1. Background of the Study

The catalyst for this research was an incident that occurred when the author was acting as the Chair of a Department of Applied English at a Tertiary institution in Central Taiwan. A group of students came to complain about their teacher’s inappropriate behaviors and insisted that this teacher should be immediately replaced. The author interviewed and consulted and then concluded the teacher had actually given much attention to teaching. One semester later, students complained about another teacher. The author utilized the same procedure to determine the cause of the dispute. From an administrative point of view, these teachers had done all that was required of them, and there should have been no complaints made by the students. A couple of years later, a different chair encountered similar complaints from students. Finally, the chair brought up this issue in the faculty meeting. A question arose in the author’s mind: Could there have been some sort of behavior, or something the teachers had done or said without realizing it was a misbehavior, that had brought about a negative impact on teaching and learning? In Taiwanese classrooms, the interaction patterns between teachers and students are shaped greatly by the emphasis on submission to authority, and there is little in-class interaction ^{[39, 56]}. However, English is a foreign language that requires a lot of practice. Without a comfortable and supportive learning atmosphere, students tend to withdraw from actively participating in the classroom ^[54], thereby resulting in poorer oral communication proficiency.

English is not only seen as a means to connect Taiwan with the world but also as a gatekeeper to higher education and employment prospects ^{[7, 8]}. English serves as a tool for the exchange of knowledge and information in the areas of technology, economics, business, and academia ^{[73, 78]}. While Taiwan aims for increased visibility on the world stage and retention of its global superiority in international development of trade and finance, English—the dominant language of the international market—is a required spoken language for future leaders in politics, economics, business and education ^{[94, 95]}. Raising the communicative competence in English is imperative in Taiwan where not only learners, but also the society as a whole, expect and value communicative skills and oral proficiency. The greatest urgency of raising Taiwanese English oral proficiency at present can be accomplished by eliminating the potential obstacles that impede the progress of English learning. According to the result indicated in two studies, Taiwanese students’ view of the ideal way to learn English is through the practical use of English in real-life situations ^{[42, 68]}. Students would like their English teachers to create an atmosphere that encourages English use in class and allows more opportunities to practice the language with their peers ^{[78, 80]}. Nevertheless, the competence level of oral communication for Taiwanese college students has not been raised as expected ^{[14, 39]}. According to Sheen’s report in English Career magazine ^[96], Taiwan’s TOEIC score average in the year 2012 was only 539, lower than ever, and far behind Mainland China (747), South Korean (628) and The Philippines (678). The causes that hinder Taiwanese college students from productively learning English are worthy of examination.

Taiwanese students’ unwillingness to communicate in the class far exceeds a language phenomenon. Students’ reluctance to communicate in English is deeply rooted in and affected by traditional cultural values ^[39]. Students’ oral proficiency is connected to students’ willingness to communicate (WTC), teacher support, and unthreatening learning environment ^[30]. Literature supports that students’ WTC in English in the classroom is positively associated with their proficiency of oral communication ^{[32, 81]}. Teacher involvement and immediacy behaviors impact students’ willingness toward classroom participation ^{[26, 44, 57]}. However, Taiwanese college students tend to be unwilling to speak in the classroom ^{[21, 39, 56]}, and Taiwanese college teachers are known as having little or no immediacy behaviors in the classroom ^{[2, 28, 36, 57]}. How these communicative behaviors (or so-called unfavorable teacher behaviors) ^[20] impact on students’ WTC remains unknown as far as the literature review shows in the Taiwan English education realm.

Taiwan is known to be influenced by Confucianism in social, economical, and educational realms ^{[15, 27, 79]}. Traditional cultural values have placed great emphasis on submission to authority. These impacts have influenced teachers to embrace a large power distance in teacher-student relationships and reinforced their preference for a teacher-centered classroom ^[56]. In a teacher-centered classroom, the teacher is not seen as a facilitator but a presenter of knowledge ^[12]. Traces of this traditional emphasis on the teacher’s role are still evident in English teaching today in Taiwan ^[39].The English classroom is an essential platform for students to experience interactive communication in English; therefore, the classroom environment that a teacher develops or creates become a key factor for students’ WTC ^[73]. The authoritative character of teachers has a strong influence on the way English is usually taught in English classrooms. Students in this learning environment seldom have any chance to use English. It’s fair to say, teachers are regarded as one of the most influential factors in the students’ learning process ^[40]. Due to the traditional status of teachers, most teachers are unaware that their role as an authoritative figure, their behavior, and even their teaching approach may lead to decreased students’ affective learning ^{[38, 80]}. Few studies have examined the teacher’s role, and his/her misbehaviors (or so-called inappropriate/unfavorable behaviors in the classroom ^{[40, 93]}. A large amount of related researches claimed that teacher misbehaviors are one of the main causes to decrease teachers’ teaching effectiveness ^{[45, 65, 69]}, and so were student’s satisfactory learning outcomes also influenced by teacher misbehaviors ^[6]. A thorough investigation on Taiwanese college teacher misbehaviors is vital and worthy of supplementary research. However, to date, this aspect remains under addressed. Relative researches on teacher misbehavior and its effect on students’ affective learning and students’ WTC are limited to Taiwanese college English classrooms.

