Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 39 (2011) 202e214

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL

learners
Barley Mak*
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
Received 29 August 2009; revised 18 February 2011; accepted 24 February 2011
Available online 7 May 2011

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a study investigating factors contributing to the speaking-in-class anxiety of a group of 313
Chinese ESL first-year university students in Hong Kong. Results using the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)
of Horwitz et al. reveal five factors leading to the group’s speaking-in-class anxiety. The five factors, identified by factor analysis,
include: speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation; uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers; negative attitudes
towards the English classroom; negative self-evaluation; and fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure. In addition,
survey results show that speaking in front of the class without preparation, being corrected when speaking, inadequate wait-time
and not being allowed to use the first language in a second language class were also identified by the respondents as important
factors leading to speaking-in-class anxiety. The article concludes with pedagogic implications, for second/foreign language
teachers when attempting to create a low-anxiety classroom.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Speaking-in-class anxiety; Chinese ESL learners; Hong Kong university students

1. Introduction and background

This section provides the background to an investigation into the anxieties of Hong Kong Chinese students of
spoken English. Scovel (1978: 134) defines anxiety in language learning as ‘a state of apprehension, a vague fear’.
Given that learners’ feelings about learning affect their ability to learn, research evidence reveals that one of the most
important affective variables in the process is anxiety (Brown, 1987; Chastain, 1976; MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991).
Hurd (2007: 488) believes that ‘language anxiety has become central to any examination of factors contributing to
learning process and learner achievement’ while Arnold and Brown (1999) believe that anxiety in language learning
may possibly be the most pervasive obstruction to the learning process.
Aida (1994), Cheng (1994) and Gregersen (2003) have established a negative association between anxiety and
second/foreign language performance (in this article, second language or L2 is used to refer to both second and foreign
languages). However, the elements of causation between them are not clear (MacIntyre, 1995; Sparks and Ganschow,
2007).

* Tel.: þ852 2609 6912 ; fax: þ852 3163 4205.

E-mail address: barleymak@cuhk.edu.hk.

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.002
 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214 203

1.1. Anxiety and speaking-in-class anxiety

Speaking in class is probably the most frequently cited concern of anxious second language learners (Aida, 1994; Liu
and Jackson, 2008; Mak and White, 1997). Horwitz et al. (1986) call second language performance anxiety ‘commu-
nication apprehension’. There is plenty of research to evidence this phenomenon: Kleinmann (1977) found her Spanish
and Arabic EFL students’ oral performance was positively related to anxiety while Bailey’s (1983: 67) students cited ‘the
stressful, competitive nature of oral public performance’ as the major source of anxiety in their SL classrooms; American
university students of Spanish reported oral presentations, role plays and charades as their most anxiety-provoking
language activities (Koch and Terrell, 1991); Price’s (1991) American students of French reported speaking in the
foreign language created the greatest anxiety while Samimy and Tabuse (1992) found that speaking anxiety was one of
the most important factors in determining the oral performance of American university students of Japanese.
Horwitz et al. (1986) were the first to carry out a detailed examination of the dynamics of foreign language anxiety
by creating and using the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). Young (1990), following Horwitz,
developed a questionnaire to examine more systematically the types of in class, speaking-oriented practices that evoke
anxiety from language students.
Research into language anxiety was first carried out largely with English-speaking learners of Indo-European
languages (e.g. Kleinmann, 1977), and, later, Japanese (e.g. Aida, 1994) mainly in the United States with high-
achieving students (e.g. Aida, 1994; Saito et al., 1999).
Given that earlier studies were conducted in the United States, it would seem worthwhile to consult studies of other
ethnic groups of language learners in different learning contexts. Sila (2010), investigating foreign language anxiety in
Turkish adolescent students, found that anxiety exists in the receptive skills at beginner level but that, as levels of
proficiency increase, anxiety emerges in the productive skills. In the context of non-USA studies of Chinese learners
of English, Mak and White (1997) noted that Chinese learners of English as a second language (ESL) in New Zealand,
experienced greater speaking-in-class anxiety than their American counterparts. In Mainland China, Liu and Jackson
(2008) noted that ESL learners who participated in inter-personal conversations exhibited speaking-in-class anxiety.
In the context of non-USA studies, Yan and Horwitz (2008) identified 12 major thematic affinities (variables) with
Chinese FL learners: regional differences; language aptitude; gender; foreign language anxiety; language learning
interest and motivation; class arrangements; teacher characteristics; language learning strategies; test types; parental
influence; comparison with peers and achievement.
It is possible that these findings may be specific to Chinese students of English. Given the American education
system’s emphasis on self-expression, there is evidence that Chinese students focus more on listening, rote memo-
risation and teacher instructions (e.g. DeHaan, 2006; Kember and Gow, 1989; Levinsohn, 2007; Li, 2007). As
American foreign/second language students’ responses cannot be automatically equated with Chinese students, the
present study thus focuses on the speaking-in-class anxiety of Chinese ESL learners in Hong Kong. Some of the areas
that emerged from qualitative feedback from respondents, beyond those encompassed by Horwitz’s model, and their
implications for learners and teachers were identified as wait-time (the length of time that the teacher is normally
prepared to wait for a student to respond to a question or prompt before selecting another student to answer the
question or moving on), insufficient time for preparation before speaking in class, being corrected in class, and not
being allowed to use the L1 (Butzkamm, 2003; Copland and Neokleous, 2010; Macaro, 2005). These issues are
discussed below in the context of speaking anxiety and their implications for pedagogic practice not only in Hong
Kong but also in other countries.

1.2. Impact of ESL speaking-in-class anxiety on Hong Kong students

Hong Kong has a nine-year free and compulsory education system (6 primary þ 3 secondary years) although most
students complete five years of secondary education and many progress for a further 2 years to prepare for university
entrance, similar to the British system. The system will change in 2012 to a 6 þ 3 þ 3 system with one examination at
the end of 12 years. To compensate for the loss of one year, tertiary education will move from 3 years to 4 years.
Based on the 2006 census, (Hong Kong conducts a census every 5 years) the population is 95% Chinese with 91%
using Cantonese as their L1 and a further 6% claiming they could speak it (Census and Statistics Department, 2007).
English, one of two official languages, is considered an important curriculum element although Liu and Littlewood
(1997) reveal that Hong Kong’s students have few opportunities to speak English in class. English in Hong Kong has
204 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214

an ‘input-poor environment’ where most communication both in and outside the English classroom is in the L1
(Kouraogo, 1993), a major factor contributing to students’ poor English performance and speaking-in-class anxiety.
This paper identifies speaking-in-class anxiety as an important factor in student attitudes to English. This existing
classroom anxiety is exacerbated by Hong Kong’s public examinations in English where the examination’s oral
component requires role plays, discussion of a topic, oral presentations and participation in group discussions. Thus,
existing speaking-in-class anxiety mounts as students practice their speaking skills in class when preparing for public
examinations (Walker, 1997; Fung, 2005; Phillips, 2005).
In 2004, concern about low standards of speaking proficiency in English in Hong Kong led to calls for ways to reduce
Chinese ESL students’ speaking-in-class anxiety levels in early Key Learning Stages. When the Territory-wide System
Assessment (TSA) was implemented to measure competency in Chinese, English and Mathematics at Primary 3,
Primary 6 and Secondary 3 (Grade 9), speaking in English was specifically addressed by the inclusion of group
discussion in the English papers. In 2007, 2008 and 2010, results showed that the attainment rate for Secondary 3 students
was lower than that achieved by Primary 3 and 6 students (Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, 2009).
Comparative figures for 2009 are not available because the TSA was cancelled because of the H1N1 Swine Influenza
outbreak. One reason for the poorer speaking results may be that adolescence, and its concomitant self-consciousness,
contribute to Secondary 3 student anxiety (Ollendick et al., 1994). Sila (2010) noted that when called upon to
demonstrate productive skills, older adolescents in Turkey feel more anxious than their younger peers.
Since no systematic studies of the factors contributing to the speaking-in-class anxiety of Chinese ESL students in
Hong Kong exist, it is important an issue worthy of investigation is explored so that data can be available for policy-
makers to devise ways of mitigating anxiety while improving students’ oral proficiency. The relationships between
speaking-in-class anxiety, wait-time, the use of the first language by Chinese ESL learners and their implications for
pedagogy in Hong Kong and elsewhere have not hitherto been explored. They will be explored in this paper. The
research question is: What are the factors contributing to the speaking-in-class anxiety of Chinese ESL first-year
university students in Hong Kong?

2. Research method

2.1. Participants’s demographic details

Participants were 313 first-year randomly-selected participants from a Hong Kong university taking compulsory
English for Academic Purposes Courses. All but 3.4%, who had a variety of equivalent qualifications, met the
university language entrance requirement for English and Chinese in public examinations.

2.2. Research design and instrumentation

The research was carried out in three phases: the pilot, the quantitative phase (questionnaires) and the qualitative
phase (semi-structured interviews, discussion and participant observation). This paper focuses on the quantitative
findings of the study although qualitative data that emerged during the pilot phase affected the eventual creation and
design of the questionnaire.
The following paragraphs describe the design of the questionnaire, explain the 33 items constituting Part One,
Section A of the questionnaire which replicate those used by Horwitz et al. (1986) in their Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). The FLCAS was adopted in the development of instruments for the present study
since it employs a situation specific approach, an approach which has yielded more meaningful and consistent results
than other approaches in second language speaking anxiety studies (e.g. MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991). Part One,
Section B is used to describe the additional six questionnaire items that were developed after feedback from the
students during the pilot phase of the study. Among the 39 items in Part One of the questionnaire, the majority of the
items (28 items) are positively worded; 11 items are negatively worded in order to serve as a crosscheck. Finally, Part
Two of the questionnaire consists of 8 items, used for purposes of data triangulation. These too arose from students
during the pilot phase.
As summarized above, data collected during the pilot phase, consisting of semi-structured interviews, informal
conversational interviews and participant observation, formed the basis for the English language questionnaire.
Designed to elicit participants’ speaking-in-class anxiety levels, the items were administered during English classes.
 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214 205

Each item contains a statement intended to elicit factors in ESL speaking-in-class anxiety. In Part One, Section A of
the questionnaire, only the first thirty-three items adapted from Horwitz et al. (1986) were included e.g. the terms
foreign language and language were changed to English to match the Hong Kong context. Part One, Section B of the
questionnaire, items 34e39, included 6 items related to concepts such as wait-time, the use of the first language in the
class (Chinese in this context) and error correction. These items, as stated above, were based on information elicited
from participants during the pilot phase of the investigation. All three parts of the questionnaire were administered at
the same time.
Horwitz et al.’s (1986) well-validated FLCAS is based on an analysis of three potential factors of anxiety, namely
communication apprehension, negative evaluation of performance and test anxiety. Their study suggests that language
anxiety can be discriminated reliably from other types of anxiety.
The FLCAS’s thirty-three items use a five-point Likert scale. In the present study, the five-point Likert scale was
used in the pilot study but as most responses were at the mid point, a four-point scale was adopted for the current study
in order to force respondents to commit themselves. Aggregating the ratings on the thirty-nine items in Part one of the
questionnaire derived an anxiety score for each participant. The theoretical range for the 33 items of the FLCAS is
33e165 (the 33-item questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale) while the range for Part One Section A of the present
study is 33e132 (a 33-item questionnaire using a four-point scale).
Part One section B of the questionnaire (items 34e39), includes the additional questionnaire items administered
after student feedback in the pilot phase of the study. These relate to concepts such as wait-time, the use of the first
language in the class (Chinese in this context) and error correction. The theoretical range of this part is 6e24 (a 6-item
questionnaire with a four-point scale).
In Part Two of the questionnaire, participants indicated the degree of anxiety level they experienced when asked to
speak in the English class, when insufficient wait-time occurred and when the use of L1 was prohibited.
The scale ranges from 1 (very low) to 100% (very high) with intervals of 20%. The higher the percentage, the
greater the anxiety. These items were administered at the same time as Part One, Sections A and B.
To test the consistency of participants’ choices and provide triangulation for data reliability, some items, identified
as important by participants in the qualitative pilot data were included in both Part One and Part Two of the ques-
tionnaire, e.g. speaking without preparation, wait-time and using Chinese in an English class. Table 1 reveals this
aspect of the research design regarding triangulation for data reliability.
It should be noted that previous speaking-in-class anxiety studies (for example, Aida, 1994; Horwitz et al., 1986;
Liu and Jackson, 2008; Yan and Horwitz, 2008) did not include wait-time and use of L1. These factors were included
in Part One Section B and Part Two of the questionnaire because participants identified them, during the pilot, as
contributing to speaking-in-class anxiety.

2.3. Data collection procedures

In the pilot, participants found difficulties with a five-point Likert scale in Part One Section A because of mid-point
selection. They also had problems making choices in Part One, Section B. Therefore both sections were modified to
provide four choices. In the main study, a total of 313 first-year university students filled out the questionnaire in their
English lessons.

2.4. Data analysis

The first 33 items in Part One of the questionnaire’s (FLCAS) four-point scale: ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘disagree’
and ‘strongly disagree’ and the six items in Part One Section B were given numerical values of 4 for ‘strongly agree’,

Table 1
Cross referencing of items in Part One and Part Two.
Factors Part One (Sections A and B) Part Two
a Degree of being exposed when speaking 9, 18, 24, 33,35 1, 2, 3
b Wait-time 37 4, 5
c Test Anxiety 2, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22 6, 7
d Use of L1 (Chinese in this context) 39 8
206 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214

3 for ‘agree’, etc. In the analysis, responses of the 11 negatively-worded items were reversed and recoded to ensure
that, in all instances, a high score represented high anxiety in the English class. Missing responses were not counted.
As early as the 1960s, factor analysis was employed in language learning studies (e.g. Carroll et al., 1962;
MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989, 1991; Pimsleur et al., 1962). They have shown consistently that language anxiety is
associated with factors defined by self-rated proficiency, actual proficiency or both with the second language (e.g.
Aida, 1994; Gardner et al., 1984; Liu and Jackson, 2008; MacIntyre et al., 1997). As factor analysis is commonly
employed in SL anxiety studies and this study aims at investigating factors contributing to speaking-in-class anxiety,
factor analysis with varimax rotation was also adopted in the present study. In using Horwitz et al.’s model with
students of Japanese, Aida (1994) notes that principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used because of
conceptual simplicity and ease of description. The purpose of using this method of data analysis is to reduce data and
make interpretation of that data easier.

3. Results and discussion

The Cronbach coefficient alpha referring to the internal consistency (reliability) for the adapted four-point FLCAS
(Part One Section A) computed on participants was 0.91, indicating that the internal consistency of the adapted four-
point scale FLCAS is satisfactorily reliable. Results showed that the participant mean score was 80.09 for the 33 items
using a four-point scale FLCAS (Part One Section A, with a range of 1e132). The figure of 80.09 is very close to the
mean of 82.5. As a percentage, 60.7% (80.09/132) is also very comparable to the 61.3% (101.22/165) reported by
Truitt (1995) on the speaking-in-class anxiety of Korean students learning English as a second language.
The results of the research are presented here in two segments, 3.1 and 3.2. Segment 3.1 presents and discusses the
results of the factor analysis of Part One Section A of the survey which contains items 1e33. Segment 3.2 discusses
Part One Section B of the survey e the results of the analysis of items 34e39. To further validate and triangulate the
results generated from Part One, results from Part Two, indicating the anxiety that emerged in the eight questionnaire
items, will also be discussed.

3.1. Factors contributing to speaking-in-class anxiety identified by factor analysis (items 1e33 of the FLCAS)

In the initial run of rotated component matrix on the first thirty-three items, five factors emerged. Table 2 shows the
loadings of variables on factors, communalities, and the percentage of the variance in Part One, Section A of the
questionnaire. The names given to the factors described here are those given by the researcher.
As Table 2 shows, factor analysis with varimax rotation identified 5 major factors contributing to students’ ESL
speaking-in-class anxiety. The names allocated to the five factors are those created by the researcher.
Factor one contains fifteen items with examples such as ‘I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my
English class (item 1)’ and ‘It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English class (item 13).’ This factor is
named speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation because items loaded on this factor covered both of these
aspects. Analysis indicates that speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation are not wholly independent concepts.
The second factor, with items 8, 11, 14 and 32, is called uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers.
Examples are ‘I would not be nervous speaking English with native speakers (item 14)’ and ‘I would probably feel
comfortable around native speakers of English (item 32)’.
With three items (5, 6 and 17), factor three is categorised as negative attitudes towards the English class e.g. ‘It
wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English classes (item 5)’ and ‘I often feel like not going to my English class
(item 17)’.
Factor 4’s two items (7 and 23), entitled negative self-evaluation, are ‘I keep thinking that the other students are
better at English than I am (item 7)’ and ‘I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do (item 23)’.
Factor five includes three items (10, 15 and 22) and is called fear of failing the class/consequences of personal
failure. Examples are ‘I worry about the consequences of failing my English class (item 10)’ and ‘I get upset when
I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting (item 22)’.
Table 3 presents the ranking of the mean of each of the 33 items (the same as Horwitz et al.’s FLCAS, 1986). The
situations/activities described in items with a mean above 2.5 are regarded as comparatively more anxiety-provoking
than those with a mean below 2.5.
 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214 207

Table 2
The loadings of variables on factors, communalities, and percent of the variance in Part One Section A of the questionnaire.
Label Speech Anxiety and Uncomfortableness Negative Attitudes Negative Fear of Failing the
Fear of Negative when speaking with towards the English Self-evaluation Class/Consequences
Evaluation Native Speakers Class of personal failure
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 h2c
Item 27 0.69a 0.68
Item 3 0.69 0.63
Item 9 0.67 0.55
Item 31 0.64 0.48
Item 4 0.64 0.57
Item 33 0.64 0.53
Item 12 0.61 0.48
Item 13 0.59 0.52
Item 19 0.57 0.46
Item 24 0.57 0.48
Item 26 0.56 0.51
Item 29 0.56 0.57
Item 16 0.55 0.51
Item 1 0.54 0.58
Item 20 0.54 0.45
Item 32 0.74 0.61
Item 14 0.71 0.62
Item 11 0.66 0.57
Item 8 0.65 0.60
Item 17 0.72 0.63
Item 5 0.70 0.57
Item 6 0.66 0.52
Item 23 0.80 0.73
Item 7 0.75 0.70
Item 10 0.68 0.57
Item 22 0.51 0.45
Item 15 0.50 0.51
% of variance 20.4b 11.3 9.9 6.7 6.2
% of total variance accounted for by the solution 54.5
a
Factor loading means correlation between the item and factor. The maximum is 1 (highly correlated), the minimum is 0 (no relation). 0.5 is used
as a cutoff for the inclusion of items in interpretation for the factor. Loading means how much that factor can explain for the variance of that item.
b
Among the 5 factors, they account for 54.5% of total variance for the solution. For each of the factors, the % of variance is shown. The higher the
% of variance, the more important that factor accounts for the solution.
c
The proportion of the variance of the ith item contributed by the factors is called the ith item. h2 means the variance accounted by the 5 factors,
the higher the value, the more suitable the factor chosen.

The mean scores range from 2.11 for item 12 (In English class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know) to 2.81
for item 10 (I worry about the consequences of failing my English class). The mean scores of thirteen items are above
the mean (2.5), ranging from 2.54 to 2.81, implying that these thirteen items provoke higher ESL speaking-in-class
anxiety levels than the other twenty items.
The means of items 11 (2.76), 14 (2.63), 8 (2.61) and 32 (2.57), labelled uncomfortableness when speaking with
native speakers (factor 2) are all above the mean while the means of items 7 (2.6) and 23(2.59) labelled as negative
self-evaluation (factor 4) are also above the mean, meaning that these items are more anxiety provoking than other
items. In factor five, fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure, items 10 (2.81) and 15 (2.58) score
above the mean.
These five factors account for 54.5% of the total variance for the solution. This means that using varimax rotation in
the analysis of data in the FCLAS (Part One Section A) revealed its underlying components e a five factor solution.
Factor one, speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation is the most important factor contributing to second
language learning speaking-in-class anxiety. The five factors contributing to ESL speaking-in-class anxiety are
presented below in level of importance:
208 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214

Table 3
Ranking of the mean of each of the 33 items in Part One Section A of the questionnaire.
Item No. Statement Mean Factor
10 I worry about the consequences of failing my English class. 2.81 5
11* I don’t understand why some people get so upset over English classes. 2.76 2
28* When I’m on my way to English class, I feel very sure and relaxed. 2.76 nil
18* I feel confident when I speak English in English class. 2.71 nil
14* I would not be nervous speaking English with native speakers. 2.63 2
20 I can feel my heart beating when I’m going to be called on in English class. 2.62 1
8* I am usually at ease during tests in my English class. 2.61 2
7 I keep thinking that the other students are better at English than I am. 2.6 4
23 I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do. 2.59 4
15 I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting. 2.58 5
32* I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of English. 2.57 2
33 I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions which I haven’t prepared in advance. 2.55 1
9 I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in English class. 2.54 1
30 I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn in order to speak English. 2.47 nil
5* It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English classes. 2.45 3
2* I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class. 2.44 nil
1 I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my English class. 2.38 1
22* I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for English class. 2.38 5
29 I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the English teacher says. 2.37 1
27 I get nervous and confused when I am speaking English in my English class. 2.31 1
6 During English class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course. 2.31 3
17 I often feel like not going to my English class. 2.31 3
3 I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in English class. 2.29 1
13 It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English class. 2.29 1
31 I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak English. 2.27 1
4 It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in English. 2.25 1
24 I feel very self-conscious about speaking English in front of other students. 2.25 1
26 I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other classes. 2.18 1
21 The more I study for an English test, the more confused I get. 2.18 nil
16 Even if I am well prepared for English class, I feel anxious about it. 2.17 1
19 I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make. 2.17 1
25 English class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind. 2.15 nil
12 In English class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know. 2.11 1
Notes: 4 ¼ Strongly Agree; 3 ¼ Agree; 2 ¼ Disagree; 1 ¼ Strongly Disagree; Mean: (1 þ 2þ3 þ 4)/4 ¼ 2.5; * ¼ with negative loading.

Factor 1 e speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation (20.4% of variance)

Factor 2 e uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers (11.3% of variance)
Factor 3 e negative attitudes towards the English class (9.9% of variance)
Factor 4 e negative self-evaluation (6.7% of variance)
Factor 5 e fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure (6.2% of variance)

3.2. Factors contributing to speaking-in-class anxiety as identified by items 34e39 in Part One, Section B of the
questionnaire

Items 34e39 emerged as a result of student feedback from the pilot study. They were considered important enough
to be included in Part One Section B of the questionnaire. Here, they are analysed and their means identified in the
same way as the other 33 items in Table 3. Table 4 ranks the means of items 34e39.
Results indicate that enough wait-time helps lower the ESL speaking-in-class anxiety of participants because the
mean for item 37 of 3.02 (When I am given enough time to think of the answer, I feel more confident to speak in an
English class) is the highest of all 39 items.
Four items (35, 36, 37 and 39) out of the six added by the researcher for the present study have a mean higher than
2.5, revealing important aspects of speaking-in-class anxiety for Chinese ESL learners of English. In addition to item
37, they are: item 35 (I start to panic when I have to speak in front of the class without preparation in English class.)
 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214 209

Table 4
Ranking of the means of items 34e39 in Part One Section B of the questionnaire.
Item No Statement Mean
37 When I am given enough time to think of the answer, I feel more confident to speak in an English class. 3.02
39 If my English teacher allows me to use Chinese at times, I feel more comfortable to volunteer answers in class. 2.76
36 I will speak more in class if my classmates do not laugh at my mistakes. 2.74
35 I start to panic when I have to speak in front of the class without preparation in English class. 2.52
38a I feel relaxed when speaking English with friends I know. 2.20
34a I like my English teacher to correct me once I make a mistake. 2.04
a
Item with negative loading.

2.52; item 36 (I will speak more in class if my classmates do not laugh at my mistakes.) 2.74; and item 39 (If my English
teacher allows me to use Chinese at times, I feel more comfortable volunteering answers in class.) 2.76.
To further validate and triangulate the results generated from Part One, when asked to speak in English in an
English class, participants were asked in Part Two to indicate anxiety when eight different kinds of activities or
behaviour occurred. The scale ranges from 1 (very low) to 100% (very high) with intervals of 20%. Table 5 presents
the means of speaking-in-class anxiety levels in Part Two.
Results in Part Two show that the most anxiety-provoking items are: speaking with exposure to others; and short
wait-time (the mean for ‘when the teacher is assessing you when you speak’ ¼ 72.9; ‘when speaking in front of the
class’ ¼ 72.2 and ‘when given a short time to think about the answer before speaking in class’ ¼ 69.1.)
These findings are consistent with those in Part One because fear of negative evaluation and speech anxiety also
emerged as one of the five factors contributing to second language learning speaking-in-class anxiety in the present
study. Short wait-time is also a factor of ESL speaking-in-class anxiety. In Part One of the questionnaire, results
indicate that participants feel that enough wait-time helps lower their speaking-in-class anxiety. This perception is
verified by the high mean of 3.02 for item 37 ‘When I am given enough time to think of the answer, I feel more
confident to speak in an English class’.
The mean of item 35 (I start to panic when I have to speak in front of the class without preparation in English class)
is 2.52, slightly above the mean of 2.5, implying that this item provokes higher speaking-in-class anxiety level when
compared to other items with a mean below 2.5. These findings are also confirmed in part two of the questionnaire.
Items 9 (I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in English class) and 33 (I get nervous when the
English teacher asks a question which I haven’t prepared in advance) are similar in nature. Item 35 (I start to panic
when I have to speak in front of the class without preparation in English class) goes beyond items 9 and 33 as the
participants had to ‘speak in front of the class’ without preparation.
The finding that feeling exposed when speaking provokes higher speaking-in-class anxiety is similar to that of
Young (1990) as well as Mak and White (1997). However, results in the present study go further by confirming that
speaking in front of the class in a second/foreign language classroom without preparation is the most speaking-in-class
anxiety-provoking factor.
The present study reveals that although error correction by teachers as part of the learning process is considered
normal, correction by peers or teachers when speaking is regarded as anxiety-provoking when the highlighting of
learner mistakes is used to elaborate teaching points.

