The chicken or the egg? Examining the impacts of a brief bilingual exchange on willingness to communicate.
Mady, Callie
Abstract
This study compares the willingness to communicate (WTC) of
Canadian Anglophone and Francophone students to measures of their
self-assessed, multiskilled second language proficiency and strategy use
before and after a short-term intracountry bilingual exchange
experience. The central question is whether a student's WTC exists
before an opportunity for authentic second language use or whether
authentic second language opportunities enhance WTC. Data were collected
via questionnaires. In this paper, I report on the questionnaire
findings examining WTC in relation to the participants'
self-assessments pre- and post-exchange. The questionnaire results show
statistical increases in ease of speaking for the Anglophone group and
in all language skills for the Francophone group. Notably, however,
there were no significant changes in the WTC elements pre- and
post-exchange.
Keywords
second language learning, willingness to communicate, second
language teaching, second language proficiency
**********
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
One of the goals of formal second language instruction is to
prepare learners for second language communication with target language
communities outside the classroom. Learners and researchers (MacIntyre,
Baker, Clement, & Conrod, 2001; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, &
Shimizu, 2004) alike, however, distinguish between in- and out-of-class
second language communication. Where communication is limited to the
second language classroom, research has shown a decrease in learner
second language motivation (Clement, 1980), whereas, provision for
out-of-class opportunities for second language use have been shown to
increase proficiency (Hanna, Smith, McLean & Stern, 1980; Day &
Shapson, 1981) and enhance attitudes toward the second language and its
communities (Rose & Bylander, 2007; Allameh, 2006). Provision of
opportunities to communicate with target language communities as part of
formal language learning may offer a means to narrow the gap in
perception between in and out-of-class second language communication by
providing for a complementary vision where learners link their classroom
knowledge to their ability to communicate with the target language
audience. Such opportunities may lead to further gains in proficiency
and positive attitudes, which, in turn, can impact positively on future
formal learning and lead to a sequence whereby learners then seek
additional authentic opportunities for second language use.
Prior to providing authentic communicative opportunities for second
language learners, MacIntyre et al. (2001) suggest that enhancing the
learners' WTC is necessary preparation for such communication.
MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 547) define WTC as a readiness to enter into
discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons using a
second language. Their model considers ten incremental factors that
influence one's WTC leading to a decision to communicate within a
certain context. The WTC framework groups these determining factors into
social, cognitive, motivational, and situational categories as impacting
on WTC and communicative behaviour. The purpose of this study, as
commissioned by the Society of Educational Visits and Exchanges in
Canada (SEVEC), was to explore the impact of a Canadian intracountry
short term bilingual exchange on participants' second language
motivation, confidence, WTC, goal setting, overall attitudes toward
language learning, and the other official language community, as well as
second language proficiency. Although the instruments used in this study
were not created in light of the WTC model, it provides a means of
organising and examining these factors across an exchange experience. My
examination of WTC and its incremental factors is therefore limited to
the following corresponding factors as explored through a questionnaire:
intergroup climate (attitude toward other official language learning),
intergroup attitudes including integrativeness (attitudes toward other
official language community), and motivation to learn (second language
motivation), communicative competence (self-assessed second language
proficiency), stated self-confidence (confidence), and WTC as measured
before and after the experience (the exchange).
Previous examinations of out-of-class second language situations,
within countries and abroad, have shown such situations to impact WTC.
Yashima et al. (2004), for example, found that host families in a study
abroad context influenced the learners' WTC. In their study, the
Japanese high school students were more willing to communicate with
their American host families who were available, receptive and willing
to interact. Similarly, MacIntyre et al. (2001) revealed that an
out-of-class context that provided for social peer support among their
grade 9 French immersion participants increased WTC whereas such support
was less influential in class. In addition to human support, Tannenbaum
and Tahar (2007) found the social context of a bicultural city to
enhance the WTC of their Arab participants outside of the classroom as
compared to the participants without such opportunities. The impact of
situation on WTC has been found not only to influence the decision to
communicate at the time but choices to communicate in the future.
Clement, Baker, and MacIntyre (2003), for example, in their comparison
of Anglophone and Francophone groups within a bilingual university in
Canada, found that the Francophone group who had a higher frequency of
authentic communication also had a higher WTC. By extension, whether
context necessitates travel abroad to facilitate second language
communication or affords the convenience of intracountry exchanges,
opportunities to communicate with target language communities could lead
to a cycle of greater WTC, leading to the pursuit of other authentic
communicative situations producing higher proficiency.
