TITLE PAGE Research Title

 It should capture the main idea

of the essay but should not con-
tain abbreviations or words that
serve no purpose.
 Your title may take up one or

EXPLORING FOREIGN LEARNERS’ LANGUAGE ANXIETY: two lines, but should not be
Uppercase;
Bold;
more than 15 words in length.

General Instructions THE CASE OF PRE-UNIVERSITY ENGLISH ORIENTATION STUDENTS Center

for the First Draft

 Use white 8 ½ x 11” paper.
 Set 1-inch margin on all sides.
 Use Book Antiqua font, size 12.
 All text on the title page should
be double-spaced in the same
way as the rest of the essay.
 Page number should be placed on
the upper right corner, excluding Warlito S. Caturay, Jr., PhD
the title page. Researchers’
 Set 0 spacing before and after Names:
Joan C. Generoso, PhD
paragraphs (First Name-
 The first word in every paragraph Last Name)
John Edgar C. Rubio
should be indented one half inch.
 The first word in every paragraph
should be indented one half inch.
 The research paper should be at a
minimum range of 20-25 pages.
 All sections should be seamlessly
threaded all throughout the pa-
per:
– Introduction
– Method
– Results
– Discussion
 Additional sections include the
References and Appendices.

Month and
November 2020 Year of
Submission

BODY OF THE PAPER
Writing the Introduction
Indentation of the fist line of
the paragraph by 1/2 inch.
Establishing the
Research Territory
 Contextualize your work by sup-
plying readers with background
information including introduc-
ing theoretical rationale and de-
fining key concepts or terms.
 Provide a concise overview of
relevant literature (underpinning
theories and studies) to orient
and prepare the reader to un-
derstand the purpose and posi-
tioning of your work within the
larger conversation about your
topic or work.
Page number on the upper
2
right corner
EXPLORING FOREIGN LEARNERS’ LANGUAGE ANXIETY: Uppercase;
Bold;
THE CASE OF PRE-UNIVERSITY ENGLISH ORIENTATION STUDENTS Center
Introduction Bold; Center
Learning a foreign language could be a daunting task. In fact, its challenge is
In-text Citation (Narrative) of a
best captured by Williams (1994, cited in Cohen, 2010, p. 169) when he said that the tertiary source
learning of a foreign language involves far more than simply learning skills, or a sys-
tem of rules, or a grammar; “it involves an alteration of self-image, the adoption of new
social and cultural behaviors and ways of being, and therefore has a significant impact Direct Quotation;
be identical to the original,
on the social nature of the learner.” Aside from this, there are factors inherent in the using a narrow segment of
the source
learner that affect his/her language learning experience. Among these are the learner’s
aptitude, personality, age, gender, motivation, learning style, and strategies.
One important factor that has been studied since the 1980s is anxiety. One can
refer to the term anxiety, which comes from general psychology, as the emotional state
in which people feel uneasy, apprehensive, or fearful. Ellis (1994) explained that learn- Paraphrase:
a passage from source material
ers become either fearful or confident of starting to learn the target language depending into your own words
on the anxiety developed. These types of anxiety are “due to learners’ competitive na-
ture and their perceptions of whether they are progressing or not” (p. 472).
As manifested in most students, anxiety is categorized by MacIntyre and Gard-
Summary:
ner (1991) into three types: trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific anxiety.
shorter than the original and
take a broad overview of the
Trait anxiety is the learner’s likelihood of becoming anxious in a given learning situa-
source material
tion, closely related to personality. A person whose trait anxiety is high would likely
 3

become apprehensive when given communicative tasks. Trait anxiety is responsible for

any impaired cognitive process and memory, leading to avoidance behavior and sever-

al other consequences (p. 87). State anxiety, on the other hand, refers to the occasional

state of being nervous experienced by learners, which is typically momentary and can

differ in intensity and time. Lastly, situation-specific anxiety is highly dependent on the

situation or context. It has been studied using different scales, suggesting that

“respondents are tested for their anxiety reactions in a well-defined situation such as Literature Review
 A systematic and comprehensive
public speaking, writing examinations…” (p. 90). analysis of books, scholarly arti-
cles and other sources relevant
Learning anxiety and language anxiety have been perceived as synonymous and to a specific topic providing a
base of knowledge on a topic.
Literature reviews are designed
used interchangeably by several pieces of literature. However, there seems to be a dis-
to identify and critique the ex-
isting literature on a topic to jus-
tinction between the two concepts. Coutu (2002) explained that “learning anxiety comes
tify your research by exposing
gaps in current research
from being afraid to try something new for fear that it will be too difficult” (p. 104). In
 An investigation providing a de-
scription, summary, and critical
this type of anxiety, learners are uncomfortable because it is a threat to their self-esteem
evaluation of works related to
the research problem and should
and even their identity. Learning anxiety refers to the general anxiety dealt with by
also add to the overall
knowledge of the topic as well as
learners in whatever course or learning activity they are thrown into.
demonstrating how your re-
Continuity in presentation search will fit within a larger field
On the other hand, language anxiety is perceived by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope of study
of ideas
(1986) as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related

to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning

process” (p. 128). Hence, language anxiety encompasses feelings of apprehension and

fearful emotions experienced by an individual when specifically learning or using the

target language apart from his or her mother tongue.

The concept of anxiety in language learning is related to Krashen’s affective filter

 4

hypothesis, which posits that the primary factor affecting language acquisition is input

that the learners receive. Krashen (1982) took a firm position on the importance of in-

put, asserting that comprehensible input is necessary for second language acquisition.

No capitalization in In his affective filter hypothesis, affective factors such as anxiety may correlate to sec-
naming theories
ond language acquisition. Krashen asserted that many affective non-linguistic variables

Prefixes and suffixes that play a facilitative, but noncausal, role in language learning. These are the variables
do not require hyphens
identified: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Furthermore, learners will presum-

ably become successful in language learning by having high motivation, self-

Use of hyphenation for confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety. Otherwise, learners’ affective
compound words
filter will increase and eventually form a ‘mental block’ of information and skills about

the target language. When learners have low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitat-

ing anxiety, the comprehensible input is blocked from reaching the language area of the

mind. If left unaddressed, the acquisition process will soon fail.