2. Literature Review

Teacher misbehavior was defined as any teacher behavior that interferes negatively with classroom instruction or student learning ^[46]. Kearney and his colleagues initiated a sequential study by investigating any specific teacher misbehaviors that interfere with instruction and distract students from effective learning in U. S. college classrooms. In a two-stage investigation, Kearney et al. ^[46] first inductively determined what students perceived as teacher misbehaviors. This study resulted in 1,762 descriptions of teacher misbehaviors. Then later they were classified into 28 categories. Three factors emerged from the 28 categories and were labeled as incompetence, offensiveness, and indolence. Incompetence behaviors demonstrate that a teacher does not care about the course he/she is teaching or students who are sitting in his/her class. Those behaviors might give students an impression that the teacher does not know what he/she is doing ^[30]. Offensiveness behaviors communicate insulting messages. The teacher who has this tendency in the classroom was reported to be mean and cruel because he/she verbally abusive and seems to be unreasonable ^[45]. Indolence behaviors express laziness causing the teacher to pay no attention to students. These behaviors may also indicate a level of absent-mindedness ^[65].

In the author’s previous study carried out in the year between 2011 to 2012, it showed 659 misbehaviors were inductively derived from the perspective of Taiwanese college students. All 659 descriptions were unitized, coded, and labeled according to the teacher misbehavior categories. Results indicated 13 different teacher misbehavior types. In the production of the Taiwanese Teacher Misbehavior Scale (TTMS) ^[41], the author first conducted a pilot test before undertaking quantitative statistical examinations. This helped ensure face and content validity and allowed the author to identify poor items and refine them ^[19]. Three stages were performed. In Stage 1, each item was checked for its content relevance and representativeness while developing the instrument. The 51-item teacher misbehavior instrument was examined through item analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and the evaluation of internal reliability. In Stage 2, besides computing EFA to eliminate items and test the content and construct validity of this questionnaire, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) followed to verify the reliability and construct validity of the instrument ^[43]. Lastly, a Split-Half Reliability test was conducted to assure the scale has a stable and strong reliability. In Stage 3, in addition to conducting the EFA and the CFA, concurrent and discriminant validity was tested. Furthermore, generalizability was assessed to validate use with different populations. The composite reliability (CR>.7) and the average variance extracted (AVE>.5) were considered a good fit of internal structure ^[48].The TTMS has .913 Composite Reliability and has .725 Average Variance Extracted. Four factors also have CR ranging from .907 to .964, and AVE ranging from .610 to .715. After performing all abovementioned tests, it yields a 28-item TTMS with four factors—derisiveness, incompetence, irresponsibility, and non-immediacy—that demonstrated proper factorial structure and cumulatively explained variance.

Misbehaviors represented by Derisiveness reflect the lack of teacher sensitivity. Derisive teachers criticize students directly and indirectly in front of the class by using hurtful, sarcastic, critical, picky, and rude language to put down students. These same teachers are also impatient, subjective, and cold when answering students’ questions. Students report that teachers of this type are comparing their grades with other students as well as looking down on their opinions and performance in class. Apparently, a derisive teacher doesn’t encourage students nor acknowledge their achievement. The profile of derisiveness is extended further to those teachers who lack passion when answering students’ questions. Teacher Incompetence includes a number of misbehaviors implying that the teacher doesn’t organize nor plan for giving his/her lecture, uses word-for-word translation teaching approaches, but doesn’t translate smoothly, or is even self-contradictory in his/her own explanations. These same teachers may also teach lessons that are too difficult or too easy and not appropriate to the students’ level, use the same teaching materials year after year, or can’t control the class nor create interest for learning. Furthermore, incompetent teachers usually are unwilling to receiving new knowledge. Obviously, teacher incompetence reflects their teaching attitude, that is, they come to the class without preparation.

The third factor underlying teacher misbehavior types, Irresponsibility, is best exemplified by the profile of lacking ability to be responsible for proper conduct in the classroom. Teachers who are considered irresponsible are those who would show movies the entire semester and require students to do reports. Students report that teachers of this type are not consistent when grading and even doze off while students are giving reports or taking examinations. Students further report that irresponsible teachers tend to do their own things in class, such as playing on an iPad, checking the stock trend, and reading novels. Apparently, with irresponsible teachers, students feel unmotivated in class.

Non-immediacy, the last factor that appears in this study, indicates that the teacher has no intention to communicate with students, neither during the break nor after the class, shows no interest in knowing more about the students’ learning condition, and needless to say, never remembers students’ names. Generally, non-immediacy conveys a message that a teacher lacks enthusiasm, lacks expressiveness and has low eye contact, doesn’t smile, and communicates greater detachment in the classroom. In addition, teachers who fit into this category show no intention to change their teaching approach. With non-immediate teachers, the class is boring and lackluster.

Non-immediacy misbehaviors did not show up in North American studies ^{[22, 46, 84]}, but appeared in the author’s 2011-2012 study, and has great significance when interpreted from a cultural viewpoint. Teacher-student interaction in the classroom in North America is different from Taiwan. Teachers are more respected in Taiwanese culture where Confucian values are strong ^{[27, 90]}. This frame of mind also fosters teachers’ classroom behaviors that preserve the status of teacher’s prestige in the classroom ^[56]. In other words, the status of teachers is distinctly higher than that of students. The hierarchical relationship between teacher and pupil is stressed in the teaching of Confucius ^[33]. This, in turn, demonstrates an authority-centered teaching approach in the educational setting and furthermore shows the existence of a large power distance between the teacher and students ^[2]. A teacher having a distant relationship with students is a common scene in the Taiwanese classroom ^{[28, 56]}. This logically explains why Taiwanese college students perceive their English teachers’ tendency to be non-immediate.

