Willingness to Communicate in English Among Iranian Non-English Major University Students

http://jls.sagepub.com/Psychology

Journal of Language and Social

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/2/197The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12438538

March 2012 2012 31: 197 originally published online 7Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Behzad Ghonsooly, Gholam Hassan Khajavy and Seyyedeh Fatemeh AsadpourUniversity Students

English Major−Willingness to Communicate in English Among Iranian Non

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

at: can be foundJournal of Language and Social PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/2/197.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 7, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 27, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 27, 2012Version of Record >>

at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on November 5, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on November 5, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jls.sagepub.com/

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/2/197

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/2/197.refs.html

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/2/197.full.pdf

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/27/0261927X12438538.full.pdf

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/05/0261927X12438538.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Language and Social Psychology31(2) 197 –211

© 2012 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12438538

http://jls.sagepub.com

438538 JLS31210.1177/0261927X12438538Ghonsooly et al.Journal of Language and Social Psychology

1Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Corresponding Author:Gholam Hassan Khajavy, Department of English, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran Email: [email protected]

Willingness to Communicate in English Among Iranian Non–English Major University Students

Behzad Ghonsooly1, Gholam Hassan Khajavy1, and Seyyedeh Fatemeh Asadpour1

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to examine willingness to communicate in the second language (L2WTC) construct and its underlying variables among non–English major students in Iran. The study used WTC and socioeducational models for examining L2 communication and L2 learning. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and t test were used with a sample of 158 non–English major university students. An L2 communication model was also proposed and tested using structural equation modeling. The results showed that L2 self-confidence and attitudes toward international community were two predictors of L2WTC in Iranian context. The paths from motivation to L2WTC and openness to experience to L2 self confidence were not significant and thus were deleted. The model shows a good fit to the data, which indicates the potential for using the L2WTC construct for English as a foreign language context.

Keywords

willingness to communicate, perceived communicative competence, communication anxiety, international posture, motivation, personality

These days, English has become an international language and is used for communica-tion between different countries around the world. In the past, the goal of teaching English was the mastery of structures; however, by developing communicative language

at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on November 5, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from


198 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(2)

teaching, the purpose of language learning is to promote “the learners’ communicative competence in the target language” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 207). In spite of this, learners show differences in communicating in the target language. Some learners seek to com-municate in the target language, whereas others avoid communicating in the second language (L2).

On the other hand, “recent trends toward a conversational approach to second language pedagogy reflect the belief that one must use the language to develop pro-ficiency, that is, one must talk to learn” (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996, p. 3). Dörnyei (2005, p. 207) asserts that the difference is because of “psychological, linguistic, and contextual variables.”

Willingness to communicate (WTC), the construct that was first proposed by McCroskey and Baer (1985), is concerned with these variables. WTC originally refers to communication in the first language (L1). McCroskey and Baer (1985) treated WTC in L1 as a personality trait and argued that individuals show similar WTC tendencies in various situations. Therefore, WTC is a stable and enduring personality trait in L1. WTC is different when seen in an L2 context, because here communicative competence is different from person to person, it “can range from almost no L2 competence (0%) to full L2 competence (100%)” (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998, p. 546). Thus, L2WTC includes both state and trait characteristics and influences.

MacIntyre et al. (1998) define L2WTC as “a readiness to enter into discourse, at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using L2” (p. 547). They also proposed a model that shows causes of L2WTC. Accordingly, various linguistic, communicative, and social variables affect L2WTC. These variables include state of communicative self-confidence, desire to communicate with a specific person; self-confidence, intergroup and interpersonal motivation; communicative competence, social attitudes, and inter-group attitudes; and personality and intergroup climate.

Attitude and MotivationResearch on motivation in L2 learning started with the social psychologists Lambert and Gardner and their associates. Gardner and Lambert (1972) claimed that unlike other school subjects, L2 learning is affected by sociocultural factors, and learners should get familiar with characteristics of other cultures. As a result, Gardner (1985) proposed a theory of L2 acquisition called the socioeducational model. In the model, two variables, integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation, are related to the learners’ sociocultural environment. Integrativeness subsumes integrative ori-entation, attitudes toward L2 community, and interest in foreign languages. Attitudes toward the learning situation refer to the evaluation of the language teacher and the L2 course. Integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation contribute to the learners’ level of motivation, and these three classes of variables have been called integrative motivation (Gardner, 1985).