Learners with favorable attitudes have low affective filters and tend to seek

more comprehensible input. Moreover, those with unfavorable attitudes are hypothe-

sized to have high affective filters. Even if these learners understand the message, the

input is prevented from reaching the language acquisition device (LAD), which, ac-

cording to Noam Chomsky, is the innate language faculty responsible for language ac-
In-text Citation (Parenthetical)
quisition. As a result, language learning may be impeded (Krashen, 1982).
of a secondary source
The theory also explains that the impediment can be reduced by considering the

learners’ interest, boosting their self-esteem, and providing a low anxiety environment.

According to Krashen (1982), more students will be successful in learning the target
 5

language. In this manner, language pedagogy should include sufficient comprehensible

input and less anxiety-induced learning activities. However, he argued that language

acquisition does not take effect with comprehensible input alone. Language learners

also have to be receptive to that input. Thus, if they are demotivated, distant, or anx-

ious, the possibility is that they screen out the input. This screen is said to be the affec-

tive filter that determines how much a person learns in a formal or informal language

setting. Comprehensible input, then, has to be appropriate and substantial, especially in

low anxiety-provoking classrooms. Learners’ willingness to speak and communicate in

the classroom language is dependent on their affective filter, whether it hinders or

helps students’ ability to receive the needed input for the foreign language learning

process.

Another theory related to Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis is the model on

the cognitive effects of anxiety by Sigmund Tobias (1986). He suggested three stages of

learning tasks focusing attention on the various ways of anxiety arousal that can affect

learning. The stages include input, processing, and output. Anxiety prevents infor-

mation into the cognitive processing system like a filter during the input stage. It some-

how impedes students from learning new forms, words, phrases, and grammar because

they are worried. During the processing stage, anxiety can influence both the speed and

accuracy of learning as attention is distracted from the process of making connections

between new material and existing knowledge structures. Anxiety arousal at the output

stage can influence the quality of second language communication. Anxious learners

report “freezing-up” on an important test or have words on the “tip-of-the-tongue” but

 6

cannot express them. The frustration in such experiences heightens anxiety, creating a

vicious cycle that maintains heightened anxiety even among learners whose proficiency

level is improving.
Use of et al. in
subsequent citations Horwitz, et al. (1986) identified three prevalent sources of language anxiety in
in text
most performance cases: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of nega-

tive evaluation. Communication apprehension is described as the feeling of shyness

when engaging in any communicative discourse. Difficulties in speaking within a small

group or in front of a large crowd, and listening to a spoken interaction indicate that a

learner has communication apprehension. If a learner displays this kind of behavior in

a social situation, all the more he or she will likely find greater difficulty when asked to

use the target language in communicative tasks, especially that performance is closely

monitored.

Test anxiety is a psychological condition in which a learner experiences discom-

fort before, during, or after a test. Consequently, the inability to manage this anxiety

results in poor performance and ineffective learning. Test anxiety can also come from

learners’ lack of awareness of the nature of the exam. If a learner is unprepared for the

exam, he or she might experience test anxiety for that particular exam and cause a long-

term effect on the learner. Moreover, test-anxious learners demand high expectations

on themselves, presuming that anything less than perfect is a failure.

Fear of negative evaluation is mainly concerned with other’s evaluations. A

learner with a high affective filter will avoid communicative tasks because of negative

feedbacks and unfavorable judgment. In a language class, fear of negative evaluation is

 7

commonly displayed through either student’s over-concern with the academic evalua-

tion or competence in the target language.

Also, anxiety has been related to students’ willingness to communicate. Learners

willingly communicate in any conversational interaction because they have developed

a sufficient degree of self-confidence, communicative competence, and immersion in

pleasant communicative situations. All these anxiety variables indicate that the interac-

tive nature of language classrooms and the demand for learners to communicate suc-

cessfully tend to make the language classroom more anxiety-inducing compared to oth-

er classroom contexts.

It must be noted that anxiety is not often seen to be a detrimental factor. Instead,

others have suggested that a certain amount of apprehension can offer a positive effect

and even facilitate learning. Learners who experience anxiety before an examination or

an oral presentation can foster enough motivation and impulse to succeed in a given

situation. Due to the negative connotation attached to anxiety, a few researchers have

opted to use other terms that seemed more neutral. According to Ellis (1994), investi-

gating the relationship between the students’ achievement and anxiety is not a linear

one. In their Achievement Anxiety Test, Alpert and Haber (1960) presented two anxie-

ties. The debilitating anxiety motivates them to escape the new learning task, whereas

facilitating anxiety motivates the students to struggle when they encounter learning

new takes.

Language anxiety, as it influences students’ language learning, can enhance or

inhibit the learner’s academic performance (Alpert & Haber, 1960). Facilitative anxiety
 8

compels learners to become motivated in learning the target language and performing

communicative tasks. This effect of anxiety helps the learners to improve their perfor-

mance. Students tend to exert more effort in their learning and may ‘overstudy,’ which

is typical among anxious students, especially if they think that they are not performing

well academically. Learners tend to work hard in order to pass examinations and pro-

cure a satisfactory grade.

Besides its facilitative effect, language anxiety may also have a debilitative effect

on language learning and performance. Learners tend to run away from the learning

task, which “stimulates the learners emotionally to adopt avoidance behavior” (Alpert

& Haber, 1960, p. 212). Such anxiety makes the students run away from examinations

and avoid communicating with other learners. As learners strive to learn the language,

anxiety hinders their learning development, which affects their academic achievement.

He adds that this is one of the many concerns and issues of language teachers, adminis-

trators, and parents in schools and universities.

