Causal Relationships Between

Communication Confidence, Beliefs

About Group Work, and Willingness to
Communicate in Foreign Language
Group Work
KUMIKO FUSHINO
Rikkyo University, Language Center
Tokyo, Japan

This article reports on the causal relationships between three factors in

second language (L2) group work settings: communication confidence
(i.e., confidence in one’s ability to communicate), beliefs about group
work, and willingness to communicate (WTC). A questionnaire was
administered to 729 first-year university students in Japan. A model that
reflected the hypothesis that WTC in L2 group work would be
influenced by Beliefs in L2 Group Work strengthened by
Communication Confidence was constructed and tested. Data were
randomly split in two, with one-half used for model specification and
the other half for confirmation. The structural equation modeling
confirmed this hypothesis, which implies that L2 WTC and WTC in L2
group work differed. This model marks the first step toward identifying
the causal relationships among factors that affect WTC in L2 group
work.
doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.235993

roup work (including pair work) has been increasingly used in

G English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign
language (EFL) classrooms as the instructional focus has shifted from
teaching discreet aspects of language, such as grammar and vocabulary,
to developing students’ communicative competence in English. In small-
group work, students can have ample opportunities to interact with each
other in their second language (L2) in natural ways, which is likely to
develop their communicative competence, that is, various components
of their language competence, such as organizational competence,
pragmatic competence, and strategic competence (Bachman, 1990). Use
of small-group work is also recommended by cooperative learning
advocates, who assert that learning occurs when students work in a

700 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 44, No. 4, December 2010

positively interdependent manner, with each group member
contributing his or her share of the work. In these circumstances,
students benefit from recognizing the overall success of the group and
from observing the success of its individual members (Johnson &
Johnson, 1999). They claim that cooperative small-group work can
enhance learning outcomes, communication skills, learning motivation,
and psychological health (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002;
Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Kagan, 1994; Sharan & Sharan, 1992).
Unlike teacher-fronted instruction, where the teacher controls
interactional patterns, in small-group learning, how students participate
in group work is rather unpredictable. The teacher cannot force
students to participate in groups in the way the teacher wants or expects
them to. Instead, students are free to choose whether or not to work
actively in groups, while nonlinguistic and noncognitive contextual
features, such as classroom layout, students’ interpretation of their tasks,
and peer relationships, may influence how students act in groups (cf.
Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Jacob, 1999).
Participation in group activity includes students’ willingness to commu-
nicate (WTC) with peers in the target language. Several factors may
impact on such willingness.
Factors related to overall L2 WTC have been researched and
identified (e.g., Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003; Yashima, 2002;
Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). However, factors specific to
WTC in L2 group work have not been identified. Likewise, there is a lack
of understanding of the relationships among factors that may affect
students’ willingness to work in L2 groups.

BELIEFS ABOUT L2 GROUP WORK

One possible influence on students’ WTC with group members in the
L2 is what they believe about the value of group work. It is felt that
students’ beliefs about L2 group work are formed at least in part based
on their experiences in social contexts, including language learning
situations. Such beliefs are not only cognitive but also social constructs
formed in social contexts in which learners accumulate experience and
encounter problems (Barcelos, 2006). Their beliefs are relatively stable
but also changeable (Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Woods, 2006); they also
influence students’ L2 learning behavior (Horwitz, 1985, 1987, 1988;
Woods, 2006). In the study I discuss here, I operated on the assumption
that such beliefs about L2 group work are strongly related to willingness
to participate in L2 group work.
Assuming that beliefs about L2 group work that students hold vary,
for example, ‘‘L2 group work is useful for L2 development’’ and ‘‘L2

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 701

group work is of intrinsic value in and of itself,’’ as shown in my previous
study (Fushino, 2006a), it was hypothesized that beliefs about group
work consist of five components discussed in the cooperative learning
literature and based on my own experience as an English teacher who
often uses group work. In a subsequent study (Fushino, 2006b), I
categorized them as beliefs concerning (a) the value of cooperation, (b)
the efficiency of group work, (c) knowledge co-construction/peer
scaffolding in group work, (d) relationships with other group members,
and (e) teacher–student roles in college English classrooms. However, in
conducting a factor analysis of those components, only three belief
factors were identified: positive beliefs about the value of group work,
beliefs about group work usefulness, and negative traditional instruction
orientation (Fushino, 2008).

L2 COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE
Confidence in one’s ability to communicate in the L2 may also impact on
participation within a group. Communication apprehension is defined as
‘‘fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with
another person or persons’’ (McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Self-perceived
communication competence is defined as the self-perception of ‘‘adequate
ability to pass along or give information; the ability to make known by
talking or writing’’ (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988, p. 109).
Some forms of group activities require relatively high level commu-
nication skills and the ability to engage in spontaneous interaction.
Dwyer (1998) investigated the relationship between communication
apprehension and learning style preferences of undergraduate students
in a public speaking course at a U.S. university and found that female
students with high communication apprehension often do not have
communication skills adequate to help them feel competent in an active,
undirected learning environment. It is not difficult to imagine that
individuals with a high degree of communication apprehension will not
participate in group work actively. Keaten, Kelly, and Pribyl (1997)
measured levels of self-reported communication apprehension in
elementary and secondary school students in Japan, with the Personal
Report of Communication Fear questionnaire (McCroskey, Andersen,
Richmond, & Wheeless, 1981). Keaten et al. reported that the Japanese
school children in their study showed increasing levels of first language
(L1) communication apprehension in the classroom in general as they
grew older (from elementary school to junior high school).
It has also been reported that Japanese college students showed
stronger communication apprehension, both in Japanese and English,

