Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 37 (2009) 269–285

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications forwillingness to communicate in an L2 classroom

Diane de Saint Leger a,1, Neomy Storch b,*

a French, Italian and Spanish Studies, School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australiab Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

Received 14 October 2008; received in revised form 15 December 2008; accepted 18 January 2009

Abstract

This paper investigates learners’ perceptions of their speaking abilities, of their contributions to oral class activities(whole class and small group discussions) as well as their attitudes towards these activities, and how such perceptionsand attitudes influenced the learners’ willingness to communicate in the L2. The study employed a range of data gatheringinstruments, but the main source of data came from self-assessment questionnaires. Thirty-two students of French (L2)participated in this semester long study. The self-assessment questionnaires asked students to reflect on their immediatelearning environment at various points in the semester and self assess their speaking skills. This study concludes thatthe students’ perception of the speaking activities and of themselves as learners in the foreign language classroom affectedtheir willingness to communicate in a range of ways. In general, as learners’ self-confidence increased over time, so did theirwillingness to use the L2 in class. However, the learners’ desire to communicate with peers in small groups was not uniformand was affected by affiliation motives.� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-assessment; Willingness to communicate; Self-confidence; Anxiety; Classroom interaction; Situated learning; Affiliationmotives

1. Introduction

The current communicative approaches to second language (L2) instruction emphasize the importance oflearners using the L2 in oral and written tasks. These approaches to instruction are based on the premise thatlearners’ competence in the L2 is developed via performance and are supported by the dominant theories ofsecond language acquisition (e.g., Long, 1996; Swain, 2000). This focus on the active use of the L2 in the lan-guage classroom has led to the emergence of an important construct in the field of L2 instruction: willingnessto communicate (WTC).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 8344 5208.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. de Saint Leger), [email protected] (N. Storch).

1 Tel.: +61 3 8344 6986.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

270 D. de Saint Leger, N. Storch / System 37 (2009) 269–285

Willingness to communicate is defined as a learner’s ‘‘readiness to enter into discourse at a particular timewith a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). As Dornyei (2003) points out,competence in the L2 may not be enough. Learners need to be not only able to communicate but also willingto communicate in the L2. Research has shown that a learner’s WTC influences how frequently the learneractively engages in communicating in the L2 (Clement et al., 2003; Yashima et al., 2004). Thus MacIntyreet al. (1998) propose that WTC in L2 should be conceptualised as the primary goal of language instructionand as a comprehensive conceptual framework to describe, explain and predict L2 communication behaviour.

Early models of WTC (e.g., MacIntyre, 1994) depicted WTC as being predicted by two variables: perceivedcommunication competence and communication anxiety. That is, the model predicted that high levels of per-ceived competence combined with low levels of anxiety would lead to greater WTC and in turn more frequentcommunication in the L2. In 1998, MacIntyre et al. proposed a multi-layered pyramid model of WTC. Themodel differentiates between stable enduring influences (such as personality traits) and situation specific influ-ences informing communication behaviour (e.g., desire to communicate with a specific person). Informed bythe communication literature on willingness to communicate in the L1, the authors suggest that WTC dependson a range of factors such as the degree of acquaintance between communicators, the number of people pres-ent, the formality of the situation, and the topic of discussion.

In a more recent discussion of the model, MacIntyre (2007) emphasizes the complexity of the WTC con-struct, and the need to clearly define the variables investigated. For example, communication anxiety can oper-ate at the individual level (i.e., an anxious person), or be triggered by the situational contexts (e.g., thelanguage class) or by a particular event. The distinction is important not only in terms of measuring andunderstanding how these variables affect WTC but also in terms of pedagogical intervention. Anxiety triggeredby situational factors is more likely to fluctuate over time and is perhaps more amenable to instructional inter-vention. Furthermore, MacIntyre calls on researchers to use methodologies which can capture the dynamicnature of this construct.

Studies on WTC, like early studies investigating learners’ motivation to study a L2, have tended to rely ondata collected at one point of time, often collected via a single instrument, and to consider only quantitativefindings. For example, the large scale cross-sectional study by MacIntyre et al. (2002), which investigated theeffects of age and gender on WTC, used a questionnaire which asked the participants to rate themselves oneight scales. This questionnaire was administered to the participants only once.

More recent studies have attempted to address this gap in research on WTC by collecting data from a rangeof sources and over a period of time. For example, the study by Cao and Philp (2006) used a number of datacollection tools: student questionnaires (self reports on trait level variables), eight classroom recordings andobservations (over one month), and interviews with individual learners conducted at the end of the studyto elicit information about situational variables. However, the small scale nature of the study (n = 8) pre-cluded the researchers from providing clear correlations between the learner reported individual and situa-tional factors and observed classroom behaviour. The four factors which were most frequently mentionedby the participants as affecting WTC included group size, self-confidence, and familiarity with the interlocu-tors. These findings supported the findings reported by another small scale study conducted by Kang (2005).

