Action Research with the aim of enhancing WTC of four students aged 7–8

This chapter presents the empirical part of the study. It includes the research aim, design and instruments, research findings and discussion, research conclusions, research limitations, and recommendations for teachers.

This action research aimed to examine how Grade 2 learners' willingness to communicate (WTC)-related participation improved during a repeated set of speaking activities in a small EFL class. The English class was offered to students in the afternoon on the premises of their primary school during the time of "świetlica". The research focused on classroom participation, learner confidence, speaking-related anxiety, and learner responses to different speaking task formats.

The research was a small-scale classroom action research, in which data was collected with four different instruments. Its main purpose was not only to describe learners' willingness to communicate (WTC), but also to support it through planned changes in classroom speaking activities. Because the project was both a teaching intervention and a research study, classroom implementation and data collection happened at the same time.

Action research was suitable for this project because it allowed the teacher-researcher to identify a classroom problem (low WTC), introduce speaking activities, observe learners' responses, and adjust later teaching based on classroom evidence. This reflects the classroom-based and improvement-oriented nature of action research (Cohen et al., 2018, pp. 440–456).

This action research was mostly qualitative and also used mixed-methods because it drew on both numerical and descriptive classroom observation data. Observation counts and questionnaire scores showed visible patterns of change, while teacher notes and learner feedback helped explain how these patterns appeared in classroom interaction (Cohen et al., 2018, pp. 31–48; Dörnyei, 2020, pp. 19–20).

The action research was organised into three action research cycles: Cycle 1 (Weeks 1–2), Cycle 2 (Weeks 3–5), Cycle 3 (Weeks 6–8). Each cycle followed the same classroom logic: the teacher planned a set of speaking activities, taught them, observed learner responses, and adjusted the next cycle based on classroom evidence.

The study was conducted with four Grade 2 learners aged approximately 7-8 in an additional English class offered in the afternoon on the premises of a Polish primary school located in Warsaw. The learners used the coursebook Learning Lands 2 (Phillips & Shipton, n.d.), and the speaking activities were developed around the language content from the units taught during the intervention. Because the study was small in scale and classroom-based, the aim was not to generalise the findings to a larger population, but to observe patterns of change in a real teaching context. To protect confidentiality, the learners are referred to as Student A, Student B, Student C, and Student D.

The Polish context is relevant because foreign language teaching for young and very young learners has developed strongly in Poland, partly in response to parental and educational expectations connected with globalisation and future opportunities (Rokita-Jaśkow, 2022, pp. 31–32).

In this action research, the researcher repeatedly used five speaking activity types, including Information-gap, Planning Time, Structured Turn-taking, Supported Role-play, and Free-topic Speaking. These activity types were used across the study to give learners familiar classroom routines, which were adjusted from cycle to cycle according to classroom observation. Cameron (2001, pp. 1–2) emphasizes that children need meaningful language-use opportunities and teacher's support while they are still developing as learners.

Child-friendly classroom wording was used because the participants were very young learners. Simple labels such as "Talk freely" or "Think first, then speak" helped make the tasks easier to understand and reduced possible confusion or stress. This was important for emotional safety and classroom participation, especially in speaking tasks.

This study used several complementary data collection instruments to examine learners' speaking confidence, anxiety, and classroom participation. The main instruments were a child-friendly SPCC questionnaire (Form 1), a child-friendly FLCA questionnaire (Form 2), classroom observation records (Form 3), short activity feedback forms (Form 4), and teacher observation notes.

The study was grounded in the L2 Willingness to Communicate framework proposed by MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels (1998, pp. 546–549). The wording of both questionnaires was simplified for young learners, following the general recommendations of Cameron (2001, pp. 1–2). Because the participants were only 7–8 years old, the Likert scales were presented in a child-friendly way: the teacher explained each point with emoji faces and simple examples, items were read aloud slowly, and learners were reminded there were no right or wrong answers.

A short SPCC questionnaire was used to examine learners' confidence in speaking English. The form contained six items and used a five-point rating scale from 1 (very low confidence) to 5 (very confident). SPCC was included because perceived communicative competence plays an important role in learners' readiness to speak (MacIntyre et al., 1998). The original scale (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988) was paraphrased using simplified, age-appropriate language and a playful tone for participants aged 7–8.

