Breaking down barriers : A qualitative study on willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms through perspectives from teachers in Sweden

(1)

and Communication

Breaking down barriers

A qualitative study on willingness to communicate in EFL

classrooms through perspectives from teachers in Sweden

ENA314 English for Teachers in Secondary and Upper Secondary School: Degree Project

Emma Nilsson

Supervisor: Olcay Sert

Examiner: Karin Molander Danielsson Term: Autumn 2020

(2)

School of Education, Degree project Culture and Communication ENA314 15 hp Autumn 2020 ABSTRACT

This study aims at exploring (1) EFL students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) from the perspectives of some English teachers in Swedish upper secondary schools, and (2) the same teachers’ reported strategies for dealing with their students’ WTC. Six teachers from five different upper secondary schools in Sweden, who all teach English in different programs, volunteered to participate in the study. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and the transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The results of the study showed that teachers perceive both social and psychological factors to influence students’ WTC, and that motivation plays an important role. A natural part of discussing EFL learners’ WTC also seemed to be to discuss their use of the target language. Strategies that were reportedly perceived to enhance EFL learners’ WTC were building respectful relationships within the classroom, using meaningful and relevant topics, creating communicative settings, correcting mistakes cautiously and utilizing digital tools. However, enhancing students’ WTC was considered

challenging, and more teacher training in affecting factors of and strategies for enhancing EFL learners’ WTC are suggested to be needed.

____________________________

Keywords: willingness to communicate, participation, English as a foreign

(3)

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Olcay Sert for being the most supportive supervisor I could have wished for. Thank you for giving me advise and cheering me on.

I also wish to thank the six upper secondary school teachers who so kindly let me interview them. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me.

Thank you to my dear friend and classmate Michelle Johnsson for giving me your thoughts on this study, for lending me a shoulder to cry on and for always making me laugh.

(5)

1 Introduction

One could claim that learning a language is similar to learning to ride a bicycle; the best way to do it is to try. Learning a language, and riding a bicycle, could almost be considered an art. In this case, art is defined, according to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, as “an ability or a skill that you can develop with training and practice” (Hornby, 2010, p. 70). Few of us learned to ride a bicycle through reading theories about it or taking exams on the subject. On the contrary, most of us learnt by repeatedly trying, and sometimes failing, until we finally succeeded; it took both training and practice, but also a willingness to keep going. The same could be said for language learning. A learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) in the target language plays a crucial role for communicating (MacIntyre, Clemént, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998). If practising a language is considered one of the keys for learning it, working with learners’ WTC in that language seems like a good place to start:

If the fundamental objective of L2 instruction is to facilitate learners’ L2 use, then a communicative approach should be adopted in EFL classrooms, with an emphasis on speaking rather than grammar. Language teachers and instructors should be aware of the fact that frequency and amount of L2 communication increase learners’ WTC in English (Yashima et al. as cited in Başöz & Erten, 2019, p. 14)

Even though some say a language may be best learnt through speaking it, a lot of students seem unwilling to communicate in English in the classroom. This is something that I have experienced both as a student in upper secondary school myself and, more recently, as a student teacher during my school placement experience. The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2011) claim the following: “Teaching of English should aim at helping students develop knowledge of language and the surrounding world so that they have the ability, desire and confidence to use English in different situations and for different purposes.” (Aim of the subject section, para. 1). Enhancing students’ abilities, desires, and confidence to use English is therefore one of the main aims for the English subject in Sweden, and perhaps one of our toughest assignments as teachers. So, how do we encourage our students to communicate in English?

Many learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) experience reluctance to speak the language, which can ultimately affect their learning of the language. This reluctance can be connected to the briefly mentioned studies of students’ WTC, a term more precisely defined as

(6)

“a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons”1

(MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). There are many factors affecting students’ WTC, some of which include:

classmates, instructional methods, teacher, atmosphere, materials, class size, L2 motivation, fear of being ridiculed, L2 anxiety, fear of making mistakes, topic interest, topic familiarity, shyness, introversion, vocabulary knowledge, pronunciation, practice, SPCC [Self-Perceived Communication Competence] and past communication experience. (Başöz & Erten, 2019, p. 14)

Considering all the factors affecting students’ WTC, it has been argued that we need more research on the strategies for enhancing students’ WTC (Liu & Jackson, 2008). Since many of the factors mentioned above can be affected by the teacher, the present study investigates teachers’ perceptions of WTC and their strategies for enhancing WTC in EFL classrooms. The participating teachers all teach upper secondary school English classes in Sweden. The results suggest different strategies that might encourage and support English teachers struggling with students’ WTC in EFL classrooms. However, the challenges of dealing with students’ WTC is also expressed by the teachers, and more teacher training in enhancing EFL learners’ WTC is therefore suggested.

1.1 Problem statement, aim of study and research questions

Due to the prominence of speaking when learning a language, students’ willingness to communicate in the classroom is an aspect which teachers need to consider to enhance the learning of English. The aim of this study is to explore how English teachers address WTC in the Swedish upper secondary school and to investigate English teachers’ work with students’ WTC in EFL classrooms. The following research questions are posed:

1. What are the participating teachers’ perceptions of their students’ WTC in EFL classrooms?

2. What strategies do the participating teachers report to use to enhance WTC in EFL classrooms?

1_{Other definitions of WTC exist, but MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposes the concept to be situation-based. This is}

(7)

2 Background

In this section, a brief history of WTC as a field of study is presented, along with the transition into the research on willingness to participate (WTP).