702 TESOL QUARTERLY

than their U.S. counterparts (McCroskey, Gudykunst, & Nishida, 1985;
Pribyl, Keaten, Sakamoto, & Koshikawa, 1998). In the study by
McCroskey et al., the group of respondents (Japanese university
students) was split into two, and the first half reported their L2
communication apprehension while the second half reported their L1
communication apprehension on the short version of the Personal
Report of Communication Apprehension (McCroskey, 1978). The
Japanese students showed statistically significant higher L1 and L2
communication apprehension than their U.S. counterparts speaking
English, and the Japanese students’ levels of L1 and L2 communication
apprehension were almost the same. Pribyl et al. (1998) investigated
Japanese university students’ levels of communication apprehension
with the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24
(McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985). They compared the results
with normative means taken from U.S. samples published in Richmond
and McCroskey (1995) and reported that Japanese college students had
higher communication apprehension than their U.S. counterparts.
However, those studies were focused on trait-like communication
apprehension and self-perceived communication competence, and
those constructs were not directly related to L2 group work. In the
cooperative learning and small-group-work literature, no researchers
have conducted focused studies on communication apprehension and
self-perceived communication competence.
In L2 research, MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels (1998),
based on the original proposal by Clément (1980), posited that L2
communication confidence consists of L2 communication apprehension
and perceived L2 communicative competence. Perceived L2 communicative
competence is students’ self-perception of their ability to communicate
in an L2. In the study described here, I adapted their idea and viewed
communication confidence in L2 group work as being made up of
communication apprehension in L2 group work and self-perceived
communicative competence in L2 group work.
MacIntyre, Noels, and Clément (1997) conducted a study in a
French-as-a-second-language course at a Canadian university in order
to investigate how language anxiety, perceived and actual L2
competence, were related. The participants responded to a ques-
tionnaire on language anxiety and a can-do questionnaire. Then they
performed tasks that corresponded to items on the can-do ques-
tionnaire. MacIntyre et al. reported that self-perceived competence
was significantly correlated with anxiety and actual competence. They
also suggested that less anxious students who perceived themselves as
more competent chose to communicate more willingly. Therefore, it
may be that, even if students have low communication apprehension
but view their communicative competence as being high (i.e., high

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 703

communication confidence in L2 group work), they will more likely
be ready to participate in L2 group work. Moreover, both commu-
nication apprehension in L2 group work and self-perceived commu-
nicative competence in L2 group work can change as students
experience L2 group work. If students become more confident in L2
group work, their increased confidence will presumably make them
more willing to engage in L2 group work.

WTC IN AN L2
The notion of WTC in an L2 has recently begun to attract interest in
second language research. WTC in an L2, which has been defined as ‘‘a
readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific
person or persons, using an L2’’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547), is
considered to be the direct antecedent of students’ actual engagement
in L2 communication.
MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposed a well-known six-layered heuristic
model of variables that influence L2 WTC. The first layer is actual L2
use, which is directly influenced by L2 WTC (Layer 2). Layer 3 has two
constructs: desire to communicate with a specific person and degree of
communicative self-confidence. Factors in Layer 3 directly influence L2
WTC. These three layers are considered situation-specific influences.
Layers 4, 5, and 6 are considered stable, long-lasting influences on L2
WTC. Layer 4 represents motivational propensities and consists of three
constructs: interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation, and self-
confidence. Layer 5, which represents the affective-cognitive context,
includes intergroup attitudes, social situation, and communicative
competence. The bottom layer, Layer 6, is the social and individual
context that consists of intergroup climate and personality. Layers
further from L2 WTC (Layer 2) are felt to have less direct influence on
WTC.
MacIntyre and Charos (1996) conducted a study in a Canadian
bilingual (English and French) context in order to investigate a
structure of L2 WTC by testing a path model. A questionnaire was
administered to introductory-level adult learners of French. It was found
that frequency of actual use of L2 was predicted by motivation and WTC,
and WTC was predicted by perceived communication competence and
communication anxiety. No relationship between WTC and motivation
was found in this bilingual setting.
MacIntyre and Clément (1996) reported a questionnaire study
conducted in a Canadian monolingual university with Anglophone
students learning French as a second language. The study was a

704 TESOL QUARTERLY

replication of MacIntyre and Charos’s study (1996). MacIntyre and
Clément reported that perceived L2 communicative competence, L2
anxiety, and motivation are directly related to L2 WTC in the
monolingual (English-speaking) setting. They also reported that
integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation are related
to L2 WTC through motivation.
Recently, efforts have been made to situate the heuristic model of
MacIntyre et al. (1998) in culture-specific contexts (e.g., Wen & Clément,
2003; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004). Yashima and Yashima et al.
applied the above-mentioned model presented in MacIntyre and Clément
(1996) to the Japanese context. First-year Japanese university students
majoring in information science, in Yashima’s study, and first-year
Japanese high school students receiving intensive English language
instruction in their high school, in the study by Yashima et al., responded
to a set of questionnaires made up of attitudinal–motivational measures
and L2 WTC scales. Yashima and Yashima et al. hypothesized that L2 WTC
in the Japanese context is directly influenced by (a) students’ confidence
in L2 communication, composed of Communication Apprehension and
Perceived Communicative Confidence in the L2, (b) Motivation, and (c)
International Posture, which consists of ‘‘interest in foreign or interna-
tional affairs,’’ ‘‘willingness to go overseas to stay or work,’’ and a
‘‘readiness to interact with intercultural partners’’ (Yashima et al., 2004,
p. 125). If a student has low L2 Communication Apprehension and high
(self) Perceived Communicative Competence in the L2, the person is
considered to have high L2 communication confidence. Yashima and
Yashima et al. tested their model using structural equation modeling and
found that L2 WTC is directly influenced by International Posture and
Communication Confidence, but not by L2 Learning Motivation. L2
motivation is an intervening variable that indirectly influences L2 WTC by
influencing L2 communication confidence.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

