See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/330385186

Foreign Language Anxiety and Learner's Willingness to Communicate in the

L2 Classroom

Conference Paper · March 2016

CITATION READS

1 1,139

1 author:

Nada Al-Ghali
Newcastle University
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Translanguaging as a pedagogy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nada Al-Ghali on 15 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Foreign Language Anxiety and Learner’s Willingness to Communicate in the L2
Classroom

Nada Alghali, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

The IAFOR International Conference on Language Learning – Dubai 2016

Official Conference Proceedings 2016

Abstract
Learning English in a foreign context and communicating in English can be an anxious
experience for learners, which is primarily related to their willingness to communicate
(WTC) in that language. The tendency of a learner’s communication defines the notion
of WTC. One factor that is directly related to WTC is Communication apprehension
that is one type of foreign language anxiety related to communication situations. With
reference to the “heuristic model of L2 WTC, there are twelve variables that are
explained to have an affective impact on one’s communication level in L2. This paper
reflects those variables on the preparatory year students’ willingness to communicate
in the L2 classroom at King Saud University and whether or not foreign language
anxiety affects their degree of L2 communication. The paper also presents the Saudi
learner’s perceptions toward communicating in the L2 classroom in comparison to
communicating in L1. This reflection is approached through understanding cryptic
aspects of students’ attitudes and investigating affecting situational variables through
L1 and L2 classroom observations, student questionnaires, and teachers’ evaluation
scales. Results gave both implementations and suggestions for ESL and EFL educators
in creating a better willingness to communicate environment.

Keywords: language learning, willingness to communicate, foreign language anxiety,

L2 classroom.
iafor
The International Academic Forum
[Link]
[Link]

Learning occurs within a social context where communication with others constructs
our understanding of the world (Vygotsky and Cole, 1978). In the context of the second
and foreign language classroom, language learners are assisted to acquire and develop
language skills. It is through communication and interaction with classroom peers and
the teacher that helps learners acquire the language. Meyer & Turner (2002) suggest
that interaction inside the classroom provides opportunities for not only integrating
students in thinking but also helps them to create a positive perspective towards
thinking and speaking.
Contemporary second and foreign language teaching approaches such as
communicative language teaching CLT emphasis the importance of interaction and
communication in achieving L2 competence (Richards 2005). However, interaction of
students in the second and foreign language classroom will not be attained until the
learner is willing to communicate.

1.1 Willingness to communicate (WTC) in the L2

WTC is defined by MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1998) as: “readiness to
enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person, or persons, using a L2”
(p. 547). Many researchers have discussed that an ultimate goal of Second Language
learning classrooms should be to encourage students’ WTC since it is anticipated to
assist L2 learning and development (Cao 2012; MacIntyre et al. 1998; MacIntyre 2007)
McCroskey and Richmond, (1987) propose this orientation of WTC as personality-
based. Many variables affect individuals’ WTC such as attitudes, motivation and
language anxiety. These affective variables also represent critical factors in second and
foreign language acquisition. From this fact, it was essential to investigate the variables
affecting Saudi students’ WTC within the foreign language context to interpret EFL
learners’ perceptions of L2 communication and improve pedagogical classroom
practices.
MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1998) conceptualized bilingual L2 WTC into
a pyramid model known as the heuristic model (Figure 1).
Figure1: The Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC, (MacIntyre, Clément,
Dörnyei & Noels, 1998, p. 547)

This model integrates psychological, linguistic and communicative variables to

describe, clarify, and predict second language communication. In this model,
MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1998) hypothesize that all affective, social,
situational, and cognitive variables influence one's WTC in the second or foreign
language, consequently predicting one's actual use of that particular language.

MacIntyre et al. (1998) discuss that their heuristic model involves theoretical and
practical implications. Theoretically, their model contributes to analyzing and looking
into the different learner variables that impact communication and L2 learning. In fact,
the heuristic model considers WTC the final stage as it is positioned at the top of the
pyramid model under L2 use. Essentially, WTC is related closely to preparing language
learners to communicate, since it is defined as the probability of communicating in L2
when given the opportunity to. Holding their view in identifying both trait-like and
situational factors in WTC, the present study interprets Saudi students’ perception
towards their WTC through examining the relation of FLa within the influencing
variables of the heuristic model. Similar studies have looked at WTC from students’
perceptions and attitudes towards communication in the L2 classroom (Cetinkaya,
2005; Léger & Storch, 2009; MacIntyre & D, 2007) . Another study of (Barjesteh,
Vaseghi, & Neissi, 2012) in the Iranian EFL context looked at students’ communication
perceptions towards different communication contexts (interpersonal conversations,
group discussions, meetings, and public speaking) and different receiver types
(stranger, acquaintance, and friend). Also, in the Pakistani context, Mumtaz,
Habibullah, & Ambreen (2011) analyze University students’ perceptions of EFL
communication at Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur. Results of questionnaires
demonstrated that students showed higher levels of WTC with friends rather than with
strangers and acquaintances. Students also revealed higher competence levels through
communicating with friends.
1.2 Foreign language anxiety (FLa)

