Willingness to Communicate

I recently learned of a term in the research community called WTC (willingness to communicate) applying to language learning and communication.

Willingness to communicate is defined as “a learner’s readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons using a L2.” (McIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, and Noels, 1998).

This is a huge topic of discussion in the language learning community because your willingness to communicate is a distinct measure that is different from albeit associated with your proficiency.

You can be proficient and capable of speaking in a different language but your willingness to do so may not as great.

You may be willing to communicate despite not being very skilled at that language, and yet you may communicate enough to get your message across.

WTC studies have shown that language learners with high WTC are more likely to use the second learned language in authentic communication (Kang 2005), have more potential to practice in that second language (MacIntyre et al. 2001), acquire higher levels of language fluency (Derwing, Munro, and Thomson 2008), generally achieve greater language proficiency (Yashima 2002), and, as a result, show more improvement in their communication skills (Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimizu 2004).

There’s a positive feedback loop that encourages even more development of the second language proficiency.

Clearly, a language program or things that an individual can do that increases WTC among its language learners can be considered successful.

In the research world, the prevailing heuristic model of WTC in English is modeled in a pyramid shape, combining psychological, linguistic and communicative variables to account for all the relevant factors, called MacIntyre et al.'s (1998) Heuristic Model of WTC in English.

Figure 1: Maclntyre et al.'s model of WTC (1998)

Th pyramid-like model with six categories or variables called layers, describes the construct of WTC in the second language and the complex interrelationship among variables. According to this model, factors are divided into 2 groups: enduring influences and situational influences. The first three layers(Layer I, II, and III) are believed to have short-term influences and can be treated as situation-specific. The remaining three layers (Layer IV, V, and VI) are seen to have enduring or long-term influences.

I think it’s important to recognize what the research and pedagogical study says about language learning. Not only is lived experience important but understanding how and what the research says can help you understand or put into words how you feel and perceive.

Knowing that one’s feelings of self-confidence and desire to communicate with a specific person are short-lived factors but communicative competence and personality are enduring factors, there comes an understanding of what you can individually control, what you can individually embrace and accept, and what you might need to push boundaries on.

So What Needs to Happen?

Learner-led activities over teacher-led activities.

Learners feel more comfortable participating in learner-led activities. So learners have a vested interest in dictating what they are working towards. That makes sense. It’s going to be more motivating when doing things that a learner wants to practice than some arbitrary or structured activity that a teacher brings.

That means, it’s worth speaking up to your teacher about what experiences you want to have. If you want to practice asking questions in a grocery store or role playing a presentation, that is going to be more motivating.

Minimize Feelings of Being Wrong.

According to a study by Shaffer (2021), interviewed learners, who did not self-identify as shy or nervous people, felt unsure and did not want to sound wrong in front of the entire group and instructor. This would confirm why these students felt more comfortable and less risk when speaking in peer activities with smaller groups of speakers and the instructor only present when checking in with their group. What this means is that the pressure of communicating in a right and wrong scenario may hinder learner WTC.

Focusing on the functionality in English communication and the options for communicating your message rather than a right and wrong scenario might encourage engagement. It may on the flip side also mean that taking into account people’s WTC may help predict who is willing to participate in large group settings versus who may be more comfortable participating in small peer group settings.

Shaffer (2021) also found that low to medium WTC learners were often preoccupied with feelings of unsureness and the need for reassurance. So teachers, more conscious encouragement and positive reinforcement for your students! And students, a closer introspective look into yourselves and positive self-talk may better equip you with the confidence to engage?

Learners Need To Seek Out Comfortable Environments.

So if you are an English language learner and you feel scared to share, seeking out small English learning groups might be an amazing unlock for your English practice journey. Meetup, Facebook, and Discord English language groups may meet that threshold for private peer groups that you would be interested in.

References

Macintyre, Peter & Clément, Richard & Dörnyei, Zoltán & Noels, Kimberly. (1998). Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation. The Modern Language Journal. 82. 545-562. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x.

Reinders, H. (2022, March 22). Understanding and encouraging willingness to communicate in the language classroom #1: Cambridge English. World of Better Learning | Cambridge University Press. Retrieved March 19, 2023, from https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2016/05/11/understanding-encouraging-willingness-communicate-language-classroom-1/

Shaffer, A. (2021). L2 Classroom Willingness to Communicate as a Predictor of Participatory Behavior. Dimension, 9–24.