03 2* 0.81 0.69 0.10 3 0.66 0.60 0.23 4 0.86 0.78 0.13 Grit 1 0.76 0.68 -0.02 2* 0.75 0.60 0.37 3 0.68 0.67 0.45

Kurt -0.46 -0.57 0.32 -0.19 -0.12 0.49 -0.54 -0.72 -0.46 -0.66 -0.43 0.44 0.93 0.16 -0.11 -0.01 -0.77 -0.61 -0.42

M (SD) 3.11 (0.84) 3.37 (0.98) 3.07 (0.73) 3.13 (0.81) 3.12 (0.96) 4.00 (0.80) 2.64 (0.87) 2.94 (0.83) 3.33 (0.82) 3.20 (0.87) 3.32 (0.80) 3.76 (0.81) 2.97 (0.65) 3.35 (0.77) 3.08 (0.85) 3.18 (0.89) 2.83 (1.09) 2.65 (0.92) 2.74 (0.87)

3.30 (0.60) 0.79

3.20 (0.66) 0.88

3.17 (0.62) 0.76

2.74 (0.63) 0.75

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

WTC Outside Classroom

WTC In Digital Contexts

0.35 0.38 0.68 0.77 0.61 0.75 0.82 0.84 0.69 0.30 0.72 0.86 0.80 0.79

0.52 0.52 0.77 0.83 0.71 0.81 0.85 0.85 0.73 0.62 0.70 0.83 0.70 0.70

0.80 0.13 -0.02 0.21 -0.06 0.47 0.07 -0.07 -0.11 0.08 -0.33 -0.31 -0.06 -0.14

1.29 -0.01 -0.77 -0.48 -0.10 -0.10 0.27 0.04 0.23 -0.39 -0.02 -0.09 -0.46 -0.39

2.29 (0.72) 3.19 (0.80) 3.15 (0.95) 2.68 (0.97) 3.08 (0.90) 2.52 (1.02) 3.09 (0.87) 3.24 (0.92) 3.20 (0.86) 2.74 (0.91) 3.48 (0.91) 3.59 (0.98) 3.49 (0.95) 3.54 (0.94)

2.86 (0.85) 0.91

3.07 (0.75) 0.86

RI PT

WTC Inside Classroom

4* 5* 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

3.52 (0.80) 0.87

SC

Note. * = Item was reverse scored; FL = Factor Loading; h2= Communalities; Skew = Skewness; Kurt = Kurtosis; = Cronbach’s alpha

M AN U

4.2. Correlation analysis

As presented in Table 2, L2 WTC in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts correlated significantly with all the affective variables. That is, L2 WTC in all three contexts

TE D

was positively linked with self-confidence, motivation and grit, and negatively to L2 anxiety. In particular, anxiety had a strong negative correlation with L2 WTC in an in-class setting (r = -0.61, p < 0.01), but moderately negative correlations in an out-of-class setting (r = -0.53, p

EP

< 0.01) and a digital context (r = -0.35, p < 0.01).

AC C

Table 2 Correlations among variables. 1. Self-confidence 2. Speaking anxiety 3. Motivation 4. Grit 5. WTC inside classroom 6. WTC outside classroom 7. WTC in digital contexts Note. ** p < 0.01

1 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 -.55** .43** .39** .60** .56** .42** 1 -.47** -.51** -.61** -.53** -.35** 1 .42** .45** .40** .28** 1 .57** .52** .32** 1 .69** .48** 1 .54** 1

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.3. Regression statistics

Table 3 shows that L2 self-confidence (Β = 0.32) and grit (Β = 0.26) were positive

RI PT

predictors of L2 WTC, while L2 anxiety (Β = -0.30) and gender3 (Β = -0.12) were negative predictors of L2 WTC inside the classroom. The results listed in the table also indicate that 54% of the total variance in L2 WTC inside the classroom could be explained by these four

SC

observed variables (F [8, 252] = 38.47, p < 0.01).

