ENGLISH LANGUAGE SPEAKING ANXIETY: A...

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 14/2015

73

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SPEAKING ANXIETY: A STUDY OF ITS SOURCES AMONG SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Sophia Fui-Ni Tsen

ABSTRACT

Many secondary school students were suspected to be experiencing English language speaking anxiety which has prevented them from articulating their thoughts well in the language classroom. This debilitating anxiety may greatly affect students‟ achievement during school-based oral assessment and hamper future educational and career prospects. The purpose of this study is to understand and discover the sources of speaking anxiety among a group of Form 4 students in a secondary school in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Using the mixed methods participation selection model, this study was conducted in two phases. Adopting the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), 44.24% of the 217 respondents were found to experience severe to moderate levels of speaking anxiety. Through purposive sampling, ten respondents were approached to participate in two focus group interviews. The findings revealed that speaking anxiety was attributed to other first languages, low language proficiency, fear of negative peer evaluation, comparison with peers, fear of negative teacher evaluation, and traumatic experiences. Recognizing and identifying the various sources of speaking anxiety may prove helpful in creating the awareness among teachers in order to adopt and adapt the right classroom pedagogies to reduce this phenomenon. Keywords: Speaking Anxiety; Second Language Anxiety; Foreign Language Anxiety; FLCAS; ELCAS

INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem In recent years, many Malaysian graduates are unable to find jobs because they have performed poorly in job interviews in various local and multi-national companies. The main reason is their poor command of the English Language as described in the extract below:

“KUALA LUMPUR: The main reason companies reject job applicants is their poor command of the English language, a survey has revealed. The survey by online recruitment company JobStreet.com in August found that 65 percent of employers turned down job-seekers for this reason. The survey among 1,001 major companies was conducted to gauge why graduates were unemployed.” (NST, 2009, November 15).

In another news report dated Aug 18, 2009, “Raja Nazrin also stressed the importance of the English language. It is the lingua franca of the knowledge


74

and innovation economy. Many employers are using English proficiency as one of the deciding factors in selecting workers.” Further news report highlighted the fact that there was general dissatisfaction by employers on the communication skills of job candidates, especially among fresh graduates. The poor communication skills are often attributed to the poor command of spoken English. As many interviews are conducted in English, a candidate lacking this language skill is already in disadvantage (NST, July 10).

Therefore, the question that comes to mind is that what has gone wrong with these graduates who have performed so poorly during job interviews? A Malaysian student would have attended 11 years of formal primary and secondary education where the English Language is a compulsory subject. Furthermore, the English Language is considered as a second language (L2) after Bahasa Malaysia, our national language. As learners of the English Language, oral ability and speaking skills are important because speaking is the key to communication (Florez, 1999). Purpose of the Study As a former English teacher in an urban Malaysian secondary school, I have also come across my fair share of reticent students or those who are fearful of speaking or voicing out their thoughts either voluntarily or when asked during lessons. The fear is more noticeable when they are required to take their school-based SPM Oral English Test (O. E. T.) or also known as ULBS (Ujian Lisan Berlandaskan Sekolah). In the course of assessing students for the oral tests based on a tight schedule, I have noticed much nervousness, stammering and stuttering and students‟ inability to respond to the questions posed by the assessors (Gregersen, 2005). This has indeed caused much frustration, both to the teacher and students. There is, however, a high probability that this could be attributed to general test anxiety commonly exhibited by test-takers.

Most teachers may not always identify anxious students although foreign language speaking anxiety is a common phenomenon in the teaching of English language as a foreign language (Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2009, p. 40). Instead, teachers will most often attribute students‟ unwillingness to participate in speaking tasks to various factors such as „lack of motivation and poor attitude‟ (Gregersen, 2003, p. 30). Therefore, it is my intent as an educator to discover more about speaking anxiety among students of the English Language in Malaysia since it has been suggested that speaking is the most „anxiety-provoking aspect in a second language learning situation‟ (Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert, 1999, p. 420). Research Questions The research questions that this study aims to find out are as follows: 1. Do Form 4 students experience English language anxiety?

2. What are the sources / causes of English language speaking anxiety among

Form 4 students?


75

Significance of the Study The result of this is study is significant to the teachers, who are both teaching the English Language speaking skills and assessing students‟ oral presentation. It is vital for teachers to know the sources of students‟ speaking anxiety in the classroom and how teachers could play a role in alleviating this problem and subsequently reconciling the implementation of the English Language speaking syllabus and pedagogy. By identifying the students‟ responses and reactions towards speaking anxiety, teachers may devise and change their teaching methods to help the students. Besides identifying the areas for improvement, it also important for teachers to maintain and keep up with its strengths.

Limitations of the Study The scope of this study was to Form 4 students of School X, a secondary school in the district of Kota Kinabalu.

This study was divided into two phases. The first phase involved the administration of a modified version of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale or FLCAS developed by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) on all Form 4 students to identify highly anxious learners of the English language. The modified FLCAS is incorporated in a questionnaire. Students may choose to answer the English or Malay version of this questionnaire. The second phase involved Form 4 students of both genders who are willing to participate in this study and whose FLCAS results have yielded a high anxiety score on speaking in the language classroom. Focus group interviews were conducted to find out the sources of speaking anxiety among these participants. Since this research adopted the mixed methods approach with more emphasis on the qualitative section, the study had involved 10 participants from one school only. The findings are not quantifiable. Moreover, it is the policy of the Ministry of Education that students who will sit for public examinations be excluded from being selected as research participants. Therefore, the willing participants in this study only involved Form 4 students. Finally, in this mixed method study, the findings could be subjected to other interpretations.

LITERATURE REVIEW Foreign Language Anxiety In the body of literature, there are generally two views of the identification of foreign language anxiety. Horwitz and Young (1991b, p. 1) cited in MacIntyre (1999) posited that:

“(1) language anxiety is simply a transfer of anxiety from another domain (for example, test anxiety) or (2) something about language learning makes language anxiety a unique experience. These two approaches are not necessarily


76

opposing positions but represent different perspectives from which to define language anxiety.”