One out-of-class context that has been found to offer a similar
cycle of authentic language communication leading to motivation to
pursue additional opportunities is that of a short-term bilingual
exchange (MacFarlane, 1997). Given that past research has found
exchanges to have a positive impact on second language proficiency
(Hanna et al., 1980; Day & Shapson, 1981) and attitudes (Rose &
Bylander, 2007; Allameh, 2006), one might hypothesise that such
exchanges would positively enhance WTC and its influencing factors. The
present study, then, examines the impact of an exchange on WTC including
a focus on the self-assessed second language proficiency of its
participants' pre and post-exchange experience. In my exploration
of the data, I examine relationships between the WTC factors and in
relation to the participants' self-assessment prior to and
following the exchange.
Context
The context of Canada with its English/ French official language
status and accompanying communities facilitates brief bilingual
exchanges. For example, financially, the Federal Government subsidises
the cost of such exchanges and through SEVEC supported this research.
From a practical standpoint, at times intracountry exchanges can also
offer proximity to second language communities. In this case, exchanges
between adjacent provinces, Ontario and Quebec for example, provide for
ease of travel. This study, however, also considers exchanges between
British Columbia and Quebec with a corresponding distance of over 5,000
kilometres and, thus, representative of some of the efforts required to
offer intercountry study abroad opportunities. When considered with the
intercountry study abroad research, this study offers insights into
providing contact with target language communities not only in bilingual
contexts but also for consideration in places where offering such
opportunities requires intercountry organisation.
Participants
The questionnaire respondents were participating in a Canadian
two-week intracountry bilingual exchange program where one week was
spent in the second language community and the other week was spent in
the first language community hosting a participant from the second
language community as organised by their teachers with the support of
SEVEC. The Anglophone participants spent a week in Quebec, Canada, the
Francophones in Anglophone communities in four different provinces in
Canada. The questionnaire respondents included 243 participants--107
Anglophone and 136 Francophone students. The respondents were
predominantly female and 14 years old. Whereas the Anglophones came from
four different provinces, the majority from western Canada, all of the
Francophones were from Quebec. The dominant second language programming
for the Anglophones was French immersion, while the Francophone group
pursued English learning through core programming.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was created for the purpose of this study. The
English-dominant participants completed the questionnaire in English
while the French-dominant participants completed a translation in
French. The pre-questionnaire had a biographical section gathering
information on the participants' name, province, age, gender,
grade, second language programming, use of their second language outside
of school, previous exchange experience, place of birth, and additional
languages known. It had two additional sections that also served as the
post-exchange questionnaire. The first section consisted of 21 items
that participants responded to using a five-point Likert scale with an
agreement continuum, which subdivided into the following WTC scales: (a)
intergroup climate: six items (e.g. knowing English/French is part of
being Canadian), (b) intergroup attitudes: three items (e.g. I like to
meet English/French speaking people), (c) self-confidence: five items
(e.g. I can do things as well as others), (d) willingness to
communicate: three items (e.g. I take opportunities to speak
English/French), and (e) goal setting: four items (e.g. I plan to watch
TV in English/French).
The second section, a grid created for the purpose of this study,
allowed the participants to self-assess their language and strategic
skills pre- and post-exchange according to a three-point continuum based
on the ease with which they could complete each task. The grid consists
of 61 can-do self-assessment statements that are organised according to
language skill, followed by a focus on strategy use (e.g. When I
don't have the exact word, I can still explain what I want to say
in another way.) These statements are all positive and independent as
recommended by the Common European Framework (CEF) (Council of Europe,
2009) and pertain to the tasks SEVEC anticipates the students
participate in during an exchange. Following piloting, both pre-and
post-questionnaires were completed online at the participants'
schools under the supervision of the teacher organiser.
FINDINGS
Impact of the Exchange Situation on WTC and second language
Proficiency
The two Likert scale sections of the pre-questionnaire also served
as the post questionnaire. With a view to examining the relationship
among WTC factors, the items on each WTC subscale were summed to create
subscale scores. After confirming acceptable reliability scores, items
in the first section were divided into WTC subscales assessing the
constructs of intergroup attitudes, intergroup climate, confidence, WTC,
and goal setting. The created subscales were then compared for pre- and
post-exchange experience for Anglophone and Francophone groups of
students using nonparametric paired-samples t-tests (Wilcoxon tests).