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting L2 WTC inside the classroom. Model 1 Model 2 B (SE) Β B (SE) Β Constant 3.75 (0.42) 1.97 (0.59) Gender -0.21 (0.12) -0.12 -0.22 (0.08) -0.12* Academic year -0.82 (0.70) -0.07 0.09 (0.05) 0.08 Overseas experience -0.16 (0.27) -0.04 -0.34 (0.19) -0.08 Length of studying English -0.05 (0.05) -0.06 -0.03 (0.03) -0.03 Self-confidence 0.49 (0.08) 0.32** Speaking anxiety -0.38 (0.07) -0.30** Motivation 0.08 (0.07) 0.06 Grit 0.35 (0.07) 0.26** R2 0.03 0.55 2 Adjusted R 0.01 0.54 Change of R2 0.52 Note. Β = Beta (standardized regression coefficient); For Gender, 1 = Male and 2 = Female; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Table 4 shows that L2 self-confidence (Β = 0.29) and grit (Β = 0.27) were positive

predictors of L2 WTC outside the classroom, while L2 anxiety (Β = -0.21) was a negative predictor of L2 WTC outside the classroom. This model accounted for 41% of the variance (F [8, 252] = 23.72, p < 0.01).

3

Male participants (M = 3.02, SD = .87) had higher L2 WTC in the classroom than did females (M = 2.78, SD = .83) [t(259) = 2.20, p < .05].

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting WTC outside the classroom. Model 1 Model 2 B (SE) Β B (SE) Β Constant 3.52 (0.37) 1.76 (0.59) Gender -0.08 (0.10) -0.05 -0.08 (0.08) -0.05 Academic year -0.11 (0.06) -0.11 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 Overseas experience 0.07 (0.24) 0.02 -0.06 (0.19) -0.02 Length of studying English -0.05 (0.04) -0.07 -0.03 (-0.03) -0.04 Self-confidence 0.39 (0.08) 0.29** Speaking anxiety -0.24 (0.07) -0.21** Motivation 0.07 (0.07) 0.05 Grit 0.32 (0.07) 0.27** 2 R 0.02 0.43 Adjusted R2 0.01 0.41 Change of R2 0.41 Note. Β = Beta (standardized regression coefficient); ** p < 0.01

The other model, which explained 18% of the variance (F [8, 252] = 8.11, p < 0.01), shows that L2 self-confidence (Β = 0.25) and grit (Β = 0.14) were identified as significant

TE D

predictors for L2 WTC in digital contexts despite its scant predictive power (Table 5).

AC C

EP

Table 5 Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting WTC in digital contexts. Model 1 Model 2 B (SE) Β B (SE) Β Constant 3.53 (0.40) 1.85 (0.74) Gender -0.07 (0.22) -0.04 -0.10 (0.10) -0.06 Academic year -0.11 (0.07) -0.10 -0.02 (0.06) -0.02 Overseas experience 0.08 (0.26) 0.02 0.01 (0.24) 0.00 Length of studying English 0.04 (0.05) 0.06 0.06 (0.04) 0.08 Self-confidence 0.36 (0.10) 0.25** Speaking anxiety -0.12 (0.09) -0.10 Motivation 0.10 (0.09) 0.08 Grit 0.18 (0.09) 0.14* 2 R 0.02 0.21 Adjusted R2 0.00 0.18 Change of R2 0.19 Note. Β = Beta (standardized regression coefficient); * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5. Discussion

This study set out to scrutinize, among Taiwanese EFL students, the association

RI PT

between affective variables and L2 WTC in three different communicative contexts. This resulted in two significant results. First, grit and L2 self-confidence were significant

predictors of students’ L2 WTC in all three communicative settings. Specifically, the result

SC

regarding a significant association between L2 WTC and grit suggests that Taiwanese EFL students who made a continuous effort to achieve their long-term goal (i.e., becoming a