Studies have shown that anxiety exists in most aspects of second and foreign language
learning classrooms and that a great level of anxiety is associated with understanding
and speaking the target language. Speaking in public in the second language particularly
provokes anxiety for many students, even for those who experience minimum levels of
anxiety in other aspects of language learning (Horwitz et al., 1986).
They define FLa as: “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and
behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the
language learning process” (1986, p.128). Furthermore, studies have stated that FLa is
mostly associated with the speaking skill of the foreign language more than the other
skills (Aida, 1994; Horwitz et al., 1986; Young, 1990)

Among the individual difference variables of WTC in the classroom are two key
antecedents affecting WTC: communication apprehension and self-perceived
competence (MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre & Baker, 2002).
To briefly explain these two variables, McCroskey and McCroskey (1988) propose that
communication apprehension is the anxiety related to communication situations, and
self-perceived competence is self-evaluation of one’s communication ability. The
understanding of WTC is incomplete without considering these variables and how they
strongly affect one’s WTC in the classroom context specifically. Commmunication
apprehension is one type of FLa which is investigated in this study.
Horwitz, (2001) argues that Public speaking anxiety is generally perceived as a
situation-specific anxiety and therefore FLa is categorized as a situation-specific
anxiety too.

[Link] of the study and research questions

English is taught from the age of ten as a foreign language in Saudi Arabia, yet
classroom interaction is still neglected because students regard their teacher as their
only source of communication.
Nonetheless, the Educational System in Saudi is implementing a more communicative
approach (Alamin & Ahmed, 2012). Many institutions have shifted to implementing
the communicative language teaching approach (CLT) in the last five years or so. One
of which is the Preparatory Year College at King Saud University. The Preparatory
Year College was designed to link the gap between students' high school English
education and the English proficiency level required for the university's academic
programs that are taught in English.
Accordingly, foreign language teaching classrooms focused on using the language for
communicative purposes as a modification to the traditional grammar-based teaching
method. As a result, the issue of whether students are willing to communicate in English
when they have the opportunity to has become prominent.
In fact, the current study seeks to explore students’ attitudes and perceptions towards
their willingness to communicate in the foreign language classroom. It looks at
students’ communication apprehension, and FLa and whether it relates to their
communication levels in the L2 classroom. Understanding the attitudes and
perspectives of student’s WTC in the EFL classroom can be an efficient tool to help
teachers improve and develop their teaching practices and also promotes further
pedagogical developments.
Indeed, I would regard this research as a starting point rather than a finished product in
the Saudi literature, examining students’ willingness to communicate in the L2
classroom with relation to the FLa on their degree of communication

2.1 Research Questions

This research seeks to address the following questions:

1. To what extent is foreign language anxiety related to Saudi college students’

willingness to communicate in the L2 classroom?

2. How do Saudi college students perceive their willingness to communicate in

L2?

[Link]

To accomplish the investigative nature of this study, classroom observations were

combined along with questionnaires. The main purpose of applying classroom
observations was to monitor the attitude of students in both L2 and L1 classrooms,
considering the other context factors affecting students’ WTC. A third instrument that
was implemented to reflect each student’s communication inside the class is the
teacher’s scale that evaluates students’ participation level.
In this study, it was discussed that if a link could be made between the three perspectives
of questionnaires, classroom observations, and teachers’ scale then the study would
grasp, or come close to grasping, the real and the expected relation between FLa and
students’ level of WTC. The implementation of teachers’ scale of students’
participation in class revealed the conscious and unconscious levels of students’ WTC.
The triangulation of instruments provided depth to analyzing the students’ attitudes and
perception towards WTC in the classroom.

3.1 Participants

This study observed four classrooms of 80 intermediate and advance level students at
the Preparatory year college, King Saud University. Participants’ ages ranged between
18-22 years old.
Additionally, all participants have had the same exposure to English before enrolling
into the Preparatory Year College through formal classes in intermediate and secondary
schools. Correspondingly, since they all come from the same country that is Saudi
Arabia, it is reasonable to assume that they all share a homogeneous EFL background.