The pre-questionnaire analysis revealed both groups of
participants, Anglophone and Francophone, to be highly willing to
communicate in the second language as indicated by the descriptive
statistics for the scales of WTC and its precursors (e.g.
self-confidence, intergroup climate, etc.). As can be seen from the
descriptive statistics for each scale in Tables 1 and 2, both Anglophone
and Francophone participants tended to express more agreement with the
statements in WTC scale and express more ease with respect to language
skills based on their self-assessed proficiency after the exchange
compared to their responses before the exchange (for language scales
lower scores reflect more confidence with language skills, a range in
numbers corresponds to participants not responding to all questionnaire
items).
Where the descriptive statistics for each scale, as shown below,
tended to express more agreement with the WTC statements post-exchange
compared to their responses before the exchange, there were no
significant changes between students' responses to the WTC
subscales before and after their exchange experience.
The items in the second Likert scale section serve as a
self-assessment of second language proficiency and group the
participants' responses into the skill subscales of speaking
(sixteen items), listening (sixteen items), reading (twelve items),
writing (seven items), and strategy use (ten items). In addition to
viewing themselves as willing to communicate as seen above, both groups
also positively assessed their linguistic and strategic skills
pre-exchange. The results for the linguistic and strategic scales,
however, presented some significant differences pre- and post-exchange.
As can be seen from Table 3, the results were quite different for
Anglophone and Francophone students. Specifically, only responses to the
speaking subscale were significantly different before and after the
exchange in the Anglophone group; students tended to agree more after
the exchange that they can easily perform speaking tasks. In contrast,
in the Francophone group significant change in students' responses
before and after the exchange was observed in all five language areas.
Students tended to agree more that all language tasks were easier for
them after the exchange.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Relationships among Factors
Willingness to communicate
Beyond examining the impact of the exchange situation on WTC and
second language proficiency, I explored the relationships among the (a)
WTC factors and (b) the linguistic influences. To explore whether
subscales within the WTC and linguistic scales are related,
nonparametric (Spearman) correlations were computed within each language
group (Anglophone and Francophone) at pre and post. This type of
correlation was used to accommodate the skewed nature of the subscales.
The results of the correlation analyses for the subscales based on WTC
are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The upper bolded triangle in each table
presents the results for Anglophone students and the lower triangle
presents the results for Francophone students. As can be seen from these
tables, correlations between most scales were significant for both
language groups at both pre- and post-exchange administration of the
questionnaire. In most cases, the magnitude of these relationships
ranged from weak to moderate and remained as such post-exchange. There
were three stronger relationships among the subscales for the
Francophone group pre-exchange: intergroup attitudes correlated with
intergroup climate, WTC, and goal setting. These relationships weakened
post-exchange supporting the distinctiveness of the subscales gained
with greater exposure to the second language community.
Linguistic Subscales
The results of the correlation analyses for the linguistic
subscales are presented in Tables 6 and 7 The upper triangle in bold in
each table presents the results for Anglophone students and the lower
triangle presents the results for Francophone students. As can be seen
from these tables, all language scales were highly correlated in both
language groups at both pre- and post-exchange administration of the
questionnaire. Such high correlations indicate that the participants
rated themselves similarly across language skills, for example if the
participants viewed themselves strong in listening they also tended to
judge themselves strong in writing, etc.
Willingness to communicate and linguistic subscales
In order to explore relationships between scales, correlations were
explored between the WTC and linguistic scales for Anglophone and
Francophone students before and after the exchange. Negative correlation
coefficients reflect positive direction of the relationship between the
WTC and linguistic scales, meaning that students that express more
agreement with the WTC statements also express more ease in completing
the language tasks (this is due to the coding scheme applied for the
linguistic scales). As can be seen from Tables 8 and 9, the relationship
between the WTC and linguistic scales is weak for both Anglophone and
Francophone students at both pre- and post-exchange.
DISCUSSION
I examined WTC and its antecedents pre-and post-exchange to
determine the impact of a short bilingual exchange on such factors.