Kang (2005) used a similar range of data collection tools but the number of participants was even smaller(n = 4). Kang identified three variables that contributed to the participants’ WTC: security, excitement, and asense of responsibility. Each of these variables was further affected by factors such as topic, interlocutor andconversational context. The notion of security is perhaps similar to that of anxiety and was shaped by relativefamiliarity among the interlocutors, the size of the group, and the L2 fluency of fellow learners. All the par-ticipants reported that they felt less secure and hence less willing to communicate when they perceived othergroup members to be more fluent than they were. Thus relative L2 proficiency in relation to other learners’perceived proficiency was identified as an important factor in WTC. Other factors affecting feelings of securityor confidence included topic familiarity and interest. A greater level of familiarity and interest in the topic low-ered feelings of insecurity or raised excitement and hence learners expressed a greater WTC. Although thestudy led to a proposed preliminary model of situational WTC in L2, the model is static. It is not clear whetherlearners’ perception of these situational variables changed over the course of the semester.

Another interesting finding in Kang’s study relates to the learners’ attitudes to working in groups with fel-low L1 (Korean) speakers. This is particularly pertinent, given the emphasis on small group work advocated

D. de Saint Leger, N. Storch / System 37 (2009) 269–285 271

by communicative approaches to L2 instruction. Kang reports that learners commented about their reluctanceto speak in the L2 in groups composed of fellow L1 speakers. One participant commented about this ‘unnat-ural’ situation: ‘‘I feel like I’m wearing a mask” (p. 284).

The importance of learners’ attitudes towards classroom tasks and activities has been highlighted in recentresearch and theoretical discussions on second language learning motivation. For example, whereas earliermodels of motivation focused on forces operating at the macro level (e.g., integrative or instrumental orien-tation); the more recent process model (Dornyei and Otto, 1998) focuses on situation specific forces which canbetter explain learner behaviour observed in the classroom. The study conducted by Dornyei and Kormos(2002) in British and Hungarian classes found that students’ engagement in classroom oral activities (mea-sured by number of words and turns) correlated significantly with attitudes towards the language tasks theywere asked to perform.

Learners’ attitude to classroom activities is also emphasized by researchers working from a socioculturaltheoretical perspective. From this perspective, learners are viewed as active agents (Lantolf and Thorne,2006) who assign relevance and significance to things and events in their life. This notion of learners as activeagents in their learning is particularly apt when investigating adult classroom contexts. Such learners oftendisplay a wide range of learning goals, expectations and abilities.

To summarise, recent theoretical discussions of the construct WTC have emphasized the need to collectdata that capture the dynamic nature of this construct. However, research to date, which has attempted todo so, has tended to be small scale, and although data were collected over a period of time, there is very littlemention of whether students’ perceptions changed over time. Furthermore, although attitudes to the tasks stu-dents are asked to perform have been noted as an important consideration in explaining students’ willingnessto actively contribute to the task, there has been relatively little classroom-based research on learners’ attitudetowards such tasks.

Thus the current study set out to investigate learners’ perceptions of their speaking abilities and contribu-tions as well as their attitudes towards the classroom speaking activities employed in the class. In order tocapture the students’ perceptions and any changes in these perceptions over time, we used a series of self-assessment questionnaires administered over the semester.

The research questions guiding this study were:

1. What were the learners’ perceptions regarding their speaking abilities and did these perceptions change overtime?

2. What were the learners’ perceptions of their participation over the course of the semester?3. What were the learners’ attitudes to the whole class and small group discussions?

2. The study

The study was part of a larger research project which was conducted at an Australian university, in FrenchIII, a third-year language subject. French III is the most advanced subject available at the undergraduate level.Thus students entering French III are typically those who had been learning French for eight years: six years atsecondary schools and two years at university. The subject is one semester (12 weeks) long and consists ofthree contact hours per week divided into two sessions (a 1 h session followed by a 2 h session later in theweek). Enrolments in French III generally range from 90 to 120. Ninety students were enrolled in FrenchIII in the year the study was conducted. They formed five class groups taught by three teachers, includingone of the researchers.

Students in French III classes are taught entirely in French. Class activities are based on themes (e.g., iden-tity and stereotypes; cross-cultural communication) which are explored through two novels that learners arerequired to read and through text and non-text materials (e.g., television shows and blogs). The teachers(native speakers) attempt to link the selected theme with the learners’ own knowledge of the world wheneverpossible, to ensure relevance and engagement with topics and tasks.

Typically, learners are expected to read (e.g., a few pages of the novel and a journal article) and/or completea task for homework. In class, which range in size from 12 to 25 (depending on enrolments and time table


constraints) students work in groups of three or four to discuss matters arising from the text or task, includinglinguistic difficulties, interesting topical issues etc. Findings are then reported to other class members in awhole class discussion. As the class discussion unfolds, the teacher facilitates the exchange of ideas and opin-ions by providing learners with the linguistic tools necessary to sustain the discussion (i.e., adequate vocabu-lary and sentence construction).

Assessment is based on a number of tasks. Oral tasks contribute to 45% of the grade. The assessment tasksinclude two tasks which involve some prior preparation: a formal, researched pair presentation (25%) and twogroup debates (10%) on a topic related to the themes covered in the class. The remaining 10% is allocated toclass participation. Class participation was defined to students as ‘‘your level of input in French in class discus-

sion, small group discussions and other class interaction regardless of your proficiency level in French”. In otherwords, the emphasis is on fluency not on accuracy.