A short FLCA questionnaire was used to examine speaking-related anxiety. The form contained five items and used a five-point rating scale from 1 (not nervous) to 5 (panicked). It was adapted in a child-friendly way from the broader foreign language anxiety framework introduced by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986). Complex psychological terms were simplified into familiar, playful language so anxiety could be measured through direct, age-appropriate questions.

Because willingness to communicate is also visible in actual classroom participation, observation was used as another important source of data. The observation sheet focused on speaking first, asking questions, producing longer answers, and talking to peers during speaking tasks. These indicators were used because WTC in classroom contexts is expressed through real communicative behaviour rather than only through self-report (MacIntyre et al., 1998, pp. 547–549; Cao & Philp, 2006, pp. 482–484).

A short activity feedback form was also used to collect learners' immediate reactions to the speaking tasks. This form was not treated as a fully independent quantitative measure. Instead, it was used to support the interpretation of the observation data and to identify broad patterns in learner preferences. This decision was made because the participants were very young and their responses could be influenced by mood, tiredness, and the teacher-researcher relationship.

The data were analysed in a simple descriptive way. First, the observation records were used to compare changes in four visible WTC-related behaviours: speaking first, asking questions, giving longer answers, and talking to peers. Second, learner feedback and the teacher observation notes were compared with those behaviour records. This helped the researcher see whether classroom behaviour and learner feelings moved in the same direction.

This comparison was important because improvement did not always appear in the same way across all sources. For example, some learners spoke more often in class but still reported that freer speaking was difficult. In other cases, a learner's participation became weaker after absence, even though the learner had shown progress earlier. Because of this, the analysis did not rely on one source only.

Before the action research cycles began, a baseline assessment was conducted using the pre-intervention SPCC, FLCA, and the first classroom observation. The results show that the learners started from different positions in terms of confidence, anxiety, and classroom participation. At group level, the mean SPCC score was 3.29 and the mean FLCA score was 1.20. Early observation also suggests limited spontaneous speaking, especially in asking questions and producing longer answers.

The baseline data show that the four learners did not begin the intervention from the same position. Student A appeared to have high confidence and low anxiety, while Student C showed the clearest early difficulty. Later changes should be interpreted through individual learner profiles rather than only at group level. This pattern is consistent with MacIntyre et al.'s WTC model, in which learners' readiness to communicate is connected to both personal factors and immediate classroom conditions (1998, pp. 546–549).

The intervention was carried out over approximately two months, organised into three cycles: Cycle 1 (Weeks 1–2), Cycle 2 (Weeks 3–5), Cycle 3 (Weeks 6–8). Each cycle included planning, classroom implementation, observation, and reflection, and the following cycle was adjusted according to the patterns observed in the previous one.

Cycle 1 focused on building routine and emotional safety through Planning Time and Structured Turn-taking, supported by simple Information Gap and Role-play tasks. The data suggests that these activities helped some learners enter speaking more safely, but participation still depended strongly on prompting and fixed turns.

Cycle 2 focused on increasing peer interaction and communicative need. This phase showed the clearest behavioural growth, especially in question asking and peer interaction. However, participation was still affected by peer configuration, absence, and interruption.

Cycle 3 focused on recovery, adjustment, and stronger participation. The data show that WTC-related participation did not continue to rise in a straight line. Several learners showed weaker participation after absence or more difficult language, followed by recovery in later lessons.

The pre-post questionnaire data show a mixed pattern rather than a uniform positive shift. At group level, mean SPCC decreased from 3.29 to 2.92, while mean FLCA increased from 1.20 to 1.70. When compared with the observation data, this pattern suggests that visible classroom participation and self-reported feelings did not develop in exactly the same way.

The divergence between observed participation and self-report is revealed. This can be interpreted through MacIntyre et al.'s WTC model (1998, pp. 547–549), in which actual communication behaviour and self-confidence/anxiety belong to different layers. Some learners seemed ready to speak in class before they saw themselves as more confident speakers. A similar pattern was found by Peacock (1997, pp. 148–152), whose research showed clearer changes in observed motivation than in learners' self-report.

The four-number pattern is reported in the order: speaking first, asking questions, producing longer answers, and talking to peers. Table 11 presents selected lesson-level examples to show growth, instability, and recovery more clearly across the intervention.