3.2 Study instruments

The first instrument is a questionnaire (see Appendix A) which is divided into three
sections: the first pertains to the personal background of the students; place of learning
English and whether they have learned abroad or not followed by five multiple choice
questions of their personality, favorite subject at the preparatory year college, and
motive of learning English. The second section of the questionnaire is a Likert-scale of
16 statements adapted from the FLCAS ranging between (strongly agree, agree,
disagree, or strongly disagree). Scale items cover aspects of communicating in certain
circumstances through L1 and L2 and measure the trait-like and situational variables of
the heuristic model influencing students’ WTC. The third and last section is an open-
ended question that is designed for understanding students’ perspective towards the
difference between communicating in L2 and L1.

The second instrument is a structured observation which was adapted from the
Community College of Aurora’s Mentor Program Handbook and Staffordshire
University’s “Guidelines for the Observation of Teaching.” This observation scale (see
Appendix B) covered 5 categories to be observed in the classroom on a scale of 5 rating
from (5=outstanding, 4=well-demonstrated, 3=satisfactory, 2=merits further
development, 1= not demonstrated, or N/A = not applicable). The observation scale
was categorized to five main classifications: “educational climate for learning,
opportunities for student participation, frequency of communication, responsiveness to
student feedback, and L2 learning difficulties”. Each classification contained
statements that were observed in the classroom and rated along with supplementary
reflective notes on the general classroom context.
An additional instrument to look at students’ communication in the classroom from the
teacher’s perspective was the evaluation form (see Appendix C). This form was given
to the teacher at the end of the classroom observation session to rate the participation
of students on a scale of 3 (1= low participation, 2= average participation, 3 = High
participation).

[Link]

The design of reporting data divided the results into quantitative and qualitative in
which mixing the manner pertained to the discussion section of the study. Dörnyei
(2007) proposes that this strategy is appropriate for a ‘triangulation’ study where
cooperating findings for validation is the main object.

4.1 Quantitative findings

The questionnaire reflected FLa on students’ WTC in the classroom through 16 Likert-
scale statements. Students were asked to scale the statements from (strongly agree,
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree). Out of the 16 statements, 6 were negative
statements such as “I feel afraid when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying”, 8
were positive reverse-scored statements such as “I believe that my English level is
excellent and I can speak fluently”, while 2 statements reflected communicating in L1
(Arabic).
The overall mean value of all students’ response was (2.89 of 4) which represents the
option “Agree”, that indicates that participants agree on both negative and positive
views of FLa statements. Results also showed variance responses of agreement to
statements ranging between a mean value of (1.96 to 3.35) which represent the option
“don’t agree” and “strongly agree”.
Looking at (Table 1) the mean value was calculated for each statement to know the rate
of increase or decrease of responses on the likert-scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree,
or strongly disagree). The standard deviation value is also calculated to show the level
of deviance for each statement, that is to say, the closer the value to zero, the more
concentrate the answers and less distributed. To clarify results, positive reverse-scored
statements are presented separately in (Table1) according to the highest mean value.
Table 1: Results of the reverse-scored statements of foreign language anxiety

Looking at (Table 1), results show that Item 16 “I have a great motive for learning in
the English classroom” represented the highest mean value of 3.35 compared to all
statements indicating a total agreement of 48.80% positive response towards learning
the foreign language and a total of 43.80% who strongly agree. As compared to only
6.30% who disagree and only 1.30% who strongly disagree. There was also a
significant positive rate of agreement to item 14 and 13 “I feel confident when speaking
in English and that does not embarrass me at all in front of my classmates” and “I enjoy
communicating in English with my friends and family” indicating a rejection of the
effect of foreign language anxiety. Turning to statements representing a negative
attitude of foreign language anxiety, 6 items in (Table 2) are presented in a descending
order according to the mean value as following:
Table 2: Results of the negative statements of foreign language anxiety

Items 1 and 2 “I feel more tense and nervous in the English language class compared
to the other classes such as the communication skills class” and “I feel afraid when I
don’t understand what the teacher is saying” indicate a high percentage of
disagreement. 50% of students disagree on statement 1 implying that they do not feel
tense or nervous in the Foreign English classroom, and 27.50% strongly disagree. While
only 15% agree. Referring to item 2, almost half of the students disagree on feeling
afraid when they don’t understand what the teacher is saying and only 23.80% agree.
On the other hand item 3 and 4 “I get upset when I don't understand what the teacher is
correcting” and “I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak
English inside the classroom” show conflicting percentages. 43.80% of the total
students agree that they get upset when they don’t understand what the teacher is saying
while, 41.30% disagree. Similarly, 37.50% disagree on their fear from other students’
laughter when they make language mistakes in the classroom and 33.80% strongly
disagree, whereas 25% that is a quarter of the total students agree on that.
Table 3: The relation between students’ level of FLa and WTC in L2

Table 3 found weak correlation relation between WTC and foreign language anxiety.
The correlation coefficient (-0.119) conformed a negative correlation between students’
being anxious in the foreign language classroom and their WTC.
Furthermore, the R square value (0.018) explains only 1.8% of students’ anxiety level
that is related to their willingness to communicate. This means that there is almost no
influence of FLa on students’ desire to communicate in the L2 classroom.

