This study examined Korean (n = 143) and Taiwanese (n = 261) EFL students’ willingness to communicate in a second language (L2 WTC) in in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings. Follow-up interviews (n = 20) were also conducted to identify factors that might have influenced their L2 WTC. Results showed that Korean and Taiwanese participants scored lowest on L2 WTC inside the classroom. The qualitative data suggest that L2 speaking anxiety might have equally influenced both groups’ L2 WTC. Additionally, while Korean students scored higher on L2 WTC outside the classroom than Taiwanese students, the Taiwanese scored higher on L2 WTC in digital settings than did the Koreans. The qualitative data revealed that these discrepancies might have been influenced by English environment and teaching practice. These findings suggest that East Asian learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) can become more willing to communicate when sufficient opportunities for English use are provided through instructional and institutional support.
BakerS.C.MacIntyreP.D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 53, 311–341.
2.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229.
3.
BarracloughR.A.ChristophelD.M.McCroskeyJ.C. (1988). Willingness to communicate: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Research Reports, 5, 187–192.
4.
BartlettM.S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various X2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 16, 296–298.
5.
BeattyM.J.McCroskeyJ.C. (2000). A few comments about communibiology and the nature/nurture question. Communication Education, 49, 25–28.
6.
BensonP. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field. In BensonP.ReindersH. (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom: The theory and practice of informed language learning and teaching (pp. 7–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BernalesC. (2016). Towards a comprehensive concept of Willingness to Communicate: Learners’ predicted and self-reported participation in the foreign language classroom. System, 56, 1–12.
8.
BirtL.ScottS.CaversD.CampbellC.WalterF. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?Qualitative Health Research, 26), 1802–1811.
9.
BuckinghamL.AlpaslanR.S. (2017). Promoting speaking proficiency and willingness to communicate in Turkish young learners of English through asynchronous computer-mediated practice. System, 65, 25–37.
10.
BurgoonJ.K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69.
11.
BurroughsN.F.MarieV. (1990). Communication orientations of Micronesian and American students. Communication Research Reports, 7, 139–146.
12.
CaoY. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468–479.
13.
CaoY. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814.
14.
CaoY.PhilpJ. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.
15.
ChanB.McCroskeyJ.C. (1987). The WTC scale as a predictor of classroom participation. Communication Research Reports, 4, 47–50.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
ConditC.M. (2000). Culture and biology in human communication: Toward a multi-causal model. Communication Education, 49, 7–24.
19.
CreswellJ. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
DressmanM. (2017). Informal language acquisition and classroom teaching: Complementary, not competitive, approaches. Unpublished paper presented at 2017 Korea TESOL International Conference, Seoul, South Korea.
21.
FinchJ.F.WestS.G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439–485.
22.
FreiermuthM.R.HuangH. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching Research, 16, 61–88.
23.
FreiermuthM.R.HuangH. (2018). Assessing willingness to communicate for academically, culturally, and linguistically different language learners: Can English become a virtual lingua franca via electronic text-based chat?. In ZouB.ThomasM. (Eds.), Handbook of research on integrating technology into contemporary language learning and teaching (pp. 57–85). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
24.
GrantS. (2018). Effects of intensive EFL immersion programmes on willingness to communicate. The Language Learning Journal. Epub ahead of print 17 January 2018. DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2017.1422274.
25.
HashimotoY. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: the Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20, 29–70.
26.
HsiehJ.S.C.WuW.-C.V.MarekM.W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 1–21.
27.
HsuC.-F. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of communication orientations between Americans and Taiwanese. Communication Quarterly, 55, 359–374.
28.
HutchesonG.D.SofroniouN. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. London: Sage.
29.
KangD.-M. (2014). The effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate, speaking abilities, and participation in classroom interaction. System, 42, 319–332.
30.
KangS.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292.
31.
LaiC. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom. New York: Bloomsbury.
32.
LeeJ.H. (2018). The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, international posture, and L2 willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39, 703–714.
33.
LeeJ.S.DrajatiN.A. (2019). Affective variables and informal digital learning of English: Keys to willingness to communicate in a second language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 168–182.
34.
LeeJ.S.LeeK. (2019). Affective factors, virtual intercultural experiences, and L2 willingness to communicate in in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 25 February 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819831408.
35.
LeT.V.CunninghamU.WatsonK. (2018). The relationship between willingness to communicate and social presence in an online English language course. The JALT CALL Journal, 14, 43–59.
36.
LuY.HsuC.-F. (2008). Willingness to communicate in intercultural interactions between Chinese and Americans. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 75–88.
37.
MacIntyreP.D.CharosC. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.
38.
MacIntyreP.D.LegattoJ.J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
39.
MacIntyreP.D.BakerS.C.ClémentR.DonovanL.A. (2003). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 53, 137–166.
40.
MacIntyreP.D.ClémentR.DörnyeiZ.NoelsK.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
41.
McCroskeyJ.C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16–25.
42.
McCroskeyJ.C.BaerE. (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO, USA.
43.
McCroskeyJ.C.RichmondV.P. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Communication Studies, 33, 458–468.
44.
McCroskeyJ.C.RichmondV.P. (1987). Willingness to communicate and interpersonal communication. In McCroskeyJ.C.DalyJ.A. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–155). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45.
McCroskeyJ.C.RichmondV.P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72–77.
46.
McCroskeyJ.C.FayerJ.M.RichmondV.P. (1985). Don’t speak to me in English: Communication apprehension in Puerto Rico. Communication Quarterly, 33, 185–192.
47.
McCroskeyJ.C.BurroughsN.F.DaunA.RichmondV.P. (1990). Correlates of quietness: Swedish and American perspectives. Communication Quarterly, 38, 127–137.
48.
MortensenC.D.ArntsonP.H.LustigM. (1977). The measurement of verbal predispositions: Scale development and application. Human Communication Research, 3, 146–158.
49.
PengJ.-E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203–213.
50.
PengJ.-E. (2013). The challenge of measuring Willingness to Communicate in EFL contexts. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 281–290.
51.
PhillipsG.M. (1965). The problem of reticence. Pennsylvania Speech Annual, 22, 22–38.
52.
ReidK.T.TrofimovichP. (2018). Exploring the influence of community volunteerism on adult L2 learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 74, 73–86.
53.
ReindersH.BensonP. (2017). Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom. Language Teaching, 50, 561–578.
54.
ReindersH.WattanaS. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital game-based learning. ReCALL, 27, 38–57.
55.
RyanS. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identify and the L2 self (pp. 120–143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
SampsonR. (2012). The language-learning self, self-enhancement activities, and self perceptual change. Language Teaching Research, 16, 317–335.
58.
SockettG. (2014). The online informal learning of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
59.
TwiningP.HellerR.S.NussbaumM.TsaiC.-C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers & Education, 106, A1–A9.
60.
VongsilaV.ReindersH. (2016). Making Asian learners talk: Encouraging willingness to communicate. RELC Journal, 47, 331–347.
61.
YanguasÍ.FloresA. (2014). Learners’ willingness to communicate in face-to-face versus oral computer-mediated communication. The JALT CALL Journal, 10, 83–103.
62.
YashimaT. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
63.
YashimaT. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 144–163). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
64.
YashimaT.MacIntyreP. D.IkedaM. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22, 115–137.
65.
YashimaT.Zenuk-NishideL.ShimizuK. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119–152.
66.
YuM. (2015). An examination of the dynamic feature of WTC through dyadic group interaction. System, 55, 11–20.
67.
ZakahiW.R.McCroskeyJ.C. (1989). Willingness to communicate: A potential confounding variable in communication research. Communication Reports, 2, 96–104.
