Scholarly article on topic 'The Influence of Willingness to Communicate on Overall Speaking Skills among EFL Learners'

The Influence of Willingness to Communicate on Overall Speaking Skills among EFL Learners Academic research paper on "Educational sciences"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"EFL context" / "Willingness to Communicate" / "Individual Differences" / "Foreign Language Learning"}

Abstract of research paper on Educational sciences, author of scientific article — Ayfer Su Bergil

Abstract Due to the popularity of foreign language learning (FLL) and using the language meaningfully, the pedagogy of language learning has recently regarded the importance of willingness to communicate (WTC) in second and FLL and communication. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the Turkish preparatory class students⿿ WTC levels and the effects of individual differences on their WTC levels. 73 students, who are studying English as a foreign language (EFL) in the preparatory class in the foreign language department in Amasya University, serve as the participants of the study. The scale prepared by McCroskey (1992) is utilized to measure the students⿿ WTC and some demographic information of students are gathered to make contributions to the relationship between their WTC and the other demographic variables such as proficiency level, length of studying, being abroad, and communicating with foreigners. Moreover, the students⿿ WTC levels are related to their overall speaking skills defined by a 5 point likert-type scale ranged from ⿿1= weak⿿, ⿿2=adequate⿿, ⿿3=good⿿, ⿿4=excellent⿿ and ⿿5= No idea because I didn⿿t do such an activity.⿿, filled by the speaking course instructors. In the statistical procedure, a series of independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were applied to provide the answers to the related research questions. The results show that preparatory class students have mostly weak and adequate overall speaking skills which can be related with the activities the instructors and the curriculum include for the course content or the ability of instructors⿿ material adaptation. The importance of the present study lies in its theoretical contributions to the WTC research and the pedagogical implications for both teaching and learning process in EFL context.

Academic research paper on topic "The Influence of Willingness to Communicate on Overall Speaking Skills among EFL Learners"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 177 - 187

International Conference on Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language, GlobELT 2016, 14-17 April 2016, Antalya, Turkey

The Influence of Willingness to Communicate on Overall Speaking

Skills among EFL Learners

Ayfer Su Bergila,*

aAmasya University, Faculty of Education, Amasya 05100, Turkey

Abstract

Due to the popularity of foreign language learning (FLL) and using the language meaningfully, the pedagogy of language learning has recently regarded the importance of willingness to communicate (WTC) in second and FLL and communication. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the Turkish preparatory class students' WTC levels and the effects of individual differences on their WTC levels. 73 students, who are studying English as a foreign language (EFL) in the preparatory class in the foreign language department in Amasya University, serve as the participants of the study. The scale prepared by McCroskey (1992) is utilized to measure the students' WTC and some demographic information of students are gathered to make contributions to the relationship between their WTC and the other demographic variables such as proficiency level, length of studying, being abroad, and communicating with foreigners. Moreover, the students' WTC levels are related to their overall speaking skills defined by a 5 point likert-type scale ranged from ''1= weak'', ''2=adequate'', ''3=good'', ''4=excellent'' and ''5= No idea because I didn't do such an activity.'', filled by the speaking course instructors. In the statistical procedure, a series of independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were applied to provide the answers to the related research questions. The results show that preparatory class students have mostly weak and adequate overall speaking skills which can be related with the activities the instructors and the curriculum include for the course content or the ability of instructors' material adaptation. The importance of the present study lies in its theoretical contributions to the WTC research and the pedagogical implications for both teaching and learning process in EFL context.

© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GlobELT 2016

Keywords: EFL context; Willingness to Communicate; Individual Differences; Foreign Language Learning

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-358-260-0060, ext. 3323; fax: +90-358-218-0104.

E-mail address: ayfer_su@yahoo.com

1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GlobELT 2016 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.043

1. Introduction

The realm of second language and foreign language learning endeavor to pave the ways for language learners mainly to communicate in the target language. The methods and approaches applied in the foreign language context focused the communicative goals of learning a language (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2002; Brown, 2007) where the goals of language education fit in the reality of more use of the target language which refers to the willingness to communicate (WTC). Researchers have established that linguistic competence itself do not prevent the existence of reticent speakers, however the learners with limited competence may speak constantly. In this sense, having a high level of linguistic competence do not mean that the same learners would have the same performance in speaking skills shaping the way of communication. Thus, whatever the purpose of language learning might be, MacIntyre and Charos (1996) purpose that language learning requires to be able to use the target language communicatively such as meeting new people, travelling, experiencing other cultures, or using language in one's job. By this way, WTC is considered a means of interpersonal and intercultural goals and a specialized area of second and foreign language learning. Although as MacIntyre (1994), McCroskey & Baer (1985) clarified that WTC occurred in the first language acquisition field but later on the implications of it deserved to be brought into second and foreign language learning context.