The behavioural data show that speaking first, asking questions, and talking to peers developed more clearly than longer answers. The four focal learners became more ready to enter interaction before they were equally able to sustain extended spoken production. Longer answers required not only willingness to speak, but also vocabulary retrieval, sentence organisation, and real-time processing, which are important demands in oral production (Bygate, 1987, pp. 5–7; Brown, 2001, pp. 270–271; Thornbury, 2005, p. 4). Therefore, willingness to speak and the ability to produce longer responses appeared to be related, but not identical.

To answer the third research question, learner feedback (Form 4) was summarised across the five speaking activities. The purpose was to identify which activities learners preferred and which activities they perceived as more difficult.

Table 12 and Figure 10 show a clear contrast between structured and less structured activities. Planning Time (PT) and Structured Turn-taking (TT) received the most positive feedback because they gave participants preparation time and predictable speaking turns. These features may have made oral participation feel safer and more manageable, which is consistent with Dörnyei's view that a supportive classroom atmosphere helps learners feel comfortable taking risks (2001, pp. 40–41). Although Information-gap (IG) was often perceived as difficult, it still supported meaningful interaction because children had to exchange information to complete the task (Nunan, 2003, p. 56).

Overall, the findings show that WTC-related participation among the four young learners was dynamic rather than linear. Across the three action research cycles, learners' speaking behaviour changed according to task support, peer arrangement, classroom interruption, and language demand. The clearest changes appeared in speaking first, asking questions, and talking to peers, while producing longer answers remained the weakest indicator. In line with MacIntyre et al.'s view, these patterns show how WTC was shaped by classroom conditions together with learner-related factors such as confidence, anxiety, and perceived difficulty (1998, pp. 547–549).

This study has several limitations. First, it involved only four learners in one small classroom, so the findings cannot be generalised broadly. The results should therefore be understood as context-specific rather than representative of a larger population.

Second, the study focused on very young learners aged 7–8. Although WTC provides a useful framework for examining speaking participation, much of the literature has focused more strongly on older learners. For this reason, the construct was applied here in an adapted way, with greater emphasis on observable classroom behaviour and supported participation.

Third, the intervention lasted only eight weeks, and learner absence also affected the continuity of the classroom process. Some changes in participation may therefore have reflected interruption and difficulty re-entering routines, not only the effect of the speaking activities themselves. In addition, the study showed a difference between observed participation and self-report data. While observation suggested broader improvement, the pre-post SPCC and FLCA results showed a more mixed pattern.

Finally, some indicators may have reflected more than WTC alone. The "long answer" indicator may have been particularly influenced not only by willingness to communicate, but also by broader linguistic and cognitive demands of oral production. In addition, because the researcher was also the classroom teacher, some interpretation may have been influenced by the teacher-researcher role. Overall, the findings should be read as small-scale and exploratory, but still useful for understanding how WTC-related participation developed in this particular classroom.

Several practical suggestions for future WTC-oriented teaching can be drawn from this study. The following points focus on task design, activity sequencing, and interactive formats that may help support young learners' participation in speaking lessons.

One practical solution implemented in this study was the use of Generative AI (GenAI) to design specialized worksheets and self-study plans. These materials aimed to make speaking, reading, and vocabulary tasks more accessible, particularly for hesitant pupils like Student C and Student D. By providing guided task entry and visual prompts, the AI-assisted worksheets encouraged students to engage in proactive self-study and extra practice at home. However, these materials should not be used automatically; teachers still need to select, simplify, and adapt them to learners' age, level, and classroom needs (Dörnyei, 2001, pp. 82–84; Harmer, 2007, pp. 96–97).

A second suggestion is that teachers should combine structured and communicative speaking activities rather than rely on only one type. In the present study, PT and TT appeared to support safer entry into speaking, while IG and RP seemed to encourage stronger peer interaction later. This suggests that communicative tasks may work better after some routine and support have already been established. Therefore, young learners may benefit from a gradual movement from more guided speaking to more communicative speaking (Cameron, 2001, pp. 1–2; Harmer, 2007, pp. 345–353).

A third suggestion is that teachers may use more interactive formats, such as board games, to support participation in young learner speaking lessons. In the present study, the later-stage data raised the possibility that a more playful format helped some learners return to speaking more easily after interruption or heavier language demands. For young learners, however, board games are likely to be more effective when they include clear turn-taking, simple language prompts, familiar vocabulary, and visible speaking support (Cameron, 2001, pp. 1–2; Harmer, 2007, pp. 389, 393).