AN ANALYSIS OF ANXIETY LEVELS OF UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE PREPARATORY CLASS STUDENTS DURING

ONLINE EDUCATION

Baki Karakuş & Tevfik Engin

Yalova University, School of Foreign Languages
2021
 ABSTRACT
The level of anxiety in learning is an important variable, and the same is true for learning a foreign language, which in most cases has been
crowned by English. While too high or too low level of anxiety affects students' learning negatively; a moderate level of anxiety affects learning
positively . It is thought that the increase in uncertainty with the spread of the pandemic and the distance education process in our lives increases
the anxiety levels of students. High levels of anxiety are expected to affect students' participation and motivation to learn, and to complicate the
distance education process. For this reason, the purpose of this study is to determine the anxiety and participation of the students studying in the
foreign language preparatory classes of Yalova University regarding the education processes in online environments. In the study, in which the
scanning model was used, students who received foreign language education with distance education in the preparatory class of a university in the
west constitute the sample of the study. For this purpose, data were collected from 136 students with the "online course participation questionnaire"
developed by the researchers. According to the results of the research findings, the anxiety levels of the students about their participation in the
lesson were found to be moderate. Mann Whitney U test was applied for gender difference; and Wisconox Sequential Sign test was practiced for
the difference between departments. According to the findings of the study, it was determined that the level of anxiety and participation does not
differ according to gender. When looked according to the departments, a significant difference was found between the departments. As a result of
the significant difference determined in the two departments; students of the department of International Relations were found to be the most
concerned; and also it was concluded that Computer Engineering students showed the least anxiety.