Research has been carried out to learn more about foreign language anxiety and it has been found to be a rather alarming phenomenon (Cohen & Norst, 1989; Schumann, 1975). It has also been established to have a negative correlation on performance or achievement in the foreign language classroom (Aida, 1994; Horwitz, 2001; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991 in Osboe, Fujimura & Hirschel, 2007). Highly anxious learners are less willing to participate in learning activities and have lower performance than non-anxious students (Aida, 1994; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). Meanwhile in another area of research closely linked to the foreign language anxiety is the study of communication apprehension (CA). Communication apprehension (CA) is defined as “an individual‟s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1977, p. 42).

According to McCroskey (1997, p. 43 - 46), there are four types of communication apprehension (CA). They are: (1) Traitlike CA; (2) Context-Based CA; (3) Audience-Based CA; and (4) Situational CA.

Traitlike CA is based on the view that “it is a predisposition, based in the inividual‟personality” which may include shyness. McCroskey (1997, p. 41) has designed the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) questionnaire to measure an individual‟s feelings about communication with other people. Context-Based CA is with regards to four common contexts: conversing with one other person, interacting in a small group, talking in a meeting and public speaking (McCroskey, 1997, p. 44). Audience-based CA involves an apprehension towards communication with a specific or group of persons (McCroskey, 1997, p. 45). For example, an individual may experience different levels of CA when speaking to a teacher, principal or strangers. Situational CA is “a unique combination of influences generated by audience, time and context” (McCroskey, p. 45). It may be experienced by virtually anyone at one time or another.

It is McCroskey‟s situational CA that is closely linked to foreign language anxiety. His model:

„…describes how language anxiety can come to be separate from other types of anxiety. Language anxiety occurs when a student reliably associates anxiety with the second language. Students doing well in other courses may find language-learning to be very different, possibly because of personality, specific problems with language acquisition, specific reactions to a language learning context‟ (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 31).

The study on foreign language anxiety has continued to flourish and evolve. Besides focusing on the relationship between speaking skill in foreign language and anxiety (Lucas, 1984; Phillips, 1992; Young, 1990), research has also explored other language skills. For example, listening (Elkhafaifi, 2005;


77

Vogely, 1998 &1999), reading (Saito, Horwitz and Garza, 1999) and writing (Cheng, Horwitz and Schallert, 1999). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) One of the most valuable contributions in the study of foreign language anxiety is the development of a measuring scale known as the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale or FLCAS. The FLCAS was developed by Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope in 1986.

The 33-item 5-point Likert scale for measuring foreign language classroom anxiety was developed after deriving and analyzing qualitative data from 78 students from beginning language classes who participated in a “Support Group for Foreign Language Learning” at the University of Texas, Austin, during the summer of 1983 (Horwitz et al, 1986, p.128). Pilot testing of the scale was conducted among 75 university students from four introductory Spanish classes and the results showed that “significant foreign language anxiety is experienced by many students” (p. 130).

Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986) posit that the foreign language anxiety consists of “self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” and have identified three components of foreign language anxiety: (1) communication apprehension, (2) fear of negative evaluation and (3) test anxiety. These components are reflected in the scale:

(1) communication apprehension / speech anxiety

(Items 4, 9, 24, 33), (2) fear of negative evaluation (Items 3, 7, 13, 20, 23, 31), and

(3) test anxiety (Items 2, 6, 19).

(Aida, 1994, p. 160 – 161).

In Aida‟s examination (1994, p. 160 - 161) of Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope‟s construct of foreign language anxiety using factor analysis by excluding six items (Items 2, 6, 15, 19, 28, 30), however, found that there are four components:

(1) speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation

(Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31), (2) fear of failing in class (Items 10, 25, 26, 27),

(3) comfortableness in speaking with native speakers (Items 11, 14, 32), and

(4) negative attitudes toward foreign language class (5, 17).

The reliability and validity of the scale has also been determined by Aida (1994) and Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert (1999).

Horwitz (2001) reported that this scale has been used in a large number of research studies. It has been widely used or adapted in various studies of language anxiety (Aida, 1994; Cebreros, 2004, Che Ya, 2007; Gregersen, 2003; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Sila, 2010; Tóth, 2008; Yan & Horwitz, 2009).


78

In conlusion, this current study will be using and adapting this 33-item 5-point Likert scale by Horwitz et al (1986) for the quantitative phase of the study. The rationale for its use is because the FLCAS has been established to be a reliable and valid instrument and has been widely used by many researchers worldwide in the study of foreign and second language anxiety. Sources of Language Learning Anxiety In this set of literature reviews, the sources of language anxiety are discussed and grouped according to the previous works done by Aida (1994), Bailey (1983), Dwyer & Heller-Murphy (1997), Gregersen and Horwitz (2002), Hilleson (1996), Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986), Kitano (2001), McDowell and Yotsuyanagi (1995), Oxford (1999), Tsiplakides and Keramida‟s (2009), Woodrow (2006), Yan & Horwitz (2008), and Young (1990, 1991, 1992). In one of the earlier study on factors related language anxiety, Young‟s close review of the literature on anxiety in language learning (1991, p. 427), had led to six “potential sources of anxiety”: (1) personal and interpersonal anxieties, (2) learner beliefs about language learning, (3) instructor beliefs about language teaching, (4) instructor-learner interactions, (5) classroom procedures, and (6) language testing. Oxford (1999) meanwhile suggested that the “correlates of language anxiety range from highly personal to procedural”: (1) self-esteem, (2) tolerance of ambiguity, (3) risk-taking, (4) competitiveness, (5) social anxiety, (6) test anxiety, (7) identity and culture shock, (8) beliefs, (9) classroom activities and methods, and (10) instructor-learner interactions.