Table 5
Mean of percentages in speaking-in-class anxiety levels in Part Two of the questionnaire.
Item No Teacher behaviour or classroom activities Mean (out of 100)
1 Anxiety level when speaking in front of the class. 72.2
2 Anxiety level when speaking in a group of 3 - 4 people in class. 33.6
3 Anxiety level when speaking in a pair in class. 27.8
4 Anxiety level when given a long time to think about the answer before speaking in class. 32.7
5 Anxiety level when given a short time to think about the answer before speaking in class. 69.1
6 Anxiety level when the teacher is assessing you when you speak. 72.9
7 Anxiety level when your classmates are assessing you when you speak. 67.9
8 Anxiety level when you are allowed to use some Chinese in an English class. 26.1
210 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214

The mean of 2.76 for item 39 (If my English teacher allows me to use Chinese at times, I feel more comfortable to
volunteer answers in class) indicates that being allowed to use the L1 at times lowers speaking-in-class anxiety. These
results are confirmed by findings identified in part two.
To summarise, the factors contributing to second language learning speaking-in-class anxiety identified in the
study are:

 speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation;

 uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers;
 negative attitudes towards the English class;
 negative self-evaluation;
 fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure;
 speaking in front of the class without preparation;
 being corrected when speaking;
 inadequate wait-time;
 not being allowed to use the first language in a second/foreign language class.

The most important factor contributing to ESL speaking-in-class anxiety identified in the present study is ‘speech
anxiety and fear of negative evaluation’ accounting for 20.4% of the variance. Speech anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation are identified in some studies as separate factors leading to second language learning speaking-in-class
anxiety (for example, Horwitz et al., 1986; Liu and Jackson, 2008; MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989). In the present
study, however, the label of ‘speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation’ is given to factor one because items
included in this factor indicate a student’s apprehension about speaking in an English class (items 9 and 33) and fear of
embarrassment when negatively evaluated by others (items 13 and 31).
Although it may appear initially that two separate concepts exist (speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation),
they are, in fact, linked. They overlap and are not wholly independent of each other. It can be asserted that they are
probably two labels describing one phenomenon in a language-learning situation. This assertion is supported by
MacIntyre and Gardner (1991), who report that McCroskey’s (1984) Personal Report of Communication Appre-
hension Scale as well as Watson and Friend’s (1969) Fear of Negative Evaluation measure loaded on the same factor.
Of the 15 items in the factor entitled speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation (items 27, 3, 9, 31, 4, 33, 12, 13,
19, 24, 26, 29, 16, 1, and 20) that account for 20.4% of the variance, thirteen also load on the same single factor
(speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation) in Aida’s study. Item 19 in the present study is classified by Horwitz
et al. (1986) as ‘test anxiety’ and does not load on any factors in Aida (1994). This is unsurprising as item 19 can
indeed be classified as ‘test anxiety’ or ‘fear of negative evaluation’, depending on the participants’ viewpoint. Item 26
(I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other class) loads on the factor ‘fear of failing the class/
consequences of personal failure’ in Aida’s (1994) study. It is just as likely, it can be argued, that participants’ anxiety
is aroused by ‘fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure’ or ‘fear of negative evaluation’, depending on
the participants’ view of item 26.
Four items (32, 14, 11 and 8) in the factor entitled uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers account
for 11.3% of the variance and are negatively associated with factor two. All items except item 8 (I am usually at ease
during tests in my English class) load on the same factor, using the same label, in Aida’s (1994) study. Though this
factor is not the second, but the third most important factor with a variance of 5.6% in Aida’s (1994) study, the results
in the two studies are comparable and indicate that speaking with native speakers provokes speaking-in-class anxiety
in SL/FL learners.
Item 8 (I am usually at ease during tests in my English class) loads on ‘speech anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation’ in Aida’s (1994) study and is categorised as test anxiety by Horwitz et al. (1986) as well as Liu and Jackson
(2008). The difference in category labels can be accounted for because the contacts/communications between
participants in the present study and native speakers of English usually happen in the classroom when the native
speaker is both teacher and assessor, making it difficult to specify whether the speaking-in-class anxiety is aroused by
test anxiety as suggested by Horwitz et al. (1986) and Liu and Jackson (2008) or feeling uncomfortable speaking with
native speakers of English as suggested in the present study.
Three items (17, 5 and 6) load on the factor negative attitudes towards the English class, accounting for 9.95% of
variance. Item 5 is negatively associated with this factor. Items 5 (It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more
 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214 211

English classes) and 17 (I often feel like not going to my English class) also load on the factor with the same label in
Aida’s (1994) study (with a variance of 4.7%). Item 6 (During English class, I find myself thinking about things that
have nothing to do with the course) is categorised by Horwitz et al. (1986) as ‘test anxiety’ while items 5, 6 and 17 are
unloaded in Liu and Jackson (2008).
MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) as well as Aida (1994) state that students’ attitudes towards a new language can be
affected by their previous learning experiences. This study confirms their findings but also provides evidence that
students’ negative attitudes towards the language class can contribute to their overall levels of second/foreign
language anxiety.
Two items (23 and 7) load on the fourth factor, negative self-evaluation, accounting for 6.7% of the variance. Both
items are categorised by Horwitz et al. (1986) as ‘fear of negative evaluation’ and load on Aida’s (1994) factor ‘speech
anxiety and fear of negative evaluation’. The difference in terms of labels is not surprising because it can be argued
that ‘negative self-evaluation’, identified in the present study, can be a sub-category within the concept ‘fear of
negative evaluation’ used in other studies.
The fifth factor, fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure, includes three items (10, 15 and 22)
accounting for 6.2% of the variance. Item 22 (I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for English class) is negatively
associated with factor five. Both items 10 (I worry about the consequences of failing my English class) and 22 load on
the factor with the same label in Aida’s (1994) study. Item 15 (I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is
correcting) which does not load on any factors in Aida’s study, is categorised as ‘fear of negative evaluation’ in
Horwitz et al. (1986), implying that ‘fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure’ can be part of Horwitz’s
‘fear of negative evaluation’. The participants in the present study, however, are very much concerned about the
consequences of failing English. Indeed, passing the English course is a prerequisite for graduation.
Horwitz et al. (1986) and Liu and Jackson (2008) have identified test anxiety as a component of second/foreign
speaking-in-class anxiety. Results in the present study, however, do not support this. The findings of the present study
are similar to the results of some anxiety studies e.g. Aida (1994) and MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) for whom
speaking-in-class anxiety and peer evaluation are part of the elements of foreign language classroom anxiety but for
whom test anxiety is not. Test anxiety may be a general problem, non-specific to the language classroom.
The test anxiety findings here are consistent with MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) who conclude, as does Aida (1994:
162), that test anxiety is a general anxiety problem e unlike Horwitz et al. (1986). ‘Speech anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation are considered relatively enduring personality traits whereas test anxiety is regarded as a state marked by
temporary reactions to an academic or evaluation situation’.

4. Conclusions and implications

In this concluding section, the implications of the findings of this study are discussed not only for Chinese speakers
of English but also for non-Chinese learners.
Second language learning speaking-in-class anxiety in the Chinese context warrants attention because in addition
to confirming previous findings (for example, Aida, 1994; Horwitz et al., 1986; Liu and Jackson, 2008), this study has
also provided evidence that students’ negative attitudes towards the language class can contribute to their overall
levels of second/foreign language anxiety. It reveals that negative self-evaluation is an important factor leading to
speaking-in-class anxiety. Negative attitudes can affect oral performance and grades when meeting compulsory
requirements to speak and contribute to role-plays and discussions in a positive manner. These requirements are
unlikely to abate, with more and more emphasis placed on the ability to communicate satisfactorily so all language
teachers, not just teachers of Chinese students, should endeavour to mitigate the effects of anxiety wherever possible.
Given that the results reveal that affective variables such as anxiety influence learners’ L2 performance the impli-
cations are that all language professionals need to respond not only to students’ linguistic but also affective needs, by
attempting to provide a secure and comfortable learning atmosphere, free from fear of speaking and conducive to risk
taking in the target language.
One finding that has strong implications for all teachers of EFL, but particularly for teachers of Chinese-speaking
EFL students, is the influence of appropriate wait-time in reducing anxiety. Wait-time, originally identified for science
students by Rowe (1974a, 1974b, 1986), is culturally significant for Chinese students in the L2 language classroom.
The Chinese students are clear that they usually require longer wait-time to speak up and respond than their European
counterparts because ‘group unity’ and ‘face’ are important elements of their culture. These two elements are
212 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214

threatened by an inability or reluctance to speak when they feel pressured. Tsui (2001: 124), when investigating
classroom interaction, concludes that ‘not giving enough wait-time for learners to process a question and formulate an
answer is another reason for lack of response from students’. However, she also finds that ‘.excessive lengthening of
wait-time exacerbated anxiety amongst students’ (Tsui, 2001). The anxiety caused by the long-standing but invidious
practice of calling upon a student to respond to a teacher initiation and then making them stand if they fail to answer
until after the teacher becomes exasperated, moves on and asks her question of another student, cannot be over-
estimated. Falvey (personal communication) cites the case of a sixteen-year-old female student from a secondary
school in the New Territories of Hong Kong who ‘confessed’ to avoiding ever speaking English in class. She was so
anxious about speaking that she was willing to suffer the humiliation of standing exposed to the teacher and her
classmates for long periods in every English classroom during her five years of secondary education.
The use of learners’ L1 in the second language classroom is a controversial issue in applied linguistics in all
language teaching situations and used to be frowned upon. This perspective, however, has altered somewhat in recent
years (Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001) with researchers such as Butzkamm (2003), Brooks-Lewis (2009), and Macaro
(2005), promoting the advantages of using L1. The present study supports the views of Cook (Ibid) and Turnbull
(Ibid). It finds that allowing learners to use their L1 in the ESL classroom reduces speaking-in-class anxiety because
the use of the L1 will build up learners’ confidence and, in turn, encourage speaking. Teachers of all languages should,
however, note that the amount of L1 to be used should only be enough in order to ensure that adequate exposure to the
target language also takes place. In this context, Copland and Neokleous (2010) draw attention to the use of the L1 in
Cyprus by noting that teachers feel guilt abut the use of L1 in the L2 classroom. Furthermore, they reveal that what
teachers say about the use of L1 and what they do, differ.
It is generally recommended that L1 use should be minimized gradually as SL confidence and proficiency develop.
Over-dependence on L1 is not advised. Indeed, in the course of establishing language benchmarks for primary and
secondary teachers of English in Hong Kong, Coniam and Falvey (2002) found that excessive use of the L1
(Cantonese) correlated strongly with lack of teacher L2 proficiency.
The study found that being corrected by peers or teachers when speaking and using student mistakes to elaborate
teaching points were anxiety-provoking. Establishing a balance between accuracy and fluency is a delicate part of
a teacher’s repertoire of strategies. A focus on fluency to build up confidence may be preferable to an undue focus on
accuracy. Using student errors as an immediate stimulus for a teaching point is unlikely to be productive so teacher
development programmes that use teachers’ reflective practices may well benefit both the teachers and their students
(Alexander, 2006). It would appear that the practice of using errors to illustrate syntactic points should only be
recommended when the focus of the class and the activities being used by the teacher is accuracy.
It is generally accepted that large amounts of teacher talk and limited student talk neither facilitate nor encourage
students’ speech in the classroom (Ma, 2006; Lei, 2009). Using the target language in front of the class can be
frustrating as the process places linguistic, cognitive and psychological demands on the learner. It is therefore rec-
ommended that teachers should ensure that learners are given time to prepare the speech/presentation before being
asked to speak in front of the class.
Test anxiety is not a factor leading to Chinese ESL speaking-in-class anxiety. Test anxiety appears to be a general
problem, part of social anxiety and not specific to the Chinese learners English language classroom.
It can thus be seen that this study has a number of implications not only for Chinese teachers of English but also for
non-Chinese teachers of language. The study also has implications not only for tertiary education but also for
secondary and possibly primary language education.

5. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Only the relationships between second language learning speaking-in-class anxiety and factors which can be
controlled within the classroom setting have been investigated. Factors such as improvements in language proficiency
from private tutorials, self-access learning and discussion outside class cannot be controlled and have not been
considered.
Inferences drawn from the results of this study are limited because the participants were solely first-year under-
graduate students in one university in Hong Kong. To make the results more generalizable, the study could be
replicated with students in other universities, both in Hong Kong and overseas, to investigate whether cultural
background plays a role in speaking-in-class anxiety levels. In addition, the interesting phenomenon of wait-time
 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214 213

could be investigated for Taiwanese, Korean and Japanese students to see whether their cultures require face-saving
behaviour in the classroom.
The present study has focused on students’ responses. It is possible that investigating the teachers’ perspective on
anxiety creation through qualitative data such as classroom observations, teacher reflections and teacher interviews
would deepen our understanding of speaking-in-class anxiety.
To conclude, the present study has deepened our understanding of speaking-in-class anxiety levels of Chinese ESL
students and the factors contributing to them from the students’ perspectives and provided implications for wider
applications. Using these findings, language teachers and educators can, hopefully, adopt and sustain the kinds of
teaching behaviour and classroom practices which reduce speaking-in-class anxiety and promote spoken English in
the language classroom which in turn would, ideally, lead to better attitudes and improved oral performances and
educational outcomes for our students.

References

Aida, Y., 1994. Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: the case of students of Japanese. Modern
Language Journal 78 (2), 155e168.
Alexander, L., 2006. Did you know that your command of English is a delicate balance between accuracy and fluency. http://www.
linguaphonegroup.com/learningadvice/accuracyfluency.cfm Accessed October 23 2010.
Arnold, J., Brown, H.D., 1999. A map of the terrain. In: Arnold, J. (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 1e24.
Bailey, K.M., 1983. Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning. In: Seliger, H.W., Long, M.H. (Eds.), Classroom Oriented
Research in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, New York, pp. 67e102.
Brown, H.D., 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Brooks-Lewis, K.A., 2009. Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied
Linguistics 30 (2), 216e235.
Butzkamm, W., 2003. We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning
Journal 28 (1), 29e39.
Carroll, J., Bennett, J.M., Hanna, G., 1962. The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In: Glaser, R. (Ed.), Training and
Research in Education. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 87e136.
Census and Statistics Department, February 22, 2007. Press Release: Summary Results of the 2006 Population By-census Announced. Accessed
on 22.08.08 on. Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR Government, Hong Kong. http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200702/22/
P200702220129.htm.
Chastain, K., 1976. Affective and ability factors in second language learning. Language Learning 26, 377e389.
Cheng, Y.K., 1994. The effects of attitudinal, motivational, and anxiety factors on the English language proficiency of Taiwanese senior high
school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Coniam, D., Falvey, P., 2002. Selecting models and setting standards for teachers of English in Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Pacific Commu-
nication 12 (1), 13e27.
Cook, V., 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (3), 402e423.
Copland, F., Neokleous, G., 2010. L1 to teach L2: complexities and contradictions. ELTJ first published online September 22, 2010.
DeHaan, R.L., 2006. Education for innovation: a look at China and the U.S. China Currents 5 (3) Retrieved October 2010 from. http://www.
chinacenter.net/China_Currents/fall_2006/cc_dehaan.htm.
Falvey, P. Personal communication.
Fung, C.K.W., 2005. A study of the effect of Anxiety in a drama-oriented second language classroom. Unpublished MA thesis. The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Gardner, R.C., Smythe, P.C., Lalonde, R.N., 1984. The Nature and Replicability of Factors in Second Language Acquisition. In: Research Bulletin
605. The University of Western Ontario, Ontario, London.
Gregersen, T., 2003. To err is human: a reminder to teachers of language-anxious students. Foreign Language Annals 36, 25e32.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, 2009. Report of the 2008 territory-wide system assessment. Retrieved on 12.09.2010 from.
http://www.bca.hkeaa.edu.hk/web/TSA/en/2009tsaReport/eng/Ch7c_S3_ENGLISH_LANGUAGE_E.pdf.
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., Cope, J.A., 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70 (2), 125e132.
Hurd, S., 2007. Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: the distance factor as a modifying influence. System 35,
487e508.
Kember, D., Gow, L., 1989. A model of student approaches to learning encompassing ways to influence and change approaches. Instructional
Science 18 (4), 263e288.
Kleinmann, H.H., 1977. Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 27 (1), 93e107.
Koch, A.S., Terrell, T.D., 1991. Affective reactions of foreign language students to natural approach activities and teaching techniques. In:
Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, pp. 109e126.
Kouraogo, P., 1993. Language learning strategies in input-poor environments. System 21 (2), 165e173.
214 B. Mak / System 39 (2011) 202e214

Levinsohn, K.R., 2007. Cultural differences and learning styles of Chinese and European trades students. Institute for Learning Styles Journal
1, 12e20.
Lei, X., 2009. Communicative teacher talk in the English classroom. English Language Teaching 2 (1), 1e5. www.ccsenet.org.
Li, R., 2007. When West Meets East: Communicative Language Teaching in China. Unpublished MA Thesis. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young
University.
Liu, M., Jackson, J., 2008. An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern
Language Journal 92 (1), 71e86.
Liu, N.F., Littlewood, W., 1997. Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System 25 (3), 371e384.
Ma, X., 2006. Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. MA Thesis. School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Chonquing Normal
University and Yangze Normal University, China.
Macaro, E., 2005. Code switching in the L2 classroom: a communication and learning strategy. In: Llurda, E. (Ed.), Non-native Language
Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. Springer, New York.
MacIntyre, P.D., 1995. In seeing the forest and the trees: a rejoinders to sparks and ganschow. Modern Language Journal 79 (2), 245e248.
MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1989. Anxiety and second-language learning: toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning 39 (2),
251e275.
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), 85e117.
MacIntyre, P.D., Noels, K.A., Clement, R., 1997. Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: the role of language anxiety. Language
Learning 47, 265e287.
Mak, B.S., White, C., 1997. Communication apprehension of Chinese ESL students. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (1), 81e96.
McCroskey, J.C., 1984. The communication apprehension perspective. In: Daly, J., McCroskey, J. (Eds.), Avoiding Communication: Shyness,
Reticence, and Communication Apprehension. Beverly Hill. Sage, California, pp. 13e38.
Ollendick, T.H., King, N.J., Yule, W. (Eds.), 1994. International Handbook of Phobic and Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Plenum
Press, New York.
Phillips, L., 2005. A study of the impact of Foreign Language Anxiety on tertiuary students’ oral performance. Unpublished MA Thesis. Hong
Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Pimsleur, P., Mosberg, L., Morrison, A.L., 1962. Student factors in foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal 46, 160e170.
Price, M.L., 1991. The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: interviews with anxiety students. In: Horwitz, E., Young, D. (Eds.),
Language Anxiety: From Theory to Research to Classroom Practices. Prentice-Hall, New York, pp. 101e108.
Rowe, M.B., 1974a. Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: part one e wait time.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11 (2), 81e94.
Rowe, M.B., 1974b. Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: part two e rewards.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11 (2), 219e308.
Rowe, M.B., 1986. Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education 37 (1), 43e50.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E.K., Garza, T.J., 1999. Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal 83 (2), 202e218.
Samimy, K.K., Tabuse, M., 1992. Affective variables and a less commonly taught language: a study in beginning Japanese classes. Language
Learning 42 (3), 377e398.
Scovel, T., 1978. The effect of affect on foreign language learning: a review of the anxiety research. Language Learning 28 (1), 129e142.
Sila, A.Y., 2010. Young adolescent students’ foreign language anxiety in relation to language skills at different levels. The Journal of International
Social Research 3 (11), 83e91.
Sparks, R.L., Ganschow, L., 2007. Is the foreign language classroom anxiety scale measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language
Annals 40 (2), 260e287.
Tsui, A., 2001. Classroom interaction. In: Carter, R., Nunan, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Truitt, S.N., 1995. Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: a study of Korean University students learning English. Unpublished Doctoral
thesis, The University of Texas: Austin.
Turnbull, M., 2001. There is a role for rhe L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but.. Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (4),
531e540.
Walker, E., 1997. Foreign Language Anxiety in Hong Kong secondary schools: Its relationship with age-related factors, school form and self-
perception. Unpublished PhD thesis. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Watson, D., Friend, R., 1969. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33 (4), 448e457.
Yan, J.X., Horwitz, E.K., 2008. Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their
achievement in English: qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning 58 (1), 151e183.
Young, D.J., 1990. An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals 23 (6), 539e553.
Marshall University
Marshall Digital Scholar
Theses, Dissertations and Capstones

2015

ESL Students' Language Anxiety in In-Class Oral

Presentations
Yusi Chen
chen62@marshall.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, Higher Education Commons,
Psychology Commons, and the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons

Recommended Citation
Chen, Yusi, "ESL Students' Language Anxiety in In-Class Oral Presentations" (2015). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 962.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and
Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact zhangj@marshall.edu.
ESL STUDENTS’ LANGUAGE ANXIETY IN IN-CLASS ORAL PRESENTATIONS

A Thesis submitted to
the Graduate College of
Marshall University
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in English
by
Yusi Chen
Approved by
Dr. Ryan Angus, Committee Chairperson
Dr. Hyo-Chang Hong
Dr. Mimi Li

Marshall University
December 2015
ii
© 2015

iii
 Yusi Chen
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to extend my thanks to Dr. Ryan Angus, Dr. Hyo-Chang Hong, Dr. Mimi Li, Dr.

Kateryna Schray and Dr. Jun Zhao. Without the patient consideration of each these thoughtful

people, this project would not exist as it does today.

First of all, I am grateful for the unwavering encouragement of Dr. Angus, who acted

as a guide throughout most of my graduate work, and who has always been a source of

inspiration. The effect of his encouragement and patience is beyond expression.

Then, I would like to thank Dr. Hong for being there whenever I needed him. He

helped me revise the introduction to this project, keenly challenging my notions of

grammatical choices. He has shared with me not only for his knowledge of the thesis process,

but his experiences in the second/third language learning/teaching.

This project began as a final assignment in Dr. Zhao’s Research Methodology course

in the summer of 2014. Dr. Zhao’s inspiration and Dr. Li’s guidance of this project helped me

get the Marshall University Research Scholars Award in the winter of 2014. Dr. Li has been

incredibly supportive and encouraging. She has conscientiously trained me in second

language research and ignited my passion to present at TESOL conferences.

I am extremely grateful to Dr. Schray for guiding me in this thesis revision, and

providing me with unwavering support and very insightful and constructive feedback on my

study. I greatly admire her knowledge and expertise.

Moreover, I truly appreciate the warm support from the INTO Marshall University. I

am very thankful to Dr. Sumeeta Patnaik for her wonderful instructions. I extremely

v
appreciate her very helpful advice and assistance with the research. A bundle of heartfelt

thanks also go to Jiahao, Yicheng, Hao, Lei, Jingxuan and other INTO Marshall students.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to my dear family and friends in China and the

United States who endlessly believed in me and whose support help me go through the

writing of this thesis. I would particularly like to thank my husband Zedong Peng for his love,

encouragement, and patience throughout this difficult semester. I dedicate this work to my

beloved parents Hongshu Chen and Yanan Zhou who have encouraged my quest for

knowledge all my life.

vi
 CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... x

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xi

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. xii

Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Overview and Purpose of the Study............................................................................. 6

Organization of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................. 9

Literature Review................................................................................................................ 9

Language Anxiety in the Language Learning Process ................................................. 9

The Conceptualization and Theoretical Framework of Language Anxiety ............... 13

Developments of the Language Anxiety .................................................................... 16

Previous Research and Current Issues about In-class Presentations ....................... 19

Insights from Previous Research ............................................................................... 22

Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................................. 26

Methods ........................................................................................................................... 26

Qualitative Case Study............................................................................................... 26

Research Context ....................................................................................................... 28

Participants ................................................................................................................. 30

Role of Researcher ..................................................................................................... 32

vii
 Data ............................................................................................................................ 33

Pre-Task Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 34

Post-Task Interview ............................................................................................ 36

Observation ......................................................................................................... 37

Comment Data .................................................................................................... 38

Research Instruments and Corresponding Research Questions .......................... 38

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 40

Analysis for Pre-Task Questionnaire .................................................................. 41

Analysis for Post-Task Questionnaire ................................................................ 41

Analysis for Comment Data ............................................................................... 42

Analysis for Observation .................................................................................... 42

Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................................. 44

Results ............................................................................................................................... 44

Findings ................................................................................................................... 44

Findings of the First Research Questions ......................................................... 44

Participants’ in-class speech anxiety scale. .................................................. 44

Participants’ presentation performances ...................................................... 47

Connections (speaking anxiety & presentation performance) ................... 48

Findings of the Second Research Questions ....................................................... 50

The subjective factors .................................................................................. 51

The objective factors .................................................................................... 53

viii
 Findings of the Third Research Question ........................................................... 55

Summary .................................................................................................................... 57

Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................ 60

Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 60

Discussion .................................................................................................................. 60

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 64

References .............................................................................................................................. 70

Appendix A: Letter from Institutional Research Board ......................................................... 74

Appendix B: Study 1 Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 75

Study 2 Interview ........................................................................................... 77

Vita ......................................................................................................................................... 78

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

1 Topics of Two Presentations for Participants ............................................................. 30

2 Participants’ Background Information ....................................................................... 32

3 The Purpose and Construction of Pre-Task Questionnaire ........................................ 35

4 Research Instruments and Corresponding Research Questions. ................................ 39

5 Participants’ Speaking Anxiety Scales (questionnaire data) .................................... 44

6 Students’ In-class Speaking Anxiety Scales (interview and questionnaire data) ..... 46

7 Students’ Presentation Performance .......................................................................... 47

8 Comment Data for Student H and Y’s Presentation Performance ............................. 48

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

1 The Percentage of Chinese Studying at INTO Marshall in the spring, 2015 .......... 29

xi
 ABSTRACT

This case study aims to explore connections between ESL students’ speaking-in-class anxiety

and their presentation performance, factors causing oral anxiety during presentations, and

strategies to regulate L2 students’ speaking anxiety in presentations. Findings of this research

contribute to the investigation of speaking-in-class anxiety from non-English major L2

students. Three Chinese ESL students enrolled in the INTO program at Marshall University

individually gave two presentations in speaking classes. Triangulated data sources were

collected to delve into three research questions. The results suggest that L2 students’ anxiety

forms mental blocks during presentations, but it has less influence on their presentation

performance. Based on this relationship, internal factors from participants and environmental

factors from their physical contexts causing language anxiety are investigated with relevant

possible coping strategies. These findings further shed some pedagogical insights on

presentation task designs, teachers’ scaffolding of ESL students’ presentation skills, and

students’ self-regulation strategies on their oral anxiety.