According to Spolsky (1989), anxiety as a negative factor is perceived as a sense

of threat to the learner’s self-concept in the learning situation. For instance, a learner

avoids any situation that would make him or her ridicule for an error he or she has

committed. Hence, learners tend to worry about their mistakes and become anxious,

which leads to poor academic achievement.

Related to Spolsky’s idea of anxiety is MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1991) proposed

model that explains the significant role of anxiety in language learning contexts. It pre-

sents “the relationship between anxiety and learning as moderated by the learner’s
 9

stage of developing and situation-specific learning experiences (cited in Ellis, 1994, p.

483).” That is, anxiety is a cause of poor performance in language learning. Given a rel-

atively simple task, learners do not mind anxiety and desire to improve performance

through conscious effort. However, when the demands of the learning tasks increase,

the concerted effort may not cope with the complexity; thus, anxiety will begin to pose

a negative effect. The damage caused by negative anxiety will heighten when demands

imposed are beyond learners’ capabilities. On the other hand, learners with low anxiety

will have a smooth and effective transfer of information. Deficiency in cognitive pro-

cessing is mainly caused by heightened anxiety in most performance tasks.

Over the years, several studies have been done on language anxiety and its effect

on language learning. Among these are studies done by Gerencheal and Mishra (2019),

Related Studies: Phongsa et al. (2017), and Jin, De Bot, and Keijzer (2015).
 Identify areas of prior scholar-
ship to prevent duplication and Selecting the correct tense
Gerencheal and Mishra (2019) examined the anxiety level of Ethiopian university
give credit to other researchers
 Identify inconstancies: gaps in
English major students. The study also aimed to examine if anxiety level is significantly
research, conflicts in previous
studies, open questions left
varied by gender. Background information questionnaire and FLCAS by (Horwitz, et
from other research
 Identify need for additional re-
al., 1986) were distributed to 103 respondents from four EFL classes of two Ethiopian
search (justifying your research)
 Identify the relationship of
universities. Findings of the study showed that the mean anxiety level of the students
works in context of its contribu-
tion to the topic and to other
was 3.47 (SD=0.45) which is above the average i.e., 3.00, and the descriptive analysis
works
 Place your own research within
the context of existing litera- revealed that a large number (83.5%) of students were suffering from some levels of
ture making a case for why fur-
ther study is needed. anxiety ranging from medium- to high level. The analyses also revealed that most stu-

dents had a higher level of communication apprehension compared to the other do-

mains of anxiety proposed by Na (2007). Lastly, the independent t-test analysis re-
 10

vealed that female students were found to have a significantly higher level of English

language anxiety (t=-4.049, p=0.000).

For their study, Phongsa, Ismael, and Low (2017) compared the foreign language

anxiety experienced by monolingual and bilingual tertiary students in the Lao People’s

Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) who were learning English as a Foreign Language. The

monolingual students were learning English as their L2, while the bilingual students

were learning it as their L3. Generally, both groups of EFL learners reported moderate

to high levels of foreign language anxiety in relation to EFL learning. They found out

that bilingual students were reportedly feeling more comfortable to be with the native

speakers of English and had increased self-confidence in using English compared to the

monolingual students. This finding was interesting since the bilingual students had

minimal exposure on the use of English in their everyday conversation and lack of en-

couragement from their English teachers in the learning process. The findings empha-

sized positive multilingual effects in linguistic self-confidence that would help multilin-

gual individuals in reducing foreign language anxiety.

In 2015, Jin et al. investigated the effects of foreign language anxiety on foreign

language proficiency over time within English and Japanese learning contexts. It also

explored the stability of anxiety in English and Japanese over time and the stability of

anxiety across English and Japanese. From the administration of the Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety Scale, the English Proficiency Scale, and the Japanese Proficiency

Scale revealed that anxiety changes a significantly negative, but weak correlation with

the development of overall proficiency and the proficiency in sub skills such as reading
 11

or speaking, for both English and Japanese. The results suggest that the increase or de-

crease of foreign language anxiety over time can lead to an inverse change in either

overall or specific proficiency. In other words, evidence was found to support the inter-
Establishing the
ference of FL anxiety with FL learning. Moreover, the findings also suggest the necessi-
Niche or Gap
It is the area that has not yet been ty to trace the changes of anxiety at the level of individuals or learner groups that can
explored or is under-explored. It
suggests that the research story so help to shed light on proficiency development.
far is not yet complete. Researchers
need to establish the niche by:
To date, no study in Silliman had been done on language anxiety that involved
 counterclaiming (something is
wrong),
students who come from countries where English is merely an adjunct language.
 indicating a perceived lack
(something is missing),
Hence, this study attempted to explore this group of students’ level of language anxie-
 raising a question (something is
unclear), or
ty. This exploration is important since the students’ change of learning context – from
 continuing tradition (adding
something)
that of English as a foreign language to English as a second language – is significant.

This study then involved students in the English Orientation Program (EOP),
Occupying the
offered by the Department of English and Literature. This is a 15-unit program, which Niche or Gap
It explains why the study is being
is designed primarily for foreign students from non-English medium background who conducted and shows how the cur-
rent study fills the niche and brings
desire to be enrolled in any of the undergraduate programs in the university. Designed new perspectives to the field.
 outlining the purposes and
as a preparatory course, the EOP orients students to the academic demands of universi- stating the nature of your re-
search;
ty life, equipping them with the necessary skills to survive.  presenting the hypothesis or re-
search question;
This study attempted to answer the following:  elaborating the significance of
the study; and
 outlining the structure that the
Research Questions 1. What is the level of language anxiety among EFL students in the English
These reflect the variables found in research paper will follow
the research title. These should be Orientation Program?
able to discover problems and op-
portunities from respondents, open- 2. What are the EFL students’ perceptions towards their language anxiety in
ended in nature, and easy to under-
stand and digest with no need for English Orientation Program?
clarification.

