The Relationship between WTC Level and LLS Use among Turkish EFL Learners

Yıl 2014, , 133 - 161, 01.12.2014

Ali Merç

https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.01893

Cited By: 1

Öz

Recent investigations in the field of applied linguistics have tended to transfer psychological concepts into second language acquisition. Willingness to communicate, as a psychological concept, has been taken as a research topic in the field. On the other hand, language learning strategy use has been accepted as a notion affecting the success in second/foreign language learning. In this respect, this study investigates the relationship between the levels of Willingness to Communicate inside the Classroom (WTC) and Language Learning Strategy (LLS) use among Turkish university students. 80 first-year university students responded to two questionnaires: WTC questionnaire developed by McIntyre et al (2001) and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), version 5.1 by Oxford (1990). The results of the quantitative analyses, first, revealed that Turkish EFL learners were willing to communicate in the classroom in a range from half of the time to usually willing in both overall mean score and in separate components such as speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension. Second, the participants were found to be medium strategy users. Finally, correlation analyses showed that there was a significant positive correlation between these two concepts. In specific, certain aspects of the levels of WTC inside classroom matched with certain sub-components of the SILL. After the study, a number of recommendations for language learning and teaching as well as some implications for further research are provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Willingness to Communicate, Language Learning Strategies, Language

Kaynakça

• distinctions can be examined. Furthermore, this study was a preliminary attempt to explain the
• relationship between LLS use and WTC. Some other studies can be conducted to examine the
• relationship of LLS use and WTC with other social, affective, and cognitive factors affecting
• successful L2 learning.
• Alemi, M. Daftarifard, P. & Pashmforoosh, R. (2011). The impact of language anxiety and language proficiency on WTC in EFL context. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(3), 150- 166.
• Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review 55: 490-515.
• Bull, S. & Ma, Y. (2001). Raising learner awareness of language learning strategies in situations of limited resources. Interactive Learning Environments, 9(2), 171-200.
• Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System 39(4), 468-479.
• Chamot, A. U. (1987). Learning Strategies of ESL Students. In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.) 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning, pp. 71-83. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13.
• Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
• 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.
• LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly 28: 409-414.
• McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Relaibility and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16-25.
• McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1990a). Willingness to communicate: differing cultural perspectives. The Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72-77.
• McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1990b). Willingness to communicate: a cognitive view. Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 5, 19-37.
• MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R. & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
• MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R. & Conrod, S. (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(3), 537-564.
• MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R. & Conrod, S. (2003). Talking in order to learn: willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589-607.
• MacIntyre, P. D. & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control. System, 38(2), 161-171.
• Merç, A. (2008). Willingness to Communicate Inside the Classroom for Foreign Language Learners: A Study with Turkish Learners. Proceedings of the IASK International Conference: Teaching and Learning 2008, pp. 828-835. May, 26-28, Aveiro, Portugal.
• Oxford, R. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal 73, 291-300.
• Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House / Harper &Row.
• Peng, J. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL
• classrooms in China. System, 40, 203-213.
• Purdie, N. & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27, 375-388.
• Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., McCroskey, J.C. & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, introversion, and self-reported communication competence: Finnish and American comparisons. Communication Research Reports, 8, 55-64.
• Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System, 27, 173-190.
• Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Strong, G. (2001). Attitude and motivation in language learning: revisited. http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/01/may/strong.html
• Wakamato, N. (2000). Language learning strategy and personality variables: focusing on extroversion and introversion. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38, 71-82.
• Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50, 203-244.
• Yamamori, K., Isoda, T., Hiromori, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Using Cluster Analysis to uncover learner differences in strategy use, will to learn, and achievement over time. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 381-409.
• Yang, N. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.
• 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.
• Yılmaz, V. (1996). Language learning strategies of Turkish EFL students and the effects of proficiency level and gender on strategy use. Eskisehir, Anadolu University: Unpublished MA Thesis.
• Zakahi, W. R. & McCroskey, J. C. (1989). Willingness to communicate: a potential confounding variable in communication research. Communication Reports, 2, 96-104.
• Zarrianabadi, N & Abdi, R. (2011). Willingness to communicate and language learning orientations in Iranian EFL context. International Education Studies, 4(4), 206-214.