M AN U

proficient English speaker) seemed to seek out more opportunities to practice and improve their English communicative skills (Author, 2018; Keegan, 2017). This result is also supported by the grit studies in other disciplines, which have shown that grittier individuals were likely to work and study longer and more persistently—traits that also are significantly

TE D

associated with their higher professional and academic achievements (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth et al., 2011; Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014). The result regarding a significant relationship between L2 WTC and L2 confidence

EP

suggests that Taiwanese EFL students who felt more confident communicating in English

AC C

tended to make more attempts to initiate English communication in a social context, whether it was face-to-face or in a virtual situation. A similar result was found with Japanese ESL students (Hashimoto, 2002) and EFL Iranian students (Khajavy et al., 2016), who showed a positive relationship between a level of L2 self-confidence and their L2 WTC. Therefore, these data indicate that Taiwanese EFL students with higher levels of grit and L2 confidence seemed to become more willing to communicate in English in both digital and offline settings. However, previous studies measured the L2 WTC level only in non-digital contexts (inside or outside the classroom) and did not investigate digital contexts. In this regard, this study adds

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT two novel insights to the literature: 1) if EFL students remain steadfast in learning and using English in spite of setbacks, and 2) if they are confident about communicating in English, they tend to become more willing to communicate in English in in-class (where students usually speak with familiar interlocutors [e.g., teachers and classmates] in relatively

RI PT

predictable L2 scenarios), out-of-class (where they often encounter unfamiliar acquaintances or strangers in somewhat unpredictable L2 situations), and digital contexts (where they

interact with familiar or unfamiliar L2 interlocutors online, both verbally and in writing).

SC

However, these correlations may not imply causation: it could be that a higher level of L2 WTC contributes to having EFL students feel grittier and more confident about using English.

M AN U

Thus, follow-up studies designed to test causation certainly are merited.

The study also found that a lack of L2 anxiety was a significant predictor of students’ L2 WTC in non-digital environments (inside and outside the classroom), but not in the digital setting. On closer inspection, we can obtain two insights from this result. First, L2 anxiety

TE D

plays an important role in Taiwanese EFL students’ L2 communicative behavior in offline settings. This result lends additional support to previous studies that have demonstrated a negative relationship between L2 anxiety and L2 WTC inside and outside the classroom (Cha

EP

& Kim, 2013; Hashimoto, 2002; Khajavy et al., 2016; Léger & Storch, 2009; Yu, 2011).

AC C

Previous studies (Hashimoto, 2002; Reinders & Wattana, 2015; Yashima, 2002; Yu, 2011) also suggest that individual and contextual factors, such as a lack of L2 self-confidence, peer pressure, or fear of making mistakes might all have raised students’ L2 anxiety level, which was also significantly linked to their higher L2 WTC in face-to-face situations. From a dynamic and situated perspective, individual and contextual variables might have also simultaneously interacted during the course of students’ English communication (e.g., Cao, 2011; Kang, 2005). Since the current quantitative data can scarcely warrant these interpretations, a mixed method approach could be employed in future research.

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The second intriguing conclusion drawn from this finding is that there was no significant association between L2 anxiety and L2 WTC in digital settings. Put differently, L2 anxiety did not play a major role in influencing EFL students’ WTC in L2 digital social situations. Thus, based on current data and existing studies, two interpretations may seem

RI PT

valid. First, contemporary EFL students may feel more comfortable with digital methods of communicating than with conventional offline approaches, whether they use L1 or L2

(Author, 2018; Prensky, 2001). Our descriptive data might support this assertion to some

SC

extent, as Taiwanese EFL students had a higher level of WTC in digital contexts (M = 3.52, SD = 0.80; e.g., talking to other users of English via social media or during digital gameplay)