Yan and Horwitz‟s most recent study (2008, p. 158) in an Asian setting had led to 12 variables. Through the affinity-generating process using the grounded-theory analysis (GTA), the 12 affinities are: (1) regional differences, (2) language aptitude, (3) gender, (4) foreign language anxiety, (5) language learning interest and motivation, (6) class arrangement, (7) teacher characteristics, (8) language learning strategies, (9) test types, (10) parental influence, (11) comparison with peers, and (12) achievement. For the purpose of discussion on the sources of language learning anxiety, I will categorize these sources largely based on Young‟s work (1991) as a general point of reference, with some other findings by various other researchers.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design The research design used in this study is the mixed methods design in the order of the quantitative-qualitative sequence. Otherwise, known as the Explanatory Design or the Explanatory Sequential Design, this is a two-phase mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).

“The overall purpose of this design is that qualitative data helps explain or build upon initial quantitative results”. An example is that this design can be used when the researcher needs “to use quantitative participant characteristics


79

to guide purposeful sampling for a qualitative phase” (Creswell, Plano Clark, et al., 2003 cited in Creswell & Plano, 2007). This particular design begins with the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by or “connects to” the qualitative phase of the research (Creswell & Plano, 2007). There are two variants of this design: 1) the follow-up explanations model, and 2) the participant selection model. For this study, the second variant or the participant selection model was used as it is the more suitable model befitting the objectives of this research. The participant selection model is used when “a researcher needs quantitative information to identify and purposefully select participants for a follow-up, in-depth, qualitative study” with an emphasis on “the second, qualitative phase” (Creswell & Plano, 2007). Yan and Horwitz‟s (2008) study on learners‟ perception of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English is an example that uses this variant. Sampling During the quantitative phase, every Form 4 student in the school was involved in order to identify the exact pool of students who exhibited English language speaking anxiety. At the same time, all Form 4 students were also asked to select teacher characteristics that would better help them reduce anxiety related to learning the English language. This large quantitative data served as a point of reference and discussion among selected respondents for the second phase of the study which was qualitative in nature.

Since the intent of the study was to understand and discover the sources of speaking anxiety from the perspectives of these students, it is only realistic that the answers to these puzzles lie in students who exhibit the characteristics of speaking anxiety.

Furthermore, the emphasis is more on the qualitative investigation which focused on one research question which is: What are the sources / causes of English language speaking anxiety among Form 4 students?

This study was conducted in School X. The school is situated in the city of Kota Kinabalu. There are about 1380 students in this school with an average of 46 students per class from Form 1 to Form 6. This is a single site study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Research Instruments

Two research instruments were used in this study: questionnaire for Phase 1 and focus group interview for Phase 2.

The first phase utilized questionnaire in order to gather data from a large number of respondents, from which the selection of the right pool of interviewees could be made. The questionnaire for this study consists of the English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS). The instrument in the questionnaire is originally the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), developed by Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986). This scale for assessing general foreign language anxiety has been most widely used by researchers (Aida, 1994; Cebreros, 2004; Che Ya, 2007; Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert, 1999; Elkhafaifi, 2005; Gregersen, 2003; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope,


80

1986; Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999; Sila, 2010; Tóth, 2008; Yan & Horwitz, 2008; Spangler, 2009; Huang, Eslami & Hu, 2010).

The FLCAS consists of 33-item, “about 20 of which focus on listening and speaking skills and the remaining items are related to general language anxiety” (Pichette, 2009). The FLCAS adopts a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (Appendix B).

The FLCAS has been tested and is found valid and reliable. Reliability values in the order of 0.80 or above have been reported (Aida, 1994: r = .94; Cheng et al., 1999: r = .95; Elkhafaifi, 2005: r = .94; Horwitz et al., 1986: r = .93; Huang, Eslami & Hu, 2010: r = .82, Saito et al., 1999: r = .94).

The FLCAS is adopted an instrument in this study on the grounds that it has been established to be a reliable and valid instrument and is widely used by many researchers worldwide in the study of foreign and second language anxiety as evidenced above.

Consequently, the phrase „foreign language‟ in the FLCAS was replaced with „English language‟. This modified version is referred to as the English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS) throughout this study from here on for the ease of discussion. The ELCAS was translated into the Bahasa Malaysia for participants who prefer to and / or feel more comfortable to answer the questionnaire in the language.

Both scales were subjected to a pilot study and reliability analyses were carried out to determine their reliability for use in the Malaysian school context.

The second instrument used in this study is a series of three open-ended questions designed by the researcher for use in the focus group interview. The rationale of using focus group interview as a means to gather data is based largely and specifically on the topic of this study. Since the interviewees involved were those who exhibit speaking anxiety, a focus group is “small enough to be „conversational,‟ so even those who are rather shy about speaking before a group are not threatened by the situation” (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Gay et al., 2009). At the same time, focus group interview is more dynamic and spontaneous in nature and less time-consuming compared to a one-on-one interview. The findings are richly textured with detail as the opinions and comments expressed by the interviewees could be further probed and delved into (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Data Collection Procedure In the first phase of this mixed methods design, all the six classes of Form 4 students were involved during the administration of the questionnaires. The six classes consisted of 41, 53, 43, 46, 51 and 39 students respectively. Therefore, the total number of Form 4 students registered with the school is 273. 300 sets of questionnaires were distributed to the students, out of which 234 participants responded. The return rate is 85.7%. Since the sample was large (200 or more), the non-respondent rate of 14.3% was unlikely to “affect the results in an appreciable way” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 236).


81

Then, in the second phase for the qualitative approach, purposive (typical) sampling was used to select students for the focus group interview (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).

Only students who had achieved low scores between 6 – 18, on Items 1, 9, 14, 18, 24 and 27, were considered as those who face speaking anxiety and served as possible participants for the focus group interview.

Subsequently, convenience sampling was also used to select participants for the focus group interview. They were approached on a class by class basis. The rationale for using this type of sampling is because the possible participants in different classes had different schedules for their English lessons throughout the week. Forming a group of interviewees from different classes was not plausible as it would have disturbed the daily activity of these students and interfered with other on-going subjects in school.