2.1 Willingness to communicate

The concept of willingness, or rather unwillingness, to communicate was first brought to light by Burgoon (1976). Where social and psychological variables previously were the main tool for identifying people’s communication behaviors, Burgoon (1976) aimed at developing a more precise tool. The result was the Revised Unwillingness-to-Communicate Scale, a self-report instrument where participants were to rate their feelings in relation to certain statements regarding various communicative behavior. Later, a new instrument for predicting communicative behavior was created by McCroskey and Baer (1985): The Willingness to Communicate Scale. Together with these scales, the idea that WTC was connected to certain personality traits dominated the field of communication. However, MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposed that the concept should be regarded as situation-based instead. They claimed that a person’s WTC depends on many different variables, but that the variable with the biggest impact might be the language of discourse. With this statement, WTC was introduced in the research of second language (L2) learning. In fact, MacIntyre et al. (1998) went so far as to propose WTC to be the most important factor for a person’s L2 use:

Practically, our model looks at WTC as the final step in preparing the language learner for communication, because it represents the probability that a learner will use the language in authentic interaction with another individual, given the opportunity. (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 558, italics in original)

The aim of their heuristic model was to use it as a form of tool for treating learners’ un-willingness to communicate. Although focus still lied on mapping out communicative behavior, a shift towards attempting to enhance WTC as well hereby commenced.

However, many studies continuously were conducted along the lines of Burgoon (1976) and McCroskey and Baer (1985), with the goal of charting out L2 learners’ communicative language learning experiences. Liu and Jackson (2008), for instance, aimed for this using quantitative methods on large groups of participants who were asked to rate their unwillingness to communicate by completing four different scales. The results indicated a correlation between unwillingness to communicate, foreign language anxiety, learners’ self-perceived English skills

(8)

and their access to the language. There were also differences in the participants’ attitudes towards interpersonal communication in English and speaking English in class with the teacher, with the former being preferred by most learners, indicating that who one communicates with is a factor affecting WTC. Another study conducted along the same lines was that of Lahuerta (2014), who aimed at studying, inter alia, the possible correlation between L2 learners’ WTC, their level of motivation and their self-perceived communicative competence. The quantitative study was conducted with the help of 195 Spanish students who, much like the previous studies within the field, were asked to rate their language learning experiences on different scales. The results suggested that L2 learners’ WTC is highly affected by their level of motivation. There was also a significant connection between L2 learners’ WTC and their self-perceived communicative competence; a student who is confident in their communicative skills suffers from less anxiety when speaking and thus becomes more willing to communicate.

Through these discoveries, the role of the teacher, fostering students’ WTC, became more and more apparent. A study was conducted by Tavakoli and Davoudi (2017), where the teacher’s role regarding students’ WTC was emphasized:

The teachers in the EFL context need to be more sensitive about their crucial role in providing a more communicative atmosphere in classes and consequently making EFL learners more keen and willing to initiate and maintain conversations by actively involving every student. (Tavakoli & Davoudi, 2017, p. 1524) Teachers’ vital roles regarding students’ WTC had been agreed on in several other studies. However, in one respect Tavakoli and Davoudi’s (2017) results contradicted most of the earlier research. It seemed that the participants were more willing to communicate in English in front of the class and with the teacher than with their peers or in groups, in contrast to the results from Liu and Jackson’s (2008) study which indicated the opposite. This was suggested to be a result of several different factors, one of them being the generally common policy of speaking English only in the Iranian classrooms: when the students left the classroom, they switched to Persian. Thus, there may have been a social stigma surrounding L2 use outside of English class with the classmates, which affected learners’ WTC with the classmates in class as well. A second factor that might explain the results was proposed to be the bond and trust between the teacher and the students, and the supportive environment in the classroom – further emphasizing the essential role of the teacher. A third factor mentioned was the form of feedback learners received from the teacher when making mistakes – less immediate error corrections seemed to enhance students’ WTC. The two final factors go in line with the findings of Khodarahmi and Motallebi (2014), who studied disciplinary techniques used by teachers in the classroom, and

(9)

their effect on students’ WTC. It was found that the disciplinary techniques used by teachers in the classroom had a large impact on students’ WTC. Some of the techniques that were particularly affective were recognition/reward and involvement, which were reported to help create a friendly and positive environment in the classroom.

In another study, Başöz and Erten (2019) aimed at exploring EFL learners’ perceptions of the factors that influence their in-class WTC through semi-structured interviews. The collected data was used to suggest methods for enhancing WTC. One of these methods, that reportedly has an enormous effect on EFL learners’ WTC, was the teacher creating a safe, relaxed, and positive classroom atmosphere where the learners feel supported, can work in peace and are free to make mistakes without feeling embarrassed. It was also reported that the topic of discussion has a big influence on the learners’ WTC, where a more interesting and relatable topic equals a higher WTC. A similar proposal was made by Munezane (2015), who examined the relative effects of visualization and goal setting on learners’ WTC. During one academic semester, different groups participated in an English course where the same content was taught differently. The results of the study indicated that working with visualization and goal setting together could be positive for learners’ WTC in class. It was also suggested that “bolstering students' ability to connect the proximal goals in the class to their distal goals in the future can provide an important component toward enhancing learners' willingness to communicate” (Munezane, 2015, p. 188).

2.2 Willingness to participate

Lately, a more social perspective has dominated the field of WTC. Through situated research methods and a more qualitative approach, a line of research on language learners’ willingness to participate (WTP) has emerged. The concept has been described as “the study of individuals’ willingness to communicate in the actual interactional setting rather than in the realm of hypothetically-oriented data” (Kubanyiova & Yue, 2019, p. 43). De Costa (2014) made one of the earlier attempts at reconceptualizing WTC in his study of an immigrant student’s changing communicative behavior during a school year. He suggested that adding a sociolinguistic notion to the WTC concept could develop it further, to fully be able to describe EFL students’ WTC. Yashima, MacIntyre and Ikeda (2018) acknowledged, in their study, the difference between trait WTC and state WTC, which was claimed 20 years earlier by MacIntyre et al. (1998). The aim of their study was to investigate what role learners’ individual characteristics might have on L2 learners’ WTC, as well as what role the classroom context might have on L2 learners’

(10)

WTC. They found that by decreasing teacher control of the classroom communication, and instead making participation the students’ responsibility, both student communication and participation was enhanced. Communication and participation can, after all, be connected: “Skills training in initiating turns by asking questions or commenting on what others said will help encourage quiet learners to take the first step in participating in discussions” (Yashima et al., 2018, p. 133). Furthermore, Kubanyiova and Yue (2019) emphasized that communication is not merely made up of speaking, which has been the focus of previous WTC research, and that the WTP line of research could be a valuable contribution to the field. Instead of looking at WTC as one individual’s trait, it could be studied as “a socially situated and co-constructed observable practice” (Ro & Burch, 2020, p. 1).