Writing the
Method
Contextualizing the
Study Method
The researchers provide back-
ground information about the
study
Data Collection and
Analysis for Research
Question 1
Analyzing the Data
The researchers explicitly show
data analysis steps to persuade
the readers that the results can
be trusted.
12
Answers to these questions provide many pedagogical implications that will enhance
the teaching and learning processes in the EOP.
Method
A mixed method design was used for this study, following the phenomenologi-
Research Design
cal approach. Quantitative and qualitative strategies, techniques, and methods were
used to elicit answers to posited questions. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2014) said that
using this research design “…allows researchers [to] take an eclectic approach to meth-
od selection and the thinking about and conduct of research” (p.17).
The respondents of the study were the students of the English Orientation Pro-
gram of Silliman University during the second semester of Academic Year 2019-2020.
Research Participants,
They came from Japan, Vietnam, Korea, and Tibet. Since there were only ten of them Sampling Procedure, and
Locale
enrolled in the program, they were all included; hence, the study used complete enu-
meration.
To determine the foreign students’ level of English language anxiety, a modified
version of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
Describing the Method
(1986) was used. The said instrument contains 33 items with the following categories: The researchers describe in detail
what were done and how the
communication apprehension, test anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, and anxiety in study was conducted.
an English class. Originally, the statements were phrased in the negative, which the re-
spondents converted into positive to make them easier to process for the respondents
who then indicated their level of agreement in a Likert scale: 4 = strongly disagree, 3 =
disagree, 2 = agree, and 1 = strongly agree. Their responses were averaged and inter-
preted using Table 1.
 13

Table number and

description Table 1
Interpretation of FLCAS’ Scores
Range Description
1.00 – 1.75 Very High Anxiety
1.76 – 2.50 High Anxiety
2.56 – 3.25 Low Anxiety
3.26 – 4.00 Very Low Anxiety

Focused group discussion (FGD) was also done to enable the researchers to cor-

roborate and validate the data from the FLCAS. This allowed participants to explain

and expand their quantitative answers. The FGD also gave the participants a venue to

express their perceptions toward the language anxiety that they experienced in the

EOP.
Data Collection and
Analysis for Research All ten students were invited to the FGD. However, only seven were able to join,
Question 2
as the others had previous appointments on the scheduled day of FGD. The proceeding

was facilitated by one of the researchers, while the other researchers served as a note-

taker and an observer.

Excerpts from the FGD are inserted as is to the results and discussion sections of

the paper when they expand or support ideas.

Participants’ consent was asked in all phases of the data collection process. This

is to ensure that the participants were apprised of the project and of their right to refuse Ethical Consideration

participation.
Making Reference to
Research Purpose Results Writing the Results
The researcher begins the section
In the study, the FLCAS questionnaire results determined the level of language
by referring back to the research
aims or procedure, such as reiter-
ating the kind of data obtained to anxiety through mean computation. Moreover, responses to the focus group discussion
address a specific issue, and the
analysis procedure used.
 14

through thematic analysis corroborated the quantitative data. The FLCAS questionnaire

findings revealed that EFL students had low anxiety in their EO classes; however, select

items that indicate a high level of language anxiety were highlighted and explored in

the focus group discussion. The researchers then identified the recurring ideas and es-

tablished themes and descriptions from the participants’ responses. Furthermore, the

implications drawn from both survey and focus group discussion offer recommenda-

tions to address concerns towards the English Orientation Program.

Table 2
Level of Language Anxiety of English Orientation Students
Language Anxiety Level of Anxiety Interpretation
Communication Apprehension 2.58 Low Anxiety
Fear of Negative Evaluation 2.51 Low Anxiety
Test Anxiety 2.56 Low Anxiety
Making Reference to Anxiety in an English Class 2.66 Low Anxiety
Data or Statistics Level of Language Anxiety 2.58 Low Anxiety
(Research Question 1)
The researcher presents and de-
scribes the data obtained in a sys-
tematic and detailed manner by Table 2 presents the results of each predetermined category and the level of lan-
emphasizing significant data trends
in tables or charts through location guage anxiety among EO students. They obtained a weighted mean of 2.58, implying
statements.
that EO students were not anxious to communicate and take language examinations.

Students were neither afraid of negative evaluation as well. However, select items in

the FLCAS questionnaire were found indicative of students’ language anxiety. These

are enumerated in Table 3.

 15

Table 3
FLCAS Items that are Indicative of High Level of Language Anxiety
Category No Statement Mean
I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my Eng-
1
Communication lish language class. 2.20
Apprehension I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in Eng-
9
lish language class. 2.50
I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in English
3
language class. 2.40
I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages
7
than I am. 2.40
It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English language
13
Fear of Negative class. 2.50
Evaluation I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called on in
20
English language class. 2.50
I always feel that the other students speak the language better
23
than I do. 2.30
I get nervous when the language teacher asks questions which I
33
haven’t prepared in advance. 2.50
8 I am not at ease during tests in my English language class.
2.30
I worry about the consequences of failing my English language
Test Anxiety 10
class. 2.40
21 The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get.
2.50
I understand why some people get so upset over English lan-
11
guage classes. 2.20
Even if I am well prepared for English language class, I feel anx-
Anxiety in an 16
ious about it. 2.50
English Class I feel pressured to prepare very well for English language class.
22 2.50
I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to
30
speak a language. 2.50

Although the FLCAS questionnaire uncovered students’ low language anxiety

Evaluating Results level, the highlighted items indicated relatively high anxiety and could be further ex-
(Research Question 1)
The researcher examines the data
plored. It is also discovered that aside from communication apprehension and test anxi-
obtained by comparing and con-
trasting responses from the partici-
ety, EO students were more worried about receiving negative evaluation from their
pants and highlighting interesting
or surprising results, both positive
teachers and classmates, as presented in Table 3. Hence, these were considered as po-
and negative.
tential topics for the focus group discussion. Substantial inputs would then supplement