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Anxiety has been explored by psychologists and linguists since the 1970s. A large

number of research findings regarding anxieties from the perspective from psychology and

linguistics have contributed to foreign language teaching pedagogy. Anxiety from the

perspective of the former is defined as subjective feelings relating an arousal of automatic

nervous system, such as tension, apprehension, nervousness and worry (Spielberger, 1983).

These subjective anxious feelings also carry over into the area of language. For example,

linguists regard anxiety as “a state of apprehension, a vague fear” in students’ language

learning (Scovel, 1978). Being affected by vague fear, learners usually shape affective blocks

in the process of developing target language proficiency. During this learning process, severe

anxious reaction is formed because of negative learning experiences and perceptions from

students. Such effects of foreign language anxiety could not easily be described or defined

because the general approach to identifying foreign language anxiety was not explored

adequately. This problem has been dealt with classifications and descriptions of two

approaches related to language anxiety from Horwitz and Young (1991): language anxiety is

a transfer of anxiety from another domain, and something about language learning makes

language anxiety a unique experience. Grounded on both the approaches, methods to define

language anxiety have been established.

The establishment of the two general approaches builds the foundation for researchers

concerned with the effect of language anxiety on second language (L2) production.

According to these two general approaches, language anxiety can be a unique experience,

1
which moves from other domains (Horwitz &Young, 1991b). The first approach shows that

language anxiety stems from another area, such as test anxiety and speaking anxiety. A

number of studies conducted on anxiety and language learning with this “anxiety transfer

approach” have shown positive, negative and near zero correlations between anxiety and L2

language learning in French, German, and Spanish (Cited in Young, 1999).

On the other hand, the second approach shows that general anxiety can be eventually

delineated into distinct types. Thus, language anxiety can be identified as the worry and

negative emotional reaction aroused in second language acquisition (Young, 1999). Although

the two approaches were created to describe anxiety, early studies yielded conflicting results

regarding language anxiety (Scovel, 1978). Grounded on the issues surrounding language

anxiety above, an increasing number of researches have been conducted to prove that

language anxiety results from communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation by

others, and test anxiety (Horwitz et.al., 1986; Aida, 1994; Mak, 2011). Although these three

language anxiety sources have been extensively researched, language anxiety still tends to be

regarded as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, behaviors regarding

classroom language learning from the unique language learning process” (Horwitz et. al.,

1986) rather than “simple transfer of anxieties to the language classroom” (Scovel, 1978).

These emphases on the effect of language anxiety such as beliefs and behaviors have

attracted researchers to explore its connections to the process of learning. Research findings

from these studies were beneficial for the development of language in the classroom.

On the basis of Horwitz and her associates’ theories, a model was built by MacIntyre

and Gardner (1989) to investigate the development of language anxiety during learning

2
processes. This model is supported by psychological theories to show that language anxiety

occurs when a student acquires the second language. Another study conducted by Aida (1994)

in L2 settings tested Horwitz and associates’ construct of foreign language anxiety by

adapting Horwitz’s FLCAS (Foreign Language Anxiety Scale). Her results proved the

validity of FLCAS through revealed two crucial foreign language anxiety components:

speaking anxiety and fear of negative evaluation.

Similar to Aida’s research, studies have looked at speaking anxiety as a major factor

determining the oral performance of ESL Japanese students. For example, Samimy and

Tabuse (1992) were engaged in FLCAS to explore language anxiety in the area of speaking.

Another study conducted with speaking anxiety in a Chinese EFL setting examined students’

different English levels, showing the participating students to have different levels of

speaking anxiety when they speak English in the classroom (Liu 2006). The research has

shown that second language students suffer different levels of anxiety in speaking classes.

Second/foreign language anxieties have negative effects on students’ attitudes toward target

language study.

However, language anxiety is also associated with positive effects as well as with

negative ones. These facilitating and debilitating effects of anxiety inspired Kleinmann (1977)

to find that the facilitating anxiety has a significant relationship with students’ oral production

of difficult linguistic English structures, such as passive sentence structures and infinitive

complements. Although these students have extreme anxiety, they are passively encouraged

to develop their oral production under the pressure of complex English structures. In order to

figure out the effects of facilitating and debilitating anxieties, factors causing anxieties have

3
to be examined. Thus, studies associated with facilitating and debilitating effects triggered

more researchers to explore factors causing speaking anxiety in the second language learning

context, as well as connections between speaking anxiety and students’ oral performance.

Five factors causing speaking-in-class anxiety: speech anxiety, fear of negative evaluation,

fear of failing the class, uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers and negative

attitudes towards the English classroom were found in a case study conducted based on

FLCAS (Mak, 2011). Although these factors were analyzed and discussed to deepen

understandings of speaking anxiety in general speaking classrooms, specific speaking

activity-related anxieties have not yet been systematically explored.

On the other hand, another speaking anxiety scale has been created on the basis of

FLCAS (Woodrow, 2006). Woodrow combined his Second Language Speaking Anxiety Scale

(SLSAS) with English for academic purposes (EAP) classes to investigate correlations

between second language speaking variables and oral performance based on the facilitating

and debilitating effects. The quantitative findings from Woodrow’s (2006) research also

discusses that ESL students get anxious about presentations, but it does not have a significant

relationship with their oral performance. Although Woodrow focuses on the relationship

between in-class presentations and oral performance from a quantitative perspective, detailed

analyses on this kind of relationship have not yet been provided by other researchers. In order

to fill this gap, this study is conducted to explore connections between L2 speaking anxiety

and in-class presentation performance, factors causing oral anxiety during presentations, and

strategies to regulate speech anxiety in in-class settings.

In the U.S. EAP context where oral English practice is an essential curriculum

4
component, ESL teachers widely adopt presentations to emphasize the importance of

communicating skills in the classroom (King, 2002). In order to improve students’

communication skills, competent presentation skills in English are taught through the

student-centered teaching approach to assist ESL teachers assessing students’ oral proficiency.

ESL students who improve their speaking proficiency in student-centered classes usually take

on active roles to develop communication skills. In this kind of communicative speaking

classes, ESL students develop their target language proficiency by using peer assessment in

oral presentations (Otoshi &Heffernan, 2008). Peer assessment allows students to achieve a

good presentation performance as well as get inspired through peer communication.

In contrast, students, instead of actively participating in various presentation activities,

sometimes have negative perceptions on such presentation activities. These students are

overwhelmed with communication skills because they do not always get the intended

outcome and their speaking skills fossilize in a certain stage (Miles, 2014). This situation is

more obvious in Asian countries, because Asian students view presentations as

face-threatening activity (King, 2002). In order to change students’ perceptions on

presentations and reduce their language anxiety, awareness of establishing a low-threat

learning environment in second language acquisition has been raised.

Additionally, oral presentations have been perceived as a time-consuming project with

no guarantee of a satisfactory performance (King, 2002). Thus, it is a question whether

presentations should be adopted into EFL context, especially for Asian students. Findings of

King’s (2002) research confirmed that an oral presentation can be a beneficial and enjoyable

activity for both teachers and students expecting a short break from textbooks and

5
examinations. However, King’s findings are based on the Chinese EFL context that mainly

advocates teacher-centered teaching approaches in class while student-centered approaches

are widely used in U.S. ESL speaking classrooms. The connections between ESL students’

speaking anxiety and in-class presentations are barely discussed and analyzed by previous

researchers, although presentations triggering student anxiety have been mentioned in the

Chinese EFL context (King, 2002).

In order to explore whether a presentation should be utilized as an essential activity in

ESL speaking curriculums, this research is conducted to investigate possible connections

between ESL students’ speaking anxiety and presentation performance. It further aims to

examine factors causing speech anxiety during presentations and anxiety-coping strategies

related to ESL students’ presentations. One possible contribution of this research to the area

of TESOL is that the findings may have a new and positive effect on L2 teaching strategies,

presentation task designs and students’ self-regulation of L2 speaking anxiety during in-class

presentations.

Overview and Purpose of the Study

This case study is designed to investigate connections between ESL students’

speaking anxiety and in-class presentation performance, factors related to speech anxiety and

presentations as well as anxiety-coping strategies for both ESL teachers and students during

in-class presentations. This research examines the speaking anxiety and presentation

performance of 3 Chinese ESL students at the INTO program, Marshall University.

These Chinese ESL students enrolled in listening and speaking class in the Pathway

program are required to give two presentations individually during the semester. An

6
increasing number of international students study at U.S. universities. Chinese ESL students

occupy the largest percentage in this group. In addition, Chinese EFL students regard in-class

presentations as a face-threatening activity which causes a high level of anxiety in the

classroom (King, 2002). Thus, the exploration of current research topic might reveal factors

causing ESL students’ language anxiety during presentations, especially for Asian ESL

students.

The data from two presentations were collected using triangulated data sources:

pre-task questionnaire, post-task interview, observation, and teacher evaluations. Specifically,

I drew on FLCAS (Horwitz, 1986) and designed five-point Likert-scale questionnaires to

investigate participants’ perceptions of their language anxiety prior to the presentations. I also

collected teacher evaluations of students’ two presentation performances. Semi-structured

interviews with participants were conducted to further explore possible factors causing

speaking anxiety. Furthermore, I conducted interviews complementing observation notes in

order to identify the strategies students use to regulate in-class-speaking anxiety during

presentations. Focusing on a qualitative analysis, interviews and observation were analyzed

based on the constant-comparative-method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to explore factors and

regulating strategies. What is more, I holistically compared the anxiety scales obtained from

questionnaires and quality of performance indicated in teacher evaluations to derive potential

connections between student presentation performances and speaking anxiety. The present

study seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What are the connections between students’ L2 anxiety and their in-class oral

presentation performance?

7
2. What factors may cause students’ language anxiety in oral presentations?

3. What strategies, if any, do students use to regulate their language anxiety in oral

presentations?

This case study aims to explore ESL students’ speaking anxiety in in-class

presentations. It contributes to an understanding of effects, causes, and regulating strategies

regarding L2 anxiety in oral presentations. This study would shed pedagogical insights on

oral presentation task designs, teachers’ scaffolding, and students’ self-regulation on L2

speaking anxiety during presentations.

Organization of the Thesis

Chapter 2 presents a literature review on the language anxiety and in-class

presentation activity. This chapter supplies a background and insightful ideas for current

research to analyze data regarding L2 in-class speaking anxiety. Chapter 3 elaborates the

research methods including the case study framework, contexts, participants and data

collection procedures. In chapter 4, the results of the analysis techniques described in chapter

3 are presented and organized based on three research questions. The last chapter begins with

a discussion of data analysis results and concludes with some implications and suggestions

for future research.

8
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a background and literature review on ESL students’ speaking

anxiety in in-class presentation settings. Section 2.1 will focus on a historical perspective of

language anxiety in the language learning process. The purpose is to highlight the discovery

process of language anxiety in various disciplines. Section 2.2 will describe the

conceptualization of language anxiety and the theoretical framework grounded on language

anxiety. Additionally, section 2.3 will introduce developments of language anxiety that

triggered researchers’ focus on speaking anxiety in second language acquisition. This section

will be followed by section 2.4 that will elaborate on the application of presentations in

current ESL and EFL classroom as well as the relationship with language anxiety based on

previous literature. Section 2.5, the final section, will look at previous studies to offer some

insightful ideas for this research project and current issues related to ESL students’ speaking

anxiety, and in-class presentation will be discussed in this research project.

Language Anxiety in the Language Learning Process

Anxieties have attracted researchers to conduct studies both in psychology and

linguistics areas, the results of which have contributed to the second language learning for

decades. Researchers in both areas started to focus on language learning since the

mid-twentieth century. However, research in both disciplines supported a form of instruction

rooted in surface-level of language learning (Young, 1999). To explore the deep level of

language learning, explorations of differences and similarities between different languages

guided researchers to focus on foreign language learning.

9
 Language learning was regarded as predicted and controlled processes by previous

researchers. Skinner (1957) considered that language learning is controlled practice of verbal

operant under designed schedules of reinforcement. This notion considers the language

learning process as verbally controlled behavior neglecting to emphasize learners’ cognitive

processes. The advocates of mechanical mimicry drills, pattern drills and pronunciation

practice based on the Audiolingual Method (ALM) also failed to recognize that students have

the ability to “think” in their learning process. Although ALM was adopted as the major

language teaching strategy until the 1970s because the integration of the four language

learning skills has assisted learners to master a foreign language more efficiently, the method

is a mechanical drill to build unpleasant experiences in foreign language learning (Shrum &

Glisan, 1994).

Human acts were the focus of research in both psychology and linguistics during the

1950s. In the following decades, studies related to foreign language learning in both the two

areas was conducted beyond the surface level (Young, 1999). Psychologists extended their

research to unobservable cognitive behaviors while linguists deepened their understanding of

language. While the limitation of mechanical language learning did not explain appropriate

ways learners acquire languages, Chomsky hypothesized the existence of the Language

Acquisition Device (LAD) in human beings to explain the acquisition of syntactic structures

of language. LAD is the hypothesized language faculty innate in human beings to acquire

languages (Chomsky, 1986). This hypothesis stated that humans are born with the innate

ability to acquire language, which challenged the behaviorism-based language learning. The

development of Chomsky’s notion was promoted by findings from Richard (1988). Language

10
learning was seen as a process that developed from the way humans constitute their linguistic

surroundings and from their place in specific environments (Richard, 1988). The statement

from Richard argued that previous research had ignored effects from interactive human

society and surrounding environments in language acquisition processes. The interactive

Schema theory which supported language learning is a process involving learners’

pre-existing experiences (sociolinguistic and cultural knowledge) and new knowledge (target

languages) (Bransford, 1979). This theory not only explained the system of language learning

existing in the human mind, but also emphasized external environments acting as essential

factors to affect language learning.

Cognition theory attracted researchers’ attention on the emotional part of language

learning since the 1980s. Emotions are the crucial difference between the human mind and

lifeless creatures, and they are human’s subjective unconscious product of information

processing (cognition) (LeDoux, 1996). That means emotions are independent of cognition,

which is not easily regulated by the human mind. For the same reason, when learners process

target language knowledge, the positive or negative emotions would affect language

processing in their mind. These brain and psychology research findings built a foundation for

studies investigating how mind works in the foreign language acquisition area.

However, most studies began to explore “why” and “how” emotions have influences

on foreign language learning (Young, 1999). Research conducted by Schumann and

Schumann (1977) provided implications for the exploration of “why” and “how” learner

emotions affect language learning. In their research, the relationship between language

learners’ perceptions and learning environment had mainly been investigated. Research

11
results showed that learners form negative attitudes for their learning environments because

of the differences in teachers’ agendas. During the same period, Dulay and Burt’s research

also examined “how” emotions impact L2 students’ language learning process. Emotions are

filters in the language learning, which is regarded as obstacles for language learners in

improving their language proficiency (Dulay & Burt, 1977). As representing human emotion

better than any other, anxieties also hinder developments of students’ foreign/second

language acquisition. “If anxiety is high, the filter is up and information does not enter the

brain’s processing system” (Dulay & Burt, 1977). It is research of this kind that contributed

to the development both in psychology and linguistics to include anxiety as a legitimate part

of their second language acquisition research.

Researchers in psychology and linguistics conducted anecdotal and empirical

evidence-established theoretical frameworks to describe and explore language anxiety during

the 1990s (Young, 1999). Horwitz, Young and MacIntyre are the earliest researchers who

built theoretical frameworks for language anxiety based on foreign/second language

classrooms. To define abstract language anxiety, Horwitz and Young (1991) explored two

approaches: “1. Language anxiety is a transfer of anxiety from other domain and 2.something

about language learning makes language anxiety a unique experience”. These two approaches

built the foundation for researchers who conducted studies to identity and classify foreign

language anxiety. On the other hand, MacIntyre placed language anxiety into a broader

horizon to explain its differences with other forms of anxiety. It contributed to the exploration

about cognitive, affective, social and personal effects of language anxiety (Young, 1999).

Based on frameworks supplied by previous experts, subsequent researchers studied the

12
relationships between language anxiety and second language acquisition as well as the

methods to reduce language anxiety in the classroom.

The Conceptualization and Theoretical Framework of Language Anxiety

Language anxiety was a highly discussed research topic during the 1990s (MacIntyre,

1999). Studies regarding language anxiety were first conducted from communication

apprehension and text anxiety perspectives (Daly & McCroskey, 1984). Thus, some

researchers perceived language anxiety as an excuse for students not participating in language

classes. Findings examined by Campbell and Ortiz (1991) argued that language anxiety is not

an excuse for students not to enjoy language classrooms and that teachers should be alert to

negative anxiety effects on students’ language learning process. Language anxiety effects on

language learning process guided researchers to figure out the nature of language anxiety,

language reactions, methods reducing language anxiety and anxieties in response to other

specific aspects of language learning (Horwitz, 2010).

Language anxiety as an abstract psychological phenomenon was measured through

questionnaires, interviews, and self-reports by previous qualitative and quantitate research.

Although correlational research regarding language anxiety could not demonstrate the cause

and effect effectively, it assists researchers to find two or more anxiety variables moving into

the same or opposite directions (MacIntyre, 1999). In addition, correlational research was

beneficial for an understanding of the differences and similarities among constructs of

language anxiety (Young, 1999). Negative correlational findings among language anxiety and

French learning variables explored by Gardner, Clement, Smythe, and Smythe (1979)

established a French Class Anxiety Scale. Based on this French anxiety scale, subsequent

13
studies designed language anxiety scales associated with second/foreign language learning.

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) created Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale

(FLCAS) to identify foreign language anxiety as a distinct variable in foreign language

learning. The theoretical framework established by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986)

improved the limitation of Scovel’s research project (1978) that lacked a clear relationship

between anxiety and foreign language achievement. Additionally, three primary sources

explored by Horwitz and associates (1986) classified language anxiety into three general

categories: communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation by others, and text

anxiety. These three potential factors of anxieties are sources for FLCAS (1986) to

discriminate one type of anxiety from others (Mak, 2011). The FLCAS has thirty three items

that adopted a five-point Likert scale. This framework is the essential part of the research by

Horwitz and associates, which revealed second language students’ learning performance

affected by significant language anxiety. Grounded on the framework of FLCAS, a

questionnaire was designed by Young (1990) to examine various sources triggering language

anxiety, such as in class and speaking-oriented practices.

The theoretical framework established by Horwitz and Young built a foundation to

define language anxiety as well as analyze connections between language anxieties and

second language learning while relationships between language anxiety and other types of

anxiety were intensely discussed. Endler (1980) got inspirations from Horwitz’s research on

perceived language anxiety from a broader psychological perspective. There are three general

categories of language anxiety in Endler’s study (1980): trait, situation-specific, and state

anxiety. People who have higher trait anxiety are typically nervous people lacking emotional

14
stability (Goldberg, 1993). The second situation-specific anxiety means that people get

anxious only in specific situations, such as test anxiety and speech anxiety. The last state

anxiety refers to “the moment to moment experience of anxiety” (MacIntyre, 1999), which

also means temporary anxious feelings. Psychologists found that state anxiety has an effect

on cognition and behavior because it arouses more sensitive automatic nervous system (Caver

& Scheier, 1986). These three types of anxieties were adopted into research to analyze

relationships between second language learners and different subtypes of anxieties.

Second/foreign language learners with a high level of language anxiety are easily affected by

the moment to moment anxious feelings while FL/L2 learners with a lower level of language

anxiety do not experience state anxiety frequently (MacIntyre, 1999). Researchers who

support the notion above record and analyze experiences regarding anxiety in second

language contexts because they regard language anxiety as a situation-specific form of

anxiety (Young, 1999). In order to measure scales of this situation-specific form of anxiety in

the second/ foreign language learning process, various questionnaire were created by

previous research, such as the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986), Pappamihiel's (2002) English

language anxiety scale (ELAS), and Saito et al.’s (1999) foreign language reading anxiety

scale (FLRAS).

On the other hand, MacIntyre and Gardner (1991b) adopted a factor analysis to

explore relations among various anxiety scales. There are 23 scales designed to present

various forms of anxiety. Research findings also categorized anxiety into three groups based

on factors causing anxiety. The first and second scales are general anxiety and state anxiety,

while the last scale is language anxiety. Language anxiety is different from the former two,

15
which has no correlation with anxiety factors (MacIntyre, 1999). Thus, language anxiety is

separated from the language use anxiety, language classroom anxiety and language test

anxiety. For instance, a student who feels anxious about English learning may not get anxious

about other subjects such as math and history. In order to develop an understanding of the

construct of language anxiety, MacIntyre and Gardner’s research grouped various anxieties as

well as separate the relationship between language anxiety and other forms of anxieties.

Similar previous studies drawn on from the relations between language anxiety and target

language learning as well as different types of anxieties elaborated the conceptualization of

the construct (Young, 1999). The conceptualization of the language anxiety construct raised

teachers’ awareness of reducing students’ language anxiety. Therefore, the focus of

subsequent research has primarily been on students’ former language learning experiences

and strategies adopted into the classroom to reduce their language anxiety.

Developments of the Language Anxiety

The research mentioned above examined the potential origins, sources and the

construct of language anxiety categorized on the establishment of the theoretical framework,

explanations of students’ language learning experience, and interviews with students.

Subsequent research tended to develop findings from the previous research. For instance,

based on previous research from Horwitz et al. (1986) and Young (1986), MacIntyre and

Gardner (1999) explored the ways in which language anxiety can develop. Developments of

state anxiety and situation-specific anxiety contribute to the formation of language anxiety

(MacIntyre, 1999). L2 students’ anxiety in specific language learning areas, such as

pronunciation and grammar would develop into moment-to-moment state anxiety if foreign

16
students feel comfortable in making mistakes in certain language learning areas. This

moment to moment anxious feeling in a specific single context is regarded as the construct of

language anxiety. This psychologically based language anxiety construct also works for other

similar situation-specific language anxieties, such as public speaking anxiety and test anxiety

(Beatty & Andriate, 1985).

In addition, this construct also explains differences between language anxiety and

other types of anxiety. Students who get involved with daily language use anxiety

experienced similar but different nervous feelings in their language examinations. Even

students’ language anxiety cannot directly determine second language learning performance,

because other factors, such as students’ personality and learning environments affect their

second language acquisition (Beatty & Andriate, 1985). Variables such as personality and

environments have been examined to investigate their correlation with language anxiety.

Skehan (1991) studied connections between students’ personality and language anxiety.

Research findings show that extrovert language learners enjoy the communication with less

anxiety while introvert students get anxious about target language learning. Introvert students

who do well in other courses, such as math and science, may also experience intense

language anxiety, but they could develop strategies to regulate their behavior (MacIntyre,

1995). Although these findings were revealed in students’ first language area, it reminded

later researchers that language learning has distinct differences from other learning situations

(MacIntyre, 1995). Language anxiety was regarded as the anxiety that differs from other

types of anxiety in the classroom.

Several early researchers had previously realized these differences. For instance, one

17
of the earliest research (Kleinmann, 1977) relating language anxiety recruited

English-speaking learners of Indo-European languages investigated the difficulty in

expressing abstract language anxiety, while Aida (1994) tested the language anxiety construct

founded by Horwitz and associates (1986) verified the validity and reliability of FLCAS as

well as factors causing foreign language anxiety .

Subsequent researchers refined language anxiety research into more specific areas,

such as speaking, reading, and writing. FLCAS and FLRAS (Saito et al., 1999) were both

adopted to measure self-confidence as a factor affecting students’ speaking and reading

anxiety in foreign language learning contexts (Matsude & Gobel, 2002). Results of these two

scales suggested that teachers should play a crucial role in assisting ESL students to enhance

their language learning confidence so that speaking and reading anxiety could be reduced in

the classroom. Additionally, correlations between second language speaking variables and

oral performance were examined on the basis of the notion that relates two-dimensional

language anxiety construct to language learning (Woodrow, 2006). Although results found

correlations between foreign language speaking anxiety and some speaking activities based

on the two-dimensional construct, Woodrow’s research mainly focused on the outside of the

classroom and speaking variables were not analyzed in a detailed manner. Findings of

Woodrow (2006)’s research showed that ESL students’ oral anxiety reflects their everyday

communicating environment, and that performing in English in front of native speakers or

classmates is the most anxious activity for ESL students.

Findings of a number of subsequent researchers claimed that the source for L2

students’ oral anxiety stems from speaking in front of other people because students feel that

18
their proficiency level is not yet on par with that of target language native speakers. Thus,

foreign language learning has a potential to “embarrass students themselves, frustrate their

expression, and to challenge their self-esteem than other learning activity” (MacIntyre, 1999).

In China, ESL students would exhibit speaking-in-class anxiety when they participate

in inter-personal conversations (Liu & Jackson, 2008). Furthermore, 12 thematic variables

with Chinese L2 learners were founded by Yan and Horwitz (2008) to emphasize that L2

students get anxious about their self-expression in front of others. These findings exhibit

ESL/EFL learners suffering language anxiety when they communicate with others.

In sum, previous research has demonstrated that language anxiety differs from other

types of anxiety by exploring and analyzing sources and origins of language anxiety. After

identifying correlations to and differences from other types of anxiety, researchers narrowed

down language anxiety (Horwitz, 1986; Endler, 1980; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989) as well as

investigate effects of various anxieties on foreign language learning. Thus, speaking anxiety

as a concern in L2 areas is frequently carried into research (Matsuda & Gobel, 2002;

Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Liu, 2006). The origin of speaking anxiety for L2 learners with

different language proficiency levels has been examined many times, and relations between

oral anxiety and other speaking variables have been investigated by serval researchers. Fewer

experts have focused on factors causing oral anxiety in-/out- class, while few researchers

have conducted their studies exploring factors and coping strategies for ESL students’ in-class

speaking anxiety associated with specific speaking activities such as in-class presentations.

Previous Research and Current Issues about In-class Presentations

The presentation as an alternative form of assessment has been widely adopted into

19
ESL/EFL classrooms because communication skills are emphasized in teaching and learning.

In EFL contexts, especially for students who major in business, proficient presentation skills

in English lead to their future career. Therefore, students take presentation classes as a regular

part of degree programs before preparing for the work or beginning a new career (Nakamura,

2002).

