Examining Individual Differences in Persian Learners as Second Language in Different Levels: Willingness to Communicate, Social Intelligence, and Motivation

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
Z. Abbasi 1
H. Yaghoubinejad 2
F. Kelari 3
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty Member, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University
2 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Kosar university of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran
3 M.A of Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
10.29252/LRR.12.4.24
Abstract
The present research aims to enhance our understanding of the relationship among factors related to individual differences in language learning, particularly the constructs of Willingness to communicate, Social intelligence, and Motivation. Gender and language proficiency level were also investigated. In order to answer the research questions and examine their relevant hypotheses, 168 adult Persian language learners in different language levels from various universities (79 females and 89 males) completed the 44-item questionnaire. Results of statistical analyses revealed that the relationship among all three variables was completely meaningful. However, there was no significant relationship was found between WTC and females’ L2 ought-to self. The relationship among WTC and other variables, namely L2 ideal self, learning experience, overall motivation, and social intelligence, in male participants was stronger than their female peers, while the other way round was witnessed concerning the relationship between social intelligence and motivation. Data analysis based on language proficiency level showed that in beginners the relationship among WTC and learning experience, L2 ideal self, and overall motivation and that of social intelligence and motivation was stronger than other levels. In intermediate level, as WTC increased, L2 ought- to self decreased significantly. Moreover, among all levels, the strongest amount of relationship was reported between WTC and social intelligence in intermediate level.



1. Introduction

Individual differences are of vital importance in language learning and second/foreign language classes and lots of research has been carried out to examine these individual differences and different variables involved in them. In order to apply the most appropriate teaching methodologies, language educators have to have their students’ differences in mind. This study aims to explore the relationship and possible interaction among motivation, social intelligence and WTC of adult Persian learners in different levels regarding their gender.

In order to investigate this issue in more detail the following research question is addressed:

RQ1: Is there any relationship among WTC, overall motivation (including components of L2 ideal self, L2 ought-to self, and L2 learning experience) and social intelligence in adult Persian learners in different levels? And, is there any gender differences in this regard?

To answer this research question three research hypotheses have been proposed:

RH1: There is a significant relationship among WTC, motivational components and the overall motivation of Persian learners in different levels and this relationship is stronger in females and beginners.

RH2: There is a significant relationship between WTC and social intelligence and this relationship is stronger in females and beginners.

RH3: There is a significant relationship between motivation and social intelligence and this relationship is stronger in males and beginners.







2. Literature Review

Second language research is replete with evidences suggesting that language learning is primarily learner centered (Brown, 2007). In past two decades there has been more emphasis on the role of learners in language teaching and research and their individual differences have been an issue of serious concern among L2 researchers (Dornyei & Skehan, 2003, p. 603). There are so many variables related to learners which facilitate language learning process (Dornyei, 2005). WTC is a personal component that arrested researchers’ attention from both dynamic and static viewpoints. In fact, WTC is a key concept in L2 teaching and learning and refers to the language learner’s willingness to either remain silent or employ second language (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Wen & Clement, 2003). Among different variables effective in the extent of WTC, we can point out the learner’s motivation to learn an L2. Motivation is a force which can guide you towards the actions and solutions and is an inclination to perform a particular action or reach a specific aim. It is also concerned with the acts which gives the behavior force and direction. Motivation is a latent variable in language learning which is composed of the willingness to learn a language, the motivational intensity and attitude to learning (Gardner and Tremblay, 1994, cited in Sheikholeslami and Khayyer, 2006). Dornyei (2009) has proposed a new framework for L2 motivation, namely L2 motivational self system (L2MSS) in order to solve the problems inherent in previous theories and suggest a regular structure for L2 motivation. This new model consists of three components: L2 ideal self, L2 ought-to self and L2 learning experience. L2 ideal self is concerned with unique dimensions of a person’s ideal self which show his aspirations, hopes and desires. L2 ought-to self is related to those features a person has to possess to avoid the possible negative consequences such as requirements, obligations and expectations. L2 learning experience deals with the contextual motivation which is necessary for the learning environment. Another factor involved in language learners’ individual differences is social intelligence. This construct is defined as the person's understanding to behave better in human relations. In the case the learners is able to first distinguish these features and then control and guide his emotions and excitement, he will be able to can remove the debilitative impediments to his performance. Through assessing the language learner’s social intelligence we can predict his potential success in personal and social life (Heidar Kaydan & Azari, 2007).



3. Methodology

This research was applied and field study in terms of purpose and methodology, respectively. In order to analyze the data, the findings were first examined and then the inferential statistics of the research hypotheses were tested using SPSS version 26.The data were gathered through a six-point likert scale questionnaire. This 44-item questionnaire consisted of three parts. The 18-item part examining motivational components (selves) was designed by Taguchi et al. (2009) and explored participants' motivational tendencies. The part on WTC (taken from the Compressrat Wang’s Questionnaire (2010) was composed of 13 items and the part on social intelligence was comprised of 13 items taken from a section of Bradbury-Graves’s (2005) questionnaire. The Cronbach's alpha calculated to determine the validity of 3 questionnaires of motivational components, WTC and social intelligence was .8, .87 and .87, respectively, which indicated the internal consistency of the questionnaire items. The validity of the study was also confirmed by 15 experts in the field.