M AN U

than in-class (M = 2.86, SD = 0.85) and out-of-class (M = 3.07, SD = 0.75) situations. Second, digital environments may provide social support (Indian & Grieve, 2014; Pierce, 2009) and additional psychological benefits (Author, 2018; Reinders & Wattana, 2014, 2015; Satar & Özdener 2008), which potentially contribute to creating less L2 anxiety-provoking

TE D

environment for EFL students. For example, Thai EFL students were found to feel “nervous,” “embarrassed” and “fearful” in the English classroom, while feeling “safe,” “relaxed,” “confident” and “open” in digital contexts. This set of factors appear to be conducive to

EP

increasing their L2 WTC (Reinders & Wattana, 2014, 2015). In particular, Satar and Özdener

AC C

(2008) asserted that advantageous characteristics of written communication in cyberspace (e.g., having time to reflect and prepare responses) would help EFL students (particularly lower-proficiency learners) try to use English more, gain more confidence and decrease L2 anxiety levels. Based on these previous studies, as well as current data, we can assume how digital environments, especially written CMC (e.g., Facebook and MMORPG), might have provided social and emotional support for lower-intermediate Taiwanese EFL students. Still, in order to substantiate both interpretations, further qualitative research needs to be conducted.

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6. Pedagogical implications

The results of this study can, in general, provide pedagogical suggestions for L2 instruction. Given that grit, L2 self-confidence, and L2 anxiety play significant roles in

RI PT

facilitating (or undermining) students’ L2 WTC, foreign language instructors may consider developing and implementing lessons and activities that can foster grit and L2 self-

confidence but reduce L2 anxiety. Specifically, teachers can assess students’ psychological

SC

states by using qualitatively means (e.g., via interviews) and quantitative means (e.g.,

employing or modifying Duckworth and Quinn’s [2009] Grit, Pyun et al.’s [2014] L2 self-

M AN U

confidence, and Horwitz et al.’s [1986] L2 anxiety scales). Based on students’ observed affective indicators and learning needs or interests, teachers can provide appropriate emotional (e.g., praising students’ linguistic risk-taking in L2 communicative situations), cognitive/meta-cognitive (e.g., introducing examples and strategies of successful L2 learners

TE D

who are gritty and confident) and behavioral supports (e.g., giving students ample opportunities to use English in digital and non-digital contexts for the goal of increasing their grit and L2 self-confidence, but lowering L2 anxiety) over the course of a semester. In light

EP

of Kang’s (2005) recommendation, it is also advisable for L2 teachers to choose “topics in

AC C

which L2 learners [should be] interested, about which they have background knowledge, with which they have experience, and which can drive their personal or intergroup motives need to be offered” (p. 290).

In this study, for example, the value of grit 4 (M = 2.29, SD = 0.72) was scored lowest,

which suggests that Taiwanese EFL students seem to have difficulty remaining steadfast with regard to their long-term goals. Additionally, they felt less anxious about speaking English in digital contexts, compared to what they did in non-digital contexts. Based on these data, teachers can provide behavioral support (e.g., integrating goal-setting exercises into in-class

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT activities, or incorporating extracurricular activities [e.g., social media and MMORG] that allow students to learn and use English constantly, while sustaining their interest) along with emotional (encouraging students to continuously take risks and use their English throughout the semester) and cognitive/meta-cognitive support (introducing tips for setting, sustaining,

RI PT

and achieving long-term goals of learning and improving English).

SC

7. Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between four affective variables and L2 WTC in

M AN U

in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts among Taiwanese EFL students. Two major results were identified. First, grit and L2 self-confidence were significant predictors of students’ L2 WTC in all three settings (inside and outside the classroom, and digital). Second, a lack of L2 anxiety was a significant predictor of students’ L2 WTC in non-digital environments (in-class

TE D

and out-of-class contexts), but not in the digital setting. These results suggest that affective variables seem to play a critical role in facilitating EFL learners’ WTC, but each affective variable—depending on a given L2 communication context—may play a different role in

EP

influencing EFL learners’ WTC.