On the other hand, oral presentations are used in L2 classrooms to assist students with

varying English proficiency levels to reach fluent oral proficiency. However, students also get

silent or complain when oral presentations become part of regular teaching in the classroom

(King, 2002). The reason for the silence of L2 students during presentations is that students

feel presentations are a time-consuming activity that does not help them improve oral

proficiency level, triggering language anxiety in the classroom (King, 2002). The call for

creating a low-anxiety teaching and learning environment led teachers and scholars to have

doubts about applying oral presentations to L2 class.

Research findings from King (2002) support that in-class presentations should be

practiced in L2 classrooms because oral activities are beneficial and enjoyable for language

learners. It also provides an opportunity for L2 students to get out of dull and obscure

textbooks, although students complain that presentations are time-consuming. In order to

reduce L2 students’ complaints about in-class presentations, some researchers utilize relevant

teaching strategies to improve the quality of presentations as effective oral activities in

speaking classes.

Adopting peer-evaluations into oral presentations, EFL/ESL students take active roles

in developing their oral language. For example, getting feedback from peers is regarded as a

20
crucial part in oral activities, especially for presentations, because of interactions between

learners and their classmates. (Price & O’Donovan, 2003). In contrast to assessments done by

teachers only, students’ performance can be assessed by their classmates in peer assessment

(Otoshi & Heffernen, 2008). However, this strategy might arouse students’ language anxiety

due to the fact that the source for L2 students’ speaking anxiety is to speak in front of peer

classmates and teachers. Thus, some researchers tended to find effective strategies to reduce

students’ speaking anxiety in front of classmates and teachers (King, 2002; Webster, 2002;

Mile, 2014). These research findings show that by changing teachers’ role from an

authoritative expert to that of a facilitator of learning, students’ language learning could be

less anxiety-inducing with more flexibility. For example, King (2002) considered teachers’

role in class and suggested that the best way to reduce students’ public speaking anxiety is

talking to and comforting students by using the techniques from psychotherapy and speech

communication literature. This strategy is beneficial for students who give presentations in

their native language, but for ESL/EFL students who present in front of all classmates in the

target language, it may not be useful because possible factors causing L2 students’ speaking

anxiety still need to be examined and verified.

Yet from a more functional linguistic perspective, Halliday’s genre approach has been

used as a basis for presentation courses teaching genre-specific language features and other

context-specific items (Webster, 2002). However, if students are taught with this teaching

method, students would need to master presentation skills under different contexts, such as

business conferences and academic forums. This teaching method might be hard for L2

teachers to use in lower level speaking classrooms without a clear language instruction. In

21
order to design an effective and anxiety-reducing presentation in the classroom, Miles (2014)

emphasized that L2 students’ language teaching purposes should be clarified to support

teachers attempting to improve their instruction of speaking. Because of the necessity to

establish a low anxiety teaching environment (King, 2002), the connection between speaking

anxiety and presentations, factors causing oral anxiety and coping strategies regarding speech

anxiety during presentations need to be explored.

Insights from Previous Research

The early research conducted by Horwitz (1986) showed that L2 students have

frequently been concerned about speaking anxiety because it builds a mental block against

foreign language learning. In order to reduce students’ speaking anxiety in the language

learning process, it is necessary to figure out the way in which anxiety has been classified and

ideal methods to reduce such anxieties. Thus, the study by Horwitz (1986) built a foundation

for subsequent experts and scholars to identify the general categories of language anxiety

though designed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). Guided by this

well-known theoretical framework, an increasing number of researchers paid attention to

connections between language anxiety and language learning in in-class context (Aida, 1994;

Kitano, 2001), factors causing L2 students’ language anxiety in various language situations

(Dewaele & Furnham, 2008; Woodrow, 2009) and strategies to reduce foreign language

anxiety (Liu, 2006; Horwitz & Luo, 2009).

These researchers not only argue that speaking is a language learning skill that is

frequently associated with language anxiety, but also measure connections between speaking

anxiety and language speaking variables; even a mixed study conducted by Woodrow (2006)

22
shows that there are no significant relationships between oral presentations and oral

performance. Woodrow (2006) challenged the opinion referred to by King (2002) that L2

students cannot have a good presentation performance when they experience speaking

anxiety and perceive presentations as face-threating oral activities. Heated discussions related

to connections between in-class oral presentations and speaking anxiety indicate that its

validity still needs to be examined and measured by future researchers. Similarly, Liu (2006)

investigated connections between language anxiety and oral English activities based on

Chinese EFL students’ different English proficiencies. Liu’s findings indicate that these

students felt less anxious about using English when increasingly exposed to oral English.

Liu’s research provides helpful insights from two perspectives: the identification of different

oral activities causing EFL students’ in-class language anxiety and change in language

anxiety with EFL students’ language learning experiences. In addition, her research further

shows that EFL students get more anxious about individual activities than group activities.

In order to improve students’ communication skills, in-class presentations are usually

adopted by teachers in EFL/ESL contexts to improve L2 students’ target language skills.

Realizing the importance of oral presentations, King (2002) conducted a study to examine the

essential role of presentations in the classroom associated with brief coping strategies to

assist L2 students to reduce in-class speaking anxiety. Although some coping strategies had

been explored by other researchers before, they are strategies to decrease language/speaking

anxiety for other purposes, such as public speech anxiety coping strategies and oral text

anxiety coping strategies.

So far, some coping strategies have been explored to reduce in-class presentation

23
with minimum positive effects. For instance, peer assessment has been used to improve

presentations as effective oral activities in the classroom because students play an active role

in the learning process (Otoshi & Heffernen, 2008). However, this method neglects that

speaking in front of other people is a source for L2 students’ speaking anxiety (MacIntyre,

1999). Assessed by classmates based on the foreign language speaking performance in front

of their classmates and teacher, L2 students might regard presentations as extreme

face-threating activities that cause severe anxiety reactions. Although this method suggests

improving presentations through the student-centered teaching strategy, its main focus still

needs to be further enhanced because of the neglecting of L2 students’ anxiety problems,

individual differences and culture.

In sum, previous research looking into language anxiety has been conducted to help

L2 students overcome their “mental block” (Horwitz, 1986) and improve their language

proficiency. In-class speaking anxiety is a major language anxiety that impedes students’ oral

proficiency, and creates unpleasant learning experiences. The connections between speaking

anxiety and L2 students’ oral performance have been extensively discussed by experts and

scholars who argue for further research to provide more pedagogical ideas and suggestions to

deepen various aspects of language learning anxiety. Although factors causing L2 students’

oral anxiety have been investigated for a long time, factors causing ESL students to get

anxious during presentations have not been examined in details. Moreover, effective oral

anxiety coping strategies regarding in-class presentations still need to be examined. In order

to fill these gaps, I conducted this research to discuss connections between ESL students’

speaking anxiety and oral presentation performance, figure out factors may lead ESL students

24
get anxious during presentations as well as offer some constructive oral anxiety regulation

strategies for ESL students to improve speaking proficiency and regulate oral anxiety in

presentations.

25
 CHAPTER 3

METHODS

I chose qualitative case study to explore the connections, factors and coping strategies

regarding ESL students’ speaking anxiety as well as in-class presentations due to the fact that

this research project involves a group of ESL students, their social situation and interactions.

It matches the intent of qualitative research that to understand a particular social situation,

event, role, group and interaction (Locke, Spirduso, & Solverman, 1987). In addition, I

collected data from the Listening & Speaking Class of the INTO Institution at Marshall

University during the spring 2015 semester. These data were analyzed with qualitative

techniques to identify possible factors and coping strategies associated with five scale

post-questionnaires results to measure ESL students’ anxiety scales deducing the potential

connections between speaking anxiety and in-class presentation. This chapter will mainly

elaborate research context, research sites, participants, and theoretical frameworks adopted in

this study. In addition, the researcher’s role will also be mentioned to declare my perceptions

and positions of this research project because it necessitates the identification of personal

values, assumptions and bias at the outset of the study (Miller, 1992).

Qualitative Case Study

Case study is a strategy of inquiry to enable researchers explore in depth a program,

activity and one or more individuals (Stake, 1995). There are several advantages for choosing

a case study approach to conduct this research. First, case studies are ideal methodologies to

collect and analyze authentic data explaining the nature or source of phenomena and

deepening understandings of phenomena to deduce the potential general factors, connections

26
or issues (cited in Angus, 2014). As an abstract phenomenon, the nature, sources and effects

of language anxiety were examined by previous researchers mainly adopted qualitative

methodologies. Data relating this abstract phenomenon were collected under the authentic

speaking context while the connections, factors and coping strategies were deduced through

data to reach the study objectives. Thus, case study is the appropriate methodology to

investigate the connections, factors, and coping strategies of the abstract speaking anxiety.

In addition, case studies are bounded by the time and activity to understand a

particular social situation (Stake, 1995). An increasing number of ESL students study at

universities in the U. S. These students belong to a special social group with different

educational backgrounds than students educated in the American school system; in many U. S.

school districts, students begin speaking in front of the class in informal reports and

information sharing as early as Kindergarten. By contrast, most ESL students have

significantly less presentation experiences; even Asian ESL students regard in-class

presentations as a face threatening activity. To conduct research regarding the speaking

anxiety in presentations involving specific L2 students’ social group, the case study should be

chosen because it not only matches the purpose of case study, but also is convenient for the

data collection and analysis.

Thirdly, I mainly focus on students’ speaking anxiety scale associated with

presentation performance, factors causing students’ speaking anxiety in the presentations and

coping strategies they used to reduce their oral anxiety in presentations. These results and

findings were analyzed and elaborated through collected data by adopting unstructured

observation, semi-structured interviews, teacher evaluations and peer evaluations. Using

27
qualitative research methods is more appropriate than quantitative research methods in this

research project, because of the interpretative nature of qualitative research (Creswell, 1999).

Based on my participants’ interpretations related to their speaking anxiety during in-class

presentations, I made the interpretations of what I have seen and understood. Thus, the

findings and implications have been induced and elaborated contributing to an understanding

of the research questions in this project.

Research Context

The research sites for this study are located in INTO Marshall University of the

United States. INTO Marshall is located in Huntington, West Virginia, which is a supportive

community for international students to improve academic and English language skills.

International students who hope to study in the U.S. but have slightly lower standardized test

scores than Marshall University’s requirements would firstly study at INTO Marshall to

improve English proficiency, prepare their degree studies as well as adapt to American

campus life.

Although INTO Marshall was established later than the other INTO institutions in the

U.S., a constant increasing number of international students would like access to all of the

academic, social and cultural resources and activities at INTO Marshall University. The

majority of international students at INTO Marshall come from China while others from

Korea, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, South Arabia and so on. According to the pie

chart below (Figure 1), Chinese ESL students at INTO Marshall comprise 48.1% of the total

number of INTO students in spring, 2015. Chinese ESL students are representatives of these

international students who study at INTO Marshall Institution. Thus, I recruited Chinese ESL

28
students at INTO Marshall University as my participants.

Figure 1: The Percentage of Chinese Studying at INTO

Marshall in the spring, 2015

ESL Students from

China
ESL Students from other
countries

These international students who decide to study at INTO Marshall Center are

required to pass a placement test. Based on their placement test scores and original

standardized test scores, L2 students are assigned into the equivalent level to improve their

English proficiency as well as pursue the undergraduate/graduate degree. Seven English

levels were set at INTO Marshall to assist L2 students in developing English proficiency:

Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and pathway. On the basis of this sequence, L2 students who study at last

two levels－Level 6 and pathway imply high advanced ESL learners.

Four kinds of curriculum have been designed for L2 students at INTO Marshall:

Speaking & Listing, Reading & Vocabulary, Writing & Grammar as well as optional courses

related to American culture. These four types of classes integrate both receptive skills and

productive skills within one class to increase ESL students’ learning motivation and improve

their communicating skills. Although almost all learning skills have been integrated in every

class at INTO Marshall, I chose the Listening & Speaking class to conduct this research

project because the focus of my study is L2 students’ speaking anxiety in presentations.

In INTO Marshall’s Listening & Speaking Class Levels 1-5, ESL students are taught
29
essential and necessary listening and speaking skills to improve their English proficiency as

well as some presentation skills mentioned for their speaking fluency. On the other hand, the

Listening & Speaking Class at Level 6 and pathway instruct more skills regarding academic

presentations to emphasize both L2 students’ language fluency and accuracy. In order to

assess students’ learning performance and measure the improvement of ESL students’

speaking proficiency, oral presentations as an alternative assessment have been frequently

adopted by teachers in the classroom. Additionally, INTO Marshall University organized

students’ speaking mid-term and final term examinations with the format of in-class

presentations. That means L2 students learning at INTO Marshall are required to give at least

two presentations every semester. Thus, in this research project, I collected reliable data from

two presentations from the Listening & Speaking Class. Table 1 identifies the two

presentation topics for each participant:

Table 1

Presentations for each participant

No.1 Presentation No. 2 Presentation

Student H Favorite foods Study plan (post presentation)

Student Y Interests and Habits Foods in the hometown

Student Z Topics related to the graduate major High technologies

Participants

I contacted the coordinator of INTO Marshall to describe my research purposes and

needs, after which she introduced essential information regarding INTO Marshall and gave

me detailed information about INTO Marshall University. After the meeting, she introduced

30
me and my project to the other teachers. Most teachers were pleased to help me and

suggested that I contact Chinese ESL students who might be willing to participate in this

project individually.

Five Chinese ESL students were willing to be my participants in this research.

However, I chose three of them for my research due to the fact that performance data would

not be available for the other two students. I collected data from the three Chinese ESL

students in the Listening & Speaking Class. All three participants were 22 years old.

Student H majors in MBA as well as improves his English proficiency at Level 4.

Although student H has studied English at Level 4 and has been in the USA only about six

months, he has experience presenting in front of classmates while in high school in China.

Additionally, Student Y studies at Level 3 to prepare pursuing her Labor and Industrial

Relations major at Marshall University. Although the time she has stayed in the USA is the

same as that of Student H, she did not have any presentation experiences before she came to

the U.S.A. Student Z, who has the same MBA major as Student H, has a higher English

proficiency than other two students because he studies at the Pathway Level. Student Z has

been in the U.S.A. longer than Students H and Z. Although a year is enough to enrich Student

Z’s in-class presentation experiences, he still has countable prior presentation experiences

because he presented three times when he studied at the university in China. These

participants’ information backgrounds are summarized in Table 2:

31
Table 2

Participants’ background information

Participants’ English Prior Presentation The Time

Major Proficiency Experiences Length in the

USA

Student H MBA Level 4 Since high school 6 months

Student Y Labor and Level 3 Presented twice in China 6 months

Industrial while frequently presented

Relations at INTO

Student Z MBA Pathway NO prior experiences 1 year

Role of Researcher

The factor that attracts me to focus on this topic is the multiple in-class presentation

opportunities I have experienced in the U.S.A. Oral presentations are frequently adopted into

ESL speaking class to improve L2 students’ communicating skills (King, 2002). To give an

oral presentation in Listening & Speaking at an INTO class is a daily routine for me and my

classmates while most of my classmates have suffered, although some of them have prior

presentation experiences. Because of their complaints and confusion, I was curious about

ESL students’ perceptions on in-class presentations. My initial impression was that students’

English proficiencies, cultural background, gender and their social identities all could be

possible factors affecting ESL students’ perceptions of in-class presentations. However, ESL

students whom I contacted mentioned that giving presentations in speaking classes improved

their speaking skills but that they did not enjoy this class activity. It is a time-consuming and

32
face-threating activity for some ESL students, especially Asian ESL learners (King, 2002).

Thus, in addition to focusing on students’ feelings during presentations, I considered reasons

why those students had lower levels of motivation for oral presentation activities.

Most ESL students get nervous when they give presentations in the classroom, and I

am one of them. In order to regulate this tense feeling, I searched relevant resources

grounding the definitions, coping strategies. They reminded me that this subjective feeling of

tension only occurs when we speak in English and it intensifies under different speaking

contexts (MacIntyre, 1999). This language anxiety is called speaking anxiety. Therefore, I

was curious about the reasons that ESL students get anxious about in-class presentations and

why their speaking anxiety is intensified in this context.

Based on the resources I found, most previous researchers investigated the sources,

nature and effects of speaking anxiety although fewer researchers explored possible factors

causing L2 speaking anxiety. The studies related to factors causing L2 speaking anxiety did

not focus on specific speaking activities within the classroom. Furthermore, the coping

strategies for ESL students to reduce language anxiety mentioned in the previous studies are

quite general. Thus, to fill this gap, I decided to conduct my research at INTO Marshall

University to explore connections between ESL students’ presentation performance and the

speaking anxiety scale, possible factors causing speaking anxiety during presentations, and

coping strategies students adopted during presentations to reduce speaking anxiety. My

campus life at INTO Marshall, personal interests on speaking anxiety associated with the

needs of discipline inspired me to conduct this research project.

33
Data

Data for this research project were collected from triangulated sources: pre-task

questionnaire, post-task interview, observation, teacher evaluations and peer evaluations. I

designed my pre-task questionnaire as a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire to investigate

possible factors causing speaking anxiety during presentations, participants’ perceptions of

presentations as well as speaking anxiety scale in in-class presentations based on FLCAS

(Horwitz et al., 1986). The following sections will elaborate the collection procedures and the

nature of four types of data I collected: pre-task questionnaire, post-task interview,

observation, and comment data. Furthermore, I will also explain ways to use the data to

answer the research questions in this study.

Pre-Task Questionnaire. Horwitz et al. (1986) designed validated FLCAS with

thirty-three items and a five-point Likert Scale. Based on this questionnaire, Horwitz et al.

identified language anxiety and classified it into three general categories grounding the

source of language anxiety: communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation and

text anxiety. These sources are valid for all language anxieties, although the speaking anxiety

as a kind of specific language anxiety only occurs under speaking contexts. However, the

questionnaire of the present research project needs to be designed under an in-class

presentation context. I adopted more than thirty-five items from Horwitz et al. to design a

five-point Likert Scale pilot study. Due to the fact that the some of the items were redundant,

twenty-three items were adopted for my current study.

These twenty-three items were measured on a five-point scale: strongly disagree,

disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree in the current questionnaire. It was filled out by

34
the three Chinese ESL students at INTO Marshall before they gave in-class presentations.

The construction and purpose of this questionnaire (Appendix 1) are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

The purpose and construction of pre-task questionnaire

Items The Purpose of Items

1 Possible factor: the attention from audience

2 Perception on in-class presentations

3 Perception on in-class presentations

4 Possible factor : the number of presentations

5 Perception on in-class presentations

6 Possible factor: preparation time

7 Possible factor: preparation time

8 Possible factor: the order of presenter

9 Possible factor: teachers’ grading

10 Possible factor: teachers’ feedback during presentations

11 Possible factor: mistakes making

12 Perception on in-class presentation

13 Perception on in-class presentation

14 Perception on in-class presentation

15 Perception on in-class presentation

16 Possible factor: the attention from audience

35
17 Perception on in-class presentation

18 Possible factor: the attention from audience

19 Possible factor: the attention from audience

20 Perception on in-class presentation

21 Possible factor: teachers’ feedback after presentation

22 Possible factor: question section after presentation

23 Possible factor: teachers’ feedback after presentation

Based on the pre-questionnaire data I collected from the participants, the average

scores for each item to assess students’ perception of in-class presentation activity and their

speaking anxiety level regarding possible factors were calculated, while the average score of

the whole questionnaire was computed to place participants into the appropriate L2 in-class

speaking anxiety scale.

Post-Task Interview. The post-task interview was conducted as the semi-structured

in-person interview to focus on the collection of students’ demographics, perceptions of

in-class presentations, and “effective” coping strategies the students frequently adopted in the

presentations. Although the three participants speak fluent English daily, they may not

express their intentions or ideas accurately in English under the recorded interview context.

In order to avoid the participants becoming anxious in my interview, I focused on interactions

which created a friendly and comfortable interview atmosphere to produce reliable

information. Thus, I chose Chinese to conduct the interviews (Appendix 2) for reducing

participants’ language anxiety.

I met Students H, Y, Z at the resting area of INTO Marshall separately in early March,

36
2015. Before this interview, participants had presented at least twice in front of classmates. I

recorded the three interviews using a video recorder, and then translated them on the basis of

the transcriptions of the interviews. The length of each interview was approximately 10

minutes. The following questions were asked to collect data for future analysis:

1. Do you think your personality is introvert or extrovert?

2. Can you please share with me your English learning experience? How do you think of

your English proficiency?

3. What is your previous experience about in-class presentations? Did you feel tense or not?

4. Do you like in-class presentations or similar oral activities? And why?

5. Do you feel tense or nervous when you give in-class presentation in English? Why?

6. In your opinion, what are the causes of your nervousness or anxiety in the presentation?

7. Are there any ways for you to cope with your nervousness or anxiety in the presentations?

If yes, please provide some details.

(If the student seems not clear about the last question, I would ask “what procedures may

help you feel relieved?)

Answering these interview questions, participants were asked to rank their in-class

speaking anxiety on a scale from 1 to 5, with “1” being the highest level of speaking anxiety

and “5” being the lowest.

Observation. Observation was adopted to measure the participants’ in-class

presentation performance in order to explore connections with their in-class speaking anxiety

and to find coping strategies for speaking anxiety used by ESL participants during

presentations. I received support from the participants’ Listening & Speaking teachers and

37
they allowed me to observe their classes, enabling me to follow recommended practices of

qualitative research to record information as it occurs (Creswell, 1999). Mimicking the role

of a classmate enabled me to collect reliable data regarding the participants’ speaking anxiety,

coping strategies, and presentation performance in the presentations.

When I observed the participants, I asked the teachers for their presentation rubrics to

score each presentation. The grades of each participant’s presentations obtained from the

observations using the teachers’ rubrics associated with observation notes has contributed to

my assessment of each participant’s in-class presentation performance.

Comment Data. In addition to students’ received scores and comments from my

observations, I gathered data involving students’ presentation performance from their

teachers and classmates. It is a routine for INTO Marshall ESL students to write short peer

evaluations with scores for their classmates in pairs after each presentation. On the other hand,

teachers usually score students’ presentations with some narrative feedback. Thus, I gathered

the original peer assessments from each participant’s partners and a copy of the teacher’s

evaluations. These comment data were collected objectively. Topics related to the

participants’ presentations are listed above in Table 1.

Research Instruments and Corresponding Research Questions. This section

expounds ways of using research instruments to seek answers to the current research

questions. The conclusions of research instruments and corresponding research questions are

demonstrated in Table 4.

38
Table 4

Research instruments and corresponding research questions.

Research Questions Instruments

1. What are the connections 1). L2 students’ speaking (1). Pre-task questionnaire

between students’ L2 anxiety and anxiety scales in (based on FLCAS

their in-class oral presentation presentations (Horwitz et al., 1986))

performance? (2). Post-task interview

2).Participants’ in-class (1). Observation

presentation (including scores)

performance (2). Teachers’ evaluations

(including scores and

rubrics )

(3). Peer evaluations

(including scores)

(4). Post-task interview

2. What factors may cause students’ language anxiety in oral (1). Pre-task questionnaire

presentations? (2). Post-task interview

3. What strategies, if any, do students use to regulate their (1). Post-task interview

language anxiety in oral presentations? (2). Observation

The first research question investigates the connections between participants’ L2

self-placement on the speaking anxiety scale and their in-class presentation performance. In

order to measure the three ESL students’ presentation performances, I used the observation

39
associated with presentation grades that I scored in classes, teacher evaluations including

scores and rubrics, peer evaluations with scores, and the post- task interview. On the other

hand, the pre-task questionnaire drawing on FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) was added to the

post-task interview to elicit students’ L2 oral anxiety scales in in-class presentations. The

anxiety levels of each participant’s oral performances were also explored through comment

data and observation notes. Then, the participants’ overall in-class presentation performance

was correlated with their L2 in-class speech anxiety scale.

The pre-task questionnaire and post-task interview were conducted to seek answers to

the second research question: possible factors causing students’ speaking anxiety in oral

presentations. The last research question investigates students’ coping strategies for speaking

anxiety during presentations through the post-task interview and observation notes.

Data Analysis

This section will elaborate the techniques of analyzing each data source. I used

descriptive analysis in this qualitative case study to examine collected data and find answers

for each research question. For instance, pre-task questionnaire data were calculated as

average scores to measure students’ speaking anxiety scales while comment data including

students’ presentation scores were analyzed to assess students’ presentation performance. In

addition, the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was adopted to derive

connections between L2 speaking anxiety scales and presentation performances. I divided my

data into “units” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and then analyzed them into developed categories.

By constantly comparing these “units,” these categories regarding L2 students’ in-class

presentation anxiety were refined and “their relationships between the categories over the

40
course of analytical process were explored” (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).

Analysis for Pre-Task Questionnaire. In order to measure the three L2 participants’

language anxiety scales, possible factors causing their in-class speaking anxiety and the

coping strategies that they used in presentations, I designed twenty-three 5-point Likert scale

questionnaire items based on FLCAS (Horwitz ,1986). After collecting data from the

participants, their answers were inputted to each Likert scale questionnaire item in the excel

spreadsheets to calculate the average scores. The participants’ in-class presentation anxiety

scores were calculate based on their questionnaire responses. I compared the students’

choices of each Likert scale questionnaire item relating in-class presentation perceptions,

attitudes towards in-class speaking activities and prior in-class English speaking experiences,

which assisted me to reveal possible factors causing L2 in-class speaking anxiety as well as

coping strategies that L2 students frequently use in presentations to reduce speaking anxiety.

Analysis for Post-Task Interview. I conducted the content analysis of the

face-to-face post-task interviews mainly in Chinese with all my participants. Using the

participants’ first language to conduct the interviews created a low-anxiety interview

atmosphere and prompted them to more openly express their true feelings. Participants’

interview answers were translated and recorded in Word Documents. The translations of

participants’ interview responses were focused on their linguistic features for matching

Chinese ESL students’ social stances, cultural backgrounds and relationships between the

speaker and listeners. Transcripts of these interviews were read and compared multiple times

to identify recurring features. These features were compared to identify the salient themes

and generate thematic categories.

41
 Analysis for Comment Data. Comment data were collected from teacher evaluations,

peer evaluations and the observer’s evaluations. Both teachers and students gave comments

and feedback for presenters with scores. These scores were determined on the basis of the

teachers’ rubrics. Teacher evaluations were already documented as Word files by teachers and

handed out to every student in the classroom, while peer evaluations were written by students

as their homework. After students submitted their evaluations to teachers, I gathered data

from the teachers and transcribed them into a Word Document.

