SYSTEM

System 34 (2006) 480–493

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Interactional context and willingness

to communicate: A comparison of behavior in
whole class, group and dyadic interaction
Yiqian Cao, Jenefer Philp *

Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland, P.O. Box 90219,
Auckland, New Zealand

Received 3 April 2006; received in revised form 8 May 2006; accepted 22 May 2006

Abstract

This article reports on a study that investigated the dual characteristics of willingness to
communicate (WTC) in a second language (L2): trait-like WTC and situational WTC. By adopting
methods of classroom observation, participant interviews and questionnaires, consistency between
L2 learners’ self-report WTC and their actual WTC behavior in an L2 classroom was examined.
While trait-like WTC, as measured by a self-report survey, could predict a tendency to communi-
cate, classroom observation of situational WTC and interviews with individual learners revealed
actual behavior and the influence of contextual factors on the decision to engage in interaction
with fellow students. A number of factors were perceived by learners to influence WTC behavior
in class: the group size, familiarity with interlocutor(s), interlocutor(s)’ participation, familiarity
with topics under discussion, self-confidence, medium of communication and cultural background.
These findings contribute to an understanding of the dynamic nature of WTC in a second lan-
guage and suggest implications for best practice in language pedagogy.
 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Second language learning; ESL learners; Learner behaviour

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 9 373 7599x84967; fax: +64 9 308 2360.
E-mail addresses: cyqkate@yahoo.com.cn (Y. Cao), j.philp@auckland.ac.nz (J. Philp).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter  2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 481

1. Introduction

Current approaches to teaching in the second language classroom emphasize exposure

to L2 input, and provision of opportunities for learners to engage in meaningful commu-
nication, both in and outside of the classroom. Based on research of interaction-driven
second language development (for review, see Gass, 2003; Long, 1996; Mackey, in press),
many researchers argue for the benefits of learning through engagement in meaningful
interaction with others, stressing that ‘learners have to talk in order to learn’ (Skehan,
1989, p. 48; see also, Swain, 1995).
Given the potential benefits of participating in communicative interaction, some
researchers argue (see for example MacIntyre et al., 1998, 2003) that a fundamental goal
of second language education should be the creation of WTC in the language learning pro-
cess; that is, to encourage learners to be willing to seek out communication opportunities
and to use the language for authentic communication. Research suggests that higher WTC
among learners translates into increased opportunity for practice in an L2 and authentic
L2 usage (MacIntyre et al., 2001).

1.1. Defining L2 WTC

Previous research identifies L1 WTC as a personality-based, trait-like predisposition

(McCroskey and Baer, 1985; McCroskey and McCroskey, 1986) that remains stable across
situations (McCroskey and Richmond, 1991). MacIntyre et al. (1998), however, argue that
L2 WTC should be treated as a situational variable, open to change across situations.
They define L2 WTC as ‘‘a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a
specific person or persons, using a L2’’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). Kang (2005) fur-
ther specifies that this readiness or volition to engage in communication ‘‘may vary
according to the interlocutor(s), topic, and conversational context, among other potential
situational variables’’ (p. 291). With regard to L2 communication, L1 and L2 WTC are
likely to be independent (MacIntyre et al., 2003); that is, WTC does not simply transfer
from L1 to L2. This lack of transferability is due both to the much greater variation in
communicative competence among most L2 users, as well as social factors associated with
L2 use (MacIntyre et al., 1998).
Kang (2005) claims security, excitement and responsibility as antecedents to WTC. A
number of other factors have been identified as directly or indirectly predictive of
WTC, including: motivation (Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre et al., 2001; MacIntyre and
Charos, 1996), social support (MacIntyre et al., 2001), attitude (Yashima, 2002; Yashima
et al., 2004), perceived communicative competence (Hashimoto, 2002) and communication
anxiety (Baker and MacIntyre, 2000, 2003; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Yashima, 2002). How-
ever, the relationship between WTC and these factors also depends on context (Baker and
MacIntyre, 2000, 2003; Clément et al., 2003; MacIntyre et al., 2003). For example, Baker
and MacIntyre (2000, 2003) found higher WTC and lower communication anxiety
reported by L1 English learners of French in immersion contexts compared to non-immer-
sion contexts in Canadian high schools. Gender and age have also been found to impact
on WTC and L2 anxiety. Based on self-report data, MacIntyre et al. (2002) found
increased L2 anxiety among males, yet decreases among females, over years in a language
program. In this study, the authors called for verification of self-report data by behavioral
studies in the classroom (see also MacIntyre et al., 2001).
482 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493

