Causal Relationships Between Communication Confidence, Beliefs About Group Work, and Willingness to Communicate in Foreign Language Group Work

Causal Relationships Between Communication Confidence, Beliefs About Group Work, and Willingness to Communicate in Foreign Language Group Work KUMIKO FUSHINO Rikkyo University, Language Center Tokyo, Japan This article reports on the causal relationships between three factors in second language (L2) group work settings: communication confidence (i.e., confidence in one’s ability to communicate), beliefs about group work, and willingness to communicate (WTC) A questionnaire was administered to 729 first-year university students in Japan A model that reflected the hypothesis that WTC in L2 group work would be influenced by Beliefs in L2 Group Work strengthened by Communication Confidence was constructed and tested Data were randomly split in two, with one-half used for model specification and the other half for confirmation The structural equation modeling confirmed this hypothesis, which implies that L2 WTC and WTC in L2 group work differed This model marks the first step toward identifying the causal relationships among factors that affect WTC in L2 group work doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.235993 roup work (including pair work) has been increasingly used in English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms as the instructional focus has shifted from teaching discreet aspects of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, to developing students’ communicative competence in English In smallgroup work, students can have ample opportunities to interact with each other in their second language (L2) in natural ways, which is likely to develop their communicative competence, that is, various components of their language competence, such as organizational competence, pragmatic competence, and strategic competence (Bachman, 1990) Use of small-group work is also recommended by cooperative learning advocates, who assert that learning occurs when students work in a G 700 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 44, No 4, December 2010 positively interdependent manner, with each group member contributing his or her share of the work In these circumstances, students benefit from recognizing the overall success of the group and from observing the success of its individual members (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) They claim that cooperative small-group work can enhance learning outcomes, communication skills, learning motivation, and psychological health (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Kagan, 1994; Sharan & Sharan, 1992) Unlike teacher-fronted instruction, where the teacher controls interactional patterns, in small-group learning, how students participate in group work is rather unpredictable The teacher cannot force students to participate in groups in the way the teacher wants or expects them to Instead, students are free to choose whether or not to work actively in groups, while nonlinguistic and noncognitive contextual features, such as classroom layout, students’ interpretation of their tasks, and peer relationships, may influence how students act in groups (cf Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Doărnyei & Kormos, 2000; Jacob, 1999) Participation in group activity includes students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) with peers in the target language Several factors may impact on such willingness Factors related to overall L2 WTC have been researched and identified (e.g., Cle´ment, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003; Yashima, 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004) However, factors specific to WTC in L2 group work have not been identified Likewise, there is a lack of understanding of the relationships among factors that may affect students’ willingness to work in L2 groups BELIEFS ABOUT L2 GROUP WORK One possible influence on students’ WTC with group members in the L2 is what they believe about the value of group work It is felt that students’ beliefs about L2 group work are formed at least in part based on their experiences in social contexts, including language learning situations Such beliefs are not only cognitive but also social constructs formed in social contexts in which learners accumulate experience and encounter problems (Barcelos, 2006) Their beliefs are relatively stable but also changeable (Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Woods, 2006); they also influence students’ L2 learning behavior (Horwitz, 1985, 1987, 1988; Woods, 2006) In the study I discuss here, I operated on the assumption that such beliefs about L2 group work are strongly related to willingness to participate in L2 group work Assuming that beliefs about L2 group work that students hold vary, for example, ‘‘L2 group work is useful for L2 development’’ and ‘‘L2 COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 701 group work is of intrinsic value in and of itself,’’ as shown in my previous study (Fushino, 2006a), it was hypothesized that beliefs about group work consist of five components discussed in the cooperative learning literature and based on my own experience as an English teacher who often uses group work In a subsequent study (Fushino, 2006b), I categorized them as beliefs concerning (a) the value of cooperation, (b) the efficiency of group work, (c) knowledge co-construction/peer scaffolding in group work, (d) relationships with other group members, and (e) teacher–student roles in college English classrooms However, in conducting a factor analysis of those components, only three belief factors were identified: positive beliefs about the value of group work, beliefs about group work usefulness, and negative traditional instruction orientation (Fushino, 2008) L2 COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE Confidence in one’s ability to communicate in the L2 may also impact on participation within a group Communication apprehension is defined as ‘‘fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with another person or persons’’ (McCroskey, 1977, p 78) Self-perceived communication competence is defined as the self-perception of ‘‘adequate ability to pass along or give information; the ability to make known by talking or writing’’ (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988, p 109) Some forms of group activities require relatively high level communication skills and the ability to engage in spontaneous interaction Dwyer (1998) investigated the relationship between communication apprehension and learning style preferences of undergraduate students in a public speaking course at a U.S university and found that female students with high communication apprehension often not have communication skills adequate to help them feel competent in an active, undirected learning environment It is not difficult to imagine that individuals with a high degree of communication apprehension will not participate in group work actively Keaten, Kelly, and Pribyl (1997) measured levels of self-reported communication apprehension in elementary and secondary school students in Japan, with the Personal Report of Communication Fear questionnaire (McCroskey, Andersen, Richmond, & Wheeless, 1981) Keaten et al reported that the Japanese school children in their study showed increasing levels of first language (L1) communication apprehension in the classroom in general as they grew older (from elementary school to junior high school) It has also been reported that Japanese college students showed stronger communication apprehension, both in Japanese and English, 702 TESOL QUARTERLY than their U.S counterparts (McCroskey, Gudykunst, & Nishida, 1985; Pribyl, Keaten, Sakamoto, & Koshikawa, 1998) In the study by McCroskey et al., the group of respondents (Japanese university students) was split into two, and