With this approach, WTC became a part of the field of conversation analysis (CA):

Instead of studying WTC as an individual psychological or affective internal state, these CA studies reconceptualized the notion in terms of situated interactional activities, co-constructed and co-accomplished by the participants, and taking into account the context and participants’ actions in the physical environment (including a focus on gaze, gesture, facial expressions, and use of materials such as writing implements). (Ro & Burch, 2020, p. 2)

One of these CA studies, mentioned by Ro and Burch (2020), was conducted by Sert (2015), who described participation as a “key for learning in instructed language learning settings” (Sert, 2015, p. 139). The importance of participation in EFL classrooms has also been emphasized by Evnitskaya and Berger (2017), who stated that “[i]f participation in social activities is the very site where second language (L2) learning takes place, then how, when or

how often students participate become central concerns for L2 instruction and evaluation in the

classroom context” (Evnitskaya & Berger, 2017, p. 71, italics in original). Their study of grade 8 students’ WTP in two different L2 learning settings implied that WTP can be displayed in a variety of ways. Some different displays of WTP, as exemplified by Sert (2015), could be “hand-raising to take turns, displaying incipient speakership through body positioning, and engaging in mutual gaze with the teacher, or by initiating a turn without being asked explicitly to do so” (Sert, 2015, p. 139). Sert (2015) additionally stated that displays of participation from the students can signal great learning opportunities for teachers. Likewise, displays of unwillingness to participate among students could be utilized by the teacher as well. Practitioners should consider students’ display of WTP to be of value, not only as a learning opportunity for themselves (Sert, 2015) but also to learn how to work with the development of their students’ language skills (Evnitskaya & Berger, 2017). However, the importance of giving

(11)

teachers tools for encouraging student communication in the classroom becomes apparent (Kubanyiova & Yue, 2019). This issue has been raised by Sert (2015) as well, advocating classroom interaction preparation in teacher education. Forcing a student into conversation could not only take up an unnecessary amount of time from class, but, perhaps even worse, result in “long-term and repeated disengagement of particular students” (Sert, 2015, p. 140).

3 Method

In this section, the methods used for conducting the study are presented. In 3.1 Participants and context, the participants of the study are presented along with the context in which the study has been conducted, followed by 3.2 Data collection procedures and 3.3 Analytical procedure. The section ends with a report of the ethical considerations taken into account in the study.

3.1 Participants and context

The participants of this study were six English teachers from five different upper secondary schools in Sweden. Their experience with teaching varied from six to thirty years. Some of the teachers only taught at vocational programs, some only taught at higher education preparatory programs and some taught at both. The participants will henceforth be referred to as teacher 1, teacher 2, etc, in the same order as the conducted interviews.

In Sweden, English is generally being taught from the third grade, although sometimes from the first grade, to the last year of upper secondary school and is considered one of the core subjects. In the curriculum for the upper secondary school, The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2011) claim the following regarding the English language:

Students should be given the opportunity, through the use of language in functional and meaningful contexts, to develop all-round communicative skills. These skills cover both reception, which means understanding spoken language and texts, and production and interaction, which means expressing oneself and interacting with others in speech and writing, as well as adapting their language to different situations, purposes and recipients. (Skolverket, 2011, Aim of the subject section, para. 1)

In making this comment, The Swedish National Agency for Education highlight the importance of encouraging communication in the English learning classroom. Nevertheless, the knowledge requirements are often considered to be somewhat vague, and teachers interpret them differently. This issue was brought up by some of the participants in the present study.

(12)

3.2 Data collection procedures

The participants of the study were chosen through convenience sampling, meaning that accessibility determined which teachers were asked to participate. People who met the criteria for participating, i.e., English teachers in upper secondary schools in Sweden, that I had previously met were contacted. When using convenience sampling in qualitative research, it is important not to make any generalizations outside of the “sample universe” (Robinson, 2014). Therefore, no generalizations will be made in this study; the results exemplify a limited number of teachers’ own perceptions and experiences.

The data were collected through semi-structured interviews. The interview questions were constructed based on the two research questions, and with inspiration taken from the literature presented in the background section. Before finalizing the questions, they were sent to the supervisor twice for feedback. The week before the interviews were to be held, the participants received a document with the interview questions, to be able to reflect on the subject beforehand if they wanted to – which most of them did. The document sent out can be found in English in the Appendix. The participants who wanted to do the interview in Swedish received a translated document.

All six interviews were held via a video-conferencing software due to the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic. The interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent. Each participant was free to choose whether the interview would be held in Swedish or English. The most important thing was not which language the interview was held in, but rather that each participant felt comfortable and able to fully express themselves. In the end, half of the interviews were held in English and half in Swedish.Semi-structured interviews are generally conducted in a flexible manner, and focus lies on the informant developing their thoughts as much as possible (Denscombe, 2009). Therefore, notes were taken during each interview, and elaboration questions were asked based on the participants’ statements.

3.3 Analytical procedure

All interviews were transcribed, and the parts of the Swedish interviews that are quoted in the present study were translated into English. The transcriptions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Denscombe, 2009). When analyzing qualitative data, Denscombe (2009) stresses the importance of thoroughly going through all data in an unbiased manner. The process of analyzing qualitative data begins with preparation (Denscombe, 2009), and therefore all

(13)

transcriptions were printed out. After that, each transcription was read carefully and multiple times, and statements that could be linked to the research questions were prioritized and highlighted. Color coding was used to help with the categorization of the different statements. Connections were drawn and themes were formed. After having decided on the different categories and themes, the data needed to be verified (Denscombe, 2009). To accentuate intercoder reliability, a classmate and future colleague was asked to interpret the extracts from the transcriptions. The number of agreements between the two of us were then divided by the number of extracts, resulting in an intercoder reliability of 0,88.