The results from the teacher evaluation form supported students’ questionnaires. The
form was given to the classroom teacher at the end of the lesson where she evaluated
each student’s participation on a scale of 3: (1= low participation, 2= average
participation, 3 = High participation) (see Appendix D). Findings are quantitatively
presented in (Table 4) calculating the percent of each rate in the four classrooms.

Table 4: Results of teachers’ evaluation forms of students’ participation reflecting the

four observed classrooms.

4.2 Qualitative findings

The quantitative results showed variant degrees of agreement and disagreement to the
FLa scale, where the majority rejected the influence of FLa on their WTC. However,
results from the structured classroom observation scale and teachers’ scale of students’
participation showed conflicting findings.

Classroom observations were conducted for both descriptive and reflective aims , also
to understand the context of which communication occurs in. Observation was
conducted within 4 main categories: educational climate for learning, opportunities for
student participation, frequency of communication (group, pair, or individual),
teacher’s responsiveness to students, and learning difficulties.
The researcher observed two L2 classrooms in the morning and afternoon session.
Both of which had different number of students and lesson topics. The first morning
classroom consisted of 22 Saudi students guided by a native British teacher. The
lesson lasted ninety minutes covering different activities and tasks about the planet
and weather topic. This particular classroom is considered large in relation to the
other English language classrooms at the Preparatory Year College. Yet, students
were sensibly seated in groups of four and were acquainted to the lesson process. It is
important to state that the classroom observation took place during the eleventh week,
which may be attributed to how students are familiar and comfortable with their peers,
and show high levels of enthusiasm and enjoyment. Students are given different
opportunities to participate through pair, group and individual work. Almost all of the
students appeared motivated to communicate, therefore the teacher did not need to
encourage participation. There was however a group of five students who were using
L1 in their side talks and these were rated by the teacher in the participation scale as
low level participants. On the contrary, the majority of students were noted on the
scale as high and great input students, which was clearly reflected from the classroom
observation. Student (59) having learned English at Private Schools for example, was
very actively participating in the classroom where she strongly agreed in the
questionnaire to statements 5 and 11:
“I feel more comfortable speaking around native speakers of English”
And “I do not feel embarrassed about making language mistakes in the English skills
class”
The afternoon classroom observation took place during the same week. The classroom
consisted of 26 students and were tutored by a Turkish teacher who’s English was her
second language. Although the classroom size is considerably large, students were
very comfortable sitting in groups that one group was sitting on the floor while the
remaining sat on their chairs. This fact indicates a very comfortable atmosphere for
learning where students are familiar and relaxed with their peers. This classroom was
different from the morning classroom with regards to how students are less
enthusiastic and the teacher does not pay attention to how bored students become.
Groups of students were dominating participation therefore turn-taking was not well
managed and students were not all given opportunities to communicate individually.
It was also observed that students tend to use L1 a lot to translate for their peers.
Overall, the two L2 classroom implemented CLT methods and different activities
promoting communication were vivid. Both classroom atmospheres were very relaxed
and comfortable thus, FLa was least anticipated.

