Willingness to communicate: can

onlinechat help?
(Mark FreiermuthGunma Prefectural Women’s
University, Japan
Douglas Jarrell Nagoya Women’s University, Japan )

Presented By :
Rose Agustina(19070835009)
Ryan Febransyah
Khairatun Nisak
1 2
the experiences of small groups female Japanese university students

3 solve tasks
face-to-face settings using
4
onlinechat spokenlanguage.

5
using a counterbalanced research design

questionnaire an analysis of the discourse

online chatting provided a more comfortable environment

enhancing students’willingness to
communicate
 effective interaction
A lack of willingness
language production.

communicative
classroom The technology electronic online chat

willingness
female Japanese university
students’
propensity

The key element for successful interaction is willingness to

communicate
 Motivation
Gardner (1968, 1983, 1985), Gardner and L2 Research
Lambert (1959, 1972), and /or Gardner
and Tremblay (1994)
a learner’sidentity within a
particular culture

exploring motivational issues

Keller (1979, 1983) motivationas a matter of task

attractiveness – an intrinsic measure.

in any language-learning situation,

Crookes and Schmidt (1991)

opportunitiesto acquire language

Electronic online chat as the technology and examine some of the effects it has
oninterlocutors’ willingness to communicate.
 Willingness to communicate
self-confidence

willingness tocommunicate.
affiliation

language production
free of anxiety

learning potential
Elements that affect willingness to communicate

1
Feelings of power inequity

2
Intimacy level

3
Extent of background knowledge in common

4
Social distancebetween interlocutors.
The relevant of this the effect the communication channel has on
study willingness to communicate.
AIMS
The channel of a student’s willingness
communication to communicate

computer-mediated communication
tools The asynchronous type

Chat E-mail

Simultaneous participa-tion.

how willing these Japanese small groups

students solving tasks online

spoken conversation
groups.
 The General Aims of This Study

1) Which venue is preferred for task resolution?

2) Why is the selected venue preferred?
3) Which venue elicited more second language production?
4) Are there qualitative features in the discourse and from other
survey questions that could offer evidence that either online chat or
spoken conversation might stimulate a willingness to communicate?