TURKISH COLLEGE STUDENTS’ WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Yesim Bektas Cetinkaya, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Keiko K. Samimy, Adviser _______________________ Professor Joseph A. Gliem Adviser Professor Alan R. Hirvela College of Education Copyright by Yesim Bektas Cetinkaya 2005 All right reserved ABSTRACT English, which is defined as an international language, is used by more than one and a half billion people (Strevens, 1992) as a first, second, or foreign language for communication purposes. Consequently, the purpose of teaching English has shifted from the mastery of structure to the ability to use the language for communicative purposes. Thus, the issues of whether learners would communicate in English when they had the chance and what would affect their willingness to communicate gain importance. Recently, a “Willingness to Communicate” (WTC) model was developed by McIntyre et al. (1998) to explain and predict second language communication. The objective of the present study was to examine whether college students who were learning English as a foreign language in the Turkish context were willing to communicate when they had an opportunity and whether the WTC model explained the relations among social-psychological, linguistic and communication variables in this context. The present study was a hybrid design that combined both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis procedures. First, a questionnaire was administered to 356 randomly selected college students in Turkey. Then, interviews were conducted with 15 randomly selected students who had already answered the ii questionnaire. The Structural Equation Model (SEM) analysis was conducted to examine the interrelations among students’ willingness to communicate in English, their language learning motivation, communication anxiety, perceived communication competence, attitude toward the international community, and personality. Qualitative interviews were utilized to extend and elaborate these quantitative results. The results revealed that students were somewhat willing to communicate in English, were moderately motivated to learn English, had a positive attitude toward the international community, had low communication anxiety, perceived themselves somewhat competent to communicate in English, and were slightly extraverted. These students’ willingness to communicate was found to be directly related to their attitude toward the international community and their perceived linguistic self-confidence. Students’ motivation to learn English and their personality in terms of being an introvert or extrovert were found to be indirectly related to their willingness to communicate through linguistic self-confidence. Finally, their attitude toward the international community was correlated with their personality. iii Dedicated to my parents, ARIFE-HAYDAR BEKTAS And my husband, MEHMET ALI CETINKAYA iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would not have completed this dissertation without the guidance and support of many people. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Keiko K. Samimy for her intellectual and emotional support during my academic journey. As a nonnative speaker, female academician with various roles, Dr. Samimy has been my role model. I would like to thank her for her inspiring and encouraging guidance and for giving me space to grow academically during my doctoral study at the Ohio State University. I wish to thank Dr. Joe Gliem and Dr. Alan Hirvela from whom I have learned great deal since I arrived at the Ohio State University. Both Dr. Gliem and Dr. Hirvela served on my candidacy exam and dissertation committees and have made a considerable impact in my academic life. I must express my gratitude to Dr. Gliem for teaching me how to design and conduct quantitative research and for inspiring me to be a responsible researcher. I am grateful to Dr. Hirvela for reading the early drafts of my proposal and dissertation and giving me feedback. I also wish to thank him for spreading his interest in literacy and giving me timely advises which have always been proved to be very useful. I am grateful to Turkish Ministry of Education for supporting me financially during my graduate study at the Ohio State University. I am also grateful to Turkish v undergraduate students who participated in my study and Turkish English instructors who assisted me during data collection. My gratitude especially goes to Dr. Kadim Ozturk for giving me permission to collect data at Dokuz Eylul University, Yabanci Diller Yuksek Okulu, and my friends Seher Daylak, Mustafa Ali Aslan, and Armagan Ciftci for their invaluable assistance during data collection. I also would