5. Discussion
The first theme resulting from the findings of this study is students’ inconsistent views
to linking FLa and WTC in the FLCAS scale from the questionnaire. One statement
that recorded the highest (mean value) among the other statements is:
“I have a great motive for learning in the English classroom”
Almost all participants agreed on having a motive for learning the foreign language.
Comparing the results of students’ answer to the question “Does my desire to learn
English increase with a strong motive?”, 96% have answered, “yes” to this question.
Having a motive for learning is an enduring variable that influences one’s WTC situated
at the base of MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels's (1998) heuristic model. Looking
at previous studies, Hashimoto (2002) and Yashima (2002) specifically investigated
how motivation influences WTC and one’s self-confidence. Positive correlations of
their studies are aligned with the current study. Results from the observation data also
supported this view as teachers’ role in motivating and encouraging participation was
vivid.
Findings are consistent with Alshehri's (2012) study, where she emphasized the
motivational approaches used by teachers to promote students’ participation.
Other statements of the FLCAS scale that recorded high “mean values” are “I feel
confident when speaking in English and that does not embarrass me at all in front of
my classmates”, “I enjoy communicating in English with my friends and family”, “I do
not feel embarrassed about making language mistakes in the English skills class” and
“I believe that my English level is excellent and I can speak fluently”.
These statements can be directly related to WTC through the affective-cognitive
context layer of the heuristic model. Variables in this layer include: intergroup attitudes,
social situation, and communicative competence. The Intergroup attitudes variable
indicates students’ aspiration and enjoyment of learning the L2 and relating to the L2
community.
The second variable of this level is the social situation that includes: participants,
setting, purpose, proficiency level of the speaker and topic. MacIntyre et al., (1998)
argue that such variables influence one’s degree of self-confidence, and consequently
affect their willingness to communicate.
The two statements “I feel confident when speaking in English and that does not
embarrass me at all in front of my classmates”, and “I do not feel embarrassed about
making language mistakes in the English skills class” were agreed upon from the
majority of students as the results have found.
This suggests that students’ confidence level is high and hence they would be more
willing to communicate. Drawing on the classroom observation results, it was observed
that students showed high level of confidence when participating. This may also be a
result of the relaxing social atmosphere that the teacher created in the EFL classroom.
The third variable of the affective-cognitive context level of WTC is communicative
competence. MacIntyre et al., (1998) have proposed in their heuristic model different
dimensions to competence; they include linguistic competence, discourse competence,
sociocultural, and strategic competence.
58.8% of the total students have agreed to the statement: “I believe that my English
level is excellent and I can speak fluently” and 18.8% have strongly agreed thus
proposing a high level of their perceived communicative competence.
On the contrary, a number of 18 students out of 72 have stated in their answer to the
open-ended question that they are willing to speak in Arabic more because of their low
English competence and culture knowledge.
This view supports MacIntyre & Baker's (2002), which asserts the existence of
communication apprehension impact in most classrooms as having a negative effect on
students’ L2 performance.
Findings have also demonstrated a very high number of disagreements to the statement:
“I feel more tense and nervous in the English language class compared to the other
classes such as the communication skills class”. More than half of the total numbers of
participants have disagreed on this statement.

The other statements in the FLCAS scale that were found to have significantly high
level of disagreement are “I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I
speak English inside the classroom”, and “I feel afraid when I don’t understand what
the teacher is saying”. The two statements complement the previous statement
discussed of not feeling anxious and stressed in the L2 classroom.
Furthermore, findings from the classroom observation have found that all classrooms
showed no demonstration of students’ laughter at their peers when they make language
mistakes. The two statements represent a type of anxiety that is defined by Sarason
(1984) as "the tendency to view with alarm the consequences of inadequate
performance in an evaluative situation" (p.214).
Referring to students’ response, the majority seemed to not worry about failing to
perform well since they were comfortable in participating and were not afraid from
peers laughing at them.
Kang (2005) proposed three psychological antecedents that affect WTC, they are:
security, excitement, and responsibility. Each of which is co-constructed by interacting
situational variables such as the topic, interlocutors and conversational context.
Another critical statement of the FLCAS scale that students have strongly agreed on is:
“The verbal behavior of the teacher affects my desire to communicate in English”. This
factor pertains to the variable “desire to communicate with a specific person” which is
a situational antecedent in the heuristic model of WTC. With reference to that, students’
desire to communicate in the classroom may be related to the situational influence of
the teacher. In a corresponding study conducted by (Aydin, 1999) looking at student’s
perceptions of anxiety in the Turkish EFL context, results attributed teachers’ manner
as a major source influencing students’ anxiety level along with specific classroom
activities.
Classroom observation findings also supported this statement, where all items in the
structured observation scale indicated that teachers’ role was supportive, encouraging,
and positive. This fact created a comfortable environment reducing the level of
students’ FLa which in turn reflected the high level of students’ WTC.
Léger & Storch (2009) have discussed in their study of learners perceptions and
attitudes towards WTC in the L2 classroom, that small group discussions are often seen
as a method for reducing students’ language anxiety thus providing greater
opportunities for communication. This is actually consistent with the high percentage
of agreement that the students have expressed towards the statement: “I prefer
participating within groups and pairs to individual participation in the class”.

5. Conclusion

Understanding the social context and background of students in this study was
important for understanding the foreign context of learning English and hence interpret
the relation between FLa and students’ WTC level in comparison to their desire to
communicate in Arabic.

Findings of this study suggest that considering FLa and WTC as complementary tools
was possibly useful for understanding students’ attitudes and perceptions of
communicating in the language classroom. State, social, situational and cognitive
variables all interactively influence students’ WTC.