3.4 Ethical considerations

The Swedish Research Council's guidelines for good research practice (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017) were followed during and after the data collection procedure. Participation was voluntary and the participants had the right to end the interview at any time without having to state a reason. All collected data has been anonymized so that nothing can link the participating teachers to this study.

4 Results and analysis

In this section, the data from the interviews are presented in accordance with the two research questions posed. The first research question will be touched on in 4.1 Teacher perceptions, while 4.2 Teacher strategies is dedicated to the second research question. The section is finished off with concluding the findings in 4.3 Summary of results. Important to note is the fact that a part of this study investigates its participants’ subjective perceptions of students’ behavior and attitudes, which naturally cannot be verified but might still be of interest to other teachers facing similar situations.

4.1 Teacher perceptions

The first research question posed was What are the participating teachers’ perceptions of their

students’ WTC in EFL classrooms? With this question as a basis, the following recurring

themes have been extracted from the interview transcriptions: 4.1.1 The state of WTC, 4.1.2 WTC vs. willingness to use the target language, and 4.1.3 Barriers.

(14)

4.1.1 The state of WTC

The participating teachers initially reflected on the general state of WTC among their students. When asked about their students’ WTC in class, teacher 1 and 4 attested to it being “very low overall” (teacher 1) and that communication is “done with a great amount of reluctance” (teacher 4). Both teachers also proposed this reluctance to have risen during recent years, and teacher 4 claimed it to concern other subjects as well:

But it doesn’t just concern the English subject, generally there seems to be a… I don’t know, I wouldn’t call it an unwillingness… I don’t know what to call it. It’s just that you prefer not to speak; you rather don’t answer questions; even if you know the answer, and perhaps, deep-down, want to answer, you hold back; a general tendency not to want to say anything. (teacher 4)

The teacher perceived there to be a sort of social stigma making the students not want to “stand out in the crowd” (teacher 4) by communicating with the teacher. The rest of the teachers, however, claimed that the WTC among students varies greatly, between different students, different classes, and different programs, and that there are several factors affecting students’ WTC (see 4.1.3 Barriers).

Some of the teachers connected WTC with different types of students. Teacher 1 and 3 reported that a particular group of students, mainly boys who play video games, take more initiatives in classroom communication:

Those are the students who are most comfortable in speaking English because they do that on a more regular basis than others. And especially, these are the students that do it outside of class. And I think… one of the most important factors of speaking English in class is that you also do it outside of class. (teacher 1) Thereby, the teacher seems to point to the fact that the students’ WTC might not only have to do with their gender or extramural activities, but that they find communication outside of the classroom useful. That makes them more comfortable to bring their WTC into other situations, mainly the classroom. Teacher 6 exemplified the same regarding some of the students in the aesthetics program who “spend a lot of time on YouTube, watching a lot of clips, trying to improve their own interests in music or dance”. The fact that they try to engage with the English language was perceived by the teacher as helpful for increasing their WTC inside the classroom. Whether these examples are evidence of WTC being situated or in fact connected to personality traits will be discussed in section 5.

(15)

Teacher 5 connected students’ WTC to motivation rather than which program they enroll in. However, students attending theoretical programs generally are more “forthcoming”, according to the teacher, who suggested that “maybe they are more motivated to get a higher grade, and they are more understanding of what is needed to do that” (teacher 5). At the same time, the teacher attested to there being students in the theoretical programs who “aren’t as motivated, and in that respect, they don’t necessarily always speak that much English” (teacher 5). Vocational students were also perceived to be more willing to communication when motivated to get a higher grade. Both teacher 3 and 4 experienced the highest rate of student communication in the target language during examinations, when students’ actions might affect their grade. Teacher 1 agreed:

One of the times when students communicate in English is of course during some form of examination, when they are assessed… in seminars and in presentations and so on… of course they speak English because they pretty much have to. But I would say those are the only times when all students communicate in English… no other time, I would say. (teacher 1)

Whether that could be interpreted as motivation or not could be discussed, but the fact remains that most students are perceived to be unwilling to communicate, unless they gain something out of it.

4.1.2 WTC vs. willingness to use the target language

To the majority of the informants, WTC seemed to mean WTC in the target language; they did not distinguish between the two and often gave examples of students responding in Swedish instead of in English. Even though these two issues are not interchangeable, they seem to affect each other. Teacher 1 reportedly tries to encourage students to use the target language when communicating, but expressed a problematic counter reaction from the students:

Sometimes […] I can ask students to […] answer questions in English instead and so on, but the problem is that when I do that many students just say that then they don’t want to answer. And then I feel like… to encourage active participation in class, it is easier for me to allow both Swedish and English in class. (teacher 1)

The teacher in this case must make a choice of what is more important: whether the students use the target language or whether they participate in communication. This issue was brought

(16)

up by several of the teachers, and some expressed encouraging students’ use of English in class to be rather wearisome. Teacher 1 claimed that it takes a lot of energy and that “it does not seem to really help” while teacher 2 described it as a battle that you do not always have the strength to fight. However, no matter whether students use English when communicating or not, all teachers explicitly claimed to maintain their own use of English consequently throughout class. Teacher 5 developed his reason for this strategy:

In all of my English classes I won’t speak any Swedish at all […] the only communication they get from me, 99.9% of the time, is English. […] And I think that’s important. Because if you open up to communicate in Swedish, then you’re also showing a willingness to do that and almost giving the students a way out, so I think it’s foremost that you lead by example. (teacher 5)

The fact that all teachers talked about their students’ WTC in the target language, when being asked about their students’ WTC, might indicate that the usage of the target language could be seen as a natural part of discussing EFL students’ WTC. This will be further touched upon in section 5.

