注:
このス
上の画更する図を選削除し次に、スホル
画像アをクリて独自を挿入

EMERGENCE OF
WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATEIN YOUNG L2 LEARNERS
THROUGH TASK-BASED LEARNING
Junko Toyoda & Tomoko Yashima1. Literature review:
Factors affecting situational WTC in EFL/ESL contexts
p Learner-internal factors:l Perceived communicative competence (Cao & Phlip, 2006; Legar & Storch, 2009)l Sense of security, excitement, and responsibility toward L2 interaction (Kang, 2005)l Task attitudes (i.e., whether a given task is effective or not) (Eddy-U, 2015)

p Contextual factors were investigated in the following studies:l Interlocutor’s active participation (Cao & Philp, 2006; Zhong, 2013)l Familiarity with interlocutors (Cao & Philp, 2006; Zhong, 2013)l The number of interlocutors (i.e. Group size) (Cao & Philp, 2006; Zhong, 2013)

1. Literature Review: Pedagogical interventional studies to enforce
WTC§ Yashima & et al. (2008)
A group of Japanese high school students with higher exposure to contentbased instruction (CBI) developed L2 WTC to a greater extent than thosewith less exposure to CBI.
§ Munezane (2015)
compared three university-level EFL learner groups—one withvisualization treatment (i.e. instructing students to visualize themselves in a
future career as specialists who need to solve global problems using theL2), another with visualization plus goal-setting and a control group—andfound that the second group showed significantly more improvement
in L2
3WTC than the other two.

Few studies have explored situational WTC:üIn specific instructed language learning contexts such astask-based learning.
üFor young L2 learnersüDevelopmental features42. Focus & Research QuestionsuResearch Questions
RQ1: Does TBL enhance situational WTC of Japanese L2 young learners performing aninteraction task in the classroom context?
RQ2: What individual factors influence situational WTC of Japanese L2 young learners’
performing an interaction in TBL?
RQ3: What factors stimulate or mitigate Japanese L2 young learners’ situational L2 WTC in
moment-to-moment dyadic student-student interactions in TBL?
uOur Focus
ü Identifying factors influencing early teen learners’ situational L2 WTC in dyadic studentstudent interactions
ü Suggesting characteristics of tasks that should be provided to maximize young EFL
learners’ WTC in the language classroom

3. Method
Research Contexts and participants
Study 1:
Four English classes (N=135) in ajunior high school in Japan
Study 2:
One classroom focusing on
8 students (6 novices and 2intermediate level) in the sameschool×４

3. Method
TBL lesson design
Input-based focused task(e.g., jigsaw reading)Pre-task stage èê

20minutes

Creating task(e.g., making tour plan for teacher)êInterview task
Main-task stage è(e.g., finding best tour plan forteacher)

10minutesêPost-task stage è

Reflection reports

10
minutes7

3. Method for Study 1 (Quantitative)
RQ1: Does TBL enhance situational WTC of Japanese L2 young learners performing an interaction-basedtask in theclassroom context?
RQ2: What factors influence Japanese L2 young learners performing an interaction in TBL?

(1) One shot questionnaires for trait-like affects(2) After task-questionaries for situational affects
1. Situational task engagement (6 items, α= .93）
2. Situational frequency of communication (i.e.,Situational WTC)
(4items, α= .82)
3. Situational perceived task competence ( 5 items, α= .93 )Intervention
Data Collection

Sept.
TBL
1Oct.
TBL
2Nov.
TBL
3Dec.
TBL
4Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire

Jan.
TBL
5Questionnaire3. Method
Data collection and analyses

Study 1(Year 2014)

Data collection

Data analyses

p Questionnaire 1 (One time):
Learners’ trait-like L2 learning and communication
dispositions

p Multiple regression analysis tofind factors affecting S-WTC intask.

p Questionnaire 2 (After every TBL lesson):p Repeated ANOVA to see if
Self-reports on situational perceptions related to TBL
learners’ WTC develop.
and WTC

Study 2(Year 2017)

p Spoken data from the L2 interactions in TBL 2and 5

p transcribed and number of selfinitiated turns countedp Data from Stimulated Recall interviews after
TBL 1, 3, and 5

p Coding method inspired by“open-coding” process fromStrauss and Corbin’s
Grounded Theory (1998)

3. Method for Study 2 (Qualitative)
RQ3: What factors stimulate or mitigate early teen learners’ situational L2 WTC in
moment-to-moment dyadic student-student interactions in TBL?