Generally, language learners' tendency which initiates the discourse and speaking skills in particular contexts with some individuals defines the willingness to communicate levels of language learners (Mehrgan, 2013). WTC also includes the readiness of language learners to enter into discourse at a particular time as explained by MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 547). Oz et al. (2015) come into prominence by asserting it integrates affective, social-psychological, linguistic and communicative variables and can describe, explain, and predict language learners' communicative behavior in a L2.The ritual of insisting on the issues of language aptitude and competence give place to the possibility of other variables playing important roles in the foreign language learning and teaching with the new perspective that WTC bring to the language education named as individual differences. Focusing also on the individual differences, the introduction of WTC to the foreign and second language pedagogy initiates the language teachers to help their learners to become autonomous learners, use the target language authentically and communicatively over and above get involved in outside the classroom activities.

The review of literature unveils significant body of research established and underlines the importance of role of individual differences (IDs) in foreign language context. Dornyei (2005) clarifies IDs as characteristics or traits which differentiate individuals from each other and serve different paths to acquire the target language instead of accepting precise formulation of language education. Moreover, the researchers of language pedagogy reach an agreement on the reality of learning and succeeded in a language are highly under the influence of individual differences. Given that the individual differences cause different learning situations even in the foreign and second language education, WTC deserves to be a subject of intensive research in language pedagogy.

Over the last decades, the review of literature has witnessed substantial research on WTC. Prominently, much of them have been conducted in Western context such as US and Canada (e.g., Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Conrod, 2001; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2003). Further research have been conducted in Japan (Hashimoto, 2002; Yashima, 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004); in China (Peng, 2007; Xie, 2011); in Iran (Baghaei et al., 2012; Ghonsooly, Khajavy, & Asadpour, 2012); and in Turkey (Bektas-Cetinkaya, 2009, Oz et al., 2015).

Keeping in mind all the benefits of the inclusion of WTC into the language pedagogy, notwithstanding much research on WTC around the world, it has not taken much consideration in Turkey in secondary or tertiary education in terms of language production or language skills the learners need to receive. Thus, this study sought to investigate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' WTC levels at a Turkish state university on preparatory class learners. The main purpose of the study was to examine WTC levels of preparatory class learners regarding the individual differences they have and relate the learners' WTC levels with the speaking skills they perform. In addition, the differences of the point of view between the learners and speaking course instructors were aimed to ascertain and the by taking the individual differences and needs into consideration, it was aimed to improve the conditions of foreign language learning in Turkey as well. The significance of this study lies in its theoretical contributions to the WTC construct and its pedagogical implications for teaching English as a foreign language and teacher education in the Turkish EFL context.

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

This study was conducted at Amasya University to the preparatory class students. 73preparatory class students studying English during the 2015-2016 academic year 35 and 38 of whom were male and female consisted the sample of the study. The participants' ages ranged mostly between 18 and 20. The participants' English levels differed from each other since three different groups were included into the study. The English level of ELT preparatory class was Intermediate referred as B2 in CEFR, Urban Planning class was regarded as Pre-Intermediate referred as A2 in CEFR and Voluntary class was in the Elementary level accepted as A1 in CEFR. Generally, the participants expressed that they had been learning English for 10 years and unfortunately only 10 of the participants stated that they had abroad experiences. Considering the personality type of the participants, it was found out that 34 of them perceived themselves as introvert while 39 of them pointed out themselves as extrovert.