4.1.3 Barriers

Some of the teachers mentioned some challenges with dealing with students’ WTC. For one, there are many factors affecting students’ WTC:

The education system is so different, depending on where you go to school you are given […] a different road map in your education. […] Some students can be put straight on a highway, you know, where they can just put themselves in the fast lane and go straight on and have opportunities to speak all the time. Whereas some students, unfortunately, are put on a little bit of a country road and they have to go round and around and around, and they meet obstacles the whole time because… either they had criticism, they’ve been in an environment where they can’t speak or they don’t want to speak, and that creates problems further on in their education. So, I would say that there are so many different factors to this. (teacher 5)

Students’ previous experiences with communicating in English is perceived by the teacher to influence their WTC. Teacher 5 also claimed that several factors at school, apart from the classroom practices, can affect students’ WTC: “It can be what time of day the lesson is, it can be if they’d just eaten lunch, it could be if something happened outside of lesson time, something has caught their attention on social media”. Unfortunately, a lot of these factors may sometimes be out of each individual teacher’s control.

(17)

Students’ anxiety and low self-confidence with regards to communication in the classroom were perceived as barriers hindering their WTC: “In English many students feel anxiety […] because maybe someone would laugh, maybe the teacher won't understand me, maybe I need to repeat myself, maybe… yeah, a lot of things.” (teacher 1). Teacher 1 even reported seeing an unwillingness to speak among his English 7 students who “speak very good, fluent English at a very high level”, because the anxiety that some of them feel is “difficult to wash off”. Teacher 5 perceived the situation to be similar:

Some students […] say that the reason they don’t want to speak and don’t want to communicate is because, maybe previously during their education, they have been criticized and had critique, either from a friend, from a classmate, but also from a teacher, that that their language, or their dialect, or their accent, sounds strange. And a lot of teenagers […] they take that to heart. And it only needs to happen once during their school time for them, actually, to then… not want to speak. And if you have that and you put up that barrier, then straight away […] it’s very difficult to overcome it. (teacher 5)

Similarly, teacher 1 perceived that some students suffer from low self-confidence, comparing themselves to their classmates and thinking that they are not good enough. The teacher explained that some of his first-grade students “speak very fluent English” while some “can barely utter a complete sentence” when starting upper secondary school, and that working with students’ WTC needs to be done carefully: “We don't want them [the students] to feel like they're even worse than they already feel that they are” (teacher 1). Additionally, the teacher expressed concern regarding the fact that the students who might need to work on their English the most are those who “try as much as they can not to participate, both verbally and non-verbally” (teacher 1). Teacher 6 also reflected on this catch-22 situation: “I think that students tend to get nervous when it comes to speaking because they do it too seldom”. Students’ anxiety and low self-confidence might not only be difficult to affect but additionally makes the students hesitant to work on their communicative skills and, by that, possibly improve their self-confidence.

A third difficulty of working with students’ WTC is the different ideas of how much space communication should take up in the English classroom. While some of the teachers interpreted the knowledge requirements in one way, others interpreted them differently. Teacher 1 expressed that the criterion for a passing grade does not include the students having to communicate in English at other times than during assessments. To teacher 6, on the other hand, communicating in English during class was a matter of course: “I tell them that this is a

(18)

criterion; if you choose not to speak, you’re not going to pass this course”. Teacher 5 stated that only communicating in English during examinations does affect a students’ grade for the worse, since that would result in less than 20 minutes of speaking during a whole year. The teachers’ different ideas of the importance of classroom communication among the students could suggest that working with WTC is an unknown field among several EFL teachers. In fact, teacher 4 expressed students’ WTC to perhaps be “a bigger issue than I thought […] it’s a shame” (teacher 4). However, all teachers expressed the importance of working with students’ WTC, despite the difficulties:

It's a slippery slope to do this, but of course I think it [WTC] should be encouraged and I would love to… get to learn about new ideas and strategies to do this, because it is something that I have been neglecting more and more as the years go, I would say. (teacher 1)

The teacher suggested that the barriers hindering students’ WTC might be broken down by giving teachers tools for dealing with the issue. What kind of tools that could be valuable are suggested in section 5.

4.2 Teacher strategies

The second research question posed was What strategies do the participating teachers report

to use to enhance WTC in EFL classrooms? With this question as a basis, the following

recurring themes have been extracted from the interviews: 4.2.1 Building bridges – through relationships, 4.2.2 Using meaningful and relevant content, 4.2.3 Creating communicative settings, 4.2.4 Correcting mistakes cautiously, and 4.2.5 Utilizing digital tools.

4.2.1 Building bridges – through relationships

One crucial strategy for enhancing students’ WTC, mentioned by all six teachers in some form or another, was building a relationship both with and between all members of the classroom: “The relationships that you build with the students, and the relationships among the students, are often the foundation for whether they dare to speak or not” (teacher 2). Teacher 6, for instance, reported to start every course by interviewing each individual student, to “get a sense of who the student is and what they kind of dread and what they think is easier”. Doing so helped the teacher support each student as best as possible in classroom interactions. Teacher 5

(19)

expressed trying to respectfully work with the students’ WTC by building relationships with them:

Through building a relationship with the student, either by just talking to them, giving them feedback, maybe, and creating a sort of more accepting environment for them to talk […] I now have, for example, students that are slowly but surely speaking English to me, a bit at a time. And it’s because I’ve built up a respect with them. And that, I think, is important, if you show a willingness to understand why they don’t want to speak, you will build bridges, in order to then be able to communicate with them in English. At least that’s my theory and that’s my idea. (teacher 5)

According to several of the teachers, “one comes a long way with a little encouragement” (teacher 6). The self-confidence, and relationship, you build up through such encouragement is crucial: “It’s important to try and break down that barrier that they often put up themselves. To go from ‘I can’t’ to ‘I can; I may not be perfect, but I’m good enough and I’m learning’” (teacher 2). Conclusively, putting effort into building relationships in the classroom was perceived by the teachers to be an important, if not the most important, strategy for enhancing WTC.