Reporting Survey and
Interview Findings
(Research Question 2)
The researcher coherently pre-
sents the data collected by re-
porting response rates, propor-
tions, theme, participants' views,
excerpts from the interview.
Continuity in presentation
of ideas
16
and corroborate the results of the quantitative data. The researchers further outlined
the FGD questions drawn from these statements’ recurring themes, soliciting EFL stu-
dents’ perceptions of their language anxiety in the English Orientation Program.
Based on the findings from the FGD, the researchers established three salient
themes: self-confidence in speaking, test-taking, and language learning. These themes
are considerably aligned to their language anxiety in the English Orientation Program.
Moreover, particular issues were explored and discussed in each theme. The results’
discussion is then substantiated with excerpts from the FGD, theoretical considerations,
and related studies.
Self-confidence in speaking. Items 1,3,7,9,13,16,20 and 33 are directed towards
students’ self-confidence in an English class, especially in speaking. EO students shared
a thorough discussion on their attitude towards speaking, which can be further classi-
fied into three situations: interaction towards classmates, class discussion, and perfor-
mance tasks. All students unfolded that they are confident to interact with their EO
Making Transitions
classmates; however, it is not the same for their Immersion classmates. Most students The researcher logically organizes
and threads the information
admitted that they were less confident to interact in the Immersion class due to person- throughout the section by seam-
lessly moving out from one result
ality and paralinguistic factors (e.g., shy personality, pronunciation variations, speed, to another and summarizing the
results section
etc.).
Moreover, EO teachers frequently held class discussions, so students found it
challenging to talk about or share their review of an article. As elicited from one stu-
dent, class discussions was rather taxing because they “needed to have a good vocabulary,
and speak in front of the class.” Lastly, all students agreed that presentations and other
 17

performance tasks are challenging because they usually memorize their outputs. How-

ever, one student need not worry about these factors because “teachers were helpful in

[building his self-] confidence.”

The findings presented are relatively reflective of MacIntyre and Gardner’s

(1991) concept of trait anxiety. It is patently reasoned that students’ anxiety is devel-

oped based on their personality. To reiterate, students would likely become apprehen-

sive about performing communicative tasks if their trait anxiety is high. EO students

assumed that they need to have a good command of the target language during class-

room interaction. Consequently, they became conscious of speaking and less confident

in communicative situations.

Test-taking. There were five items (8, 10, 11, 21, and 30) addressed towards test-

taking; however, much of the sharing in the FGD transpired around how EO students

prepared, took, and evaluated themselves during an examination. It should be noted

that the EO teachers employed performance-based exams for the students. The focus of

the responses is on presentations, speech delivery, role-plays, and the like.

EO students invested more in preparing for their performance tasks. A few stu-

dents felt excited because these performance tasks “provide opportunities for them to

learn.” They added that there was more time to prepare because they only had fewer

subjects. Among the preparations were reading the material thoroughly, understanding

its meaning and context, and rehearsing for the presentation. However, one student of-

ten felt annoyed because of his lazy attitude; he usually procrastinates, influencing his

anxiety and performance.

 18

Moreover, students acknowledged that no matter how prepared they were, they

still were anxious during the presentation day. Anxiety was brought about by perform-

ing in front of an audience. Students furthered that “many eyes are looking” at them,

making them concerned with the way they presented and the mistakes they might com-

mit. Moreover, how the EO teachers looked at them was quite intimidating, making the

students feel uncomfortable and anxious during the presentation. With that, students

preferred to present in a smaller audience and equip themselves with “enough vocabu-

lary.”

In the FGD, students were given the opportunity to evaluate their performance.

All students claimed that they felt upset with their performance during the midterm

and final examinations. Some of the challenges obtained from their reflection were as

follow: forgetting a line after memorizing the script, lacking emphatic expressions, lo-

cating the appropriate words, losing one’s train of thought, and improvising the dia-

logue because of ‘mental block’. Students blamed this on their anxiety during the

presentation. Moreover, their performance could have been better had they managed

their anxiety well.

The discussion on EO students’ performance anxiety is associated with Ellis’s

(1994) assumption towards anxiety development. It is explained that these anxieties

arise because of “learners’ competitive nature,” making students pressed for satisfacto-

ry performance. Ellis’s (1994) claim somehow underpins Alpert and Haber’s (1960) idea

on facilitative anxiety. EO students indeed were driven to ‘overstudy’ and become pre-

pared for their performance tasks. However, students were found dissatisfied with
 19

their performance despite the preparations. Students perhaps overlooked the factors

that might affect their performance, which is presumably natural among EFL learners.

Language learning. It is relatively rare to perceive anxiety as a contributory fac-

tor in the students’ language learning. Based on the students’ reflections, being anxious

in their EO classes helped them learn English. Given that around 75 percent of the EO

class size is Japanese, the rest who are non-Japanese found it laborious to establish rap-

port and communicate effectively with other students; as the Vietnamese student com-

mented, “everything was strange” during the first few weeks of the program. However,

the students had no choice but to communicate and learn the target language. Anxiety-

induced activities such as conversing with foreign classmates in the English language

somehow benefited them in their language learning.

Students acknowledged several factors that influenced their language learning

despite dealing with language anxiety. All of them affirmed that their classmates in the

Immersion classes helped manage the former’s anxiety. The classmates were there to

assure the students and support them whenever they need help. Also, it was mentioned

earlier that EO teachers were also instrumental. Both teachers and classmates helped

the students cope with their language anxiety and make their language learning in-

sightful and worthwhile.

Writing the Discussion Providing
Discussion Background Information
Insights drawn from both the FLCAS findings and the FGD provided the re- The researcher redirects the dis-
cussion by drawing reference from
searchers with realizations and pedagogical implications towards EFL learners’ lan- the purpose, questions, literature
and/or theory, and methodology.
guage anxiety and the English Orientation Program in general. The existence of lan- This is done to contextualize the
study and, in so doing, to consoli-
date the research space.