Self-assessment (SA) was introduced in French III not as an alternative form of assessment but as a meansof encouraging learners to become more reflective and autonomous learners. As Boud (1995) and Oscarson(1989), among others, argue self-assessment is a valuable pedagogical activity per se. In this context it wasintroduced in order to encourage learners to reflect on their own contributions to oral class activities, identifytheir strengths and weaknesses in relation to their oral proficiency and set goals accordingly for the semester.The reasons for introducing SA questionnaires were communicated to the students at the beginning of thesemester. Learners were asked to complete three SA questionnaires in class: in weeks 4, 6, and 12.

Upon completion of the week 4 self-assessment, learners were provided with collective feedback based ondata gathered from one randomly selected group (out of the five groups enrolled in that year), which high-lighted trends for that particular group expressed in percentage and frequencies. A range of learner comments,personal goals and specific action in relation to goals were also selected and reproduced anonymously, so stu-dents could reflect on the appropriateness of their own goals and strategies in relation to that of others. Indi-vidual feedback from the class teacher was provided to students on the week 6 SA.

The SA questionnaires contained a combination of multiple choice items, self-rating scales and open-endedquestions. Numerical scales ranking from 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) were employed to assess students’ per-ceptions of their oral proficiency and class participation. A number of the questions were trialled with twoteachers prior to their inclusion in the final versions of the SA questionnaires.

The week 4 SA questionnaire was the longest. It required the students to focus on the perceived strengthsand weaknesses of their oral skills, and to identify the type of class interaction they found most difficult (i.e.,whole versus small group interaction and pair work), and rate their current level of involvement in class inter-action (see Appendix 1). A number of items were adapted from a multiple choice questionnaire (Phillips, 2000cited in Brown, 2004). These items required students to reflect on their class participation: current and poten-tial future participation. Positive statements such as ‘I cooperate with my group members’, ‘I clarify commentsmade by someone else’, ‘I use new vocabulary’ were included, to which learners were prompted to respond byselecting either ‘yes’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘no/not yet’.

The week 6 questionnaire focused more specifically on one task: the debate. It was also used to provideindividual feedback to the learners. The final SA questionnaire administered in week 12 (see Appendix 2)was similar to the week 4 questionnaire but also asked students to comment on their progress during thesemester.

3. Data

There were several sources of data used in this study. The main source of data for this study was informa-tion gathered from the SA questionnaires administered in weeks 4 and 12. The week 6 questionnaire, whichfocused mainly on the debate task, was omitted from this study. To limit the data set, it was decided to use SAquestionnaires from two randomly selected class groups. These class groups (one group of 20 and another of12 students) were not taught by the researcher and were fairly representative of the entire cohort enrolled inFrench III. They were 20–25 years old and of similar socio-economic background. All were native speakers ofEnglish.

The other sources of data included a subject evaluation questionnaire completed anonymously by allenrolled students (this is a university requirement), focus group interviews conducted at the end of the


semester, and the teacher’s assessment (out of 10) on class participation allocated in week 12. Focusgroup interviews took place in week 12. Email invitations were sent to all French III students and twelvestudents (five males and seven females) volunteered to participate. All interviews were conducted in Englishexcept for one which was conducted in French. Focus group size varied from one to four students, depend-ing on the availability of both the researcher and the students. The duration of the interviews was approx-imately 30 minutes. Interviews were semi-structured. Questions focused on the students’ perception of theself-assessment process as well as on recurrent themes that emerged from the three SA questionnaires(Appendix 3).

4. Data analysis

Data from the self-assessment questionnaires were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.

4.1. Quantitative analysis

The following items in the weeks 4 and 12 SA questionnaires were rendered, respectively, as fluency, pro-nunciation, turn taking and vocabulary.

Fluency: ‘‘How hard is it for you to express yourself fluently, with little hesitation and pauses?”

Pronunciation: ‘‘How hard is for you to talk in a clear and understandable manner?”Turn taking: ‘‘How hard is it for you to take turn in a discussion?”

Vocabulary: ‘‘How often do you think you don’t know enough French words to say what you want to sayconcisely and adequately?”

To address research question 1 (n = 29, see below), frequencies and percentages were calculated for theabove items in weeks 4 and 12, respectively. Ordinal scales were used in the questionnaires and normal distri-bution of the data was not assumed, so the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, a non-parametric sta-tistical test for differences between paired observations, was employed. The five point nominal scale used forfluency, pronunciation and turn taking abilities was converted to an ordinal scale (from 5 ‘‘very hard” to 1‘‘very easy”). The same was applied to the learners’ difficulty with the vocabulary but with a three point scale(from 3 ‘‘almost always” to 1 ‘‘not very often”).

To address research question 2 (n = 27, see below), the same statistical procedure as per research question 1was applied to weeks 4 and 12 class participation SA. Correlations between self-assessment and teacher assess-ment of class participation were also calculated using Spearman’s q for rank order data.

