II
Willingness to Communicate in the L2 Classroom
Khung lý thuyết trung tâm của luận văn. Tất cả phân tích thực nghiệm ở Chương 4 đều quy chiếu về mô hình WTC Pyramid của MacIntyre et al. (1998).
Opening
Why WTC matters
In speaking lessons, learners are often given similar opportunities to use English. However, their responses are often different. Some learners speak easily and take part in activities, while others avoid speaking or remain silent. These differences cannot be explained by language knowledge alone.
Researchers use the concept of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) to better understand why learners choose to speak or remain silent in class. WTC refers to a learner's readiness to speak when an opportunity appears. In foreign language classrooms, this readiness is not fixed. It can change depending on the task, the situation and the people involved (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547).
§ 2.1
From Trait Willingness to the L2 WTC Construct
Research on first language communication introduced the idea of willingness to communicate as a rather stable personality trait. When this idea was applied to second language learning, however, researchers soon saw that this trait view was not enough. Learners who are outgoing in their first language can be very quiet in the foreign language classroom.
To address this, the L2 WTC construct was proposed. It aims to capture both more stable tendencies and the highly situational nature of communication in a second language. Instead of asking whether a learner is communicative in general, L2 WTC asks whether they are ready to initiate or continue communication at a particular moment, with a particular interlocutor, in a particular context.
In this thesis, WTC refers to how ready learners are to use spoken English in the classroom when there is a chance to do so. This readiness can be seen in behaviours such as volunteering an answer, asking a question, making a suggestion in group work or responding to a partner's idea. At the same time, silence does not always mean unwillingness. Sometimes learners choose to listen, and this can also be a form of participation. The aim here is not to force learners to speak at any cost but to understand what supports their readiness to join in.
2.1.1. Definition of WTC in second language learning
In second language learning, willingness to communicate (WTC) refers to learners' readiness to enter communication when they have an opportunity to speak. It is not only a matter of language ability, because learners may know the answer but still choose not to speak. MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 547) define L2 WTC as a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using the second language. In this study, WTC is understood as learners' readiness to use spoken English during classroom activities, especially through visible behaviours such as speaking first, asking questions, giving longer answers, and talking to peers.
"L2 WTC is a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using the second language."
2.1.2. Its impact on speaking performance and classroom engagement
WTC has a direct impact on how much learners speak in class. Even if they have enough vocabulary and grammar, they will not get much practice if they seldom decide to take the floor. When WTC is higher, learners are more likely to answer questions, ask for clarification and share their ideas. Over time, this gives them more opportunities to develop fluency, interaction skills and confidence.
At the classroom level, WTC is linked to overall engagement. In classes where several learners are willing to initiate and respond, speaking activities are usually more lively and interactive. In classes where most learners avoid speaking, tasks may feel flat, and the teacher ends up doing most of the talking. Understanding WTC is therefore important for individual speaking performance and for the general quality of classroom participation.
§ 2.2
The L2 WTC Pyramid Model
2.2.1. Personal factors: self-confidence, anxiety, motivation
Learners' perception of their own ability to communicate in the target language is known as self-perceived communicative competence (SPCC). Although they are connected, it is not the same as their true proficiency. A learner with relatively high competency might be uncomfortable speaking and avoid taking the floor, while a learner with very restricted knowledge might feel very comfortable using what they have. SPCC serves as a link between subjective speech readiness and objective skill.
Anxiety in foreign language classrooms (FLCA) is another important component. It is sometimes characterized as a situation-specific form of anxiety that manifests during speaking exercises in language classes. FLCA can manifest as avoidance behaviors like not answering at all or responding sparingly, as well as physical signs like a shaky voice or a quicker heartbeat.
Motivation is important as well. Students may be more inclined to take chances if they believe that learning English would help them in their future academic endeavors. In reality, motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence are interrelated and can shift over time as students encounter both good and bad things.
Communication Behavior
L2 Use
Behavioral Intention
Willingness to Communicate
Situated Antecedents
Desire to communicate with a specific person · State communicative self-confidence
Motivational Propensities
Interpersonal motivation · Intergroup motivation · L2 self-confidence
Affective-Cognitive Context
Intergroup attitudes · Social situation · Communicative competence
Social and Individual Context
Intergroup climate · Personality
2.2.2. Situational factors: classroom environment, topic familiarity, peer dynamics
Tasks that are too difficult, unclear or not meaningful usually lower WTC. By contrast, tasks with clear goals and topics connected to learners' lives tend to support participation. Topic familiarity is important: many learners are more willing to speak about everyday life than about abstract or unfamiliar topics.
Peer dynamics can either support or hinder WTC. Supportive partners make speaking easier, while dominant or critical peers can silence others. The teacher's attitude to errors and feedback also affects whether learners feel safe enough to take risks in speaking.