Through the questionnaire data, I determined that the majority of both
groups of participants expressed agreement with WTC and its incremental
factors pre-exchange and maintained high WTC post-exchange. The
substantial number of participants agreeing with the Likert scale items
pre-exchange may have left little room for significant post-exchange
gains. Although the participants still showed an increase in the
majority of the factors (nine of ten factors) post-exchange, those gains
were not significant. Determining pre- and post-exchange impacts may, of
course, be akin to deciding which came first, the chicken or the egg.
The fact that the participants felt so positive may be indicative of the
voluntary nature of an exchange (assuming the majority were not forced
to participate); those who volunteer to participate in an exchange are
already, in the volunteering itself, expressing WTC. Such a
determination is supported by Kang (2005) who posited that students who
were willing to engage using their second language outside of the
classroom had higher WTC as determined by her research with Korean
students in the United States. Explanations for the high degree of WTC
are found in two theories. First, Ajzen and Fishbein's (Ajzen,
1988; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) theory of reasoned action posits that
behaviour is determined by the intention to act as influenced by
attitude, and determined by evaluation of the future situation. This
understanding provides a means of explaining the exchange
participants' positive outlook pre-exchange. In applying this
theory to the exchange experience, the exchange participants volunteered
to go on exchange (behaviour) as they positively viewed their future
participation in the exchange (WTC and its precursors) and wanted to
reap the perceived potential consequences (language acquisition) that
they believed capable of obtaining through use of their second language.
Further explanations for such high WTC pre-exchange may also be found in
the unexamined classrooms. It is conceivable that the teachers, who saw
advantages in providing for communication opportunities with the target
language communities by organising an exchange, also prepared their
students by enhancing their WTC through their second language pedagogy
use with in-class instruction. Although I hypothesized that the exchange
would have a positive, significant impact on WTC and its precursors, the
maintenance of such high WTC post-exchange offers the potential for the
participants to continue to partake in opportunities for communication
with target language communities. It is possible that the
participants' prior commitment to go on exchange before completing
the pre-questionnaire prevented significant gains. Future research could
also investigate whether a longer exchange would result in significant
gains.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Given the participants' high WTC and the opportunity for
interaction with their target language community as provided by the
exchange, one might anticipate an impact on the linguistic
self-assessments. I investigated how the WTC items were related to each
other and to the participants' self-assessed proficiency pre- and
post-exchange. The relationship between WTC factors and the
self-assessments was weak for both Anglophone and Francophone students
at both pre- and post-exchange indicating that the participants'
WTC was not related to their self-assessed proficiency. For the most
part, the relationship among the WTC items themselves ranged from weak
to moderate and remained as such post-exchange. There were, however,
three stronger relationships among the subscales for the Francophone
group pre-exchange: intergroup attitudes correlated with intergroup
climate, WTC, and goal setting. The sociocultural status of English may
be important in understanding these correlations. The Francophone group
may have connected their second language motivation, attitudes, and
means of associating with the second language members--the dominant
group (intergroup attitudes) to the bilingual context of Canada with a
majority of English speakers (intergroup climate)--due to a perceived
value in the learning of English given its place in Canada and around
the world. In fact, the Francophones may have seen their WTC and goal
setting as a means to achieve their major motivation to associate with
Anglophones (intergroup attitudes). The importance placed on intergroup
attitudes is supported by research that indicates that students with
higher exposure to the second language community (the Francophone group)
place a greater importance on associating with the second language
community than those who have less exposure (the Anglophone group).
Additional research, outside of Canada, supports the concept of
differing results for different groups depending on the need to learn
the language, the greater the need (for Francephones) the greater the
impact on language learning (Tannenbaum & Tahar, 2007). A connection
between intergroup attitudes and goal setting for the Francophone group
is also supported by research that suggests that intergroup attitudes
include goal setting (MacIntyre, 2007). These relationships, however,
weakened post-exchange supporting the distinctiveness of the subscales
gained with greater exposure to the second language community.