Three participants were absent from class in week 12 and thus, to ensure comparability, their data wasremoved from week 4 data base as well (n = 29) when addressing research question 1. Another two studentsdid not complete the section in the week 12 SA that dealt with class participation, so their data for this sectionwas also removed from week 4 to address research question 2 (n = 27).

4.2. Qualitative analysis (n = 32 unless otherwise stated)

Responses to open-ended items and to questions in the focus group interviews were grouped accordingto recurrent themes. Provided that at least two comments focused on a similar aspect, a category was cre-ated. Learners were able to comment on more than one aspect of their learning and to make more thanone comment on each aspect, thus more answers than the total number of students are provided in somesections.

In addressing the first research question, the data used were the learners’ self ratings and comments onperceived strengths and weaknesses. Perceived weaknesses in relation to oral proficiency were categorisedunder the following headings: (1) vocabulary, (2) grammar, (3) online production/fluency, (4) anxiety, (5)pronunciation, and (6) L1 use. Comments categorised in ‘online production/fluency’ incorporated elementsof grammar and vocabulary, but unlike the vocabulary or grammar categories, the emphasis was on thecommunicative process such as suggested in the following comments ‘long time to produce a sentence’ or‘linking my ideas and introducing my thoughts succinctly’. Furthermore, anxiety – expressed with words


such as ‘fear’, ‘hesitations’ or ‘lack of confidence’ – was often in relation to other linguistic elements suchas pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Such comments were counted twice, once in the relevant linguis-tic category and once in the socioaffective category. For instance, comments such as ‘lack of confidence touse less familiar words spontaneously’ were, respectively, counted under vocabulary and under the socioaf-fective category. Perceived strengths were categorised into six categories: (1) positive attitude/confidence, (2)grammatical knowledge, (3) pronunciation/accent, (4) oral comprehension, (5) vocabulary, and (6) don’tknow.

Learners’ attitudes to the classroom oral activities, specifically whole class discussion and group work, wereelicited via the questionnaire and the interviews. Comments made were grouped and representative commentsidentified.

5. Findings

5.1. Perceived speaking abilities

The learners’ perceived oral abilities in weeks 4 and 12 are presented in Table 1. As Table 1 shows, fluencywas the greatest source of difficulty in weeks 4 and 12 (with 27.6% and 24.1% of respondents in weeks 4 and 12,respectively, identifying fluency as ‘hard’). This was followed, but to a lesser extent, with concerns about turntaking and pronunciation.

Vocabulary was clearly an area of concern, particularly at the beginning of the semester. Well over half ofthe students (see Table 2) declared having difficulty with the vocabulary ‘often’ (51.7%) or almost always(10.3%) on the SA questionnaires in week 4. In contrast, by the end of the semester, although vocabularyknowledge was still often an issue (37.9% had difficulty with vocabulary ‘often’ and 6.9% ‘almost always’),over half the students (55.1%) no longer perceived vocabulary as a major concern.

Data elicited via responses to questions on perceived weaknesses and strengths further support the findingsthat at the beginning of the course (week 4) the students identified vocabulary, fluency, and lack of confidence

Table 1Self assessed difficulty with fluency, pronunciation and turn taking in class interaction in weeks 4 and 12 (n = 29).

Week 4 (n = 29) Week 12 (n = 29)

Frequency % Frequency %

Fluency*

Very hard 1 3.4 0 0Hard 8 27.6 7 24.1Ok 8 27.6 7 24.1Easy 10 34.5 14 48.3Very easy 2 6.9 1 3. 4

Pronunciation**

Very hard 0 0 0 0Hard 5 17.2 3 10.3Ok 8 27.6 9 31Easy 13 44.8 11 37.9Very easy 3 10.3 6 20.7

Turn taking***

Very hard 0 0 1 3.4Hard 6 20.7 5 17.2Ok 9 31 8 27.6Easy 12 41.4 12 41.4Very easy 2 6.9 3 10.3

* Difficulty to express oneself fluently, with little hesitation and pauses.** Difficulty to talk in a clear and easily understandable manner.*** Difficulty to take turn in a discussion.

Table 2Weeks 4 and 12 self-assessment, difficulty with vocabulary (n = 29).

Week 4 (n = 29) Week 12 (n = 29)


Vocabulary

Almost always 3 10.3 2 6.9Often 15 51.7 11 37.9Not very often 11 37.9 16 55.1

Table 3Week 4 self-assessment: learners’ perceived weaknesses in oral proficiency (n = 32).

Perceived weaknesses Frequency Sample comments

Vocabulary 13 ‘Limited vocab’; ‘lack of confidence to use less familiar words spontaneously’; ‘basicvocab’

Online production of language/fluency

8 ‘Phrasing in a way that allows me to take into account the vocab I know’; ‘long time toproduce a sentence’; ‘not knowing how to elaborate on a point’; ‘introducing mythoughts succinctly’; ‘speaking coherently and clearly’

Anxiety (hesitation, fear, andlack of confidence)

8 ‘My hesitation, fear of pronouncing things incorrectly’; ‘more confidence in myparticipation’; ‘lack of confidence to use less familiar words spontaneously’

Grammar 4 ‘Grammar, especially conjugation and gender’; ‘conjugation’; ‘worrying about gettingthe grammar right’

Pronunciation 4 ‘Pronunciation’; ‘accent’Use of English 1 ‘Speaking to classmates in English’

Note: Students could provide more than one answer (open-ended question).