As explained above, L2 communication confidence, beliefs about L2
group work, and L2 WTC may all impact on students’ participation in
group work. Thus far in this article these components of WTC have been
explored separately. Expectancy-value theory (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000) attempts to link these three constructs in L2 group work
settings. According to this theory, people are motivated to engage in
tasks that they are confident that they can accomplish and that they
value. Applying this theory to the L2 group work context, it can be
hypothesized that if students are confident in L2 communication and

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 705

have strong, positive beliefs about L2 group work, they will willingly
communicate in L2 group work.
However, the causal relationships among these three factors have not
been investigated empirically. In other words, we do not know how
communication confidence in L2 group work—an aggregated construct
that consists of communication apprehension in L2 group work and self-
perceived communicative competence in L2 group work (cf. Clément
et al., 2003; Yashima, 2002)—and beliefs about L2 group work together
affect WTC in L2 group work. Yashima investigated factors that affect
WTC in an L2 in four different situations with three different
interlocutors, but in the study described here, communication occurred
in a much more limited situation, that is, in L2 group work. As such,
direct application of her L2 WTC model to the L2 group work situation
might not work. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate
the causal relationships among (a) Communication Confidence in L2
Group Work, (b) Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and (c) WTC in L2
Group Work while taking the models of Yashima (2002) and MacIntyre
et al. (1998) into consideration. The hypothesized model is shown in
Figure 1. The belief underlying this study was that, if causal relationships
among Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About
L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work are identified, classroom
teachers will be better equipped to tailor their instruction in ways that
will boost students’ engagement in classroom tasks. The study was
designed to investigate the following research question: How do
communication confidence in L2 group work and beliefs about L2
group work affect students’ WTC in L2 group work? A structural
equation modeling (SEM) approach was employed to answer this
research question.

METHOD
Participants and the Research Site
Seven hundred and twenty-nine first-year students (with a mean age
of 18.65 years, standard deviation [SD] 5 0.86) from various

FIGURE 1. Second language (L2) group work (GW) model (WTC 5 willingness to
communicate).

706 TESOL QUARTERLY

departments at a co-ed university in the Tokyo area participated in this
study. Among them, 329 were males, 392 were females, and 8 did not
indicate their gender. The students had at least 6 years of formal
English education at their junior and high schools prior to entering
this university. The precise levels of the students’ English proficiency
were not measured; however, because the university is acknowledged to
be a prestigious university, their proficiency levels were in the higher
range, as defined in Japan. Students took a placement test at the
beginning of the semester and were placed in classes based on the
results of the test. Two courses were prepared for them: a
Communicative Course and a Language and Culture Course. In each
semester, three kinds of classes (four 90-minute lessons per week in
total) were offered. In the Communicative Course, the oral commu-
nication class (twice a week), the reading and writing class (once a
week), and the listening class (once a week) were provided, and in the
Language and Culture Course, the listening and reading class (twice a
week), the extensive reading class or learning with video class (once a
week), and intercultural communication class (once a week) were
offered. Within the same course, different textbooks were used for
classes with higher proficiency students and for those with lower
proficiency. The English program at the university employed an
English-only policy, so teachers were told to use English for instruction
in the two courses, regardless of the students’ English proficiency.
Japanese was avoided as much as possible even in the lower proficiency
classes.

Material
The data used in this study were solely obtained from a questionnaire.
The questionnaire (in Japanese) was constructed for a larger research
project in which this study was included. Response items were written
based on the theories of cooperative learning, my observation of
students’ group work, communication apprehension (McCroskey et al.,
1985, in particular), and self-perceived communication competence
literature as well as WTC literature. I also sought advice from a
cooperative learning specialist. The draft version of the questionnaire
was shown to one of my previous students (a second-year university
student at that time) to determine if there were any difficulties in
understanding and responding to the items. The student filled out the
questionnaire and timed how long it took her to complete it. She
reported that it took her about 10 minutes to complete the
questionnaire and that no item was unclear to her. Originally, the
questionnaire had 98 items, consisting of 8 parts: (a) communication
apprehension in L2 group work, (b) self-perceived communicative
competence in L2 group work, (c) the value of cooperation, (d) the

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 707

efficiency of group work, (e) knowledge co-construction/peer scaffold-
ing in group work, (f) relationships with other group members, (g)
teacher–student roles in college English classrooms, and (h) WTC in L2
group work. However, after a pilot administration and a factor analysis
(Fushino, 2008), only six factors were extracted, and only high-loaded
items were retained in the final version of the questionnaire. The
questionnaire used in this study consisted of 64 five-point Likert-scale
items (1 5 strongly disagree; 2 5 disagree; 3 5 neutral; 4 5 agree; 5 5
strongly agree) in six sections (see the Appendix for an English
translation). The results of the questionnaire were submitted to factor
analysis, and six factors were identified, as expected. The names and
reliability indices of the questionnaire sections follow:
Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work (10 items, a 5 0.88): The
items were written in consultation with the Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24; McCroskey & Richmond,
1982) to measure students’ degree of communication apprehension in
L2 group work. A sample item is ‘‘I feel nervous when I work in a group
in English class.’’ Item 1 was reverse coded.
Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work (10 items, a 5
0.94): Considering what verbal actions students were likely to take in L2
group work, 10 can-do-type items were constructed in order to measure
how students perceived their level of communication competence in L2
group work. A sample item is ‘‘If my group members ask me questions in
English, I can answer them in English.’’
Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work (6 items, a 5 0.93):
Students were asked to indicate to what degree they agreed with
statements regarding beliefs about the value of group work, because it
was considered that students who believe in the value of group work
were likely to participate in group work actively. A sample item is ‘‘Group
work is important for human growth.’’
Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation (8 items, a 5 0.89): Students
were asked to show what attitudes they had toward traditional instruction
based on the idea that students with a higher negative traditional
instruction orientation were considered to be more positive toward more
innovative instruction, such as group work, and thus were likely to
engage in group work more actively. Because negative wording was
avoided in order to prevent student confusion (Brown, 2001; Dörnyei,
2003), all the items were written in affirmative sentences, such as ‘‘I learn
well in a teacher-led class that has no group work.’’ Therefore, all the
items were reverse coded in order to make the higher score indicate
higher negative traditional instruction orientation.