Further to investigating WTC and its precursors, I explored
differences in the self-assessments pre- and post-exchange. After a
short exchange of one week in the second language community, the
Anglophone group as a whole revealed a greater reported ease in speaking
as a result of the exchange. Although this result is encouraging, it is
not surprising as in an exchange speaking would be the productive skill
of focus. This outcome also echoes the improved speaking results
reported from longer bilingual exchanges leading to the conclusion that
even short exchanges can have an impact on second language acquisition
or, in the case of the present study, perceived language gain (Hart,
Lapkin & Swain., 1994; Lapkin, Hart & Swain, 1995). Although,
one may have also anticipated an increase in the accompanying skill of
listening, MacFarlane offers a possible explanation for its absence.
Through her research of a short bilingual exchange in Canada, Macfarlane
(1997) found that comprehension on the part of the Anglophones was
hampered by the accent, speed, and idiomatic expression use of the
Francophone exchange participants. Further to explaining why there was
not a significant gain in listening for the Anglophone group in general,
MacFarlane's research may clarify why it was the French immersion
students who made the most gains in ease of listening. This intragroup
difference may be due to their enhanced exposure to French and thus,
greater pre-exchange comprehension opportunities with perhaps a wider
variety of speakers. In addition to the most gains in listening, the
French immersion participants made the most gains in ease of strategy
use.
The Francophone group also reported an impact on language skills by
revealing a marked increase in reported ease with respect to all the
linguistic scales including that of strategy use. One possible
explanation for the higher number of reported gains is that the
Francophones' lower self-assessment pre-exchange may have provided
for greater gains post-exchange. Such an explanation is supported by
Lapkin et al.'s (1995) Canadian exchange research that showed the
greatest linguistic gains post-exchange were made by the group with the
least self-assessed proficiency pre-exchange. A second rationalisation
is offered by MacIntyre, Dornyei, Clement, & Noels (1998) who posit
that positive perceptions of second language ability can transfer from
one language skill to the other. The Francophones, then, had room for
second language growth and, although the exchange may have provided more
speaking and listening opportunities, the Francophone group transferred
their perceived improvement to all linguistic and strategic skills.
Explanation for such linguistic and strategic gains may be due in
part to participant distinction between use of language inside the
classroom and outside the classroom (MacIntyre et al., 2001; Yashima et
al., 2004). The participants assessed their skills pre-exchange based on
classroom experience and judged that outside second language use
influenced their assessments after one week in the target language
community. Such a distinction accompanied by the gains post-exchange
provides further support to the complementarity of exchanges and second
language classroom learning (MacFarlane, 1997).
LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION
I highlight two limitations of this study as noteworthy here.
First, given that the instrument was not created to examine WTC and its
incremental factors, it did not provide for examination of all factors,
and did not, therefore, provide for an as in-depth examination as would
be the case with a purposefully designed questionnaire. In fact, where
the WTC model includes communicative competence, this research examined
self-assessed proficiency of its participants apart from the concept.
Second, the conclusions need to be verified by gathering data prior to
the announcement of the exchange.
Despite the above limitations, when viewed with previous research
on brief bilingual exchanges, this research supports exchange
opportunities as a beneficial means by which to afford students
authentic out-of-class opportunities to use their second language.
Further research that investigates WTC prior to the decision to
participate in an exchange may indeed find that it is in the offering of
an exchange opportunity that WTC is enhanced and in the participating
that the proficiency is gained.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes. personality, and behaviour. Chicago: The
Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Allameh, J, 1996 Interactive exchanges: American and international
students at an IEP. Paper presented at Teacher of English to Speakers of
Other Languages. Chicago, IL: 26-30.
Clement, R. 1980. Ethnicity, contact, and communicative competence
in second langue learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Clement, R, Baker, S.C., & MacIntyre, RD. 2003. Willingness to
communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms and
vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 190-209.
Council of Europe 2009, The common European framework in its
political and educational context. Retrieved 8 July 2009 from:
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/ Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Day, E. & Shapsoe, S.M. 1981. An evaluation study of the
bilingual exchange: Ecole bilingue, Vancouver, British Columbia and
Ecole Compagnons de Cartier, Ste.-Foy, Quebec. Unpublished manuscript.
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Hanna, G., Smith, A.H., McLean, LD., & Stern, H.H., 1980.
Contact and communication: An evaluation of bilingual student exchange
programs. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.
Hart, D., Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. 1994. Impact of a six-month
bilingual exchange program: Attitudes and achievement. Report to the
Department of the Secretary of State: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education of the University of Toronto.
