WTC / EFL Speaking
Contents·Poster

MA Thesis · 2026 · SWPS University Warsaw · Faculty of English Philology

Enhancing Willingness to Communicate through Speaking Activities in the EFL Classroom

A small-scale action research with four Polish Grade-2 learners

Author

Ngoc Yen Nguyen

Supervisor

Sylvia Maciaszczyk, PhD

01 · Background

Young EFL learners often know the language but do not speak. MacIntyre et al. (1998) frame this gap with L2 Willingness to Communicate (WTC) — the readiness to enter discourse, at a particular time, with a specific person, using L2.

Most WTC research focuses on adolescents and adults. Very few studies examine 7-8-year-olds with adapted instruments. This study fills that gap.

02 · Research Questions

  1. RQ1. What changes can be seen in observed WTC-related behaviour across three AR cycles?
  2. RQ2. Which activities improved WTC, and how do patterns reflect pre-post SPCC/FLCA?
  3. RQ3. Which activities do learners like most/least, and how does this relate to behaviour & self-report?

03 · Theoretical Frame

L1L2 USE
L2WTC
L3Desire + state self-confidence
L4Motivation
L5Attitudes · situation · competence
L6Personality + intergroup climate

MacIntyre et al.'s pyramid (1998). Top 3 = situational state. Intervention targets layers 2-4.

04 · Method

4

Learners

Grade 2 · A1

8

Weeks

Feb – Apr 2026

3

AR Cycles

Plan → Reflect

5

Activities

PT·TT·IG·RP·FT

Mostly qualitative classroom action research with mixed-methods support. Four data sources: SPCC (Form 1), FLCA (Form 2), Observation (Form 3, 4 indicators), Activity Feedback (Form 4).

05 · Behavioural Trajectory (Figure 6)

Non-linear pattern: growth W1-W4 → W5 dip (language load + absence) → recovery via board game in Cycle 3.

06 · Pre vs Post — Group Mean (Figure 7)

SPCC ↓ (3.29 → 2.92) and FLCA ↑ (1.20 → 1.70) while observed behaviour rose.

07 · Activity Preference (Figure 10)

PT & TT most liked. IG harder but drives strongest peer interaction.

08 · Key Findings

  1. 1. WTC participation was dynamic, not linear — shaped by task, peers, interruption, language demand.
  2. 2. Speaking first, asking questions, and peer talk grew clearly; longer answers remained weakest.
  3. 3. Divergence: observed behaviour ↑ but self-report SPCC ↓ / FLCA ↑ — confirms MacIntyre's layered model.
  4. 4. Preference ≠ Effectiveness — sequencing matters more than picking one "best" activity.

09 · Recommendations

  1. 1. Use AI-assisted worksheets for hesitant learners.
  2. 2. Sequence structured → communicative activities.
  3. 3. Use playful formats (board games) with explicit turn-taking.

10 · Limitations

n = 4 → transferable, not generalisable · teacher-researcher dual role · 8-week scope · child-adapted Likert scales · no control group (ethically unworkable).

Selected References

MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément & Noels (1998) · Cameron (2001) · Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986) · McCroskey & McCroskey (1988) · Bygate (1987) · Cao & Philp (2006) · Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2018).

Keywords

WTC · young learners · EFL · action research · speaking · classroom interaction

Contact

ngoc.nguyen@swps.edu.pl
SWPS University · Warsaw · 2026