708 TESOL QUARTERLY

 Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness (20 items, a 5 0.95): Students who
believed that group work was useful for them and for their learning were
considered to be more likely to join group work, and the items in this
section were constructed to measure the degree to which students
considered group work useful. A sample item is, ‘‘During group work I
learn various opinions and ideas from group members.’’
WTC in L2 Group Work (10 items, a 5 0.96): The items in this section
asked how willing students were to communicate in the 10 situations
described. All the situations were the same as those for the items written
for Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work. A
sample item is, ‘‘If my group members ask me questions in English, I am
willing to answer them in English.’’

Procedure
The questionnaire described above was administered anonymously at
the end of the spring semester in July, 2005, by eight colleagues of mine.
Selection of the participants was based on convenience. At this university,
teachers could not choose which class to teach. These eight teachers were
assigned to one of the three classes that the students took. Hence it seemed
unlikely that sampling by convenience would distort the results of the study.

Analyses
As stated above, the purpose of this study was to explore the
relationship between Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work,
Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work by using
SEM. Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About
L2 Group Work are psychological constructs that cannot be measured
directly. Therefore, there was a need to operationally define these
variables. Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs
About L2 Group Work were operationally defined as follows:
Confidence 5 (M of Apprehension Reversed + M of Confidence)/2
Beliefs 5 (M of Value + M of Instruction + M of Usefulness)/3
where Confidence 5 Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work;
Apprehension Reversed 5 reverse-coded Communication Apprehension
in L2 Group Work; Competence 5 Self-Perceived Communicative
Competence in L2 Group Work; Beliefs 5 Beliefs About L2 Group
Work; Value 5 Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work;
Instruction 5 Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation; and
Usefulness 5 Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness. The possible maximum
score was 5. The means and intercorrelations of these variables are
shown in Table 1. After data screening and assumption checks, a
structural equation model was made and tested using AMOS 5.1J
(statistical software, Arbuckle, 2004) with 592 cases.

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 709

TABLE 1
Means and Intercorrelations Among Communication Confidence, Beliefs About L2 Group
Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Apprehension 2.44 0.03 —
2. Competence 2.85 0.03 20.28 —
3. Confidence 3.21 0.02 20.77 0.82 —
4. Value 3.94 0.03 20.31 0.26 0.36 —
5. Instruction 3.80 0.03 20.35 0.11 0.28 0.38 —
6. Usefulness 3.87 0.02 20.34 0.33 0.42 0.60 0.44 —
7. Beliefs 3.87 0.02 20.41 0.29 0.43 0.85 0.75 0.82 —
8. WTC 3.13 0.03 20.22 0.71 0.60 0.35 0.16 0.42 0.38 —

Note. SD 5 standard deviation; M 5 mean; Apprehension 5 Communication Apprehension in

L2 Group Work; Competence 5 Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group
Work; Confidence 5 Communication Confidence; Value 5 Positive Beliefs About the Value of
Group Work; Instruction 5 Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation; Usefulness 5 Beliefs
of Group Work Usefulness; Beliefs 5 Beliefs About L2 Group Work; WTC 5 Willingness to
Communicate in L2 Group Work.
All correlations are significant at p , 0.01 (1-tailed).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to investigate causal relationships among Communication
Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC
in L2 Group Work, an SEM was tested. SEM processes consist of a series
of regressions and confirmatory factor analyses (Byrne, 2001). In that
respect, SEM is useful for investigating how well a theoretical model
explains the interrelationships among a set of variables (Hu & Bentler,
1999). That is, by using structural equation modeling, we can determine
whether a theory-driven model fits the observed data to a statistically
significant degree (Sasaki, 1993), and we can obtain information on how
plausible the model is in terms of revealing the existence of cause–effect
relationships (Murayama, 1998). Although it is true that, in order to
meaningfully suggest any causation, there is a need for a great deal of
theory and research, as Kline (2005) explains, the pictorial aspect of
structural equation modeling enables us to see visually the influence of
one variable on another variable. It was this visual aspect of SEM that was
appropriate for the purposes of this study.

The Hypothesized Model

The heuristic model of WTC in an L2 by MacIntyre et al. (1998)
indicates that WTC (Layer 2) is directly affected by State Communicative