Table 4Week 4 self-assessment: learners’ perceived strengths in their oral proficiency (n = 32).

Perceived strengths Frequency Sample comments

Positive attitude/confidence

10 ‘Willing to try’; ‘not be afraid of making mistakes’; ‘I enjoy sharing my opinion even if itchallenges my skills or comfort level’; ‘confident speaker’

Grammaticalknowledge

7 ‘Able to produce a structured coherent answer with relative ease’; ‘grammar’

Pronunciation/accent

6 ‘Easy to understand and try hard to pronounce words with a French accent’; ‘pronunciation’

Oral comprehension 2 ‘Oral comprehension’; ‘listening’Vocabulary 2 ‘Good knowledge of vocabulary’; ‘know basic vocabulary’Don’t know 5 ‘Not sure’; ‘?’

Note: Students could provide more than one answer (open-ended question).


as of most concern in oral interaction (Table 3). Table 3 also shows the kind of comments that were madein response to this question. Interestingly, only four students identified grammar or pronunciation asproblematic.

In contrast, when asked about their perceived strengths in relation to their oral proficiency (Table 4),positive attitude and/or confidence were most frequently cited (10 students). Grammatical knowledge andpronunciation/accent followed, with seven and six students, respectively. It is interesting to note that out ofthe 10 students claiming a positive attitude and/or confidence as their strength, seven did not report feelinganxious during any oral activity. Similarly five out of the six students claiming pronunciation accuracy as astrength, did not report feeling anxious either. On the contrary, six out of the seven grammatically orientedstudents were prone to anxiety during oral interaction. All students reported on their weaknesses, but five stu-dents did not report on their strength.


Although no significant difference (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, p > 0.5) was found betweenthe weeks 4 and 12 self ratings of fluency, pronunciation and turn taking, learners’ perception of their linguis-tic abilities evolved in a positive direction over the semester (Table 1). In particular, more students found iteasy or very easy to express themselves fluently (a combined 51.7% of students in week 12, as opposed to41.4% in week 4), suggesting that the confidence level of most students increased. By week 12, pronunciationwas the skill perceived as easy or very easy by a combined figure of 58.6%.

5.2. Perceived levels of participation in class activities

As indicated by the means and the standard deviation of weeks 4 and 12 self ratings of class participation(Table 5 and Figs. 1 and 2), learners’ perception of their level of participation in class discussion also increased

Table 5Weeks 4 and 12 self-assessments, self rating of class participation (means and standard deviation, n = 27).

Mean Standard deviation

Week 4 self rating of class participation (out of 10 points) 6.4 1.9Week 12 self rating of class participation (out of 10 points) 7.1 1.8Week 12 teacher rating of class participation (out of 10 points) 8 1.1

Fig. 1. Week 4 self rating of class participation (n = 27).

Fig. 2. Week 12 self rating of class participation (n = 27).

Table 6Spearman’s q correlation of week 12 teacher’s grade with weeks 4 and 12 students’ SA on class participation (n = 27).

Week 4 self rating of classparticipation

Week 12 Self rating of classparticipation

Week 12 Class participation,teacher’s grade

Week 4 self rating of classparticipation

CorrelationCoefficient

1.000 .703** .383*

Sig. (two-tailed)

.000 .049

n 27 27 27Week 12 self rating of class

participationCorrelationcoefficient

.703** 1.000 .520**

Sig. (two-tailed)

.000 .005

n 27 27 27Week 12 class participation,

teacher’s gradeCorrelationcoefficient

.383* .520** 1.000

Sig. (two-tailed)

.049 .005

n 27 27 27

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).


and a significant difference was found between the weeks 4 and 12 self ratings of class participation (Wilcoxonmatched-paired signed-ranks test, Z = �2.397, p < .05). It is also interesting to note that learners consistentlyrated themselves lower than the teacher as indicated by the means and standard deviation.

Nonetheless, as suggested in Table 6 above, learners were more able to assess their own class participationaccurately in week 12 than at the onset. A weak correlation was found for the week 4 SA and the teacher’sassessment (p = 0.05, q = .38), whilst a moderate positive relationship was found between the week 12 SAand the teacher’s grade (p = 0.01, q = .52).

Furthermore, in the week 12 SA questionnaire, 20 out of the 24 students who completed this sec-tion (83.3%), declared having made some progress over the semester (Table 7). Areas of linguistic improve-ment (Table 8) were mainly in vocabulary (10 students), fluency (10 students) and confidence (ninestudents). Interestingly, these were the areas that were identified as causing the most concern to studentsin week 4.

5.3. Attitudes to class activities

As mentioned earlier, whole class discussion and small group work constituted the main types of speakingactivities used in the class. Thus students’ attitudes towards these two activities were analysed in detail.

5.3.1. Whole class discussion

Data from the week 4 SA questionnaires indicated that the whole class discussion was perceived as the mostdifficult by the students. In the first SA questionnaire, 59.4% identified such discussions as the most difficultoral activity (Table 9).

