A comparative study on the effects of peer influence on willingness to communicate in speaking activities in online and face-to-face EFL lessons

Year 2023, , 1044 - 1061, 31.12.2023

Melike Bozca , Didem Koban Koç

https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1334665

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to investigate whether English as a foreign language (EFL) learners are more willing to communicate and study with the same partners or different partners in speaking activities in pairs or small groups and to determine whether there are similarities or differences in learners’ views regarding the same and different partners according to different learning environments (face-to-face and online). A qualitative research design was adopted in the study. The participants were EFL learners at the School of Foreign Languages (SFL) of a state university in Izmir, Turkey. The participants were divided into two groups. The first group (FF) included 20 students who took face-to-face education and the second group (OL) consisted of 20 students who took online education. The qualitative data were collected from both groups by means of a structured written interview form. The results revealed two main themes (1-Feelings, 2- English language production process) and ten sub-themes (1a- positive feelings, 1b- negative feelings, 1c- both positive and negative feelings, 2a- developing intimacy, 2b- collaboration and ease of communication, 2c- insufficiency of English language production, 2d-increase of knowledge, 2e-use of speaking skills, 2f- insufficiency of socialization and interaction, 2g- challenges of online education). The study compares both groups with respect to the above themes and subthemes and discusses implications for the teaching of English.

Keywords

English as a foreign language, Willingness to communicate, Peer influence, Same partners, Different partners

References

• Aksoy-Pekacar, K., & Erten, İ. H. (2021). Collaborative action pursuits within EFL task-based peer interactions. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 27, 182-207.
• Başöz, T., & Erten, I. H. (2018). Investigating tertiary level EFL learners' willingness to communicate in English. English Language Teaching, 11(3), 78-87.
• Bektas-Cetinkaya, Y. (2005). Turkish college students' willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).
• Bergil, A. S. (2016). The influence of willingness to communicate on overall speaking skills among EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 177-187.
• Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C.E. (2004). Introduction: The potential of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 291-306.
• Bowles, M. A. & Adams, R. J. (2015). An interactionist approach to learner–learner interaction in second and foreign language classrooms. In N. Markee (Eds.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 198-212). Wiley Blackwell.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (p. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
• Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
• Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness‐to‐communicate scale: Development and validation. Communications Monographs, 43(1), 60-69.
• Bursali, N., & Öz, H. (2017). The Relationship between ideal L2 self and willingness to communicate inside the classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 229-239.
• Cancino, M., & Avila, D. (2021). Switching to fully online EFL learning environments: An exploratory study on learners’ perceptions. Journal of Language and Education, 7(3), 23-42.
• Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System (39), 468-479.
• 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.
• Cherney, M. R., Fetherston, M., & Johnsen, L. J. (2018). Online course student collaboration literature: A review and critique. Small Group Research, 49(1), 98–128.
• Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. (4th ed.). Hodder Education.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Donato, R. 1994: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. (eds), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 33-56.
• Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Regional Language Centre Seminar, Singapore.
• Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University.
• García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63-90). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
• García Mayo, M. P., & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 272-279.
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. R. Eisensitein (Ed), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71-86) Plenum Press.
• Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson: Longman.
• Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. (pp. 40I-435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277-292
• Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Fatemi, A. H., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. Tesol Quarterly, 50(1), 154-180.
• Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C, Yorio and R. Crymes,(Eds.), On TESOL ,77,144-1581 Washington,D.C.,TESOL.
• Krashen, S. (1980). The theoretical and practical relevance of simple codes. In T. Scarcella and S. Krashen, (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley,Mass.,Newbury House.
• Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:Pergamon.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
• Krashen, S. (1989). Language acquisition and language education: Extensions and Applications. Prentice Hall International.
• Lee, J. S. (2019). EFL students’ views of willingness to communicate in the extramural digital context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(7), 692-712.
• Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2020). Affective factors, virtual intercultural experiences, and L2 willingness to communicate in in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 813-833.
• Littlewood, W. (2004). Students’ Perspectives on Interactive Learning. In O.Kwo, T.Moore & J.Jones (Eds). Developing Environments in Higher Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
• Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.
• Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
• Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-194.
• Long, M. H. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 126-141.
• Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii working papers in ESL, 8 (2), 1-26.
• Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468).San Diego: Academic Press.
• Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
• MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 135-142.
• MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
• 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., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589-608.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver. 3-11.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal,33(3), 458-468.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C.McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207-224.
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/ evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. California,USA: Jossey-Bass.
• Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Okyar, H. (2022). University-level EFL students’ views on learning English online: A qualitative study. Education and Information Technologies, 1-27.
• Öz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners in Turkish context. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269-275.
• Philp, J. & Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Philp, J. (2016). Epilogue: New pathways in researching interaction. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. (pp. 377-396). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Saldana, J., & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. California, USA: Sage Publications.
• Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. John Benjamins.
• Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633.
• Savaşçı, M. (2014). Why are Some Students Reluctant to Use L2 in EFL Speaking Classes? An Action Research at Tertiary Level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2682-2686.
• Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
• Suh, S. (2005). The effect of using guided questions and collaborative groups for complex problem solving on performance and attitude in a Web-enhanced learning environment. [PhD diss., Florida State University, Tallahassee.]
• Sun, S. Y. (2014). Learner perspectives on fully online language learning. Distance education,35(1), 18–42.
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural approaches to second language research (pp. 97–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning (pp. 95-109). London: Continuum.
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
• Varonis, E. M. & Gass, S. M., (1985). Non-native/ non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Wells, G. (1989). Language in the classroom: Literacy and collaborative talk. Language and Education, 3(4), 251-273.
• Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66
• 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.