Due to the constraints mentioned above, ten students from two classes were involved in two separate focus group interviews. Six students (2 males and 4 females) were from Class 1 while the remaining 4 participants (1 male and 3 females) were from Class 2. A minimum of two groups were formed as this is sufficient to provide the necessary data for a study as suggested by Morgan (1988) cited in Mertens (1998), and by McMillan & Schumacher (2006). Data Analysis The data analysis procedures consisted of two phases. The questionnaire was analysed first in order to select the participants for the interview. The questionnaires were analysed on a class by class basis. There were 234 sets of completed questionnaires (37, 43, 43, 41, 35, and 35 respectively). Then, each completed questionnaire was labeled with an alpha-numeric tag.

The ELCAS data was subjected to a reliability test on the SPSS Version 17. A Cronbach‟s Co-efficient Alpha value of 0.940 was derived from the ELCAS. From a total of 234 returned questionnaires, 217 cases (92.7%) were valid while 17 cases were excluded.

The 33-item Likert scale data from the six classes were keyed in one by one into six separate files to minimize data loss in the event of computer failure or errors. All positively worded statements were scored 1 to 5 from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Meanwhile, the 9 negatively worded items (Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, and 32) were reverse scored 1 to 5 from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. This means the lower the score, the higher the anxiety level, similar to the group labels used by Ganschow and Sparks (1996).

Since the FLCAS does not have a standard scoring procedure (Ganschow & Sparks, 1996), a method for determining “group membership” was devised for this study. Participants‟ scores were grouped according to five levels, with the lower levels indicating higher levels of anxiety based on the lower scores. Meanwhile, the scores for speaking anxiety involved items 1, 9, 14, 18, 24 and 27 only. The scores for speaking anxiety were grouped with the lower levels indicating higher levels of anxiety.

Then, the data were filtered and sorted from the lowest to the highest score. Students with low scores from 6 to 19, which indicate speaking anxiety, were identified on a class by class basis. In order to range the total population, the raw data from the separate files were combined


82

Upon the completion of the focus group interviews, the two audio recordings were transferred from the digital recorder to the computer. The recordings then were transcribed verbatim - as a whole from the beginning to the end, without any selective lifting from the conversation.

The transcripts were read, reread and colour-coded in general according to the patterns and similar idea at word, line, sentence and whole paragraph levels. The data were “broken down into manageable chucks and were examined closely.” “If a chunk of new data is conceptually the same as data from the previous interview, then it will be coded using the same conceptual name” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Therefore, similar chunks of interviewees‟ comments were grouped together under the same major theme while dissimilar chunks were assigned into different major themes accordingly. Subsequently, after repeated reading, reviews, arrangement and organization of the major themes, finer sub-themes emerged. The data were then grouped together or separately under the sub-themes. Consequently, these themes were refined and reorganized to capture the essence of the interviewees‟ comments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Speaking Anxiety in English Language Classroom The result indicates that 44.24% of students experiences English language speaking anxiety. Ten students experienced severe speaking anxiety, 37 of them experience moderate anxiety while 49 students are mildly anxious. Therefore, to the question as to whether Form 4 students experience speaking anxiety in the English language classroom, the results clearly shows that, 96 out of 217 students (44.24%) face this problem.

This first research question sought to find out whether Form 4 students experience English language speaking anxiety. This first question which also served as the basis for selecting participants with the right characteristics for the interview phase had yielded a positive result.

From a total of 217 valid data, 44.24% or 96 respondents were found to experience moderate to severe levels of speaking anxiety. This number is slightly less than 50.23 % of the 217 respondents who experienced moderate to severe levels of the general English language classroom anxiety.

The 50.23% of Form 4 students in School X who experienced English language anxiety exceeded Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope‟s findings (1986) and Horwitz‟s argument (2000) that approximately one third of “American college learners have been found consistently to have moderate to severe levels of foreign language anxiety.” In this study, more than half of the Form students reported foreign language anxiety and this is a great cause for concern.

When the same pool of 217 respondents were analysed solely for speaking anxiety based on the six specific speaking items from the ELCAS, the data yielded a lesser percentile of respondents who experienced speaking anxiety. However, 44.24% is clearly more than one third of the population in this study and deservedly merit an investigation into this phenomenon.

It is difficult to conclude why there is such a great disparity between the current findings compared to Horwitz‟s. There is, however, one major point to be raised in discussing this issue. The main point is that the difference could be


83

cultural in nature, which is the Western versus the Eastern context or in this case, the American versus the Malaysian context. According to Truitt (1995) cited in Kim (2009), when compared to American foreign language learners, Korean EFL learners (Eastern) were found to display “relatively higher levels of anxiety, whereas “Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot learners (Western) were found to experience somewhat lower levels (Kunt, 1997 in Kim, 2009).

While this study‟s finding may have greatly exceeded the one-third approximation in Horwitz‟s many research and extensive studies among American college students since 1985, the administration and application of the FLCAS as an instrument to gauge foreign language anxiety may need to be refined, adapted and tested and further re-tested for reliability and validity for use in the Malaysian schools context.

This particularly holds true when this instrument is applied to the Malaysian secondary school whereby the schooling system is such that the language teachers go into the classroom for lessons rather than having the students walk to an English lab or class and where there is a dearth of native speakers of English where the students could be „around with‟. The FLCAS by Horwitz et al. contains statements that are specific to the American education system and also statements of “native speakers”.

Besides translating the instrument into the national language, the context and choice of words in some of the statements in FLCAS may need to be revised in order to fit into the local Malaysian school setting, following the examples of other researchers who had adapted and expanded the FLCAS for their respective studies (Aida, 1994; Tóth, 2008; Woodrow, 2006; Yan & Horwitz, 2008).

More specifically, the instrument may need to take into account of the cultural differences as posited by Kim (2009) because “they involve different types of instructional methods that are tailored for each cultural context”.

Since this is a novice study on speaking anxiety based on the FLCAS, the scale was adapted with minimal changes. The full rigours of a major adaptation, translation and the testing and re-resting for reliability and validity item-by-item as could be seen in Toth‟s adaptation and design (2008) of a foreign language anxiety scale for Hungarian learners of English is beyond the scope of this study.