The most common reason provided in the open-ended questions for this attitude was intimidation experi-enced when having to speak in front of other students. Of the total number of students who answered thisquestion (n = 27), the majority (26) were concerned with the potential risk of being judged negatively by theirpeers. The learners perceived themselves less competent and less knowledgeable than some of their more pro-ficient peers and thus they felt vulnerable when expressing an opinion in front of the whole class. Whole classdiscussion was primarily perceived as an activity where students publicly displayed their level of skills andknowledge and thus they felt threatened by the process. As a consequence, students worried about the linguis-tic accuracy and the pertinence of their input and tended to hold back in class discussion. Comments such as‘‘I am afraid to speak up in case people don’t like my ideas”, or ‘‘I didn’t know how to put my ideas into an

Table 7Week 12 self-assessment of progress in oral proficiency during the semester (n = 24*).

Frequency Percent

Yes 20 83.3No 1 4.1Don’t know 3 12.5Total 24 100

* This section was not completed by all learners.

Table 8Week 12 self-assessment of aspects that had improved (n = 24*).

Frequency

Vocabulary 10Fluency 10Confidence 9Pronunciation 3Listening comprehension 3

* This section was not completed by all learners.

Table 9Week 4 self-assessment: perceived difficulty of oral activities (n = 32).

No. of students who expressed this opinion

Frequency Percentage

No activity is particularly difficult for me 5 15.6Whole group discussion 19 59.4Pair work 1 3.1Other 1 3.1No answer provided 6 18.8


interesting phrase that the others wouldn’t find boring”, or ‘‘I often hold back and often worry about whethermy comments are relevant, insightful or impressive enough” (emphasis added), were common. A small numberof students were also concerned with participating too much and declared to hold back so as not to dominatethe discussion.

Learners also commented that the high level of on-line processing when required to ‘think on the spot’ inorder to contribute to class discussion, impeded at times participation. However, it is not clear whether it wasthe pace of the discussion that was most problematic or the fact that students hesitated to contribute theirideas and that by the time they did so (that is by the time they ‘built up the courage’ to do so), it was too lateeither because someone else spoke first or because the conversation had moved on.

Strong peer pressure was also a recurrent theme in the interviews, and had many facets. The moreproficient speakers were described as dominating the class discussion, they spoke more confidently andhad the ability to ‘sound impressive’ because they used ‘all these little words’ (i.e., fillers and idiomaticexpressions) that other students hadn’t mastered. As a consequence there were instances where students feltthat they could not participate because they did not always understand the language of the more proficientpeer.

Most students noticed the difference in proficiency level, and suggested that the less proficient speakers feltintimidated and ‘less qualified’ to jump into a discussion as a result. As suggested by Stephen in the interview:

It’s not that they dominate the class discussion but they feel more confident so they speak more and as aconsequence you feel less confident. . .it’s not that we feel judged by them, it’s just that you can’t helpcomparing your level with others.

Table 10Week 12 self-assessment: learners’ perception of class activities (n = 29).

Difficulty to participate in class discussion Difficulty to participate in small group discussion


Very hard 1 3.4 0 0Hard 9 31 0 0Ok 4 13.8 4 13.8Easy 11 37.9 13 44.8Very easy 4 13.8 12 41.4


In week 12, whole class discussion was still perceived the most difficult type of interaction. About a third(34%) of the students found this activity ‘hard’ or ‘very hard’ as opposed to none for group work (see Table10).

5.3.2. Small group discussionDespite the fact that group work was perceived as easier than whole class discussion, comments volunteered

by students on the SA questionnaire suggest that their attitudes towards this activity were not straightforward.Difficulties encountered in small group interaction were varied. The lack of vocabulary or linguistic knowl-edge, the unwillingness of some participants to speak in the L2 or to remain focused on the task, and the lackof preparation of some group members were all mentioned as hindrances to small group discussion. The per-ceived lack of authenticity of small group discussion was noted by one student who commented that ‘it is hardto keep speaking in French when there is no natural born French speaker there to help’. This could partlyexplain the unwillingness of some students to interact in the L2 with their peers.

The learners’ perception of small group discussion was also mixed in the interviews. Some students feltmore vocal in small groups than in whole class discussion. They perceived group work as an opportunityto speak more, as Caroline and Tess suggested:

Small group discussions give you a little more scope to try things out and to let go a bit, when I speakwith my friends if we don’t know the words we would just say that word in English and keep going, Iwould never do that in whole class discussion, I wouldn’t feel that I could (Caroline).I have no one else to talk to [in French] so I enjoy SGD, people weren’t judgmental, I learned from otherstudents and was impressed in how proficient everyone was (Tess).

Others perceived small group work as a real challenge because it seemed odd to interact with fellow stu-dents in a language other than their L1 and that it lacked the authenticity and the naturalness required forspontaneous verbal exchange. Interacting in French among themselves was described by learners as ‘preten-tious’, ‘unauthentic’, ‘a little embarrassing’ because they were used to speaking English with classmates, and‘awkward’. Arushi suggested that:

Small group discussion doesn’t work, students always revert back to English, no matter how sincerelyyou try. I don’t know if it’s too embarrassing or just too awkward when you’ve got this relationship justas another uni student and suddenly now you are talking in French, it is a bit weird. I think I got themost out of big class discussion, you’ve got a different relationship with the teacher, I would not mindto talk with a group of teachers in French, it’s different to your friends where suddenly you talk to themin a different language, or if it is a complete stranger, that might work then, or at the beginning of thesemester when you don’t know anyone.