Summarizing Key Results
The researcher restates the sum-
mary of the key results by sup-
porting or contradicting previous
findings, indicating an unexpected
outcome, and offering an explana-
tion for the findings.
Continuity in presentation
of ideas
20
guage anxiety among EO students is relatively natural; this can either be classified as
Reference to theoretical
trait anxiety, state anxiety, or situation-situation anxiety, as posited by MacIntyre and underpinnings presented
in the literature review
Gardner (1991). Moreover, the anxiety developed among language learners is caused
by socio-cultural, personality, and pedagogical factors.
As extracted from the discussion, the sense of foreignness primarily influenced
EO students’ language anxiety. Students were grappling with learning English and im-
mersing in the target culture. It is also found that establishing rapport with fellow for-
eign classmates was a challenge, and the struggle of becoming comprehensible to their
classmates pushed them to double the effort of learning the English language. Students
were then managing facilitative anxiety, which would eventually benefit the language
learners (Alpert & Haber, 1960).
On the other hand, students’ personality traits and attitudes played a crucial Commenting on the
Key Results
role in developing language anxiety and language learning. Although it revealed in the The researcher explains the princi-
ples, relationships, and generaliza-
FLCAS findings that students were not anxious in their EO classes, they admitted in the tions implied by the results of the
study. This can be done by answer-
FGD that they became conscious to interact with other classmates and present in class. ing the question: how will the data
address the research problem?
They felt the need to save their self-image and create a positive impression on their
teachers and classmates. That explains why they were less confident and anxious be-
cause of mispronunciation, inappropriate use of words, or mistake in delivering dia-
logues. With this, anxiety comes in as a negative factor, as Spolsky (1989) reasoned be-
cause it poses a threat to the learners’ self-image. Students need to effectively manage
such anxiety, for it could emanate a debilitating effect in the long run, whether for a
specific communicative goal or in their language learning.
 21

Lastly, implications on the pedagogical aspect were acquired from the quantita-

tive and qualitative findings. Language instructors are apparently at the forefront of the

teaching-learning process, and instructional factors aside from content should be close-

ly monitored. EO students opined that emphasis on pronunciation and vocabulary

building would somehow address challenges with their language anxiety. That is, the

more accurate their pronunciation and reading comprehension, the less anxious they

become. The suggestion offered possibilities for the instructors’ modification of learn-

ing contents or teaching strategies. Overall, students were immensely grateful for their

EO teachers’ thoughtfulness and rearing support in the former’s language learning.

The findings and implications are somehow correlated to those of the studies
Reference to related
presented in the previous sections. The study conducted by Jin, De Bot, and Keijzer studies presented in the
literature review
(2015) yielded similar results to the present study, whereas those conducted by Phong-

sa, Ismael, and Low (2017) and Gerencheal and Mishra (2019) instead obtained varying

results. Moreover, Dumaguete-based studies by Carin (2012) and Rubio, Sabanal, and

Banaybanay (2018) also obtained negative findings; however, these were only limited to

the language anxiety of ESL learners. Gleaned from the related studies, language anxie-

ty is not caused by socio-cultural and personality factors alone. There is a need to ex-

plore further other sources of language anxiety in different communicative situations.

Moreover, the attempt to solicit insights from the EFL learners is a significant initiative

in addressing students’ language anxiety and improving the English Orientation Pro-

gram.
 22

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, the students’ level of anxiety does not direct-

ly influence their performance in English Orientation classes. Anxiety in the presenta-

Making conclusion
The researcher culminates the tions has stood out to be the most challenging in their classes as well as their discourses
body of the paper by clearly sum-
marizing the evidence, the with other students in their immersion classes. As they have strived to learn the target
strengths and weaknesses of the
research, explaining any theoreti- language, they expressed facing pressure and anxiety. These EO students have also rat-
cal implications or practical appli-
cations of the work, discussing ed their anxiety low because they want to better present themselves. In fact, majority of
what the researcher might do
differently if s/he would repeat the them disagreed to most of the statements in the FLCAS questionnaire while the FGD
experiment, providing a closing
summary about the significance of says otherwise. There is no doubt then that these foreign students regarded acquisition
the work.
of English language as critical component in the success of their academic life and their

survival living in a foreign country like the Philippines.

Admittedly, this study has its limitations. First of all, it only included a small

number of participants. Therefore, the results cannot be generalizable in all contexts. Stating limitations and
recommendations
However, they reveal insights that can help teachers design their classroom activities to
This section highlights the charac-
help students minimize their language anxiety and heighten their confidence in using teristics of design or methodology
that impacted or influenced the
the language. Second, the instrument used, FLCAS, depends on self-rating. It is very interpretation of the findings from
the study. The researcher develops
likely that the participants rated their anxiety low to better present themselves. It must the limitation by describing each
limitation in detailed but concise
be noted that all of these students come from collectivist cultures, in which the concept terms, explaining why each limita-
tion exists, providing the reasons
of the face is very important. While the FGD elicited a clearer picture of the students’ why each limitation could not be
overcome using the method(s)
actual feelings about learning the English language, the study could have had richer chosen, assessing the impact of
each limitation, and describing
findings had it included more variables. how these limitations could point
to the need for further research.
Despite these limitations, the study found many insights that can help improve
 23

the learning and teaching processes in the EO Program. First, teachers need to continu-

ously employ activities that limit students’ language anxiety. They can do this by im-

plementing many motivational activities. Second, since students expressed perfor-

mance and evaluation anxieties, then teachers may also introduce to the students some

strategies that can help students cope with these.

Writing the References
Reference List
Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal Journal Article

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207-215.

Cohen, A.D. (2010). Focus on the language learner: Styles, strategies and motivation. In Chapter in an Edited Book

N. Scmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 161-177).

Abingdon, Oxon: Hodder & Stoughton.