Kang, S.J. 2005. Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to
communicate in a second language System, 33, 277-292.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. 1995. A Canadian
interprovincial exchange: Evaluating the linguistic impact of a
three-month stay in Quebec. In B.F. Freed (Ed.), Second language
acquisition in a study abroad context, 67-95. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
MacFarlane, A, 1997. Linguistic and attitudinal aspects of school
year group exchanges: Immediate and longterm outcomes for participants.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Ottawa: Ottawa,
Ontario,
MacIntyre, P. 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., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. 2001.
Willingness to communicate, social support and language-learning
orientations of immersion students. Studies in second language
acquisition, 23, 369-388.
MacIntyre, R, Dornyei, Z. Clement, R., & Noels, K. 1998.
Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a second language: A
situational model of second language confidence and affiliation. The
Modern Language Journal 82, 545-562.
Rose, S. & Bylander, J. 2007. Border crossings: Engaging
students in diversity work and intergroup relations. innovative Higher
Education, 31, 251-264.
Tannenbaum, M. &Tahar, L. 2007. Willingness to communicate in
the language of the other: Jewish and Arab students in Israel. Learning
and Instruction, 18, 283-294.
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, 1, 199-152.
Callie Mady, PhD, has taught in core and immersion programs in
Canada. She has also authored numerous classroom resources as well as
academic journal papers. Callie holds a PhD from the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. At present,
Callie is Associate Professor in the Schulich School of Education of
Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario.
Email calliem@nipissingu.ca
Table 1. Descriptive statistics pre-and post-exchange based on
WTC and self-assessed proficiency for Anglophone students
Pre Post
N M SD M SD
Intergroup Attitudes 91 4.407 0.850 4.573 0.593
Intergroup Climate 86 4.134 1.016 4.199 1.126
Confidence 83 4.372 0.896 4.573 0.762
Willingness to Communicate 91 4.253 1.026 4.258 0.946
Goal Setting 102 3.855 1.084 3.949 0.917
Speaking 107 1.492 0.548 1.420 0.502
Listening 107 1.576 0.570 1.544 0.556
Reading 107 1.436 0.575 1.421 0.552
Writing 107 1.360 0.597 1.392 0.599
Strategies 107 1.443 0.552 1.387 0.525
Table 2. Descriptive statistics pre-and post-exchange based on
WTC and self-assessed proficiency for Francophone students
Pre Post
N M SD M SD
Intergroup Attitudes 133 4.522 0.389 4.557 0.397
Intergroup Climate 134 3.998 0.773 3.932 0.854
Confidence 133 4.133 0.574 4.249 0.608
Willingness to Communicate 129 4.111 0.636 4.205 0.654
Goal Setting 133 3.917 0.767 3.872 0.766
Speaking 135 1.564 0.366 1.438 0.365
Listening 134 1.530 0.403 1.420 0.421
Reading 134 1.402 0.383 1.339 0.392
Writing 134 1.506 0.445 1.366 0.425
Strategies 134 1.508 0.409 1.378 0.449
Table 3. Pre-/post-comparisons of the Anglophone and Francophone
students' responses to linguistic subscales
Anglophone Francophone
Z p-value Z p-value
Speaking -2.94 0.00 -4.96 0.00
Listening -1.47 0.14 -4.57 0.00
Reading -0.93 0.35 -3.02 0.00
Writing -0.66 0.50 -5.07 0.00
Strategies -2.06 0.03 -4.42 0.00
Table 4. Correlations between subscales based on WTC at pre-
exchange for Anglophone and Francophone students
1 2 3 4
1 Intergroup Attitudes 0.32 ** 0.400 ** 0.360 **
2 Intergroup Climate 0.60 ** 0.216 * 0.49 **
3 Confidence 0.44 ** 0.31 ** 0.19 **
4 Willingness to 0.60 ** 0.48 ** 0.45 **
Communicate
5 Goal Setting 0.61 ** 0.47 ** 0.44 ** 0.58 **
5
1 Intergroup Attitudes 0.49 **
2 Intergroup Climate 0.33 **
3 Confidence 0.37 **
4 Willingness to 0.42 **
Communicate
5 Goal Setting
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01
Table 5. Correlations between subscales based on WTC at post-
exchange for Anglophone and Francophone students
1 2 3 4
1 Intergroup Attitudes 0.34 ** 0.47 ** 0.48 **