INTRODUCTION

“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” are the words of the famous philospher Wittgenstein, and Martland (1975)
discusses the philosophy behind these limits in his work, trying to decipher the meaning of what Wittgenstein meant by them. With the ever-
increasing range of connectivity and globalization on the rise, foreign language learning - specifically English - has become a mainstream
purpose and a necessity in a student’s academic life. It is not only a means for a person to improve oneself, but also to develop a nation’s total
quality by improving its ability to get in contact with the larger world, therefore forcing the boundries of the ‘limits’. But, learning English, like
any other learning task, has its own difficulties. Learning a language looks as if it were only brain work, whereas emotions play a signifact role in
a language classroom setting. Since this setting inevitably shifted to an online one with the outbreak of the Covid-19 and its vast spread
throughout the world, the emotions have also been altered by it. Anxiety, being the top researched feeling of all the emotions in language studies,
one has to ask how this sudden change may be observed during online education and how factors such as gender and majors of students affect
their anxiety levels.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In an era of globalization and multilingualism, most 21st‐century literature on motivation in SLA (second language acquisition) has
given a lot of attention to the learning of English (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2017). As Rajitka and Alemalu (2020) state
The English language has come a long way with all its high level of uniqueness and gained global status As it is the language related to
all academic and professional disciplines, English language has become the unique reflection of all growth and development in the
recent years. English is spoken in many countries and it is considered as official language. English is the only language which serves as
a link language uniting people at the global level. It is not only a language of business, industry and information, but also confers
confidence, imagination and power to discover, invent, innovate and create.
So, the English language has become a must-know for any person who wants to fit in this new global order, turning the world into what
McLuhan (1967) described as a “global village”. The rapid growth of technological advances and the spread of the internet have brought the
villagers of the Earth even closer. The world has become interconnected. The information technology cannot have been more ubiquitous than it is
now in this decade. It has penetrated almost every aspect of our lives: from how we do our work and interact with others, to the way our
procession of data into information has become, analyze and share information to even entertainment and tourism. Palvia (2013) called this “E-
evolution or e-revolution”. In an article in 2018, he later added the following insight to the subject:
“E-evolution or e-revolution” has witnessed e-mails, e-commerce, e-government, and now e-education. E-education or online education
is changing the way we approach teaching and learning. Changes in education delivery models have been rapid and transformational. As
institutions worldwide adapt to these changes, a very dynamic education landscape has generated immense interest among researchers,
educators, administrators, policymakers, publishers, and businesses. Instead of “correspondence” courses that started in England in the
mid-nineteenth century and involved sending of hard copy documents that were subject to long time delays, e-education facilitates
 asynchronous as well as synchronous education delivery methods along with access to online discussion boards, chat rooms, and video
conferencing. Today’s “online” or “blended” learning started in the 1990s with the advent of the Internet and World Wide Web and
reaches individuals in remote locations, or who want the convenience of eliminating travel time.
Speaking of the World Wide Web, education systems all around the world have found themselves tangled in this “web” due to the start
of a world wide epidemic. On December 31, 2019, health authorities in China notified the office of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the
country of cases of pneumonia of an unidentified cause. These were first detected in Wuhan city, Hubei province. By January 3, 2020, 44
patients of this unknown pneumonia were reported. These cases were connected with exposure to a seafood market in Wuhan city according to
