1) Chilean secondary students often feel unmotivated to communicate in English as a second language (L2) in their EFL classes, despite curriculum goals stating they should be able to communicate orally and in writing in English. National test results show 82% of 17-year-olds do not meet the minimum English level. 2) The author reviewed literature on willingness to communicate (WTC) in a L2 and motivation. Studies show that with little exposure or importance placed on English outside the classroom in Chile, students see it as "useless" and are unmotivated to learn it. This impacts their integrative motivation and attitude toward English. 3) The author agrees motivation and WTC are critical

1. Students are not Motivated and not Willing to
Communicate Using English as a Second
Language in Chilean Classrooms.
Student: Arnoldo Cabrera Salas
Teacher: Roxana Correa Pérez

2. I. RESEARCH PROBLEM
Nowadays, as a real and active participator in the Chilean education reality, I
can clearly identify a problem that has become inherent to Chilean secondary
students; they usually feel reluctant or unmotivated to use a second language (L2)
in EFL speaking classes. The theory says and conforming to Planes y Programas
established by the Chilean agency of education, MINEDUC1, that at intermediary
level a student should be able to use English as a way to access information, as well
as a tool to engage in communicative situations of any kind, and all of this in a written
and oral way. However, the reality displays another different story as the
phenomenon is worryingly different; 82% of 17 year-old students does not reach the
minimum level of English, according to the national evaluation SIMCE2 2012. Swain
(1993) issues that an effective way of acquiring a second language (L2), is producing
output, that is to say, speaking as much as it is possible, which, if not, results in a
delay, or even worse, a block in the language learning process.
A response to this, was the implementation of the communicative approach
which is based on the fact that language will successfully appear as long as students
are lead to communicate real meaning. It may has worked in many places, but we
are not focusing on that, however, what we care is if this has influenced the Chilean
language teaching reality. Here is where my experiences come in, and I can strongly
state that along my 5 years visiting school institutions (plus my own formal
education), despite the fact that the basis of the approach is totally accurate, the
Chilean students still feel reluctant to use the language, even when the activity is
prepared with a meaningful or familiar content.
1 Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC), agency responsible for promoting the development
of education
2 The Sistema de Medición de la Calidad de Educación (SIMCE), is a proficiency test
taken by students in Chile in order to check achievement related to the quality of
education.

3. In order to address this topic, or at least spread awareness, some language
literature will be revised so we can get involved in this reality.
II. THEORY LINKED TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
First of all, we have to internalize the term “willingness to communicate”
(WTC) which is perceived as the individual’s tendencies to engage in communication
using L2 when given the free choice (McCroskey & Baer, 1985). There is also a
social assumption on the fact that there are some personalities when it comes to
speak; there are some people who are active talkers, and some others who only
speak when they are told to. Besides, the person who the interlocutor talks to is also
important to consider, impacting the WTC; some people will actively communicate
with a person, while other will remain silent with the same person (McCroskey &
Baer, 1985).
E Peng (2007) claims that a possible cause to this problem is the student’s
WTC. In his paper, he argues that most part of the research about the field has been
conducted in countries where English is needed and is present in a certain level
resulting in a more or less constant exposure to L2. However, and according to E
Peng’s reality (which matches our Chilean students’ reality), the students’ nowadays
just learn English as a compulsory school subject, giving little or no importance to
the language, or in other words, they do not feel motivated to learn the language as
they think they do not need English in their daily life.
Reinforcing this statement, Dörney and Skehan (2003) present on E Peng
(2007), viewed L2 WTC as an extension of the motivation construct, noticing that
there are some other authors who back up this thesis. Which is the case of Gardner’s
socio-educational model (1985) which introduces motivation as a facilitator of
learning. He proposed that an individual’s language learning can be explained by
the subject’s integrative motivation toward the language. This integrative motivation

4. has three components; integrativeness, attitude toward the language, and
motivation. Integrativeness comprehends the learner’s inclination to interact using
L2, while attitude toward the language implies the individual’s own evaluation about
the language. These two are complemented with a third one, which also can be
perceived as a product of its former complements; motivation, that has directly to do
with the learner’s own desire to learn the language.
So far, connecting the ends, we can identify one of the causes of this
reluctance to use L2 in EFL classes. In our country the exposure of L2 has poorly
increased, being, mostly, the classroom the only source of L2 exposure resulting in
a lack of students’ motivation as they get the sense of a “useless language”, lowering
the chance that a student inclines toward using L2 failing to integrativeness, resulting
in a poor evaluation of the language (useless language) failing to the learner’s
attitude toward the language. Consequently, reducing the student desire to learn the
language, failing to the motivation, and therefore, to the willingness to communicate
using L2.
III. OWN STANCE
Having reviewed some authors on how students do not feel motivated to use
L2 in EFL students, I would like to present my own stance on the issue. First of all, I
feel in the necessity to state that all of this was connected, I mean, when I got to the
first author lead me to another one and so on, who explained the issue from different
perspective or adding something more interesting, which gives me a sense of
coherence, as when they all speak in the same language makes me notice that it is
all connected and related. The topic of students’ motivation and WTC is really critical
in our Chilean educational reality, that is how further research needs to be conducted
on the field. However, that does not mean that I disagree with the authors, as I am
also a person who thinks that the lack of desire of communicate using L2 is
intrinsically related to motivation.

5. I also recognize the importance of Gardner’s model presented above, who
dissected the integrative motivation into parts so we can assimilate the factors within
the process of motivation, generating strategies in order to meaningfully impact our
Chilean students, who, as I stated in the introduction quoting swain, really need to
produce output in order to acquire the language.
The need of dealing with the students’ reluctance to use L2 is a matter of
importance in today’s world, our numbers are in red, is up to us, as a whole, to fight
and change this.

6. IV. REFERENCES
Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). “Individual differences in second language
learning”. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The hand-book of second language
acquisition (pp. 589-630).
E Peng, Jian. (2007) “Willingness to Communicate in an L2 and Integrative
Motivation among College Students in an Intensive English Language Program in
China”, University of Sydney.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role
of attitude and motivation. London.
McCroskey, J., & Baer, J. (1985). “Willingness to communicate: The construct and
its measurement”. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech
Communication Association, Denver, Colorado.
Swain, M. (1993), “The Output Hypothesis” (pp. 158-163).