Several researchers (Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) have shown that students with higher level of integrativeness and motivation



Ghonsooly et al. 199

interact with L2 groups more than those with lower level of integrativeness and moti-vation. However, the application of socioeducational model in a foreign language con-text where there is little or no direct contact with native speakers of English has been questioned by some researchers (Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1994; Yashima, 2002). Clément et al. (1994) showed that instrumental motivation also plays a significant role in foreign-language contexts. Matin (2007) conducted a research on motivational characteristics of Tehran university students in Iran. He found that participants were equally motivated by instrumental and integrative reasons. Regarding this, Yashima (2002) identified an orientation similar to integrative orientation, and called it interna-tional posture. It is defined as an “interest in foreign or international affairs, willing-ness to go oversea to study or work, readiness to interact with intercultural partners and . . . a nonethnocentric attitude toward different cultures” (p. 57). However, it is different from integrative orientation in the sense that it reflects the role of English as a lingua franca (Yashima, 2002). Accordingly, instrumental orientation and interna-tional posture are considered as predictors of motivation in a foreign context. Following this, several studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between interna-tional posture and L2WTC. International posture is shown to be one of the significant direct predictors of L2WTC (Cetinkaya, 2005; Matsuoka, 2005; Yashima, 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004).

Language AnxietyAnxiety also plays an important role in learning an L2 (Horwitz, 1986; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Horwitz & Young, 1991; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale developed by Horwitz et al. (1986) was designed to assess three components of anxiety: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Therefore, communication apprehension is broadly based on oral communication anxiety. Many studies have been conducted on communication apprehension, especially its relationship with WTC, and all of them have shown that there is a negative relationship between L2WTC and anxiety (Cetinkaya, 2005; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre & Clément, 1996; Yashima, 2002). In other words, anxious students are reluctant to express themselves verbally in L2 conversations.

Perceived Communicative CompetenceMcCroskey and Richmond (1987) suggested that WTC is mostly affected by com-munication apprehension and communication skills. However, there is not enough support for the relationship between communication skills and people’s WTC. Kelly (1982, cited in Yu, 2009) found that the communication skills of self-identified reti-cent speakers were not different from those who are nonreticent. Therefore, a person’s perception of WTC is more significant in relation with WTC than the person’s actual skills. In other words, people who perceive themselves competent in communicating




are more willing to initiate a communication. Several researchers (Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre &Clément, 1996; Matsuoka, 2005; Yashima, 2002) investigated the relation between perceived communicative competence, WTC, and anxiety. Results of their study showed that there is a positive relationship between perceived communicative competence and WTC and a negative relationship between perceived communicative competence and anxiety.

Clément (1980, 1986) considered perceived communicative competence and anxi-ety to form a construct, that is, self-confidence. In other words, self-confidence is considered as a latent variable defined by anxiety and perceived communicative competence.

PersonalityBased on MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) representation of WTC construct, personality is among the variables that affect WTC. MacIntyre et al. stated that certain personality traits predict a person’s reaction to a member of another group. For example, an authoritarian personality type is not expected to communicate with members of eth-nic groups that he considers inferior, and an ethnocentric person who considers his or her own ethnic group superior to other ethnic groups would not communicate with other ethnic groups, because he or she considers it a worthless behavior (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996).

The Big Five model is a personality model that considers five basic personality traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiesness, and Openness to experience. MacIntyre et al. (1998) conducted a research to examine the relationship between the Big Five model and WTC through path analysis. They concluded that big five personality traits show a significant path in their model—among them is openness to experience, which was found to underlie perceived communicative competence.

Hypothesized ModelBased on the previous research and earlier analysis of the data, a model of L2WTC was constructed to integrate five variables: WTC in English, L2 self-confidence (com-munication anxiety with perceived communicative competence), international pos-ture, personality, and L2 motivation. Only openness to experience aspect of the personality was considered in this study. The initial model was hypothesized based on the following considerations.

Consistent with the previous studies (Cetinkaya, 2005; Peng & Woodrow, 2010; Yashima, 2002), a path from motivation to L2 self-confidence and another path from L2 self-confidence to L2WTC were hypothesized.

The two hypothesized paths from international posture to motivation and to L2WTC were supported by Yashima’s (2002) study in Japan. A path from motivation to L2WTC was also added based on MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) pyramid model of L2WTC.




Based on Cetinkaya (2005), a correlational path was hypothesized between interna-tional posture and personality. Also, It was expected that personality is related to L2 self-confidence (communication anxiety and perceived communicative competence; Cetinkaya, 2005; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Therefore, a path from personality to L2 self-confidence was hypothesized. The hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1.