On the other hand, I also wrote comments and graded presentations for the three

participants based on the teachers’ class requirements and presentation rubrics. This

observer’s comment data were also examined with teacher and peer evaluations together by

using the content-based analysis approach. Data were managed and integrated into three

cases for the participants. Every participant’s case was read multiple times to find the

important points and compare these points with other participants. The most salient points

were highlighted in each participant’s case, because they are helpful in data presentation and

interpretation.

Analysis for Observation. I observed the three participants from the perspective of a

classmate. As a familiar observer for the three participants, I could collect reliable data during

their in-class presentations. I first made notes regarding the participants’ anxious reactions,

presentation topics, presentation content and the observable coping strategies that the ESL

students adopted to alleviate their speaking anxiety. Then, I scored the participants’

presentations following the teachers’ rubrics and class requirements. These observation notes

were collected and organized into Word Documents. I classified and examined these data for

42
each participant by using content-based analysis. The observation data were read carefully

and key information was highlighted to identify possible factors that caused in-class speaking

anxiety and coping strategies utilized by the participants during presentations.

43
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The third chapter elaborates the procedures of data collection and analysis by using

four types of research instruments: the pre-task questionnaire; post-task interview;

observation including rubrics; and comment data from teachers, classmates as well as the

researcher. Based on the data analyzed in Chapter 3, results correlated to the three research

questions will be discussed in this chapter.

Findings

Findings of the First Research Question. Collected data were classified and

analyzed to investigate findings of the participants’ in-class presentation anxiety and their

presentation performances, respectively. Afterwards, the findings from the data analysis were

summarized and integrated to explore the connections between the L2 students’ speaking

anxiety and in-class presentation performance.

Participants’ in-class speech anxiety scale. The first research question was

examined through the pre-task questionnaire, post-task interview, observation, and

teacher/peer evaluations. Based on the questionnaire data, Table 5 shows the average scores

for each item and the three participants. The average scores represent the participants’

in-class presentation anxiety scales while a lower score means a higher level of speaking

anxiety.

Table 5

Participants’ speaking anxiety scales (based on questionnaire data)

The Number of Item Student H Student Y Student Z Average Score of

44
 Each Item

No.1 4 3 2 3

No. 2 4 2 2 2.67

No.3 3 3 1 2.34

No.4 5 2 2 3

No.5 5 2 2 3

No.6 4 2 3 2.67

No.7 5 1 1 2.67

No.8 5 2 2 3

No.9 4 3 2 3

No.10 5 2 2 3

No.11 3 2 3 2.67

No.12 3 1 3 2.34

No.13 4 2 4 3.33

No.14 3 3 1 2.34

No.15 3 3 4 3.33

No.16 2 3 4 3

No.17 3 2 4 3

No.18 4 3 3 3.33

No.19 3 2 2 2.34

No.20 4 1 3 2.67

45
No.21 4 1 1 2

No.22 4 1 3 2.67

No.23 4 2 2 2.67

Average Score 3.83 2.87 2.43

for Every Participant

As Table 5 demonstrates, Student Y has the highest level of anxiety because of the

lowest score among the three participants. In order to obtain an accurate score, I added

anxiety scales which were selected by the participants in their interviews to calculate the final

scores representing the participants’ speaking in-class presentation scales (see Table 6).

Table 6

Students’ in-class speaking anxiety scale (based on interview and questionnaire)

Student H Student Y Student Z

Anxiety Scale 3.83 2.87 2.43

(questionnaire)

Anxiety Scale 3 2 3

(interview)

Total Average scale 3.445 2.435 2.715

The reasons that the participants chose relevant speaking anxiety scales in their

interviews were given in the interview data:

Student H: “It is okay for me to give in-class presentations in English, I just need
enough time for my preparations my English is not good.”
Student Y: “Super nervous! I don’t like that! I don’t want to be a focus in front of
people.”
Student Z: “…little nervous because English is not my mother tongue.. But…it’s fine.
Presentations are better than papers, and I’m getting used to deliver English speeches
46
 in front of my classmates now. So, I don’t think I’m nervous as before”.
These students’ perceptions of in-class presentations offered reasons why they chose

their own representative anxiety scales. Student Y thought that presentations are an extremely

tense oral activity because she is afraid to be the focus of the class. Although Students H and

Z mentioned that in-class presentations are not extremely stressful speaking activities for

them, they still get anxious about oral presentations because they do not have higher English

proficiency. Specially, Student H, who has higher English proficiency than others, said the

reason he got anxious during presentations is that English is his second language. Therefore,

Students H and Z chose Scale 3 (an intermediate level) to describe their in-class speaking

anxiety in the interview.

The total average score for each student based on both the questionnaire and interview

data (Table 6) demonstrates that Student H has a lower level of speaking anxiety. Compared

with Student H, Student Y shows the highest oral anxiety, and Student Z remains at an

intermediate level of speaking anxiety. These results of language anxiety scales were

combined with the participants’ presentation performance in the classroom, which will be

analyzed below.

Participants’ presentation performances. Students’ presentation performances were

measured by their teachers, classmates, and the observer (Table 7) based on the rubrics

associated with the comment data to elaborate their speaking anxiety levels from the

audience’s perspectives.

47
Table 7

Students’ presentation performance

Student H Student Y Student Z

Number of Presentations 1 2 1 2 1 2

Observation 90% 75% 90% 90% 82.5% 87.5%

Teacher Evaluation 93.75% 70.83% 88.75% 83.3% 80% 85%

Peer Evaluation 90% 82.5% 95% 90% 87.5% 90%

Average 91.25% 76.11% 91.25% 87.77% 83.3% 87.5%

According to Table 7, Student Z received a medium score in his two presentations,

and Students H and Y both received one lower score and one higher score in their

presentations.

Connections (speaking anxiety & presentation performance). It is worth noticing

that Student H received a lower score in his second presentation while Student Y gained a

higher score in her first in-class presentation. However, the data regarding L2 students’

speaking anxiety scales indicate that Student H has a lower level of speaking anxiety while

Student Y has a higher level of anxiety. It turns out that these presentation performance data

may not have much connection with the ESL students’ speaking anxiety because the

participants could still obtain a high presentation score when they experience in-class speech

anxiety. For the same reason, the participant with a lower level of speaking anxiety might get

a low presentation grade. Performances regarding Student H’s second presentation and

Student Y’s first presentation have been analyzed in detail based on the comment data (Table

8) to explore their connections with speaking anxiety.

48
Table 8

Comment data for Student H and Y’s presentation performance

Student H

Teacher “Posture and eye contact was good, you seemed very relaxed and

Evaluations self-confident during your presentation. However, the tittle and name

affiliation of your poster are hard to read. The graphics present lacking

explanations.”

Peer “You maintain the eye contact with little gesture; I could understand your

Evaluations presentation.”

Observation Speech is clear, looks confidence, some pauses and fillers, the poster is not

clear.

Lower level of speaking anxiety scale , but the score is NOT High

Student Y

Teacher “1.You seemed generally positive about your topic. You were very fluent and

Evaluations did not use many pauses or fillers.

2. Your eye contact was okay at times, but you spend more time than should

be necessary looking at your cards.

3. Your posture and body language were very good. It might be better next

time to try to move out from behind the podium a bit if possible.”

Peer Your presentation is so funny and cute; you attract the attention of audience.

Evaluations However, you need to speak slower so that we can understand what you are

talking about. Calm down a little bit, do not be nervous”.

49
Observation Dressing more formal than others, hiding behind the podium, spending more

time to look at the cards and the computer.

Higher level of speaking anxiety scale, but the score is high

The comment data, related to Student H, evaluate his performance on the second

presentation as a lower score performance. The reasons for this lower score were not

attributed to in-class speaking anxiety, but to the content of Student H’s second presentation.

Because of his disorganized poster, Student H’s second presentation grade is not high.

Although Student H was regarded as having a lower speaking anxiety level, his speaking

teacher commented that he was a confident presenter with enough eye contact. My

observation notes for Student H are similar to the teacher’s comments, while the partner’s

comments focused more on his confidence. In contrast, Student Y was perceived as a nervous

presenter during presentations because of her higher in-class speaking anxiety level, and the

comment data which identified her as being anxious. However, she still received a higher

score in her first presentation because her content attracted the audience’s attention.

This means that both presentation contents and in-class presentation anxiety may

affect presenters’ performance. Although ESL learners get anxious about presentations, the

degree of anxiety tends to have little effect on their presentation performance.

Findings of the Second Research Question. Possible factors causing the ESL

learners’ speaking anxiety in presentations were classified as subjective and objective factors

on the basis of the pre-task questionnaire and post-task interview in this section. Six possible

factors have been found as contributing to the causes of anxiety in ESL students regarding

oral presentations.

50
 The subjective factors. Although all the participants perceived their English

proficiency as being at the intermediate level, their ESL language ability is mentioned

frequently in the post-task interviews:

Student H: “……I feel nervous because my English is not good. I always tend to
correct my pronunciation during the presentation, but the more I correct, the more
anxious I get. ”
Student Y: “I even feel more nervous when I give the presentation in Chinese! So…It’s
same in English.”
Student Z: “……little nervous because English is not my mother tongue. Sometimes, I
need more time to translate Chinese into English.”
All the participants believed that giving presentations in English causes their tense

feeling. Even Student Z who has the highest English proficiency level among the three

participants was not confident about his English during presentations because English is not

his mother tongue. Therefore, it suggests that concerns about English proficiency causes

anxious feelings not only for lower level students, but also for advanced level students.

To give a presentation in English would be a cognitively demanding activity for ESL

students whose L2 proficiency is not high. They need to consider presentation ideas or recall

presentation contents while translating these ideas and contents from L1 to L2. In contrast,

for ESL students who reach almost (near-) native-like speaking proficiency delivering a

speech in English is nearly automatic behavior. They do not need to spend more time on the

translation of the presentation ideas or contents. English proficiency for the three participants

is still far from a native-like level as they pay too much attention on the processing and

translating of presentation ideas. Therefore, ESL students perceive English proficiency as a

factor that causes in-class speaking anxiety.

Next, the time required for participants to prepare oral presentations affects their

speaking anxiety. The data from the questionnaire investigated factors which cause speaking
51
anxiety. The sixth and seventh items of this questionnaire explored the preparation time as a

possible factor (Table 3) while the average score has been calculated in both items as 2.6

separately (Table 5). Due to the fact that a lower average score means a higher level of

anxiety, all the participants regarded their preparation time as an anxiety-inducing factor in

their presentations. Especially, Student Z, who had a higher English proficiency level, and

Student Y with a lower English proficiency level, both chose “1” to represent their higher

speaking anxiety regarding their preparation time (Table 5) in Item 7. It reveals preparation

time as a possible factor that causes speaking anxiety for students with both lower and higher

English proficiency. The lower English proficiency Student Y may have more intense

reflections regarding presentation preparation time in the interview. She mentioned that she

felt her heart pounding when her assignments do not give her enough preparation time.
Student Y: “……If the teacher does not give me enough time to prepare or ask me to
deliver an impromptu presentation; I would feel my heart pounding.”
Additionally, Student H who has lower level of speaking anxiety also mentioned in

his interview:
Student H: “……If I spend more than 3 hours on my preparation, I would not feel
tense in my presentation.”
The interview data suggest that students with lower speaking anxiety may also feel

concerned about presentation preparation time. To summarize these findings related to the

presentation preparation time, all the participants experienced speaking anxiety in the

classroom without enough presentation time. Longer preparation time would allow students

to feel more relaxed before in-class presentations.

Then, participants’ presentation experiences also become a possible factor that causes

in-class speaking anxiety. As mentioned in Table 2, Student Y is a novice presenter in

52
comparison to Students H and Z. The other two participants, Z and H, both have some

experience in giving presentations in their first language, but they have given more

presentations at INTO Marshall. Student H is the most experienced presenter among the three

participants. When the researcher as an interviewer asked questions regarding the participants’

in-class presentation experiences, the more experienced presenters stated that the more they

present in class, the less they feel nervous. For instance, Student H said that he was not so

nervous as before because he frequently had to give presentations.

Student H: “I gave the similar English presentations in my bachelor degree when I
was in China, but it was my nightmare …my oral English was really weak. I took
more than a week to practice my pronunciations and remember the draft. But now,
I’m getting used to the life with presentations, because I need to deliver presentations
almost twice a month. I’m not nervous as before. ”
Student Y: “My Bachelor degree did not require us to give presentation, so, I never
gave presentations before, even in Chinese...I still feel embarrassed and upset when I
think about my first time to give the presentation in INTO now.”
In contrast, Student Y, who did have much experience in presentations before, is still

in the process of adapting to classes in the U.S. which frequently require oral presentations.

She said that she still feels upset when she recalls her first presentation. It shows that novice

presenters may experience more anxieties in their initial presentations, even causing some

unpleasant experiences. Therefore, it can be concluded that experienced presenters

experience less nervousness than novice presenters.

The objective factors. Topics chosen by teachers may cause ESL students to get

anxious during presentations; even unfamiliar topics could affect students’ presentation

performances. All the participants indicated their anxious feelings about unfamiliar

presentation topics:
Student Z: “……it worries me when I get the topics are professional and abstract.”
Student H: “……it depends on topics. I’m not good at drawing, so I don’t know how
53
 to design or present a poster in-detail. That is the reason why I lost so many scores in
my second presentation.”
Student Y: “……I would like to give presentations, if I got my favorite topics. Just as
last time I gave the presentation about my hobby and I got a good score.”
The interview feedback strongly suggests that participants are keen on their

presentation topics when those topics are consistent with their interests, such as favorite foods

or habits (Table 1). In contrast, abstract presentation topics or formats lead participants to lose

interest in in-class presentations. For example, Student H, who got a lower score in his

second presentation, explained that the topic of his second presentation was to elaborate a

study plan in the format of a poster. However, he did not have prior presentation experience

with posters, and this topic was also unfamiliar to him. Thus, he was weak in his poster

design as well as his explanations of the poster.

Audience attention is a bigger factor for novice presenters than for experienced

presenters with regard to causing anxiety. Although the data gleaned from Items 16 and 18 in

the questionnaire (Tables 3 and 5) regarding audience attention were calculated as

intermediate (average score: 3) and higher intermediate (average score: 3.3) scores, the

results do not suggest that all the participants experience the same medium level of speaking

anxiety in the class. The interview data support this finding: Student H stated that he may

repeat words but not perform too nervously in front of an audience, while Student Y, who

chose the item of getting anxious in front of an audience, explained that she was afraid to

look at the audience. Student Z chose a neutral score in the questionnaire, and only

mentioned that he got anxious with the teachers’ attention.

Student H: “….I had a good preparation and I think can handle all the problems. So,
nothing is afraid.” (2: strong disagree)
Student Z: “……if my teacher looks at me, I would feel uncomfortable so that I
usually look at other places….” (3: neutral)
54
 Student Y: “……I only look at my friends when I giving presentation. Others make
me nervous….” (4: strong agree)
Although audience attention causes more speaking anxiety for novice presenters, they

are not so anxious about criticism from the audience. The other experienced presenters were

not so worried about being laughed at by the audience. Thus, although audience attention

may cause less anxiety for experienced presenters and more for novice presenters,

participants might not be afraid of laughter from the audience.

Some peripheral presentation requirements such as time, notes, and impromptu speech

may also lead ESL students to get anxious, but they are marginal factors. Some ESL students

may feel tense about one of the above requirements, while others may not get anxious about

it. For instance, based on the interview data, Student Z who remains at the intermediate level

of anxiety indicated that notes are important for him when he gives a presentation, while

Student H is nervous about time limits for presentations. As for Student Y, she is afraid to

give an impromptu presentation.

Student H: “……I usually give presentations without notes….I want to say more in my
favorite presentation, but I start to panic after the teacher reminds me that I’m
running out of time…..”
Student Y: “……If the teacher does not give me enough time to prepare or ask me to
deliver an impromptu presentation, I would feel my heart pounding…..we all know the
presentation will be scored. So, that is okay for me…..”
Student Z: “…….if I cannot read my notes, I would feel nervous….”
This interview data indicate that although time, notes, and impromptu speeches as

secondary factors account for smaller percentages in teachers’ presentation rubrics,

participants are still nervous about them. However, ESL students may get anxious about these

different secondary presentation requirements.

Therefore, subjective factors (L2 students’ English proficiency, preparation time, and

prior presentation experiences) and objective factors (unfamiliar presentation topics, audience
55
attention, and secondary presentation requirements) were categorized as causing in-class

speaking anxiety in the presentation.

Findings of the Third Research Question. Based on the interviews and observation

data, I identified coping strategies adopted by the participants to reduce their in-class

speaking anxiety in presentations. The following data are responses from the interviews:
Interviewer: Are there any ways for you to cope with your nervousness or anxiety in
the presentations? If yes, please provide some details.
Student H: “….it is important to have enough preparation. Do not be distracted and
just focus what you are going to say…. ”
Student Y: “The essential way is to improve my oral English……I only look at my
friends when I giving presentation, others make me nervous…I may even cross my
hands, but audience cannot see it, because I usually stand behind the podium…if I
nervous I may make mistakes or forget what I am going to say, I would repeat that
sentence or say “I’m sorry…”
Student Z: “…The important thing is to develop the reaction capacity in the class,
because we do not know what would happen in our presentation ……Then, I usually
look at my note card when I nervous.”
During the interview, Student H claimed that to have enough preparations and focus

on his own presentations are his coping strategies to regulate in-class speech anxiety. The

observation showed that Student H also tended to adopt repetitions, fillers in his presentation

to reduce speaking anxiety.

Student Y, with higher in-class speech anxiety, tended to hide behind the podium and

use physical adjustments and fillers to camouflage or reduce her nervousness. Although she

admitted her frequent coping strategies for reducing speaking anxiety in presentations are

using fillers and physical adjustments, to improve oral English is her essential strategy to

improve her presentation performance.

Student Z, who has the highest English proficiency among the participants, mentioned

that developing a healthy “spirit of improvisation” in the class and using note cards helped

56
him to alleviate his speaking anxiety. However, the observation notes recorded that he spent

more time on his note cards and used many pauses and fillers. Thus, it is clear that the coping

strategies for Student Z are to improve random response capabilities, use physical adjustment,

and adopt pauses and fillers.

These strategies used by the participants in their presentations to regulate in-class

speaking anxiety can be categorized into short-term and long-term coping strategies.

Short-term coping strategies are strategies that can be used during presentations to reduce

current speaking anxiety such as to adopting physical adjustment, using repetitions, pauses,

fillers and focusing on the presentations, while long-term strategies refer to long time

preparations and improvements for English speaking proficiency to alleviate future in-class

speaking anxiety, such as having a good preparation, developing a well spirit of

improvisation for impromptu presentations or other presentation requirements.

Summary

According to the data in the Tables 6 and 7, it is possible for the participant who

performs with lower speaking anxiety during presentations to get a lower score while the

higher speaking anxiety scale participant may receive a higher score. Although Student H

remained at the intermediate level on the anxiety scale, his second presentation score was a

little higher than that of the first one. Thus, it can be concluded that L2 learners get anxious in

presentations, but the degree of anxiety tends to have little effect on their presentation

performance. Students’ presentation performances may also be affected by other variables

while in-class speaking anxiety could also be regulated by students’ coping strategies. That is

the reason why students can still gain good presentation scores in activities that induce severe

57
anxiety.

Factors causing speaking anxiety in ESL student presentations explored in this

research are their English proficiency, assignment preparation time, and their prior

presentation experiences, presentation topics, audience attention, and secondary presentation

requirements. These factors are classified into subjective and objective factors causing L2

students’ anxiety during presentations. However, secondary presentation requirements are

peripheral factors because they are student-oriented. Some ESL students get anxious about a

specific factor while others may not or feel less tense about it.

Based on these factors, ESL students have their own strategies to regulate their

anxious behaviors. These strategies have been investigated and summarized through

interviews and observation data. The collected data indicate that ESL participants tended to

adopt short-term and long-term coping strategies in their presentations to reduce in-class

speaking anxiety. For instance, the short-term coping strategies are to adopt physical

adjustment, to use some repetitions, pauses, fillers and to focus on students’ own

presentations, while long-term strategies are to improve students’ English proficiency, to have

good preparation, and to develop good random response capabilities with impromptu

presentations or other presentation requirements.

Findings can be clarified into five points below: L2 learners get anxious about

presentations, but this in-class speaking anxiety does not have so much connection with their

presentation performance. Complex subjective and objective factors, such as English

proficiency and audience attention can cause anxiety in presentations and may even affect

students’ presentation performances. Additionally, some factors such as secondary

58
presentation requirements are peripheral factors that cause some L2 students to get anxious

about oral presentations. Next, some coping strategies adopted by learners are not so effective

in giving presentations. For instance, using too much physical adjustment, pauses and fillers

not only leads students to get a lower presentation score, but also forms negative English

speaking habits. What is more, in order to reduce L2 students’ speaking anxiety and improve

their English proficiency to avoid ineffective efforts, the findings suggest that it is essential to

develop more long-term coping strategies.

59
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of the present study was to explore connections between ESL students’

presentation performance and in-class speaking anxiety, factors causing speaking anxiety in

presentations, and coping strategies adopted by ESL students to reduce oral anxiety during

presentations. Chapter 4 presented findings of the current research. This chapter will further

discuss these findings based on the collected data and their implications for the present

research as well as future in-class presentation designs.

Discussion

Due to the fact that in-class speaking anxiety is a situation-specific form of language

anxiety, it is stable over time, but not necessarily consistent across situations (MacIntyre,

1999). In other words, this specific form of anxiety in a single context can be regulated by

coping strategies contributing to students’ target language development. It implies that the

regulated speaking anxiety may exist permanently, but it cannot always remain at the same

level within different speaking activities. Thus, it may be difficult for teachers to determine

whether L2 students have experienced in-class speaking anxiety because speaking anxieties

differ from activity to activity. L2 students’ performances of in-class speaking activities do

not have much connection with their speaking anxiety level. The anxious feelings from

ESL/EFL students could be reduced by effective coping strategies to gain higher-scored

speaking performances. In contrast, most ineffective short-term coping strategies could also

be used to alleviate in-class speaking anxiety. However, such strategies might lead L2

students to get lower scores. Therefore, in-class speech anxiety cannot be measured only by

60
students’ speaking activity performances alone.

Factors causing students to get anxious in presentations have been explained and

categorized into subjective and objective factors: English proficiency, time for preparation,

presenters’ experiences, unfamiliar topics, audience attention and some secondary

requirements in presentations. ESL students are primarily worried about their English

speaking proficiency because English is their second language. The lower English

proficiency learners may process their ideas in a way similar to what they do in their L1 and

translate their thoughts into L2 at the same time. It is a cognitively demanding process for

these lower English level students. Although higher English proficiency ESL students spend

less time translating, they are also required to learn the skills and ways to deliver more

academic speeches instead of simple everyday speaking skills.

The language of academia differs from everyday language. The most obvious

characteristic of the language of schooling, to the non-initiated, is that it is decontextualized

(Schleppegrell, 2004). Abstract and decontextualized academic English is a brand-new

language for ESL as well as L2 learners, which has different linguistic choices from

conversational interactions for higher level ESL students to approach and study at universities.

For the same reason, this new language is also cognitively demanding for higher level ESL

participants. They need to consider the context and language choices when they give a speech

in academic areas in the classroom. That is also the reason why Student Z who has the

highest English proficiency among the three ESL students still claimed that English is hard

for him. Thus, English proficiency is an essential factor that causes ESL students’ in-class

presentation anxiety because lower level students spend more time on the translation of ideas

61
while higher level students may focus more on the choices of grammar structures or language

use.

Lack of preparation time for students is a subjective factor causing in-class anxiety. It

has been mentioned before that giving in-class presentations in English for L2 students is a

cognitively demanding activity. Students need time to construct their ideas and make correct

language choices, while preparing for presentations is a process by which L2 students

practice their English speaking in order to master presentation skills and reduce language

anxieties. More preparation and practice time is similar to the message redundancy: repeating

main presentation contents gives students more opportunities to improve and master their

presenting skills (Wong-Fillmore 1985). In contrast, if students spend less time preparing for

their presentations with a lower level of random response capabilities, they may not give

fluent presentations thereby causing speaking anxiety in the classroom.

ESL students who have more prior presentation experiences may feel less nervous

than novice presenters. Their prior presentation experiences form their learning schemata

bridging their prior and current knowledge. Thus, students who have presented before would

not get anxious while less experienced presenters feel tense because they do not have enough

prior presenting schemata to absorb and transform their current language into a desired form

of using L2. L2 leaners face the additional challenge of regulating their speaking anxiety

while adapting to the requirements of a new speaking activity.

Unfamiliar presentation topics belong to objective factors causing L2 students’

speaking anxiety. An L2 learner will have a more difficult time earning a high score on a

presentation if she is not already familiar with and interested in the topic. Although it is

62
effective to bridge students’ current knowledge and essential language skills by assigning

unfamiliar presentation topics, L2 teachers should use the strategy appropriately to avoid

causing student anxiety.

Due to the fact that ESL students spend their time on the processing of presentation

ideas and target language translations, they are not available to focus on other things.

Audience attention might be a distracting factor. L2 students have to recall their presentation

contents, translate their ideas, and consider their audience’s expectations at the same time.

The more they care about their audiences, the more nervous they feel in the speaking activity.

However, this distraction also can be reduced with students’ speaking anxiety scales. ESL

students who have more prior presentation experiences are getting used to be a focus in front

of classmates and teachers, so they are more familiar with the major requirements from

teachers and expectations from audience. That is why experienced presenters are not so

nervous with the attentions from audiences.

Secondary requirements for presentations are peripheral factors causing students’

in-class speaking anxiety. These requirements may lead some students to experience extreme

nervous feelings, while others might feel less anxious. Although these requirements are

peripheral factors, the anxious feelings caused by them still form obstacles in L2 learners’

second language development. Therefore, the effects from secondary requirements cannot be

overlooked.

Participants seem to have their own ways to regulate their anxious feelings. These

strategies are summarized as short-term and long-term coping strategies adopted into their

in-class presentations to reduce their speaking anxiety. Although some short-term strategies

63
can reduce students’ nervous feelings by shifting these feelings through physical adjustment

or language fillers, L2 students would appear more nervous from the audience’s perspective

after using such short-term strategies. Audience and presentation raters can regard students

using these short-term anxiety coping strategies during speeches as anxious presenters. Thus,

scores for this kind of presenters are not high because of students’ nervous performances.