A great number of researchers indicate that a teacher plays a significant role in developing students’ affective learning ^{[53, 55, 56, 62, 71]}. Myers et al. ^[71] show that students have a higher motivation to communicate and are more willingly to participate when teachers are responsive and caring. A supportive classroom with a positive and friendly climate is established if teachers demonstrate an immediate attitude through verbal and nonverbal forms of communication behaviors in the classroom ^{[25, 26, 89]} where students feel encouraged and accepted ^[56]. In a supportive, positive, encouraging, and secure classroom climate where a teacher creates an atmosphere of warmth, safety, acceptance, and genuineness with his or her students, the student becomes a more self-initiated, self-confident, self-directed, and less anxious learner ^[76]. Though many variables might have a direct or indirect influence on L2 acquisition, a learner’s attitude, motivation, and communication anxiety have a significant impact on his or her L2 oral proficiency ^[91]. Students’ WTC is found to be a very influential factor on developing English oral proficiency ^{[32, 81]}.

Affective factors, such as feeling and emotion, have its effect and role to play in English classes. Affective learning refers to students’ attitudes, beliefs, and values toward the content or subject matter and the learning experience ^[10]. Affect ranges from selective attention and emotional response to behavioral commitment and internalization of ideas ^[52]. Bloom’s taxonomy has been used and interpreted for a general understanding of the affective domain in human behavior and communication ^[52]. The fundamental notions of receiving, responding, and valuing underlined in Bloom’s taxonomy are universal. Brown ^[11] finds this can be applied to second language acquisition and further states that affect refers to emotion or feeling, both about ourselves and others with whom we come into contact. Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis ^{[50, 51]} claims that the best second language and/or foreign language acquisition occurs in environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness absent, in Krashen’s term, in contexts where the affective filter is low. Krashen ^[49] notes that the most critical component for acquiring language is to provide a learning environment that is relaxed with a low affective filter, resulting in relaxed learners who are receptive to the learning process; hence, greater language acquisition occurs.

English language learning can occur at a much faster rate when students’ feel respected ^[13] as well as apprehensive feelings being eliminated ^[54]. Students tend to perform better, or at least want to do better, in a class where the teacher gives encouragement or conveys friendliness through body language according to the interview the author conducted in autumn 2007. This result was later published in Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature ^[37]. To date, many studies have found that teacher immediacy, expressiveness, and involvement can generate students’ participation and enthusiasm for the content, and yet few have examined the impact particularly in the interaction and/or relationship among teacher misbehaviors, students’ affective learning and students’ WTC in English class.

Willingness to communicate (WTC) is a recent addition to the affective constructs rising as a concept to account for L2 communication ^{[32, 59, 91, 92]}. Research suggests that learners who engage in more L2 communication in class are likely to show more improvement in L2 proficiency ^[32]. Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax ^[85] also confirm that students with a higher level of WTC tend to be more effective in terms of communication and learning. Accordingly, researchers believe that WTC is a potential variable that stimulates language learners’ communication in L2 and leads to better oral communication proficiency.

Figure 1. Heuristic Model of Variables Influencing WTC

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View next figure

MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei, & Noels ^[61] expanded MacIntyre and Charos’ ^[60] model of L2 WTC into the heuristic model of L2 WTC, containing twelve variables in a layered pyramid (Figure 1). In this model, learner personality, inter-group climate, inter-group attitude, inter-group motivation, L2 self-confidence, and communicative competence (among other factors) are interrelated in influencing WTC in L2 and L2 use. The model has basically two structures: one consists of situational factors and the other consists of enduring influences. Situational factors are more immediate in taking an action of communication and may vary in a given context. They are: L2 use, WTC, desire to communicate, self-confidence in communicating, and anxiety in communicating. These factors may change in accordance with whom an individual is talking, the topic of the conversation, and who is present ^[61]. Enduring influences represent stable, long-term properties of the environment or person that would apply to almost any situation. Enduring influences include motivational propensities, affective-cognitive context, and societal and individual context. The detailed components are shown in Figure 1. This pyramid-shaped structure illustrates the complexity of the concept of WTC in L2 from linguistic and communicative to social-psychological aspects. The first three layers (I, II, & III) represent situational influences on WTC (e.g., desire to speak to a specific person, knowledge of the topic, etc.), whereas the latter three (IV, V, & VI) are seen to be stable and enduring factors on WTC (e.g., inter-group relations, learner personality, motivation, and self-confidence, etc.).