The inclusive findings from the FLCAS scale found that the majority of students have
disagreed with statements advocating FLa in the L2 classroom thus, confirming that
there is no correlation between FLa and WTC. Students have disagreed on feeling more
tense and nervous in the English classroom in comparison to the Arabic classrooms,
and feeling afraid from other students laughing at them in the classroom and when they
do not understand what the teacher is saying.
They have also strongly supported that they are greatly motivated to learn English, feel
confident about their language competence and enjoy communicating in the English
classroom. Yet, they have endorsed the influence of teacher’s verbal behavior on their
level of WTC, as well as the comfortableness of communicating with native speakers
and also the preference of participating through groups and pairs to individual
participation.
[Link] and recommendations:

It is important to confirm that this study was not a causal relation study of testing the
cause of FLa on students’ communication. It however, investigated the relations of
situational and enduring variables of WTC within the framework of the foreign
language context. Therefore, findings do not indicate cause and effect relations and
further studies are needed to investigate that.
While this study examined a considerable number of participants at the Preparatory
Year College at King Saud University, findings remain exclusive to the context of first
college year students. One limitation that appeared to be most problematic was the fact
that this study covered only one week of observation that took place on the eleventh
week of the semester due to the restriction of time. If data collection was conducted
during the beginning of the semester for example, results in relation to the level of
students’ anxiety level might have been different.

Pedagogic and research recommendations include:

1- Communicative aspect of language teaching needs to be emphasized at college

and school levels in Saudi Arabia. Students should be aware of the importance
of communicating in English efficiently with both native and nonnative
speakers inside and outside the classroom context to enhance their language
learning.

2- Students should be given more opportunities to discover the cultural knowledge

of English to form realistic attitudes and reduce their FLa. Extending students’
cultural knowledge in the classroom broadens their linguistic and discourse
competence that contributes to raising the level of their WTC.

3- Communicative competence was an important variable that affected the level of

self-perceived language anxiety and WTC. It would be interesting to investigate
the gap between students self-perception as highly competent, confident and
comfortable in the EFL classroom with their attitude of being more willing to
communicate in the L1 classroom.

4- Another approach of looking at the findings of this study is to identify the

reasons behind the reported low level of FLa in the classrooms of the
Preparatory Year College. The circumstances of the current study’s context
could be applied to benefit high-anxiety contexts. Future research could draw
comparisons between different contexts to find solutions for reducing FLa.
References
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope's construct of foreign
language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language
Journal, 78(2), 155--168.

Alamin, A., & Ahmed, S. (2012). Towards the Development of Communicative

Language Approach for Adult EFL Students of the Community College, Taif
University, KSA. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 20.

Aljafen, B. (2013). Writing anxiety among EFL Saudi students in science colleges and
departments at a Saudi university (Master of Arts). Indiana University of
Pennsylvania.

Aydin, B. (1999). A study of the sources of foreign language classroom anxiety in

speaking and writing classes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu
University, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Barraclough, R., Christophel, D., & McCroskey, J. (1988). Willingness to

communicate: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Research
Reports, 5(2), 187--192.

Bowers, J. (1986). Classroom communication apprehension: A

survey. Communication Education,35(4), 372--378.
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Cao, Y. (2012). Willingness to Communicate and Communication Quality in ESL

Classrooms. TESL Reporter, 45(1), 17--36.

Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A
comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic
interaction. System, 34(4), 480--493.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (2014). Communicative competence: A

pedagogically motivated model with content specification. Issues In Applied
Linguistics, 6, 5-35.

Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E., & Schallert, D. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating
writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417--446.

Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second

language. In H. Giles, W. Robinson & P. Smith, Language: social psychological
perspectives (1st ed., pp. 147-154). Oxford: Pergamon.

Clément, R., D'ornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group
cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417--
448.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Compton, L. (2007). The Impact of Content and Context on International Teaching

Assistants' Willingness to Communicate in the Language Classroom. TESL-
EJ, 10(4), 1--19.

Coulombe, D. (2000). Anxiety and beliefs of French-as-a-second-language learners

at the university level (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Laval,
Québec, Canada.

Dallimore, E., Hertenstein, J., & Platt, M. (2004). Classroom participation and
discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication
Education, 53(1).
Donovan, L., & MacIntyre, P. (2004). Age and sex differences in willingness to
communicate, communication apprehension, and self-perceived
competence. Communication Research Reports,21(4), 420--427.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273--284.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning:

Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), 3--
32.

Dörnyei, Z. (2006). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences

in Second Language Acquisition. Psychology, 10(1).

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fassinger, P. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students' and professors'

contributions to students' silence. The Journal Of Higher Education, 82--96.

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.

Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review Of Applied

Linguistics, 21, 112--126.

Horwitz, E. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language

Teaching, 43(02), 154--167.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125--132.