Reference List Coutu, D. (2002, March). The anxiety of learning. Harvard Business Review, 7(3), 100-107.
It is an alphabetical list of the
sources being referred to in the Ellis, R. (1994). Individual learner differences. In The study of second language acquisi-
body of the paper. Its purpose is to
give credit to authors the research- tion (pp. 471-527). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
er has consulted for his or her ide-
as. All references cited in the pa- Gerencheal, B., & Mishra, D. (2019). Foreign language anxiety among Ethiopian
per must appear in the reference
list, following the APA referencing university EFL students. International Journal of Innovative Technology and
style.
Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) v8 n7C p43-48.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxie-

ty. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Jin, Y., De Bot, K., & Keijzer, M. (2015). The anxiety–proficiency relationship and the Online Journal Article

stability of anxiety: The case of Chinese university learners of English and Japa-

nese. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pldoi:10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.1.3

 24

Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research para-

digm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second language acquisition theory. In Principles and practice in

second language acquisition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). Individual differences in second language learn-

ing. In How languages are learned (4th ed., pp. 60-65). Oxford, United Kingdom:

Oxford University Press.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety

and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41(1), 85-

117.

Phongsa, M., Ismail, S. & Low, H.(2017). Multilingual effects on EFL learning: A

comparison of foreign language anxiety experienced by monolingual and

bilingual tertiary students in the Lao PDR. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1371723

Spolsky, B. (1989). Ability and personality. In Conditions for second language: Introduction

to a general theory (pp. 113-116). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tobias, S. (1986). Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. Research Institute for

Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1-23.

 25
Appendices – Correspondence. If your research in-
An appendix contains supplemen- cluded collaborations with others or
APPENDIX A
tary material that is not an essen- outreach to others, then correspond-
RESEARCH MAP ence in the form of letters, memoran-
tial part of the text itself but which
may be helpful in providing a more dums, or copies of emails from those
comprehensive understanding of Exploring Foreign Learners’ Language Anxiety: The Case of Pre- you interacted with could be included.
Research Title: –
the research problem or it is infor- University English Orientation Students Interview Transcripts. In qualitative
research, interviewing respondents is
mation that is too cumbersome to Researchers: Warlito Caturay, Joan C. Generoso, John Edgar C. Rubio often used to gather information. The
be included in the body of the pa- full transcript from an interview is im-
per. A separate appendix should be Month-Year: March 2020 portant so the reader can read the en-
used for each distinct topic or set Participants: 10 English Orientation Students (2nd Semester, 2019-2020) tire dialog between researcher and re-
of data and always have a title de- spondent. The interview protocol [list of
Environment: Silliman University questions] should also be included.
scriptive of its contents.
Approach: Mixed Method: Phenomenological Approach – Non-textual elements. If there are a lot
Research Ques- Data Col- Data Interpreta- of non-textual items, such as, figures,
Instrument Results tables, maps, charts, photographs,
tions lection Analysis tion
drawings, or graphs, think about high-
What is the lev- Foreign Floating Mean CA = 2.58 EO students
lighting examples in the text of the pa-
el of language Language of Ques- Computa FNE = 2.51 had low level per but include the remainder in an ap-
anxiety among Classroom tion tion TA = 2.56 of anxiety in pendix.
EFL students Anxiety naire AEC = 2.66 the English – Questionnaires or surveys. This is a
in the English Scale Orientation common form of data gathering. Always
Orientation (FLCAS) LA = 2.58 Program. include the survey instrument or ques-
Program? by Horwitz, tionnaires in an appendix so the reader
Horwitz understands not only the questions
asked but the sequence in which they
and Cope
were asked. Include all variations of the
(1986)
instruments as well if different items
What are the Guide Focus Thematic Themes Although were sent to different groups [e.g.,
EFL students’ Questions Group Analysis from the FLCAS re- those given to teachers and those given
perceptions for the Fo- Discus- FGD: sults revealed to administrators].
towards their cus Group sion Self- that students – Raw statistical data. This can include
language anxi- Discussion confidence were not anx- any numerical data that is too lengthy
ety in English in speak- ious, insights to include in charts or tables in its en-
Orientation ing, test- of the FGD tirety within the text. This is im-
portant because the entire source of
Program? taking, and suggested
data should be included even if you are
language that students referring to only certain parts of a chart
learning become ap- or table in the text of your paper.
prehensive – Research instruments. If you used a
before camera, or a recorder, or some other
presentation device to gather information and it is
and during important for the reader to understand
evaluation. how, when, and/or where that device
was used.
– Sample calculations. This can include
quantitative research formulas or de-
tailed descriptions of how calculations
were used to determine relationships
and significance
 26

Appendix Heading APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER Name of Material

SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY
Dumaguete City 6200, Philippines

16 March 2020

Dear Participants:

We, faculty of the Department of English and Literature, are currently conducting a
study titled Exploring Foreign Learners’ Language Anxiety: The Case of Pre-
University English Orientation Students. We have purposely chosen you to be among
the participants for this research.

In line with this, we would like to ask for your cooperation and leisure time to answer
the questionnaire and participate in the focus group discussion. Your inputs and ideas
will significantly assist us in the completion of the study. We assure you that every-
thing you have answered will be kept with the utmost confidentiality and exclusively
used for the study’s purpose.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Warlito Caturay, Jr., PhD

Joan C. Generoso, PhD

John Edgar C. Rubio

 27

APPENDIX C
RESEARCH INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title
This study is titled Exploring Foreign Learners’ Language Anxiety: The Case of Pre-University English Orien-
tation Students.

Researcher
This study is to be conducted by Warlito S. Caturay, Joan C. Generoso, and John Edgar C. Rubio who are facul-
ty of the Department of English and Literature in Silliman University. The researchers can be contacted
through this mobile number 0915******* or email address johncrubio@su.edu.ph.

Purposes of the Research

This study aims to find out the following: level of language anxiety among EFL students in the English Orien-
tation Program and their perceptions towards their language anxiety in English Orientation Program.

Description of the Research

This study is concentrated on the determining the language anxiety of EFL learners through floating of the
FLCAS questionnaires and exploring their thoughts towards their language anxiety through a focus group
discussion.