While the majority of previous studies have employed self-report data which tapped
trait-like WTC, a handful have examined state-level WTC by means of observational
and interview data. Kang’s (2005) study adopted a qualitative approach in order to
examine how situational L2 WTC could dynamically emerge and fluctuate during a con-
versation situation between NNS (Non-native speaking) learners and NS (Native speak-
ing) tutors. Based on a longitudinal study of four male Korean learners studying in an
American university, Kang proposed situational WTC as a multilayered construct that
could change moment-to-moment in the conversational context, under the joint effect
of the psychological conditions of excitement, responsibility and security. In this study,
L2 WTC was described as a dynamic situational concept rather than a trait-like
predisposition.
In a study of L2 learners’ own perceptions of factors contributing to WTC, House
(2004) suggests other factors which may affect WTC in different contexts. In this study,
six learners were asked to report their experiences over a five-week period, and how per-
ceptions of these experiences influenced their WTC inside an ESL (English as a second lan-
guage) classroom. He reported that learners only felt able to actually engage in
communication when an opportunity arose which they perceived as suitable for commu-
nication. Factors such as perceived politeness, the role of physical locality, the presence of
the opposite sex, mood and the topic under discussion, were also found to be minor influ-
ences affecting WTC. Other research similarly point to cultural factors as affecting learn-
ers’ willingness to take up opportunities to communicate (Ferris and Tagg, 1996). In
particular, Asian L2 learners, generally regarded as reticent and passive learners (Cheng,
2000), have appeared to be reluctant to speak up in class (Tsui, 1996) or to be unwilling to
work in groups (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996).
Taken together these studies point to the need to consider L2 WTC across situational
contexts, and to include both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In an instructional
setting, WTC may differ according to the interactional context, the participants, and the
task itself. Further work is needed to verify self report data and tap situational WTC
(MacIntyre et al., 2001, 2002), particularly in the classroom.

1.2. Purpose of study

Addressing this methodological gap in existing research, this study aimed to explore
the dual characteristics of the WTC construct, following the trait/state dichotomy
claimed by some researchers (see MacIntyre et al., 1998, 1999). Thus, the first objective
of the study was to examine interrelationships between L2 WTC as measured by self-
report, and L2 WTC behavior in interactional contexts in the classroom; that is, within
the context of whole class interaction, small group interaction and dyadic interaction.
The second objective of the study was to investigate learners’ own perceptions of factors
contributing to WTC in classroom contexts. The study was based on three research
questions:

RQ1: Does learners’ self-report of WTC correspond to their oral behavior in class in the
three interactional contexts observed?
RQ2: Does learners’ WTC behavior in class differ in each of these contexts?
RQ3: What are learners’ perceptions of the most important factors contributing to their
WTC in the three classroom contexts?
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 483

Earlier studies have treated the WTC construct by reference to production modes of
written and spoken communication, as well as comprehension of both spoken and written
language inside and outside the classroom (MacIntyre et al., 1998, 2001). In the present
study, the focus was placed purely on spoken communication inside an L2 classroom.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Ten learners from an intact class voluntarily participated in the study, eight of whom
were able to see it through to completion. The group consisted of four male and four
female international learners who had enrolled in an intensive General English program
at a university-based private language school in New Zealand. All were classified by their
language program as being at intermediate level. The L1 backgrounds represented were
Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Swiss–German. At the time of the study, five had been
in New Zealand for less than three months while three had been in the country for over
four months. Only three of them were staying with homestay families whereas the rest
were sharing accommodation with either their classmates or friends. Table 1 summarizes
participant information, and identifies learners by a randomly assigned number.

2.2. Procedure

Data collection occurred over a period of one month, the duration of this particular
English course, and consisted of (a) a WTC questionnaire, administered on Day 1 of
the study; (b) eight classroom observations, carried out twice-weekly in two hourly ses-
sions; (c) six audio recordings of group and pair work, carried out twice-weekly over three
weeks, and (d) a 40–60 min interview with each participant in Week 4. This is presented in
Table 2.