4.2.2 Using meaningful and relevant content

A strategy that was perceived to work well among the teachers was basing discussions and communicative situations on meaningful and relevant topics close to the students. Teacher 5, for example, suggested that some people are more comfortable speaking about a subject that they have knowledge of and find interesting. The same was testified by teacher 4:

If I teach something and I manage to catch their attention, you can see it in their concentration and their eye contact with me, and there is almost something in the air that makes them quiet and really interested. They don’t even look at their own computers but they’re really in the moment, and that is first and foremost when you address things that are relevant to them in some way. (teacher 4)

Some of the teachers mentioned this strategy as a frequent element in their teaching. Teacher 2, for example, lets the students present something about themselves in English class, claiming that to be “a good icebreaker”. Teacher 3 indicated that students’ WTC sometimes is more noticeable when they can talk about their interests. The teacher claimed to use this in assessment situations such as oral presentations, if additional assessment material is needed:

Then we speak afterwards, for example “what are your thoughts on this?” and then you get to know things… “okay, your grandfather is from Scotland, how interesting”, and then elaborate on that, or “oh, you’re

(20)

interested in computer games, okay… what do you think, will it become an Olympic sport?” and then they might start talking without even noticing. (teacher 3)

This method was claimed to be used by teacher 2 as well, who, however, expressed some concern regarding finding student interests to work with, especially lately:

I find it more difficult to find some kind of common… ground, as a starting point to ease them into English. It might be because I am a bit older, but I experience that they… if you ask them what they are interested in, then “nothing” […] I hope I am wrong, but it feels like a trend, and then I don’t really know how to reach them when I don’t have these things to utilize. (teacher 2)

However, in such cases, the use of literature and other materials could be helpful. To use material where the content is meaningful and relevant to the students was advocated by teacher 4: “We use a good material here, according to me, that is meaningful to the students. The topics are relevant, they can recognize themselves in it, they can understand the content, and they can open their eyes to things”. Drawing from students’ interests and using meaningful and relevant material in different ways was regarded as a communicative resource, and a good strategy for enhancing WTC, by several of the teachers.

4.2.3 Creating communicative settings

All teachers, in some way, mentioned the classroom environment as a crucial factor for students’ WTC and WTP, and utilizing it as a strategy when trying to enhance students’ WTC is therefore perceived to be important. The group dynamic was referred to as “very impactful” by teacher 2, resulting in the teacher not being as controlling when dividing the students into groups. Teacher 4 expressed working with the students’ communicative abilities through group exercises and seminars, where a few students sit together and discuss a given subject that they have had time to prepare. Teacher 2 and 3 reportedly use so called ‘speaking stations’ in class, where the students walk around the classroom doing different speaking exercises in pairs or groups of three. This often works well, according to teacher 2, because the students “hardly even think about the fact that they speak English, and they don’t have time to listen to everyone else”. Teacher 6 presented another trick for making the students more at ease with group discussions:

I always have a speech in every course, and when I make them do that, they realize that discussing in small groups or within the classroom where they can sit wherever they want is not as bad. So, when I start off a

(21)

course saying that you have to deliver an individual speech in front of the group, a discussion is not as bad after that, so they are more relaxed in that sense. (teacher 6)

The teachers seem to put less focus on whole-class interactions, and instead try to work with making the students comfortable with communicating in groups. The teachers’ perceptions seem to be that letting classroom discussions give way to group discussions makes the students more at ease with communicating in class and was therefore suggested to be an important strategy for enhancing WTC. Teacher 2 claimed to use one-on-one time with the students, for example after a presentation, as a way of encouraging them to step out of their comfort zone step by step, through encouragements, positive comments, and challenges.

4.2.4 Correcting mistakes cautiously

The fear of making mistakes was mentioned by several of the teachers as a common barrier put up by students, hindering their WTC. Therefore, correcting mistakes cautiously in class was a strategy found by several teachers to be important when working with their students’ WTC. Not only did some of the teachers talk about how they correct mistakes, but that their students’ previous experiences with the matter seemingly affect their WTC. How teachers correct their students was therefore seen as an important strategy for enhancing WTC in the classroom. Teacher 3 claimed to correct students’ mistakes with caution, so as not to “kill their interest in speaking or writing”. Both teacher 3 and 6 attested to trying to reassure students that making mistakes is alright:

I […] try and say that within a classroom you have to be able to make mistakes. I can’t pronounce everything perfectly, I don’t sound like an American […] we have to make mistakes and we have to let each other do that, so if someone laughs or you could feel that there’s a bit of tension, I would just interrupt the discussion and say that “this is not okay”. So hopefully they feel comfortable… and they accept the fact that this is a language that we’re trying to learn together, and that I make mistakes and that they make mistakes and we’re trying to make it, you know, as good as possible. (teacher 6)

Similarly, teacher 2 claimed to have tried to make the students aware of the fact that learning a language is a process and that there will always be new words to learn and new ways of expressing oneself: “not even an Englishman knows all the words in a dictionary”.

(22)

4.2.5 Utilizing digital tools

A strategy that has been especially relevant during the pandemic, when a lot of education in Swedish upper secondary schools has been conducted online, was perceived to be that of utilizing digital tools to enhance students’ WTC. Teacher 5 and 6 attested to digital tools being of help in situations where students feel uneasy communicating when the teacher is around. Teacher 6, for instance, experienced that some students speak more easily in digital breakout rooms on Zoom than in class, and that getting away from the classroom takes away a bit of pressure and stress, especially from students with mental health issues or other diagnoses. Teacher 5 reportedly utilize digital tools regularly as well:

They’re more willing to speak English, sometimes, when the teacher isn’t there. And thankfully, in this day and age […] we have the ability, for example, to record a conversation on a mobile phone. […] The same goes, I could connect onto a digital platform, like Google Meets or Microsoft Teams, and I can digitally be in the room, but I can turn my camera off, and I can hear a conversation, and some students are more willing to speak and communicate when I’m physically not there. […] And by respecting the student’s willingness to speak but unwillingness to have me present, then… we’re making steps forward. (teacher 5)

By recording a conversation or being present via a computer screen instead of in the room with the students, it was perceived that students’ WTC can increase.