A total number of 168 adult Persian learners with different proficiency levels (79 females and 89 males) from Tarbiat Moddares University, Imam Khomeini University of Ghazvin and Jameat Al-Mustaf University of Qom participated in this study. The proficiency level of these participants was first tested and then they were assigned to different groups based on their scores on the test.





4. Conclusion

Based on the findings of the present study the results extracted from the examination of the first research hypothesis can be summarized as what follows: the relationship among WTC and three variables of L2 ideal self, L2 learning experience and overall motivation was positive and significant while negative between WTC and L2 ought-to self. There was also a positive and significant relationship among WTC, L2 ideal self, L2 learning experience and overall motivation of male and female Persian learners; whereas this relationship was stronger among male participants. Moreover, while there was no significant relation between females’ WTC and L2 ought-to self, a negative and significant relation was found between these variables of male participants. WTC, L2 ideal self and overall motivation had a positive and significant relation in only beginner and intermediate levels, though no such relation was found among these variables in other levels. The results and findings concerning the second research hypothesis showed a positive and significant relation between WTC and social intelligence, while this relation was stronger among male learners. Along the same line, a positive and significant relation was reported between WTC and social intelligence in all proficiency levels, while this relation was the strongest in intermediate level. Based on the findings of this study the results drawn from the examination of the third research hypothesis can be summarized as following: A positive and significant relation was found between overall motivation and social intelligence. The same relation was reported between these variables among male and female Persian learners; however, this relation was stronger among female participants. Finally, there was a positive and significant relation between overall motivation and social intelligence in only beginner level, whereas there was not such a relation in other proficiency levels.