2.2.3. Cultural and contextual influences
In some learning cultures, students are expected to listen quietly and not question the teacher, which may reduce WTC. In other cultures, expressing opinions and asking questions is encouraged. Attitudes toward English in the wider society also play a part. The Polish primary school setting in this study has its own features, such as limited exposure to English outside the classroom, fixed small groups and a curriculum that must cover multiple skills.
§ 2.3
A Triangle View: Tasks, Emotions, Self-Beliefs
2.3.1. MacIntyre et al.'s heuristic model (1998, p.547)
In this study, MacIntyre et al.'s (1998, p.547) model is used as the main theoretical framework, but it is interpreted through three classroom-relevant dimensions: task conditions, emotions, and learners' self-perceptions.
The apex of the pyramid represents the actual act of communication, where the learner either speaks or remains silent, which is why WTC is not just a stable personal trait but the outcome of multiple interacting influences.
| WTC layer | Meaning in this thesis | Main data source |
|---|---|---|
| Actual communication behaviour (Layer I) | Speaking first, asking questions, longer answers, talking to peers | Observation sheet |
| Situated antecedents (Layer III) | Task type, peer configuration | Cycle analysis, teacher notes, activity design |
| Affective-cognitive factors (Layer V) | SPCC, FLCA, emotional safety, self-perceived confidence | Questionnaires, feedback, observation notes |
2.3.2. Extensions and applications in different EFL contexts
Later research has extended this model and applied it in different EFL contexts. Studies from various countries show that WTC can change quickly depending on grouping, teacher behaviour, task type and learners' current emotional state. In some settings, learners appear more willing to speak in pairs than in whole-class interaction; in others, group dynamics play a stronger role.
Working with primary school learners suggests that emotional safety and enjoyment are especially important at this age. Positive experiences with tasks may matter more than high levels of linguistic sophistication. The present study builds on these ideas by focusing on a small group of Polish learners who repeatedly engage with the set of speaking tasks.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017, pp. 119–123) also argue that WTC in instructed language learning should be examined from both broader and moment-by-moment perspectives. This is useful for classroom research because learners' readiness to speak may change across lessons, tasks, and interactional situations.
§ 2.4
Self-Perceived Communicative Competence and Anxiety — Research Gap
Although there is now a substantial body of research on WTC, self-perceived communicative competence, and anxiety, several gaps remain. Most studies focus on older learners, such as secondary school students or university students, often in relatively privileged educational settings. Much less attention has been given to young learners in ordinary primary school classrooms.
There is also still limited classroom-based research showing how a repeated set of speaking activities can shape young learners' willingness to communicate over time. While some studies discuss task type or planning support in general, fewer studies follow how learners respond to repeated speaking routines across several classroom cycles.
Finally, classroom-based studies are often reported as isolated cases and are not always clearly linked back to broader theoretical models such as MacIntyre et al.'s pyramid. This makes it harder to see how local interventions can inform theory. The present study addresses these issues by following four primary school learners in Poland as they participate in a repeated set of classroom speaking activities. By tracing changes in their participation and emotional reactions over time, the study aims to show how tasks, emotions, and self-beliefs connect to WTC in a real classroom context.
In classroom settings, WTC is often visible through learners' behaviour. Learners with higher WTC are more likely to volunteer answers, ask questions, or start speaking without being directly invited. In contrast, learners with lower WTC may wait to be called on or avoid speaking whenever possible. Accordingly, the study focuses on three closely related constructs that help capture learners' willingness to communicate in the classroom: self-perceived communicative competence (SPCC), foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA), and observed WTC-related behaviour.
▷ Mạch lập luận · Argument thread
Chapter 2 Flow — Willingness to Communicate
Từ KHÁI NIỆM gốc → MÔ HÌNH pyramid → TAM GIÁC tasks/emotions/self-beliefs → GAP · steps chained
EN ↔ VI · each step links to the next through a bridge note
- OpeningWhy WTC matters
English
WTC is the bridge between knowing a language and using it. Without WTC every other competence stays dormant. This is why WTC — not accuracy, not vocabulary — is the axis of this thesis.
Tiếng Việt
Mở đầu: WTC là cầu nối giữa "biết tiếng" và "dùng tiếng". Không có WTC, mọi competence khác đều ngủ đông. Đây là LÝ DO chọn WTC làm trục cho luận văn.
Leads to →To measure WTC we first have to decide what kind of thing it is — a stable trait, or a shifting state?
Dẫn sang →Muốn đo WTC phải quyết định NÓ LÀ GÌ đã — đặc điểm ổn định (trait) hay trạng thái dao động (state)?