Table 1
Participant information
Gender Age L1 Time studying English Length of stay in New Zealand
Learner 1 Male Mid 20s Japanese 5–6 yrs 1–3 months
Learner 2 Male Mid 20s Japanese 1–2 yrs 7–12 months
Learner 3 Female Mid 20s Chinese 7–8 yrs 4–6 months
Learner 4 Female Early 20s Swiss–German 5–6 yrs 1–3 months
Learner 5 Female Mid 40s Swiss–German 1–2 yrs 1–3 months
Learner 6 Male Early 20s Chinese 5–6 yrs 1–3 months
Learner 7 Male Late 20s Chinese 7–8 yrs 4–6 months
Learner 8 Female Mid 20s Korean 7–8 yrs 1–3 months

Table 2
Three stages of data collection
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Week 1 Week 1–4 Week 4
Self-report questionnaires Classroom observation (8·2 h/four weeks) Interviews with participants (n = 7)
Pair/group work (six sessions/three weeks) (40 min each)
484 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493

2.3. Instruments

Trait WTC was measured through the use of a 25 item questionnaire (see Appendix 1)
widely used in previous research (McCroskey and Richmond, 1991; Hashimoto, 2002),
and previously demonstrated to have high reliability (Asker, 1998), and strong content
and construct validity (McCroskey, 1992). Participants indicated how willing they would
be to communicate on a percentage scale (0–100%) in four communication situations
(public, meeting, group or dyad), and with three types of receivers (stranger, acquaintance
or friend). Since the instrument was generic and not specifically designed for an instruc-
tional setting, it was modified for use in the L2 classroom by the addition of five items
adapted from WTC behavioral intentions listed in the classroom observation scheme
(for example, ask a question in class). Reliability using Cronbach’s alpha was .917.
State-level WTC was measured by observation of classroom behavior, using a class-
room observation scheme consisting of seven categories (see Appendix 2). These categories
(for example, ‘‘volunteer an answer’’, ‘‘give an answer to the teacher’s question’’, ‘‘ask the
teacher a question’’, ‘‘try out a difficult form in the target language’’) were based on pre-
vious descriptions of instructed learners with high WTC and/or high motivation including:
a desire to ‘‘take moderate but intelligent risks, such as guessing word meanings based on
background knowledge and speaking up despite the possibility of making occasional mis-
takes’’ (Oxford, 1997, p. 450); hand-raising to volunteer an answer (MacIntyre et al.,
1998); trying out a difficult sentence in class or making requests without concern for gram-
matical mistakes (Ely, 1986); co-operation with the teacher, e.g. by responding to or ask-
ing questions in class (Wajnryb, 1992). These categories were further refined following
piloting in the classroom. Further modifications were then made to the whole class obser-
vation scheme specific to pair/group interaction; that is, by distinguishing between inter-
action with and without the teacher’s presence during the pair/group.
Learners’ perceptions of the factors contributing to their WTC behavior in class were
elicited through structured interviews comprising three sections (see Appendix 3). The first
section consisted of questions relating to antecedents of WTC such as motivation, level of
anxiety and perceived competence. The second section employed stimulated recall (Gass
and Mackey, 2000) designed to elicit introspective comments from participants as they
individually listened to excerpts of the audio recordings of their task performance in pairs
or groups. The questions in this section were associated with participants’ feelings about
their task performance in particular groups or pairs. Because of time constraints, stimu-
lated recall occurred two weeks after the task performance, rather than shortly after the
original interaction, as is optimal (Gass and Mackey, 2000). It was recognized that the
timing of the interviews posed some threat to the reliability of the stimulated-recall part
of the interview, and every effort was made to encourage accurate recall, for example by
providing information concerning the conditions under which the tasks were performed
prior to each interview. The third section of the interview involved tailor-made questions
for individual participants, based on their WTC behavior across the various classroom
contexts.

3. Analysis

WTC profiles were based on the self-report (questionnaire) data, the classroom obser-
vations over four weeks, and the transcripts of six group and dyadic interaction sessions
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 485

over three weeks. Each learner’s self-report WTC frequency was calculated and averaged
as a percentage. For purposes of comparison between the three classroom contexts, tokens
of WTC behavior were calculated as a ratio of time for each individual. Spearman rank-
order correlation coefficient was then employed to identify relationships between self-
report WTC and WTC behavior in the three classroom contexts – whole class, small
groups and dyads. A Friedman test, a non-parametric equivalent of ANOVA, was used
to assess differences between the three groups of data. Quantitative analysis was supple-
mented by a qualitative analysis of individual data from the three contexts.