710 TESOL QUARTERLY

Self-Confidence (consisting of ‘‘perceived competence’’ and ‘‘a lack of
anxiety,’’ p. 549) and Desire to Communicate with a Specific Person
(Layer 3). However, their model was designed to account for L2 WTC in
the Canadian ESL context, which is very different from the context of
this study, where English is a foreign language that is seldom used
outside of English classrooms. Besides, the primary purpose of the study
was to investigate students’ WTC in L2 Group Work in English classes
and not their willingness to use the L2 in communicative situations
outside classrooms. Because of these differences, as Wen and Clément
(2003) noted in their conceptualization of WTC in the Chinese context,
it was not feasible to directly apply the model of MacIntyre et al. to the
current situation. However, their heuristic model became a useful
conceptual tool in constructing my model.
Yashima (2002) investigated an L2 communication model in the
Japanese EFL context by testing via SEM and found that WTC in an L2
within the Japanese EFL framework was directly affected by two latent
variables: L2 Communication Confidence, as indicated by ‘‘communica-
tion anxiety in the L2’’ and ‘‘perceived communication competence in the
L2,’’ and International Posture. Latent variables are ‘‘theoretical
constructs that cannot be observed directly’’ (Byrne, 2001, p. 4).
Observed variables are those that can be directly measured by observation,
such as self-report responses and test scores (Byrne, 2001). However, WTC
in the L2 in Yashima’s study was considered to be WTC outside of English
classrooms. In the present study, the focus was on WTC in L2 Group
Work, in particular; therefore, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, rather than
International Posture, was hypothesized to affect WTC in L2 Group Work.
I also view these beliefs to be relatively stable, not changing from class to
class. On the other hand, beliefs can change over time; thus they are not a
complete trait. Therefore, Beliefs About L2 Group Work should be
located in Layer 4 in the model of MacIntyre et al. (1998). In this
conceptualization, Beliefs About L2 Group Work indirectly affects WTC in
L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work,
which in turn, is affected by Beliefs About L2 Group Work.
Based on this idea, I developed a hypothetical model. The single-
headed arrows in Figure 2 illustrate the hypothesis that Beliefs About L2
Group Work (a latent variable) indirectly affects WTC in L2 Group Work
(an observed variable) via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work
(a latent variable), which has two indicator variables, Communication
Apprehension in L2 Group Work and Self-Perceived Communicative
Competence in L2 Group Work. Beliefs About L2 Group Work has three
indicator variables: Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work,
Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation, and Beliefs About Group
Work Usefulness. Each indicator variable was specified by aggregating the
values of all the items used in the measurement variable. Ovals in the

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 711

 FIGURE 2. L2 group work structural model (tested model).

model represent latent variables, while rectangles represent observed

variables. The absence of a line connecting measured or latent variables
implies the lack of a hypothesized direct effect.

Model Estimation
The hypothesized model shown in Figure 2 was tested using the
maximum likelihood method. Because the total sample size (N) was
large (592), and there was a possibility that further modification of the
tested model might be necessary, the data were randomly split. The first
data set (n 5 296) was used for model specification and modification of
the model, and the second data set (n 5 296) was used to confirm the
results obtained with the first data set.
The results are presented in Table 2. The x2 statistic (CMIN; degrees
of freedom [df] 5 8, n 5 296) was 40.749, p 5 0.00; it rejected the
model. However, with such a large n size, the x2 test tends to reject
models readily. The goodness of fit index (GFI 5 0.959) and the
comparative fit index (CFI 5 0.939) showed a good fit, as they were
above 0.90 (Byrne, 2001). However, the root mean square error of
approximation index (RMSEA) was 0.118, which is larger than the
suggested criteria of 0.05 and 0.08 proposed by Browne and Cudeck

712 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 2
Selected Fit Statistics for the Base Model (With Data Set 1)

RMSEA RMSEA
90% CI 90% CI
CMIN df GFI CFI PCFI RMSEA Low High
Base 40.749 8 0.959 0.939 0.501 0.118 0.083 0.155
model

Note. CMIN 5 the x2 statistic; df 5 degrees of freedom; GFI 5 goodness of fit index; CFI 5
comparative fit index; PCFI 5 parsimony comparative fit index; RMSEA 5 root mean square
error of approximation index; CI 5 confidence interval.

(1993) as indicative of a fair fit. Values greater than 0.10 suggest that the
model should be rejected (Byrne, 2001). Therefore, it was concluded
that this model should be modified.
Post hoc model modifications were conducted in order to improve
model fit. Modification indices suggested that Negative Traditional
Instruction Orientation affected Communication Apprehension in L2
Group Work and, in return, Communication Apprehension in L2 Group
Work affected Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation—thus
adding these paths would improve model fit. This model was tested,
and the modification indices improved and became satisfactory (GFI 5
0.988, CFI 5 0.990, RMSEA 5 0.056). The x2 was 11.477 (df 5 6, p 5
0.075, Table 3).
This model indicates that Negative Traditional Instruction
Orientation and Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work are
both independent and dependent variables with regard to each other.
The negative value of the regression weight from Negative Traditional
Instruction Orientation to Communication Apprehension in L2 Group
Work (20.56) suggests that stronger Negative Traditional Instruction
Orientation is accompanied by decreases in communication anxiety. At
the same time, the positive value of the regression weight from
Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work to Negative
Traditional Instruction Orientation (0.37) implies that higher commu-
nication anxiety is related to stronger Negative Traditional Instruction
Orientation.

TABLE 3
Selected Fit Statistics for the Final Model (With Data Sets 1 and 2)

RMSEA RMSEA
90% CI 90% CI
Data set CMIN df GFI CFI PCFI RMSEA Low High
1 11.477 6 0.988 0.990 0.396 0.056 0.000 0.104
2 22.268* 6 0.975 0.975 0.390 0.096 0.055 0.140
*
Statistically significant at p 5 0.001.

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 713

 At first glance, these two relationships seem contradictory. However,
on closer examination they are easier to understand, because students
who believe less in traditional instruction would presumably find more
value in group work and thus would feel more comfortable working in
groups, a feeling that would be likely to reduce their communication
anxiety in L2 group work. At the same time, if students’ communication
anxiety in L2 group work is high, their fear of speaking up in front of the
class when they are called on by the teacher would be high. Therefore,
those with higher communication anxiety in group work would find
group work superior to teacher-led traditional classes, because they do
not have to speak up in front of all their peers, which might be more
face-threatening than participating in group work. Because these data-
driven paths were easily interpretable, this modified model was selected
as the final model. Figure 3 shows the final model with standardized
estimates. All the regression weights (shown next to the arrows) and
squared multiple correlations (shown above the variables) were
statistically significant.
The fit indices (Table 3) for the final model with Data Set 1 indicated
that the model fit the data well. Seventy-nine percent of the WTC in L2
Group Work variable was accounted for by Communication Confidence
in L2 Group Work, 24% of which was accounted for by Beliefs About L2

FIGURE 3. Structural equation modeling (SEM) results (final model) with standardized
estimates (with data set 1). All paths are statistically significant.