the first half reported their L2 communication apprehension while the second half reported their L1 communication apprehension on the short version of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (McCroskey, 1978) The Japanese students showed statistically significant higher L1 and L2 communication apprehension than their U.S counterparts speaking English, and the Japanese students’ levels of L1 and L2 communication apprehension were almost the same Pribyl et al (1998) investigated Japanese university students’ levels of communication apprehension with the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985) They compared the results with normative means taken from U.S samples published in Richmond and McCroskey (1995) and reported that Japanese college students had higher communication apprehension than their U.S counterparts However, those studies were focused on trait-like communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence, and those constructs were not directly related to L2 group work In the cooperative learning and small-group-work literature, no researchers have conducted focused studies on communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence In L2 research, MacIntyre, Cle´ment, Doărnyei, and Noels (1998), based on the original proposal by Cle´ment (1980), posited that L2 communication confidence consists of L2 communication apprehension and perceived L2 communicative competence Perceived L2 communicative competence is students’ self-perception of their ability to communicate in an L2 In the study described here, I adapted their idea and viewed communication confidence in L2 group work as being made up of communication apprehension in L2 group work and self-perceived communicative competence in L2 group work MacIntyre, Noels, and Cle´ ment (1997) conducted a study in a French-as-a-second-language course at a Canadian university in order to investigate how language anxiety, perceived and actual L2 competence, were related The participants responded to a questionnaire on language anxiety and a can-do questionnaire Then they performed tasks that corresponded to items on the can-do questionnaire MacIntyre et al reported that self-perceived competence was significantly correlated with anxiety and actual competence They also suggested that less anxious students who perceived themselves as more competent chose to communicate more willingly Therefore, it may be that, even if students have low communication apprehension but view their communicative competence as being high (i.e., high COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 703 communication confidence in L2 group work), they will more likely be ready to participate in L2 group work Moreover, both communication apprehension in L2 group work and self-perceived communicative competence in L2 group work can change as students experience L2 group work If students become more confident in L2 group work, their increased confidence will presumably make them more willing to engage in L2 group work WTC IN AN L2 The notion of WTC in an L2 has recently begun to attract interest in second language research WTC in an L2, which has been defined as ‘‘a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2’’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p 547), is considered to be the direct antecedent of students’ actual engagement in L2 communication MacIntyre et al (1998) proposed a well-known six-layered heuristic model of variables that influence L2 WTC The first layer is actual L2 use, which is directly influenced by L2 WTC (Layer 2) Layer has two constructs: desire to communicate with a specific person and degree of communicative self-confidence Factors in Layer directly influence L2 WTC These three layers are considered situation-specific influences Layers 4, 5, and are considered stable, long-lasting influences on L2 WTC Layer represents motivational propensities and consists of three constructs: interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation, and selfconfidence Layer 5, which represents the affective-cognitive context, includes intergroup attitudes, social situation, and communicative competence The bottom layer, Layer 6, is the social and individual context that consists of intergroup climate and personality Layers further from L2 WTC (Layer 2) are felt to have less direct influence on WTC MacIntyre and Charos (1996) conducted a study in a Canadian bilingual (English and French) context in order to investigate a structure of L2 WTC by testing a path model A questionnaire was administered to introductory-level adult learners of French It was found that frequency of actual use of L2 was predicted by motivation and WTC, and WTC was predicted by perceived communication competence and communication anxiety No relationship between WTC and motivation was found in this bilingual setting MacIntyre and Cle´ment (1996) reported a questionnaire study conducted in a Canadian monolingual university with Anglophone students learning French as a second language The study was a 704 TESOL QUARTERLY replication of MacIntyre and Charos’s study (1996) MacIntyre and Cle´ment reported that perceived L2 communicative competence, L2 anxiety, and motivation are directly related to L2 WTC in the monolingual (English-speaking) setting They also reported that integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation are related to L2 WTC through motivation Recently, efforts have been made to situate the heuristic model of MacIntyre et al (1998) in culture-specific contexts (e.g., Wen & Cle´ment, 2003; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004) Yashima and Yashima et al applied the above-mentioned model presented in MacIntyre and Cle´ment (1996) to the Japanese context First-year Japanese university students majoring in information science, in Yashima’s study, and first-year Japanese high school students receiving intensive English language instruction in their high school, in the study by Yashima et al., responded to a set of questionnaires made up of attitudinal–motivational measures and L2 WTC scales Yashima and Yashima et al hypothesized that L2 WTC in the Japanese context is directly influenced by (a) students’ confidence in L2 communication, composed of Communication Apprehension and Perceived Communicative Confidence in the L2, (b) Motivation, and (c) International Posture, which consists of ‘‘interest in foreign or international affairs,’’ ‘‘willingness to go overseas to stay or work,’’ and a ‘‘readiness to interact with intercultural partners’’ (Yashima et al., 2004, p 125) If a student has low L2 Communication Apprehension and high (self) Perceived Communicative Competence in the L2, the person is considered to have high L2 communication confidence Yashima and Yashima et al tested their model using structural equation modeling and found that L2 WTC is directly influenced by International Posture and Communication Confidence, but not by L2 Learning Motivation L2 motivation is an intervening variable that indirectly influences L2 WTC by influencing L2 communication confidence PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY As explained above, L2 communication confidence, beliefs about L2 group work, and L2 WTC may all impact on students’ participation in group work Thus far in this article these components of WTC have been explored separately Expectancy-value theory (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) attempts to link these three constructs in L2 group work settings According to this theory, people are motivated to engage in tasks that they are confident that they can accomplish and that they value Applying this theory to the L2 group work context, it can be hypothesized that if students are confident in L2 communication and COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 705 have strong, positive beliefs about L2 group work, they will willingly communicate in L2 group