Taking Chinese and Taiwanese cultural factors into account, Wen and Clément ^[86] propose a schematic representation of the impact of Chinese cultural values on WTC in L2. In Wen and Clément’s conceptualization, a distinction is made between DC and WTC. “Desire refers to a deliberate choice or preference, while willingness emphasizes the readiness to act” [^[86], p. 25]. As Wen & Clément claimed, students might have a desire to communicate, however, that desire does not necessary imply or lead to their willingness to communicate due to variables that specifically exist in Chinese culture. Take speaking anxiety as an example, when students sense the tension in the classroom, experience fear of risk-taking and losing face, and possibly lack of teacher support, usually, students withdraw from participating in classroom discussions. That is to say, when students are not affectively prepared, in other words, their feeling is not completely relaxed; their desire to communicate will not produce WTC, but results in an unwillingness to communicate. These societal and cultural features impacting students’ classroom behaviors also can be observed in the Taiwanese context ^{[56, 78]}. Wen and Clément propose the following modified model of WTC within Chinese cultural contexts by suggesting the variables that moderate the relationship between DC and WTC (Figure 2). These variables are not only related to building a positive communication environment where students feel the promotion of engagement and reduction of anxiety, but also are bound to reflect Chinese cultural values such as the insider effect and submission to authority. Variables include societal context, personality factors, motivational orientation, and affective perceptions. Variables defined in societal context pointing directly to this study, and teacher support, will be addressed more in later discussion.

Figure 2. Variables Moderating the Relation between DC and WTC in the Chinese EFL Classroom

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View previous figure

View next figure

Teacher communicative behaviors in the classroom can either promote or diminish students’ WTC. When teachers are perceived as supportive, responsive, and approachable, usually it brings encouragement for students’ feedback and results in further participation or discussion in the classroom ^{[24, 39]}. There are more factors that were found to be associated positively with students’ willingness to participate in the class, that is, the teacher demonstrates an open, attentive, friendly, and relaxing teaching approach ^[71]. Additionally, teachers who disclose personal opinions and pose questions, elicit student question asking in the classroom ^[87]. Students’ WTC will be enhanced when teachers communicate in a friendly and caring manner. On the contrary, teacher misbehaviors, which may be perceived as the teacher being unapproachable and unsupportive, will become an obstacle for promoting students’ WTC in the classroom ^[30]. Indeed, the teacher is like an orchestra conductor who directs and controls the classroom atmosphere, potentially increasing and/or decreasing student learning affect and WTC. Based on the rationale, the following research hypotheses are plausible:

H 1: Students’ affective learning is negatively correlated with teacher misbehaviors.

H 2: Students’ WTC is negatively correlated with teacher misbehaviors.

H 3: Students’ WTC is affected in a more significant way by teacher misbehavior than via indirect effect from students’ affective learning.

3. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ inappropriate or unfavorable teaching behaviors or (so-called misbehaviors) in relation to students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) in English classes by positing a mediational effect, students’ affective learning, and examination of its interaction and relationship among these variables. This study considers teachers’ inappropriate teaching behaviors-derisiveness, incompetence, irresponsibility, and non-immediacy—which occur in the classroom that could directly impact students’ WTC instead of via an indirect effect, which is, students’ affective learning.

4. Design of the Study

This research was conducted quantitatively by administering three self-report instruments to college students in central Taiwanese colleges. Self-report research is one common approach when conduct a descriptive research, or so-called a survey research. A self-report research requires the collection of standardized, quantifiable information from all members of a population ^[29]. The validity of student self-report has been repeatedly confirmed in Astin’s studies ^{[3, 4, 5]}, which showed patterns of self-reported outcomes that vary consistently by major field and other measured levels of exposure. McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, and Barraclough ^[64] stated that students generally had a good sense of what they had learned and were willing to self-report their perceptions in educational research.

Self-report of participation was chosen for several reasons. First of all, since students were reporting on their perception of their teachers’ misbehaviors, it is logical to ask the students to report their affective learning and willingness to communicate in English classes. Second, observing participation may affect the classroom climate, and the instructors may not be comfortable letting observers watch their classroom activities ^[18]. Third, Hall and Sandler ^[31] noted the importance of relying on systematic evidence rather than anecdotes when collecting data in this area. Last of all, since college students are adults with considerable experience in a school environment, mature enough in the aspect of language learning, cultural awareness, and with a certain degree of judgment and knowledge ^[96], it was reasonable to expect them to accurately assess their perception of teachers’ misbehaviors and their affective learning and WTC in English class.

Six hundred and seventy-nine participants were drawn from central universities to participate in this research (538 female, 79%, and 141 male, 21%). Participants included a wide range of the student body, all majoring in English, from freshmen to seniors, from several different programs, such as traditional students and non-traditional students, including daytime, nighttime, and weekend programs. Students enrolled in English courses participated voluntarily in this study. They were asked to assess their English teacher’s communicative behaviors, the teacher of the most recent course they had completed and students’ affective learning as well as willingness to talk in the English classes. The participants consisted of 500 daytime programs students, traditional students (74%) and 179 from nighttime and weekend programs, non-traditional students (26%), with mean age of 22.82, SD=7.08.

In order to measure students’ perception of teachers’ misbehaviors, Hsu’s ^[41] Taiwanese Teacher Misbehavior Scale, a newly developed TTMS was used to measure Taiwanese teachers’ misbehaviors. There are four different types, consisting of 28 descriptions of teacher misbehaviors assessed in this instrument, they are: teacher derisiveness, teacher incompetence, teacher irresponsibility, and teacher non-immediacy. Participants indicated the frequency of teacher misbehaviors using a five point Likert-type (1=never, 5=very often) scale. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of this instrument showed in this study was .968.