714 TESOL QUARTERLY

Group Work. These results showed that Communication Confidence in
L2 Group Work was a strong predictor of WTC in L2 Group Work.
Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work had a strong direct
effect (b 5 0.89, p 5 0.001, two-tailed) on WTC in L2 Group Work.
Beliefs About L2 Group Work had a moderate indirect effect (b 5 0.43)
on WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group
Work. Beliefs About L2 Group Work had a relatively strong direct effect
(b 5 0.49) on Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, but not
as strong as the effect of Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work
on WTC in L2 Group Work (b 5 0.89). This indicates the possibility of
more existing variables that directly affect Communication Confidence
in L2 Group Work. This is also clear from the fact that only 24% of the
Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work was accounted for by
Beliefs About L2 Group Work. In fact, in Yashima’s (2002) model, L2
Learning Motivation directly influences L2 Communication Confidence.
Omission of the variable of motivation might be a reason for this less
strong effect.
This finding confirmed the heuristic model of MacIntyre et al. (1998),
in which L2 Communication Confidence is an immediate antecedent of
WTC in an L2. In Yashima’s (2002) model, too, Communication
Confidence in the L2 is a direct antecedent of L2 WTC. In her model,
Intercultural Posture is shown as another direct antecedent of WTC in
an L2. However, my model situated L2 group work in classrooms.
Therefore, instead of Intercultural Posture, Beliefs About L2 Group
Work was included as a latent variable. Beliefs About L2 Group Work is a
new concept, specific to the group work environment, and in this study
beliefs were conceptualized to be relatively stable from class to class.
Therefore, it cannot be a direct antecedent of WTC in L2 Group Work.
The path from Beliefs About L2 Group Work to Communication
Confidence in L2 Group Work to WTC in L2 Group Work exemplifies
my hypothesis that Beliefs About L2 Group Work indirectly influences
WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group
Work.
In the model used in this study, Communication Confidence in L2
Group Work, had two indicator variables, Communication
Apprehension in L2 Group Work and Self-Perceived Communicative
Competence in L2 Group Work. The standardized regression weight
from Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work to Self-Perceived
Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work was 0.77, whereas that
of Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work was 20.18. This
indicates that Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group
Work was more strongly predicted by Communication Confidence in L2
Group Work than was Communication Apprehension in L2 Group
Work. This is consistent with the results of the Pearson correlation

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 715

coefficient conducted shown in Table 1. This result also agreed with the
results in Yashima’s (2002) study, where b from L2 Communication
Confidence to Communication Anxiety in the L2 was 20.49, and
Perceived Communication Competence in the L2 was 0.72 (p. 61).
Beliefs About L2 Group Work had almost equal predictive power for
Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work (0.74), Negative
Traditional Instruction Orientation (0.78), and Beliefs About Group
Work Usefulness (0.83). These results were consistent with the results of
the Pearson correlation coefficient shown in Table 1.
In order to increase the generalizability of the final model, Data Set
2 was used to confirm the model fit. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the
results of these analyses. Data Set 2 yielded a slightly worse fit for the
final model than did Data Set 1. This might have occurred because the
data were split, albeit randomly, and thus each data set had a reduced
number of cases. Because SEM requires a large number of cases, this
splitting of the cases in half might have made the result a little less
stable. However, the GFI (0.975) and CFI (0.975) indices of Data Set 2
indicated a good model fit. The regression weights and squared
multiple correlations for the path diagram for Data Set 2 (Figure 4)
were similar to those for Data Set 1 (Figure 3). Taken together, these
results indicate that the final model is generalizable, even though it was

FIGURE 4. SEM results (final model) with standardized estimates (with Data Set 2). All paths
are statistically significant.

716 TESOL QUARTERLY

partly a data-driven model. However, RMSEA increased to 0.096.
Although it was still lower than 0.10, which is the point at which the
model should be rejected, further study is necessary to strengthen the
model. In particular, replicating this study with more cases would be
essential.

CONCLUSION
This study unveiled the causal connection that Beliefs About L2
Group Work influenced WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication
Confidence in L2 Group Work. The data were split into two sets, and
the second data set confirmed the findings produced by the first set.
This procedure increased the plausibility of the hypothesized model.
Presenting a simple but good-fitting structural model provides a basis
for the development of more complex models. Because of its
simplicity, this model is more generalizable to the broader EFL
context.
Pedagogically, this study provides three important implications. First,
its core finding tells us that, by elevating students’ Communication
Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About L2 Group Work,
teachers might boost, to some extent, WTC in L2 Group Work, which is
likely to trigger active student–student interaction in the L2. Without
interaction, which is likely to include interactional modification (Long,
1983), comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), and comprehensible
output (Swain, 1985), language development cannot be expected. From
a sociocultural perspective, too, interaction is crucial, in that it creates
opportunities for learners to work in their zones of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978). Finding a way to elevate WTC in L2
Group Work directly is difficult. However, because we now know that
WTC in L2 Group Work is affected by Beliefs About L2 Group Work via
Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, we can be more specific
about how to raise students’ WTC in L2 Group Work.
Reflecting on the direct causality of Communication Confidence in
L2 Group Work on WTC in L2 Group Work, enhancing students’
confidence to communicate in English might be more efficient in the
short run because beliefs take time to change (cf. Sakui & Gaies, 1999;
Woods, 2006). Also, because Communication Confidence in L2 Group
Work is influenced by Beliefs About L2 Group Work, strengthening
students’ beliefs in the value of group work is necessary. Although no
studies have investigated how to strengthen students’ Beliefs About L2
Group Work, having students experience cooperative learning group
work might potentially be beneficial for this purpose, because
experiences in working in cooperative groups that carefully follow basic