work However, the causal relationships among these three factors have not been investigated empirically In other words, we not know how communication confidence in L2 group work—an aggregated construct that consists of communication apprehension in L2 group work and selfperceived communicative competence in L2 group work (cf Cle´ment et al., 2003; Yashima, 2002)—and beliefs about L2 group work together affect WTC in L2 group work Yashima investigated factors that affect WTC in an L2 in four different situations with three different interlocutors, but in the study described here, communication occurred in a much more limited situation, that is, in L2 group work As such, direct application of her L2 WTC model to the L2 group work situation might not work Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the causal relationships among (a) Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, (b) Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and (c) WTC in L2 Group Work while taking the models of Yashima (2002) and MacIntyre et al (1998) into consideration The hypothesized model is shown in Figure The belief underlying this study was that, if causal relationships among Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work are identified, classroom teachers will be better equipped to tailor their instruction in ways that will boost students’ engagement in classroom tasks The study was designed to investigate the following research question: How communication confidence in L2 group work and beliefs about L2 group work affect students’ WTC in L2 group work? A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was employed to answer this research question METHOD Participants and the Research Site Seven hundred and twenty-nine first-year students (with a mean age of 18.65 years, standard deviation [SD] 0.86) from various FIGURE Second language (L2) group work (GW) model (WTC willingness to communicate) 706 TESOL QUARTERLY departments at a co-ed university in the Tokyo area participated in this study Among them, 329 were males, 392 were females, and did not indicate their gender The students had at least years of formal English education at their junior and high schools prior to entering this university The precise levels of the students’ English proficiency were not measured; however, because the university is acknowledged to be a prestigious university, their proficiency levels were in the higher range, as defined in Japan Students took a placement test at the beginning of the semester and were placed in classes based on the results of the test Two courses were prepared for them: a Communicative Course and a Language and Culture Course In each semester, three kinds of classes (four 90-minute lessons per week in total) were offered In the Communicative Course, the oral communication class (twice a week), the reading and writing class (once a week), and the listening class (once a week) were provided, and in the Language and Culture Course, the listening and reading class (twice a week), the extensive reading class or learning with video class (once a week), and intercultural communication class (once a week) were offered Within the same course, different textbooks were used for classes with higher proficiency students and for those with lower proficiency The English program at the university employed an English-only policy, so teachers were told to use English for instruction in the two courses, regardless of the students’ English proficiency Japanese was avoided as much as possible even in the lower proficiency classes Material The data used in this study were solely obtained from a questionnaire The questionnaire (in Japanese) was constructed for a larger research project in which this study was included Response items were written based on the theories of cooperative learning, my observation of students’ group work, communication apprehension (McCroskey et al., 1985, in particular), and self-perceived communication competence literature as well as WTC literature I also sought advice from a cooperative learning specialist The draft version of the questionnaire was shown to one of my previous students (a second-year university student at that time) to determine if there were any difficulties in understanding and responding to the items The student filled out the questionnaire and timed how long it took her to complete it She reported that it took her about 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire and that no item was unclear to her Originally, the questionnaire had 98 items, consisting of parts: (a) communication apprehension in L2 group work, (b) self-perceived communicative competence in L2 group work, (c) the value of cooperation, (d) the COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 707 efficiency of group work, (e) knowledge co-construction/peer scaffolding in group work, (f) relationships with other group members, (g) teacher–student roles in college English classrooms, and (h) WTC in L2 group work However, after a pilot administration and a factor analysis (Fushino, 2008), only six factors were extracted, and only high-loaded items were retained in the final version of the questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study consisted of 64 five-point Likert-scale items (1 strongly disagree; disagree; neutral; agree; 5 strongly agree) in six sections (see the Appendix for an English translation) The results of the questionnaire were submitted to factor analysis, and six factors were identified, as expected The names and reliability indices of the questionnaire sections follow: Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work (10 items, a 0.88): The items were written in consultation with the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) to measure students’ degree of communication apprehension in L2 group work A sample item is ‘‘I feel nervous when I work in a group in English class.’’ Item was reverse coded Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work (10 items, a 0.94): Considering what verbal actions students were likely to take in L2 group work, 10 can-do-type items were constructed in order to measure how students perceived their level of communication competence in L2 group work A sample item is ‘‘If my group members ask me questions in English, I can answer them in English.’’ Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work (6 items, a 0.93): Students were asked to indicate to what degree they agreed with statements regarding beliefs about the value of group work, because it was considered that students who believe in the value of group work were likely to participate in group work actively A sample item is ‘‘Group work is important for human growth.’’ Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation (8 items, a 0.89): Students were asked to show what attitudes they had toward traditional instruction based on the idea that students with a higher negative traditional instruction orientation were considered to be more positive toward more innovative instruction, such as group work, and thus were likely to engage in group work more actively Because negative wording was avoided in order to prevent student confusion (Brown, 2001; Doărnyei, 2003), all the items were written in affirmative sentences, such as ‘‘I learn well in a teacher-led class that has no group work.’’ Therefore, all the items were reverse coded in order to make the higher score indicate higher negative traditional instruction orientation 708 TESOL QUARTERLY Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness (20 items, a 0.95): Students who believed that group work was useful for them and for their learning were considered to be more likely to join group work, and the items in this section were constructed to measure the degree to which students considered group work useful A sample item is, ‘‘During group work I learn various opinions and ideas from group members.’’ WTC in L2 Group Work (10 items, a 0.96): The items in this section asked how willing students were to communicate in the 10 situations described All the situations were the same as those for the items written for Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work A sample item is, ‘‘If my group members ask me questions in English, I am willing to answer them in English.’’ Procedure The questionnaire described above was administered anonymously at the end of the spring semester in July, 2005, by eight colleagues of mine Selection of the participants was based on convenience At this university, teachers could not choose which class to teach These eight teachers were assigned to one of the three classes that the students took Hence it seemed unlikely that sampling by convenience would distort the results of the study Analyses As stated above, the purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work by using SEM Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About L2 Group Work are psychological constructs that cannot be measured directly Therefore, there was a need to operationally define these variables Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About L2 Group Work were operationally defined as follows: Confidence (M of Apprehension Reversed + M of Confidence)/2 Beliefs (M of Value + M of Instruction + M of Usefulness)/3 where Confidence Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work; Apprehension Reversed reverse-coded Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work; Competence Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work; Beliefs Beliefs About L2 Group Work; Value Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work; Instruction Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation; and Usefulness Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness The possible maximum score was The means and intercorrelations of these variables are shown in Table After data screening and assumption checks, a structural equation model was made and tested using AMOS 5.1J (statistical software, Arbuckle, 2004) with 592 cases COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 709 TABLE Means and Intercorrelations Among Communication Confidence, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work Apprehension Competence Confidence Value Instruction Usefulness Beliefs WTC M SD 2.44 2.85 3.21 3.94 3.80 3.87 3.87 3.13 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 — 20.28 20.77 20.31 20.35 20.34 20.41 20.22 — 0.82 0.26 0.11 0.33 0.29 0.71 — 0.36 0.28 0.42 0.43 0.60 — 0.38 0.60 0.85 0.35 — 0.44 0.75 0.16 — 0.82 0.42 — 0.38 — Note SD standard deviation; M mean; Apprehension Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work; Competence Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work; Confidence Communication Confidence; Value Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work; Instruction Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation; Usefulness Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness; Beliefs Beliefs About L2 Group Work; WTC Willingness to Communicate in L2 Group Work All correlations are significant at p , 0.01 (1-tailed) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In order to investigate causal relationships among Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work, an SEM was tested SEM processes consist of a series of regressions and confirmatory factor analyses (Byrne, 2001) In that respect, SEM is useful for investigating how well a theoretical model explains the interrelationships among a set of variables (Hu & Bentler, 1999) That is, by using structural equation modeling, we can determine whether a theory-driven model fits the observed data to a statistically significant degree (Sasaki, 1993), and we can obtain information on how plausible the model is in terms of revealing the existence of cause–effect relationships (Murayama, 1998) Although it is true that, in order to meaningfully suggest any causation, there is a need for a great deal of theory and research, as Kline (2005) explains, the pictorial aspect of structural equation modeling enables us to see visually the influence of one variable on another variable It was this visual aspect of SEM that was appropriate for the purposes of this study The Hypothesized Model The heuristic model of WTC in an L2 by MacIntyre et al (1998) indicates that WTC (Layer 2) is directly affected by State Communicative 710 TESOL QUARTERLY Self-Confidence (consisting of ‘‘perceived competence’’ and ‘‘a lack of anxiety,’’ p 549) and Desire to Communicate with a Specific Person (Layer 3) However, their model was designed to account for L2 WTC in the Canadian ESL context, which is very different from the context of this study, where English is a foreign language that is seldom used outside of English classrooms Besides, the primary purpose of the study was to investigate students’ WTC in L2 Group Work in English classes and not their willingness to use the L2 in communicative situations outside classrooms Because of these differences, as Wen and Cle´ment (2003) noted in their conceptualization of WTC in the Chinese context, it was not feasible to directly apply the model of MacIntyre et al to the current situation However, their heuristic model became a useful conceptual tool in constructing my model Yashima (2002) investigated an L2 communication model in the Japanese EFL context by testing via SEM and found that WTC in an L2 within the Japanese EFL framework was directly affected by two latent variables: L2 Communication Confidence, as indicated by ‘‘communication anxiety in the L2’’ and ‘‘perceived communication competence in the L2,’’ and International Posture Latent variables are ‘‘theoretical constructs that cannot be observed directly’’ (Byrne, 2001, p 4) Observed variables are those that can be directly measured by observation, such as self-report responses and test scores (Byrne, 2001) However, WTC in the L2 in Yashima’s study was considered to be WTC outside of English classrooms In the present study, the focus was on WTC in L2 Group Work, in particular; therefore, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, rather than International Posture, was hypothesized to affect WTC in L2 Group Work I also view these beliefs to be relatively stable, not changing from class to class On the other hand, beliefs can change over time; thus they are not a complete trait Therefore, Beliefs About L2 Group Work should be located in Layer in the model of MacIntyre et al (1998) In this conceptualization, Beliefs About L2 Group Work indirectly affects WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, which in turn, is affected by Beliefs About L2 Group Work Based on this idea, I developed a hypothetical model The singleheaded arrows in Figure illustrate the hypothesis that Beliefs About L2 Group Work (a latent variable) indirectly affects WTC in L2 Group Work (an observed variable) via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work (a latent variable), which has two indicator variables, Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work and Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work Beliefs About L2 Group Work has three indicator variables: Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work, Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation, and Beliefs About Group Work Usefulness Each indicator variable was specified by aggregating the values of all the items used in the measurement variable Ovals in the COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 711 FIGURE L2 group work structural model (tested model) model represent latent variables, while rectangles represent observed variables The absence of a line connecting measured or latent variables implies the lack of a hypothesized direct effect Model Estimation The hypothesized model shown in Figure was tested using the maximum likelihood