4. Results

The objectives of this study were firstly to examine if there were any relationships
between self-report WTC (‘‘trait WTC’’) and behavioral WTC (‘‘state WTC’’) in three
classroom contexts; and secondly, to investigate factors that appeared to influence
WTC behavior from the learners’ perspectives.

4.1. Trait variable or state variable

Spearman rank-order correlation indicated no clear correlations between learners’ self-

report WTC and their oral behavior of WTC in any of the three interactional classroom
contexts (whole class, pair work, and group work). However, the relationship between
participation in pair work and group work approached significance (r = .667; r2 = .44,
p = .071). These results, as well as the mean and standard deviation for each variable,
are reported in Table 3.
Although there was a trend towards significance for a correlation between WTC behav-
ior in pair work and group work (p = .071), no correlation was found between WTC in
whole class and either WTC in pair work or WTC in group work.
The second research question addressed potential differences in learners’ WTC behavior
during whole class, pair and group work. A significant difference in WTC behavior in the
three contexts was found (v2(2, n = 8) = 14.25, p < .001, and g2 = .62) with the eta squared
result suggesting a strong association between context and WTC behavior.
A further qualitative analysis of the data revealed variations among individuals across
the three contexts. The results of each learner’s WTC behaviors in the three classroom
contexts during the course are presented graphically in Fig. 1. As seen in Table 3, means
for WTC whole class ratio (x ¼ :21) were substantially lower than those for WTC pair
work ratio (x ¼ 1:67) and WTC group work ratio (x ¼ 1:23). Understandably, the
comparatively larger size of a whole class gave less opportunity for each individual to

Table 3
Correlation matrix
Variables Mean SD SR WTC average Rank of Rank of Rank of
WC ratio PW ratio GW ratio
1. SR WTC average 43.5 17.28 1.0
2. Rank of WC ratio .21 .12 .120 1.0
3. Rank of PW ratio 1.66 .39 .084 .204 1.0
4. Rank of GW ratio 1.24 .39 .443 .381 .667 1.0
486 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493

WTC in classroom contexts

3
2.5
2 WC Ratio
Ratio

1.5 PW Ratio
1 GW Ratio

0.5
0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
Student

Fig. 1. WTC in classroom contexts.

communicate than would occur within a dyad or a smaller group. Even so, comparison of
individual participation in each context, based on rank order, reveals differing participa-
tion patterns. Learners 3 and 4 rank consistently low in WTC across contexts. Learner
3 scored lowest on self report of WTC yet Learner 4’s self-report (57%) was among the
highest scores. Learner 8 scored highest in self-report of WTC (70%) and was high in
WTC in whole class and group work. In whole class interaction, together with learner
5, these two learners’ combined WTC behavior accounted for almost half (45%) of the par-
ticipation of the entire class. Yet in contrast to this very high participation in the whole
class setting, their participation in pair work (Learner 8) and group work (Learner 5)
was less active. Three other learners (Learners 1, 6 and 7) participated considerably less
in the whole class context than in the dyad and group contexts. Learner 1, in particular,
displayed extremely high involvement in pair work.

4.2. Factors perceived to influence WTC behavior

The third research question addressed learners’ perceptions of those factors which most
contributed to their WTC behavior in class. Based on interview data from seven learners,
four factors most commonly perceived by learners to impact on WTC behavior were
group size, self-confidence, familiarity with interlocutor(s) and interlocutor participation.
Table 4 presents all factors and the number of participants who noted each factor in the
interviews.

Table 4
Factors affecting WTC
Factors affecting WTC N/7
Group size 6
Self-confidence 5
Familiarity with interlocutor 4
Interlocutor participation 4
Degree of topic preparation 3
Cultural backgrounds 2
Medium of communication 1
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 487