AC C

No research is without limitations, and our study is no exception. First, since data was obtained from a self-reported questionnaire, participants might have under- or over-estimated their responses, which made it difficult for us to draw any definite conclusions. Thus, a future study needs to employ a triangulation of methodology (e.g., by adding interviews and observations) and compensate for potential problems caused by using self-reported measures. Second, although the WTC in the digital context scale may suggest both written and spoken production, it is not clear exactly which mode of communication participants used. For example, MMORPG players can talk to each other via in-game written or voice chats. A

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT future qualitative study (e.g., interviews and focus groups) can address this concern. In a similar vein, we must acknowledge that items 1-3 on the L2 WTC in digital settings (i.e., Facebook) is primarily written communication (e.g., chatting with others and posting comments), while the items on the two other WTC sub-scales suggest spoken production.

RI PT

Thus, it seems unclear whether students’ greater L2 WTC in digital contexts was because of their preference for writing or because of their preference for IDLE contexts. To test whether it is the writing or the IDLE context that participants preferred, the WTC in the digital

SC

context sub-scale would need to include content regarding speaking, while the other two subscales would include content about writing English (e.g., writing exercises during lessons,

M AN U

writing for homework).

Third, the grit scale was not specifically designed to measure L2 students, although it was a reliable scale in this study ( = 0.75). To improve content validity (i.e., items measuring the characteristics of gritty L2 students), a future study may need to develop more

TE D

question items pertaining to L2 situations. Fourth, since four items with respect to L2 motivation (out of eight) were removed in the process of the EFA (see the Instrument section), we only assessed two dimensions of Gardner’s (1985) L2 motivation (desire to learn English

EP

and attitudes toward learning English) and lacked another component (motivational intensity),

AC C

which might have affected the results. Fifth, we did not gauge L2 anxiety in a digital setting (e.g., L2 writing anxiety) due to the lack of an appropriate available measure in this context. Therefore, in a future study it would be worthwhile to develop and use a relevant scale for measuring the participants’ level of L2 anxiety in a digital setting. Lastly, the current study investigated the issue mostly from trait-like perspectives. Since L2 anxiety might have been triggered or affected by other variables, a future study may need to consider exploring this inquiry from dynamic and situated perspectives by using additional data such as classroom observations and interviews.

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Despite these potential shortfalls, our results have extended previous research by unraveling the relationship between affective variables and L2 WTC in diverse contexts. Informed by the results of this study, we hope that ELT practitioners can enable students to become more willing to communicate in L2 and, more importantly, improve their L2

SC

RI PT

communication skills.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

References Author and Co-author. (2019). Author. (2018). Author. (2019). Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468-479. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. Cha, J.-S., & Kim, T.-Y. (2013). Effects of English-learning motivation and language anxiety of the elementary school students on willingness to communicate in English and English speaking. Primary English Education, 19(1), 271-294. Chou, M.-H. (2015). Impacts of the Test of English Listening Comprehension on students' English learning expectations in Taiwan. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(2), 191-208. Council of Europe (May 2016). Cardre Européen Commun De Référence Pour Les Langues. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), http://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages. Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492-511. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dewaele, J.-M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 676-697. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The motivational foundation of learning languages other than global English: Theoretical issues and research directions. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 455-468. Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011).