2.2. Data Collection Instruments and Procedures

In this study two different data collection instruments were conducted to different participants. At first, the scale prepared by McCroskey (1992) was utilized to measure the students' WTC and some demographic information of students were gathered to make contributions to the relationship between their WTC and the other demographic variables such as proficiency level, length of studying, being abroad, communicating with foreigners, and being introvert or extrovert. After that, a 5 point likert-type scale consonant to the WTC was adapted by the researcher for the purpose of getting the instructors' point of views about the overall speaking skills of the participants. The option of the scale ranged from ''1= weak'', ''2=adequate'', "3=good", "4=excellent" and ''5= No idea because I didn't do such an activity.'' and was filled by the speaking course instructors who were native speaker Fulbright assistants. The 5 point likert-type scale was filled by these instructors for each preparatory class student to unveil their overall speaking skills in terms of receiver and context-type willingness to communicate sub-scores.

2.3. Data Analysis

WTC scale was conducted to 79 preparatory class students in one class-hour for 45 minutes and 6 of them were excluded from the study because there were lots of information gaps that would minimize the reliability of the scale. The instructors were given two weeks for filling the scale for each student as they could need more time to observe the preferences of the students. The gathered data was coded and analyzed via SPSS 20.00 package program for social sciences. In the data analysis process, a series of independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were applied to provide the answers to the related research questions. The data gathered from the preparatory class students and the instructors were paired in order to make comparison between the answers of the participants and they were coded in the same order to observe whether drastic differences occur in the answers or not. The reliability of the WTC and 5 point likert-type scale were calculated as .93 and .96 which satisfy the highly acceptable reliability level of data collection instruments in social and behavioral sciences.

3. Findings

The analysis provided a series of one sample t-test results and descriptive statistics for the all the preparatory class students' willingness to communicate levels in terms of their own answers and the instructors they receive the speaking skills.

Table 1. One sample t-test results for context and receiver-type sub-scores

Context&Receiver Types N X S Sd T P

Group Discussion 73 68.78 25.58 72 26.03 .000

Meetings 73 54.52 24.55 18.98 .000

Interpersonal 73 65.00 21.32 26.04 .000

Public Speaking 73 56.26 25.23 19.04 .000

Stranger 73 52.11 21.98 20.25 .000

Acquaintance 73 66.83 23.36 24.43 .000

Friend 73 64.53 21.51 25.62 .000

As can be seen in Table 1. above, one sample t-test result for context-type sub-scores highlight significant difference between the overall WTC levels of participants since t(72)= 36.03, 18.98, 26.04, 19.04, p<01. As illustrated in the table, the mean value of group discussion is found out as 68.78, meetings is 54.52, interpersonal communication is 65.00, and public speaking is 56.52. Table 1. also clarifies one sample t-test result for receiver-type sub-scores of participants and points out that there is significant difference between the overall WTC levels as t(72)= 20.25, 24.43, 25.62, p<01. As indicated in the table, the mean value of stranger is found out as 52.11, acquaintance is 66.83, friend is 64.53.

Table 2. The WTC scale's descriptive scores of participants

Scores of WTC

WTC Sub-Sections _

High Average Low

Group Discussion 17 35 21

Meetings 14 40 19

Interpersonal 6 30 37

Public Speaking 13 45 15

Stranger 24 41 8

Acquaintance 10 39 24

Friend 3 27 43

Table 2. explains the number of the participants out of 73 whose score can be accepted as high, average or low in terms of the willingness to communicate scale for each given context. As the original of the scale requires for group discussion participants whose scores calculated as>89 accepted as High, <57 as Low, between these limits can be accepted as Average WTC. For meetings >80 refers High , <39 refers Low, and the scores between these ones refers Average WTC. For interpersonal conversations >94 points out High, <64 points out Low, and the scores between these limits points out Average WTC. A for Public Speaking >78 indicates High, <33 indicates Low, and the scores between these scores indicates Average WTC for participants. Thus, the number of the students out of 73 is illustrated in the Table 2 above. Table 2. also explains the number of the participants out of 73 whose score can be accepted as high, average or low in terms of the willingness to communicate scale for each given receiver. As the original of the scale requires for stranger, participants whose scores calculated as>63accepted as High, <18 as Low, between these limits can be accepted as Average WTC. For acquaintance >92refers High , <57refers Low, and the scores between these ones refers Average WTC. For friends >99 points out High, <71points out Low, and the scores between these limits points out Average WTC. As a result, the number of the students out of 73 who has high, average or low WTC is illustrated in the Table 2 above.

