One situation doesn’t fit all: Variability and stability of state willingness to communicate in a Chinese College English classroom

Willingness to communicate (WTC) used to be studied as a relatively stable, trait-like predisposition; however, recently attention has shifted to the more dynamic, state-like components of WTC. This research investigates variability and stability in state WTC, particularly focusing on within-person variability, which may lead to stable between-person differences, and situational antecedents that can either promote or hinder state WTC in L2 classrooms. To investigate whether, how and why state WTC varies over time, this study used a high-density repeated measurement design and a group of Chinese university students to describe fluctuations in state WTC in English classrooms over one semester. Data related to state WTC and selected situational antecedents were collected through a self-report questionnaire and statistically analysed. It was found that state WTC varied systematically within the person across the semester, and this variability was systematically related to changes in the psychological properties of the learning situations (e.g. teacher and peer support, taskinterest, and task-importance). It was also found that within-person variability in state WTC predicted language learning performance, e.g. students whose state WTC increased as a function of perceived task interest tended to achieve higher grades at the end of the semester. This study calls for more attention to be directed at within-person variability in state WTC, and provides novel insights into how relationships between state WTC and its situational antecedents may be investigated within individuals. This work is of interest to researchers and practitioners who aim to enhance L2 learners’ state WTC and language learning performance by systematically shaping their situated learning experience

University research ethics clearances: Safety nets, or a false sense of legal immunity?

Ethics reviews loom large in the world of a researcher at a university. Ethics committees review research project applications meticulously and critically. They attempt to ensure that in all projects that are approved, the human respondents and participants suffer no harm that could have been prevented. However, there seems to be little acknowledgement of the possible legal repercussions of unethical research conduct.This article investigates the protection that ethics review protocols (particularly in the human sciences) offer researchers and their institutions against legal ramifications emanating from research projects where participants do suffer harm.The main finding is that research ethics protocols may offer less protection against legal implications of ethical misconduct than would generally be thought to be the case.I will make some observations on liability, vicarious liability, and the basic rights of subjects in research, after which I will offer a conclusion on the implications of this analysis for ethics reviews