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.

the current study examined iranian undergraduate efl students’ willingness to communicate with regard to their vocabulary knowledge. in general, participants were somewhat willing to communicate in english. the total mean score of 730 university students’ perception of willing to communicate was 83.53 out of 135. results, regarding four parts of willingness to communicate, revealed that participants were more willing to speak in english with their friends, more willing to read letters from their friends which were written in native english, more willing to write down a list of things they must do the next day and more willing to understand an english movie. the results also showed that university students had good willingness to read, whereas their willingness to write was, to some extent, low. to see whether the independent variable (vocabulary knowledge) could predict the variability in the dependent variables (wts, wtr, wtw, wtl, wtc), simple regression analysis was run. there were five models of regression equation employed in this study. in all the models students’ score in vocabulary knowledge was considered as the predictor of the model. however, in the first model willingness to speak, in the second one willingness to read, in the third one willingness to write, in the fourth one willingness to listen and in the fifth one, willingness to communicate was taken into account as the criterion 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 results of the regression analysis revealed that vocabulary accounted for 8 percent of the variance in willingness to speak (r2=.084), 10 percent of the variance in willingness to read (r2=.101), 5 percent of the variance in willingness to write (r2=.047) and 9 percent of the variance in willingness to listen (r2=.093). the result further showed that scores on vocabulary test accounted for 13 percent of the variance in students’ willingness to communicate (r2=.127). it indicates that vocabulary accounted for more variance in students’ willingness to communicate as a whole in comparison with each of its parts. taking willingness to communicate components into account, the results indicated that vocabulary has the least contribution to students’ willingness to write and the most contribution to students’ willingness to read. it seems that students’ willingness to read is more under the influence of their vocabulary knowledge than their willingness to write. the results also revealed that there was a positive relationship between students’ vocabulary knowledge and their overall willingness to communicate. in other words, students with higher score on vocabulary test were more willing to communicate. this positive association was also obtained for four parts of wtc. these findings are to some extant in accordance with previous studies done on the relationship between vocabulary and language skills. like iwashita (2005) who proved the influence of academic students’ lexical competence on their performance in speaking tests, finding of this study showed that the students’ vocabulary knowledge can impact positively their willingness to speak. previous studies found that the knowledge of vocabulary is a determining factor in reading comprehension (anderson & freebody, 1979; beglar & hunt, 1999; qian, 2002). in the same direction, this study exhibited that students’ willingness to read is also positively related to their vocabulary knowledge. scholars have found that vocabulary is related to writing ability (beglar & hunt, 1999; laufer & nation, 1995). willingness to write is also illustrated to be positively associated with vocabulary knowledge. taking willingness to listen into account, students’ score on vocabulary test was related to their willingness to listen. this finding is in line with previous studies of alderson & huhta, (2005), beglar and hunt, (1999) and bonk, (2000) who proved the positive effect of vocabulary on listening ability. to further examine students’ willingness to communicate with regard to their vocabulary knowledge, one-way analysis of variance (anova) was conducted to see whether the students with different vocabulary levels also differ in the level of willingness to communicate and its components. the results of anova reconfirmed the findings of regression analyses regarding the relationship between students’ vocabulary knowledge and their willingness to speak. learners’ willingness to speak in high vocabulary group was higher than in mid and low groups and the willingness to speak in mid vocabulary group was higher than in low vocabulary group. however, the difference between high and mid groups was not statistically significant. considering the relationship between students’ vocabulary knowledge and their wtr, there was a significant difference among the mean scores of the high, mid and low vocabulary groups on the overall scores of the wtr. in other words, the high vocabulary level group was more willing to read than the mid and low vocabulary level groups, and the mid group also was more willing to read than the low group. also finding a significant difference in the mean scores of wtl among the students from the three vocabulary groups suggested that the differences in the levels of vocabulary knowledge influence students’ willingness to listen. the one-way anova statistics indicated that there are significant differences among mean scores of willingness to write for students in three different vocabulary groups. the most striking difference between the students’ willingness to write was related to the difference between the low group and the mid group and also between the low group and the high group. in other words, these groups of vocabulary knowledge significantly differed in their willingness to write. however, high and mid vocabulary level students did not show a statistically significant difference in terms of willingness to write. the results further showed that it was unlikely that the students willingness to communicate was the same for the groups of participants with three different levels of vocabulary knowledge. in other words, it was found that the high group (of vocabulary level) was more willing to communicate than the mid and low groups, and the mid group also was more willing to communicate than the low group. moreover the differences among all groups were significant. this study has demonstrated that iranian students who learn english as a foreign language appear to have moderate level of wtc in english. one of the reasons for not having high degree of willingness to communicate may be students’ insufficient knowledge of vocabulary. to help iranian university students achieve more success in english learning, english educators in iran need to dedicate their efforts to design a program with applicable methods of teaching vocabularies which lead to enhancing students’ wtc in english. to sum up, this study can properly lead iranian language teachers to improve their students’ knowledge of vocabulary and as a result their willingness to communicate, thus promoting the improvement of english learning.