Table 3. The likert-type descriptive scores of participants

Items of Likert-type Scale Answers of Participants

Weak Adequate Good Excellent No idea

...speak in Group Discussion? 17 25 16 15 0

...speak in the Meetings? 17 27 17 12 0

...speak Interpersonally? 16 26 17 14 0

...speak in Public? 18 24 15 16 0

...speak with a Stranger? 0 0 0 0 73

...speak with an Acquaintance? 17 26 16 14 0

...speak with a Friend? 14 27 17 15 0

Table 3 demonstrates the number of the participants out of 73 whose skill can be accepted as weak, adequate, good, and excellent or no idea about that skill for each given item. This Likert type scale was adapted considering the Willingness to Communicate Scale and it defined to what extent the student spoke in group discussion, in the meetings, interpersonally, in public, with a stranger, with an acquaintance and with a friend.

Table 4. Paired sample t-test results for likert-type and WTC scales

Scales N X S Sd T P

Likert 73 39.36 12.43 72 8.57 .000

WTC 73 61.16 20.10

Table 4. One sample t-test results for Likert-type and WTC scale describes the overall speaking skills of the participants because it puts forward the mean values of the participants taken from their own-filled Willingness to communicate and 5 point Likert-type scale filled by the observation of their speaking course instructors. As shown in the table, t(72)= 8.57, p<01 means that the conducted scales differs meaningfully from each other as the overall speaking skills is calculated as 39.39 taking into consideration of the 5 point Likert-type scale filled by the course instructors though WTC scale filled by the students is calculated as 61.16.

Table 5. Independent sample t-test results for context and receiver-type sub-scores regarding personality of the participants

Context&Receiver Types N X S Sd T P

Group Discussion Introvert 34 65.26 19.64 72 1.24 .216

Extrovert 39 71.85 24.70

Meetings Introvert 34 52.32 21.92 7.10 .480

Extrovert 39 56.43 26.77

Interpersonal Introvert 34 57.44 17.70 2.98 .004*

Extrovert 39 71.60 22.21

Public Speaking Introvert 34 50.93 23.65 1.70 .092

Extrovert 39 60.91 25.94

Stranger Introvert 34 46.75 18.16 72 1.98 .051

Extrovert 39 56.78 24.10

Acquaitance Introvert 34 64.00 20.67 0.96 .337

Extrovert 39 69.30 25.49

Friend Introvert 34 58.76 17.95 2.19 .031*

Extrovert 39 69.57 23.26

Table 5. Independent sample t-test results for context and receiver-type sub-scores regarding personality of the participants summarize how the personality type of the students effect their speaking skills. In terms of the context-type results except from the interpersonal scores, there seems no significant difference in other context categories. As defined, extrovert students scores differs meaningfully from the introvert students as the mean value of introvert student is calculated as 57.44 and for extrovert student it is 71.60 t(72)= 1.24, 7.10, 2.98, 1.70, p<05. As for the receiver-type results except from the friend scores, there seems no significant difference in other receiver categories. As shown, extrovert students scores in friends differs meaningfully from the introvert students as the mean value of introvert student is calculated as 58.76 and for extrovert student it is 69.37 t(72)= 1.98, 0.96, 2.19, p<05.

Table 6. Independent sample t-test results for overall Likert and WTC scales regarding having abroad experience or not

Scales Abroad Experience N X S Sd T P

Likert Yes No 10 63 47.86 38.01 11.27 12.15 72 2.40 .019*

WTC Yes No 10 63 67.64 60.13 17.96 20.36 1.09 .276

Table 6. Independent sample t-test results for overall Likert and WTC scales regarding having abroad experience or not shows that although the number of the students who do not have abroad experience is higher than the students who have that experience, there is significant difference between these two groups especially for likert type scale as the mean value of the student who do not have abroad experience is 38.01 while the mean value of the students who has that experience is calculated as 47.86 t(72)= 2.40, 1.09, p<05.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of ANOVA results for context and receiver-type sub-scores of WTC scale

Context/Receiver Type Sub-Scores N X S

Group Discussion (1) 73 68.78 22.58

Meetings (2) 73 54.52 24.55

Interpersonal (3) 73 65.00 21.32

Public Speaking (4) 73 56.26 25.23

Stranger (1) 73 52.11 21.98

Acquaintance (2) 73 66.83 23.36

Friend (3) 73 64.53 21.51

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of ANOVA results for context and receiver-type sub-scores of WTC scale defines the categories of context and receiver-type scores by including the mean values and standard deviation of each category. According to Table 7, context has four different sub-categories and receiver has three sub-categories and is illustrated to show the significant differences between them in the below table which explains the ANOVA results for repeated features.