Sources of Speaking Anxiety In addressing the issue of what are the sources or causes of English language speaking anxiety among Form 4 students, the findings were grouped into six main themes, namely, 1) non-English speaking background, 2) low English proficiency, 3) fear of negative peer evaluation, 4) comparison with peers, 5) fear of negative teacher evaluation, and 6) traumatic experiences.

1. Other First Languages In discussing the issue of other first languages as a source of speaking anxiety among these interviewees, one could not ignore the intricate and complex multi-cultural and multi-ethic society in Malaysia. Malaysia is a country which consists of three major races – Malays, Chinese and Indians - and the various other


84

ethnic compositions spreading across 13 states in the Peninsula and Borneo, which bring with them various languages and dialects. It is undeniable that various mother tongues or first languages – be it languages or dialects – are first introduced to children at home depending on a child‟s ethnicity. In fact, in some homes, more than one mother tongue or first language is spoken. This is evident in one of the interviewee, Viana, who speaks two „mother tongues‟ at home – Mandarin with her mother and brother and Bahasa Malaysia with her father. Daily conversations which increased fluency could also be carried out with other „family member‟ such as the live-in family maid as evidenced by Sim. She commented that:

My family also speak Chinese since we are Chinese, right? And at house, I got a maid, and I speak Malay with her. That‟s why my Malay is better than English.

Even if English is spoken at home, it may be mixed with other languages, resulting in a „less than pure‟ form of the language. In the case of Fran, who claimed that her father does not speak English while her mother is not “very good in English” because of her low educational background, they still “talk in English and Malay mixed.” In fact, she would have to correct her parents‟ English, “if she knows about it.”

To add into the already diverse and complex multi-cultural background is the unique Malaysian education system which largely consists of national-type and vernacular-type schools. Both types cater to the different needs of these students who are of different racial, and therefore, language backgrounds. Bahasa Malaysia serves as the medium of instructions in national-type schools and English is included in the curriculum starting from Primary 1. Meanwhile, although students are taught Bahasa Malaysia (from Primary 1) and English (from Primary 3) in all vernacular schools, the greatest emphasis is placed on either Mandarin or Tamil.

Such school cultures rooted fully in speaking either Mandarin or Tamil on a daily basis deprive students the opportunity to speak the target language in school, even if English language is taught and is part of the official curriculum.

Two respondents claimed that they did not speak English at all while studying in such vernacular schools as shown in the following comments (words in bold are my own emphasis):

Sim: We don’t speak English there, totally, no. We just speak

Chinese. Viana: Because I study at School J [a Chinese vernacular

primary school], I think we never talk in English. Due to the mother tongues at home and other official languages spoken

in school, it is only a natural progression for these students to speak these languages with their peers or to befriend those of similar racial characteristics who speak the same language. This is a normal progression of „club membership‟ as deduced by Krashen (Young, 1992). Languages other than English are used among friends during extracurricular activities and „joking‟. This findings confirm that of Dewaele et al (2008) who found that multilinguals who


85

do not have a stable „network of interlocutors‟ experience higher levels of foreign language anxiety. The English language does not seem to fit into any of these three environments where other languages are spoken frequently and freely. Despite being exposed to the English language formally at a young age and being tested in the Malaysian public school examinations, once outside the classroom, the environment – even at school – is unconducive for regular language use and practice. These environments have also limited and deprived students a network of friends, communicators or interlocutors with whom they could truly practice the target language with (Dewaele et al., 2008). There is no incentive or motivation to do so in an environment where they would naturally choose to communicate in a language that they are comfortable with. The frequency of language use which is proven to “significantly lower levels of communication apprehension or foreign language anxiety” is not being practiced here (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; Woodrow, 2006). 2. Low Language Proficiency Another source of speaking anxiety is attributed to students‟ low language proficiency. This referred to students‟ weakness in grammar, sentence construction, pronunciation, difficulty in comprehending the spoken English and lack of fluency, besides the use of broken English. With interviewees‟ comments such as: “past – present… why is it as such”, “sometimes it‟s past tense”, “my grammar”, “broken English” and “my grammar sucks”, most of the interviewees seemed to have problems with grammar use similar to Coryell and Clark findings (2009) on “not possess enough knowledge about verb conjugation”, Tallon‟s participants (2009) who found learning past tense as one of the most difficult topics, and von Wörde‟s (2003) “immature vocabulary or limited grammatical knowledge.” There is the fear of not making any sense at all if the spoken language is mangled grammatically.

There is a possible explanation as to why some interviewees were still grappling with and were unsure of their grammar use, sentence construction, and pronunciation. It may be – yet again – due to the infrequent use of the target language as described earlier. Even if students do have the knowledge of grammar, listening comprehension, pronunciation and vocabulary, it may not be sufficient when there is a lack of practice.

Dewaele et al.‟s (2008) posited that “in order to become fully confident and proficient in an LX, one needs a combination of explicit knowledge of the oral and written language, of grammar, and of the lexicon, in addition to implicit knowledge that can only be acquired through frequent authentic use.”

3. Fear of Negative Peer Evaluation This negative evaluation may be in the form of: 1) negative verbal evaluation, or 2) negative non-verbal evaluation. Negative verbal evaluation could range from „laughter‟, „jokes‟, „teasing‟ and „gossips‟ to correcting the mistakes made by the speaker. The findings in this study confirmed the previous quantitative and


86

qualitative research (Horwitz et al‟s, 1986; Kitano, 2001; Liu & Jackson, 2008; Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2009).

The greatest source of speaking anxiety within this pool of interviewees seemed to be the fear of being laughed at. The fear is very real and painful. It threatens and destroys a student‟s self-esteem besides crushing his / her confidence.

Sim: Then at school, they always laugh me when I say it wrong. Eka: English, (is frightening). Scary. People‟s gonna laugh.