the first Coronavirus situation report (WHO, 2020). The Coronavirus aka Covid-19 didn’t stop there. It was declared a world pandemic almost a
month later. It didn’t take long before it made its way inside our borders, from there into our homes. Stringent measures had to be taken not only
in businesses and alike, but also in education. Most governments in the world, including Turkey, decided to close universities and schools. It was
then when we as teachers were prompted to carry on teaching, which turned out to be a series of asynchronous online classes where we recorded
class subjects on our computers. At the start of the new academic year of 2020 – 2021, a fully online education system was implemented. Since
then, online education has become a mainstream global phenomenon, and many institutions are experimenting with innovative models (Kumar et
al. 2017). Students have been required to keep on their studies from home using a dedicated online learning system. This has been the best
solution to let the students continue to learn during this crisis. As Jena (2020) states, online learning is a learning system which utilizes the
internet. The teachers have an unphysical, say a digital presence, in virtual classrooms where they try to create a supporting and comfortable
environment for their students (Joshua, 2018). The shift to totally online classes have brought about some ups and downs for EFL students who
had already been experiencing some difficulties when the education was face-to-face in language classrooms. If we focus on the pros, the
opportunities are undeniable. Ernst & Young (2012) foresaw the potential:
This expansion of access will drive a global “education revolution” of an unprecedented scale, transforming societies by creating
opportunities for millions of people and their families to increase their standards of living. For universities, this will drive new
approaches to teaching and learning, create opportunities for entry to new markets and new global partnerships, stimulate new
distribution approaches—such as low-cost distribution in rural areas—and also create new sources of competition.
It is as if they had seen the future back then, but they were wrong when you take our country’s situation into consideration. Distance or
online education has not been able to extend educational opportunities for disadvantaged population who live in rural areas. Not everyone is
fortunate enough to have access to the internet, and this has hindered so many students’ educational life.This is one thing. The uncertainty born
from the epidemic surrounds our lives and creates a lot of tension and high levels of anxiety. The pressure just gets bigger when it comes to
learning English in a totally new setting combined with technological issues and the anxiety of interacting with strangers on an online platform.
Our lack of online language pedagogy ,which many teacher programs offer none (Abras & Sunshine, 2008; Jones & Youngs, 2006;
Russell & Muphy‐Judy, 2020), may have added to their anxiety levels as well.
Students’ anxiety in English language classrooms and their academic performances have yielded several negative relationships over the
years in many studies (Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, & Daley, 2000; Chen & Chang, 2004; Horwitz, 2001; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Phillips, 1992;
Sparks & Ganschow, 2007; Young, 1999). A definition to language anxiety is as the following “a distinct complex of self‐perceptions, beliefs,
feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (Horwitz, Horwitz,
& Cope, 1986). Anxiety of students have been measured since 1980s in more natural settings, given the pandemic at hand at the moment,
nevertheless, student online anxiety is a common observation in the literature as well. Kelly (2009) suggests online teachers to consider that “It’s
important to keep in mind that you’re not the only one who may be a little anxious about going online. Students often have anxiety when taking
their first online course.” Block et al. (2008) note that “For those who have never taken an online course or who have little computer experience,
an online course may be frightening.” The same goes for Wang, Newlin, and Tucker (2001) who have observed that many online students tend to
express feelings of intense anxiety when they think about online technology.
The present study aims to investigate how students cope with their online classes regarding their anxiety levels in this new environment
and focuses on their general anxiety levels while comparing gender and major differences. It is a significant contribution to the recent literature
that has been shaped up by restrictions bestowed upon learners and educators due to the worldwide epidemic.