2 Intergroup Climate 0.52 ** 0.27 * 0.37 **
3 Confidence 0.40 ** 0.22 * 0.26 *
4 Willingness to 0.59 ** 0.44 ** 0.38 **
Communicate
5 Goal Setting 0.56 ** 0.45 ** 0.32 ** 0.57 **
5
1 Intergroup Attitudes 0.42 **
2 Intergroup Climate 0.22 *
3 Confidence 0.30 **
4 Willingness to 0.51 **
Communicate
5 Goal Setting
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01
Table 6. Correlations between subscales based on self-assessed
second language proficiency at pre-exchange for Anglophone and
Francophone students
Speaking Listening Reading Writing Strategies
Speaking 0.82 ** 0.74 ** 0.81 ** 0.84 **
Listening 0.77 ** 0.78 ** 0.77 ** 0.77 **
Reading 0.69 ** 0.87 ** 0.76 ** 0.73 **
Writing 0.67 ** 0.75 ** 0.75 ** 0.75 **
Strategies 0.76 ** 0.82 ** 0.81 ** 0.73 **
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01
Table 7. Correlations between subscales based on self-assessed
second language proficiency at post-exchange for Anglophone and
Francophone Students
Speaking Listening Reading Writing Strategies
Speaking 0.85 ** 0.82 ** 0.74 ** 0.85 **
Listening 0.77 ** 0.88 ** 0.79 ** 0.82 **
Reading 0.69 ** 0.87 ** 0.85 ** 0.80 **
Writing 0.67 ** 0.75 ** 0.75 ** 0.75 **
Strategies 0.76 ** 0.82 ** 0.81 ** 0.73 **
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01
Table 8. Correlation between the WTC and linguistic scales for
Anglophone and Francophone students before the exchange
Speaking I Listening I
Anglophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.27 * -0.23 *
Intergroup Climate -0.25 * -0.25 *
Confidence -0.24 * -0.17
Willingness to Communicate -0.29 * -0.25 *
Goal Setting -0.20 * -0.17
Francophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.29 ** -0.20
Intergroup Climate -0.13 -0.13
Confidence -0.25 * -0.26 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.45 ** -0.39 **
Goal Setting -0.29 * -0.24 *
Reading I Writing
Anglophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.02 -0.26 *
Intergroup Climate -0.15 -0.28 *
Confidence -0.04 -0.28 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.16 -0.30 **
Goal Setting -0.12 -0.25 *
Francophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.20 -0.19
Intergroup Climate -0.08 -0.09
Confidence -0.27 * -0.14
Willingness to Communicate -0.31 ** -0.34 **
Goal Setting -0.19 -0.18
Strategies
Anglophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.22 *
Intergroup Climate -0.22 *
Confidence -0.26 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.25 *
Goal Setting -0.24 *
Francophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.25 *
Intergroup Climate -0.12
Confidence -0.26 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.39 **
Goal Setting -0.30 **
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01
Table 9. Correlation between the WTC and linguistic scales for
Anglophone and Francophone students after the exchange
Speaking Listening
Anglophone Intergroup Attitudes 0.22 * -0.19
Intergroup Climate -0.15 -0.13
Confidence -0.16 -0.07
Willingness to Communicate -0.26 * -0.24 *
Goal Setting -0.25 * -0.28 *
Francophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.21 -0.16
Intergroup Climate -0.08 -0.09
Confidence 0.31 ** 0.25 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.43 ** -0.26 *
Goal Setting -0.13 -0.17
Reading Writing
Anglophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.27 * -0.22 *
Intergroup Climate -0.12 -0.22 *
Confidence 0.05 0.00
Willingness to Communicate -0.21 -0.21
Goal Setting -0.22 * -0.20
Francophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.17 -0.22 *
Intergroup Climate -0.05 -0.06
Confidence -0.29 * -0.23 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.27 * -0.26 *
Goal Setting -0.18 -0.19
Strategies
Anglophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.23 *
Intergroup Climate -0.15
Confidence -0.11
Willingness to Communicate -0.24 *
Goal Setting -0.21
Francophone Intergroup Attitudes -0.18
Intergroup Climate -0.10
Confidence -0.29 *
Willingness to Communicate -0.39 **
Goal Setting -0.17
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01