Objectives of the StudyThe purpose of the present study is to examine Iranian students’ WTC in English. To this end, we randomly chose two faculties, the Humanities and Engineering faculties,

Figure 1. Proposed structural model of WTCNote: L2 = second language; wtc = willingness to communicate in L2; con = L2 self-confidence; pc = perceived communicative competence; anx = communication anxiety; ote = openness to experience; ip = international posture; ifa = interest in foreign affairs; iva = interest in international vocation/activities; aat = approach/avoidance tendency; ifo = intercultural friendship orientation in English learning; mot = L2 motivation.




to investigate the extent to which non–English major students are willing to commu-nicate in English. We also aim to examine the relationships among L2 learning and L2 communication variables using the WTC model and the socioeducational model as a framework for non–English major students in Iranian context and to see whether there is a significant difference among the Engineering and Humanities students’ WTC in English.

Research QuestionsThe following research questions were addressed to provide answer to the objectives of the study:

Research Question 1: Is there any significant difference between Engineering and Humanities students’ WTC, perceived communicative competence, com-munication anxiety, attitude toward international community, motivation, and openness to experience?

Research Question 2: Is the proposed model of L2 communication (Figure 1) appropriate for the Iranian non–English major university students?

MethodParticipants

The total number of participants was 158 Iranian undergraduate students including 78 students from the Faculty of Letters and Humanities (Arabic language and literature, social sciences, and geography) and 80 students from the Faculty of Engineering (computer, electronic, mechanic, industrial, and chemistry engineering) at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The participants comprised 81 males (engineering = 61 and humanities = 20) and 77 females (engineering = 19 and humanities = 58). All partici-pants were freshmen who had already studied English in junior and high school for 6 years. They were taking “General English” as a three-credit course at the university.

ProcedureThe researchers talked with three university professors and asked them for their coop-eration in testing students during class time. All of them permitted researchers to use their class time. Therefore, four classes were given the questionnaire during 3 weeks. Participants completed the questionnaire in their L1 Persian in December 2010. Each class completed the measures in one session.

MaterialsThe questionnaire used in this study measured WTC in English as a foreign language (EFL), L2 self-confidence, international posture, personality, and motivation. There




were two latent variables in the questionnaire. The first one is L2 self-confidence, defined by lack of communication anxiety in English and perceived communication competence in English. The second one is international posture, defined by four indica-tor variables: (a) intercultural friendship orientation, (b) approach/avoidance tendency, (c) interest in international vocation/activities, and (d) interest in foreign affairs.

Willingness to communicate in English (Cronbach’s α = .94). Twelve items from McCroskey (1992) were used to assess the percentage of time respondents would choose to communicate in four contexts (public speaking, talking in meetings, group discussions, and interpersonal conversations) and three types of receivers (stranger, acquaintance, and friend) from 0% to 100%. This scale has been used by other researchers (Cetinkaya, 2005; Hashimoto, 2002; Matsuoka, 2005; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004) in EFL contexts.

Perceived communicative competence (Cronbach’s α = .98). Twelve items from MacIntyre and Charos (1996) assessed the percentage of time (0% to 100%) that respondents feel competent in communicating in English. The context and receivers are the same as WTC scale.

Communication anxiety in English (Cronbach’s α = .93). Twelve items used by Yashima (2002) measured communication apprehension or anxiety (from 0% to 100%) that respondents feel in 12 situations. The context and receivers are the same as WTC and perceived communicative competence scale.

Intercultural friendship orientation (Cronbach’s α = .85). Four items similar to integra-tiveness were used from Yashima (2002) to measure intercultural friendship orienta-tion. The respondents indicated how much they agreed with each statement by choosing a number between 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).

Approach/avoidance tendency (Cronbach’s α = .77). Seven items from Yashima (2002) were used to measure the respondents’ tendency to approach or avoid non-Iranian in Iran. Students again indicated their degree of agreement on a 7-point scale for each of the seven items.

Interest in international vocation/activities (Cronbach’s α = .73). Six items were used from Yashima (2002) to measure an individual’s interest in international career and living abroad. Respondents indicated their degree of agreement on a 7-point scale by choosing a number between 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).

Interest in foreign affairs (Cronbach’s α = .67). Two items were used from Yashima (2002) to measure the respondents’ interest in international issues. Ratings were recorded on 7-point scale by choosing a number between 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).

Personality (Cronbach’s α = .77). Seven items were used from Goldberg (1992) to measure openness to experience dimension of the personality. Respondents indicated their choice on a 9-point scale.