Compared with short-term coping strategies, long coping strategies may not alleviate in-class

speaking anxiety directly during presentation. Students’ English proficiency and ability for

“emergency” management in the classroom are developed to further reduce oral anxiety.

Although long-term coping strategies are time-consuming, they aim to improve ESL students

learning abilities without forming negative speaking habits in the process of acquiring a

second language. However, ESL students usually adopt convenient short-term strategies

instead of time-consuming long-term strategies. Thus, in the process of second language

acquisition, these ESL students might foster negative speaking habits, such as using language

fillers and repetitions. To prevent the formation of these redundant negative speaking habits,

it is necessary for L2 teachers to help students identify effective coping strategies or give L2

students hints to discover their own effective coping strategies. Based on teachers’

instructions and suggestions, ESL students’ in-class speaking anxieties are reduced

effectively as well as fluent speeches are delivered without redundant negative speaking

habits.

Conclusions

Findings reveal that all participants get anxious during in-class oral presentations.

However, in-class speaking anxiety does not have much connection with ESL students’

64
presentation performances. ESL students’ presentation performances are also affected by

speaking anxiety coping strategies used in presentations. By adopting effective coping

strategies, higher anxiety level students effectively alleviate their nervous feelings to gain a

high score in presentations as well as developing effective language learning habits. On the

contrary, adopting ineffective coping strategies may reduce L2 students’ speaking anxiety, but

students may earn a low score during presentations. Although coping strategies can reduce

students’ speaking anxiety, it is also necessary for L2 teachers to create a low-anxiety

atmosphere in speaking classes, especially for in-class presentations.

Although the findings remind L2 teachers that ESL students’ presentation

performances would be affected by their speaking anxiety, these students’ L2 anxiety scales

cannot be decided directly through their in-class presentation performances. In order to figure

out whether L2 students have experienced in speaking anxiety and develop effective

strategies to reduce students’ in-class speaking anxiety, teachers need to go beyond simply

judging students’ presentation performance. By observing L2 students’ in-class presentation

performance and their speaking performances out of class, teachers can determine their ESL

students’ oral anxiety scales. If L2 students have had unpleasant presentation experiences or

felt extremely nervous during in-class presentations, the first strategy for teachers is to

encourage students. In-class presentations are not the only way to improve ESL students’ oral

proficiency, so students should not be discouraged by their unpleasant presentation

experiences. After L2 students feel more comfortable to present in the classroom through

teachers’ encouragement, teachers need to assist students to find their weaknesses or identify

ineffective speaking anxiety coping strategies. Thus, negative speaking habits could be

65
avoided and good presentation performances can be achieved by using effective speaking

anxiety coping strategies.

According to the present findings, students see the following as effective coping

strategies: to focus on the presentations, to improve oral English proficiency, to have a good

preparation, and to develop good random response capabilities with impromptu presentations.

In order to assist students to master these coping strategies to reduce speaking anxiety,

identify effective coping strategies from speaking anxiety strategies they used before as well

as develop more effective speaking anxiety coping strategies, some effective methods and

strategies will be elaborated from L2 teachers’ perspectives to diminish factors causing

students’ oral anxiety.

Based on factors causing students’ in-class speaking anxiety, ESL students’ English

proficiency is the first factor mentioned in the interview data. For both higher and lower

English proficiency L2 students, in-class presentation is a cognitively demanding activity for

them. Lower English level of students need to improve their simple everyday conversations

with basic academic grammar, while higher level of ESL students should focus more on the

using of academic language. Although this language learning processes is a challenge for all

ESL students, lower level of ESL students suffer more from obstacles in presentation

activities. Due to the fact that students with lower English proficiency cannot memorize too

many complex clauses or sentences as well as academic technical terms, these cognitively

demanding structures need to be avoided in low-anxiety presentations. Thus, for the lower

level of L2 students, teachers may encourage them to use more simple words and structures

to present. It is easy for these students to recall their presentation ideas. On the other hand, for

66
higher level of ESL students concerned about technical terms and language use in their

academic presentations, note cards and outlines should be encouraged. With the

encouragement of outline writing and note card use, L2 students are able to organize a

coherent academic speech.

Although previous researchers proved the video recording is a factor causing students

to get anxious in speaking classes (King, 2002), it can be used out of the classrooms or at

home for L2 students’ presentation rehearsals. A good rehearsal means enough preparations,

which can help students overcome problems for lacking of the preparation time. By

rehearsing in front of the video recorder, L2 students may become familiar with their

presentation contents as well as more aware of their own speaking habits in front of

audiences. Getting used to presenting in front of mechanical recorders is beneficial for L2

novice presenters increasing and negative speaking habits correcting. After ESL students

deliver a good speech with recordings from the mechanical “audience,” they are able to

achieve a high score presentation performance in front of real classroom audiences.

Peer assessment is an effective teaching method to assist students in achieving a good

presentation performance (Otoshi & Hefferman, 2008) except for overlooking ESL students’

speaking anxieties. Attention from classmates and teachers may cause L2 students to get

anxious during presentations. However, if the peer assessment can be used before and out of

class presentations, L2 students could achieve better presentation performances and enjoy this

oral activity. Allowing ESL students to have peer assessments before class presentations

could provide opportunities for knowing their classmates’ topics and learning from them.

Even L2 students can be inspired by some encouragement or suggestions from their peer

67
assessment so that they would not feel anxious during presentation.

Unfamiliar topics not only cause students’ anxious feeling in presentations, but also

lead L2 students to get a lower score. In order to reduce students’ tense feelings about

unfamiliar presentation topics, teachers may need to choose more flexible presentation topics

associated with L2 students’ majors, interests and essential presentation skills. L2 students

would feel more relax and comfortable delivering a speech in the classrooms and desire to

present more ideas related to these topics. Although this way choosing topics is also a

challenge for teachers, it is an effective strategy to avoid L2 student get more anxious about

unfamiliar presentation topics.

Although less previous research focused on speaking in-class anxiety in presentation

activity, the current research project fills this gap by investing connections between ESL

students speaking anxiety and presentation performances, factors causing in-class

presentation anxiety and coping strategies adopted by students in presentations. According to

the findings based on these three research questions, relevant suggestions have been offered

above to reduce students’ speaking anxiety caused by investigating factors from teachers’

perspectives and to develop effective anxiety coping strategies.

This study is limited to the interview data collection. The post-task interview took

place in the students’ native language and was then translated into English. The main reason

to do this was so that the students might have less difficulty expressing their real feelings and

thoughts. It would be ideal to collect larger data samples for further research. I was able to

recruit only three participants for the current research project because of the time limitation

and some interpersonal reasons from the teachers. These collected data cannot present a full

68
picture of ESL students’ in-class speaking anxiety in presentations.

The focus of this research is on ESL students’ in-class speaking anxiety. For future

research, other factors causing speaking anxiety might be explored, such as gender,

technologies, and teachers’ feedback. Additionally, coping strategies for other specific types

of anxieties, such as speaking anxiety with native speakers or writing anxiety under

standardized test contexts might further be examined.

69
 REFERENCES
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The
case of students of Japanese, Modern Language Journal 78(2): 155-67.

Angus, R. (2014). A sociosemantic examination of secondary English teacher written feedback.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. UMI Number: 3686821

Bailey, K.M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at
and through the diary studies. In H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented
research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newburry House, pp. 67-102.

Beatty, M. J., & Andriate, G. A. (1985). Communication apprehension and general trait anxiety in
prediction of public speaking anxiety. Communication quarterly, 33, 174-184.

Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth.

Campbell, C. M., & Ortiz, J. (1991). Helping students overcome foreign language anxiety: A
foreign language anxiety workshop. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (EDs.), Language
anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implication. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall,pp153-168.

Caver, C.S., & Scheier, M. F. (1986). Functional and dysfunctional responses to anxiety: The
interaction between expectancies and self-focused attention. In R. Schwarzer(Ed.),
Self-related cognition in anxiety and motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.pp.111-142

Creswell J. (1999). Mixed-method research: introduction and application. In: Cizek GJ, ed.
Handbook of Educational Policy. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 455-472.

Daly, J., & McCoskey, J.C. (1984). Avoiding communication apprehension: Shyness, reticeness,
and communication apprehension. Bevery Hills, CA:Sage.

Dewaele, J. M., K. V. P., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional intelligence and
sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among
adult multilinguals: A review and empirial investigation. Language Learning 58.4,911-960.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. Viewpoints on
English as a second language. New York: Regents, pp.9-126

Endler, N.S. (1980). Person-situation interaction and anxiety. In I. L. Kutash (Ed.), Handbook on
stress and anxiety. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp.249-266.

Gardner, R., Clement, C., Smythe, P.C., & Smythe. C. C. (1979). Attitudes and motivation test
70
 battery, revised manual (Research Bulletin No. 15). London, Ontario: University of Western
Ontario.

Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,
26-34.

Gregersen, T. S., & E.K. Horwitz (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and
non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern
Language Journal 86.4, 562–570.4

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom
implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Horwitz, E.K., M.B. Horwitz & Cope, J. (1986).Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern
Language Journal 70. 2, 125–132.

Horwitz, E. K., M. T., & H. Luo (2009). Foreign language anxiety. In J. C. Cassady (edu.),
Anxiety in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic anxieties. New
York: Peter Lang.

Horwitz, E. k., & Young, D. (1991b). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom
implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

King, J. (2002). Preparing EFL learners for oral presentations. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic
Studies, 4, 401-418.

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 85, 549-566.

Kleinmann, H.H. (1977) Avoidance Behavior in Adult Second Language Acquisition’, Language
Learning 27(1): 93-107

LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon and Schuster, New York.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Liu, M.,& Jackson, J.(2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to

communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern language journal. 92 (1), 71-81.

Liu, M.H. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System. 34.
301-316.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2007). Proposals that work: A guide for
planning dissertations and grant proposals (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71
MacIntyre, P.D. (1999). Language Anxiety: A Review of the research for language teachers. Affect
in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a
low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill College.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1988). The measurement of anxiety and applications to
second language learning: An annotated bibliography(Research Bulletin No.672). London,
Canada: The University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology.

Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System.
39.202-204.

Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language
classroom. System. 32, 21–36.

Miles, R. (2014) Oral presentations for English proficiency purposes. Reflections on English
Language Teaching. 8, 103–110.

Miller, D. (1992). The experiences of a first-year college president: An ethnography. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Otoshi, J., & Heffernan. N. (2008). Factors Predicting Effective Oral Presentations in EFL
Classrooms. Asian EFL Journal 10, 65-78.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English language anxiety:
Issues in the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 327-355.

Price, R. C., & O'Donovan, B. (2003) Improving students’ learning by developing their
understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education , 28 (2).

Richard A., & Patricia A. (1988). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language
classroom. New York: Longman.

Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern
Language Journal, 83, 202- 218.

Samimy, K. K., & Tabuse, M., (1992). Affective variables and a less commonly taught language:
a study in beginning Japanese classes. Language Learning 42, 37-398.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005.) The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New

Jersey: LEA

Schumann, F., & Schumann, J. (1977). Diary of a language learner: An introspective study of
72
 second language learning. TESOL. H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.). Washington, DC:
TESOL, 77, 241-249.

Scovel, T. (1978).the effect of affect on foreign language learning: a review of the anxiety
research. Language Learning, 28 (1), 129-142

Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (1994). Teacher’s handbook. Boston: Heinle and Heile.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.

Skinner, B, F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychological Press, 1983.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.

Taylor, S. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: Wiley.

Webster, F. (2002). A genre approach to oral presentations. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(7).
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Webster-OralPresentations.html.

Wong F. L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds),
Children of Social Worlds. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language, RELC Journal. 37 (3),
308-328.

Yan, J.X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal
and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: qualitative analysis of
EFL learners in China. Language Learning. 58 (1). 151-183.

Young, D.J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does the anxiety
research suggest? The Modern Language Journal 75.(4),426–439.

Young, D.J. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to
creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill College.

73
APPENDIX A

74
 APPENDIX B

STUDY 1 LANGUAGE ANXIETY IN IN-CLASS PRESENTATIONS

QUESTIONNAIRE

Thank you very much for participating in this study. The following is a questionnaire
concerning your anxiety in the language class, particularly in the in-class presentation. I
designed this questionnaire based on Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz,
Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Please read each statement carefully and indicate the extent to
which you agree or disagree by circling your choice on the five-point scale. The results of
this survey will be used only for the research purpose. Therefore, please honestly provide
your answers. I truly appreciate your sincere response!

Please circle answers below.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree
1. I feel very self-conscious about speaking English in front of other students.
1 2 3 4 5
2. In ESL classes, I feel more tense and nervous about the presentation than other class
activities.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I feel overwhelmed, because I have to learn the rules about how to give a good
presentation in the ESL class.
1 2 3 4 5
4. It worries me when I know I need to give multiple presentations in the ESL class.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I worry that I cannot make a good presentation in the ESL class.
1 2 3 4 5
6. In ESL classes, I start to panic before the presentation even if I have a good preparation for
it.
1 2 3 4 5
7. In ESL classes, I start to panic when I give the presentation without enough preparation.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I tremble when I know that I will be the next one to give the presentation in ESL class.
1 2 3 4 5
9. It frightens me when I know the in-class presentation will be graded by the teacher.
1 2 3 4 5
10. In ESL classes, I’m afraid that my teachers tend to correct mistakes I make during the
presentation.
1 2 3 4 5
11. I don't worry about making mistakes when I give the presentation in the ESL class.
1 2 3 4 5
12. In ESL classes, sometimes I can’t express my true feelings and thoughts in English after I
75
 make mistakes in my presentation, and this situation makes me uncomfortable.
1 2 3 4 5
13. In ESL classes, when I give presentations, I feel like a different person.
1 2 3 4 5
14. In the presentation, I may get so nervous that I forget what I know.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I can feel my heart pounding when I give the presentation in the ESL class.
1 2 3 4 5
16. In the process of giving presentation, I often stutter or repeat words when the teacher and
other classmates gaze at me.
1 2 3 4 5
17. I keep thinking that the other students are better at giving presentations in English than I
am.
1 2 3 4 5
18. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I give the presentation.
1 2 3 4 5
19. It embarrasses me to volunteer oral comments on my classmates’ presentations in
English.
1 2 3 4 5
20. I am usually at ease after finishing my presentation in the class.
1 2 3 4 5
21. After giving the presentation, I feel relaxed and happy when the teacher praises my
performance.
1 2 3 4 5
22. I get nervous when the teacher asks questions which I haven't prepared in advance after I
finish the presentation.
1 2 3 4 5
23. I get upset when I don't understand the teacher’s specific feedback on my presentation.
1 2 3 4 5

76
 STUDY 2 LANGUAGE ANXIETY IN IN-CLASS PRESENTATIONS INTERVIEW

Thank you very much for participating in this study. The following questions of this
interview are concerning your anxiety in the language class, particularly in the in-class
presentation. The results of this survey will be used only for the research purpose. Therefore,
please honestly provide your answers. I truly appreciate your sincere response!

Name:
Gender: Male/ Female
Age:

1. Do you think your personality is introvert or extrovert?

(你认为你的性格是内向还是外向？)
2. Can you please share with me your English learning experience? How do you think of
your English proficiency?
(你愿意和我分享一下你的英语学习经历么？你觉得自己英语水平怎么样？)
3. What is your previous experience about in-class presentations? Did you feel tense or not?
(你以前有过英语课堂演讲经历么？会不会紧张？)
4. Do you like in-class presentations or similar oral activities? And why?
(你喜欢课堂演讲或者类似的课堂口语练习么？为什么？)
5. Do you feel tense or nervous when you give in-class presentation in English? Why?
(用英语演讲会使你紧张么？为什么？)
6. In your opinion, what are the causes of your nervousness or anxiety in the presentation?
(你觉得一般什么原因会使你在课堂演讲中感到紧张？)
7. Are there any ways for you to cope with your nervousness or anxiety in the presentations?
If yes, please provide some details.（If the student seems not clear about the question, I
would ask “what procedures may help you feel relieved? ）
(你有没有什么特定的方式减轻或者转移这些演讲中的压力？如果有的话，能不能详
细的介绍一下？)

77
 VITA

Yusi Chen
EDUCATION
Master of Arts in English, TESOL option (Teaching English to speakers of other languages)
Marshall University, Huntington, USA, December 2015
Thesis: ESL Students’ Language Anxiety in In-class Oral Presentations
Committee: Dr. Ryan Angus and Dr. Bob Hong, Dr. Mimi Li

Bachelor of Arts in English, Minor in Business English

Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan, China, July, 2013
Graduated with Honors

HONORS AND AWARDS

Marshall University
2014 Marshall University Research Scholars Award ($250)

Shanxi University of Finance and Economics

2013 Honor of Excellent Graduation Thesis (¥ 700)
Shanxi University of Finance and Economics

2012 Competitive Academic Student Scholarship (¥ 150)

Shanxi University of Finance and Economics

2009-2012 Distinguished College Student Award,

Shanxi University of Finance and Economics

RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES
Presentations at Professional Meetings
International
Chen, Y. (2015, October). Helping ESL Students identify and reduce Speaking Anxiety in
In-class oral Presentations. Paper presented at Tri- TESOL (WAESOL, ORTESOL
and BC TEAL) Conference, Des Moines, WA.
Regional/local
Chen, Y. (2015, April). ESL Students’ Language Anxiety in In-class Oral Presentations.
Paper session. Paper presented at West Virginia TESOL (WVTESOL) Annual
Professional Development Conference, Charleston, WV.
Chen, Y. (2015, October). Making In-class Oral Presentations Stress Free: Focusing on
Reducing ESL Students’ Speaking Anxiety. Paper session. Paper presented at Ohio
TESOL Conference, Columbus, OH.
Attendances at Professional Meetings
2015, May. The attendance at Changes and Challenges in Language Teacher Education
Ninth International Conference on Language Teacher Education (CARLA
78
 Conference), Minneapolis, MN.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND SERVICE

Membership
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
West Virginia Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (WVTESOL)

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
06/2013-09/2013 Internship, Yunan Education Center for International Exchange, Yunnan,
Kunming, China
 To collect date; translate, type and put files in order

03/2013-05/2013 Internship, Environmental protection Bureau, Panlong district , Kuming,

Yunnan, China
 To collect date; translate, type and put files in order

SPECIAL ABILITIES & TALENTS

 Fluent Chinese，English (near native), Japanese (reading ability)
 Outstanding Traditional Chinese Instrument Player(Guqin)
 Microsoft Office (e.g., Word, Excel, PowerPoint)

79
Title ESL Students' Classroom Anxiety.
Author(s) Lawrence Jun Zhang
Source Teaching and Learning, 21(2), 51-62
Published by Institute of Education (Singapore)

This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or
any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright
owner.

The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document.

 ~ S Students'
L Classroom Anxiety
Lawrence Jun Zhang

Learning a second or foreign language in the classroom is not always

an anxiety-free experience. Research has repeatedly showed that
language learners are generally different in their demonstrations of
anxiety (Horwitz, et al., 1986; Aida, 1994; Saito, et al., 1999). Learners'
self-report about their worries and expectations in the process of
learning the target language for academic success and other purposes
has been a concern to language educators (Young, 1999).However, how
learners experience this kind of anxiety in a study-abroad context, i.e.,
away from their home country, has been insufficiently explored. For this
reason, this paper attempts to understand the degree of language
learning anxiety of a group of PRC students sktdying ESL in Singapore.

A summary of different categories used in anxiety research is available

by Hilleson (1996).Though definitions differ, it is generally agreed that
language anxiety in second language learning is related to the
psychological tension that a learner experiences in completing a
learning task and is situation-specific (Horwitz, et al., 1986;Aida, 1994;
Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Young, 1999). Borrowing the term from
psychology, Scovel (1978) defines anxiety in language learning as an
emotional state of "apprehension, a vague fear that is only indirectly
associated with an object" (p. 134). However, Horwitz, et al.'s (1986)
definition of anxiety as "a distinctive complex is more inclusive of
affective factors in relation to this construct of self-perceptions, beliefs,
feelings, and behaviours related to classroom language learning arising
from the uniqueness of the language learning process". Similarly,
Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) maintain that language learning anxiety
is related to how an individual reacts in a nervous manner when
speaking in the second language, and that the motivated individual is
one who devotes considerable effort in activities to achieve his or her
goal. Results of all the studies conducted thus far showed that learners'
lack of proficiency in the target language is a major contributor to their
anxiety and individual differences are salient features of language
anxiety (Horwitz, et al., 1986; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Aida, 1994;
Saito, et al., 1999).
 52 Teaching & Learning 2 1:2 January 200 1

A contributing factor to learners' success or failure to master

second/foreign language is the manner that learners orchestrate their
worries, apprehension, and even dread when faced with a certain
language task (Bailey, 1983). This anxiety can be either a strong
motivational variable which can stimulate learners, or a debilitating
factor, which could hinder the learner from achieving the expected goals
(Chastain, 1975; Scovel, 1978; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Young, 1999).
In Scovel's words:
Facilitating anxiety motivates the learner to "fight" the
learning task; it gears the learner emotionally for approach
behaviour. Debilitating anxiety, in contrast, motivates the
learner to "flee" the new learning task; it stimulates the
individual emotionally to adopt avoidance behaviour (Scovel,
1978, p. 139).
In examining adult English-speaking students' diaries on how they
learn a foreign language, Cohen and Norst (1989) found that students
have expressed their fears and anxiety when they are put in situations
where they have to perform before their peers and the teacher. These
fears and anxiety are reflected not only through the use of such words
as "embarrassment", "trauma", "unnerving", "frightening",
"resentment", "frustration" and so on, but also through their physical
responses. They tend to blush; their hands are likely to tremble; their
hearts tend to pound heavily and they may experience headaches in
such conditions. Similarly, using learner diaries, Hilleson (1996)
investigated how students experienced difficulties in academic study
that arose due to language problems. He found that the participants of
his study not only demonstrated anxiety in speaking and listening, but
also in reading and writing. Saito, et al. (1999) investigated second
language learners' general language and reading anxiety and suggested
that students' reading anxiety is not as great as their general language
anxiety. Similar findings were also found in Zhang's (2000) study of
reading anxiety of a group of PRC students learning ESL as a university
admission requirement in Singapore. Zhang reported that the biggest
source of reading anxiety was the students' lack of sufficient vocabulary.
Research on how anxiety affects their language learning process in a
study-abroad context is lacking (Freed, 1995). Therefore, this study
explores: (1)whether PRC students learning ESL experience language
learning anxiety in a study-abroad context, i.e., in a society like
Singapore with varied cultures; and (2) whether there are gender
differences between female and male students in their perceptions of
language learning anxiety.
ESL Students' Classroom Anxiety 53

THE CONTEXT O F THE STUDY

Participants and Method
One hundred and forty-five PRC ESL students participated in this study.
The participants comprised of students who had completed their second
year in senior middle school (SM2, N=75) and students who had
completed their third year in senior middle school (SM3, N=70). These
students were randomly selected from a total of about 410 cohort of
students who took up a six-month compulsory English communication
skills programme at two tertiary institutions in Singapore. Fifty-six of
them (38.6%) were females and eighty-nine (61.4%) were males. On the
average, all these PRC students had five to six years of EFL learning
experience in their homeland but lack sufficient exposure to English
before they came to Singapore. Their average age was about 18years and
the age difference between the SM2 and SM3 students was less than one
year.

Instrument and Its Reliability

The instrument used in this study consists of 33 items on the Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) to show the
degree of their agreement to each statement. This instrument was
adapted from Horwitz's Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
(FLCAS), as reported in Horwitz, et al. (1986) and Saito et al. (1999),
which has a consistency coefficient of .94 (Cronbach alpha, N=383). An
acceptable reliability of FLCAS is also reported elsewhere, for example,
Aida (1994) reports a test-retest reliability of this instrument in two
studies, both of which are acceptable (N= 108, r=.83, p<.01; N=54, r=.80,
p<.01 respectively).

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The survey instrument was administered to each class respectively by
the researcher and their class monitors in the eighth week of their study.
The survey was completed within 10 minutes. For students studying
in the other university where the researcher did not teach, data were
collected with the assistance of two students in their hostels. The data
were analysed to obtain descriptive and inferential statistics, the results
of which are reported below.

RESULTS
Students' perceptions of their anxiety in learning ESL in a study-abroad
context is shown in Table 1. Speaking remains the greatest challenge
• 54 Teaching & Learning 21 :I
January 2001

for them (item 1, 8=2.97, SD=1.12; item 9, 8=2.92, SD=1.04; item 24,
8=2.95, SD=.87). The students seemed to worry a lot about the
consequences of their ESL results (item 10, 8=2.87, SD=.96). Tests are
another source of their anxiety (item 8, 8=3.12, SD=.91). Answering
teachers' questions in the classroom tends to contribute to students'
levels of anxiety (item 33, 8=2.88, SD=1.02). However, speaking with
native speakers is not a major source of students' anxiety (item 14,
8=2.85, SD=1.03).Instead, they reported that they would probably feel
comfortable around native speakers of English (item 32, =2.87, SD=.97).
Generally, they would be upset if they are unable to understand the
teachers' corrections (item 15, 8=2.88, SD=.98).
The total means and standard deviations of the FLCAS with this
group of participants are 8=103.4 and SD=21.54 respectively. This
compares relatively well with the results reported in Saito et al. (1999);
that is, students' perception of anxiety on the scale is on the average a
little above 3 (3.14) on each of the 33 items on the five-point Likert scale.
The participants' levels of reading anxiety in the study by Saito et al.
(1999) are not as high as those on the FLCAS (8=95.2, SD=21.5). The
total means and SD on the FLCAS also compare well with what is
reported elsewhere on these students' reading anxiety. For example,
Zhang (2000) reported that his PRC students' reading anxiety showed
a total mean of 8=72.1, SD=23.6, which meant that they also showed
an average of slightly above 3 (3.13) and SD=1.02on the 5-point Likert
scale. This infer that the language anxiety in this group of ESL learners
not only reflected their reading skills but also their general language
learning.