The notion of authenticity is recurrent and many students emphasized the importance of having a nativespeaker participating in the exchange (i.e., the teacher). John’s rather strong statement illustrates this pointclearly, as evident in the following excerpt:

John: it’s nice to have the teacher involved in the conversation. . .I don’t know how it works but it makesyou speak better French, you know, you’re in a sort of a mirror in a way, but when you speak with peo-ple that you don’t have respect for, like their proficiency in the language, it doesn’t instil the same effort


in me, I don’t feel the need to really try and speak the way I’m thinking, you want to match the exampleof the teacher, strive for their pronunciation.

5.3.3. Researcher: but they are native. . .

John: I know but I’ve never got much from speaking French with non-native speakers, I find it reallyannoying.

6. Discussion and conclusion

At the beginning of the semester learners reported that along with anxiety, vocabulary and fluency were themost difficult aspects of oral interaction. Confidence was further eroded in whole class discussions where thelearners felt ‘exposed’ and perceived the classroom environment as competitive and threatening. These find-ings are in line with other studies reporting competitiveness between learners, fear of high-exposure and riskto self-esteem as factors affecting L2 anxiety in the classroom (e.g., Donato and McCormic, 1994; Young,1990). Anxiety may have also been raised because a whole class discussions activity is a cognitively demandingtask. In whole class discussions, students need to simultaneously listen to and process the input of a number ofparticipants as well as formulate their contributions. All these processes operate in real time. A number ofstudies on L2 anxiety suggest that a high level of anxiety is associated with low class participation and lowmotivation (e.g., Clement et al., 1994). In brief, an environment generating such high anxiety is unlikely tobe conducive to WTC nor indeed to learning.

However, although learners continued to perceive whole class discussion as the most difficult type of inter-action, by the end of week 12, learners reported improvement in fluency and vocabulary and self-confidenceand thus over time they reported to be more willing to contribute to this activity. Over time, learners werealso able to assess their class participation more accurately. Other studies (see studies reviewed in Oscarson,1997) have suggested that with increasing L2 proficiency, L2 learners become more accurate in their apprais-als of their own linguistic ability. However, it may also be that (1) the SA process enabled learners to becomemore aware of their participation level in class and to monitor their participation accordingly and (2) aslearners’ anxiety decreased, their ability to assess themselves more accurately increased. This major shift inthe learners’ perception of themselves and of the environment suggests that self-perception is a fluctuatingand socially situated variable closely related to the learners’ perception of the learning environment (Ushioda,2003).

Small group discussions are often seen as a means of reducing learners’ performance anxiety, and providinggreater opportunities for communicative interactions. Yet research by Cao and Philp (2006) suggests that notall learners prefer small group work to whole class discussion. In this study too, the learners’ desire to com-municate with peers in the L2 in small groups was not uniform. Some learners reported that they enjoyedspeaking French with their peers in small group discussion, as it brought a more relaxed and informal kindof interaction, whilst others felt that it was ‘awkward’ and artificial. Data suggest that affiliation motives,described in MacIntyre et al. (1998) as interest in establishing a relationship with the interlocutor, play animportant role in learners’ inclination or disinclination to speak in the L2. When the learners’ main affiliationmotive was to establish a rapport with the French speaking community (intergroup affiliation), interacting inthe L2 with their English speaking peers is likely to be deemed as artificial and contrived. Thus despite com-monly accepted pedagogical practices, the learners’ desire to communicate in the L2 in small group activitiesmay not be easily achieved because strong intergroup affiliation may deter students from using the L2 in smallgroup discussions. Interestingly, affiliation orientations seemed to be less relevant in the whole class than insmall group discussions.

The findings highlight the complex and dynamic nature of the interplay between self-confidence, anxietyand perception of the learning environment. Based on the findings, it is argued that both cognitive and affec-tive variables are socially grounded and cannot be dissociated from the social setting in which learning takesplace.


Appendix

Section 1. Class participation

Please fill-out this section by checking the appropriate box:

Yes, definitely (Y) sometimes (S) no/ not yet (N)

A. class attendance Y S N

I come to class

I come to class on time

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

B. I ask questions in class

I ask the teacher questions

I ask my classmates questions

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

C. I answer questions in class

I answer questions that the teacher asks

I answer questions that my classmates ask

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

D. I participate in group-work

I offer my opinion

I cooperate with my group members

I communicate in French with my group members

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

E. I participate in pair-work

I offer my opinion

I cooperate with my partner

I communicate in French with my partner

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

F. I participate in whole class discussion Y S N

I make comments

I ask questions

I answer questions

I respond to other comments made by my classmates

I clarify comments made by someone else

I use new vocabulary

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix 1: Week 4 self-assesment questionnaire

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

Section 3:

Rate your speaking skill according to the following criteria:

a. How hard is it for you to express yourself fluently, with little hesitation and pauses?