Motivation (Cronbach’s α = .65). Three single-item measures of the desire to learn English, motivational intensity, and attitude toward learning English (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) were used to assess motivation.

All the above scales were translated to Persian to increase the return rate. Back-translation, which is translating the original instruments into Persian and translating them back to English, was employed to ensure the accuracy of the translation.




Results and Discussion

SPSS 16 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was used to analyze descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation formula, and t test. There were nine variables in the study. The mean, standard deviation, and correlation matrix for the Engineering and Humanities students are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

To answer the first question in order to see whether the students differ significantly in L2WTC, perceived communicative competence, communication anxiety, attitude toward international community (intercultural friendship orientation, approach/avoidance tendency, interest in international vocation/activities, and interest in foreign affairs), openness to experience, and L2 motivation to learn English, an independent-samples t test was used. Levene’s test indicated heterogeneity of variance on three of the measures, namely, L2WTC, perceived communicative competence, and motiva-tion. Therefore, based on the Levene’s test, appropriate degrees of freedom and t val-ues were selected.

No significant difference was observed between variables, except for communica-tion anxiety and motivation. Results of t test showed that students differ significantly (t = 2.37, p = .01, df = 156) in terms of communication anxiety. In other words, Humanities students have a statistically significant higher mean score on communica-tion anxiety (45.23) than Engineering students (37.57). The t-test results also showed that there is a statistically significant difference between the students’ motivation to learn English (t = 2.35, p = .02, df = 145.66). Engineering students had a significant higher mean score (15.28) than Humanities students (13.64). Therefore, Engineering students have lower communication anxiety and are more motivated to learn English than Humanities students.

Table 1. Correlation Matrix for the Engineering Students

Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. L2WTC 48.18 (19.63) 1.00 2. PCC 46.46 (22.85) .64** 1.00 3. ANX 37.57 (17.83) −.38** −.48** 1.00 4. IFO 16.92 (5.56) .39** .44** −.28* 1.00 5. AAT 32.92 (6.86) .41** .39** −.33** .50** 1.00 6. IVA 24.41 (5.95) .27* .18 −.11 .40** .35** 1.00 7. IFA 7.36 (3.30) .31** .32** −.27** .35** .52** .30** 1.00 8. OTE 49.65 (6.11) .17 .14 −.02 .38** .13 .21 .07 1.00 9. MOT 15.28 (3.53) .39** .33** −.30** .46** .40** .33** .23* .20 1.00

Note: L2 = second language; WTC = willingness to communicate; PCC = perceived communicative competence; ANX = communication anxiety; IFO = intercultural friendship orientation in English learning; AAT = approach/avoidance tendency; IVA = interest in international vocation/activities; IFA = interest in foreign affairs; OTE = openness to experience; MOT = motivation.*p < .05. **p < .01.




To answer the second research question, structural equation modeling was con-ducted using AMOS 16 statistical package. Structural equation modeling is used to take a confirmatory hypothesis-testing approach for the proposed structural theory. One model was proposed for both groups.

The interrelationships between variables for the Humanities and Engineering stu-dents are shown in Figure 1. Byrne (2001, p. 81) states that “of primary interest in structural equation modeling is the extent to which a hypothesized model ‘fits,’ or adequately describes the sample data.” Therefore, to check whether the base model is appropriate for the Humanities and Engineering students, goodness-of-fit measures in AMOS are used. One of the features of AMOS is that a model can be fitted to two sets of data simultaneously (Byrne, 2001). Here, the base model is fitted for both Humanities and Engineering students. The goodness-of-fit measures for the base model are the following: goodness-of-fit (GFI) index = .85, adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) index = .82, comparative fit index (CFI) = .92, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06, which show a poor fit for the base model (except CFI). To have a very good fit model, GFI, AGFI, and CFI should indicate values higher than .90, and RMSEA should be lower than .05. Eleven of the 13 paths were significant in the base model. There were only 2 insignificant paths, including the path from motivation to L2WTC and the path from openness to experience to L2 self-confidence.

So, the base model does not show a good fit. Following this, the paths from motiva-tion to WTC and from openness to experience to L2 self-confidence were deleted. The revision model for the groups is shown in Figure 2.

The goodness-of-fit measures were analyzed again for the revised model and showed a very good fit to the data: GFI = .93, AGFI = .92, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .04.