And (tease). And then (gossip about it). The fear of being laughed at is so great so much so that speaking the

language becomes unnatural and taxing because the speaker had to „think‟ carefully before speaking.

Sim: I always think what I suppose to say before I speak it out

because I really scare I‟ll say it wrong. The negative verbal evaluation went beyond the dreaded laughter as

some peers made jokes about the mistakes made or even „compiling‟ a list of mistakes.

Greg: My friends will sometimes laugh at me when I speak and

they sometimes even make jokes about it. Sim: Sometimes I say many wrong words, they will like, remember it

and put it in a „dictionary‟. An interesting find is the negative non-verbal peer evaluation.

Sometimes, their peers may intentionally or unintentionally express their evaluations through their body language, such as facial expressions or hand gestures, which may come across as „ridiculing‟ the less-than-fluent speakers. In the body of literature, there is no notation of non-verbal negative evaluation. It could be that a distinction was not made between verbal and non-verbal evaluation by previous researchers. In this study, however, some interviewees clearly noticed the non-verbal evaluation expressed by their peers when they speak English wrongly.

A likely explanation for fear of negative non-verbal evaluation could be attributed to the students‟ highly anxious state while speaking. Coupled with poor self-esteem and past experiences of negative evaluation, students were highly sensitive to the non-verbal cues exhibited by their peers. Besides, in the study of study of human communication, 75% of communication is non-verbal. Whether the non-verbal cues are positive or negative, it is quite unlikely that these already anxious students could miss these signals. Horwitz et al (1986) described that these “students may also be acutely sensitive to the evaluations – real or imagined – of their peers.”

Sometimes the students knew that these gestures were unintentional or just naughty banters or friendly non-verbal „teasing‟. The full knowledge of this friendly camaraderie, however, did not lessen their fear of being evaluated non-verbally.


87

Eka: But then some friends were naughty too. I think it‟s unintentional. I mean, we want to speak and, they… stare. Body language. On a deeper level, both types of fears could be attributed to the

students‟ loci of control (Oxford, 1999). Students with external locus of control fare badly when their errors are pointed out or corrected or when they were being laughed at and teased.

4. Comparison with Peers

While being negatively evaluated by peers could only happen once the speaker has spoken, students who experienced speaking anxiety due to comparison with their peers were most likely to withdraw or keep quiet. The reason for their withdrawal is because they thought that others were better than them. They are less likely to speak when they perceive the other party as being more fluent (Woodrow, 2006) or that they “perceived themselves as inferior” (Dosaka, 2004).

The extracts below confirmed what Bailey (1983) reported as “competitiveness among peers” to the extent of “withdrawal from language learning experience when the competition was overpowering”. Some may choose to speak but “participate only minimally in conversations” (Aida, 1994).

Greg: Even when it‟s an English lesson, I also don‟t talk much. I

speak with (my) friends in English sometimes, when they speak with me in English.

Vien: If I‟m with many of friends who are fluent in English, I‟d keep quiet. I don‟t want to talk anything because I‟m afraid.]

Fran: After PM, I mix with those high standard English people, then I‟m kinda nervous. I‟d say, “How can I cope with them?” They are so smart and they speak English better than me.

This finding echoes Horwitz‟s comment in Randall‟ article (2007) that

“anxious individuals also feel that other students are much better at learning the language than they are and express trepidation about being less competent than their peers.”

In one case, an interviewee even perceived that his peers were better in

English based on their physical appearance. Greg: Sometimes when I talk with those very good at English,

that is when I don‟t don‟t talk much. Because they look smarter. They look like nerd.

Besides suffering from social anxiety (Young, 1990), these learners

were most likely to have a “shaky” self-esteem (Oxford, 1999). Dosaka (2004)


88

explained that the “hierarchical perception of others as superior and self as inferior contributes to the lowering of their self-esteem and self-confidence.”

Therefore, in cases such as these when learners compared themselves with students whom they deem as more fluent and withdrew themselves, it is not because they lack the speaking skill. Instead, they have deliberately chosen to participate minimally or to not speak at all. 5. Fear of Negative Teacher Evaluation The fear of negative teacher evaluation refers to students‟ anxiety of an oral response to the teacher when called on in class. This finding was similar to von Worde‟s (2003) who found that an “anxiety-provoking factor was simply being called on in class, whether prepared or not.”

Eka: Sometimes everyone knows the answer to the question but only one person is requested to give an answer. So if I‟m called on (by the teacher), I am fearful.]

Students who were called on in class, panicked and then unable to give a coherent response may suffer from what Woodrow (2006) described as “information retrieval anxiety.” The student may know the answer but unfortunately could not recall the answer.

Vien: I think (it is) because when teacher ask me something like, „Vien, answer this question.‟ I‟d panic and then I don‟t know. I don‟t know how to answer back. (I don‟t know) what I (should answer the teacher), so (I‟d) panic again and then I don‟t know.

A likely explanation for the fear of negative teacher evaluation may be

attributed by learners‟ unrealistic personal belief (Young, 1991). An interviewee had the belief that she should not make speaking errors while communicating with English teachers just because “they are English teacher.”

Sim: Then, when, especially talking to English teacher, I always

scare to talk, actually. Because they are English teacher, that’s why I shouldn’t speak anything wrong in front of them.

As to why students have such flawed learners‟ belief may be due to “the

desire to gain teacher‟s approval” (Bailey, 1983). In the Asian context, students may place teacher in a higher hierarchy while perceiving themselves as inferior (Dosaka, 2004).

6. Traumatic Experiences

In this study, there was a particular interviewee‟s main source of speaking anxiety that was accounted in a detailed story. Nia had not benefited


89

much from her initial kindergarten education. This in turn caused her much distress as she did not know the basic subjects a pre-primary learner should. To exacerbate her lack of knowledge, she happened to experience humiliation by her English language teacher at a tender age.