4.3 Summary of results

The analysis of the interviews has shown that the teachers perceive their students’ WTC to be low overall - a tendency noticed not just during English class but among students in general. However, they also claim that students’ WTC differs greatly between different students, classes, and programs. Students who find it useful to communicate outside of class are perceived to be more willing to communicate inside class. Whether that is evidence for WTC being situation-based or connected to personality traits will be discussed in section 5. One finding was motivation, which was perceived to be a factor affecting students’ WTC; a student who profits, in class or outside of class, from communicating seems to be more willing to communicate. Another factor that was perceived to be a part of the field of WTC was the language of discourse. The teachers could not discuss WTC without mentioning their students’ willingness to use the target language. There were also different factors perceived to hinder students’ WTC. Some of the factors are difficult to affect, since students sometimes bring experiences to upper secondary school from previous education, while some of the factors are psychological, such

(23)

as anxiety and low self-confidence. The teachers also expressed different ideas about the role of communication in the curriculum, and their different interpretations might suggest that working with WTC is relatively unknown among teachers in Swedish upper secondary schools. Some of the teachers felt that proper training in enhancing students’ WTC would be beneficial. Analyzing the interviews also extracted some strategies used by the teachers to enhance students’ WTC. The relationship created with the students, built on respect, was one of those strategies which was perceived to be especially important. A second strategy that was reportedly used by several of the teachers was using meaningful and relevant topics for discussions or other communication situations, but also regarding literature and other materials used in English class. Another strategy for enhancing students’ WTC was perceived to be creating communicative situations where the students feel comfortable participating. Several teachers perceived students to be more willing to communicate with a smaller number of people, making group and pair discussions work generally well. An additional strategy reportedly used by some of the teachers was that of correcting mistakes cautiously, to avoid killing their interest in participating in communication. Some of the teachers reportedly also utilize digital tools for making the students more comfortable communicating. Since students sometimes seem to be less willing to communicate when the teacher is present, recording devices, video calls and breakout rooms were perceived to help increase students’ WTC.

5 Discussion

The situation-based WTC, first proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998) with later support from Ro and Burch (2020) among others, is the approach on WTC used in this study. However, based on the participating teachers’ statements on WTC, it seems that labeling WTC might be a complex matter. The teachers perceived students’ WTC to be affected by different situations, such as group size and the teacher’s presence, but also by psychological factors such as anxiety and self-confidence. Teacher 1, for example, whose experience was that boys who play a lot of videogames generally are more willing to communicate, drew the connection to their out-of-school English practices – so called extramural English. Yet, those students’ WTC seemed to extend above different situations, i.e., not be situation-based. At the same time, students’ WTC was perceived to increase in group discussions rather than whole-class interactions, making WTC very much situation-based. The results of the present study might therefore suggest that

(24)

both social and psychological factors play roles in EFL learners’ WTC, and that continued studies on WTP in different types of situations could reveal even more about the nature of WTC. MacIntyre et al. (1998) claimed that even though many different variables affect a persons’ WTC, changing the language of discourse has the biggest impact. Some of the teachers claimed that some students’ participation seems to be hindered by having to use the target language, due to the anxiety many feel when having to speak English in class. Additionally, all teachers touched upon students’ willingness to use the target language in connection to their WTC, suggesting L2 use to be a natural part of the discussion of EFL learners’ WTC. Even though communication in the target language during English class could be regarded as the goal, research suggests that using ones first language (L1) could be an important resource in L2 teaching. Since several of the teachers attested to struggling with students using their L1 during English class, more training among EFL teachers in how to utilize translanguaging in EFL classrooms could perhaps be of use.

The results also suggested that motivation was perceived to be strongly connected to students’ WTC. Almost all teachers mentioned that they noticed an enhanced WTC during examinations and other graded assignments – so called instrumental motivation. Another case of motivation enhancing students’ WTC was the kind of motivation that extended outside of the classroom. Some examples raised by the teachers were the students in the aesthetics program who watch English speaking videos on YouTube to develop their interest in music and dance, and the boys who use English when playing video games. A significant part of enhancing students’ WTC, as suggested by both Başöz and Erten (2019) and the teachers who participated in the present study, is also by connecting the work in class with topics that the students find relevant and interesting. That was suggested to make the students more motivated to participate in communication. The study by Lahuerta (2014) found that motivation is a factor highly affecting L2 learners’ WTC and treating motivation as a crucial part of enhancing students’ WTC is therefore important.

The teachers suggested several different strategies that could be useful for enhancing students’ WTC. Dealing with students’ anxiety when speaking English is crucial. In accordance with the study by Liu and Jackson (2008), decreasing anxiety and enhancing WTC might be reached through discussions with the students about the anxiety that some feel when communicating in English. By doing so, the foreign language anxiety that some students feel could first be normalized and then dealt with, together as a class (Liu & Jackson, 2008). Even though none

(25)

of the teachers explicitly spoke of such whole-class discussions, they all perceived relationship-building to have immense impact on students’ WTC. Through one-on-one conversations with the students, some of the teachers reportedly got to know their students better to then be able to encourage communication. The environment in the classroom also plays a crucial role, as well as the relationships among the students and the teacher. Work put into creating a safe, positive, and allowing atmosphere in class, as well as a relationship built on respect between teacher and students, is well worth the time and effort when it comes to enhancing students’ WTC (Başöz & Erten, 2019; Tavakoli & Davoudi, 2017). This was reportedly a strategy used by several teachers, and all were aware of the impact classroom atmosphere has on students’ WTC. A strategy perceived by some of the teachers to enhance students’ WTC was to utilize digital tools of different kinds. Even though none of the researchers brought up in the background of the present study refer to digital aids explicitly, Liu and Jackson’s (2008) study suggested that some EFL learners were more reluctant to speak English in class with the teacher. The same feeling was perceived to be the reason why some students’ WTC was enhanced when the teachers used digital tools as replacements of their own presence. I do believe that the Covid-19 pandemic, when several educators around the world have been forced to rely on digital tools, will result in more research on the impact of digital aids and online teaching on students’ development – and perhaps also the possible impact on their WTC.