Table 2. Correlation Matrix for the Humanities Students

Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. L2WTC 49.77 (27.62) 1.00 2. PCC 45.56 (30.09) .50** 1.00 3. ANX 45.23 (22.44) −.39** −.53** 1.00 4. IFO 17.69 (6.43) .26* .43** −.30** 1.00 5. AAT 31.39 (7.60) .36** .32** −.38** .46** 1.00 6. IVA 23.20 (6.82) .16 .26* −.26* .22* .46** 1.00 7. IFA 6.75 (3.30) .31** .28* −.31** .22* .52** .46** 1.00 8. OTE 49.29 (5.99) .25* .25* −.13 .21 .17 .12 .06 1.00 9. MOT 13.64 (5.10) .29** .45** −.38** .52** .32** .23** .29* .24* 1.00

Note: L2 = second language; WTC = willingness to communicate; PCC = perceived communicative competence; ANX = communication anxiety; IFO = intercultural friendship orientation in English learning; AAT = approach/avoidance tendency; IVA = interest in international vocation/activities; IFA = interest in foreign affairs; OTE = openness to experience; MOT = motivation*p < .05. **p < .01.




The process of modifications is summarized in Table 3. Therefore, we can claim that the revised model represents an adequate L2 communication model of the Engineering and Humanities students.

Then, researchers compared the paths in final model (international posture → L2WTC, international posture → motivation, motivation → L2 self-confidence, L2 self-confidence → L2WTC, and openness to experience ↔ international posture) to examine whether there are any significant differences between the models for two groups. For this purpose, critical ratio for differences was used. Any critical ratio that

Figure 2. Final L2 communication model for the Humanities and Engineering studentsNote: L2 = second language; wtc = willingness to communicate in L2; con = L2 self-confidence; pc = perceived communicative competence; anx = communication anxiety; ote = openness to experience; ip = international posture; ifa = interest in foreign affairs; iva = interest in international vocation/activities; aat = approach/avoidance tendency; ifo = intercultural friendship orientation in English learning; mot = L2 motivation.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.




exceeds 1.96 in magnitude is considered significant at the significance level of .05 (Byrne, 2001). After analyzing the table of critical ratios, no path was found for which critical ratio for differences was statistically significant. Therefore, the mentioned paths are equal across the two groups.

Significant positive paths were obtained from L2 self-confidence (regression coef-ficient = .62 for the Engineering students and regression coefficient = .49 for the Humanities students) and international posture (regression coefficient = .23 for the Engineering students and regression coefficient = .27 for the Humanities students) to L2WTC. In other words, students who have more L2 self-confidence and have a posi-tive attitude toward international community are more willing to communicate in L2. However, L2 self-confidence was the most significant predictor of L2WTC. It was in agreement with Yashima (2002) in Japan; Clément, Baker, and MacIntyre (2003) in Canada; Peng and Woodrow (2010) in China; and Cetinkaya (2005) in Turkey. L2 self-confidence, that is, a latent variable, was defined by two variables, communication anxiety and perceived communicative competence. Therefore, learners who perceive themselves as competent and are less anxious have more L2 self-confidence. The path from motivation to L2WTC was not significant and was deleted. The result is not in agreement with MacIntyre and Clément (1996) who found a significant path between motivation and L2WTC. However, it was in agreement with Yashima (2002), Kim (2004), and Peng and Woodrow (2010), who found an insignificant path from motiva-tion to L2WTC. It means Iranian students with motivation to learn English are not necessarily willing to communicate in English. The reason may be because of the fact that Iran is an EFL context; students do not need to speak English to meet their every-day life needs, so learning English for speaking seems useless to them. On the other hand, the chief method for teaching English in Iranian schools is a combination of the Grammar-Translation Method and Audiolingualism. Students mostly study English for academic purposes at the university level, where the emphasis is on reading skill and structure (Noora, 2008). University students do not have enough chance to speak English in their classrooms, and therefore they do not develop necessary communica-tive competence. Noora (2008) concluded that the majority of Iranian non–English major students prefer a more traditional teaching method. In other words, they are not very willing to communicate in English. Therefore, learners are mostly motivated to pass final examinations rather than to develop speaking ability. Although motivation

Table 3. Modification Process of the Structural Model

Model χ² df χ²/df GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA

Base model 70.12 46 1.52 .85 .82 .92 .06Revised model: Deletion of two insignificant paths

74.28 50 1.48 .93 .92 .95 .04

Note: df = degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.




does not directly affect WTC, it indirectly does so through L2 self-confidence. That is, learners who are more motivated have more L2 self-confidence and, therefore, are more willing to communicate in English. Openness to experience also indirectly affects L2WTC through attitude toward international community. So learners who consider themselves more open to new experiences and thoughts, and are imaginative and curious, have a positive attitude toward international community, and conse-quently they are more willing to speak English.