InterventionSept.

Late Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

TBL

TBL

TBL

TBL

TBL

12

345

RecordedVideotaping

Recorded
within 72 hrs.

Data collection
SMR

SMR

SSI

SMR
SSIInterview
Showing theVideo

SMR
SSI

Stimulated recall interview (each about 30 min.)Semi-structured in-depth interviews (each about 30 min.)10

4. Results: Study 1§ The result of Multiple regression analysis (Stepwise)

S-perceived task competenceS-task engagement
L1WTC

B
1.42
0.42
0.39

SEB.16.15.10Intercept-3.96.46

R²=.82(coefficient of determination)

S: Situational

β0.640.210.18

t9.08
2.88
3.88

p.00
.00.00

VIF
2.83
2.96
1.25

The fluctuation of situational variables
6.5
4.5

PTC

4.4

6.1

WTC
5.7TE

4.3

4.2

4.1
5.3
4

4.9

3.9

3.8

4.5

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5
FOC 4.79
5.39
5.53
5.73
5.8

Time 1
PTC 4.05
TA
4.42

Time 2
4.37
4.38

Time 3
4.34
4.45

Time 44.46
4.32

Time 5
4.41
4.3

PTC=Situational perceived task competence, TE=Situational task engagement

4. Results: Study 2Main factor stimulating/mitigating moment-to-moment situational WTC during theinteractional taskØInterlocutor’s negotiation efforts
RecastRequest for clarification
Repetitions
GesturesEye-gaze behaviors
Embodied actions

Situational
WTC

Sample conversation script from TBL 5 showing such negotiation
Haruna: efforts I want to, am going to play games and singing karaoke.
Takeshi:karaoke-ne. Why?

Haruna:Because I like singing karaoke.

Takeshi:

Sorry. Slowly! Slowly! (Beckoning her to speak slowly with his right hand.)Haruna:Because I like Karaoke. I like them.

Takeshi:

I like Karaoke. OK. Them. OK. Any surprising event?

Haruna:I am going to taking photos.

Takeshi:

Are you…? Sorry. Slowly please.

Haruna:I want to taking photos with them.

Takeshi:(Loudly) Taking photos? Taking photos? (Questioning tone)

Haruna:(Trying to mime taking a picture)

Takeshi:
Each other:

GestureRepetition

Request forclarification
Request forclarification

EmbodiedactionUh-huh, huh, huh. Uh-huh, huh, huh!
Embodied(Nodding many times showing understanding)action(Smiling at each other)Eye-gaze behavior

Takeshi:

OK. Please give me a question.

Haruna:Where are you going to have a party?

Takeshi:On the sea.

Pink= Haruna
Black= Takeshi
14Green=Non-verbalbehaviors

4. Results: Study 2
Main factor stimulating/mitigating moment-to-moment situational WTC
during the interactional task

Ø Ｇａｐ between learners’ proficiency levels

4. Results: Study 2
Main factor stimulating/mitigating moment-to-moment situational WTC during
the interactional task

Ø Ｇａｐ between learners’ proficiency levels

Novice learners
Presence of fluent advanced
learners reduce my confidence
and increase anxiety leading tolower WTC because I cannot
comprehend fast fluent speech.

Intermediate learners
Novice interlocutors with low listening
comprehension ability mitigate my L2 WTC
because I have to worry the communication
breakdowns all the time.