- § 2.1 · ConstructFrom Trait → State (the L2 WTC construct)
English
McCroskey (1985) framed WTC as a stable trait. MacIntyre et al. (1998) re-defined L2 WTC as a situational state that fluctuates lesson to lesson. This shift is the reason repeated observations across eight weeks — not one questionnaire — is the correct measurement method.
Tiếng Việt
McCroskey (1985) coi WTC là trait (đặc điểm ổn định). MacIntyre và cs. (1998) định nghĩa lại L2 WTC là STATE situational — dao động theo từng tiết. Đây là CƠ SỞ để em đo nhiều lần qua 8 tuần.
Leads to →If WTC is a state, we need a model of which variables push it up or down — that is the six-layer pyramid.
Dẫn sang →Nếu WTC là state, cần MÔ HÌNH các biến đẩy nó lên/xuống — chính là pyramid 6 tầng.
- § 2.2 · Pyramid6 layers: situational (top 3) ↔ stable (bottom 3)
English
The MacIntyre pyramid: TOP 3 (Use → WTC → Situational self-confidence + Desire) is changeable within eight weeks; BOTTOM 3 (Motivation → Attitudes → Personality) is not. The intervention therefore targets layers 2–4 — the surgically correct site for a short classroom study.
Tiếng Việt
Pyramid 6 tầng: TOP 3 (Use → WTC → Self-conf state + Desire) thay đổi được trong 8 tuần; BOTTOM 3 (Motivation → Attitudes → Personality) không. Can thiệp của em NHẮM tầng 2–4.
Leads to →The pyramid tells us where to intervene, but not how variables interact — for that we need the task–emotion–self triangle.
Dẫn sang →Pyramid cho biết ĐÁNH VÀO ĐÂU, chưa cho biết CÁC BIẾN TƯƠNG TÁC RA SAO — cần tam giác task–emotion–self.
- § 2.3 · TriangleTasks ↔ Emotions ↔ Self-beliefs
English
Three mutually influencing axes: task design shapes emotions, emotions shape SPCC/FLCA, SPCC/FLCA feeds back into WTC. This model justifies measuring all four data streams: observation + SPCC + FLCA + activity feedback — no single instrument can capture WTC alone.
Tiếng Việt
3 trục tác động lẫn nhau: task design ảnh hưởng cảm xúc, cảm xúc ảnh hưởng SPCC/FLCA, SPCC/FLCA quay lại quyết định WTC. Mô hình này giải thích vì sao em đo CẢ 4 thứ: observation, SPCC, FLCA, feedback task.
Leads to →With the theory in place we can now name the white space in the literature that this thesis fills.
Dẫn sang →Có lý thuyết rồi, giờ chỉ ra VÙNG TRẮNG trong văn liệu mà luận văn lấp vào.
- § 2.4 · Research gap7–8-year-old A1 EFL learners — the white space
English
Three gaps: (1) young learners are under-studied in WTC research; (2) repeated activity sets are rarely investigated; (3) case studies often lose the link back to MacIntyre's theory. This thesis contributes to all three — the "so what?" answer.
Tiếng Việt
3 gap: (1) ít nghiên cứu young learners; (2) ít nghiên cứu repeated activity set; (3) case study thường mất kết nối với lý thuyết MacIntyre. Luận văn em đóng góp ở cả 3 điểm — đây là câu trả lời cho "so what?".
★ Memorize before defense
Điểm quan trọng cần nhớ
Key Points to Remember — logical thread: trait → state → pyramid model → SPCC/FLCA predictors → task–emotion–self triangle → the young-learner gap this thesis fills
- 01
English
[1 · Trait → State reconceptualisation] WTC was first proposed by McCroskey & Baer (1985) as a stable personality trait — a person is either "willing to talk" or not, across situations. MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément & Noels (1998) radically re-defined L2 WTC as a situational state that fluctuates within the same learner from lesson to lesson, task to task, partner to partner. This shift is the reason a longitudinal, task-by-task observational design (not a single questionnaire) is the correct method for this thesis.
Tiếng Việt — gợi ý trả lời
WTC ban đầu (McCroskey 1985) là trait — đặc điểm ổn định của tính cách. MacIntyre và cs. (1998) định nghĩa LẠI L2 WTC là state tình huống — thay đổi ngay trong cùng một học sinh theo tiết, theo task, theo bạn. Sự chuyển đổi này chính là lý do em phải quan sát LÂU DÀI theo từng task, không thể đo một lần bằng bảng hỏi.
- 02
English
[2 · The verbatim definition] MacIntyre et al. (1998): "a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2". Memorise the four load-bearing words: readiness (mental preparedness, not action), particular time (situational), specific person (interlocutor-dependent), L2 (not L1). Every intervention decision in Chapter 4 targets one of these four words.