Six learners reported that a small number of interlocutors in a communication context

was preferable, with the ideal number suggested being three or four. As Learner 4 com-
mented: ‘‘Group, three or four is good for me . . . some people talking [talk] [about], some
people listen, and then sometimes I’m helping, talking [about]. Sometimes [we] help each
other.’’
A lack of self-confidence was reported by five of the seven learners as reducing WTC, in
the whole class situation in particular. Corresponding to their reported lack of self-confi-
dence when speaking in class, participation in whole class interaction was comparatively
low. In contrast, Learners 5 and 8, whose whole class participation accounted for nearly
half of the participation of the entire class, reported generally being confident about speak-
ing in class.
Familiarity with interlocutor(s) was noted by four of the learners as affecting WTC. For
example, Learner 4 expressed a reluctance to communicate in all of the class contexts
because she considered her classmates as strangers and acquaintances, rather than people
she felt comfortable with. Learner 2 related that he was much more willing to communi-
cate in a pair with his friend (Learner 7) than in a dyad with a new learner (Learner 4).
This changed over the course; as he became more familiar with Learner 4, he was more
willing to talk to her. Hence, WTC with particular people may change over time, accord-
ing to the degree of familiarity with the interlocutor.
Interlocutor participation was also perceived as a factor contributing to WTC, as four
of the learners reported. For example, Learner 3 appreciated the performance of her inter-
locutor in pair work for her friendliness and the contribution of ideas in pair discussion.
Learner 4, however, showed dissatisfaction with the contribution from her group. She
commented, ‘‘This group work is not very good. We didn’t speak a lot, and also that
was not a good conversation. Everybody should say one point. Then the other people
should answer and say something about this point’’. Other factors included familiarity
with topics, perceived competence in the L2 and cultural influences regarding the appro-
priacy of participation in class.

5. Discussion

One focus of this study was the relationship between self-report of L2 WTC and WTC
behavior in classroom contexts. The mismatch between self-report of WTC and learners’
actual classroom behavior suggests that learners’ WTC behavior in each of the class con-
texts was influenced both by trait-level and state-level WTC. The self-report questionnaire
was not restricted to instructional settings, but also concerned general willingness to inter-
act with others in other aspects of daily life. As MacIntyre et al. (1999) point out, trait
WTC may bring an individual into situations in which communication is likely, but once
in a particular situation, in this case classroom interaction, state WTC could influence
whether communication actually takes place. Thus in this sense, state WTC appears to
be observed when a learner actually takes up an opportunity perceived as suitable to com-
municate within a particular situation. This distinction between trait-like WTC and situ-
ational WTC could account for the discrepancy between self-report WTC and WTC class
behavior among the majority of participants in the present study, where group size, inter-
locutor familiarity and interlocutor participation, among other factors, may have affected
behavior. These results are thus in keeping with the notion of situational WTC, as seen in
other research (Baker and MacIntyre, 2000; Kang, 2005). In particular, Kang proposed
488 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493

that situational WTC could dynamically emerge through the role of situational variables
such as topic, interlocutors and conversational context, and fluctuate moment-to-moment.
The inconsistency between self-report and behavior may also be attributed to the lar-
gely generic nature of the questionnaire, as classroom interaction, in which risk-taking
is endorsed, differs substantially from other contexts. Although items were added that
were specific to classroom interaction, greater consistency may have been found through
the use of an instrument uniquely specific to WTC in the classroom.
The discrepancy reported here between self-report and WTC behavior in class supports
MacIntyre et al.’s (2001) acknowledgement of the weakness of the self-report question-
naire as a reliable method for examining state WTC, because ‘‘thinking about communi-
cating in the L2 is different from actually doing it’’ (p. 377). The triangulation of data and
the inclusion of a qualitative approach may be essential to investigating the situated nature
of L2 WTC and situational variables affecting WTC.
Another focus of the study concerned the relationships between WTC behavior across
interactional contexts. It is likely that the finding of a trend for a weak correlation between
group work and pair work is related to number of participants. As Wen and Clement
(2003) claim, class size appears to be ‘‘part of the contextual factors embedded in group
cohesiveness’’ (p. 27). The whole class context, with a larger group of learners, lacks the
sense of cohesiveness that would presumably lend support to learners by making them feel
secure enough to speak. Additionally, in the class context, a sense of responsibility to com-
municate (Kang, 2005) is reduced.
A third focus concerned learners’ perceptions of factors contributing to their WTC in
class. Group size, familiarity with interlocutor(s) and interlocutor participation were most
commonly identified as factors contributing to or reducing WTC. Fewer rather than larger
numbers of interlocutors were preferred by the learners, supporting McCroskey and Rich-
mond’s (1991) claim that the larger the number of interlocutors, the less willing the indi-
vidual is to communicate. Also consistent with their study was learners’ reporting of
greater WTC in groups among friends than with unfamiliar classmates; this suggests that
the more distant the relationship of the individual to the receiver(s), the less willing the
individual is to communicate.
Based on the interview data, the interlocutor’s participation, particularly in dyadic
interaction, was perceived as a major factor influencing WTC. Dörnyei (2002) found that
the interlocutor’s motivational disposition was closely related to the individual’s speaking
interaction. The interlocutor effects served as a ‘pulling force’ to the extent that the speak-
ing interaction of an individual with a low task attitude would improve if he/she was
paired up with a more motivated peer. Therefore, if one talked more, his/her interlocutor
may also produce more speech ‘‘simply by reacting to complete adjacency pairs’’ (Dörnyei,
2002, p. 152). Similarly, it could be assumed that WTC behavior in pair work would be co-
constructed, with the interlocutor either pulling up or pulling down the speaker. However,
it was not possible to gauge the degree to which WTC actually differed according to part-
nership or participation of interlocutors as, for each pair or group session, participants
were randomly partnered; sometimes an individual had the same or different partners. This
is an area of further investigation for future research.
Self-confidence has been identified in previous studies as a combination of perceived
competence and a lack of anxiety (for example, Baker and MacIntyre, 2003; MacIntyre
et al., 2002, 2003). A majority of the learners in this study attributed their comparatively
low participation in the whole class to a lack of self-confidence. This supports findings by
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 489