Nia: When I entered Primary 1, it was very frightening because

everyone knew English. So whenever it was English lesson, I‟d cry. (I am anxious of speaking in English because of) my teacher are very… fierce… And they‟ll scold you in front of everyone. just (unclear) horrible experience... (When I was 8, 9, 10 years old), it‟s still the same. I have very, very low confident. Whenever it‟s English lesson, like, I want to go out, go somewhere else, like that. (That specific English teacher would) ask questions like, ask you to read then you cannot read. Then (she said), like, “Why don‟t you know how to read? Why are you silent?” Or like, “Your parents didn‟t teach you? or “Why are you so stupid?” like that.

Other researchers relate such anxiety to instructor-learner interaction (Horwitz et al., 1986; Young, 1990). The most important instructor-learner interaction issue related to language anxiety was the teacher‟s “harsh error correction, ridicule, uncomfortable handling of mistakes in front of a class” (Oxford, 1999). Oxford et al (1991) in Oxford (1999) attributed this as teacher-student learning style conflicts.

von Worde (2003) also found that “the most disturbing aspect of the class, according to many students, was directly related to the teachers themselves.” He addressed this phenomenon as “teacher idiosyncrasies.” Instructors‟ idiosyncratic practice had created an extremely negative classroom atmosphere.

There are many possible causes as to why there is such „teacher

idiosyncracy‟. One likely explanation could be due to the individual teacher‟s personality or internal characteristics. It may also be attributed to the teacher‟s personal belief, world view or past teaching experiences on how lessons should be conducted. Another simplistic explanation could be: “It‟s another bad hair day” since teachers are after all, humans. Whatever the reason may be, it could not be viewed lightly as the consequence is great as evidenced by the interviewee‟s clear and detailed recollection of her paralyzing experience.

RECOMMEDATIONS AND CONCLUSION RECOMMEDATIONS Several recommendations for teacher development and classroom pedagogy are suggested here.


90

Teacher development Firstly, teachers need to be aware that there is anxiety related to second / foreign language learning. Teacher development may focus on workshops on language learning anxiety to heighten their awareness that such anxiety exists. Teachers may be introduced to the FLCAS as a valid measurement to assess students‟ general foreign language anxiety and speaking, besides training and encouraging them to use the scale in their classes if the need arises. Secondly, teachers may also be trained to identify the physical manifestation of anxiety related to foreign language learning as anxious students exhibit certain characteristics such as stammering, stuttering, avoidance in making eye contact, unwillingness to communicate, etc (Gregersen, 2005 & 2007). Thirdly, teachers may also be trained to “sharpen their sensitivity to the nature of their own teaching behaviours and characteristics” (Brosh, 1996). A heightened sensitivity may allow teacher to assess and keep themselves in check while carrying out the day-to-day classroom teaching. This may help in preventing or reducing such incidences of teacher-generated anxiety as reported in this study and teachers may successfully create a better classroom atmosphere. Classroom pedagogy Teachers could have a short session with students where they could discuss the items in the FLCAS and / or answer the questionnaire. By introducing and openly discussing language learning anxiety in class, certain fears and doubts in students may be alleviated. It has been found that anxiety was reduced for many students merely by knowing that they were not alone in their fears or beliefs (Foss & Reitzel, 1988).

In dealing with speaking anxiety, students should be given permission to be “less than perfect speakers of the target language” (Horwitz, 1986). The knowledge that they do not have to fear speaking „wrongly or having to speak „accurately‟ at all times may serve to encourage more interactions with peers and teacher in the class. With more frequent use of the target language, students may gain the explicit knowledge and speak more confidently.

Teachers may also need to allocate more time for speaking practices and incorporate creative and fun activities that are beyond textbooks so that students may take an interest and be motivated to speak and use the language. Activities may be centred in pair or small group work where students could work comfortably and confidently with their peers.

CONCLUSION

The present study has revealed, through the mixed method design, that speaking anxiety is alarmingly prevalent among a group of Form 4 students. The qualitative phase has confirmed previous direct or indirect findings and reports on sources of language anxiety (Aida, 1994; Bailey, 1983; Coryell & Clark, 2009; Dewaele et al., 2008; Dosaka, 2004; Dwyer & Heller-Murphy, 1997; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Hilleson, 1996, Horwitz et al., 1986; Kitano,


91

2001; Liu & Jackson, 2008; McDowell & Yotsuyanagi, 1995; Oxford, 1999, Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2009; von Wörde, 2003; Woodrow, 2006, Yan & Horwitz, 2008; and Young, 1990, 1991, 1992). In examining the sources of speaking anxiety, the findings revealed causes related to personal background, network of friends, peer-generated and teacher-generated anxieties. Suggestions were provided on how teachers may play a role in helping their students. While the interview data and findings had revealed some unsettling teacher „idiosyncrasies‟ which may have directly or indirectly contributed to students‟ anxiety, it was never the intention nor the purpose of this study at fault-finding. Although this preliminary attempt in studying the complex issue of speaking anxiety may be inadequate, it is hoped that some of the findings may be found relevant and applicable to the local setting.

REFERENCES 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, 155 – 168.

Alreck, P. L. & Settle, R. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill / Irwin. Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language

learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger and M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Langauge Acquisition (pp. 67 – 102). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Baker, S. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in

communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50 (2), 311 – 341.

Brosh, H. (1996). Perceived characteristics of the effective language teacher.

Foreign Language Annals, 125 – 138. Cebreros, A. M. O. (2004). Measuring language anxiety perceived by Spanish

university students of English. Universidad de Jaen. Che Ya, S. H. (2007). Speaking anxiety among Form Five students of Sekolah

Menengah Sultan Yahya Petra (2), Kuala Krai, Kelantan. Unpublished master‟s dissertation, International Islamic University Malaysia.

Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K. & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety:

Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, pp. 417 – 446.


92

Cohen, Y. & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: Affirmative barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Journal, 20, 61 – 77.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Coryell, J. E. & Clark, M. C. (2009). One right way, intercultural participation,

and language learning anxiety: A qualitative analysis of adult online heritage and nonheritage language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 483 – 504.

Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed

mahods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dewaele, J., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional

intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58 (4), 911 – 960.

