Inspecting Instrument-Based Variability: Effects of Enriching Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire - A Mixed Methods Approach
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
روح اله ملکی
1
,
احمد محسنی
2
,
علی مالمیر
3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین
2 - دپارتمان زبان انگلیسی، واحد تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
3 - دپارتمان آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین، ایران
کلید واژه: willingness to communicate (WTC), role-play, Mixed Methods, Enriching,
چکیده مقاله :
The purpose of this cross-sectional mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to find out the effects of enriching McCroskey's (1992) Willingness to Communicate (WTC) questionnaire using oral-visual role-play on EFL responses from comparing the responses of 117 pre-intermediate EFL learners to this instrument before and after the enriching act. This study relates to sociolinguistic research in order to develop more authentic data collection and assessment. The quantitative results indicated no statistically significant effect in average score of the responses, and a decrease in reliability from original to the enriched one, but individual and item internal changes. Then, it followed up with 12 purposefully selected typical respondents to explore those quantitative results in verbal protocol after each administration of original and enriched WTC questionnaire that detected source of variability due to purpose, place, visualization, age, gender, and personality of the interlocutors in the role-plays. The quantitative and qualitative findings from the two phases of the study are discussed with reference to the prior research. Finally, implications and recommendations for EFL instructors, supervisors, and language assessors are provided.
The purpose of this cross-sectional mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to find out the effects of enriching McCroskey's (1992) Willingness to Communicate (WTC) questionnaire using oral-visual role-play on EFL responses from comparing the responses of 117 pre-intermediate EFL learners to this instrument before and after the enriching act. This study relates to sociolinguistic research in order to develop more authentic data collection and assessment. The quantitative results indicated no statistically significant effect in average score of the responses, and a decrease in reliability from original to the enriched one, but individual and item internal changes. Then, it followed up with 12 purposefully selected typical respondents to explore those quantitative results in verbal protocol after each administration of original and enriched WTC questionnaire that detected source of variability due to purpose, place, visualization, age, gender, and personality of the interlocutors in the role-plays. The quantitative and qualitative findings from the two phases of the study are discussed with reference to the prior research. Finally, implications and recommendations for EFL instructors, supervisors, and language assessors are provided.
Barraclough, R. A., Christophel, D. M., & McCroskey, J. C. (1988). Willingness to communicate: A cross‐cultural investigation. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 187-192.
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 517-552.
Briner, M. (1999). Learning theories. Denver: University of Colorado. Retrieved February, 23, 2006.
Cameron, D. (2013). Willingness to communicate in English as a second language as a stable trait or context-influenced variable: Case studies of Iranian migrants to New Zealand. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 177-196.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980).
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning. Conducting, and Evaluating, 260, 375-382.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and dilemmas. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry, 2, 315-326.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209(240), 209-240.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178-186.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance. Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, 26(41), 69-82.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, 1, 3-18.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean Foundations of language development (pp. 239-265): Elsevier.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data1. Applied linguistics, 18(1), 1-26.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. sociolinguistics, 269293, 269-293.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 297-319.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(2), 215-247.
Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory if action and state orientations. Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control. System, 38(2), 161-171.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25.
McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369817
McMillan, J. H. (2000). Fundamentals for the consumer. Educational Research, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, USA.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook: Sage publications.
Mohammad Hosseinpur, R., Bagheri Nevisi, R., & Lowni, A. (2019). Requesting in an EFL Institutional Context: Comparing and Contrasting WDCT, ODCT, and Role-Play with Natural Method. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 7(2), 363-385.
Neuman, S. B., & McCormick, S. (1995). Single-subject experimental research: Applications for literacy: ERIC.
Schreier, M. (2014). Ways of doing qualitative content analysis: disentangling terms and terminologies. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1), 1-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043
Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46): sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 1(1), 13-50.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross‐cultural perspective. TESOL quarterly, 15(2), 117-124.
Woodfield, H. (2010). What lies beneath?: Verbal report in interlanguage requests in English.