Liu and Littlewood (1997) and Tsui (1996) that lack of confidence in spoken English could
result in reticence in class. Conversely, the two most active participants in the whole class
situation also reported being self-confident in that context. Dörnyei and Kormos (2000)
report that linguistic self-confidence exerted a considerably stronger impact among task-
motivated learners, therefore future research might investigate the interaction between
task, motivation and self-confidence.
Other factors identified as affecting learners’ WTC behavior in each of the classroom
contexts were topic familiarity and interest. MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 554) claimed that
topic familiarity significantly affects the ease of language use. Content knowledge and
familiarity with a certain register will result in a boost in one’s linguistic self-confidence,
while lack of knowledge about a topic and familiarity with the register may inhibit com-
munication. Kang (2005, p. 283) reported that learners tended to feel insecure about con-
versing on a topic about which they had little background knowledge. In this study, the
effect of topic was complex: One learner reported greater confidence as a result of prepa-
ration of the topic, while another reported a lack of motivation and willingness to partic-
ipate in the group as a result of advance preparation. Interest in the topic appears to be
vital. Kang suggests that particular topics may engender greater ‘‘responsibility’’ to
engage; that is, a felt need to understand and communicate a message because the topic
is of intrinsic or instrumental interest to the learner.

6. Limitations, implications and future research

An obvious limitation of the present study is the limited sample size; the data represent
a sample of just eight learners, over a span of four weeks of classroom interaction. Nev-
ertheless, this intact class provides a perspective on willingness to communicate in a lan-
guage classroom in an L2 context. The findings indicate that WTC may change in the
classroom across interactional contexts, and that trait WTC, as measured by self-report,
is not necessarily predictive of actual classroom behavior. Rather, WTC may be strength-
ened or weakened according to factors associated with the specific situation, related to
topic, interlocutor and the confidence of the learner relative to the task. These require fur-
ther investigation, with learners of differing proficiency levels.
An implication of these findings is the potential of the interactional context to encour-
age or discourage willingness to communicate among learners. The results of the study
demonstrated that learners behaved differentially according to the contexts and that pref-
erences were not uniform among learners: some were more willing to communicate in tea-
cher-fronted activities, others preferred small groups or pair work. This clearly supports
the practice of including different interactional contexts, particularly small group and dya-
dic interaction in addition to whole class interaction in instructional contexts. Learners in
this study primarily attributed differential WTC behavior to: group size; self-confidence in
communicative ability and interlocutor familiarity. As other researchers have noted,
teachers may encourage greater participation both by addressing factors such as learner
self-confidence and anxiety (Cheng, 2000; Tsui, 1996; Young, 1991) and through choosing
materials and topics likely to appeal to learners and to match interests and needs. The fact
that interlocutor familiarity was perceived to be a factor also points to the necessity of
considering group dynamics, and the need to foster good relationships between class mem-
bers. No single factor was perceived as responsible for WTC behavior in class. This under-
lines the importance of Kang’s (2005) recommendation that, in order to support WTC in
490 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493

