Willingness to Communicate Among Bosnian and Turkish Students at International University of Sarajevo

Abstract

This study examines the willingness to communicate, communication apprehension and communication competence among Turkish and Bosnian students at IUS. Willingness to communicate as defined by McCroskey and Richard (1987) means an individual personal's general personality orientation towards talking. Communication apprehension according to McCroskey (1984) is an individual level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with other person or persons. Communication competence according to McCroskey and McCroskey (1986) is ones people's perception of his/her communication competence. Data for this study was collected from students enrolled in freshman classes at IUS. Survey method was used to collect data from the participants using questionnaires. T-test was used to analyze data for this study for all measures (WTC, PRCA, and SPCC) in order to determine the difference in willingness to communicate, communication apprehension and communication competence among Bosnian and Turkish students. The results of this study showed that there is no statistically significant difference between Turkish and Bosnian students regarding their willingness to communicate. However, the results showed that there are differences among Bosnian and Turkish students regarding their communication apprehension. The results also showed that there is difference between Bosnian and Turkish students regarding communication competence. However, the results did not show any statistically significant difference between Turkish and Bosnian students regarding student's willingness to communicate, communication apprehension and communication competence.Keywords: willingness to communicate (WTC); communication apprehension (PRCA); communication competence (SPCC) and international university of Sarajevo.European Researcher. Series A, 2016, Vol.(107), Is. 6 331 Introduction Willingness to communicate contributes to both language learning and language acquisition. Therefore, Dörnyei (2005) argues that "it is not uncommon to find people who tend to avoid entering L2 communication situations even if they possess a high level of communicative competence" (p. 207). Since communication is a crucial part of L2 acquisition, MacIntyre and Charos (1996) explain that the primary reason for language learning often is aimed at using of language for basic communicate purposes. No matter for what purpose the language learning might be, (e.g., meeting new people, traveling, experiencing other cultures, or even using language in one's job) people use language to convey the message and communicate their ideas and opinions.Individual learners' differences influence second language learning, motivation, aptitude, language learning styles and strategies. Therefore, many studies have been completed on language learning and teaching which has already established the importance of individual differences (IDs) in second language acquisition

Turkish EFL teacher trainees' willingness to communicate in English

“…It was a remarkable result that although the two groups did not differ from each other in terms of communication apprehension, Turkish students reported a lower level of WTC than their Romanian counterparts. However, in Mulalic and Obralic's (2016) study, the opposite was found between Turkish and Bosnian students due to both groups' similar level of WTC and Turkish students' higher level of anxiety than their Bosnian peers. These discrepancies might be due to the difference in research contexts, since the researchers (Mulalic & Obralic, 2016) explored these themes with Turkish students in the Bosnian context instead of Turkey.…”

“…However, in Mulalic and Obralic's (2016) study, the opposite was found between Turkish and Bosnian students due to both groups' similar level of WTC and Turkish students' higher level of anxiety than their Bosnian peers. These discrepancies might be due to the difference in research contexts, since the researchers (Mulalic & Obralic, 2016) explored these themes with Turkish students in the Bosnian context instead of Turkey. In addition, Turkish students indicated that they were less competent in using English in comparison to their Bosnian and Romanian counterparts in both studies (Asmalı et al, 2015;Mulalic & Obralic, 2016).…”

“…In addition to the above, more specifically, if the Turkish research literature on WTC in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context is scrutinised, WTC in the four skills and its relevance to the language learning orientations (e.g., Ayaz, 2017;Merç, 2008Merç, , 2014, personality traits, such as extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (e.g., Öz, 2014), the relationship of EFL WTC with communication and affective or motivational variables (Altıner, 2018(Altıner, , 2017Asmalı, 2016;Başöz & Erten, 2019;Bursalı & Öz, 2017;Demir et al, 2015;Kanat-Mutluoglu, 2016;Öz et al, 2015;Öz, 2016;), and the comparison of English WTC levels of the students in two different cultures, such as Turkish-Romanian and Turkish-Bosnian (Asmalı et al, 2015;Mulalic & Obralic, 2016) could be seen as the main aspects of the quantitative approach. However, as presented in the review, except for the mixed-method studies mentioned above whose aim was generally to triangulate the quantitative findings (e.g., Alishah, 2015;Altıner, 2017;Başöz, 2018;Bektaş-Çetinkaya, 2005;Şener, 2014a), there is very little qualitative research reflecting learners' perceptions about their individual experiences in the Turkish context using classroom observations, semistructured interviews and journals (e.g., Aydın, 2017;İlter, 2018).…”

“…These discrepancies might be due to the difference in research contexts, since the researchers (Mulalic & Obralic, 2016) explored these themes with Turkish students in the Bosnian context instead of Turkey. In addition, Turkish students indicated that they were less competent in using English in comparison to their Bosnian and Romanian counterparts in both studies (Asmalı et al, 2015;Mulalic & Obralic, 2016). The results of Asmalı et al's (2015) study also highlighted that both groups' members (Turkish-Romanian) felt more comfortable in a group context rather than in other contexts.…”