Affective learning was examined via the measures of affect developed by Andersen ^[1]. The scale was adopted with minor changes to fit this study. Students’ affective learning is operationalized as student affect toward (1) course content; (2) the instructor; (3) enrollment in another similar course when the class fits the students’ schedule; and (4) enrollment in another course given by the same teacher when the student has time available. Each specific affect is assessed by four, seven-step bi-polar scales: good/bad, worthless/valuable, fair/unfair, and positive/negative. The Chronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .865 was estimated for the 20-item measure.

The “Willingness to Talk in Class Scale,” consisting of 19 questions, was first constructed by Christensen, Curley, Marquez, & Menzel ^[16], and later utilized by Menzel and Carrell ^[66] with satisfactory reliability, .92 for the Cronbach’s alpha. The scale was modeled after the “Willingness to Communicate Scale” developed by McCroskey ^[63]. This scale directly related to students’ willingness to participate in the classroom, matching the central interest of this study. The instrument was scored on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of this instrument in this present study was .948.

In order to avoid a data collection problem, an on-line survey was established. Participants were given an access link to answer this questionnaire online without a paper-and-pencil measure which is questionable from an ethical point of view ^[77] and also reduces apprehension for teachers allowing their students to participate this study.

Apart from TTMS instrument originally developed in the Chinese language, two other instruments adopted from North America, originally were written in English. Three techniques for dealing with translation-related issues were used to validate the translation of the instruments. First, consultation with other experts who are bilingual during the process of translation involved discussion and decision about the best term to use in the Chinese translation ^[9]. Second, back translation technique was used to look for equivalents through the translation of items from English to the Chinese, and then an independent translation from the Chinese back into the English was utilized. The final stage of back translation was to compare the two versions of items in English until ambiguities or discrepancies in meaning were clarified ^[23]. Third, a pre-testing (or pilot) of the research instrument was administered to a small group of volunteers who share similar characteristics with the target population ^[82]. Volunteer participants not only were asked to give their answers but also their interpretation of each item’s meaning to advance the clarity of Chinese translation.

Data analysis was conducted descriptively to determine the answers to the research questions ^[35]. Multiple correlations were computed to determine the relationship ^[47] among teachers’ misbehaviors, students’ affective learning, and students’ willingness to communicate in English in the classroom. In order to avoid data collection problems or potential bias, the researcher used the technique introduced by Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond ^[74]. This technique surveyed the students’ input regarding the teacher of the most recent course they had completed. The participants were asked not to identify themselves or the teacher whom they were assessing in order to preserve anonymity ^{[17, 75, 83]}. By doing this, anonymity and confidentiality were preserved, both for the teachers and the participants.

The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 17.0 and Amos 7 for Windows were used to organize, compute, and analyze the data from the three instruments. Data analysis provided the explanations of the statistical strategy for the hypotheses proposed in this study. All statistical tests are conducted at a .05 level of significance. First, demographic information was analyzed by frequencies and percentages. Second, descriptive statistics were conducted in terms of frequency, mean, and standard deviation ^{[29, 67, 72]}. Third, the matrix correlation among all variables was provided to determine the relationship. Lastly, in order to test our hypothesized model, structural equation modeling (SEM) was operated.

5. Results

Hypothesis 1 proposed that students’ affective learning is negatively correlated with teacher misbehaviors. A Pearson r correlation was computed. Teacher misbehaviors were significantly negatively associated with students’ affective learning, r= -.417, p<.01, hypothesis 1 was therefore supported. Table 1 provides inter-correlation details. To test hypothesis 2, “Students’ WTC is negatively correlated with teacher misbehaviors,” a Pearson r correlation revealed, r=.-003. Students’ WTC is negatively associated with teacher misbehaviors, but, it didn’t reach to a statistically significant level, hypothesis 2 therefore was rejected. In order to test hypothesis 3, “students’ WTC is affected in a more significant way by teacher misbehavior than via indirect effect from students’ affective learning,” structural equation modeling (SEM) path analysis was conducted. The result showed students’ WTC is affected more directly, (β=.08) by teacher misbehaviors than via indirect effect from students’ affective learning β=-.027 (-.10 × .27). Figure 3 gives the details of mediation effects.

Table 1. Inter-correlation between Teacher Misbehaviors and Students’ Affective Learning

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

Figure 3 gives the details of mediation effects.

Figure 3. Mediation model: The relationship among teacher misbehaviors, student’s affective learning and students’ WTC

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View previous figure

6. Discussions

In this study, when teachers misbehaved in the classroom, students’ affective learning was affected negatively in four aspects. It appears that students’ interest for the course content would likely be decreased negatively at a significant level (r= -.307^**, p<.01). Students tend to dislike their instructor when he/she misbehaved while teaching (r= -.225^**, p<.01). These results confirmed what Banfield et al. ^[6] stated that students’ satisfaction toward course and instructors could be affected to a significant degree when they observed teacher misbehaved while teaching. Another two aspects, “enrollment when fits the schedule” and “enrollment to the course taught by the same teacher” are also worth our attention. Students’ enrollment willingness under misbehaving teachers is significantly negative correlated, -.323^** and -.339^** (p<.01), respectively. Students would be unlikely to take the same misbehaving teacher’s course even though the class fit their schedule. The result of this study could be interpreted that the more teachers demonstrate misbehaviors in the classroom, the less willing students would take the course. Furthermore, students tend to give a negative teacher evaluation to those teachers who misbehave while teaching ^{[45, 65]}. Nowadays, low birth rate phenomenon seriously influences education; many schools reduce the number of courses, and teachers are facing the challenge of reducing teaching hours. The outcome of this finding gives all English teachers a wake-up call. The way we were taught to learn English may need to be tailored to Generation Y ^[34].