METHOD
For this study, a quantitative approach was taken. The researchers used a descriptional scanning model, which is one of the scanning models
that enables to reveal the current situation. Scanning method is a research approach that aims to describe a past or current situation or event as it
is. (Karasar, 2007). The researchers are seeking to find answers to the following questions:
1. What is the level of anxiety of the students?
2. Is there a significant difference between the anxiety levels and gender?
3. Is there a difference between the anxiety levels and the students’ departments (majors)?
Participants of the Study
The participants of the study are comprised of 136 students (74 female and 62 male students) from different departments and all of them studying
in English preparatory classes designed as a four-level CEFR program at the School of Foreign Languages in a small state university in Yalova.
Age of the participants was not taken into consideration as the students are all enrolled in the same program.

Data Collection Procedures:

The researchers measured general foreign language anxiety using the foreign language classroom anxiety scale (FLCAS), developed by Horwitz,
Horwitz, and Cope (1986), which is the most widely used scale for assessing general foreign language anxiety. This modified instrument consists
of 27 items, which generally focus on general language anxiety during an online class with no items related to skills like writing or reading (see
Appendix). As a consequence, the main focus of the FLCAS is on anxiety related to oral communication, and scores on this scale are identified in
the tables as ‘‘general/oral’’ anxiety to remind the reader of the scale’s main focus. The FLCAS are known to adopt a 5-point Likert scale that
range from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ Reliability levels in the order of .80 or above have been reported for the FLCAS from
numerous researchers (Aida, 1994: r 5.80; Cheng et al., 1999: r 5.95; Elkhafaifi, 2005: r 5.94; Horwitz et al., 1986: r 5.83; Saito et al., 1999: r
5.94).
The present study’s Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the questionnaire applied to the students was calculated to be ,835, which is
concluded to be reliable.

Data Analysis:
While analyzing the data, SPSS 22 was used. Since the results of the normality test on the data did not show a normal distribution, non-parametric
tests were applied. Mean and standard deviations were calculated in order to determine the mean of the anxiety levels of the students. Mann
Whitney U test was used to calculate whether anxiety levels differ according to gender or not. Kruskall Wallis Test was used for the difference
between departments. Anova was made to calculate the department which the difference was to the good.
 FINDINGS

1. Findings Regarding Students' Anxiety

Within the scope of the research, students' anxiety levels average scores were calculated first. The average and standard deviation values
are presented in table 1:

Table 1. Anxiety arithmetic mean and standard deviation

N Min. Max. X S. d.
Anxiety 138 46,00 115,00 82,64 14,33
Level

According to the table, when the averages of the students are examined, it is seen that they have a medium level of anxiety with 82.64.This
finding can be evaluated positively in terms of learning. While students are expected to have high anxiety during the distance education
process, it is considered to be a positive situation if they are moderately anxious. As is known in the relevant literature, moderate anxiety
facilitates learning.

2. Anxiety Levels According to Gender

The results of the Mann Whitney U test conducted to see whether the anxiety levels of the students participating in the study differ by
gender are shown in Table 2:
Table 2. The results of the Mann Whitney U test regarding gender
Gender N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U p
Grand total male 63 64,79 4082,00 2066,000 ,252
female 74 72,58 5371,00
Total 137
 According to the table, there was no significant difference between gender and anxiety levels. As a finding of the research, while female students
are expected to be more anxious, the higher average of female students on average confirms this expectation. However, this difference is not a
difference that would make a significant difference. It is seen in the findings of this study that gender does not make a difference. Different results
have been obtained in different studies between gender and anxiety.