classrooms, teachers need to be mindful of the interactions between factors when planning
learning activities, rather than focusing on one at the expense of others. Further explora-
tion of WTC with regard to these facilitating factors is warranted. This study focused on
the perceptions of the learners regarding factors impacting on WTC, yet future research,
with larger groups, might probe the extent to which these perceptions are observable in
behavior.
Methodologically, this study questions the usefulness of employing a generic question-
naire for WTC in an instructional context. Further research should focus on the develop-
ment of a separate L2 WTC classroom instrument; Weaver’s (2005) innovative WTC
survey covering different speaking and writing situations specific to an EFL (English as
a foreign language) classroom setting provides a possible model.
This study points to the usefulness of employing a combination of self-report, observa-
tion and reflective interview in identifying WTC within a specific context. Captured by a
triangulation of data, further research on situational WTC, particularly the antecedents of
WTC is important for its implications for pedagogy, for understandings of the construct of
WTC and for exploring the relationship between WTC and language learning.

Appendix 1. WTC questionnaire

DIRECTIONS: Below are 25 situations in which a person might choose to communi-

cate or not to communicate in English. Presume that you have completely free choice.
Please indicate the percentage of time you would choose to communicate in each type
of situation. Indicate in the space at the left what percent of time you would choose to
communicate. 0% = never, 100% = always.

– 1 Talk with an acquaintance in an elevator.

– 2 Talk with a stranger on the bus.
– 3 Speak in public to a group (about 30 people) of strangers.
– 4 Talk with an acquaintance while standing in line.
– 5 Talk with a salesperson in a store.
– 6 Volunteer an answer when the teacher asks a question in class.
– 7 Talk in a large meeting (about 10 people) of friends.
– 8 Talk to your teacher after class.
– 9 Ask a question in class.
– 10 Talk in a small group (about five people) of strangers.
– 11 Talk with a friend while standing in line.
– 12 Talk with a waiter/waitress in a restaurant.
– 13 Talk in a large meeting (about 10 people) of acquaintances.
– 14 Talk with a stranger while standing in line.
– 15 Present your own opinions in class.
– 16 Talk with a shop clerk.
– 17 Speak in public to a group (about 30 people) of friends.
– 18 Talk in a small group (about five people) of acquaintances.
– 19 Participate in group discussion in class.
– 20 Talk with a garbage collector.
– 21 Talk in a large meeting (about 10 people) of strangers.
– 22 Talk with a librarian.
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 491

Appendix 1 (continued)
– 23 Help others answer a question.
– 24 Talk in a small group (about five people) of friends.
– 25 Speak in public to a group (about 30 people) of acquaintances.

Appendix 2. Classroom observation scheme

WTC behavior categories (basis of tally chart for observation of individual students)
In the presence of the teacher

1. Volunteer an answer (including raising a hand).

2. Give an answer to the teacher’s question.
(a) Provide information – general solicit.
(b) Learner-responding.
(c) Non-public response.
3. Ask the teacher a question.
4. Guess the meaning of an unknown word.
5. Try out a difficult form in the target language (lexical/morphosyntactic).
6. Present own opinions in class.
7. Volunteer to participate in class activities.

Additional categories for pair and group work in the absence of the teacher

1. Guess the meaning of an unknown word.

2. Ask group member/partner a question.
3. Give an answer to the question.
4. Try out a difficult form in the target language (lexical/grammatical/syntactical).
5. Present own opinions in pair/group.

Appendix 3. Participant interview questions

Part I: general questions

1. How important is it for you to learn English?

2. How good are you at learning English?
3. What do you think your English level is like? What about your speaking skill in
particular?
4. How motivated were you during this language course?
5. How much did you like learning together with your classmates in this course?
6. How would you describe your personality (quiet or talkative, relaxed or tense)?
7. How competent do you think you were to communicate in English during this
course?
8. Did you feel very sure and relaxed in this class?
9. Did you feel confident when you were speaking English in class?
492 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493

10. Did it embarrass you to volunteer answers in class?

11. Did you feel that the other students speak English better than you did?
12. Were you afraid that other students would laugh at you when you were speaking
English?
13. Did you get nervous when your English teacher asked you a question?
14. Were you afraid that your English teacher was ready to correct every mistake you
made?
15. In what situation did you feel most comfortable (most willing) to communicate: in
pairs, in small groups, with the teacher in a whole class? Why?
Part II: stimulated recall questions

16. Did you like this task? Why? Why not?

17. How useful for your learning do you think this task was? Why? Why not?
18. Did you think you did this task well? Why? Why not?
19. Did you enjoy doing this task? Why? Why not?
20. Did you feel happy to work in this group/pair? What did you feel happy/not happy
with?
21. Comparing the two tasks you did, which task did you prefer? Why? Which group did
you prefer? Why?