Table 8. One way ANOVA results for repeated features of context and receiver-type sub-scores of WTC scale

Source of Variation Sum of Squares Sd Mean Squares F p Significant Difference

Between Subjects 116402.328 72 263.416 17.51 .000 1-2, 1-4, 2-3, 3-4

Measure 10290.465 3 3722.249

Error 42310.870 216 241.857

Total 169003.7 291

Between Subjects Measure Error Total 87322.769 9157.093 20116.440 116596.3 72 2 144 218 1212.816 4578.547 139.698 32.77 .000 1-2, 1-3

Table 8. One way ANOVA results for repeated features of context and receiver-type sub-scores clarifies that there are significant differences between context sub-categories F _(3, 216= 17.51, p p<01. The sub-score of group discussion is X =68.78, meetings is X =54.52, interpersonal is X =65.00 and for public speaking is X =56.26. For receiver type sub-scores, it is clearly seen that there are also significant differences between receiver subcategories^ (2, 144= 32.77, p p<01. The sub-score of stranger is X =52.11, acquaintance is X =66.83 and for friend is X =64.53.

Table 9. Descriptive statistics of ANOVA results for context and receiver-type sub-scores of likert-type scale

Context/Receiver Type Sub-Scores N X S

Group Discussion (1) 73 47.94 21.27

Meetings (2) 73 46.57 20.29

Interpersonal (3) 73 47.94 20.74

Public Speaking (4) 73 47.94 21.79

Stranger (1) 73 .00 .00

Acquaintance (2) 73 47.39 20.95

Friend (3) 73 49.04 20.55

Table 9. Descriptive statistics of ANOVA results for context and receiver-type sub-scores of likert-type scale defines the categories of context and receiver-type scores by including the mean values and standard deviation of each category. According to Table 9. context has four different sub-categories and receiver has three sub-categories and is illustrated to show the significant differences between them in the below table which explains the ANOVA results for repeated features.

Table 10. One way ANOVA results for repeated features of context and receiver-type sub-scores of Likert-type scale

Source of Variation Sum of Squares Sd Mean Squares F p Significant Difference

Between Subjects 123821.918 72 1719.749 2.05 .107 -

Measure 102.740 3 34.247

Error 3597.260 216 16.654

Total 127521.9 291

Between Subjects 40624.658 72 564.231 380.79 .000 1-2, 1-3

Measure 113252.968 2 56626.484

Error 21413.699 144 148.706

Total 175291.3 218

Table 10. One way ANOVA results for repeated features of context and receiver-type sub-scores asserts that there are no significant differences between context sub-categories^F(3, 216= 2.05, p p<01. The sub-score of group discussion is X =47.94, meetings is X =46.57, interpersonal is X =47.94 and for public speaking is X =47.94. For receiver type sub-scores, it is clearly seen that there are significant differences between receiver sub-categories F(2, 144= 380.79, p<01. The sub-score of stranger is X =.00, acquaintance is X =47.39 and for friend is X =49.04.

4. Discussion

In general, the present study demonstrates qualitative and quantitative analysis of data gathered by the 73 preparatory class students studying at Amasya University in 2015-2016 academic year. Particularly, the Willingness to Communicate levels of the students is under the scope of this study as two different scales have been conducted for the purpose of determining the WTC levels of students from two point of views. Each of these scales presents various aspects of learners' WTC levels combining the findings with their overall speaking skills. Taking into account the limitation of regarding the speaking skill as context and receiver type, all these aspects are discussed in detail below.

One sample t-test results for context and receiver-type sub-scores, it is clearly seen that all sub-categories of WTC scale differs meaningfully from each other which underlines also the even distribution of the data. The WTC scale sub-categories indicates that GROUP DISCUSSION is the sub-category in which the preparatory class students are eager to participate in. In terms of receiver-type sub-categories it is found out that the WTC levels of learners are very low in STRANGER sub-category which reflects that the process of language learning does not support the students to communicate with the strangers they frequently need to get in touch in their future life.