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 717

principles of cooperative learning, such as positive interdependence,
individual accountability, maximum peer interaction, heterogeneous
grouping, and equal opportunity to participate (e.g., Jacobs, et al.,
2002), are likely to lead them to believe in the value of cooperation and
the usefulness and efficiency of group work.
At the more concrete level, boosting Self-Perceived Communicative
Competence in L2 Group Work should be emphasized to elevate
students’ Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work because Self-
Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work had a
stronger association with Communication Confidence in L2 Group
Work than did Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work.
However, Fushino (2008) found that Self-Perceived Communicative
Competence in L2 Group Work was more difficult to change than
Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work. This implies that, at
the initial stages, teachers should make extra efforts to reduce
Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work by providing team-
building activities with which group members can develop bonds and
thus can reduce their communication apprehension. Facilitating a
supportive atmosphere, where students listen to each other attentively
and praise each other’s effort and accomplishments (Jacobs, 2007) and
teachers’ noncritical attitudes, are also important. At the same time,
checking task difficulty, complexity, and familiarity, and, as Jacobs
(2007) suggested, assigning success-oriented, doable tasks with clear
instructions, demonstrations, and easy-to-follow steps is likely to help
students gradually gain a feeling of competence in their L2 group work.
In particular, providing scaffolding, such as giving hints and doing the
first part of a task together, can enable weaker students to experience
support from their teachers and peers and experience a growing degree
of success. If these forms of assistance are provided, students will
willingly take risks and try out their L2, which will in turn increase their
chances for success in communication. Cumulatively successful experi-
ences will lead to elevated confidence.

Application of the Questionnaire to the Teaching Context

The questionnaire used in this study was constructed for a research
purpose. Therefore, it might be too time-consuming for the classroom
teacher to analyze the result of this long questionnaire, with its 64 items.
However, if the teacher wants to create heterogeneous groups based on
students’ Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About
L2 Group Work, this questionnaire will be potentially helpful. In order to
make this questionnaire more teacher-friendly, constructing a shorter

718 TESOL QUARTERLY

version of it is essential. Producing a shorter version by selecting high-loading
items in the factor analysis and then piloting it might be a way to proceed. If
the shorter version of the questionnaire proved to be reliable and yielded
results similar to those found in this study, it could be confidently used in
classrooms resembling those in this study and useful for teaching.
In addition, using the instrument to discuss the use of groups with students
might be helpful in improving the quality of group work, because this
discussion could encourage them to reflect on their group work, and this
reflection could lead to high-quality interaction. After all, effective coopera-
tion only becomes possible when students experience quality interaction.

Suggestions for Future Research

The structural model tested in this study was a simple one. Because
the purpose was to investigate the relationship between Communicative
Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC
in L2 Group Work, other factors that are likely to have effects on WTC in
L2 Group Work, such as L2 learning motivation, were intentionally
excluded. The data fit the modified model well; however, in order to
obtain a fuller picture of factors that affect WTC in L2 Group Work,
additional constructs should be identified and included in future
studies. In addition, data-driven paths were added to the tested model to
improve the model fit. Although these paths were interpretable, the
model should be further developed and tested with new participants. On
the other hand, because of its simplicity, this model might be
generalizable to other Japanese university EFL contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank David Beglar at Temple University, Japan Campus, for his support
throughout this research; and Takako Nishino, who always supported me and gave
me helpful comments while I was writing this article. I also appreciate Miyuki
Sasaki, Tomoko Yashima, and Peter MacIntyre for their assistance while revising
this article. I am deeply indebted to the teachers who administered the
questionnaire and to the students who responded. My sincere appreciation also
goes to the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on previous
drafts of this article and to the TESOL Quarterly editor, Alan Hirvela, for his kind
feedback and encouragement.

THE AUTHOR

Kumiko Fushino is a lecturer at Rikkyo University, Language Center, in Tokyo,

Japan. She is interested in cooperative learning in foreign language education and
project-based learning. She holds workshops on cooperative learning for language
teachers in Japan.

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 719

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L. (2004). AMOS (Version 5.0.1J) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan:

SPSS.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2006). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P.
Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7–
33). New York, NY: Springer.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact, and communication competence in a second
language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social
psychological perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntire, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a
second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 22, 190–209. doi:10.1177/0261927X03022002003.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA
task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administra-
tion, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral
task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
Dwyer, K. K. (1998). Communication apprehension and learning style preference:
Correlations and implications for teaching. Communication Education, 47, 137–
150. doi:10.1080/03634529809379118.
Fushino, K. (2006a). The relationship between communication apprehension and
beliefs about group work in college English classrooms. Kyodo to Kyoiku
[Cooperation and Education], 2, 20–37.
Fushino, K. (2006b). Course choices and attitude toward group work. In K. Bradford-
Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT2005 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo,
Japan: JALT.
Fushino, K. (2008). Measuring Japanese university students’ readiness for second-
language group work and its relation to willingness to communicate. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 69. (UMI No. 3319977)
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in
the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 333–340.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1985.tb01811.x.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A.
Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119–129).
London, England: Prentice-Hall International (UK).

720 TESOL QUARTERLY

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.
doi:10.2307/327506.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context: An educational innovation in everyday
classrooms. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Jacobs, G. M. (2007, August). Learning new languages with cooperative learning. Plenary
Speech at the 4th Conference of Japan Association for the Study of Cooperation
in Education, Shizuoka, Japan.
Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan de Capistrano, CA: Kagan
Cooperative Learning.
Keaten, J., Kelly, L., & Pribyl, C. B. (1997). Communication apprehension in Japan:
Grade school through secondary school. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 21, 319–343. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00004-7.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. New York, NY: Longman.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.126.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes and affect as predictors
of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 3–
26. doi:10.1177/0261927X960151001.
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. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562. doi:10.2307/330224.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second
language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265–
287. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.81997008.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-2958.1977.tb00599.x.
McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication
apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192–203. doi:10.1080/03637757809375965.
McCroskey, J. C., Andersen, J. F., Richmond, V. P., & Wheeless, L. R. (1981).
Communication apprehension of elementary and secondary students and
teachers. Communication Education, 30, 122–132. doi:10.1080/03634528109378461.
McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The content validity
of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across commu-
nication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165–173.
McCroskey, J. C., Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1985). Communication
apprehension among Japanese students in native and second language.
Communication Research Reports, 2, 11–15.