Horwitz, E., Young, D., & Gardner, R. (1991). Language anxiety. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Jiang, Y. (2009). Applying group work to improve college students’ oral

English. International Education Studies, 2(3), 136.

Kang, D. (2014). The effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL learners'

willingness to communicate, speaking abilities, and participation in classroom
interaction. System, 42, 319--332.

Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a

second [Link], 33(2), 277--292.
Kim, S. (2004). Exploring willingness to communicate in English among Korean EFL
students in Korea: Willingness to communicate as a predictor of success in
second language acquisition(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State
University, Ohio.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liu, M. (2007). Anxiety in oral English classrooms: a case study in

China. ANXIETY, 3(1).

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness
to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 92(1), 71--86.

Lu, Y. (2007). Willingness to Communicate in Intercultural Interactions Between

Chinese and Americans (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Wyoming.

MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal

[Link] Research Reports, 11(2), 135--142.

MacIntyre, P. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language:

Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(4), 564--576.

MacIntyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of
second language communication. Journal Of Language And Social
Psychology, 15(1), 3--26.

MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Cl'ement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to
communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion
students. Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 23(03), 369--388.

MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Cl'ement, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to
learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian
Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 59(4),
589--608.

MacIntyre, P., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating
in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’
willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81--96.

McCroskey, J. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate

scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16--25.
McCroskey, J. (1997). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension,
and self-perceived communication competence: Conceptualizations and
perspectives. In Daly & McCroskey,Avoiding communication: Shyness,
reticence, & communication apprehension (1st ed., pp. 75-108). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.

McCroskey, J., & Baer, J. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its
[Link].

McCroskey, J., & McCroskey, L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring

communication competence. Taylor & Francis.

McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing

cultural [Link] Journal Of Communication, 56(1), 72--77.

McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive

view. In M. Booth-Butterfield, Communication, cognition and anxiety (1st ed.,
pp. 19--44). Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.

McCrosky, J. (1982). An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication (4th ed.).

Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice- Hall.

McCrosky, L., & McCrosky, J. (2002). Willingness to Communicate and

Communication Apprehension. In J. Chesebro & J. McCrosky, Communication
for Teachers . (1st ed.). Needham Heights: MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Meyer, D., & Turner, J. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the
scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 17--25.

Midhwah, A. (2011). Foreign Language Anxiety And Speaking Performance In The

Arabic Language Classroom (Unpublished MA dissertation). Newcastle
University.

Mohammadzadeh, A., & Jafarigohar, M. (2012). The Relationship between

Willingness to Communicate and Multiple Intelligences among Learners of
English as a Foreign [Link] Language Teaching, 5(7), 25.

Nazari, A., & Allahyar, N. Increasing Willingness to Communicate among English as

a Foreign Language (EFL) Students: effective teaching strategies.

Neer, M. (1987). The development of an instrument to measure classroom

[Link] Education, 36(2), 154--166.
Neer, M., & Kircher, W. (1989). Apprehensives’ perception of classroom factors
influencing their class participation. Communication Research Reports, 6(1), 70--
77.

Oxford, R. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In J.

Arnold, Affect in Language learning (1st ed.). Cambridge U.K: Cambridge
University Press.

Palacios, L. (1998). Foreign language anxiety and classroom environment: A study of

Spanish university students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University
of Texas, Austin.

Phillips, E. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students' oral test performance
and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 14--26.

Richards, J. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: SEAMEO

Regional Language Centre.

Spielberger, C., & Gorsuch, R. (1983). Manual for the State-trait anxiety inventory
(form Y) ("self-evaluation questionnaire"). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Vygotsky, L., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

Wade, R. (1994). Teacher education students' views on class discussion: Implications

for fostering critical reflection. Teaching And Teacher Education, 10(2), 231--
243.

Weaver, C. (2007). Willingness to communicate: A mediating factor in the interaction

between learners and tasks. In K. Branden, K. Gorp & M. Verhelst, Tasks in
action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (1st
ed., pp. 159-193). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.

Wen, W., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to

communicate in [Link] Culture And Curriculum, 16(1), 18--38.

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.

Yu, M. (2009). Willingness to communicate of foreign language learners in a Chinese

setting(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Florida.
Appendix A

Foreign Language Anxiety and Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire

Part One: Personal Background

Please provide the required information, then tick the most appropriate choice of the following
questions: (kindly note that all names are replaced with pseudonyms and all information is kept
anonymous)

Student Name:……………………………………..

Place of Birth:……………………………………..

Place of Residence:……………………………………..

I learned English in:

❏ Public Schools
❏ Private Schools

Did you have the opportunity to learn English abroad?