3. Anxiety Levels According to Departments

The university students included in the study are in different departments, and the results of the analyses (KRUSKAL WALLIS TEST and
ANOVA) made to look for the significant difference between the departments and the anxiety levels are presented in Table 3 and Table 4:
Table 3: The results of the Kruskall Wallis Test regarding departments and anxiety levels

Mean sd x p
department N Rank
Grand total International Relations 40 79,93
Business Administration 21 69,88
Economics 9 77,83 ,014
Computer Engineering 27 43,54 7 17,664
Industrial Engineering 16 67,19
Energy Systems
13 71,23
Engineering
Polymer Material
5 66,10
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
6 96,83
Education
Total 137

The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 Table 4: The results of the ANOVA test regarding departments and anxiety levels

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference Std. Lower Upper
Department Department (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
International Relations Business Administration 4,15119 4,10868 1,000 -9,4604 17,7628
Economics 1,89722 7,05303 1,000 -26,0654 29,8598
Computer Engineering 12,89722* 3,05228 ,002 3,0027 22,7918
Industrial Engineering 4,92500 3,58275 ,989 -6,9599 16,8099
Energy Systems Engineering 2,44423 4,25636 1,000 -12,2388 17,1272
Polymer Material
4,47500 7,79189 1,000 -35,2512 44,2012
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
-5,49167 4,78902 ,994 -25,1248 14,1414
Education
Business Administration International Relations -4,15119 4,10868 1,000 -17,7628 9,4604
Economics -2,25397 7,39455 1,000 -30,5244 26,0165
Computer Engineering 8,74603 3,77499 ,475 -3,9925 21,4846
Industrial Engineering ,77381 4,21547 1,000 -13,3576 14,9052
Energy Systems Engineering -1,70696 4,80112 1,000 -18,0268 14,6129
Polymer Material
,32381 8,10233 1,000 -38,3324 38,9801
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
-9,64286 5,27909 ,809 -29,8084 10,5226
Education
Economics International Relations -1,89722 7,05303 1,000 -29,8598 26,0654
Business Administration 2,25397 7,39455 1,000 -26,0165 30,5244
Computer Engineering 11,00000 6,86400 ,903 -16,9360 38,9360
Industrial Engineering 3,02778 7,11576 1,000 -25,0135 31,0690
Energy Systems Engineering ,54701 7,47761 1,000 -27,9331 29,0272
 Polymer Material
2,57778 9,92530 1,000 -37,2208 42,3763
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
-7,38889 7,79312 1,000 -37,0705 22,2927
Education
Computer Engineering International Relations -12,89722* 3,05228 ,002 -22,7918 -3,0027
Business Administration -8,74603 3,77499 ,475 -21,4846 3,9925
Economics -11,00000 6,86400 ,903 -38,9360 16,9360
Industrial Engineering -7,97222 3,19458 ,356 -18,8298 2,8854
Energy Systems Engineering -10,45299 3,93520 ,291 -24,4661 3,5602
Polymer Material
-8,42222 7,62121 ,988 -49,0203 32,1759
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
-18,38889 4,50599 ,072 -38,2028 1,4251
Education
Industrial Engineering International Relations -4,92500 3,58275 ,989 -16,8099 6,9599
Business Administration -,77381 4,21547 1,000 -14,9052 13,3576
Economics -3,02778 7,11576 1,000 -31,0690 25,0135
Computer Engineering 7,97222 3,19458 ,356 -2,8854 18,8298
Energy Systems Engineering -2,48077 4,35953 1,000 -17,6130 12,6514
Polymer Material
-,45000 7,84873 1,000 -39,9768 39,0768
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
-10,41667 4,88094 ,626 -30,2258 9,3925
Education
Energy Systems International Relations -2,44423 4,25636 1,000 -17,1272 12,2388
Engineering Business Administration 1,70696 4,80112 1,000 -14,6129 18,0268
Economics -,54701 7,47761 1,000 -29,0272 27,9331
Computer Engineering 10,45299 3,93520 ,291 -3,5602 24,4661
Industrial Engineering 2,48077 4,35953 1,000 -12,6514 17,6130
 Polymer Material
2,03077 8,17820 1,000 -36,5318 40,5933
Engineering
Optional Preparatory
-7,93590 5,39482 ,954 -28,5780 12,7063
Education
Polymer Material International Relations -4,47500 7,79189 1,000 -44,2012 35,2512
Engineering Business Administration -,32381 8,10233 1,000 -38,9801 38,3324
Economics -2,57778 9,92530 1,000 -42,3763 37,2208
Computer Engineering 8,42222 7,62121 ,988 -32,1759 49,0203
Industrial Engineering ,45000 7,84873 1,000 -39,0768 39,9768
Energy Systems Engineering -2,03077 8,17820 1,000 -40,5933 36,5318
Optional Preparatory
-9,96667 8,46765 ,987 -48,6622 28,7289
Education
Optional Preparatory International Relations 5,49167 4,78902 ,994 -14,1414 25,1248
Education Business Administration 9,64286 5,27909 ,809 -10,5226 29,8084
Economics 7,38889 7,79312 1,000 -22,2927 37,0705
Computer Engineering 18,38889 4,50599 ,072 -1,4251 38,2028
Industrial Engineering 10,41667 4,88094 ,626 -9,3925 30,2258
Energy Systems Engineering 7,93590 5,39482 ,954 -12,7063 28,5780
Polymer Material
9,96667 8,46765 ,987 -28,7289 48,6622
Engineering
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