Teacher misbehaviors didn’t have a statistically significant impact on students’ WTC. This result was anticipated by the author. This outcome seems to be predictable from the literature review. A rational explanation can be made when examining why students’ WTC was not associated with teacher misbehaviors. Maybe how the Chinese/Taiwanese culture views a teacher’s role in the classroom is the answer. As Hsu ^[39] stated, Taiwanese college students tend to be reluctant to communicate due to the climate in the classroom--teachers mainly dominate and tend to use a teacher-centered and/or a one-way communication teaching approach, not to mention, the teacher plays an authoritative role with a larger distance and little contact with students. Another possible explanation may be traced back to the cultural impact, that is, students’ unwillingness to communicate is reflected in the Asian concept of over-concern with losing face and the often-praised sense of collectivism ^{[15, 39, 58, 86]}. In other words, students who share similar cultural values tend to avoid communication, class discussions and/or confrontation with the teacher in the classroom, have strong sensitivity to interpersonal harmony, overly rely on peers, and strictly obey the teacher ^[58]. Due to the concern of losing face, Taiwanese college students only engage in communication when they feel comfortable and run no risk of losing face in the presence of other classmates. Some Taiwanese college students who were interviewed in a study by WikEd ^[88] said their reticence in responding and being involved during English class was not only to assure themselves of not losing face, but also for the sake of teachers’ face-saving. The WikEd study implies that asking the teacher a question may be viewed as challenging authority and might potentially cause teachers to lose face if they do not know the answer. Therefore, students prefer to keep silent in class to ensure mistake-free conduct and face-saving risk avoidance. The concept of face in cultures where Confucianism has an influence has brought a negative effect to establishing an interactive atmosphere for English learning. By far, teacher misbehavior seems to be a minor factor causing students’ unwillingness to communicate in this present study. The bottom line is that Taiwanese college students have an obvious tendency not to communicate in English in their English classes, period.

However, it is too early to conclude that reducing teacher misbehaviors has no effect on students' WTC. In SEM analysis in this study, the result indicated that students’ WTC is affected more directly by teacher misbehaviors (β=.08) than via indirect effect from students’ affective learning (β=-.027). A sensible interpretation is students’ WTC is directly affected by teacher misbehaviors. Though they may have negative feelings towards teacher misbehaviors, their WTC won’t be affected when they have a better feeling toward teachers or content due to a general classroom climate that is not supportive, open, friendly, and caring in a Taiwanese English classroom. Providing students a respecting, supportive, and sensitive learning environment will bring a more positive learning outcome. Students’ WTC will be improved and encouraged when they observe their teacher does not display misbehaviors while teaching.

7. Suggestions and Limitations

According to the findings of this study, future study could continue to explore and investigate the relationship between teacher misbehavior and the students’ learning outcome, for instance, their English oral proficiency and cognitive learning. If it is possible, future research could arrange an in-depth interview with teachers and students, also a classroom observation might strengthen the impact of result. Future studies should take into account participants’ gender balance in ratio. Future studies should also consider replicating a similar study in other countries that share similar culture backgrounds that gear toward more teacher-centered classrooms, such as South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, and China.

Although three instruments have been confirmed to have satisfactory reliabilities, whether or not each student’s report precisely indicates the facts may not be independently discernible in this data. Some limitations to this study need to be addressed. First, there was a disproportionate ratio of female students to male students, 79% vs. 21%. However, this ratio reflects the reality that a majority of English majors are female. This gender difference could be problematic if gender makes a difference in WTC as Tabatabaei and Jamshidifar ^[81] stated in their study. Second, the participant’s potential loss of recall or confusion as a result of the short time given for completion of the scales could further bias the result. Also, student-perceived teacher misbehaviors could be different from teacher-perceived or actual teacher misbehaviors, making the validity of the instruments problematic. Another limitation was that participants were recruited from traditional daytime program students and non-traditional nighttime and weekend programs students. Their perspective on teachers’ misbehaviors could be interpreted in a different way therefore skewing the outcome. Finally, the result could only be generalized to the current population due to sample size and demographic distribution.

8. Conclusion

As for English educational reform, the author believes it is essential to pay more attention to English teachers’ appropriate behaviors in the classroom since the present research and previous studies both have demonstrated that teachers’ behavior has a strong impact on students’ affective learning. However, if teacher misbehaviors directly and significantly impact students’ willingness to communicate, then this research strengthen the significance of the teacher demonstrating more positive and appropriate behaviors while teaching. English education policy makers should urge the development of a program that helps Taiwanese English teachers provide positive appropriate behaviors while teaching in order to develop a supportive learning climate in the classroom, ultimately enabling students to strive for a positive and successful English learning experience.

While teachers continue to strive for academic improvement, it seems appropriate to take the results of this study into consideration and learn to be more careful and thoughtful about what is done and said in the classroom. Without a doubt, students perceive their English teachers do misbehave while teaching in the classroom. Intentionally or unintentionally, English teachers often use the same strategies as they were once taught ^[54]. This is a new generation we are facing and teaching now. Being aware of generational changes could help English teachers teach in a more appropriate, fruitful and effective way. Students’ WTC will increase with higher motivation, and eventually, their oral proficiency will improve. At last, acknowledging that misbehaviors do happen in our classrooms is a crucial step for advancing English education in Taiwan. This may be a novel notion in the Taiwanese educational field where teachers are usually perceived as the authority figure in the classroom without knowing how essential it is to provide students a learning environment that is filled with warmth, safety, and acceptance.