ConclusionThis study investigated the L2WTC construct among Iranian non–English major stu-dents (Humanities and Engineering students). An L2 communication model was proposed for both groups. The final model showed a very good fit to the data appli-cable for both Humanities and Engineering students. It also supported the socioedu-cational model and MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) WTC construct. Two paths (motivation path to L2WTC and openness to experience path to L2 self-confidence) in the base model were not significant; therefore they were deleted. Attitude toward international community and L2 self-confidence were two predictors of L2WTC in the Iranian context. L2 self-confidence was the most significant predictor of L2WTC. Openness to experience, as a personality trait, also affected L2WTC indirectly via attitudes toward international community.

The two groups were also compared in terms of L2WTC, perceived communi-cative competence, communication anxiety, attitude toward international commu-nity, openness to experience, and motivation to learn English. The results showed that the two groups differ only in communication anxiety and motivation to learn English.

In this study, following Clément (1980, 1986), L2 self-confidence was considered as anxiety and perceived communicative competence. As anxiety decreases and per-ceived communicative competence increases, WTC increases too. So teachers should provide an anxiety-free environment for the students so that they can communicate effectively. Yamini, Rashidi, and Shafiei (2010) state that because “anxiety is preva-lent in Iranian EFL classrooms, teachers must pay more attention to it” (p. 49). As the main language-teaching methods in Iran are Audiolingualism and Grammar Translation Method, and in behavioristic learning, errors should be avoided at any cost, students may feel too anxious of making mistakes to take risks and speak in these classes. Therefore, teachers should pay more attention to the way they treat their students in order to facilitate communication and should learn not to discourage them from speaking.

This research was done among Iranian non–English major university students. Further research might examine the present model for other EFL contexts and other university majors. Regarding the five personality factors, only openness to experience was examined in this study. Future research can examine the role of the other four fac-tors in EFL contexts.




AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Howie Giles and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful sugges-tions on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cetinkaya, Y. B. (2005). Turkish college students’ willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.

Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact, and communicative competence in a second language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspec-tives. (pp. 147-154). New York, NY: Pergamon.

Clément, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation of the effects of language status and individual characteristics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 71-90.

Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psy-chology, 22, 190-209.

Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohe-sion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The roles of attitudes and motivation. London, England: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in a second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contribution to second language learning: Part II, affective factors. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psycho-logical Assessment 4, 26-42.

Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20, 29-70.

Horwitz, E. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559-564.




Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Mod-ern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to class-room implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kim, S. J. (2004). Exploring willingness to communicate (WTC) in English among Korean EFL (English as a foreign language) students in Korea: WTC as a predictor of success in second language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Clément, R. (1996, August). A model of willingness to communicate in a second language: The concept, its antecedents and implications. Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Jyväskylä, Finland.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willing-ness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and lan-guage learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85-115.

Matin, M. (2007). The relationship between attitudes and orientation toward English learning and preferences in the use of language learning strategies (Unpublished master’s thesis). Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Matsuoka, R. (2005). Japanese students’ willingness to communicate in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Pennsylvania, PA.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Com-munication Quarterly, 40, 16-25.

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED265604)

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate and interpersonal communication. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-159). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Noora, A. (2008). Iranian undergraduates non-English majors’ language learning preferences. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 8, 33-44.

Peng, J., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834-876.

Yamini, M., Rashidi, N., & Shafiei, E. (2010). On the relationship between EFL learners’ oral communication apprehension and self-esteem. Ferdowsi Review, 1, 33-55.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL con-text. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66.

Yashima, T., L., Zenuk-Nishide, Z.-N., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119-152.

Yu, M. (2009). Willingness to communicate of foreign language learners in a Chinese setting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee.




Bios

Behzad Ghonsooly is an associate professor at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. He got his PhD in applied linguistics from Stirling University. His major interests are psycholinguistics and sociology of language.

Gholam Hassan Khajavy is an MA student of Teaching English as a Foreign Language at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. His major interests are sociolinguistics and psychology of language teaching and learning.

Seyyedeh Fatemeh Asadpour is an MA student of Teaching English as a Foreign Language at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. Her major interests are language and communication.



Documents

Willingness to Communicate in English Among Iranian Non-English Major University Students