16グラフ タイトル
Takeshi (Novice)’s turns with
3 interlocutors
20

Takeshi

18
16Interlocutors

14
12
10
8
6
4
20

Takeshi novice & Novice 1

Takeshi novice & Intermediate 1(friend)
TakeshiNovice & Novice
Novice & Intermediate friend
Novice & Intermediate(N) Takeshi (17.89)(N) Takeshi (12.93)(N) Takeshi (7.59)

Takeshi novice & Intermediate 2Interlocutors& (N) Haruna (7.82)& (I-F) Andrew (10.27)& (I ) Hako (8.64)(N)Novice, (I) Intermediate, (I-F) Intermediate close friend

17

Total turns/
min.
25.71
23.20
16.23

Haruna (Novice)’s turns with 3 interlocutors
20

18
16

Haruna14interlocutors

1210
8
64
20

Haruna Novice & Novice 1

Haruna Novice & Novice 2
HarunaNovice & Novice
Novice & Intermediate
Novice & Novice(N) Haruna (7.82)(N) Haruna (3.4)(N) Haruna (6.0)&&&Haruna Novice & Intermediate 1

Interlocutors

Total turns/min.

(N) Takeshi (17.89)(I) Andrew (5.0)(N) Ruri (8.0)

25.71
8.4
18
14

4. Results: Study 2
What factors affecting situational WTC in interactional task?

Relationship with interlocutors

19

Hako said:§ “I don’t want to talk with my group members (notparticipant group), we had kind of fight. I mean wedon’t get along with each other. So, we don’t even talkwith each other in Japanese. How could we speak toeach other in English? The relationship withinterlocutors is very important. I want to speak withsomeone in a good relationship.” (Hako, Intermediate)

20All the parcipants said:§ Task is kind of extension of usual communication. So, evenin English task, I want to have fun talking with my closefriends! You know it’s much more fun and comfortable talking
with someone you like and you know well than someone you
are unfamiliar with.

4. Results: Study 2
What factors affecting situational WTC in interactional task?

20

Relationship with interlocutors
Takeshi18
16Interlocutors

1412
10
8
6420

Takeshi novice & Novice 1

Takeshi novice & Intermediate 1(friend)

Takeshi &close friend

Takeshi novice & Intermediate 2

Takeshi & non- friend
22

5. Conclusion:
RQ1: Does TBL enhance situational WTC of Japanese L2 young learners
performing an interaction-based task in the classroom context?

§ Learners’ situational WTC in task improved significantly and continuously overtime.

Situational WTC

5. Conclusions

RQ2: What individual factors influence Japanese L2 young learners performing an interaction in TBL?
RQ3: What factors stimulate or mitigate participants’ situational L2 WTC in moment-to-moment dyadic studentstudent interactions in TBL?

pIndividual factors:• Situational perceived task competence• Situational task engagement

p Main Contextual factor→ Interlocutor factors:• Negotiation efforts• A good balance of speaking level• Good relationship between speakers

Intrinsically enjoy
interpersonalcommunication

(1) Create genuine communication experience students can interictally enjoy through TBL.
(e.g., Finding the best Okinawa tourist spots for ALT teacher through interviewing; Making a wonderful Christmas plan andinviting someone; Telling why school lunch is good or not good.)(2) Enforce perceived task competence through task design and implementation.
Give them the task they can handle and challenge. Or predetermine what is needed to lead successful task interaction,
scaffold the leaners’ task performance through task-planning stages (language gap between pairs, etc)

(3) Build strategic competence in L2 in the classroom.
Learners should know how they can repair communication breakdowns ( i.e., What to say and how to act when they’ve
misunderstood or when someone has misunderstood instead of being silent.)References§ Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior
in class, group, and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480-493.
§ Kang, S.J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language.
System, 33, 277-292.
§ Eddy-U, M. (2015). Motivation for participation or non-participation in group tasks: A dynamic systems modelof task-situated willingness to communicate. System, 50, 43-55.
§ Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. :Routledge.
§ Kang, S.J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language.
System, 33, 277-292.
§ Munezane, Y. (2015). Enhancing willingness to communicate: Relative effects of visualization and goal
setting. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 175–191. doi:10.1111/modl.12193§ Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
§ Yashima, T., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and L2communication: Creating an imagined international community. System, 36(4), 566-585.
§ Zhong, Q. M. (2013). Understanding Chinese learners' willingness to communicate in a New Zealand ESL
classroom: A multiple case study drawing on the theory of planned behavior. System, 41(3), 740-751.