Potential Benefits
This study will benefit the EO students, instructors, program staff, the Department of English and Literature,
and the College of Arts and Sciences in terms of providing pedagogical implications that will enhance the
teaching and learning processes in the English Orientation Program.

Confidentiality
In the conduct of the study, full confidentiality will be assured. No information that discloses your identity
will be released or published without your specific consent to the disclosure and only imperatively necessary.

Storage and Disposal of Data

The materials that contained the raw information derived from you will be destroyed after data processing
within a given period.

Publication
The results of this study may be published in any form for public and scholarly consumption or used in class-
room instruction to enrich learning and generate more knowledge for future research.

Participation
Your participation in this study must be voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw if you feel uncomforta-
ble in the process of gathering information from you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Informed Consent
Given the information above, I confirm that the potential harms, benefits and alternatives have been ex-
plained to me. I have read and understood this consent form, and I understand that I am free to with-
draw from my involvement in the study any time I deem it to be necessary or to seek clarifications for
any unclear steps in the research process. My signature indicates my willingness to participate in the
study.

_____________________________________________ ___________________
Printed Name and Signature of the Research Participant Date
 28

APPENDIX D
MODIFIED FLCAS QUESTIONNAIRE
A self-report questionnaire adapted from Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986)

PERSONAL PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Instruction: For each item, please write the needed information on the space provided.

Name: _____________________________________ Nationality: __________________

FLCAS QUESTIONNAIRE
Direction: You will find statements about learning English. Please read each statement
carefully and rate 33 statements. Put a check mark on the scale of your choice.

SCALE

STATEMENT Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree

1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I

am speaking in my English language class.
2. I worry about making mistakes in Eng-
lish language class.
3. I tremble when I know that I’m going to
be called on in English language class.
4. It frightens me when I don’t understand
what the teacher is saying in the English
language.
5. It bothers me to take more English lan-
guage classes.
6. During English language class, I find
myself thinking about things that have
nothing to do with the course.
7. I keep thinking that the other students
are better at languages than I am.
8. I am not at ease during tests in my Eng-
lish language class.
9. I start to panic when I have to speak
without preparation in English language
class.
 29

APPENDIX E
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Guide Questions:

1. How do you find your EO classes? How do you feel when you’re having your EO
classes?
2. What activities do you do in your EO classes? What do you feel when your teachers
ask you to do these activities?
3. How confident are you when speaking in your EO class? Why do you feel that way?
4. Was there any instance in your class when you felt nervous or tense?
5. Do you like when your teachers give exams? Why?
6. How do you prepare for the test? How do you feel before the exam?
7. Which one are you more comfortable taking? Written exams or Performances?
8. What is it in test-taking that makes you feel nervous? If you were to rate your nerv-
ousness before taking exams from 1-10, how would you rate it?
9. Are you worried of failing in your EO class?
10. Do you feel conscious when you speak in front of the class? Do you compare your
performance in class with others?
11. Can you recall an instance where you got upset or discouraged of your perfor-
mance?
12. Overall, how would you describe your experience in the program?
 30

APPENDIX F
RESULTS OF THE FLCAS QUESTIONNAIRE
Mean Computation

INTERVAL
Strongly Agree = 1.00 – 1.74 = Very High Anxiety
Agree = 1.75 – 2.49 = High Anxiety
Disagree = 2.50 – 3.24 = Low Anxiety
Strongly Disagree = 3.25 – 4.00 = Very Low Anxiety

SCALE
STATEMENT MEAN
1 2 3 4
1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking
8 2 2.20
in my English language class.
2. I worry about making mistakes in English language
4 5 1 2.70
class.
3. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on
6 4 2.40
in English language class.
4. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the
2 8 2.80
teacher is saying in the English language.
5. It bothers me to take more English language classes. 4 5 1 2.70
6. During English language class, I find myself thinking
3 7 2.70
about things that have nothing to do with the course.
7. I keep thinking that the other students are better at
1 4 5 2.40
languages than I am.
8. I am not at ease during tests in my English language
7 3 2.30
class.
9. I start to panic when I have to speak without prepara-
6 3 1 2.50
tion in English language class.
10. I worry about the consequences of failing my Eng-
1 4 5 2.40
lish language class.
11. I understand why some people get so upset over
8 2 2.20
English language classes.
12. In English language class, I can get so nervous I for-
1 1 8 2.70
get things I know.
13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my Eng-
1 3 6 2.50
lish language class.
2.58
Overall Average
LA
 31

APPENDIX G
TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Participants: English Orientation Students Date of FGD: 12 March 2020

Facilitator: John Edgar C. Rubio Time of FGD:1:05 – 2:13 p.m.
PARTICIPANT RESPONSE
John How is your relationship with your buddies?
John Is your relationship okay?
Everyone nodded; a few responded “Yes.”
John What do you like about your buddy?
Edward I speak with my buddies if I have questions about my assign-
ments and solve or work with my assignment together.
John Do you have a good relationship with your buddy?
Ayami Buddy taught me about vowel and consonants, and other les-
sons.
Scott Buddy taught me English grammar. We play together and eat
dinner in restaurants.
Naoto Buddy taught me grammar and preposition
John Did you ask your buddy to help you with these?
Naoto No, my buddy prepared
Naoto I want to eat mangosteen, so I asked her about it. And she gave
me mangosteen
Kyle Buddy taught me Bisaya (Cebuano).
John Is it helpful?
Kyle A little.
John Did you ask your buddy to teach you Bisaya?
Kyle Yes.
John Why did you want to learn Bisaya?
Kyle Many students in the university speaks Bisaya.
Yong Buddy told me about grammar and meet for dinner.
Gadi Buddy taught me Filipino culture and food. I think I can try
them.
Andrew Buddy helped me do the assignment, and taught me famous Fil-
ipino expression.
Soshi When I have some problem, I asked my buddy. My buddy tried
to help my problem.
John Like what kind of problem?