According to the tables, a significant difference was found between the anxiety levels of the students of the International Relations
department and the Computer Engineering department. While the students of the department of International Relations were the most anxious
group, the group with the least anxiety level was determined as the Computer Engineering department.
 The fact that the language of instruction in the department of International Relations is English can be a factor in increasing students' anxiety
levels. Or else, because computer engineering students have high academic success by getting high scores in the university entrance exam, their
self-confidence may be high and therefore their anxiety levels may be lower.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

In this study conducted with 136 students attending the university preparatory class, it was concluded that the students were moderately
anxious and their anxiety levels did not differ according to their gender. According to the departments, students studying in the department of
International Relations are more anxious whereas it has been determined that students studying in Computer Engineering are less anxious.
While starting the study, it was thought that students would be very anxious in the distance education process, but they have been concluded
to be moderately anxious, which has been a pleasing finding. It can be concluded that young people are less anxious about adaptation to the distance
education process. However, there is a need for more in-depth research on the subject by adding different variables that will shed light on their
online reading and writing anxiety.
It may be suggested to researchers to conduct different studies in which variables such as academic self-efficacy, success, methods used by
academicians, etc., in influencing students' anxiety in distance learning foreign languages are searched. Research can be conducted on activities
that can be done with students to regulate the level of anxiety during the distance education process. This present study may even be developed
further as it may be mixed with a qualitative research that incorporates more in-depth interviews with students or instructors on the subject. We are
calling for fellow researchers’ contributions as we are moving toward an interwoven internet-based future of education.
 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), 155–167
Abras, C. N., & Sunshine, P. M. (2008). Implementing distance learning: Theories, tools, continuing teacher education, and the changing
distance‐learning environment. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives,
and practices. CALICO Monograph Series (7, pp. 175–201). Texas
Block. A., Udermann, B., Felix, M., Reineke, D., & Murray, S. (2008). Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online versus a Traditional Health
and Wellness Course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/block0308.htm
Chen, T.-Y., & Chang, G. B. Y. (2004). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and learning difficulties. Foreign Language Annals,
37, 279–290.
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning,
49, 417–446.
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 206–220.
Jena, K., P. (2020). Online Learning During Lockdown Period for COVID-19 in India. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational
Research, VOL 9, ISSUE 5(8)
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–126.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Jones, C. M., & Youngs, B. L. (2006). Teacher preparation for online language instruction. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education
in CALL (pp. 267–282). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Joshua S. (2020) Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on June 20, 2020 from http://www.wlac.edu/online/documents/o
tl.pd
Karasar N. (2007) Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi - Kavramlar İlkeler Teknikler. Nobel Publishing, Ankara.
Kumar A, Kumar P, Palvia S. & Verma S. (2017) Online education worldwide: Current status and emerging trends, Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research, 19:1, 3-9, DOI: 10.1080/15228053.2017.1294867
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety in language learning: A review of the literature. Language
Learning, 41, 85–117.
Martland, T. R. (1975). The Review of Metaphysics Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 19-26, Philosophy Education Society Inc.
McLuhan, M. (1967). Understanding media: The Extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Palvia S, Aeron P, Gupta P, Mahapatra D, Parida R, Rosner R. & Sindhi S. (2018) Online Education: Worldwide Status, Challenges, Trends, and
Implications, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21:4, 233-241, DOI: 10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Palvia, S. C. (2013). E-evolution or E-revolution: E-mail, E-commerce, E-government, E-education. Journal of IT Case and Application
Research, Editorial Preface Article, 15(4), 4–12.
Phillips, E. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. Modern Language Journal, 76, 14–26.
Rajitha K. & Alamelu C. (2020). A Study of Factors Affecting and Causing Speaking Anxiety,Procedia Computer Science,Volume 172, Pages 1053-
1058
Russell, V., & Murphy‐Judy, K. (2020). Teaching language online: A guide to designing, developing, and delivering online, blended, and flipped
language courses. New York: Routledge
Saito, Y., Garza, T., & Horwitz, E. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218.
Shailendra Palvia, Prageet Aeron, Parul Gupta, Diptiranjan Mahapatra, Ratri Parida, Rebecca Rosner & Sumita Sindhi (2018) Online Education:
Worldwide Status, Challenges, Trends, and Implications, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21:4, 233-
241, DOI: 10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign
Language Annals, 40(2), 260–287.
Ushioda, E. and Dörnyei, Z. (2017), Beyond Global English: Motivation to Learn Languages in a Multicultural World: Introduction to the
Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal, 101: 451-454.
Wang, A., Newlin, M. & Tucker, T. (2001). A Discourse Analysis of Online Classroom Chats: Predictors of Cyber-student Performance.
Teaching of Psychology, 28, 222-226.
World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation report#1. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from
https://www.who.int/docs/default source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200121-sitrep-1- 2019 ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=20a99c10_4.
Young, D. J. (Ed.). (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom
atmosphere. New York: McGraw-Hill.

APPENDIX

Identifying University Students’ Anxiety And Thoughts About Online Foreign Language Classes
Directions: Statements 1 through 27 refer to how you feel about learning English as a foreign language in an online setting. For each statement,
please indicate whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree by marking the
appropriate number on the line following each statement. Please give your first reaction to each statement and mark an answer for every
statement.
1- I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in online foreign language classes.
2- I don't worry about making mistakes in online language classes.
3- I tremble when I know that I'm going to be called on in online language classes.
4- It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language.
5- It wouldn't bother me at all to turn on my camera in online foreign language classes.
6- During online language classes, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course.
7- I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages than I am.
8- I am usually at ease during live tests in online language classes.
9- I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in online language classes.
10- I worry about the consequences of failing my foreign language class.
11- In online language classes, I can get so nervous that I forget things I know.
12- It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in online language classes.
13- I get upset when I don't understand what the teacher is correcting.
14- Even if I am well prepared for online language classes, I feel anxious about them.
15- I often feel like not attending my online language classes.
16- I feel confident when I speak in online foreign language classes.
17- I am afraid that my language teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.
18- I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on in online language classes.
19- I don't feel pressure to prepare very well for online language classes.
20- I always feel that the other students speak the foreign language better than I do.
21- I feel very self-conscious about speaking the foreign language in front of other students in online language classes.
22- Online language classes move so quickly that I worry about getting left behind.
23- I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my online language classes.
24- I get nervous when I don't understand every word the language teacher says.
25- I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the foreign language.
26- I get nervous in online language classes when the language teacher asks questions which I haven't prepared in advance.
27- I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in online language classes.