The descriptive scores of the participants from the WTC scale categorizes the learners' scores as high, average or low in terms of the determined criteria the origin of the scale provides. According to the findings, although many of the sub-categories present that the learners have average WTC levels, in the INTERPERSONAL and FRIEND category they have very low WTC levels indicating that the learners feel shyness and reluctivity. In this sense, the importance of interpersonal or pair work activities appear in the language learning process in that these kinds of activities or tasks need to be completed and observed carefully by the instructors. By this way, the aim of the activities go a further step from completing them to how to complete or to be successful in participating these speaking activities which will help the learners improve their speaking skills in terms of these context and receiver type categories. As for the Likert-type descriptive scores of participants, the 5 point Likert-type scale is categorized as weak, adequate, good, excellent and no idea about that to determine the WTC levels of learners from the instructors point of view. Although all sub-categories provide similar scores for participants, it is so meaningful that the instructors have no idea about the learners WTC levels of STRANGER sub-category which reflects the reality

of the classroom instruction unfortunately does not go beyond itself and language learning process should regard the compulsory practices combining inside and outside the classroom learning situations.

The conducted scales reflect that the perceived WTC levels of the learners differs from each other significantly in that the learners and instructors need to know what they expect from each other while evaluating their own skills. The significant difference of the scores of these scales proves that the instructors and the learners are not in the same point of view which also calls for the need of bringing all the stakeholders of language education under the same umbrella. This will also shape the language learning process in a consistent way in that it will prevent the individual expectations and set this process in an objective place as it requires. When the demographic aspects of learners are evaluated considering the two scales, it is clearly noticed that except from the ABROAD EXPERIENCE, no significant results have been provided for other variables. Therefore, the significant results of the demographic aspects have been evaluated for each scale again. According to the findings, WTC scale shows the significant difference of the learners in INTERPERSONAL and FRIEND sub-sections regarding the learners being introvert and extrovert. Meanwhile, the mean values of the scores reveals that extrovert learners are more successful than the introvert ones but the significant difference appears only in these sub-sections. No matter the significant difference appears in other sub-categories or not, the results of this analysis highlights the importance of the introverts learners again in the process of language learning. It puts forward the necessity of incorporating the introvert learners into the foreign language learning as much as possible. Extrovert and introvert motivational aspects of language learning should be taken into consideration by the language teachers in order to increase the number of the learners they can reach and serve possibilities of learning a foreign language.

According to the ANOVA result of each scale, it is determined to specify how significant is each sub-categories. As a result, for the sub-categories of WTC scale it is found out that there is significant difference between GROUP DISCUSSION-MEETINGS, GROUP DISCUSSION-PUBLIC SPEAKING, MEETINGS-INTERPERSONAL and INTERPERSONAL-PUBLIC SPEAKING sub-categories of context-type communication while there in no difference between GROUP DISCUSSION and INTERPERSONAL sub-sections. For the receiver-type subsections, significant differences appears between STRANGER-ACQUITANCE and STRANGER-FRIEND subsections but there is no significant difference between ACQUIANTANCE AND FRIEND sub-sections. These results require that especially in foreign language learning the teachers need to use different kinds of activities which will provide efficiency of the language learners in their speaking skills. This refers the urgent need -of activity revision the language teachers do in their classes which would develop the speaking skills of the learners in different context and receiver type situations. Moreover, the ANOVA results of the Likert-type scale indicates no significant differences between context-type sub-sections while it provides differences between STRANGER-ACQUITANCE and STRANGER-FRIEND sub-sections and no significant difference between ACQUIANTANCE AND FRIEND sub-sections as the WTC scale refers.

In a nutshell, this study addresses several outcomes one of which indicates that context and receiver-type speaking skills are not equally included in the foreign language classes. The activities covered during the foreign language classes should provide various opportunities for the learners to use their language learning skills in different situations. The obtained results triggered that the learners and teachers need to know their expectations from each other for better and more objective language education. Thus, the learners should have the awareness of the learning objectives and outcomes of their foreign language classes. The speaking activities or tasks included in the foreign language classes need to be organized considering a variety of features and characteristics to combine inside and outside classroom learning for the practice of learning everywhere and in a lifelong way.

