Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science 8(1): 51-56, 2016 ISSN: 2454-1834 International Knowledge Press www.ikpress.org THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND ORAL FLUENCY OF IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS REZA BIRIA 1 AND BAHAREH JOUYBAR 1* 1 Department of English Language, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan, Iran. AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Author RB designed the study, wrote the protocol and interpreted the data. Author BJ anchored the field study, gathered the initial data and performed preliminary data analysis. Authors RB and BJ managed the literature searches and produced the initial draft. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Received: 16 th March 2016 Accepted: 4 th May 2016 Published: 31 st May 2016 Original Research Article *Corresponding author: Email: b.joybar@yahoo.com; ABSTRACT Willingness to communicate is the extent to which learners are prepared to initiate communication when they have a choice. It constitutes a factor believed to lead to individual differences in language learning. Those who have high WTC are expected to express themselves more freely. The present study aimed at investigating the relationship among willingness to communicate, language proficiency, and oral fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Participants were 60 (42 females, 18 males) Iranian EFL learners from Shokouhe-Enghelab English language institute in Tehran with the age range of 18 to 27 years old. Participants were requested to fill out the willingness to communicate questionnaire by Macintyre [1]. Then, they were given some topics to talk about such as hometown and family. The oral proficiency of the participants was marked by two raters in order to maximize the raters reliability. The result of the analysis, using the Spearman Rank-order correlation, showed that there was a statistically meaningful relationship among willingness to communicate, language proficiency, and oral proficiency of the learners, meaning those who had higher willingness to communicate could express themselves more fluently. Students, teachers, and researchers in TEFL can avail from the results of the study. Keywords: Oral fluency; willingness to communicate; language proficiency. 1. INTRODUCTION The ability to communicate in a second language has been the goal and of great interest for many people. In fact, the use of the target language is one of the main purposes in learning second languages for many L2 learners, and it has been widely assumed that the use of the target language is also an indicator of and a necessary condition for successful language learning [2]. MacIntyre, Clément, Dornyei, and Noels [3] did not treat WTC in L2 as a personality trait but as a situational variable that has both transient and enduring influences. Moreover, they theorized that WTC influence not only speaking mode but also listening, writing, and reading modes. As McCroskey [4] asserts, WTC refers to the probability of engaging in communication when the opportunity is given. It is defined as readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons using a L2 [5].
Willingness to communicate has been proved to be positively correlated with the language proficiency [6]. Language proficiency has also been reported to be positively correlated with some psychological factors such as emotional intelligence and willingness to communicate [7]. Willingness to communicate is related to fluency in speaking makes people more capable to express themselves. Central to the concept of oral fluency is the construct of willingness to communicate-the extent to which learners are prepared to initiate communication when they have a choice. Inevitably this affective variable has been regarded as a determinant factor shaping individual differences in language learning. Therefore, it can be claimed that WTC and oral fluency can have a direct relationship with language proficiency. Hence, the aim of this study is to find out the relationship among WTC, oral fluency, and language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. 2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Willingness to Communicate (WTC) The term willingness to communicate (WTC) was first introduced in the context of first language acquisition by McCrosky and Richmond in 1987. However, it is now being extensively used in the context of second and foreign language learning. Since the late 90s attempts have been made to conceptualize willingness to communicate to explain an individual s degree of readiness to participate in discourse in an L2 [3]. MacIntyre [8] proposed a WTC model including factors such as perceived communicative competence and communication anxiety which contributed to WTC and in turn frequency of communication. MacIntyre showed a correlation between lower levels of anxiety and higher levels of perceived competence and second language use. Motivation, attitudes, personality and other psycho-social variables have been examined as factors which combine to influence the learner. MacIntyre et al. [3] acknowledge the difference between L1 and L2 WTC probably being due to the uncertainty inherent in L2 use that interacts in a more complex manner with the variables influencing L1 WTC, i.e. individual differences. WTC was originally introduced with reference to L1 communication, and it was considered to be a fixed personality trait that is stable across situations, but when WTC was extended to L2 communication situations, it was proposed that it is not necessary to limit WTC to a trait-like variable, since the use of an L2 introduces the potential for significant situational differences based on wide variations in competence and inter-group relations [5]. Yashima, Nishide, and Shimizu [9] hold that WTC is a conceptual model in which L2 proficiency is not considered as a goal