like to thank my classmates and friends at the Ohio State University for sharing ideas and invaluable discussions. I especially would like to thank Bengu Borkan, Yesim Capa, and Haci Bayram Yilmaz for answering my questions about SEM analysis. Last but not least, I wish to express my appreciation to my husband, Mehmet Ali Cetinkaya, for his love and unconditional support during this difficult process. He made this process enjoyable by making me laugh and encouraging me when I most needed. vi VITA May 17, 1974 ……………………………… Born – Tokat, Turkey 1997………………………………………... B.A. Education, Dokuz Eylul University 1997-1999………………………………….. English teacher, Izmir, Turkey 2001………………………………………... M.A. TESOL, The Ohio State University 2001- 2005…………………………………. Ph.D. The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Foreign and Second Language Education Minor Fields: Quantitative Research Methods Second Language Literacy vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..……….. ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………….………...iv Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….………...v Vita……………………………………………………………………………………….vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………..………..x List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………… xii Chapters: 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………...2 1.2 Research Questions and Hypothesis………………………………………….. 5 1.3 Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………7 1.4 Basic Assumptions……………………………………………………………. 9 1.5 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………... 9 1.6 Turkish Context………………………………………………………………11 1.6.1 Turkish Educational System……..……..……..……..……..……..……11 1.6.2 English Education in Turkey……..……..……..……..……..……..…...15 2. Review of the Literature………………………………………………………….17 2.1 Willingness to Communicate……………………………………….……….. 17 2.1.1 Willingness to Communicate in the Native Language………………..17 2.1.2 Willingness to Communicate in Second and Foreign Language……... 20 2.2 Linguistic Self-Confidence…………………………………………………...25 2.2.1 Language Anxiety…………………………………………………….. .27 2.3 Attitudes and Motivation……………………………………………………..33 2.4 Personality………………………………………………………………..…..39 3. Methodology…......................................................................................................…… 43 3.1 Research Design….………………………………………………………… 43 3.2 Research Site and Participant Selection……………………………………. 44 3.3 Instruments…………………………………………………….……………..46 3.4 Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………… 51 3.5 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………... 53 3.5.1 Non-response Error Control……………………………………………59 viii 4. Findings………………………………………………………………………………..67 4.1 Description of the Program………………………………………………….. 68 4.2 Participant Demographic……………………………………………………..70 4.2.1 Survey Participants……………………………………………………. 70 4.2.2 Interview Paricipants…………………………………………………...71 4.3 Research Question 1………………………………………………………… 76 4.3.1 Quantitative Results…………………………………………………… 76 4.3.2 Qualitative Results…………………………………………………….. 84 4.4 Research Question 2………………………………………………….………99 4.4.1 Structural Equation Model Analysis…………………………….…….101 4.4.2 Measurement and Structural Model of WTC………………………… 104 4.4.3 Evaluation of the Model……………………………………………… 107 4.5 Research Question 3……………………………………………………… 110 4.5.1 Evaluation of the Model…………………………………………… 113 5. Summary and Implications…………………………………………………………. 115 5.1 The Summary of Findings………………………………………………… 116 5.2 Discussion…………………………………………………………………. 128 5.3 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………….. 133 5.4 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………….136 5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies…………………………………………… 137 References…………………………………………………………………….……... 140 Appendices………………………………………………………………………….. 148 A. Questionnaire (In English)…………………………………………………. 148 B. Questionnaire (In Turkish)………………………………………………… 157 C. Interview Themes and Questions (In English)……………………………. 166 D. Interview Themes and Questions (In Turkish)…………………………….. 170 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 T-test scores for respondents and non-respondent groups……………..………... 60 3.2 Chi-square test for gender……………………………………………………….. 62 3.3 Chi-square test for abroad……………………………………………………….. 63 3.4 Chi-square test for visit………………………………………………………….. 64 3.5 Chi-square test for private course……………………………………….………. 65 3.6 Chi-square test for communication……………………………………...………. 66 4.1 List of schools in which the medium of instruction is in English………………. 69 4.2 Survey participants………………………………………………………………. 71 4.3 Interview participants…………………………………………………….……… 73 4.4 Interview participants…………………………………………………….……… 75 4.5 Students’ perceived