Very hard hard OK easy very easy

b. How hard is it for you to talk in a clear and easily understandable manner?


c. How hard is it for you to take turn in a discussion?


Section 2: a. Out of the following activities, is there any that you found particularly difficult to handle?

If yes, indicate which one(s) by ticking the items below. Briefly explain your answer.

Whole group discussion

Small group discussion

Pair work

Other (please specify):

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

b. What could you do to overcome the difficulty in the future?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

c. In class, were there any instances where you felt you’d like to say something but you

didn’t? If yes, when and why?

G. I listen actively in class

I listen actively to the teacher

I listen actively to my classmates

Comments:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

d. How often do you think you don’t know enough Fr ench words to say what you want to say

concisely and adequately?

Almost always often not very often never


Section 5:

a. What aspects of your speaking skill do you think you should focus on, over the next 8

weeks?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

b. What are you going to do specifically, to fo cus on this particular aspect of your speech?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

Section 6: Class participation is defined as your leve l of input in French, in class discussion,

small group discussion and other oral activities, regardless of your proficiency level in

French.

Reflecting on the past 4 weeks, how would you rate your participation in class (rate yourself

on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Comment:………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

1. Reflecting on the past six weeks, how difficult/easy was it for you to participate in the

following activities:

a. Whole class discussion

very hard hard OK easy very easy

b. Small group discussion


Section 4:

a. In relation to your oral proficiency, what is, in your opinion, your weak point?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

b. What is your strength?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix 2: Week 12 self-assesment

c. Debate



3. Class participation is defined as your level of input in French, in class discussion, small

group discussions and other oral activities, regardless of your proficiency level in French.

Reflecting on the whole semester, how would you rate your participation in class (1 being the

lowest and 10 the highest).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Comment:

___________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

4. Do you feel that you have made some progress in relation to your oral proficiency during

the semester?

YES NO Don’t know

If yes/ don’t know, what aspects do you think (might) have improved? (i.e. vocabulary

building, increased confidence, accuracy of pronunciation, increased fluency, clearer goal

settings etc...)

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

If not, why not?

2. Reflecting on you oral production over the whole semester, rate your speaking skill

according to the following criteria

a. How hard/easy is it for you to express yourself fluently, with little hesitation and pauses?


b. How hard/easy is it for you to talk in a clear and easily understandable manner?


c. How hard/easy is it for you to take turn in a discussion?


d. How often do you think you don’t know enough French words to say what you want to say

concisely and adequately?

Always often sometimes never

e. Overall, how would you rate your level of proficiency in French? (1 being the lowest and

10 the highest)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Was the self-assessment process helpful?

If yes, in what way?

Did it encourage self reflection?

Did it help you identify your strength and weaknesses?

Did it encourage you to take an active role in the development of your speaking skill?

Would you recommend to keep it for next year?

What was your perception of class activities?

Appendix 3: Fogus group interview questions (semi-structured interview)


References

Boud, D., 1995. Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment. Kogan Page, London.Brown, H.D., 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. Longman, New York.Cao, Y., Philp, J., 2006. Interactional context and willingness to communicate: a comparison of behaviour in whole class, group and

dyadic interaction. System 34, 480–493.Clement, 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, 190–209.Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1994. Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom.

Language Learning 44, 417–448.Donato, R., McCormic, D., 1994. A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of mediation. The Modern

Language Journal 78, 453–464.Dornyei, Z., 2003. Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: advances in theory, research, and applications. Language

Learning 53, 3–32.Dornyei, Z., Kormos, J., 2002. The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research 4, 275–

300.Dornyei, Z., Otto, I., 1998. Motivation in Action: a Process Model of L2 Motivation. In: Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, vol. 4.

Thames Valley University, London, pp. 43–69.Kang, Su-Ja, 2005. Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System 33, 277–292.Lantolf, J.P., Thorne, S.L., 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.Long, M.H., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W.C., Bhatia, T.K. (Eds.),

Handbook of Language Acquisition. Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition. Academic Press, New York, pp. 413–468.MacIntyre, P.D., 1994. Variables underlying willingness to communicate: a causal analysis. Communication Research Reports 11, 135–

142.MacIntyre, P.D., 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process.

The Modern Language Journal 91, 564–576.MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, 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, 537–564.MacIntyre, P.D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of

L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal 82, 545–562.Oscarson, M., 1989. Self-assessment of language proficiency: rationale and applications. Language Testing 6, 1–13.Oscarson, M., 1997. Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In: Clapham, C., Corson, D. (Eds.), . In: The

Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 7. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 175–187.Phillips, E., 2000. Self Assessment of Class Participation. Unpublished paper, Department of English, San Francisco State University.Swain, M., 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (Ed.),

Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 97–114.Ushioda, E., 2003. Motivation as a socially mediated process. In: Little, D., Ridley, J., Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Learner Autonomy in the

Foreign Language Classroom. Authentik, Dublin.Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., Shimizu, K., 2004. The influence of attitude and affect on willingness to communicate and second

language communication. Language Learning 54, 119–152.Young, D.J., 1990. An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals 23, 539–553.

Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom

Documents