to be achieved through L2 learning, but rather is considered as a means to gain interpersonal/intercultural goals. According to Leger and Storch [10], early models of WTC included two main variables: perceived communication, and communicative anxiety. Based on this model it is predicted that high levels of perceived competence together with low levels of anxiety results in higher WTC and a higher probability of communicative interactions in L2. MacIntyre et al. [3] conceptualized WTC in an L2 in a theoretical model in which social and individual context, affective cognitive context, motivational propensities, situated antecedents, and behavioral intention are interrelated in influencing WTC in an L2 and in L2 use. Some researchers have argued that a fundamental goal of second language education should be the creation of WTC in the language learning process [11]. According to MacIntyre et al. [12] it is suggested that higher WTC among learners leads to increased opportunity for practice in an L2 and authentic L2 usage. Hashimoto [6] suggests a positive relation between willingness to communicate and motivation, and L2 communication frequency. As Chapelle [12] states in the communicative classroom, conscientious language teachers want motivated students who demonstrate a willingness to communicate in the L2. McCroskey and Richmond [4] advanced the construct of "willingness to communicate" to refer to an individual's general personality orientation toward talking. While talking is the key to interpersonal communication, people differ in the amount of talk in which they will choose to engage. It is assumed that the degree of WTC is a factor in learning a second language and the ability to communicate in that language. The higher WTC a speaker has, the more likely he is to succeed in second language (L2) acquisition. High WTC is associated with an increased frequency and amount of communication [13]. 2.2 Language Proficiency Stern [14] defines proficiency as the actual performance of a learner in a given language, and it includes the mastery of (a) the forms, (b) the linguistic, cognitive, affective and sociocultural meanings of those forms, (c) the capacity to use the language with focus chiefly on communication and minimum attention to form, and (d) the creativity in language use. Clark (1972, as cited in Farhady, 1982) [15] defines language proficiency as to use language for real-life purposes regardless of the manner in which that competence was acquired (p. 5). Bachman and Palmer [16] believe that learner s 52
language proficiency level is defined as his or her knowledge of L2 grammar and vocabulary, which is a subcomponent of general language ability. Language proficiency is the degree of skill which a person can use a language, such as how well a person can read, write, speak, or understand language. This can be contrasted with language achievement, which describes language ability as a result of learning. Proficiency maybe measured through the use of a proficiency test [17]. 2.3 Speaking Fluency Richards and Schmidt [17] define fluency as the features giving speech naturalness and normality, including native-like use of pausing, rhythm, intonation, stress, rate of speaking, and use of interjections and interruptions (p. 204). In second language teaching, as they state, fluency accounts for a level of proficiency in communication including the ability to easily produce spoken or written language, the ability to speak with a decent but not essentially a perfect command of grammar, vocabulary, and intonation, the ability to convey ideas in an effective way, and the ability to formulate continuous speech without failing to run speech without difficulty or communication breakdown. They further contrast fluency with accuracy by contending that accuracy refers to the ability of the speaker to produce sentence which are grammatically correct but do not have to be fluent. Kormos and Denes [18] argue that speaking the language fluently is the ultimate goal to be attained in gaining a command over the target language and that there is no consensus over what variables underlie listeners' perception of fluency. However it appears that what is of importance is establishing reliable measures of fluency for researchers in applied linguistics. Fluency in speaking (just like accuracy) is the goal of many EFL teachers and students. 2.4 Empirical Studies There are a couple of studies which investigated the relationship among students language proficiency, WTC level, and oral fluency. For example, Hashimoto [6] investigated the relationship among motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported second language use in Japanese ESL students. Using structural equation modeling Hashimato [6] found that WTC affects the frequency of L2 use in the classroom. In other words, it seems that the frequency of L2 use is the cause of higher proficiency. Jong [19] investigated the relationship between second language speaking fluency and language proficiency among Dutch students. The results showed that language proficiency is a good predictor of oral fluency and has significant relationship with it. Baghaei and Dourakhshan [20] investigated the relationship between willingness to communicate and success in learning English as a foreign language and concluded that those who had higher English language proficiency were better in terms of their willingness to communicate. Valadi, Rezaee, and Baharvand [21] investigated the relationship between language learners willingness to communicate and their oral language proficiency with regard to gender differences. The results of correlational analyses revealed that there was a strong relationship between learners WTC and their oral proficiency with no significant gender difference. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Participants Participants were 60 (42 females, 18 males) Iranian EFL learners from Shokouhe-Enghelab language institute in Tehran with the age range of 18 to 27 years old. They had been studying English for about four years. 3.2 Instruments The instruments used in this study were as follows: 3.2.1 IELTS speaking rubric In order to measure students oral fluency, IELTS speaking band descriptor was used. This sheet measures students speaking fluency and coherence by levels of pre-determined definition from 0 to 9. Zero is for a person who has not attended the test and 9 is for someone who speaks fluently with only rare repetition or self-correction and develops the topics fully and appropriately. 3.2.2 Oxford Placement Test (OPT) The Oxford Placement Test is primarily used in order to measure and determine the participants level of general English language proficiency and ensure their homogeneity. The OPT is often used by ELT researchers as the language proficiency test in which participants scoring one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean are considered homogenized members. This test consists of 60 items 53
in the form of multiple choice questions, and students are supposed to choose the correct answer from among the alternatives. The required time to complete the test is 30 minutes. 3.2.3 WTC questionnaire In this study, the WTC questionnaires by MacIntyre et al. [1] will be applied: WTC inside the classroom and WTC outside the classroom. In the first section, the WTC questionnaire including 27 items ranging from 1 to 5 (almost never willing- almost always willing) will be given to the participants. Participants will be asked to indicate how much they are willing to communicate in class tasks centering on all four language skills: speaking (item 1-8), reading (item 1-6), writing (item 1-8), and comprehension (1-5). According to MacIntyre et al. [1], the questionnaire is valid and reliable based on the following measures: speaking (α =.79), reading (α =.80), writing (α =.82), and comprehension (α =.81). In the second section, the questionnaire including 27 items ranging from 1 to 5 (almost never willing- almost always willing) will be provided. Participants will be asked to indicate how much they are willing to communicate outside the class tasks centering on all four language skills: speaking (item 1-8), reading (item 1-6), writing (item 1-8), and comprehension (1-5). 3.3 Procedure First the OPT was administered to the 60 participants who were chosen from Shokouhe-Enghelab language institute in Tehran based on convenience sampling. Out of 60, 40 were considered homogenized members based on their scores ranging from one standard deviation above and below the mean. The OPT scores were considered the language proficiency marks. Participants were requested to fill out the willingness to communicate questionnaire by Macintyre et al. (2001). Then, they were given some topics to talk about such as hometown and family. The oral proficiency of the participants was marked by two raters in order to maximize the rater s reliability. The inter-rater reliability index showed that there was a high consistency between the scores of the two raters (r=.755). The three groups of scores were then correlated using Spearman s rank-order correlation. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Result of Language Proficiency Test (OPT) In order to have homogenized participants in terms of their general English language proficiency, the Oxford Placement Test was administered. The descriptive statistics for the OPT are displayed in following table. Table 4.1. The descriptive statistics of the OPT test N Valid 60 Missing 29 Mean 40.8667 Std. deviation 5.06054 Variance 25.609 Minimum 30.00 Maximum 50.00 Table 4.1 above shows the descriptive statistics of the OPT test. As it can be seen in Table 4.1 above, the mean and the standard deviation of the participants were 40.86 and 5.06 respectively. Out of sixty participants, forty were considered as homogenous members based on their scores of OPT ranging from 37 to 47 (upper-intermediate level). The 40 homogenized participants were given the WTC questionnaire and they were interviewed by two raters as to their ability in oral fluency. The descriptive statistics of the three variables is shown Table 4.2. As it can be seen in Table 4.2, the mean and standard deviation of the participants language proficiency, WTC, and language proficiency scores were 42.32, 64.20, and 4.62 and 2.36, 17.13, and 1.07 respectively. 4.2 Analysis of the Research Question This study aimed to find out the relationship among WTC, oral fluency, and language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. The result of the data analysis is presented Table 4.3. Table 4.2. Descriptive statistics of the participants as to their language proficiency, WTC, and language proficiency scores N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation Language proficiency 40 37.00 47.00 42.3250 2.36846 WTC scores 40 30.00 88.00 64.2000 17.13177 Oral fluency 40 2.00 7.00 4.6250 1.07864 Valid N (listwise) 40 54
Table 4.3. Test of normality for participants language proficiency, WTC, and language proficiency scores Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Statistic df Sig. Language proficiency.185 40.001 WTC scores.195 40.001 Oral fluency.189 40.001 Table 4.4. The result of the Spearman s rank-order correlation Spearman's rho Language proficiency WTC scores Oral fluency Language proficiency WTC scores Oral fluency Correlation 1.000.879 **.853 ** coefficient Sig. (2-tailed)..000.000 N 40 40 40 Correlation.879 ** 1.000.786 ** coefficient Sig. (2-tailed).000..000 N 40 40 40 Correlation.853 **.786 ** 1.000 coefficient Sig. (2-tailed).000.000. N 40 40 40 The result of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality shows that the data are not normally distributed for the three sets of scores (Sig<.05). Therefore, the non-parametric Spearman s rank-order correlation was used to find the relationship. The Spearman s rank-order correlation was run to find the relationship among WTC, oral fluency, and language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. There was a high positive correlation between students' WTC and their English language proficiency, which was statistically significant, r s (38) =.879, p =.000 0.05. The result showed that there was a high positive correlation between students' WTC and their oral fluency, which was statistically significant, r s (38) =.786, p =.000 0.05. There was also a high positive correlation between students' oral fluency and their English language proficiency, which was statistically significant, r s (38) =.853, p =.000 0.05. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study aimed at investigating the relationship among WTC, oral fluency, and language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. The Spearman s rank-order correlation was run to find the relationship among WTC, oral fluency, and language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. There was a high positive correlation between students' WTC and their English language proficiency. The result showed that there was a high positive correlation between students' WTC and their oral fluency. There was also a high positive correlation between students' oral fluency and their English language proficiency. The result of this study is in line with the findings of Hashimoto [6] who found that WTC affects the frequency of L2 use in the classroom. In other words, it seems that the frequency of L2 use is the cause of higher proficiency. Findings of Jong [19] also support the result of this study. Jong s [19] findings showed that language proficiency is a good predictor of oral fluency and has significant relationship with it. Baghaei and Dourakhshan s [20] findings are also in line with the result of the present study in which they concluded that those who had higher English language proficiency were better in terms of their willingness to communicate. The result of this study is in line with the findings of Valadi, Rezaee, and Baharvand [21] whose results of correlational analyses revealed that there was a strong relationship between learners WTC and their oral proficiency with no significant gender difference. The result and findings of this study can have some implications for language teachers, EFL students and managers of English language institutes. It is suggested that this study be replicated with a larger sample. It is also suggested that this study be replicated with the role of gender being taken into account. This study can be conducted using two other 55
variables related to oral production including speaking accuracy and speaking fluency. COMPETING INTERESTS Authors have declared that no competing interests exist. REFERENCES 1. MacIntyre P, Baker S, Clément R, Conrod S. Willingness to communicate, social support, and language learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2001;23:369-388. 2. Swain M. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty C, Williams J, (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998;64-81. 3. MacIntyre P, Clément R, Dornyei Z, Noels K. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situated model of confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal. 1998; 82:545-56. DOI: 10.1111/J.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x 4. McCroskey JC, Richmond VP. Willingness to communicate and interpersonal communication. In McCroskey JC, Daly JA, (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 1987;129-156. 5. MacIntyre P, Baker SC, Clement R, Donovan LA. Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning. 2002;52(3):537-564. 6. Hashimoto Y. Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies. 2002;20(2):29-70. 7. Rokni SJ, Hamidi H, Gorgani T. Investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence and language achievement: A case of TEFL and Non-TEFL university students. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 2014;5(3):117-127. 8. MacIntyre P. Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports. 1994;11: 135 42. DOI: 10.1080/08824099409359951 9. Yashima T, Nishide LZ, Shimizu K. The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning. 2004; 54(1):119-152. DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-9922.2004.002 10. Leger DS, Storch N. Learners perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System. 2009;37:269-285. 11. MacIntyre P, Baker S, Clément R, Donovan L. Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 2003;59(4):589-607. 12. Chapelle C. Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. 13. Richmond VP, Roach KD. Willingness to communicate and employee success in U.S. organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 1992;20:95-115. 14. Stern H. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1983. 15. Farhady H. Measures of language proficiency from the learner s perspective. TESOL Quarterly. 1982;16(1):43-59. DOI: 10.2307/3586562 16. Bachman L, Palmer A. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. 17. Richards JC, Schmidt R. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Pearson Education; 2010. 18. Kormos J, Denes M. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System. 2004;32:145-164. 19. Jong NH. L2 fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? 2012. Available:www.hum.uu.nl/.../L2fluencySpeaki ngstyleorproficie 20. Baghaei P, Dourakhshan A. The relationship between willingness to communicate and success in learning English as a foreign language. MJAL. 2012;4(2):53-67. 21. Valadi A, Rezaee A, Kogani Baharvand P. The relationship between language learners willingness to communicate and their oral language proficiency with regard to gender differences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. 2015;4(5): 147-153. Copyright International Knowledge Press. All rights reserved. 56