method Because the total sample size (N) was large (592), and there was a possibility that further modification of the tested model might be necessary, the data were randomly split The first data set (n 296) was used for model specification and modification of the model, and the second data set (n 296) was used to confirm the results obtained with the first data set The results are presented in Table The x2 statistic (CMIN; degrees of freedom [df] 8, n 296) was 40.749, p 0.00; it rejected the model However, with such a large n size, the x2 test tends to reject models readily The goodness of fit index (GFI 0.959) and the comparative fit index (CFI 0.939) showed a good fit, as they were above 0.90 (Byrne, 2001) However, the root mean square error of approximation index (RMSEA) was 0.118, which is larger than the suggested criteria of 0.05 and 0.08 proposed by Browne and Cudeck 712 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Selected Fit Statistics for the Base Model (With Data Set 1) Base model CMIN df GFI CFI PCFI RMSEA RMSEA 90% CI Low 40.749 0.959 0.939 0.501 0.118 0.083 RMSEA 90% CI High 0.155 Note CMIN the x2 statistic; df degrees of freedom; GFI goodness of fit index; CFI comparative fit index; PCFI parsimony comparative fit index; RMSEA root mean square error of approximation index; CI confidence interval (1993) as indicative of a fair fit Values greater than 0.10 suggest that the model should be rejected (Byrne, 2001) Therefore, it was concluded that this model should be modified Post hoc model modifications were conducted in order to improve model fit Modification indices suggested that Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation affected Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work and, in return, Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work affected Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation—thus adding these paths would improve model fit This model was tested, and the modification indices improved and became satisfactory (GFI 0.988, CFI 0.990, RMSEA 0.056) The x2 was 11.477 (df 6, p 0.075, Table 3) This model indicates that Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation and Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work are both independent and dependent variables with regard to each other The negative value of the regression weight from Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation to Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work (20.56) suggests that stronger Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation is accompanied by decreases in communication anxiety At the same time, the positive value of the regression weight from Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work to Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation (0.37) implies that higher communication anxiety is related to stronger Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation TABLE Selected Fit Statistics for the Final Model (With Data Sets and 2) Data set * CMIN df GFI CFI PCFI RMSEA RMSEA 90% CI Low 11.477 22.268* 6 0.988 0.975 0.990 0.975 0.396 0.390 0.056 0.096 0.000 0.055 RMSEA 90% CI High 0.104 0.140 Statistically significant at p 0.001 COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 713 At first glance, these two relationships seem contradictory However, on closer examination they are easier to understand, because students who believe less in traditional instruction would presumably find more value in group work and thus would feel more comfortable working in groups, a feeling that would be likely to reduce their communication anxiety in L2 group work At the same time, if students’ communication anxiety in L2 group work is high, their fear of speaking up in front of the class when they are called on by the teacher would be high Therefore, those with higher communication anxiety in group work would find group work superior to teacher-led traditional classes, because they not have to speak up in front of all their peers, which might be more face-threatening than participating in group work Because these datadriven paths were easily interpretable, this modified model was selected as the final model Figure shows the final model with standardized estimates All the regression weights (shown next to the arrows) and squared multiple correlations (shown above the variables) were statistically significant The fit indices (Table 3) for the final model with Data Set indicated that the model fit the data well Seventy-nine percent of the WTC in L2 Group Work variable was accounted for by Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, 24% of which was accounted for by Beliefs About L2 FIGURE Structural equation modeling (SEM) results (final model) with standardized estimates (with data set 1) All paths are statistically significant 714 TESOL QUARTERLY Group Work These results showed that Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work was a strong predictor of WTC in L2 Group Work Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work had a strong direct effect (b 0.89, p 0.001, two-tailed) on WTC in L2 Group Work Beliefs About L2 Group Work had a moderate indirect effect (b 0.43) on WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work Beliefs About L2 Group Work had a relatively strong direct effect (b 0.49) on Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, but not as strong as the effect of Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work on WTC in L2 Group Work (b 0.89) This indicates the possibility of more existing variables that directly affect Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work This is also clear from the fact that only 24% of the Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work was accounted for by Beliefs About L2 Group Work In fact, in Yashima’s (2002) model, L2 Learning Motivation directly influences L2 Communication Confidence Omission of the variable of motivation might be a reason for this less strong effect This finding confirmed the heuristic model of MacIntyre et al (1998), in which L2 Communication Confidence is an immediate antecedent of WTC in an L2 In Yashima’s (2002) model, too, Communication Confidence in the L2 is a direct antecedent of L2 WTC In her model, Intercultural Posture is shown as another direct antecedent of WTC in an L2 However, my model situated L2 group work in classrooms Therefore, instead of Intercultural Posture, Beliefs About L2 Group Work was included as a latent variable Beliefs About L2 Group Work is a new concept, specific to the group work environment, and in this study beliefs were conceptualized to be relatively stable from class to class Therefore, it cannot be a direct antecedent of WTC in L2 Group Work The path from Beliefs About L2 Group Work to Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work to WTC in L2 Group Work exemplifies my hypothesis that Beliefs About L2 Group Work indirectly influences WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work In the model used in this study, Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, had two indicator variables, Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work and Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work The standardized regression weight from Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work to Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work was 0.77, whereas that of Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work was 20.18 This indicates that Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work was more strongly predicted by Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work than was Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work This is consistent with the results of the Pearson correlation COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 715 coefficient conducted shown in Table This result also agreed with the results in Yashima’s (2002) study, where b from L2 Communication Confidence to Communication Anxiety in the L2 was 20.49, and Perceived Communication Competence in the L2 was 0.72 (p 61) Beliefs About L2 Group Work had almost equal predictive power for Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work (0.74), Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation (0.78), and Beliefs About Group Work Usefulness (0.83) These results were consistent with the results of the Pearson correlation coefficient shown in Table In order to increase the generalizability of the final model, Data Set was used to confirm the model fit Table and Figure show the results of these analyses Data Set yielded a slightly worse fit for the final model than did Data Set This might have occurred because the data were split, albeit randomly, and thus each data set had a reduced number of cases Because SEM requires a large number of cases, this splitting of the cases in half might have made the result a little less stable However, the GFI (0.975) and CFI (0.975) indices of Data Set indicated a good model fit The regression weights and squared multiple correlations for the path diagram for Data Set (Figure 4) were similar to those for Data Set (Figure 3) Taken together, these results indicate that the final model is generalizable, even though it was FIGURE SEM results (final model) with standardized estimates (with Data Set 2) All paths are statistically significant 716 TESOL QUARTERLY partly a data-driven model However, RMSEA increased to 0.096 Although it was still lower than 0.10, which is the point at which the model should be rejected, further study is necessary to strengthen the model In particular, replicating this study with more cases would be essential CONCLUSION This study unveiled the causal connection that Beliefs About L2 Group Work influenced WTC in L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work The data were split into two sets, and the second data set confirmed the findings produced by the first set This procedure increased the plausibility of the hypothesized model Presenting a simple but good-fitting structural model provides a basis for the development of more complex models Because of its simplicity, this model is more generalizable to the broader EFL context Pedagogically, this study provides three important implications First, its core finding tells us that, by elevating students’ Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About L2 Group Work, teachers might boost, to some extent, WTC in L2 Group Work, which is likely to trigger active student–student interaction in the L2 Without interaction, which is likely to include interactional modification (Long, 1983), comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), and comprehensible output (Swain, 1985), language development cannot be expected From a sociocultural perspective, too, interaction is crucial, in that it creates opportunities for learners to work in their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) Finding a way to elevate WTC in L2 Group Work directly is difficult However, because we now know that WTC in L2 Group Work is affected by Beliefs About L2 Group Work via Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work, we can be more specific about how to raise students’ WTC in L2 Group Work Reflecting on the direct causality of Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work on WTC in L2 Group Work, enhancing students’ confidence to communicate in English might be more efficient in the short run because beliefs take time to change (cf Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Woods, 2006) Also, because Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work is influenced by Beliefs About L2 Group Work, strengthening students’ beliefs in the value of group work is necessary Although no studies have investigated how to strengthen students’ Beliefs About L2 Group Work, having students experience cooperative learning group work might potentially be beneficial for this purpose, because experiences in working in cooperative groups that carefully follow basic COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 717 principles of cooperative learning, such as positive interdependence, individual accountability, maximum peer interaction, heterogeneous grouping, and equal opportunity to participate (e.g., Jacobs, et al., 2002), are likely to lead them to believe in the value of cooperation and the usefulness and efficiency of group work At the more concrete level, boosting Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work should be emphasized to elevate students’ Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work because SelfPerceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work had a stronger association with Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work than did Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work However, Fushino (2008) found that Self-Perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work was more difficult to change than Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work This implies that, at the initial stages, teachers should make extra efforts to reduce Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work by providing teambuilding activities with which group members can develop bonds and thus can reduce their communication apprehension Facilitating a supportive atmosphere, where students listen to each other attentively and praise each other’s effort and accomplishments (Jacobs, 2007) and teachers’ noncritical attitudes, are also important At the same time, checking task difficulty, complexity, and familiarity, and, as Jacobs (2007) suggested, assigning success-oriented, doable tasks with clear instructions, demonstrations, and easy-to-follow steps is likely to help students gradually gain a feeling of competence in their L2 group work In particular, providing scaffolding, such as giving hints and doing the first part of a task together, can enable weaker students to experience support from their teachers and peers and experience a growing degree of success If these forms of assistance are provided, students will willingly take risks and try out their L2, which will in turn increase their chances for success in communication Cumulatively successful experiences will lead to elevated confidence Application of the Questionnaire to the Teaching Context The questionnaire used in this study was constructed for a research purpose Therefore, it might be too time-consuming for the classroom teacher to analyze the result of this long questionnaire, with its 64 items However, if the teacher wants to create heterogeneous groups based on students’ Communication Confidence in L2 Group Work and Beliefs About L2 Group Work, this questionnaire will be potentially helpful In order to make this questionnaire more teacher-friendly, constructing a shorter 718 TESOL QUARTERLY version of it is essential Producing a shorter version by selecting high-loading items in the factor analysis and then piloting it might be a way to proceed If the shorter version of the questionnaire proved to be reliable and yielded results similar to those found in this study, it could be confidently used in classrooms resembling those in this study and useful for teaching In addition, using the instrument to discuss the use of groups with students might be helpful in improving the quality of group work, because this discussion could encourage them to reflect on their group work, and this reflection could lead to high-quality interaction After all, effective cooperation only becomes possible when students experience quality interaction Suggestions for Future Research The structural model tested in this study was a simple one Because the purpose was to investigate the relationship between Communicative Confidence in L2 Group Work, Beliefs About L2 Group Work, and WTC in L2 Group Work, other factors that are