Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp.1-14
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 13 Nov 2023 Revised 07 Dec 2023 Accepted 13 Dec 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202401.1

Interaction and WTC in Online EMI Courses: Social Presence, Anxiety, and Digital Tool Use

Seungeun Lee ; Hikyoung Lee
(first author) Graduate Student, Department of English Language & Literature, College of Liberal Arts, Korea University 145, Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: +82-2-3290-1316 selee_ku@korea.ac.kr
(corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Language & Literature, College of Liberal Arts, Korea University 145, Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: +82-2 3290-1995 hleeku@korea.ac.kr


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

With the proliferation of online English classes, L2 willingness to communicate (WTC) and interaction in online settings have recently received attention. Given the distinctive characteristics of online classes, it is imperative to investigate what roles interactional factors play in L2 WTC and interaction. This study explores the relationship between interactional factors (social presence, L2 anxiety, perceived benefits of digital tools) and their predictive roles in L2 WTC and interaction in online English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes. A questionnaire was administered to 111 non-native English speakers taking EMI courses at a Korean university. Correlation and regression analyses revealed three major findings. First, social presence in terms of psychological comfort was a significant predictor of L2 WTC and positive learning interaction which suggests that providing a non-threatening atmosphere in online classes enables learners to be more willing to initiate talk and actively engage in interaction. Second, general L2 anxiety and online L2 anxiety differed in their relationships to other variables, suggesting they are distinct constructs. Lastly, while learners recognized digital tools as beneficial, they were not actively used in interaction due to privacy concerns and technical issues. Based on these findings, pedagogical implications for English language teaching are offered.

Keywords:

L2 learning, online interaction, WTC, social presence, anxiety, digital tools

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Minyoung Cho (of Korea University) for her assistance throughout the study, particularly for her contributions to the data collection. Additionally, we thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