Tiếng Việt — gợi ý trả lời
Định nghĩa CHÍNH THỨC phải thuộc nguyên văn. 4 từ khoá: readiness (sự sẵn sàng tâm lý, chưa phải hành động) · particular time (tình huống cụ thể) · specific person (phụ thuộc người đối thoại) · L2. Mỗi quyết định can thiệp ở Chương 4 tác động vào một trong bốn từ này.
- 03
English
[3 · The heuristic pyramid] The 6-layer pyramid stacks WTC's antecedents from immediate to distal. Top 3 layers are situational and moveable within an 8-week intervention: (I) Communication behaviour → (II) WTC → (III) State self-confidence + Desire to communicate with a specific person. Bottom 3 layers are stable and largely fixed on this timescale: (IV) Motivational propensities → (V) Affective-cognitive context → (VI) Personality. This diagnosis defines the intervention window: this thesis realistically targets layers II–IV, not personality or global attitudes.
Tiếng Việt — gợi ý trả lời
Kim tự tháp 6 tầng xếp các tiền đề của WTC từ gần đến xa. 3 tầng trên = tình huống, có thể thay đổi trong 8 tuần: (I) Hành vi giao tiếp → (II) WTC → (III) Self-confidence tại chỗ + Desire. 3 tầng dưới = ổn định, khó đổi trong ngắn hạn: (IV) Motivation → (V) Affective-cognitive → (VI) Personality. Chẩn đoán này khoanh vùng can thiệp: em nhắm tầng II–IV, không hứa hẹn thay đổi personality.
- 04
English
[4 · The two strongest predictors] Two variables predict WTC more reliably than anything else: SPCC ↑ (Self-Perceived Communicative Competence — the learner's belief that they can cope) and FLCA ↓ (Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety). Crucially, McCroskey & McCroskey (1988) show SPCC predicts WTC better than objectively measured competence. WTC is a psychological decision, not a linguistic capacity — which is why the thesis measures perceptions (SPCC/FLCA) alongside behaviour, not proficiency tests.
Tiếng Việt — gợi ý trả lời
Hai biến dự đoán WTC mạnh nhất: SPCC ↑ (niềm tin "mình nói được") và FLCA ↓ (lo âu lớp học). Quan trọng: SPCC dự đoán WTC TỐT HƠN năng lực thực (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988). WTC là quyết định tâm lý, không phải năng lực ngôn ngữ — vì thế em đo tri giác (SPCC/FLCA) song song với hành vi, không đo điểm proficiency.
- 05
English
[5 · The task ↔ emotion ↔ self-belief triangle] These three feedback continuously: task design moves emotions (enjoyment, anxiety), emotions move SPCC/FLCA, SPCC/FLCA moves WTC, WTC produces speaking behaviour, and behaviour re-shapes emotions on the next turn. A single instrument catches only one edge of this triangle — this is the theoretical justification for the study's 4-source triangulation: classroom observation + SPCC self-report + FLCA self-report + task-level feedback.
Tiếng Việt — gợi ý trả lời
Tam giác Task ↔ Emotion ↔ Self-belief liên tục phản hồi nhau: thiết kế task tác động cảm xúc → cảm xúc dịch chuyển SPCC/FLCA → SPCC/FLCA quyết định WTC → hành vi nói tái định hình cảm xúc ở lượt sau. Một công cụ chỉ bắt được một cạnh — vì vậy luận văn dùng 4 nguồn dữ liệu: observation + SPCC + FLCA + task feedback. Đó là biện minh lý thuyết, không phải "cho nhiều dữ liệu".
- 06
English
[6 · The young-learner research gap] Almost all WTC studies (MacIntyre, Cao & Philp, Peng, Zhang…) sample adolescents or adults. Very few examine 7–8-year-olds — an age when self-concept is still forming, metacognition about anxiety is limited, and standard adult questionnaires cannot be used as-is. This thesis contributes by adapting SPCC/FLCA into child-friendly instruments (visual scales, simplified wording) and pairing them with behavioural observation. That is the study's original contribution — memorise it as the answer to "so what?".
Tiếng Việt — gợi ý trả lời
Hầu hết nghiên cứu WTC dùng mẫu teen/adult. Rất ít nghiên cứu trẻ 7–8 tuổi — độ tuổi self-concept còn đang hình thành, khả năng siêu nhận thức về lo âu còn giới hạn, bảng hỏi người lớn không dùng nguyên được. Đóng góp của luận văn: thích nghi SPCC/FLCA thành công cụ child-friendly (visual scale, ngôn ngữ đơn giản) và ghép với quan sát hành vi. Đây là câu trả lời cho câu hỏi "so what?" — phải thuộc.