4.4 Article

Understanding willingness to communicate in L2 between Korean and Taiwanese students

期刊

LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 455-476

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1362168819890825

关键词

comparative study; instructional and institutional support; Korean EFL students; Taiwanese EFL students; willingness to communicate in English

资金

  1. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the willingness to communicate in a second language (L2 WTC) of Korean and Taiwanese EFL students in different settings. The results showed that both groups had the lowest L2 WTC inside the classroom, and L2 speaking anxiety had an influence on their willingness to communicate. Furthermore, Korean students had higher L2 WTC outside the classroom, while Taiwanese students had higher L2 WTC in digital settings. These differences might be influenced by the English environment and teaching practices.
This study examined Korean (n = 143) and Taiwanese (n = 261) EFL students' willingness to communicate in a second language (L2 WTC) in in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings. Follow-up interviews (n = 20) were also conducted to identify factors that might have influenced their L2 WTC. Results showed that Korean and Taiwanese participants scored lowest on L2 WTC inside the classroom. The qualitative data suggest that L2 speaking anxiety might have equally influenced both groups' L2 WTC. Additionally, while Korean students scored higher on L2 WTC outside the classroom than Taiwanese students, the Taiwanese scored higher on L2 WTC in digital settings than did the Koreans. The qualitative data revealed that these discrepancies might have been influenced by English environment and teaching practice. These findings suggest that East Asian learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) can become more willing to communicate when sufficient opportunities for English use are provided through instructional and institutional support.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据