Dosaka, J. (2004). Students‟ voices on foreign language anxiety. Academic

Exchange Quarterly, Spring. Retrieved on July 5, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_1_8/ai_n29089797/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33

Dwyer, E. & Heller-Murphy, A. (1996). Japanese learners in speaking classes.

Edinburgh Working Paper in Applied Linguistics, 7, 46 – 55. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395511).

Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic

language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89 (ii), 206 – 219. Florez, M. C. (1999). Improving adult English language learners‟ speaking skills.

Center for Adult English Language Acquisition. Retrieved Nov 5, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl-resources/digests/Speaks.html

Foss, K. A. & Reitzel, A. C. (1988). A relational model for managing second

language anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 437 – 454. Ganschow, L. & Sparks, R. (1996). Foreign language anxiety among high

school women. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 199 – 212. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research:

Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). New Jersey:

Pearson Education. Gregersen, T. S. (2003). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language

anxious students. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 25 – 32.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_1_8/ai_n29089797/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_1_8/ai_n29089797/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33

http://www.cal.org/caela/esl-resources/digests/Speaks.html


93

Gregersen, T. S. (2005). Nonverbal cues: Clues to the detection of foreign

language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 388 – 400. Gregersen, T. S. (2007). Breaking the code of silence: A study of teachers‟

nonverbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 11, 209 – 221.

Gregersen, T. S. & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism:

Anxious and non-anxious language learners‟ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (iv), 562 – 570.

Hilleson, M. (1996). “I want to talk with them, but I don‟t want them to hear”: An

introspective study of second-language anxiety in an English-medium school. In K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom. (pp. 145 – 167). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 21, 112 – 126. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125 – 132. Huang, S., Eslami, Z., & Hu, R. S. (2010). The Relationship between Teacher

and Peer Support and English-Language Learners‟ Anxiety. English Language Teaching, 3, 32 – 40.

Kim, S. Y. (2009). Questioning the stability of foreign classroom anxiety and

motivation across different classroom contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 138 – 157.

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the College Japanese Language Classroom. The

Modern Language Journal, 85, 549 – 566. Liu, M. & Jackson J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners‟

unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 71 – 86.

Lucas, J. (1984). Communication apprehension in the ESL classroom: Getting

our students to talk. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 593 – 598. MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Investigating language class anxiety

using the focused essay technique. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 296–304.


94

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and second language. Language Learning, 41 (4), 513 – 534.

McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of

recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 42 – 52.

McCroskey, J. C. (1997). An introduction to rhetorical communication (7

th ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. McDowell, E. E. & Yotsuyanagi, N. (1995). An Exploratory Study of

Communication Apprehension, Willingness to Communicate and Sense of Humour between College Students from United States and Japan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396349).

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-

based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Osboe, S., Fujimura, T. & Hirschel, R. (2007). Student confidence and anxiety

in L2 speaking activities. Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan: Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association, 2007, Japan Conference. Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across the disciplines. ISSN 2073-7513. http://www.independentlearning.org.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J.

Arnold (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 58 – 67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Philips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students‟ oral test

performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76 (i), 14 – 26.

Pichette, F. (2009). Second language anxiety and distance language learning.

Foreign Language Annals, 42 (1), 77 – 93. Ramachandran, S & Renganayar, C. D. (2009, July 10). Employers and job

agencies worried. New Straits Times. Retrieved on November 5, 2009 from Bernama Library and Infolink Service.

Ramachandran, S & Renganayar, C. D. (2009, November 15). Survey: Poor

English holds back job-seekers. New Straits Times. Retrieved on November 25, 2009 from Bernama Library and Infolink Service.

http://www.independentlearning.org/


95

Ramlee, J. (2009, August 18). Raja Nazrin: Kids losing out due to focus on exams. New Straits Times. Retrieved on November 5, 2009 from Bernama Library and Infolink Service.

Randall, K. (2007). Words fail me. The University of Texas at Austin: Feature

Story. Retrieved Jul 5, 2010, from http://www.utexas.edu/features/2007/language/

Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83 (ii), 202 – 218. 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, 83 – 90.

Spangler, D. (2009). Effects of two foreign language methodologies,

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and teaching proficiency through reading and storytelling (TPRS), on beginning-level students‟ achievement, fluency, and anxiety. Retrieved Jul 5, 2010, from http://panamatesol.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/SpanglerDoctoral_Study_Summary-2.40144704.doc.

Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish:

A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 112 – 137. Tóth, Z. (2008). A foreign language anxiety scale for Hungarian learners of

English. WoPaLP, 2, 55 – 73. Tsiplakides, I. & Keramida, A. (2009). Helping students overcome foreign

language speaking anxiety in the English classroom: Theoretical issues and practical recommendations. International Education Studies, 2, 39 – 44.

Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In D. J. Young

(Ed.) Affect in Foreign Language and Second Language Learning: A Practical Guide to Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Atmosphere (pp. 106 – 123). Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

von Wörde, R. (2003). Students‟ perspectives on foreign language anxiety.

Inquiry, 8. Retrieved Jul 5, 2010, from http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring2003/i-81-worde.html

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language.

RELC Journal, 37, 308 – 328. Yan, X. & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners‟ Perceptions of How Anxiety Interacts

With Personal and Instructional Factors to Influence Their Achievement in English: A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners in China. Language Learning, 58, 151 – 183.

http://www.utexas.edu/features/2007/language/

http://panamatesol.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/SpanglerDoctoral_Study_Summary-2.40144704.doc

http://panamatesol.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/SpanglerDoctoral_Study_Summary-2.40144704.doc

http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring2003/i-81-worde.html


96

Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students‟ perspectives on anxiety and

speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539 – 553. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Environment: What

Does Language Anxiety Research Suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426 – 439.

Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the language specialist‟s

perspective: Interview with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 157 – 172.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SPEAKING ANXIETY: A...

Documents

Transcript of ENGLISH LANGUAGE SPEAKING ANXIETY: A...