Acknowledgement

This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan through Grant MOST 103-241-H-025-025.

References

[1]	Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Books.
	In article
[2]	Andersen, P. (2000). Cues of culture: The basis of intercultural differences in nonverbal communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader, (9th ed., pp. 258-270). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
	In article
[3]	Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
	In article
[4]	Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
	In article
[5]	Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
	In article
[6]	Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V.P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63-72.
	In article		CrossRef
[7]	Benjamin, J., & Chen, Y.L. (2003, April). A cross-cultural study of the motivation of students learning a second language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479389)
	In article
[8]	Bi, N. Z. (2011). An investigation into English mixing in Chinese Internet language. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 60-64.
	In article		CrossRef
[9]	Birbili, M. (2000). Translating from one language to another. Social Research Update, 31. Retrieved December 24, 2013, from https://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU31.html.
	In article
[10]	Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain New York: McKay.
	In article
[11]	Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
	In article
[12]	Campbell, K.P., & Zhao, Y. (1993). The dilemma of English language instruction in the people’s republic of China. TESOL Journal, 4, 4-6.
	In article
[13]	Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
	In article
[14]	Chang, S. J. (2002). A preliminary study of English conversation instruction at universities in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 27, 17-50.
	In article
[15]	Chen, G. M., & Chung, J. (2000). The “Five Asian Dragons”: Management behaviors and organizational communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 301-311). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
	In article
[16]	Christensen, L. J., Curley, K. E., Marquez, E. M., & Menzel, K. E. (1995, November). Classroom situations which lead to student participation. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
	In article
[17]	Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292-306.
	In article		CrossRef
[18]	Crawford. M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23, 101-122.
	In article		CrossRef
[19]	DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
	In article
[20]	Dilekmen, M. (2011). Student teachers’ observations of unfavorable teacher behaviors exhibited in classrooms, Psychological Reports, 108 (1), 45-53.
	In article		CrossRef
[21]	Diller, J. V., & Moule, J. (2004). Cultural competence: A primer for educator. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
	In article
[22]	Dolin, D. J. (1995). Ain’t Misbehavin’: A study of teacher misbehaviors, related to communication behaviors, and student resistance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
	In article
[23]	Ericikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
	In article		CrossRef
[24]	Fassinger, P. A. (2000). How classes influence students' participation in college classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(2), 38-47.
	In article
[25]	Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133-144.
	In article		CrossRef
[26]	Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior. Communication Education, 50, 314-326.
	In article		CrossRef
[27]	Fwu, B. J., & Wang, H. H. (2002). The social status of teachers in Taiwan. Comparative Education, 38, 211-224.
	In article		CrossRef
[28]	Gao, G. (1997). Self and OTHER: A Chinese perspective on interpersonal relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp. 81-101). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
	In article
[29]	Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
	In article
[30]	Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, S. (2009). College teacher misbehaviors: Direct and indirect effects on student communication behavior and traditional learning outcomes. Western Journal of Communication, 73 (2), 204-219.
	In article		CrossRef
[31]	Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
	In article
[32]	Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20, 29-70.
	In article
[33]	Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
	In article		CrossRef
[34]	Horovitz, Bruce (4 May 2012). After Gen X, Millennials, what should next generation be? USA Today. Retrieved October 4, 2014, from https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/story/2012-05-03/naming-the-next-generation/54737518/1.
	In article
[35]	Howell, D. C. (2003). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences with infotrac (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
	In article
[36]	Hsu, L. (2008). The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ affective learning in English classes. Journal of General Education, National Taichung Institute of Technology, 2, 141-158.
	In article
[37]	Hsu, L. (2009). The relationship between teachers’ verbal immediacy behaviors and students’ affective learning for English. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 15, 107-130.
	In article
[38]	Hsu, L.,& T. C. Ho (2010). The effect of teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors on students’ affect for English subject. Journal of Applied Foreign Language, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, v.13, 23-47.
	In article
[39]	Hsu, L. (2012). Causes of student unwillingness to talk in English classes. Journal of the National Taichung Institute of Technology, 16, 101-114.
	In article
[40]	Hsu, L. (2013a). The relationship between Taiwanese English teacher misbehaviors and college student motivation in English classes. Journal of Applied English, Ming Chuan University.
	In article
[41]	Hsu, L. (2013b). Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Taiwanese Teacher Misbehavior in the Classroom. Taipei, Taiwan: Bookman Books, Ltd.
	In article
[42]	Huang, S. C. (1998). Senior high school students’ EFL learning beliefs: A site study. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 477-485). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
	In article
[43]	Jöreskog, K.C., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
	In article
[44]	Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277-92.
	In article		CrossRef
[45]	Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Allen, T. H. (2002). Understanding student reactions to teachers who misbehave. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (pp. 127-140). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
	In article
[46]	Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say or do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309-324.
	In article		CrossRef
[47]	Kiess, H. O. (2002). Statistical concepts for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
	In article
[48]	Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
	In article
[49]	Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
	In article
[50]	Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
	In article
[51]	Krashen, S. (1997). Foreign language education: The easy way. Culver City, CA:Language Education Associates.