5. Conclusion and Implications

This present study attempted to investigate influence of Willingness to Communicate on overall speaking skills among EFL learners. For this purpose, WTC scale prepared by McCroskey (1992) was adapted and a 5 point Likert-type scale was prepared compatible with WTC scale. The analysis and findings of the study attested that the preparatory class students studying at Amasya University had average WTC levels generally but their willingness to communicate levels had diverse effects on their overall speaking skills in terms of their context and receiver-type preferences.

This study took importance to be a part of the battle be fought in the language education when trying to enhance the learners' psychological readiness to speak. Although there were the wide variety of factors effecting the language learners' WTC levels, the most critical factor came as the activities or tasks they dealt with during their language classes. As the difficulty of preserving the language education from the social world outside, the motivation and the speaking skills of the language learners may be threatened by the limited and restricted styles of procedures covered during the language education. In this sense, the language teachers should suggest various opportunities for their learners to help them overcome that language barrier as the primary facilitators of language use which can be accepted as an important predictor of language survival (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). All of these issues should be regarded in foreign language pedagogy and considered predominantly in teacher education preparation having positive prevalent effects on learners' foreign language performance.

In a nutshell, this study addressed several outcomes one of which indicated that context and receiver-type speaking skills were not equally included in the foreign language classes. The activities covered during the foreign language classes should provide various opportunities for the learners to use their language learning skills in different situations. The obtained results triggered that the learners and teachers needed to know their expectations from each other for better and more objective language education. Thus, the learners should have the awareness of the learning objectives and outcomes of their foreign language classes. The speaking activities or tasks included in the foreign language classes need to be organized considering a variety of features and characteristics to combine inside and outside classroom learning for the practice of learning everywhere and in a lifelong way.

References

Baghaei, P., Dourakhshan, A., & Salavati, O. (2012). The relationship between willingness to communicate and success in learning English as a

foreign language. MJAL, 4(2), 53-67. Bektas-Cetinkaya, Y. (2009). College students' willingness to communicate in English: Turkish context. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag. Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Clément, R., Baker, S.C., &MacIntyre, P.D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and

vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190-209. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G.H., & Asadpour, S.F. (2012).Willingness to communicate in Englishamong Iranian non-English major university

students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(2), 197-211. Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors ofreported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20(2),29-70.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in Language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness tocommunicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135-142. MacIntyre, P.D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960151001. MacIntyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: Asituational model of L2

confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562. MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate,social support, and language learning orientations

of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388. MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L.A. (2003). Talking in order to learn:Willingness to communicate and intensive

language programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589-607. McCroskey, J.C., & Baer, J.E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the Annual

Convention of the Speech CommunicationAssociation, Denver, Colorado. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and

interpersonal communication (pp. 119-131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16-25. Mehrgan, K. (2013). Willingness to communicate in second language acquisition: acase study from a socio-affective perspective. Journal of

Comparative Literature and Culture (JCLC). Vol. 2 (4), 172-175. Öz, H. (2014). Big Five personality traits and willingness to communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(9), 1473-1482. (SSCI; ISSN - 0301-2212 [Print], 1179-6391 [Online]). http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.9.1473-http://doi.org/w7m Öz, Hüseyin. (2015). Emotional intelligence as a predictor of L2 communication. [5th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership, 29-30 October 2014, Prague, Czech Republicy Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 424-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.117- http://doi.org/4zj

Oz, H. (2016). Role of the ideal L2 self in predicting willingness to communicate of EFL students. In H. H. Mirici, I. H. Erten, H. Oz & I. Vodopija-Krstanovic (Eds.), Research papers on teaching English as an additional language (pp. 163-182). Rijeka, Croatia: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4620.6801-http://doi.org/95m

Oz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners in Turkish context. Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269-275.

Peng, J.E. (2007).Willingness to communicate in an L2 and integrative motivation amongcollege students in an intensive English language program in China. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 2(1), 33-59.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Approaches andmethods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xie, Q. M. (2011). Willingness to communicate in English among secondary school studentsin the rural Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation) AUT University, New Zealand.

Yashima, T. (2002).Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFLcontext. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.

Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affecton willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119-152.