Table 1. ESL Students' Perception of Anxiety on FLCAS

P - P

Foreign Language Classroom Mean Std Deviation

Anxiety Scale Items (8) (SDI

1. I never feel quite sure of myself

when I am speaking in English. 2.87 1.12
2. I don't worry about making mistakes
in language classes. 2.73 .96
3. I tremble when I know that I'm
going to be called on in English class. 3.68 .94
4. It frightens me when I don't
understand what the teacher is
saying in English. 3.10 1.01
5. It wouldn't bother me at all to take
more English classes. 2.89 1.05
ESL Students' Classroom Anxiety

During English class, I find myself

thinking about things that have
nothing to do with the course.
I keep thinking that the other students
are better in English than I am.
I am usually at ease during tests in
my English class.
I start to panic when I have to speak
without preparation in English in class.
I worry about the consequences of
failing English.
I don't understand why some people
get so upset over English class.
In English class, I can get so nervous
that I forget things I know.
I am too embarrassed to volunteer
answers in my English class.
I am not nervous when conversing
with the locals.
I get upset when I don't understand
the teacher's corrections.
Even if I am well prepared for
language class, I feel anxious/nervous
about it.
I often do not feel like attending
English class.
I feel confident when I speak in my
English class.
I am afraid that of being corrected by
my English teacher.
I feel my heart pounding when I am
going to be called on in my class.
The more I study for an English test,
the more confused I get.
I don't feel pressurised to prepare well
for English class.
I always feel the other students speak
better English than I do.
I feel very self-conscious when I use
English in front of other students.
I worry about not being able to catch up.
I feel more tense and nervous in my
English class than in the other classes.
I get nervous and confused when I
speak in my English class.
When I am on my way to language
class, I feel sure and relaxed.
 56 Teaching & Learning P l : P January PO0 l

29. I get nervous when I don't understand

what the English teacher says. 3.14 1.08
30. I feel overwhelmed by the number of
rules I have to learn to speak English. 3.23 .86
31. I am afraid the other students will
laugh at me when I speak English. 3.64 .86
32. I usually feel comfortable with local
English speakers. 2.87 .97
33. I get nervous when the English
teacher asks questions which I haven't
prepared. 2.88 1.02

To answer Research Question 2, t-tests were performed. Generally,

results showed that male students are significantly different from female
students (p<.05) in their perceptions of anxiety on 12 of the 33 items.
As reported in Table 2, males have stronger feelings of language anxiety
than females. Informal interviews with the students also revealed that
the higher anxiety of the males came from peer pressure, change of
learning environment and their perceived challenges of majoring in
engineering fields where their actual ability in using the language for
academic success were necessary. In addition, they were also worried
about taking the university admission test - the English Qualifying
Test administered by the two local universities.

The study aims to understand students' language learning difficulties

in studying language anxiety. Two important findings emerged from
this study. Firstly, on the average, both groups of PRC students
experience language anxiety in language learning because of the change
in learning environment. They had assumed that Singapore's socio-
cultural context would be identical with China's but discovered that
the two were very different. Secondly, male students have stronger
feelings of language anxiety than their female counterparts.
The first finding is in line with Saito, et al.'s (1999) report on their
study of foreign language learners in the United States. Their findings
suggest that the degree of anxiety reflected in the second language
learners' learning processes is a strong indicator of the learners'
perception of their intrinsic and internal, as well as their external,
orchestration of their progress. Majority of the PRC students had
difficulties speaking and writing in English to express themselves.
Unexpectedly however, they did not seem to experience anxiety when
conversing with the locals. This suggests that they perceive Singapore
Table 2 m
S
Cr,
3

Items in the Foreign Language Means Std Deviations S

3
Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (8) (SDI T-value P Comment '?
Q
F M F M 2
2. I don't worry about making mistakes in language classes.
3. I tremble when I know that I'm going to be called on in
English class.
5. It wouldn't bother me at all to take more English classes.
8. I am usually at ease during tests in my English class.
13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English class.
23. I always feel the other students speak better than I do.
27. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my
English class.
28. When I'm on my way to language class, I feel very sure
and relaxed.
29. I get nervous when I don't understand every word the
English teacher says.
30. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules I have to learn
to speak English.
31. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I
speak English.
32. I would feel comfortable with local English speakers.

F = Female; M = Male; *: significant at the level of p<.05; M>F =males have stronger feelings of anxiety than females
h
U
m
 58 Teaching & Learning 2 1:2 January PO0l

as a multi-ethnic society in which English is the lingua franca for people

of different ethnic backgrounds and that Singaporeans are not real
"native" English speakers. It may also suggest that they perceive the
requirements for using local varieties of English less challenging than
using native British or American variety. The local varieties of English
consisted of 'acrolect', 'mesolect' and 'basilect' (Platt & Weber, 1980).
The basilect variety of English that they hear everyday in Singapore
might have given them some confidence in themselves and hence, they
did not anticipate strong anxiety speaking with local English speakers.
Teacher diversity also helped to relieve language-learning anxiety.
Teachers who are familiar with the students' backgrounds and needs
in the intensive English programme, might have helped them
familiarise themselves with the language learning environment and
reduce their language anxiety studying in Singapore.
The study also reveals that the PRC male students are more prone
to anxiety than their female counterparts. It is possible that males are
more outspoken than females and are more likely to reveal their anxiety
related to language learning difficulties as compared to the females who
are more introverted in general. Another possible explanation is that
the female students by and large demonstrate a higher level of speaking
proficiency in their class performance. This was noted by the teachers
who might have given male students the impression that they are not
as good as their female counterparts in learning English. This pressure
increases the anxiety levels of the male students but it might also have
provided the stimulus for them to work harder in their language
learning processes (Chastain, 1975).
While it is natural that PRC students experienced general language
anxiety in speaking, the intensive nature of the English communication
skills programme that they attended increases the anxiety. Attending
the programme is one of the admission requirements to the local
universities in Singapore. The intensive nature of ESL learning could
be a strong reason why the students feared attending their English
classes. During the English class, the male PRC students are generally
more reticent than their female counterparts. This could be due to their
relatively poorer speaking proficiency. Outside the class, female
students are also more comfortable than male students when they
converse with local English speakers. This again suggests that female
students perceive that they are more proficient in English, a view that
increases self-confidence and reduces anxiety levels.
Findings from this study lend support to several studies on
language anxiety (Cohen & Norst, 1989; Horwitz, et al., 1986; Saito, et
al., 1999). When students' levels of proficiency increase, their levels of
ESL Students' Classroom Anxiety 59

anxiety decrease, that is, they have more confidence in themselves in

using that particular language. Although results of this study cannot
fully explain the differences in males' and females' perceptions of
language anxiety, it can be suggested, however, that females' stronger
tendency to socialise and their assessment of their current English
proficiency levels might have reduced language anxiety. From my
interaction with the students inside and outside the classroom, I found
that females are more interested in successfully assimilating into the
larger social context, that is, a cultural context seemingly identical to
but intrinsically diversified and different from that in their home
country. This socialisation process might also have influenced the female
students' choices in their daily lives and in their studies.
Nevertheless, the paradoxical question arises as to whether ESL
learners are in need of a certain level of anxiety in language learning.
PRC students in this study experienced language anxiety in different
ways. However, anxiety is bi-directional, that is, the concept can be
divided into "facilitating and debilitating anxiety" (Scovel, 1978;
Chastain, 1975). The former "motivates the learner to fight the new
learning task; it gears the learner emotionally for appropriate behaviour.
Debilitating anxiety, in contrast, motivates the learner to flee the new
learning t a s k (Scovel, 1978, p. 139).In other words, if the learners' level
of anxiety is moderate, then anxiety could be a motivating factor. On
the other hand, when learners have low anxiety, it could mean that the
language learning task might be too easy or lacks challenge, resulting
in the learners not taking serious responsibility. As a result, their
progress in language learning might not be as rapid as assumed. In sum,
data from this study suggest that PRC ESL students generally have a
little higher level of language anxiety than necessary, which, if not
carefully considered, could have a negative effect on their successful
learning of the language.

As suggested by this and other studies mentioned above, if students

studying a foreign language in their home country are faced with
language anxieties, then the severity of the problems faced by overseas
ESL students would be even greater. To help these students obtain an
adequate grasp of English for use in study and work, we must consider
the factors that might contribute to their language anxiety and provide
the help that they need to facilitate them in acquiring proficiency.
For the PRC students in Singapore, the following recommendations
could assist them in language learning. The students should try to adapt
 60 Teaching & Learning 2 1:2 January 200 1

to a new way of life and regard the new social context as a conducive
community for language learning so that they can improve their overall
English proficiency, in particular, their spoken English. Making friends
with local students on university campus would assist them to improve
not only their oral English skills but also L2 proficiency. This is one way
they could overcome anxiety in learning the language. Inside the
language classroom, teacher diversity might help ESL learners reduce
unnecessary anxiety. At the administrative level, it might be pertinent
to assign these classes to teachers who are familiar with the students'
backgrounds and culture so that the learners develop an ambience of
familiarity and 'home-feeling'. Teachers could also provide
encouragement to help the students reduce anxiety in classroom
settings. More cooperative learning and assessment activities such as
self-evaluation and peer-evaluation rather than competitive activities
might be relevant in these classroom settings.
Finally, to reduce language learning anxiety, explicit instruction on
certain study and self-management skills such as advance organisers
and prioritising daily learning tasks, and strategies specifically
conducive to language learning gains, could be given. This means that
ESL teachers need to design and plan their lessons in such a manner
that language learning is non-threatening. Language learning strategies
that focus on a learner-centred environment can enhance students'
language skills (Zhang, 2000). Teacher-student interaction and peer-
conferencing are two of the many ways to facilitate effective instruction.
These activities would give the students more confidence and hence
reduce their anxieties in the process of learning the language. This is
particularly essential for students who have a stronger locus of control.
Their successes can also be enhanced by teachers' conscientious efforts
to change classroom activities with reference to students' affective
welfare in mind (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993). This is a great challenge
for classroom teachers.

This study aimed to identify students' difficulties in learning ESL in

relation to the anxiety construct. Results showed that most of the PRC
students who participated in the study had language anxiety and that
the perceptions of anxiety by males and females differed. Although
financial and administrative constraints made the establishment of a
correlation between students' levels of anxiety and their learning
achievement impossible, findings from this study suggest that the
students' affective changes should be considered in the selection of
teaching strategies to assist progress in language acquisition. This will
ESL Students' Classroom Anxiety 61

reduce the students fear of the language. Further studies could explore
the causal attributes of PRC ESL learners and learning styles as possible
contributors to their anxiety in language learning. Future research could
also study the affective experiences of individuals in language learning
using methods such as diaries, think-aloud and more comprehensive
interviews because the questionnaire in this study did not cater for
individual differences in L2 learners' perception of language learning
anxieties.

Lawrence Zhang is a Teaching Associate i n the English Language and

Literature Acadenzic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University. He has published on EFL methodology and teacher-
education and has considerable EFL/ESL teaching experience. His recent
interests include language learning strategies, nzetacognition and L2 reading,
language anxiety and reading pedagogy.

M y sincere thanks to Professor Elaine K. Horzuitz of University of Texas at

Austin, U S A for granting nze permission to use her FLCAS, and to m y
colleagues Donglan Zhang and A n n e Watt for reading through and making
critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper. M y thanks also go to the
T L anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Aida, Y. (1994).Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope's construct

of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese.
Modern Language Journal, 78(2): 155-168.
Bailey, K. M. (1983).Competitiveness and anxiety in adult L2 learning:
Looking at and through the diary studies. In H.W. Seliger & M.H.
Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition
(pp. 67-103). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 25(1): 153-161.
Cohen, Y. & Norst, M. J. (1989).Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem:
Affective barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC
Journal, 20(2): 61-77.
Freed, B. F. (1995). Language learning and study abroad. In B.F. Freed
(Ed.),Second language acquisition in a study-abroad context (pp. 1-34).
Philadelphia: Tohn Benjamins.
 62 Teaching & Learning 2 1:P Januav 200 1

Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student's contribution to

second language learning, part 11: Affective variables. Language
Teaching, 26(1): 1-11.
Hilleson, M. (1996). I want to talk with them, but I don't want them to
hear. In K.M Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language
classroon~(pp. 248-277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horwitz, E. K. Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 79(1): 125-132.
Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status,
features, functions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K. & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading
anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83(2): 202-218.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A
review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1): 129-142.
Young D. J. (1999). Aflect in foreign and second language learning: A practical
guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Zhang, L. J. (2000). Uncovering ESL students' reading anxiety. Ms.
accepted for publication. Asia Pacific Journal of Language i n
Education, 3(2).
 Language Classroom Anxiety:
A Comparative Study of ESL Learners
Voviana Zulkifli
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam

ABSTRACT

Malaysia decided use English as the medium of instruction at

university level beginning 2002 and much debate has surfaced since
then. English has also increased in importance in the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) since the nation joined the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and implemented an Open Door Policy. This
study compares perceived second language anxiety and attempts to
identify significant differences in the level of anxiety of male and
female ESL university students at Stamford College, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor, Malaysia and from the PRC Malaysia. It also attempts to
identify the factors that could contribute to language classroom
anxiety. Although the study did not control for factors that may
influence language apprehension, the results suggest that nearly
half of the total number of respondents are anxious about learning
the English language. The English Language Classroom Anxiety
Scale (ELCAS) with 32 items was constructed and used for the
purpose of the study which was adapted from the Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz et al. 1986). Findings
show that gender is of slight significance but nationality is an
important variable in identifying the anxiety level with the various
factors that may contribute to English language classroom anxiety.

Introduction
The role and status of English language in Malaysia was drastically
reduced during the post independence period, putting Bahasa Melayu in
a position of paramount importance (Gill, 2005). Since education is linked
to upward social mobility, the education system has to provide methods
Asian Journal of University Education

of teaching and learning that enable students to function in more than

one language. This would give them the opportunity for equal access to
education as well as economic opportunities (Gaudart, 2003). Thus,
Malaysia introduced the use of English as a medium of instruction at
university level in 2002. This move which was envisioned by Tun Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, has provoked
much debate. Realization of the deteriorating performance in English
among students both at school and university level all over Malaysia has
brought about policy changes in the national education curriculum. The
government’s move to introduce the use of English in schools and
universities for the teaching of certain subjects has triggered many
conflicting views and concerns. Despite these concerns, the government
English implemented as the medium of instruction at matriculation level
in 2004 and university level in 2005 (The Star, May 11, 2002).
Apprehension about whether students and teachers are able to perform
according to the expected international standards has resulted in a call
for changes to teaching methods in Malaysian classrooms. In addition,
concerns over students’ well being and performance were much debated
with the change of language policy. This is because concern about second
language learning anxiety has been extensively acknowledged for its
noteworthy impact on the language learners (Ohata, 2005).
The importance of English has been acknowledged widely in the
Asian region particularly the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since ith
joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). In addition English attained
new heights of popularity in the PRC when the ‘Olympic Games’ was
scheduled to be held Beijing in 2008. Policy makers, educationists and
individuals in China find that English is therefore compellingly linked to
continued economic growth (Bolton, 2002).
In China, however, Lam (2002) reported that motivation for learning
English at national and individual levels has improved, and educational
support is also reportedly better. This has existed at least since 1978,
when national efforts to promote English intensified. To meet the current
expanding demands of English, more teachers need to be trained, and
more financial aids for better learning materials as well as better facilities
need to be allocated. In its move towards modernization, China regards
the study of English as “necessary for acquiring technological expertise
and for fostering international trade” (Adamson & Morris, 1997, p. 3).
Citing Ross (1992), the two researchers highlighted that English has
become “the barometer of modernization” (p. 4) for technological transfer
from Western nations.

76
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

Anxiety in Second Language Learning

Researchers have studied the effects of anxiety on second language

learning since the 1970s. Anxiety can exist during the input, processing
and output stages of language learning. The complexity in researching
language anxiety has been influenced by sometimes contradictory
evidence from instruments applied in different languages, measuring
different types of anxiety, language skills, level of learning, and teaching
methodology (Onwuegbuzie, Bailey and Daley, 2000).
Despite various advances in teaching methods and techniques,
apprehension continues to exist second language classrooms in
universities.. Researchers have confirmed that language anxiety exists
and affects second language learning (MacIntyre, 1995; Daly, 1991;
Horwitz, 1986). Anxiety plays an important affective role in second
language acquisition. However, it has complex relationships with other
affective variables such as self-esteem, inhibition, and risk-taking, all of
which can be difficult to measure. Several researchers have shown that
anxiety can impede second language production and achievement (Cheng,
Horwitz & Schallert, 1999; Von Worde, 1998; MacIntyre, 1995;
MacIntyre & Gardner 1991, 1994; Young, 1991; Horwitz, Hrowitz &
Cope, 1986). It is believed that half of all language learners experience
some level of anxiety (Campbell & Ortiz, 1991).
MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) state that anxiety creates a variety
of potentially occurring problems to students of foreign languages because
“it can interfere with the acquisition, retention, and production of the
new language” (p. 86). Results obtained by Casado and Dereshiwsky
(2001) prove that second language anxiety exists regardless of learners’
level of progress. They added that language learning anxiety experienced
by university students at the beginning as well as the preceding level
‘does not necessarily decline or diminish’. (pp. 86).
Differences in beliefs about anxiety may have influenced the results
of some investigations of the role of anxiety in language learning.
However, the inability of the trait and state approaches to satisfactorily
obtain and demonstrate the essence of second language anxiety which
have been commonly used by many researches lead to research in the
situation specific language environment (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991).
The affective factors which contribute to anxiety in language learning
include the attributes of trait anxiety, state anxiety and situation specific
anxiety. Second language learners are usually conscious about how others

77
Asian Journal of University Education

judge them in any given or ordinary situation. They also experience

apprehension when communicating in the target language in various
circumstances. Another important factor is the apprehension of
performing well in tests in the second language.

Anxiety and Learning Anxiety

Anxiety has been hypothesized as an individual’s response to a perceived

threat or perceived inability to handle challenging situations (Sarason,
Sarason, & Pierce, 1990). It is described as a “cognitive-affective
response characterized by physiological arousal, indicative of sympathetic
nervous system activation and apprehension regarding a potentially
negative outcome that the individual perceives as impending” (Leary
1982, p. 99). Additionally, Sewell et al. (1983) view anxiety as a major
personality dimension, characterized as one of the “big two” (A-State
and A-Trait anxiety) in the personality domain measured in their research
(p. 60). Anxiety and self-degradation have been recognized as the causes
which may lead to poor performance in a given task of relevant skills
and behaviours (Sarason et al. 1990).
Warr and Downing (2000) suggested that a feeling of anxiety about
one’s performance is likely to have much greater influence in significant,
irregular learning activities by adults than in habitual, constant school
and college activities. In an interview with Dr. Edgar H. Schein in Harvard
Business Review, Diane Coutu (2002) reported that, Schein identifies
“learning anxiety as stemming from the fear of failure, of looking stupid,
of having to change”. He also added that “learning only takes place
when ‘survival anxiety’ is greater than learning anxiety. The next sub-
topic will review how anxiety in different individual leads to language
learning.

Affective Variables in Language Learning

Learners’ affective states are considered to be of extreme importance

in measuring and identifying individual differences in learning outcomes
(Ellis, 1994). Ellis considered that learners’ affective states have the
tendency to be unstable. These states not only affect overall progress
but also learners’ feedback to specific learning activities performed daily or
even during specific timing given to complete certain activities (p. 483).

78
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

The role of emotional variables in foreign language teaching and

learning has been studied extensively for the last three decades by several
authors, such as Scovel (1978), Shumman (1975, 1998), Krashen (1985)
and MacIntyre and Gardner (1991, 1992 and 1994) (see Onwuegbuzie,
Bailey & Daley, 2000). Anxiety is one of the many affective variables
among other intrinsic learner variables. Therefore, a review of affect in
language learning is needed to further discuss language anxiety. In
reviewing Wenden’s work, Ellis (1994) highlighted that learners have
been shown to be strongly influenced by their affective states (p. 477-
478). Some second language learners appear to be apprehensive at the
start of learning a second language while others show confidence in
starting to learn a second language.
The ‘Input Hypothesis’ proposed by Krashen (1980), refers to
affective filters that impede comprehensible input. Krahsen’s ‘Input
Hypothesis’ postulated that learners would be able to acquire the target
language when the affective filters are low. However, when the filters
are high, learners would have difficulty utilizing the input and this would
hamper acquisition. Therefore, the ‘Affective Filter Hypothesis’
represents Krashen’s implication that several affective variables play a
facilitative, but it may not necessarily lead to second language acquisition
(p. 38). These variables comprise motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety
that might affect a person’s attitude towards learning. These factors
have been hypothesized to be partially responsible for the rate of language
acquisition.
It is Brown’s view (1994) that learning a second language or foreign
language is a complex task and is associated with human anxiety. This
form of anxiety is connected to feelings of ‘uneasiness, frustration, self-
doubt, and apprehension’. An example of a situation that could be anxiety
provoking is speaking the second language in public, especially to the
native speakers. Language learners would sometimes experience severe
anxiety when they become speechless or lost for words in an unforeseen
situation. Learners would often perceive this as a hindrance in learning
and consider it as a failure.
Adult language learners are particularly anxious about how they are
judged by others (Kristmanson, 1994). In China, for example,
Kristmanson identified that adult language learners are very cautious
and would avoid making unacceptable mistakes in their performance. A
particular learner reported that, any production of errors would be ‘a
public display of ignorance’ and, is an apparent instance of ‘losing face’.

79
Asian Journal of University Education

Kristmanson further added that, this is an apparent indication that the

inability of adult ESL learners to speak the language unwaveringly is due
to their fear of producing mistakes, or fear of ‘losing face’. Therefore,
affective factors can certainly play a large role in influencing the ongoing
language learning experience of language learners.

Language Learning Anxiety

Foreign language anxiety is ‘a complex psychological construct’ and it is

not easy to give it an accurate definition. This is possibly due to the
obscure hierarchy of the prevailing variables as distinguished by Trylong
(1987). This part of the review will therefore focus on language learning
anxiety, which according to Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope, is experienced
by at least one student out of ten (1991: p. 32).
In the process of acquiring a second language, learners often assess
their own developing abilities (MacIntyre, Noels and Clement, 1997, p.
266). In reviewing work done by MacIntyre and Gardener (1989), the
three researchers reported that highly anxious learners would suffer a
painful and de-motivating experience when they have to confront their
perceived second language limitations. Therefore, MacIntyre, Noels and
Clements (1997) suggested that if given the appropriate, specific
assessment tools, learners should be able to accurately rate their own
abilities.
Foreign or second language learners experience language anxiety
and this may cause prospective problems and interfere with the acquisition,
retention and production of the target language (MacIntyre & Gardner,
1991. Ellis (1994) believes that it is best not to perceive the presence or
absence of anxiety in language learning as an essential condition to the
success of learning a second language. Rather, Ellis suggested that anxiety
should be conceived as a variable that has different effects on different
learners.
Anxiety is considered to hinder language learners’ ability to process
language input and disrupts acquisition (Krashen, 1985a, 1985b; MacIntyre
et al. 1997). Krashen holds the view that if anxiety impairs cognitive
function, students who are anxious may learn less and also may not be
able to demonstrate what they have learned. Therefore, they may
experience even more failure, which in turn escalates their anxiety.

80
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) suggested a developmental process

that demonstrates how initial anxiety increases with time based on a
review of some studies of children, teenagers and adults. According to
the two researchers, knowledge of previous frustrations and failures
leads to greater anxiety. This would then further promote interference
of cognitive processing. Teenagers often develop feelings of self-
consciousness due to this experience. MacIntyre and Gardner further
indicated that language learning anxiety is weakest for children, but
strongest for teenagers and adults. In her review of Crookall and Oxford’s
work (1991), Worde (2003) highlights that problems in relation to self-
esteem, self-confidence, and risk-taking ability occur if language learners
experience extreme language anxiety and this will eventually debilitate
proficiency in the second language.

Measuring Anxiety

Extensive scales have been developed by researchers to evaluate various

types of anxiety in language learning. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991)
produced a literature reviewing some early methods used to measure
anxiety in the study of language learning. Horwitz et. al. (ed. Horwitz &
Young, 1991) developed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
(FLCAS) in 1986 based on the 1983 study done on ‘Support Group for
Foreign Language Learning’ students at the beginning of their language
classes at the University of Texas. The FLCAS demonstrated an internal
reliability, reaching an alpha coefficient of .93 with all items producing
significant corrected item-total scale correlations. In addition to this, the
scales produced a strong test-retest reliability of r = .83 (p. 32).
The results obtained from the distribution of the FLCAS to 75
university students from four intact introductory Spanish classes
demonstrated that many students experience significant feelings of
foreign language anxiety in respect to the different factors that may
contribute to foreign language learning. Based on their findings, Horwitz
and her team concluded that Foreign Language Anxiety may account
for the formation of negative emotional responses towards language
learning in a learner (p. 34).
Utilizing the FLCAS developed by Horwitz et al., Casado and
Dereshiwsky (2001) investigated and compared the perceived levels of
anxiety experienced by a randomly selected sample of students in a

81
Asian Journal of University Education

regular university setting at the beginning of their first semester with the
levels of anxiety perceived by a similar sample of students at the end of
their second semester in learning the Spanish language. The two
researchers aim to determine the anxiety levels of the two groups and to
identify if apprehension diminishes as students advance in the study of
the language.
The results substantiate that the levels of confidence experienced
by beginning foreign language students were higher than those of second
semester students even though the two groups did not demonstrate
perceptions of anxiety in most cases. This indicates that language
learners’ anxiety level may not decrease or disappear as they progress
in learning the target language.
Similar results were obtained by the same researchers in a
comparative experiment done on first semester university students who
had studied Spanish in high school and were studying the language at
university with students learning English at university after high school
(Casado & Dereshiwisky, 2004). The two researchers postulated that
the anxiety experienced could have been the result of lack of exposure
to the target language and/or other affective variables.
Cheng (2001) also adapted Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope’s FLCAS in
her research measuring the association between learners’ beliefs and
English anxiety on university students at Taiwan. Based on the questions
presented by Horwitz et al., Cheng adapted the scales to create her 33
items of English Classroom Anxiety Scale (ECAS). After the negatively
worded items in each of the ECAS were reversed scored, a higher
score on the ECAS corresponded to more English class anxiety. The
researcher obtained an Alpha-reliability of .91 which indicates an adequate
figure internal consistency for the generated scale. Cheng’s investigation
on the Taiwan ESL university learners revealed that ESL learners’ level
of anxiety about English class was positively and moderately correlated
with their belief in the notion of giftedness, but was negatively and strongly
correlated with their English self-efficacy.
The present study seeks to identify the different level of anxiety in
English as a second language among international and local university
students in Malaysia. The comparative study of English between
Malaysian Chinese and students from Mainland China (PRC) hopes to
provide information about the extent that university students experience
language learning anxiety on three different perspectives which are
communication anxiety, test anxiety and negative evaluation anxiety.