	In article
[52]	Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: McKay.
	In article
[53]	Kristmanson, P. (2000). Affect: In the second language classroom: How to create an emotional climate. Réflexions, 19, No. 2.
	In article
[54]	Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching (3rd ed.).New York: Oxford University Press.
	In article
[55]	Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 343-364.
	In article		CrossRef
[56]	Li, L.T. (2003). Carl Rogers and me: Revisiting Teaching. Thinking Classroom, 4, 34-42.
	In article
[57]	Lin, S.C. (2003). The relationship between teacher immediacy and students’ willingness to communicate in English: An EFL context in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
	In article
[58]	Liu, J. (2001). Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U. S.Universities: An emic perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
	In article
[59]	MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. S. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537-564.
	In article		CrossRef
[60]	MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26.
	In article		CrossRef
[61]	MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dőrnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
	In article		CrossRef
[62]	Martin, M. M., Valencick, K. M., & Heisel, A. D. (2001, April). The relationship between students’ motives for communicating with their instructors with their perceptions of their instructors’ nonverbal immediacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Portland, ME.
	In article
[63]	McCroskey, J. C. (1986). An introduction to rhetorical communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
	In article
[64]	McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. R., & Barraclough R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200-211.
	In article		CrossRef
[65]	McPherson, M. B., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2006). College teacher misbehaviors. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: hetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 213-234). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
	In article
[66]	Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceive learning. Communication Education, 48, 31-40.
	In article		CrossRef
[67]	Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: Sage.
	In article
[68]	Munezane, Y. (2013). Attitudes, affect and ideal L2 self as predictors of willingness to communicate. In Roberts, Leah, Ewert, A., Pawlak, M., & Wrembel, M. (Eds.). EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 13 (pp.176-198).
	In article
[69]	Murray, H. G. (1991). Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom. In J. C. Smart (Ed.) Higher education:Handbook of theory and research (pp. 135-172). Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.
	In article
[70]	Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education, 56, 453-466.
	In article		CrossRef
[71]	Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Mottet, T. P. (2002). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors: Considering instructor socio-communicative style, student socio-communicative orientation, and student gender. Communication Education, 51, 121-133.
	In article		CrossRef
[72]	Patten, M. L. (2001). Questionnaire research: A practical guide. Los Angeles: Pyrczak.
	In article
[73]	Peng, J. E. &Woodrow, L. (2010), Willingness to Communicate in English: A Model in the Chinese EFL Classroom Context. Language Learning, 60: 834-876.
	In article		CrossRef
[74]	Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.
	In article		CrossRef
[75]	Rocca, K.A. (2001, November). Participation in the college classroom: The impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 461899)
	In article
[76]	Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80’s. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
	In article
[77]	Sava, F. A. (2002). Causes and effects of teacher conflict-inducing attitudes towards pupils: a path analysis model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 1007-1021.
	In article		CrossRef
[78]	Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and [70]perceptions. IRAL, 41, 223-249.
	In article		CrossRef
[79]	Shuter, R. (2000). Ethics, culture, and communication: An intercultural perspective. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader, (9th ed., pp. 443-2449). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
	In article
[80]	Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2011). When instructors misbehave: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as a mediator in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60 (3), 340-361.
	In article		CrossRef
[81]	Tabatabaei, O., & Jamshidifar, M. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and willingness to communicate among EFL learners. International Journal of English Language Education, 2 (1), 90-99.
	In article		CrossRef
[82]	Teijlingen van, E., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update, 35. Retrieved December 24, 2013, from https://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU35.html.
	In article
[83]	Teven, J. J. (2001). The relationships among teacher characteristics and perceived caring. Communication Education, 50, 159-169.
	In article		CrossRef
[84]	Toale, M. C., Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001, November). Factor analysis 114 teacher misbehavior items. Paper submitted for presentation at the National Communication Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.
	In article
[85]	Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001). Teacher e-mail message strategies and students’ willingness to communicate online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 54-70.
	In article		CrossRef
[86]	Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16, 18-38.
	In article		CrossRef
[87]	West, R., & Pearson, J. C. (1994). Antecedent and consequent conditions of student questioning: An analysis of classroom discourse across the university. Communication Education, 43(4), 299-311.
	In article		CrossRef
[88]	WikEd (2005). Taiwan: Impressions of classroom management. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Taiwan:_Impressions_of_classroom_management.
	In article
[89]	Witt, P.L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 327-342.
	In article		CrossRef
[90]	Yang, K. S., & Cheng, P. S. (1987). Confucianized values, individual modernity, and organizational behavior: An empirical test of a post-Confucian hypothesis. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, 64, 1-49.
	In article
[91]	Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66.
	In article		CrossRef
[92]	Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119-52.
	In article		CrossRef
[93]	Yu, C.Y. (2011). A study on teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivation among EFL students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Providence, Taichung, Taiwan.
	In article
[94]	Yuche, J., & Stewart, B. (2001, December). International business competencies needed by business graduates in the United States and Taiwan, R. O. C. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 473769)
	In article
[95]	沈立言。2014。從臺灣食品安全邁向國際舞台: 全民英文能力之反思。English Career, (48), 53-56.
	In article
[96]	唐傳義。2014。國際化教育在地化英語融入日常生活。English Career, (48), 46-48.
	In article