likely to have effects on WTC in L2 Group Work, such as L2 learning motivation, were intentionally excluded The data fit the modified model well; however, in order to obtain a fuller picture of factors that affect WTC in L2 Group Work, additional constructs should be identified and included in future studies In addition, data-driven paths were added to the tested model to improve the model fit Although these paths were interpretable, the model should be further developed and tested with new participants On the other hand, because of its simplicity, this model might be generalizable to other Japanese university EFL contexts ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank David Beglar at Temple University, Japan Campus, for his support throughout this research; and Takako Nishino, who always supported me and gave me helpful comments while I was writing this article I also appreciate Miyuki Sasaki, Tomoko Yashima, and Peter MacIntyre for their assistance while revising this article I am deeply indebted to the teachers who administered the questionnaire and to the students who responded My sincere appreciation also goes to the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on previous drafts of this article and to the TESOL Quarterly editor, Alan Hirvela, for his kind feedback and encouragement THE AUTHOR Kumiko Fushino is a lecturer at Rikkyo University, Language Center, in Tokyo, Japan She is interested in cooperative learning in foreign language education and project-based learning She holds workshops on cooperative learning for language teachers in Japan COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 719 REFERENCES Arbuckle, J L (2004) AMOS (Version 5.0.1J) [Computer Software] Tokyo, Japan: SPSS Bachman, L F (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing New York, NY: Oxford University Press Barcelos, A M F (2006) Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review In P Kalaja & A M F Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp 7– 33) New York, NY: Springer Brown, J D (2001) Using surveys in language programs Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Browne, M W., & Cudeck, R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit In K A Bollen & J S Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp 136–162) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Byrne, B M (2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Cle´ment, R (1980) Ethnicity, contact, and communication competence in a second language In H Giles, W P Robinson, & P M Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp 147–154) Oxford, England: Pergamon Press Cle´ment, R., Baker, S C., & MacIntire, P D (2003) Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 190–209 doi:10.1177/0261927X03022002003 Cohen, E G (1994) Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Teachers College Press Coughlan, P., & Duff, P A (1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective In J P Lantolf & G Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp 173194) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Doărnyei, Z (2003) Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Doărnyei, Z., & Kormos, J (2000) The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300 Dwyer, K K (1998) Communication apprehension and learning style preference: Correlations and implications for teaching Communication Education, 47, 137– 150 doi:10.1080/03634529809379118 Fushino, K (2006a) The relationship between communication apprehension and beliefs about group work in college English classrooms Kyodo to Kyoiku [Cooperation and Education], 2, 20–37 Fushino, K (2006b) Course choices and attitude toward group work In K BradfordWatts, C Ikeguchi, & M Swanson (Eds.), JALT2005 Conference Proceedings Tokyo, Japan: JALT Fushino, K (2008) Measuring Japanese university students’ readiness for secondlanguage group work and its relation to willingness to communicate Dissertation Abstracts International, 69 (UMI No 3319977) Horwitz, E K (1985) Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course Foreign Language Annals, 18, 333–340 doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1985.tb01811.x Horwitz, E K (1987) Surveying student beliefs about language learning In A Wenden & J Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp 119–129) London, England: Prentice-Hall International (UK) 720 TESOL QUARTERLY Horwitz, E K (1988) The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294 doi:10.2307/327506 Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P M (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55 doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Jacob, E (1999) Cooperative learning in context: An educational innovation in everyday classrooms Albany, NY: State University of New York Press Jacobs, G M (2007, August) Learning new languages with cooperative learning Plenary Speech at the 4th Conference of Japan Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education, Shizuoka, Japan Jacobs, G M., Power, M A., & Loh, W I (2002) The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Johnson, D W., & Johnson, R T (1999) Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Kagan, S (1994) Cooperative learning San Juan de Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning Keaten, J., Kelly, L., & Pribyl, C B (1997) Communication apprehension in Japan: Grade school through secondary school International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, 319–343 doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00004-7 Kline, R B (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Guilford Press Krashen, S (1985) The input hypothesis New York, NY: Longman Long, M H (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141 doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.126 MacIntyre, P D., & Charos, C (1996) Personality, attitudes and affect as predictors of second language communication Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 3– 26 doi:10.1177/0261927X960151001 MacIntyre, P D., & Cle´ment, R (1996, August) A model of willingness to communicate in a second language: The concept, its antecedents and implications Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Jyvaăskylaă, Finland MacIntyre, P D., Clement, R., Doărnyei, Z., & Noels, K (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562 doi:10.2307/330224 MacIntyre, P D., Noels, K A., & Cle´ment, R (1997) Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety Language Learning, 47, 265– 287 doi:10.1111/0023-8333.81997008 McCroskey, J C (1977) Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96 doi:10.1111/ j.1468-2958.1977.tb00599.x McCroskey, J C (1978) Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension Communication Monographs, 45, 192–203 doi:10.1080/03637757809375965 McCroskey, J C., Andersen, J F., Richmond, V P., & Wheeless, L R (1981) Communication apprehension of elementary and secondary students and teachers Communication Education, 30, 122–132 doi:10.1080/03634528109378461 McCroskey, J C., Beatty, M J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T G (1985) The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts Communication Quarterly, 33, 165–173 McCroskey, J C., Gudykunst, W B., & Nishida, T (1985) Communication apprehension among Japanese students in native and second language Communication Research Reports, 2, 11–15 COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 721 McCroskey, J C., & McCroskey, L L (1988) Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence Communication Research Reports, 5, 108– 113 doi:10.1080/08824098809359810 McCroskey, J C., & Richmond, V P (1982) Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinction The Central States Speech Journal, 33, 458–468 Murayama, G M (1998) Basics of structural equation modeling Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pribyl, C B., Keaten, J A., Sakamoto, M., & Koshikawa, F (1998) Assessing the crosscultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24) Japanese Psychological Research, 40, 47–53 doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00074 Richmond, V P., & McCroskey, J C (1995) Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness (4th ed.) Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Sakui, K., & Gaies, S J (1999) Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning System, 27, 473–492 doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00046-9 Sasaki, M (1993) Relationships among second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: A structural equation modeling approach Language Learning, 43, 313–344 doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00617.x Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S (1992) Expanding cooperative learning through Group Investigation New York, NY: Teachers College Press Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development In S Gass & C Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 235–253) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Vygotsky, L S (1978) Mind in society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Wen, W P., & Cle´ment, R (2003) A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to communicate in ESL Language, Culture & Curriculum, 16, 18–38 doi:10.1080/ 07908310308666654 Wigfield, A (1994) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78 doi:10.1007/BF02209024 Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J S (2000) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81 doi:10.1006/ ceps.1999.1015 Woods, D (2006) The social construction of beliefs in the language classroom In P Kalaja & A M F Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp 201–229) New York, NY: Springer Yashima, T (2002) Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66 doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00136 Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K (2004) The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication Language Learning, 54, 119–152 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x APPENDIX Questionnaire Items Used for the Analyses in This Study (English Translation) Part A: Communication Apprehension in Group Work 722 I feel relaxed when I work in a group in English class I feel uneasy when I group work in English class TESOL QUARTERLY 10 I feel anxious when I work in English class in a group with classmates whom I don’t know well I feel nervous when I work in a group in English class Group work in English class is painful for me In group work in English class, I feel more comfortable when listening to other members’ opinions than talking to group members I want to avoid group work as much as possible in English class If other members express different opinions from mine, I become nervous When working in a group, I feel nervous if I am asked a question by other members In group work, I can’t ask questions to other members because I feel embarrassed Part B: Self-Perceived Communication Competence in Group Work 10 If my group members ask me questions in English, I can answer them in English If I need help from my group members, I can ask them in English I can ask questions in English if a group member says something unclear to me I can group work only in English if the task is simple I can show empathy or my feelings to my group members in English If I have a different idea or opinion from group members, I can express it in English I can convey my opinions/ideas in English with the help of gestures or other nonverbal means during group work I can express complex ideas in English I can make a plan for a group project in English with group members If a conflict arises during group work, I can find a way to resolve it in English Part C: Positive Beliefs About the Value of Group Work Group work is important for human growth Group work is important for human society Experience in the process of group work is valuable Group work is valuable to facilitate students’ autonomy Communication skills developed in group work are useful for my future Group work is a good opportunity for me to understand myself better Part D: Negative Traditional Instruction Orientation I learn well in a teacher-led class that has no group work I learn efficiently in a teacher-led class that does not have group work A lecture style should be employed in college English classes more often than group work 100% Teacher-led classes are more suitable for college education than classes that combine teachers’ lectures and group work The teacher is the only one who should convey knowledge to students Students should speak only when they are called on by the teacher The teacher is the only one who can provide the right answers Generally speaking, it is a waste of time to group work in English classes COMMUNICATION CONFIDENCE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE GROUP WORK 723 Part E: Beliefs About Group Work Usefulness 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 While listening to other members discuss, I notice my own mistakes By listening attentively, we can help other members notice something new While discussing with my group members, I can find answers to the questions that I couldn’t answer on my own Whether or not I speak in group work, I listen carefully to what my group members are saying During group work I learn various opinions and ideas from group members I am willing to listen to my group members when they point out my mistakes When we work together in a group, we can find something that we often overlook when working alone Conclusions reached through group discussion are better than those I arrive at when I think alone If I present a different view from theirs, my group members will listen to it After working in a group, I will eventually be able to things on my own that I can’t alone now Students who help other group members learn well When I talk to group mates, I will notice my mistakes I can learn from other group members Group work enables me to like my group members more Group members will be willing to help me in group work I will willingly help other group members in group work By working together in group work, we can better understand each other Even if there is a conflict, we can resolve it by working together After an argument in group work, we can become better friends After a conflict with a group member, I can fix my relationship with her/him Part F: Willingness to Communicate in L2 Group Work What would you if you were in the following situation? 10 If my group members ask me questions in English, I am willing to answer them in English If I need help from my group members, I am willing to ask them in English I am willing to ask questions in English if a group member says something unclear to me I am willing to group work only in English if the task is simple I am willing to show empathy or my feelings to my group members in English If I have a different idea or opinion from group members, I am willing to say it in English I am willing to convey my opinions/ideas in English with the help of gestures or other nonverbal means during group work I am willing to express complex ideas in English I am willing to make a plan for group projects in English with group members If a conflict arises during group work, I am willing to find a way to resolve it in English Note All the questionnaire items are 5-point Likert scale items The items with the underlined numbers were reverse coded 724 TESOL QUARTERLY ... research, MacIntyre, Clement, Doărnyei, and Noels (1998), based on the original proposal by Cle´ment (1980) , posited that L2 communication confidence consists of L2 communication apprehension and perceived... with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Cle´ment, R (1980) Ethnicity, contact, and communication competence in a second language In H Giles, W P Robinson,