❏ Yes, in the United States

❏ Yes, in the United Kingdom
❏ Yes, in another country (please specify:…………)
❏ No, never learned English abroad
If you have answered (yes), please specify the period of time abroad:

Period of time (……………..)

My personality is:

❏ Shy
❏ Outgoing
❏ Balanced

My personality inside the classroom is:

❏ Quiet
❏ Active
❏ Anxious
❏ Introvert

My favorite subject at the Preparatory Year Course is:

❏ English Language Skills

❏ Basic Science
❏ Self-development skills

Does my desire to learn English increase with a strong motive?

❏ Yes
❏ No

I think that the most important motive to learn English is:

❏ Surrounding social environment

❏ Classroom and teacher
❏ Personal motive to achieve personal goals

Part two: please tick the most appropriate answer of the following statements:

Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

agree disagree
1 I feel more tense and nervous in the
English language class compared to
the other classes such as the
communication skills class
2 I feel afraid when I don’t understand what
the teacher is saying
3 I get upset when I don't understand what
the teacher is correcting
4 I am afraid that the other students will
laugh at me when I speak English
inside the classroom
5 I would probably feel more comfortable
speaking with/around native speakers
of English
6 I feel very self-conscious about speaking
the foreign language in front of other
students
7 The verbal behavior of the teacher affects
my desire to communicate in English
8 I prefer participating within groups and
pairs to individual participation in the
class
9 I prefer learning English together with my
classmates
10 I believe that my English level is excellent
and I can speak fluently
11 I do not feel embarrassed about making
language mistakes in the English
skills class
12 I do not feel embarrassed about making
mistakes in Arabic in the other
classes
13 I enjoy communicating in English with my
friends and family
14 I feel confident when speaking in English
and that does not embarrass me at all
in front of my classmates
15 I feel more confident when communicating
in Arabic in the other classes
16 I have a great motive for learning in the
English classroom

Part three: please answer the following:

How would you describe the major differences between your communication in the English language
classroom compared to communicating in Arabic in the other classrooms? State the prominent
differences.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..

Appendix B

Classroom Observation Form (Scaled)

Instructor __________________________ Observer ____________________________

Course/class ____________________________ Number of students present _____________

Date/time of observation ____________________ Location ______________________

Merits further
Outstanding Well-Demonstrated Satisfactory Not Demonstrated Not Applicable
development
5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Classroom profile:

Lesson:

Classroom arrangement:

A-Educational climate for learning:

_____ 1. Are students AND teacher interested and enthusiastic about the subject?
_____ 2. Does the instructor use student names?
_____ 3. Is humor used appropriately?
_____ 4. Does instructor not embarrass or belittle students in any way?
_____ 5. Is the atmosphere of the classroom participative?
_____ 6. Did the instructor have eye contact with students?

Comments:

B-Opportunities for student participation:

List students’ activities:

_____ 1. Does instructor encourage students to summarize and add to others’ summaries?
_____ 2. Do students show confidence in their participation?
_____ 3. Does instructor help quieter students interact with other?
_____ 4. Does the instructor of classroom encourage participation?
_____ 5. Does the instructor show enthusiasm?
_____ 6. Is turn taking well managed?
_____ 7. Are students willing to participate voluntarily?

Comments:

C-Frequency of communication:

_____ 1. Are students evenly distributed into groups?

_____ 2. Do students show well demonstration of L2 use ?
_____ 3. Do students show enthusiasm in group work?
_____ 4. Do students participate more individually?
_____ 5. Is there a sense of team completion in the class?
_____ 6. Are activities divided fairly into individual, pair and group work?

Comments:

D-Responsiveness to student feedback:

_____ 1. Is the instructor paying attention to cues of boredom, confusion?

_____ 2. Does the instructor encourage or discourage questions (dissension)?
_____ 3. Does the instructor provide effective praise and encouragement?

Comments:

E- Learning difficulties:

_____ 1. Does students seek guidance for understanding activities in class?

_____ 2. Are one or more students not motivated or unable to follow the class?
_____ 3. Does the instructor show favoritism?
_____ 4. Are students able to see and comprehend visual aids?
_____ 5. Does one group dominate discussion and hinder others’ participation?
_____ 6. Do some students seek translation from their peers to understand in class?
_____ 7. Do students laugh at their peers when they make language mistakes?
Comments:

Appendix C
Teacher Evaluation Of Student Participation Form

Instructor: _______________ Observer: _______________

Course: __________ Number of students present: ______

Date/time: ____________________ Location: _____________

Please evaluate the students of your classroom according to their participation throughout lessons.
Circle the appropriate rate (1: low participation/ 2: average participation/ 3 : High participation)

No. Student Name Participation Notes

Rate
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

View publication stats