Willingness to communicate

In second-language acquisition, willingness to communicate (WTC) is the idea that language students who are willing to communicate in the second language actively look for chances to communicate; and furthermore, these learners actually do communicate in the second language. Therefore, "the ultimate goal of the learning process should be to engender in language education students" the willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei & Noels:1998).

Pyramid model

A pyramid model has been established that describes learners' use of the second language. As the learner moves up the pyramid, the learner has more control over the act of communicating in the target language.

The model, with six layers, has a total of twelve constructs (MacIntyre et al. 1998). The layers, from top to bottom, are:

Layers VI, V, and IV are considered to be lasting influences. At layers III, II and I, the influences on actual second language use are at a given time.

The twelve constructs, from top to bottom, are:

  1. use (layer I)
  2. willingness to communicate (II)
  3. desire to communicate with a specific person (III)
  4. state of communicating self-confidence (III)
  5. interpersonal motivation (IV)
  6. intergroup motivation (IV)
  7. self-confidence (IV)
  8. intergroup attitudes (V)
  9. social situation (V)
  10. competence (V)
  11. intergroup climate (VI)
  12. personality (VI)

In Chinese contexts

In their article "A Chinese Conceptualisation of Willingness to Communicate in ESL",[1] authors Wen and Clement attempt something of a cultural anthropology of Willingness to Communicate in Chinese students. They conclude that the reluctance to verbally engage is rooted in "two aspects governing interpersonal relations: an other-directed self and a submissive way of learning." (p. 19)

The "other-directed self" is based on the idea that Chinese culture, like many other Asian cultures, values the collective over the individual. This value is traced back to the founding values of Chinese culture:

only in the presence of the other, will the self be significant. For Confucius, the self did not exit [sic] as a single entity. It's existential reality is dialectically related to the family, the community, the nation and the world (Chai & Chai, 1965). Self is relational, and it is defined by the surrounding relations (Gao, 1998). In Chinese culture, the social and moral process of 'conducting oneself' is to be aware of one's relations with others. Chinese people can never separate themselves from obligation to others. (p. 20)

The value placed on relations to others defining the self relates closely to the concept of "face". Face is lost when one behaves badly in class. This has an inevitable effect on WtC, as "it seems likely that Chinese students would be even more sensitive to the judgment of the public upon their language behaviors and, therefore, lesses likely to get involved in classroom communication." Not incidentally, Wen and Clement identify a cultural trait that places value on resisting "outsider culture", which may result in additional difficulty in adapting to different norms of verbal participation (p. 21-22).

The second major factor detailed in this study is submission in learning:

The tendency of Chinese teachers to play an authoritative role and of Chinese students to submit to authority in the process of learning goes back to Confucianism and the teaching of Confucian Classics. In Imperial China, 'the whole process of learning and education was oriented to the mechanical memorisation of ideals of antiquity, principally the Four Books and Five Great Classics' (Pratt, 1992: 302) (p. 22).

To perhaps oversimplify, rigid adherence to infallible ancient teachings was believed to result in virtuous behavior and wisdom. Submission to canonical texts and to the teachers who had mastered them was then valued more than individuals' participation and questioning.

Submission in learning deeply shapes how Chinese students engage in the American ESL classroom. The teacher is seen as the source of all knowledge, so Chinese students will not value partner and small group work as highly. This also accounts of "the enthusiasm for grammar, the 'law' of the English language". Accuracy is valued much more than fluency. The resulting lack of fluency further diminishes students' willingness to communicate (p. 23).

In Japanese contexts

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan) or MEXT, as Yashima (2002) noted, has, for a number of years, begun to place a greater emphasis on communication in the second language. Prior to this, English education in Japanese classrooms was, and still is for many, considered a knowledge-based subject, like mathematics and sciences. Grammar and vocabulary have been learnt to solve increasingly complex linguistic puzzles—entrance exams—which had significant consequences for the test takers, and because they are still used today, still do.

According to MEXT guidelines, however, the objectives for the study of foreign languages is to develop practical communication abilities, deepen the understanding of foreign cultures and foster positive attitudes toward communicating in a second language. Despite the stated goals and objectives in MEXT's guidelines, Fujita (2002) cautioned, however, that as yet there is no clear "consensus as to the purpose of learning English in Japan" (p. 19).

Yashima asked with whom and for what purposes Japanese will communicate in their second language. "For many learners, English symbolizes the world around Japan, something that connects them to foreign countries and foreigners ..., with whom they can communicate by using English" (p. 57). Yashima called this desire by Japanese to learn English to communicate with the world around them international posture: a general attitude towards the international community that "influences motivation [in learning a second language], which, in turn, predicts proficiency and second language communication confidence" (Yashima, 2002, p. 63).

International posture, along with second-language confidence in communication, was also seen as directly influencing WTC. While proficiency was seen as influencing confidence in second language communication, the path was not significant. In the Japanese context, this implies that students do have the abilities to perform in the second language, yet lack confidence in communicating in the second language.

Yashima (2002) concluded with a call that "EFL lessons should be designed to enhance students' interest in different cultures and international affairs and activities, as well as to reduce anxiety and build confidence in communication" (p. 63).

Difference between L1 and second language WTC

MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei & Noels (1998) noted that WTC in first language (L1) does not necessarily transfer to the second language. "It is highly unlikely that WTC in the second language (second language) is a simple manifestation of WTC in the L1" (p. 546).

Hashimoto (2002) investigated affective variables as predictors of use of the second language in the second language classroom. In her study of advanced-level (500+ on the TOEFL) Japanese students studying at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa, the path between perceived competence and greater frequency of use of the second language was not significant. She suggested that less able students would be willing to speak in class if they perceived themselves as competent, but more able students would not.

Zarrinabadi (2014) investigated the role of teachers on learners' WTC in an Iraninan context and reported that teachers' error correction, wait time, decision on the topic, and support influences learners' second language WTC.

Engendering WTC

There exist a variety of strategies to increase students' willingness to communicate in the classroom:

See also

References

  1. ↑ Wen, W. & Clement, R. (2003) "A Chinese Conceptualisation of Willingness to Communicate in ESL." Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16, 18-38.

Zarrinabadi, Z. (2014). Communicating in a Second Language: Investigating the Effect of Teacher on Learners' Willingness to Communicate, System, 42(1), 288-295.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/19/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.