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 721

McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to
measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5, 108–
113. doi:10.1080/08824098809359810.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and
shyness: Conceptual and operational distinction. The Central States Speech Journal,
33, 458–468.
Murayama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J. A., Sakamoto, M., & Koshikawa, F. (1998). Assessing the cross-
cultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension scale (PRCA-24). Japanese Psychological Research, 40, 47–53.
doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00074.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1995). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance,
and effectiveness (4th ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about
language learning. System, 27, 473–492. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00046-9.
Sasaki, M. (1993). Relationships among second language proficiency, foreign
language aptitude, and intelligence: A structural equation modeling approach.
Language Learning, 43, 313–344. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00617.x.
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through Group
Investigation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),
Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to
communicate in ESL. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 16, 18–38. doi:10.1080/
07908310308666654.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A develop-
mental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78. doi:10.1007/BF02209024.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1999.1015.
Woods, D. (2006). The social construction of beliefs in the language classroom. In P.
Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches
(pp. 201–229). New York, NY: Springer.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese
EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00136.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and
affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication.
Language Learning, 54, 119–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x.

APPENDIX
Questionnaire Items Used for the Analyses in This Study (English Translation)

Part A: Communication Apprehension in Group Work

1. I feel relaxed when I work in a group in English class.
2. I feel uneasy when I do group work in English class.

722 TESOL QUARTERLY

 3. I feel anxious when I work in English class in a group with classmates whom I don’t
know well.
4. I feel nervous when I work in a group in English class.
5. Group work in English class is painful for me.
6. In group work in English class, I feel more comfortable when listening to other
members’ opinions than talking to group members.
7. I want to avoid group work as much as possible in English class.
8. If other members express different opinions from mine, I become nervous.
9. When working in a group, I feel nervous if I am asked a question by other members.
10. In group work, I can’t ask questions to other members because I feel embarrassed.

Part B: Self-Perceived Communication Competence in Group

Work
1. If my group members ask me questions in English, I can answer them in English.
2. If I need help from my group members, I can ask them in English.
3. I can ask questions in English if a group member says something unclear to me.
4. I can do group work only in English if the task is simple.
5. I can show empathy or my feelings to my group members in English.
6. If I have a different idea or opinion from group members, I can express it in English.
7. I can convey my opinions/ideas in English with the help of gestures or other non-
verbal means during group work.
8. I can express complex ideas in English.
9. I can make a plan for a group project in English with group members.
10. If a conflict arises during group work, I can find a way to resolve it in English.

Part C: Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work

1. Group work is important for human growth.
2. Group work is important for human society.
3. Experience in the process of group work is valuable.
4. Group work is valuable to facilitate students’ autonomy.
5. Communication skills developed in group work are useful for my future.
6. Group work is a good opportunity for me to understand myself better.

Part D: Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation

1. I learn well in a teacher-led class that has no group work.
2. I learn efficiently in a teacher-led class that does not have group work.
3. A lecture style should be employed in college English classes more often than group
work.
4. 100% Teacher-led classes are more suitable for college education than classes that
combine teachers’ lectures and group work.
5. The teacher is the only one who should convey knowledge to students.
6. Students should speak only when they are called on by the teacher.
7. The teacher is the only one who can provide the right answers.
8. Generally speaking, it is a waste of time to do group work in English classes.

COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 723

 Part E: Beliefs About Group Work Usefulness
1. While listening to other members discuss, I notice my own mistakes.
2. By listening attentively, we can help other members notice something new.
3. While discussing with my group members, I can find answers to the questions that I
couldn’t answer on my own.
4. Whether or not I speak in group work, I listen carefully to what my group members are
saying.
5. During group work I learn various opinions and ideas from group members.
6. I am willing to listen to my group members when they point out my mistakes.
7. When we work together in a group, we can find something that we often overlook
when working alone.
8. Conclusions reached through group discussion are better than those I arrive at when I
think alone.
9. If I present a different view from theirs, my group members will listen to it.
10. After working in a group, I will eventually be able to do things on my own that I can’t
do alone now.
11. Students who help other group members learn well.
12. When I talk to group mates, I will notice my mistakes.
13. I can learn from other group members.
14. Group work enables me to like my group members more.
15. Group members will be willing to help me in group work.
16. I will willingly help other group members in group work.
17. By working together in group work, we can better understand each other.
18. Even if there is a conflict, we can resolve it by working together.
19. After an argument in group work, we can become better friends.
20. After a conflict with a group member, I can fix my relationship with her/him.

Part F: Willingness to Communicate in L2 Group Work

What would you do if you were in the following situation?
1. If my group members ask me questions in English, I am willing to answer them in
English.
2. If I need help from my group members, I am willing to ask them in English.
3. I am willing to ask questions in English if a group member says something unclear to
me.
4. I am willing to do group work only in English if the task is simple.
5. I am willing to show empathy or my feelings to my group members in English.
6. If I have a different idea or opinion from group members, I am willing to say it in
English.
7. I am willing to convey my opinions/ideas in English with the help of gestures or other
nonverbal means during group work.
8. I am willing to express complex ideas in English.
9. I am willing to make a plan for group projects in English with group members.
10. If a conflict arises during group work, I am willing to find a way to resolve it in English.

Note. All the questionnaire items are 5-point Likert scale items. The items with the
underlined numbers were reverse coded.

724 TESOL QUARTERLY