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 174-181. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M., & Kelly, D. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101. Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166-174. Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beale, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 36. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis (Understanding Statistics). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 13, 266-272. Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: an empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362. Hair, J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29-70. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132. Indian, M., & Grieve, R. (2014). When Facebook is easier than face-to-face: Social support derived from Facebook in socially anxious individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 102-106. Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277-292. Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Fatemi, A. H., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 154-180. Keegan, K. (2017). Identifying and building grit in language learners. English Teaching Forum, 55(3), 1-9. Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: the construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66-75. Lee, J. H. (2018). The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, international posture, and L2 willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. doi:10.1080/01434632.2018.1435666 Lee, E. L. (2007). Linguistic and cultural factors in East Asian students' oral participation in U.S. university classrooms. International Education, 36(2), 27-47. Léger, D. d. S., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners' perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37, 269-285. MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3-26. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192-203. McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO. National Science Foundation. (2017). Survey of graduate students and postdoctorates in science and engineering fall 2016. Accessed May 17 2018. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/gradpostdoc/2016/ Peng, J. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203-213. Peng, J. (2013). The challenge of measuring Willingness to Communicate in EFL contexts. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 281-290. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Pyun, D. O., Kim, J. S., Cho, H. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2014). Impact of affective variables on Korean as a foreign language learners' oral achievement. System, 47, 53-63. Reinders, H., & Benson, P. (2017). Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom. Language Teaching, 50(4), 561-578. Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 101-123. Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital gamebased learning. ReCALL, 27(1), 38-57. Richards, J. C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal, 46(1), 5-22. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(iv), 595-613. Trang, T. T. T., Baldauf, R. B., & Moni, K. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Understanding its status and insiders' awareness and attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 216-243. Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 90-102). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik. Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: the Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(i), 54-66. Yu, M. (2011). Effect of communication variables, affective variables, and teacher immediacy on willingness to communicate of foreign language learners. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(2), 218-236.

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Appendix

Part 1: Affective variables *Please respond to the following statements on a five-point Likert scale 1. Strongly disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neutral; 4. Agree; and 5. Strongly agree

SC

RI PT

1) I am confident I can use English vocabulary and expressions that I learned to interact with my teacher or friends. 2) I am confident I can talk about myself in English using sentences. 3) I am confident I can talk about what I did last weekend using English sentences. 4) I am confident I can do well in oral presentation in English. 5) I am confident I can order a meal in English at a restaurant. 6) I am confident I can ask for and give directions for location in English.

I feel nervous when I speak in English in front of other students. I feel anxious if I am asked a question by my teacher. When speaking in English, I can get so nervous that I forget things that I know. I feel nervous when I am called upon to perform a task in English. Even if I am well prepared for English class, I feel anxious about it. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak English.

TE D

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

M AN U

*Please respond to the following statements on a five-point Likert scale 1. Strongly disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neutral; 4. Agree; and 5. Strongly agree

*Please respond to the following statements on a five-point Likert scale. 1. Strongly disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neutral; 4. Agree; and 5. Strongly agree

AC C

EP

1) I actively think about what I have learned in my English class. 2) I don't really have a great desire to learn English. 3) I find learning English very enjoyable. 4) English is an important subject to me in my college program. *Please respond to the following statements on a five-point Likert scale 1. Not like me at all; 2. Not much like me; 3. Somewhat like me; 4. Mostly like me; 5. Very much like me 1) Setbacks don’t discourage me. 2) I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. 3) I am a hard worker. 4) I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. 5) I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete.

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Part 2: L2 WTC *How much are you willing to communicate in English in this situation? 1. Definitely not willing; 2. Probably not willing; 3. Perhaps willing; 4. Probably willing; and 5. Definitely willing

RI PT

1) When you are given a chance to talk freely in an English class. 2) When you have a chance to talk in front of the other students in an English class. 3) When you have a group discussion in an English class. 4) When you have a chance to make a presentation in front of a large group.

SC

1) When you find your friend standing in front of you in a line. 2) When you find your acquaintance standing in front of you in a line. 3) When you have a discussion with a small group of friends. 4) When you have a chance to talk as part of a small group of strangers.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

1) When you chat with non-native speakers of English (e.g., Korean, Japanese, Chinese) on Facebook. 2) When you chat with native speakers of English (e.g., American, Australian, British) on Facebook. 3) When you post comments to a foreign friend's wall on Facebook. 4) When you talk to other users of English while playing games.

28