Working with WTC needs to be done gently, according to several of the teachers, to avoid doing more damage than good. Sert (2015) suggested to be cautious of putting too much time and effort into forcing students to communicate or participate in class when it is obvious that they do not want to respond, since that might lead to a reluctance to participate completely. Correcting mistakes is also an action that needs to be well thought through by teachers, which both the teachers and Tavakoli and Davoudi (2017) agree on, to not decrease students’ interest in communicating. Several of the teachers find enhancing students’ WTC to be a challenging task, and, just as suggested by both Sert (2015) and Kubanyiova and Yue (2019), further training in both factors affecting WTC and strategies for enhancing WTC could be of valuable, both for teachers and students. Thankfully, both teachers and researchers seem to be aware of the importance of developing strategies to enhance L2 learners’ WTC, which will hopefully affect the teacher training in the years ahead.

(26)

6 Conclusion

Even though some might suggest that a crucial part of learning a language is by using the language in practice, many EFL learners show an unwillingness to communicate. Language learners’ WTC is said to be situation-based and affected by a lot of different factors. The purpose of the present study was to explore some teacher’s reported perceptions of and strategies for working with their students’ WTC. Based on the results from this study, some teachers experience that students with a motivation to communicate are more likely to do so. It also seems that building a respectful relationship between the teachers and the students, working with meaningful and interesting topics in educational activities, and creating situations where the students feel at ease communicating are strategies that are perceived to enhance EFL learners’ WTC in the classroom. Some additional strategies that reportedly work well were to correct mistakes in class cautiously to avoid killing the students’ WTC and to utilize digital tools in situations where students feel unwilling to communicate. However, the barriers hindering students’ WTC are sometimes difficult to break down, and more teacher training is suggested regarding enhancing WTC, in order for teachers to best support EFL learners in their language learning development.

6.1 Limitations and future research

The present study has focused on teachers’ perceptions of and reported experiences with their students’ WTC through semi-structured interviews. No direct correlation between the teachers’ reported strategies and their gender or experience of teaching English has been found. Therefore, any information regarding this has been excluded from the analysis. This study has been conducted in a small and limited scale, and large-scale generalizations are therefore not possible. More participants could result in even more ideas on strategies for enhancing WTC. It could additionally be of interest to study teachers’ in-class strategies to deal with students’ WTC, through for example observations, as well, since perceptions and reported actions cannot be verified. Those observations could be further analyzed through adding the students’ perspectives. Continued research on EFL learners’ WTC is encouraged, for the sake of both teachers and students.

(27)

References

Başöz, T. & Erten, I. H. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into the factors influencing EFL learners' in-class willingness to communicate in English. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on

Youth and Language), 13(1), 1-18.

Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs - COMMUN MONOGR, 43(1), 60-69.

De Costa, P. I. (2014). Bridging the socio-cognitive divide: Rethinking the willingness to communicate concept from a conversation-based ELF perspective. Novitas-ROYAL

(Research on Youth and Language), 8(1), 11-29.

Denscombe, M. (2009). Forskningshandboken: för småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom

samhällsvetenskaperna. (Second ed.) Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Evnitskaya, N. & Berger, E. (2017). Learners’ multimodal displays of willingness to

participate in classroom interaction in the L2 and CLIL contexts. Classroom Discourse,

8(1), 71-94.

Hornby, A.S. (2010). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. (8th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Khodarahmi, E. & Motallebi, Z. (2014). EFL teachers’ classroom discipline strategies and learners’ willingness to communicate in English inside the classroom. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 976-981.

Kubanyiova, M. & Yue, Z. (2019). Willingness to communicate in L2: Persons’ emerging capacity to participate in acts of meaning making with one another. Journal for the

(28)

Lahuerta, A. C. (2014). Factors affecting willingness to communicate in a Spanish university context. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 39-55.

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.

MacIntyre, P.D., Clemént, R., Dörnyei, Z. & 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.

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The

construct and its measurement. [Paper presentation] The annual convention of the Speech

Communication Association, Denver, CO, United States.

Munezane, Y. (2015). Enhancing willingness to communicate: Relative effects of visualization and goal setting. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 175-191.

Ro, E., & Burch, A. R. (2020). Willingness to communicate/participate’ in action: A case study of changes in a recipient's practices in an L2 book club. Linguistics and Education,

58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100821

Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative research in psychology, 11(1), 25-41.

Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Skolverket. (2011). Ämnesplaner i gymnasieskolan, på engelska – Engelska. Stockholm. Retrieved from

(29)

https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan/laroplan-program-och-amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/amnesplaner-i-gymnasieskolan-pa-engelska

Tavakoli, E., & Davoudi, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate orally: The case of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(6), 1509-1527.

Vetenskapsrådet. (2017). Good research practice. Retrieved from

https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html

Yashima, T, MacIntyre, P. D. & Ikeda, M. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research,

(30)

Appendix

The Swedish Research Council's guidelines for good research practice2 are followed. All of the collected data will be anonymized and will be deleted as soon as the project has been approved. Participation is voluntary and you have the right to end the interview at any time without having to state a reason.

Thank you for participating!

___________________________________________________________________________ 1. How long have you been teaching English for?

2. At what program/programs do you teach English?

3. What are your experiences with your students’ willingness to communicate in English during English class? (For example, do they enjoy communicating in class or do they dread it? Do they do it voluntarily or do they need encouragement?)

4. In your experience, what are the factors that seem to affect your students’ willingness to communicate in English during English class? (For example, age, gender, program, classroom activity, topic of discussion, classroom environment, personality traits, etc.?)

5. How do you notice when your students are willing to participate during English class? (For example, do you notice non-verbal behavior as well as verbal behavior?)

6. Do you work in some way with your students’ willingness to communicate in English during English class?

7. Do you think it is necessary to try and enhance students’ willingness to communicate in English?

Breaking down barriers : A qualitative study on willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms through perspectives from teachers in Sweden