82
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

The focus of this study is to compare the levels of anxiety among

first year Chinese students from Malaysia and students from China who
are currently studying in a Malaysian college using the foreign language
classroom anxiety scale adapted and adopted from Horwitz et al. (1991).

Method

Subjects
A total of 40 students from Stamford College, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
responded to the questionnaire. Twenty were Chinese students from the
People’s Republic of China and another 20 were Malaysian students of
Chinese. Fifteen of the total sample were male and another 25 were
female. All the students were first-year students doing their Bachelor
Degree in Business Studies. Eight students were in their first semester
while the rest were in their second semester.. The students were between
18 and 25 years of age and all have studied English formally since their
school years.

Instrument
A questionnaire was used in this study to assess the level of anxiety and
the factors that may contribute to ESL university students’ language
classroom anxiety. The questionnaire that is the instrument for this study,
English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS) with 32 items
(see Appendix I) was constructed based on the 33 items from Horwitz
et. al (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS).
Similar to Horwitz et. al. the ELCAS is based on the assumption that the
ESL students’ self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviours affected
the levels of anxiety found in English language classes. The ELCAS
consisted of thirty-two items, each one on a 6-point ordinal scale ranging
from “strongly agree” (SA), “agree” (A), “not sure” (NS), “no opinion”
(NO), “disagree” (D) and “strongly disagree” (SD). The purpose of the
scale is to examine the degree of severity of English language classroom
anxiety. The ELCAS constructed and used for this study also
demonstrated internal reliability, achieving alpha coefficient of .89 with
all items producing significant corrected item-total scale correlations.

83
Asian Journal of University Education

Results and Discussion

English Language Classroom Anxiety and Performance

In investigating whether anxiety affects language learning and
performance, a cross tabulation of performance and nationality, and
English language learning anxiety and nationality was performed. Only
15% of the total number of students scored the lowest mark of 50% –
59% in their recent test. Strikingly, only 7.5% of the students from both
nationalities managed the highest score of 90% – 100% in the recent
test. The rest of the students only managed to score between 60% –
69%, and 70% – 79% with a percentage of 52.5% and 42.5% respectively.
Additionally, neither group of students from the two nationalities scored
80% – 89%. There is hardly any significant difference between the two
nationalities with the Pearson chi-square significance value of .98.
Therefore, the results from the table indicate that there are no significant
differences in performance among English language learners from
Malaysia and the PRC.
Although 85% of the students obtained more than 60% in their recent
English language test, nearly half of the students are nervous about
learning English. It is interesting to highlight that the percentage of anxious
PRC students learning English is higher than students from Malaysia.
Of the students from the PRC, 27.5% are anxious about learning English
as compared to only 17.5% of the students from Malaysia.
However, as previously described, there is no significant difference
in the level of performance between students from Malaysia and the
PRC. Therefore, although more students from the PRC are anxious
about learning English as compared to students from Malaysia, the level
of anxiety is not an indicative factor of the success or failure of the
students’ performance with the significance value of .34 (Pearson chi-
square). Interestingly, from the cross-tabulation analysis between gender
and English language learning anxiety, it was found that female students
are more anxious about learning the language. Only 27% of male students
agreed to the statement that they are anxious about learning English.
However, the percentage of anxious female students is greater than
male students where 44% of the female students responded that they
are anxious about learning English. Although the percentage of anxious
female students is greater than male students, the difference is not very
significant, with the Pearson chi-square significance value at 26.

84
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

In addition, the less anxious male students performed better than

female students in the recent test. All the male students scored more
than 60% in their recent English language test. In contrast, 24% of female
students got less than 59% in their recent test. Although the difference
is observable, it has, however, a very slight statistical significance with
the value of .10 Pearson chi-square.

Test Anxiety

(a) Test Anxiety between Nationalities

55% of respondents are anxious during the language tests. However,
the percentage of PRC students who are anxious during tests in English
classes is higher as compared to students from Malaysia. From the total
percentage obtained, 70% of the PRC students get nervous during their
English language tests in the classroom. However, only 40% of Malaysian
students are apprehensive during tests. In addition to this, 35% of
Malaysian students have a strong feeling of not getting apprehensive
during tests, and none of the PRC students share the same attribute.
The Pearson Chi-Square significance value demonstrated that the level
of test anxiety between students from Malaysia and the PRC is very
significant with the value of .03.
Responses to item 16 may give a fundamental explanation to why
the PRC students are more apprehensive during English tests as compared
to Malaysian students. 70% of students from the PRC are afraid of
failing their tests. The number of PRC students who are apprehensive
about failing their English language tests is very significant as compared
to students from Malaysia with the Pearson Chi-Square value shows a
highly significant difference of .033.

(b) Test Anxiety between Genders

There is a minor difference in the percentage of male and female students
who get nervous during English tests. Although the difference is slight,
60% of male students are anxious during tests as compared to 52% of
female students This is also proven from the Pearson chi-square with a
significance value of .41. Nevertheless, 12% of female students have a
strong feeling of test anxiety but, no male students have strong
anxiousness during tests.

85
Asian Journal of University Education

Responses gathered from item 16 from both genders show the

percentages of male and female students who agreed and disagreed
whether they are worried about failing their English tests. From
information gathered, 66% of male students agreed that they fear of
failing the English tests. However, only 48% of female students fear of
failing their tests. The difference is statistically not very significant with
the Pearson chi-square value of .31. Nevertheless, the percentage of
female students who strongly worried about failing their English tests is
higher than male students Twenty-four percent of female students
responded of strong feeling of anxiousness about failing while 13% of
male students responded the same.

Fear of Negative Evaluation

(a) Fear of Negative Evaluation between Nationalities

In overall, 70% of the total f students are apprehensive about making
mistakes during English classes. From this percentage, 42.5% are students
from the PRC and only 27.5% are from Malaysia. Eighty-five percent
of students from the PRC agree that they are concerned when making
mistakes during English lessons. Meanwhile, 55% of students from
Malaysia agree to the statement in item 12. The Pearson chi-square
obtained for the responses shows an observable but slight significant
difference with a value of .19.
It was revealed that 80% of PRC students are conscious about how
others judge their command of English while 65% of students from
Malaysia share the same sentiment and agreed to item 26. Only 5% of
students from the PRC responded ‘not sure’ to the statement in item 26.
Thirty-five percent of students from Malaysia however strongly disagree
that they are worried about what others would say about their command
of English but none from China share this strong objection. Interestingly,
the difference in the students’ responses to item 26 is highly significant
with a value of .02 (Pearson chi-square).
Although more PRC students worry about how others perceive their
command of English, more students from Malaysia however are
embarrassed if the teacher corrects them in the classroom. However,
the difference of percentage between students of the two nationalities is
not great. 40% of Malaysian students agree to the statement in item 13
as compared to 35% students from the PRC. The percentage obtained

86
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

could imply that PRC students are more receptive when they are being
corrected by the language teacher when they make mistakes in the
language classroom. The very slight difference is strengthened by the
Pearson chi-square significance value obtained which shows a value of
.87.
Finally, an analysis of responses for item 14 could provide another
reason that could contribute to ESL students’ fear of negative evaluation
from the two nations. Almost all of the PRC students are afraid of being
laughed at by their peers in the language classroom. Ninety percent of
students from the PRC fear of being the laughing stock by their peers
but, only 45% of Malaysian students fear of being in that position.
Additionally, a high percentage of 45% PRC students strongly agree
that they are afraid of being laughed at by their classmates and only
20% of Malaysian students share this strong apprehension. The Pearson
chi-square also shows a highly significant value of difference in the
students’ responses to item 14. The value obtained is .02. Therefore, it is
statistically apparent that PRC students are very apprehensive about
being laughed at by their peers if they cannot speak to the expected
fluency level in the language classroom.

(b) Fear of Negative Evaluation between Genders

A cross tabulation analysis of responses from male and female students
to the statement of item 12 was also tabulated. Eighty percent of male
students are anxious about making mistakes in the English classes. In
contrast, only 64% of female students agree with having the same feeling
during English classes. A higher percentage of male students who worry
more about making mistakes during English classes were also obtained.
Twenty percent of male students strongly agree to the statement of item
12 while only 12% of female students agree to the same statement.
However, the difference of responses between genders does not show
a statistically significant value. The Pearson chi-square value obtained is
.70.
The next analysis shows the percentages of responses given by
male and female students to item 26., the difference in their responses
toward their fear of being judged by others is almost non-existent with
73% and 72% of male and female students respactively about worrying
about what others would say about their command of English. The
difference is statistically not significant with the Pearson chi-square value

87
Asian Journal of University Education

of .68. Nevertheless, the results show that male and female ESL students
have a strong inclination to get apprehensive when judged by others as
they use English especially in the classroom.
40% item 13 40% of the male girls and 30% of the responded that
they would get embarrassed when their teachers correct their mistakes
in front of their classmates in the language classrooms. The difference
of responses is statistically not very significant with the significance value
of .48 (Pearson chi-square).
Another factor that might contribute to ESL male and female learners’
fear of negative evaluation is item 14. The responses show a highly
significant difference between the two genders. As compared to 13%
of the male ss, 44% of female students strongly agree that they are
afraid of being laughed at by their friends when they speak in the English
classroom. Nevertheless, the total percentage of male students who fear
of being laughed at in the language classroom is greater than that of
female students. 80% and 60% of male and female students respectively
agree that they fear their friends would laugh at them when they speak
in the target language during English classes. The difference is very
significant with a Pearson chi-square value of .01.

Fear of Communication

(a) Fear of Communication between Nationalities

The first analysis compares ESL learners’ responses to item 20. Results
obtained show that students from the PRC (60%) are more apprehensive
when they cannot understand the teacher during lessons. 60% as
compared to students 40% from Malaysia. The difference is highly
significant with a Pearson chi-square value of .03. However, it is interesting
to highlight that more ESL students from Malaysia strongly agreed to
the statement as compared to students from the PRC. Twenty percent
of Malaysian students strongly agreed to the statement but only five
PRC students presented the same response.
From the responses gathered for item 31, it was identified that PRC
students (40%) tend to worry more when they cannot understand every
word that the teacher says in the language classroom. As compared to
only 30% of students from Malaysia responded the same. The difference
of the ESL students’ responses is very significant with a significance
value of .06 (Pearson chi-square).

88
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

Additionally, a highly significant difference between students of both

nationalities was also obtained in responses to statement 18 which
questions students’ level of confidence to speak in English. 70% of
Malaysian students are more confident to speak the target language
compared to only 20% of students from the PRC responded that they
are confident to use the target language. The Pearson chi-square highlights
an exceptionally significant difference value of the responses with the
significance value of .004. This result illustrates that ESL students from
the PRC get apprehensive if they have to communicate with others in
the target language.
The students’ responses from both countries are consistent for item
24 when compared with item 18. A slight difference of percentages for
the responses was gathered from the PRC and Malaysian students.
Malaysian students 70% are sure of themselves when repeatedly asked
about their confidence to speak in English compared to 30% of the PRC
students. The difference is highly significant with the Pearson chi-square
value obtained showing a significant value of .02.
Although a very high percentage of students from the PRC are not
confident to speak in the target language, they are however not afraid of
being called by the teacher during English classes as compared to the
ESL students from Malaysia. PRC students 85% strongly (65% of
students from Malaysia) disagreed with the statement in item 19 that
they are afraid when being called during language lessons as compared
to. The difference is strongly significant with the Pearson chi-square
showing a significance value of .06. This finding demonstrated that ESL
students from the PRC are less apprehensive if they are called to
participate in language classroom activities.
The analysis of results also found that there is a significant difference
to the level of confidence of the ESL students from Malaysia and the
PRC when they have to speak spontaneously during English classes
with 40% students from the PRC agreing and 35% of students from
Malaysia panic when they have to speak without any preparation during
their language classes. However, a higher percentage of Malaysian
students 25% strongly agree that they panicked when asked to speak
spontaneously during their ESL classes. However, no students from the
PRC have this strong feeling of apprehension. The difference is highly
significant with the Pearson chi-square significant value of .004.
Although more Malaysian students panic when they have to give an
immediate reply during language classes, they are however not afraid to

89
Asian Journal of University Education

volunteer and give answers during language classes. Seventy-five percent

of students from Malaysia and the PRC disagreed that they are
embarrassed to volunteer and give answers in the language classes as
shown in results obtained for item 22. However, the percentage of
Malaysian students who strongly disagreed with the statement of item
22 is higher than the responses given by students from the PRC. Forty
percent of Malaysian students strongly disagreed to the statement in
item 22 but, only 10% of the PRC students gave their strong opposition.
The difference of the students’ responses is quite significant with the
significance value of .09 (Pearson chi-square). Therefore, ESL students
from Malaysia are presumably would have lower tendency to get
apprehensive if they volunteer to give answers in the language classroom.
Percentages obtained from the cross-tabulation between item 27
and nationality show that the majority of students from both Malaysia
80% and the PRC 90% are self-conscious about speaking in English.
However, most of these students are neither anxious, nor confused when
they have to speak in the target language during their language classes.
Sixty-five percent of Malaysian students disagreed while 70% of the
PRC students also disagreed to the statement in item 29. These results
show that although most students from Malaysia and the PRC are self-
conscious to speak in the target language, they are not nervous or
confused when they speak in English classes.

(b) Fear of Communication between Genders

Cross-tabulation results obtained for responses to item 18 between
genders show that male students are less confident to speak in English
as compared to the female students. Twenty-seven percent of male
students are confident to speak in English but a higher percentage of
56% female students are confident to speak in the target language. The
difference is significant and the significance is .09 (Pearson chi-square).
Although female students are more confident to speak in the target
language as compared to the male students, students from these two
genders however do not differ much in their level of self-consciousness
to speak in English as shown in results gathered for item 27. Eighty-
seven percent of male students and 88% of female students agreed to
the statement of item 27. Their level of self-consciousness to speak in
English has no significant difference with a Pearson chi-square value of
.45.

90
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

The reason why students are self-conscious to speak in English could

be due to their feelings of apprehension when they do not know how to
pronounce a word. Sixty percent of male students agree that they get
worried when they do not know how to pronounce a word. However,
female students are more apprehensive when they do not the
pronunciation of a word. Eighty-eight percent of female students agreed
to the statement in item 28. The difference of responses between male
and female students to item 28 is slightly significant with a significance
of .20.
In addition, students not only get apprehensive when they do not
know how to pronounce a word. They are also apprehensive when they
could not understand what the teacher is saying during English language
classes. The percentages of responses for students who agreed and
disagreed that they worry when they could not understand what the
teacher is saying do not differ much. Forty-seven percent of male
students and 52% of female students agreed to the statement in item 20
while the rest disagreed. The difference of responses obtained is not
statistically significant with the significance value of .86 from the Pearson
chi-square value obtained.
Although half of the total number of male and female students get
upset when they cannot understand what the teacher is saying during
language classes, they are however not apprehensive if they could not
understand every word that the teacher says during lessons. This is
suggested by the percentages of responses obtained. Only 33% and
36% of male and female students respectively agreed to the statement
in item 31 while the majority disagreed. This difference is hardly significant
with the significance value of .23 (Pearson chi-square).
In analysing the ESL male and female students’ responses to item
19, it was found that the majority of students are not afraid when they
are called by the teacher during English classes. Eighty percent of male
students and 72% of female students disagreed to the statement in item
19. This difference is not significant and the Pearson chi-square value
shows a significance of .84.
Additionally, both male and female students show a strong inclination
of not panicking when they have to speak without preparation during
English classes. Sixty seven percent of male students strongly disagree
with the statement in item 21. However, the percentage of responses
obtained for female students is slightly lower with 56% disagreed to the
statement in item 21. Therefore, female students are more nervous to

91
Asian Journal of University Education

speak spontaneously during language classes. However, the difference

is not significant enough with the significance value of .82 from the
Pearson chi-square.
The percentages of responses gathered for item 29 could explain
the reason why female students are more apprehensive when they have
to speak spontaneously during English classes. More female students
agreed to the statement. Forty-eight percent of female students and
10% of male students agreed that they feel nervous and confused when
they have to speak during English classes. The difference is highly
significant with the Pearson chi-square significance value of .04. It is
therefore evident that ESL female students are more apprehensive when
communicating in English.
Moreover, female students are also more apprehensive when they
have to give instant reply to the English language teacher’s questions
during classes. Forty-four percent of female students and only 33% male
students agreed with the statement in item 30. However, this difference
is not sufficiently significant with the Pearson chi-square value showing
a significance of .33. Nevertheless, the result obtained strengthens the
account that female students are communicatively more apprehensive
as compared to male students in the ESL classrooms.

Conclusion

The analysis of ESL university students of Chinese ethnicity from the

PRC and Malaysia addresses the research questions of this study.
Nonetheless, these results cannot be generalized to the whole ESL
students’ population due to the small number of participants of this study.
However, the findings can be used to shed light of the possible level of
anxiety that ESL students experience as well as the different factors
that could trigger anxiety in the language classroom.

Language Anxiety and Performance

The findings showed that there is no significant difference in the students’

performance in their previous test. Thirty-eight percent from the total
number of participants are nervous about learning English. Half of these
are students from the PRC. Additionally, there is a slight significance
that ELS female students are more nervous learning English as compared

92
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

to male students. In reviewing Gardner’s Model (1985), MacIntyre and

Gardner (1991) found that results from the study consistently show that
anxiety is one of the best predictors of success in the second language
(p. 96).
MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) agreed with Horwitz (1986) that
foreign language anxiety can be distinguished from other types of anxiety
and it can have a negative effect on the language learning process.
However, they suggested an alternative theory of how language anxiety
is developed. MacIntyre and Gardner suggested that language anxiety is
based on the negative expectations of the learner leading to worry and
nervousness (p. 112). Additionally, the researchers believe that anxiety
has an insignificant effect on proficiency. They suggested that any feelings
of anxiety experienced during the early stages of language learning are
more likely based on trait anxiety rather than on specific language learning
situations.
Results in the present study also show that the PRC students are
significantly more nervous during English tests. This could be that they
are more anxious about failing the tests compared to Malaysian students.
Apparently, the results also show that male students are more nervous
than female students about failing their tests. However, the difference is
not significant. This could be due to anxious students tend to underestimate
their ability and more relaxed students tend to overestimate their ability.
MacItyre, Noels and Clement (1997) found that anxious students have
the tendency to underestimate their level of ability. In contrast, more
relaxed students would overestimate their ability in the second language
because “self-enhancement” occurs in less anxious students and more
anxious students would experience “self-derogation” (p. 278).

Language Anxiety and Fear of Negative Evaluation

Results also illustrate that PRC students are significantly more anxious
about what others would say of their command in the English language.
Nevertheless, both male and female students are highly anxious about
how others judge them in their command of the language. MacIntyre
and Gardner (1991, p. 112) suggested that anxious students are
characterised as individuals who perceive the second language as an
uncomfortable experience.

93
Asian Journal of University Education

In addition, they would also feel the social pressure of not making
mistakes in front of others and would be less willing to try uncertain or
produce new linguistic forms. Cross-tabulation result for item 27 and 28
proved that students would significantly get worried when they do not
know how to pronounce a word which leads to their high level of self-
consciousness to speak in English. This could be explained by the
statement made by Horwitz et al. (1991) that “any performance in the
L2 is likely to challenge an individual’s self-concept as a competent
communicator and lead to reticence and, self-consciousness, fear, or
even panic (p. 31).

Communication and Language Anxiety

MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) also suggested that anxious students would
usually withdraw from voluntary participations. However, contrasting
results were obtained from the present study. Results show that a high
percentage of 75% students from Malaysia and the PRC are not
embarrassed to volunteer and give answers during English classes.
Nevertheless, results show that female students are significantly more
confident speaking in English as compared to male students as shown in
cross-tabulation analysis for item 18. This could be caused by
psychological and sociological attributes of the female gender. MacIntyre
and Gardener (1991) recorded that “communicative anxiety is also
conceptually related to social-evaluative anxiety as each involves
apprehension surrounding social perceptions and self-consciousness when
speaking or participating in a social context” (p. 51)
Finally, it can be summarised that gender is of slight significance but
nationality is a more important feature in identifying the anxiety level
with the various factors that may contribute to English language classroom
anxiety. This may be related to the economic rewards for success and
penalties for failure for the PRC students. Although this study has its
limitations, the results may shed some light and provide information about
English language learning and classroom anxiety. The results indicate
that the nationality and gender of ESL students have some influence on
the different types of language classroom anxiety that ESL university
learners experience. However, some differences might be due to the
different cultural influences of a certain community.

94
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

References

Adamson, B. & Morris, P. (1997). Focus on curriculum change in China

and Hong Kong: The English Curriculum in the People’s Republic
of China. Comparative Education Review, 41, 3-26.

Adamson, B. (2002). Barbarian as a foreign language: English in China’s

schools. World Englishes, 21 (2), 231-243.

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope’s construct

of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese.
The Modern Language Journal, 78 (2), 155-167.

Arnold, J. (Ed.) (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bolton, K. & Tong, Q. S. (2002). Introduction: Interdisciplinary

perspectives on English in China. World Englishes, 21 (2), 177-
180.

Boyle, J. (2000). Education for teachers of English in China. Journal

for Education for Teaching, 26 (2), 147-155.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Language Learning Strategies and Teaching.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Casado, M. A. & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (2001). Foreign language anxiety

of university students. College Student Journal. 35 (4), 1-17.
Retrieved on May 27, 2005, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/
detail?vid=9&hid=113&sid=c2111239-055b-431b-9a1c-
bc96cd282dd4%40sessionmgr102.

Cheng, Y. S. (2001). Learners’ beliefs and second language anxiety.

Concentric: Studies in Literature and Linguistics, 27 (2), p. 75
-90.

Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K. & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language Anxiety:

Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language
Learning, 49 (3), 417-446.

95
Asian Journal of University Education

Coutu, D. L. (2002). The Anxiety of Learning. Harvard Business

Review. 80 (3), 100. Retrieved on June 16, 2006, from
http:/www.shearonforschools.com/the_anxiety_of_learning.htm.

Crookall, D. & Oxford, R. (1991). Dealing with anxiety: Some practical

activities for language learners and teacher trainees. In E. K.
Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory
and Research to Classroom Implications. pp. 141-150. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Daly, J.A. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An

introduction for language educators. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J.
Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research
to Classroom Implications. 3-13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press.

Evans, S. (2000). Hong Kong’s new English language policy in education.

World Englishes, 19 (2), 185-204.

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

study of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature.
Language Learning, 41 (1), 85-117.

Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). An instrumental motivation

in language study: Who says it isn’t effective? Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13(1), 57-72.

Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D (1993). On the measurement of

affective variables in second language learning. Language
Learning, 43, 157-194.

Gill, S. K. (2005). The language policy and planning in higher education

in Malaysia: A nation in linguistic transition. Retrieved on November
8, 2005, from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/clpp/proposal/
SaranMalaysia.htm.

96
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

Gill, S. K. (2006). Change in language policy: The reality of implementation

in public university. Retrieved on February 9. 2006, from
www.palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/bilingual2005/abstracts/
saran.pdf.

Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity

of a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559-
562.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. A. (1991). Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.),
Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom
Implications. 27-36. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kingsley, B. & Tong, Q. S. (2002). Introduction: Interdisciplinary

perspectives on English in China. World Englishes, 21 (2), 177-
180.

Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition. Prentice-Hall Int.: UK.

Krashen, S. D. (1985a). Applications of psycholinguistic research to the

classroom. In C. James (Ed.), Practical applications of research
in foreign language teaching. 51-66. National Textbook Co:
Lincolnwood, Illinois.

Krashen, S. D. (1985b). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.

Longman: New York.

Kristmanson, P. (2006). Affect in the second language classroom: How

to create an emotional climate. Retrieved on June 16, 2006 from
http://www.caslt.org/research/affect.htm.

Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety. In L. Wheeler (Ed). Review of

Personality and Social Psychology, 3. Beverly Hills, California:
Sage.

97
Asian Journal of University Education

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, 85-117.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Anxiety and second language

learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. In E. K. Horwitz & D.
J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research
to Classroom Implications. 41-53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language

anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language
Learning, 44, 283-305.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P. & Daley, C. E. (2000). The validation of

three scales measuring anxiety at different stages of the foreign
language learning process: The input anxiety scale, the processing
anxiety scale, and the output anxiety scale. Language Learning,
50 (1), 87-117.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P. & Daley, C. E. (2001). Cognitive, affective,

personality, and demographic predictors of foreign language
achievement. The Journal of Education Research, 94 (1), 3-
15.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every

Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.

Ramlan, Said & Ainon, Mohd. (2005). Maths, Science to be in English:

UMNO – no need to bring back English-medium schools. The New
Straits Times, pp.1-2.

Saito, Y. & Samimy, K. K. (1996). Foreign language anxiety and language

performance: A study of learner anxiety in learning, intermediate,
and advanced-level college students of Japanese. Foreign
Language Annals, 29 (2), 239-251.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R. & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Anxiety, cognitive

interference and performance. Journal of Social Behaviour and
Personality, 5, 1-18.

98
 Language Classroom Anxiety: A Comparative Study of ESL Learners

Schumann, K. (1997). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students’

speaking abilities. FORUM, 35 (3), 8.

Sewell, T. E., Farley, H. F. & Sewell, F. B. (1983). Anxiety, cognitive

style and Mathematics achievement. The Journal of General
Psychology, 9, 59-66.

Skehan, E. (1995). Individual Differences in Second Language

Learning. London, England: Edward Arnold.

Stevick, E. W. (1999). Affect in language learning and memory: From

alchemy to chemistry. In J. Arnold (Ed.). Affect in Language
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tan, K. W. (2002). The medium of instruction debate in

Malaysia. Retrieved on January 17, 2006, from
www.benjamins.com/jbp/series/LPLP/29-1/art/0003a.pdf.

von Worde, R. (2003). Students’ perspective of foreign language anxiety.

Inquiry, 8 (1). Retrieved on April 16, 2006, from http://
www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring2003/i-81-worde.html.

Wighting, M. J., Nisbet, D. L. & Tindall, E. R. (2005). Exploring a

Summer English Language Camp Experience in China: A
Descriptive Case Study. Asian ESL Journal, 7 (4), 85-108.
Retrieved on September 19, 2006 from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/December05PDF%20issue.pdf

Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment:

What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern
Language Journal, 74 (4), 426-437.

99