References

  • Al-Amrani, S. N. and M. Harrington. 2020. The impact of online social presence on Omani female students’ willingness to communicate in English. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal 21(2), 220-237.
  • Aldosari, A. M., S. M. Alramthi and H. F. Eid. 2022. Improving social presence in online higher education: Using live virtual classroom to confront learning challenges during COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology 13, 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.994403]
  • Aldukhayel, D. 2022. Remote presentations: Making L2 presentations less stressful. Education Research International 2022, 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5353819]
  • Alqarni, N. 2021. Language learners’ willingness to communicate and speaking anxiety in online versus face-to-face learning contexts. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 20(11), 57-77. [https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.11.4]
  • Côté, S. and C. Gaffney. 2021. The effect of synchronous computer-mediated communication on beginner L2 learners’ foreign language anxiety and participation. Language Learning Journal 49(1), 105-116. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1484935]
  • Eddy-U, M. 2015. Motivation for participation or non-participation in group tasks: A dynamic systems model of task-situated willingness to communicate. System 50, 43-55. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.03.005]
  • Gunawardena, C. N. and F. J. Zittle. 1997. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education 11(3), 8-26. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970]
  • Horwitz, E. K., M. B. Horwitz and J. Cope. 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70(2), 125-132. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x]
  • Jun, H. and H. Yoon. 2022. A comparative study on elementary school students’ willingness to communicate in online and offline English classes. Studies in Foreign Language Education 36(4), 155-177.
  • Khomejani Farahan, A., A. A. Rezaee and W. Wei. 2023. The relationship between L2 motivational self-system and willingness to communicate: The mediating effect of L2 anxiety in the Chinese EFL context. International Journal of Research in English Education 8(2), 14-29.
  • Kissau, S., H. McCullough and J. G. Pyke. 2010. “Leveling the playing field:” The effects of online second language instruction on student willingness to communicate in French. CALICO Journal 27(2), 277-297. [https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.2.277-297]
  • Le, T. V., U. Cunningham and K. Watson. 2018. The relationship between willingness to communicate and social presence in an online English language course. JALT CALL Journal 14(1), 43-59. [https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v14n1.223]
  • Lee, J. S. and M. M. Chiu. 2023. Modeling EFL learners’ willingness to communicate: The roles of face-to-face and digital L2 communication anxiety. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 43, 64-87. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190523000090]
  • Lee, J. S. and J. C. Hsieh. 2019. Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts. System 82, 63-73. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.002]
  • Lee, J. S. and L. Liu. 2022. Dynamicity of EFL learners’ willingness to communicate in an online class. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-19. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2039677]
  • Lim, H., Y. Denise Murdoch and J. Cho. 2022. Online EMI learner engagement and perceptions of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59(5), 597-608. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1905030]
  • MacIntyre, P. D. 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal 91(4), 564-576. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00623.x]
  • MacIntyre, P. D. and C. Charos. 1996. Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15(1), 3-26. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960151001]
  • MacIntyre, P. D., Z. Dörnyei, R. Clément and K. A. Noels. 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82(4), 545-562. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x]
  • MacIntyre, P. D. and R. C. Gardner. 1991. Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning 41(4), 513-534. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00691.x]
  • Mihai, M., C. N. Albert, V. C. Mihai and D. E. Dumitras. 2022. Emotional and social engagement in the English language classroom for higher education students in the COVID-19 online context. Sustainability 14(8), 1-20. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084527]
  • Namaziandost, E., M. H. Razmi, R. M. Hernández, Y. Ocaña-Fernández and M. Khabir. 2022. Synchronous CMC text chat versus synchronous CMC voice chat: Impacts on EFL learners’ oral proficiency and anxiety. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 54(4), 599-616. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1906362]
  • Pawlak, M., A. Derakhshan, M. Mehdizadeh and M. Kruk. 2021. Boredom in online English language classes: Mediating variables and coping strategies. Language Teaching Research. [https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064944]
  • Resnik, P., J. M. Dewaele and E. Knechtelsdorfer. 2023. Differences in the intensity and the nature of foreign language anxiety in in-person and online EFL classes during the pandemic: A mixed-methods study. TESOL Quarterly 57(2), 618-642. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3177]
  • Satar, H. M. 2015. Sustaining multimodal language learner interactions online. CALICO Journal 32(3), 480-507. [https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i3.26508]
  • Sheybani, M. 2019. The relationship between EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate (WTC) and their teacher immediacy attributes: A structural equation modeling. Cogent Psychology 6(1), 1-14. [https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1607051]
  • Short, J., E. Williams and B. Christie. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
  • Taguchi, T., M. Magid and M. Papi. 2009. The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda, eds., Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 66-97. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-005]
  • Tu, C. H. 2001. How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International 38(1), 45-60. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980010021235]
  • Tu, C. H. and M. McIsaac. 2002. The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education 16(3), 131-150. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2]
  • Wei, C. W., N. S. Chen and Kinshuk. 2012. A model for social presence in online classrooms. Education Technology Research and Development 60, 529-545. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9]
  • Wiener, M. and A. Mehrabian. 1968. Language within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Yeh, E., G. Y. Choi and Y. Friesem. 2022. Connecting through flipgrid: Examining social presence of English language learners in an online course during the pandemic. CALICO Journal 39(1), 26-52. [https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.19647]
  • Yeung, M. W. L., A. H. Y. Yau and C. Y. P. Lee. 2023. How should webcams be used in online learning under COVID-19: A co-orientation analysis of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of student social presence on webcam. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39(2), 399-416. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12751]
  • Yüksel, H. G. 2022. Remote learning during COVID-19: Cognitive appraisals and perceptions of English medium of instruction (EMI) students. Education and Information Technologies 27(1), 347-363. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10678-x]
  • Zhang, R., N. C. Bi and T. Mercado. 2023. Do zoom meetings really help? A comparative analysis of synchronous and asynchronous online learning during Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39(1), 210-217. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12740]
  • Zhao, H., K. P. H. Sullivan and I. Mellenius. 2014. Participation, interaction and social presence: An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(5), 807-819. [https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12094]