the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between teachers’ immediacy behaviors and iranian students’ willingness to talk in english classes. analysis of the results from willingness to talk scale represents a relatively high level of willingness to talk in english classrooms among iranian language learners. the total mean score of students’ willingness to talk was 66.3 out of 95. the students were highly willing to engage in talking when they knew the correct answer and when they were prepared well for class, however they did not choose to talk in english when they were angry about a topic or when they disliked their classmates. the results indicated seating arrangement was a determining factor in raising students’ willingness to talk. majority of students (74%) reported higher tendency for participation in classroom communication when they were seated closer to the teacher. the results also demonstrated that a moderate submission to the teachers’ authority exists in iranian language classrooms. this was revealed by the high percentage of response to the teachers’ questions (68%) and slightly low percentage of expressing disagreement with teachers’ views (42%). participants also showed more willingness to talk when everyone was talking but were less willing to talk when no one was talking. analysis of the results from teacher immediacy scale demonstrated that most of the teachers looked at the class and were relaxed when they were teaching; however they rarely had physical contact with their students in the classroom. they also projected themselves well with a variety of vocal expressions instead of using a monotonous voice. they attempted to decrease the distance with the students by moving in the classroom instead of sitting in a chair or standing behind the podium or desk. although teachers usually addressed their students with their first name, they rarely allowed their students to call them with the first name. it seems there is a sense of respect between students and teacher in language classes which prevents students to call their teacher with his/her first name. majority of teachers did not give extra attention or time to students outside the class. it was revealed from the low percentage of teachers who “got into conversation with individual students before or after class” (28.2%) or “invited students to telephone or meet with him/her outside the class” (11%). however, teachers usually involved students in classroom management. majority of students reported that their teachers almost always asked how students felt about an assignment, due date or discussion topic. the results from correlational analysis suggested that teacher immediacy was associated positively and significantly with students’ willingness to talk in english classes. it implies students’ willingness to talk increased when the teacher demonstrated immediacy behaviors. in other words, if teachers utilize immediacy behaviors in their teaching, it contributes to positive interpersonal relationship with their students, and eventually, their willingness to talk increases. furthermore both teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy correlated positively at a significant level with students’ willingness to talk. however the statistics showed that students’ willingness to talk was more influenced by teacher verbal immediacy (r= .43; p < .01) than teacher nonverbal immediacy (r=.39; p < .01). moreover, the results indicated that the impact of using both verbal and nonverbal immediacy was greater than utilizing verbal or nonverbal immediacy alone. the analysis revealed a stronger relationship when verbal and nonverbal immediacy were employed together (r=.48, p < .01). these findings are in line with the study done by hsu (2006) who investigated the relationship among teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students’ willingness to speak in english in central taiwanese college classrooms. hsu found a positive and significant correlation between teachers’ immediacy behaviors and students’ willingness to talk. she reported a slightly higher correlation coefficient between verbal immediacy behavior and willingness to talk (r = .451) than what was gained in this study (r = .434). but she found a lower association between nonverbal immediacy behavior and willingness to talk (r =.308) than this study (r =.391). as for the relationship between immediacy behaviors (nonverbal and verbal) and willingness to talk, this study found a stronger relationship (r =.480) than hsu’ study (r =.434). the results of item correlations revealed that teachers’ immediacy behaviors (verbal and nonverbal) functioned differently in terms of the impacts on students’ willingness to talk. among all 34 behaviors introduced by scholars as teachers’ immediacy behaviors, only 21 behaviors showed statistically significant relationship with students’ willingness to talk. teachers’ behaviors such as sitting in a chair, standing behind the desk, having dull voice, being addressed by first name, looking at the board, asking specific questions, etc. did not significantly contribute to students’ wtc. most of the behaviors which showed a statistically weak correlation with students’ willingness to talk were presumed to be non-immediate. this finding is in accordance with the results of hsu’s study (2006). she found non-immediate behaviors were not significantly related to students’ willingness to speak in english. the results indicated that teachers could strongly impact their students’ willingness to participate in class talk when they had a relaxed body position in the class or when they looked at class while they were talking. these particular immediacy behaviors explained respectively 7.5% and 4.1% of the variance in students’ wtc. teachers also could contribute to their students’ willingness to talk when they appreciated students’ work, actions or comments, or when they asked questions that solicited viewpoints or opinions and also when they encouraged students to talk. this is in line with hsu’s study. she reported that “praising students’ work,” “solicit opinions or viewpoint,” “ask questions or encourage students to talk” significantly correlated (r=.36, r= .38 and r=.26 respectively) with taiwanese student’ willingness to talk. teachers who “addressed their students with the first name”, or “referred to class as ‘our’ class or what ‘we’ are doing”, or “provided feedback on their students’ work”, could positively impact their students’ willingness to talk. hsu (2006) reported the same influence for the above immediacy behaviors. the item correlation results further indicated that teachers who had a sense of humor or used a variety of vocal expressions instead of monotonous voice were more successful in eliciting talk from students. the results showed that teachers could influence students’ willingness to talk when they “got into conversation with individual students before and after class” or when they “invited students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class”. however, as previously noted, majority of iranian language teachers participating in this study rarely put extra time and energy for students outside the class. in addition to correlational analyses, regression analysis was run to see whether independent variables (nonverbal and verbal immediacy behaviors) could predict the variability in the dependent variable (willingness to talk). three models of regression equation were employed in this study. in the first and second model, nonverbal immediacy behavior and verbal immediacy behavior were considered as independent predictors respectively. then in the third model, the researcher performed a multiple linear regression with teachers’ verbal immediacy behavior and teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behavior as independent variables and students’ willingness to talk as dependent variable. f test of significance illustrated that in all models the relationship between variables were linear and the independent variable could be used to reliably predict the dependent variable. furthermore normal distribution of residuals displayed in plots and histograms reconfirmed that all equations could be accepted as predicting regression model. the analysis revealed when verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors were employed together, it accounted for more variance in students’ willingness to talk than when each form of immediacy was utilized alone. when only teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behavior was used in the regression model, it accounted for 15% of the variance in students’ willingness to talk (r2 = .153). also utilizing teachers’ verbal immediacy behavior alone, accounted for 19% of the variance in students’ willingness to talk (r2 = .189). however, when verbal and nonverbal immediacy were integrated in the regression model, it accounted for 23% of the variance in students willingness to talk (r2= .231). measuring the differences between standard errors of estimate in the three models indicated that model 3 was the best predictive model. after model 3, model 2 showed better predictive power than model 1. it is concluded that nonverbal and verbal behaviors together form a stronger predictor of students’ willingness to talk. between nonverbal and verbal, the second one (verbal) was the primary factor. in other words, in the case that one wishes to predict students’ willingness to talk according to only one variable, the best variable would be teachers’ verbal immediacy behaviors because predicting power of verbal immediacy behaviors on students willingness to talk is more than nonverbal.the results confirmed that teacher immediacy behavior impacted students’ willingness to talk. when students perceived that their teacher employed more positive verbal behaviors and more friendly nonverbal behaviors, they tended to use target language. the findings in this study helped to inform the iranian language teachers how to increase their students’ willingness to talk. understanding students’ perception of teacher immediacy and its association with students’ wtc in english classes may not only enhance students’ learning but also improve teachers’ teaching. this study can appropriately and effectively guide iranian language teachers to use immediacy in the classroom, thereby promoting the improvement of english teaching and learning. while teachers continue to strive for academic improvement, it seems appropriate to consider immediacy as a teaching methodology, which is a key indicator of teaching effectiveness.