IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i2p21582440241256832.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Best and the Worst: TEFL Experts’ Opinions of the Most and the Least Important Predictors of Situational Willingness to Communicate

Author

Listed:
  • Marzieh Rafiee
  • Salman Abbasian-Naghneh

Abstract

The current study aimed to identify the most and the least important situational properties of second language willingness to communicate (L2WTC) in an EFL context. After reviewing the related literature, 24 influencing factors were identified and then they were prioritized. 180 TEFL students participated in the study to answer the research questionnaire. A quantitative research approach applying paired comparison questionnaire was employed. Data analysis was done using Excel spreadsheet for sorting data and calculating the mean and WinQSB software for solving linear programming model. The results showed that, among the selected variables, “the size of the group,†“familiarity with topics under discussion,†and “interlocutors and familiarity with them†were determined to be the first most important situational variables which highly influence L2WTC. The findings also showed that “attitudes toward the learning situation,†“course evaluation criteria,†and “alignment with the classroom norms†were the least important factors influencing L2WTC. The significance of the study lies in its theoretical contributions and pedagogical implications it has for the field of second language teaching and learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Marzieh Rafiee & Salman Abbasian-Naghneh, 2024. "The Best and the Worst: TEFL Experts’ Opinions of the Most and the Least Important Predictors of Situational Willingness to Communicate," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241256832
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241256832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241256832
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241256832?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gupta, Himanshu, 2018. "Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 35-47.
    2. Gupta, Himanshu & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2016. "Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 69-79.
    3. Rezaei, Jafar & Hemmes, Alexander & Tavasszy, Lori, 2017. "Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 95-105.
    4. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    5. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    2. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    4. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    6. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Javid Nafari & Alireza Arab & Sina Ghaffari, 2017. "Through the Looking Glass: Analysis of Factors Influencing Iranian Student’s Study Abroad Motivations and Destination Choice," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    8. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    9. Vineet Kaushik & Ashwani Kumar & Himanshu Gupta & Gaurav Dixit, 2022. "Modelling and prioritizing the factors for online apparel return using BWM approach," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 843-873, September.
    10. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    11. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    12. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    13. Tanrıverdi, Gökhan & Ecer, Fatih & Durak, Mehmet Şahin, 2022. "Exploring factors affecting airport selection during the COVID-19 pandemic from air cargo carriers’ perspective through the triangular fuzzy Dombi-Bonferroni BWM methodology," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    14. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    15. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    16. Gupta, Himanshu, 2018. "Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 35-47.
    17. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Yousefi, Samuel, 2018. "An intelligent decision making approach for identifying and analyzing airport risks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-27.
    18. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    19. Liu, Xiao & Li, Ming-Yang, 2024. "Sustainable service product design method: Focus on customer demands and triple bottom line," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Omidipoor, Morteza & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza & Moeinmehr, Athena & Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem & Choi, Soo-Mi, 2019. "A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241256832. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.