Part III: individual questions

Ask individual learner to comment on their self-report WTC, behavior in group/pair

and whole class situations.

References

Asker, B., 1998. Student reticence and oral testing: a Hong Kong study of willingness to communicate.
Communication Research Reports 15 (2), 162–169.
Baker, S.C., MacIntyre, P.D., 2000. The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language
orientations. Language Learning 50 (2), 311–341.
Baker, S.C., MacIntyre, P.D., 2003. The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language
orientations. Language Learning 53 (1), 65–96.
Cheng, X., 2000. Asian students’ reticence revisited. System 28, 435–446.
Clément, R., Baker, S.C., MacIntyre, P.D., 2003. Willingness to communicate in a second language: the effect of
context, norms and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (2), 190–209.
Cortazzi, M., Jin, L., 1996. Cultures of learning: language classroom in China. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.), Society and
the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169–206.
Dörnyei, Z., 2002. The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In: Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual Differences
and Instructed Language Learning. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia, pp. 137–158.
Dörnyei, Z., Kormos, J., 2000. The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language
Teaching Research 4, 275–300.
Ely, C.M., 1986. An Analysis of discomfort, risk-taking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom.
Language Learning 36, 1–25.
Ferris, D., Tagg, T., 1996. Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: problems, suggestions, and
implications. TESOL Quarterly 30 (2), 297–320.
Gass, S., 2003. Input and interaction. In: Doughty, C., Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 224–255.
Gass, S.M., Mackey, A., 2000. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
 Y. Cao, J. Philp / System 34 (2006) 480–493 493

Hashimoto, Y., 2002. Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: the Japanese
ESL context. Second Language Studies 20 (2), 29–70 <http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/uhwpesl/on-linecat.html>.
House, A., 2004. Learner perceptions of willingness to communicate. Master Thesis, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Kang, S.J., 2005. Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System 33,
277–292.
Liu, N.F., Littlewood, W., 1997. Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning
discourse? System 25 (3), 371–384.
Long, M., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W., Bhatia, T.
(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 413–468.
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., Dörnyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a
L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82, 545–562.
MacIntyre, P.D., Babin, P.A., Clément, R., 1999. Willingness to communicate: antecedents & consequences.
Communication Quarterly 47 (2), 215–233.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., Conrod, S., 2001. Willingness to communicate, social support, and
language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 369–388.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., Donovan, L.A., 2002. Sex and age effects on willingness to
communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion
students. Language Learning 52 (3), 537–564.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., Donovan, L.A., 2003. Talking in order to learn: willingness to
communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern Language Review 59 (4), 589–607.
Mackey, A., in press. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics.
McCroskey, J.C., 1992. Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication
Quarterly 40 (1), 16–25.
McCroskey, J.C., Baer, J.E., 1985. Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper
Presented at the Speech Communication Association convention, Denver, CO.
McCroskey, J.C., McCroskey, L.L., 1986. Communication competence and willingness to communicate. Paper
Presented at the Speech Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL.
McCroskey, J.C., Richmond, V.P., 1991. Willingness to communicate: a cognitive view. In: Both-But-terfield, M.
(Ed.), Communication, Cognition and Anxiety. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 19–44.
Oxford, R., 1997. Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: three communicative strands in
the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 81 (4), 443–456.
Skehan, P., 1989. Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. Arnold, London.
Swain, M., 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G., Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.),
Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistic: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 125–144.
Tsui, A., 1996. Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In: Bailey, K., Nunan, D. (Eds.), Voices from
the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145–167.
Wajnryb, R., 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks: A Resource Book for Language Teachers and Trainers.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Weaver, C., 2005. Using the Rasch Model to develop a measure of second language learners’ willingness to
communicate within a language classroom. Journal of Applied Measurement 6 (4), 396–415.
Wen, W.P., Clement, R., 2003. A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language,
Culture and Curriculum 16 (1), 18–38.
Yashima, T., 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: the Japanese EFL context. The Modern
Language Journal 86, 54–66.
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 (1), 119–152.
Young, D.J., 1991. Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest?
Modern Language Journal 75 (4), 426–439.