Quantitative Measurements

This study used the survey developed and validated by Yashima et al. (2004) which was constructed based on previous research and measurement scales (McCroskey & Baer, 1985; Macintyre & Charos, 1996; Macintyre, 2007; Yashima, 2002). This survey collected data on students’ willingness to communicate and communicative behavior in the L2. To examine the variables that affected willingness to communicate in the L2 and communicative behavior in the L2, this study followed the model by Yashima et al. (2004) in which the relationship between the constructs international posture, confidence in the L2, and L2 learning motivation were explored. The survey included 67 items grouped into nine scales intended to measure motivational

intensity, desire to learn the L2, intergroup approach-avoidance tendency, interest in international/vocation activities, interest in international news, frequency and amount of communication, communication apprehension, willingness to communicate, and self-perceived communicative competence. The first four scales (motivational intensity, desire to learn the L2, intergroup approach-avoidance tendency, interest in international/vocation activities) had six

questions, and the scale interest in international news had two questions, all on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree =1 to strongly agree =7. The scale frequency of

communication had six questions on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from not at all =1 to very frequently =10. The scales communication apprehension and willingness to communicate had 12

questions each on a 100-point measure, ranging from I would NEVER =0 to I would ALWAYS

=100. Lastly, the scale self-perceived communicative competence had 12 questions ranging from complete incompetent =0 to complete competent =100 (See appendix B).

The reliability measures calculated for each of the indicator variables were motivational intensity a = .81, desire to learn the L2 a = .53, intergroup approach-avoidance tendency a = .70, interest in international/vocation activities a = .84, interest in international news a = .92, frequency and amount of communication a = .43, communication apprehension a = .89,

willingness to communicate a = .91, and self-perceived communicative competence a = .91 (See appendix C for a comparison of the reliability measures obtained in previous studies and in this study). A threshold of .70 or above is considered to be as an acceptable value of reliability, and in the case of studies that are exploratory in nature, a lower value is acceptable (Drost, 2011; Nunnally, 1978). By this criterion, the research considered that the indicator variables showed valid and reliable measures, and that by the exploratory nature of this current study, the values of .53 for the indicator desire to learn Spanish, and .43 for frequency and amount of communication can be acceptable.

Based on Yashima et al.’s (2004) model and study, the current study also combined the nine indicator variables into the five construct variables to measure willingness to communicate

(WTC) and communicative behavior in the L2 (Table 3.7). Some of the survey questions were

59

willingness to communicate in English, while the current study investigated it in Spanish. Therefore, the word English was replaced by the word Spanish.

Table 3.7 Construct variables grouped from indicator variables

Construct variables Indicator variables

Motivation § Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn Spanish

International posture § Intergroup Approach-Avoidance Tendency

§ Interest in International Vocation/Activities § Interest in International News

Communication confidence § Communication Apprehension

§ Self-Perceived Communicative Competence

Willingness to communicate § Willingness to communicate

Frequency of communication § Frequency of communication

3.4.1.2 Grades in speaking quizzes

The speaking quizzes corresponded to the regular class assessments, and covered the six units of the textbook studied in the intermediate Spanish course. There were four speaking quizzes distributed throughout the semester (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8 Quiz schedule throughout the semester

Quiz Content covered Time

Quiz 1 chapter 7 and 8 Week 5

Quiz 2 chapter 9 Week 7

Quiz 3 chapter 10 and 11 Week 12

Quiz 4 chapter 12 Week 14

The content of the quizzes was developed by the Spanish language coordinator and instructors. These quizzes aligned to the course goals and the ACFTL guidelines for

communicative performance at the intermediate level and aimed to assess whether students were able to complete a speaking task in Spanish using comprehensible language. The speaking quizzes constituted an integral part (25%) of each of the four exams in the course. The quizzes were delivered through the assessment tool within the learning management system Canvas

which had an audio/video recording feature in the rich content editor. Each quiz provided the intermediate Spanish students with a random written prompt to which students responded in 5-6 sentences, recording their answer and submitting it through Canvas. Students had 12 minutes to record and upload the answer. These quizzes were graded using a holistic rubric designed by the Spanish coordinator and instructors which intended to assess the overall communicative

performance of students. This means that students were graded based on their actual use of the language for communicative purposes. The rubric included the following scales: accuracy (10 points), comprehensibility (10 points), content (10 points). (See appendix D for a detailed description of the rubric).

3.4.1.3 Final oral presentation

The final oral presentation was an integral part of the course project (20% of final grade). This semester-long project consisted of selecting a topic of interest to be presented at the end of the course in place of the final exam. The project involved four parts (1) sources, (2) outline, (3) group poster, and (4) individual oral presentation. This research study utilized the grades

assigned to the fourth part, individual oral presentation. This presentation required students to present all the content in Spanish using language appropriate to the 200-level class, that is to be understood by other students in class. Each student would take approximately 4-5 minutes to present their project. The content of the oral presentation included an explanation of the reasons for having selected the topic, an informative presentation on the topic drawing on the sources and outline previously prepared, and an analysis of the topic (e.g., compare/contrast aspects of the topic with personal interest or culture). The rubric used to assess students’ oral presentations included language use (20 points), pronunciation and fluency (12 points), and presentation skills (8 points) (See appendix E for a detailed description of the rubric).

61

3.4.1.4 Student activity in Flipgrid

Student activity in Flipgrid included the number and length of video answers, instructor’s feedback comments, and task scores. Students’ video posts activity was recorded automatically on Flipgrid every time students accessed their class grid and completed the speaking tasks. In order to grade students’ speaking performance in Flipgrid, the same rubric used to grade the speaking quizzes was added to each of the technology-mediated speaking tasks (accuracy =10 points, comprehensibility =10 points, and content =10 points). The course instructor provided feedback using the rubric directly within Flipgrid.