Keywords

Subjects

 Abbasi, Zahra, Yaghoubinejad, Hadi (2019). “A Time Perspective of Motivational Fluctuation over Task Performance”. Humanities, Vol. 26 (3): 85-105.
 Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: WH Freeman.
 Bradberry, Travis. Greaves, Jean. (2005). Emotional Intelligence, skills and tests. Translated by Mehdi Ganji.Tehran, Savalan.
 Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd Eds.). Pearson Education ESL.
 Cao, Y. (2014). “A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate”. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 789-814.
 Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). “Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction”. System, 34(4), 480-493
 Cha, J.-S., & Kim, T.-Y. (2013). “Effects of English-learning motivation and language anxiety of the elementary school students on willingness to communicate in English and English speaking”. Primary English Education, 19(1), 271-294.
 Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H. T. (2005). “Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation”. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609-663.
 Csizér, K. & Kormos, J. (2008). “The Relationship of Intercultural Contact and Language Learning Motivation among Hungarian Students of English and German”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 29 (1). 30-48.
 Csizér, K. & Lukács, G. (2010). “The Comparative Analysis of Motivation, Attitudes and Selves: The Case of English and German in Hungary”. System. 38 (1). 1-13.
 Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). “The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort”. Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19–36.
 Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Thomson, R. (2008). “A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development”. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359-380.
 Dewaele, J-M, Gkonou, C and Mercer, S (2017). “L2 teachers’ emotional competence and teaching experience”, in Martinez, J (Eds), Emotions in Second Language Teaching: Challenges for Teacher Education.
 Dörnyei, Z. & Chan, L. (2013). “Motivation and Vision: An Analysis of Future L2 Self Images, Sensory Styles, and Imagery Capacity across Two Target Languages”. Language Learning. 63 (3). 437-462.
 Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). “Individual Differences in Second Language Learning”. The handbook of second language acquisition. 589-630.
 Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual Differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of Second language acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 Dörnyei, Z. (2009). “The L2 Motivational Self System”. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 9-42.
 Dörnyei, Z., Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Routledge.
 Gardner, R& Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
 Gardner, R. C. & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). “On motivation, Research Agendas, and theoretical Frameworks”. The Modern Language Journal. 78. 359-368.
 Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second Language Learning. London. Arnold.
 Gardner, R. C. (2001). “Integrative motivation and second language acquisition”. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition, (Technical Report #23, 422-459). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
 Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: the socio educational model. New York: Peter Lang.
 Gardner, R. C., & Clément, R. (1990). “Social psychological perspectives on second language acquisition”. In H. Giles & P. Robinson (Eds.), The handbook of language and social psychology (495-517). New York: Wiley.
 Gardner, R. C., & Macintyre, P. D. (1993). “A student’s contributions to second language learning”. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, pp.1–11.
 Gardner, R., Smythe, P., Clément, R., & Gliksman, L. (1976). “Second language acquisition: a social psychological perspective”. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 198-213.
 Goleman, D (2006). Social intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. London: Arrow Books.
 Hashimoto, Y. (2002). “Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context”. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29-70.
 Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). “Foreign language classroom anxiety”. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
 Islam, M., Lamb, M. & Chambers, G. (2013). “The L2 Motivational Self System and National Interest: A Pakistani Perspective”. System. 41 (2). 231-244.
 Kang, S. J. (2005). “Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language”. System, 33(2), 277-292.
 Karimi, M. N. & Abaszadeh, A. (2017). “Autonomy-Supportive Teaching, Willingness to Communicate in English, Motivation, and English Speaking Self-Efficacy among EFL Learners: A Structural Equation Modeling Study”. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 20 (2), pp.113-156.
 Kelly, L. (1983). “Observers’ comparisons of the interpersonal skills of reticent and nonreticent students”. Communication, 12(1), 77.
 Knell, Ellen and Chi, Yanping (2012). “The Roles of Motivation, Affective Attitudes, and Willingness to Communicate Among Chinese Students in Early English Immersion Programs”. International Education, Vol. 41 Issue (2).
 Larson, C. E., Backlund, P. M., Redmond, M. K., & Barbour, A. (1978). “Assessing communicative competence”. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association and ERIC.
 Lee, J. S., & Drajati, N. A. (2019). “Affective variables and informal digital learning of English: Keys to willingness to communicate in a second language”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), pp.168-182.
 Lee, Winnie and Sarah Ng (2010). “Reducing student reticence through teacher interaction strategy”, ELT Journal Volume 64/3 July 2010, pp.302–313.
 Liu, M. (2005). ‘Reticence in oral English Language classrooms: a case study in China’. TESL Reporter, 38/1: 1–16.
 Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). “An exploration of Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety”. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71- 86.
 MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). “Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process”. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564-576.
 MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). “Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), pp.3-26.
 MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). “The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerised vocabulary learning”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, pp.1-17.
 MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clement, R., & 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., & Legatto, J. (2011). “A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing effect”. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149-171.
 Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). “Possible Selves”. American Psychologist. 41 (9). 954-969.
 Martin, AJ and Dowson, M (2009). “Interpersonal Relationships, Motivation, Engagement, and Achievement: Yields for Theory, Current Issues, and Educational Practice”. Review of Educational Research 79/1: 327–365.
 Matsuoka, R. (2006). “Japanese college students' willingness to communicate in English”. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Temple University, Pennsylvania, PA, U.S.A.
 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, Denver, CO.
 McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). “Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view”. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Eds.), Communication, cognition and anxiety (19-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). "Willingness to communicate". In J. C. McCroskey, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (129-156). Retrieved from http.
 McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). "Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view". Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(2), 19-37.
 Mcintosh, C. N & Noels, K. A (2004). “Self-determined motivation for language learning: The role of need for cognition and language learning strategies”. Available at http://zif. Spz. Tu-darmstadt. De/jg-09-2/beitrag/mcintosh2.htm.
 Mercer, S. (2011). “Language Learner Self-Concept: Complexity, Continuity and Change”. System. 39 (3). 335-346.
 Munezane, Y. (2015). "Enhancing willingness to communicate: Relative effects of visualization and goal setting". The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), pp.175-191.
 Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). "Willingness to communicate in instructed second language acquisition: Combining a macro- and micro- perspective". Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
 Noora, Azam (2008). “Iranian Undergraduates Non-English Majors' Language Learning Preferences”, GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, Volume 8(2) 2008.
 Oram, P. & Harrington, M. (2002). “Learning styles and strategies, SLAT 6805”. Second language Aqusition. Semester 2.
 Oxford, R. (1997). “Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom”. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.
 Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., & Hart–Johnson, T. (2004). “Possible selves as roadmaps”. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, pp.130–149.
 Papi, M. (2010). “The L2 Motivational Self System, L2 Anxiety, and Motivated Behavior: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach”. System. 38 (3). 467-479.
 Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Bielak, J. (2016). “Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective”. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 654-671.
 Peng, J. E. (2014). Willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL university classroom: An ecological perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
 Peng, J. E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). “Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context”. Language Learning, 60(4), 834-876.
 Schunk, D (1991). “Goal setting and self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective on self-regulation”, in Maehr, ML and Pintrich, PR (Eds.) Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol 7. Greenwich: JAI Press, 85–113.
 Skehan, P. (1989). “Individual differences in second language learning”. London: Arnold Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72-77.
 Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). “The L2 Motivational Self System among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian Learners of English: A Comparative Study, In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.)”, Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, (66-97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
 Wen, W. P., & Clement, R. (2003). “A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL”. Language Culture and Curriculum, 16(1), 18-38.
 Wharton, G. (2000). “Language Learning strategy use of blingual foreign language Learners in Singapore”. Language Learning. 50. 2. 203-243.
 Yang, Chengying, (2015). “East to West, are Chinese Students Willing to Communicate? A Mixed-method Study about Chinese Students' Willingness to Communicate” Culminating Projects in English. 32.
 Yang. Nae. Dong. (1999). “The relationship between EFL Learner’s beliefs and Learning strategy use”. System. 27, 515-535.
 Yashima, T. (2002). “Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context”. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.
 Yu, M. (2008). “Willingness to communicate of foreign language learners in a Chinese setting”. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/887/.
 Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). “Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners' willingness to communicate”. System, 42, 288-295.
Language Related Research
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 64
September and October 2021
Pages 755-811