sem ii curs 7 si 8 pag 1-4

Anxiety and predictors of performance in theforeign language classroom

Sae Matsudaa, Peter Gobelb

aFaculty of Foreign Languages, Kyoto Sangyo University, Motoyama, Kamigamo, Kita-ku,

Kyoto, Japan 603-8555bFacultyofCulturalStudies,KyotoSangyoUniversity,Motoyama,Kamigamo,Kita-ku,Kyoto,Japan603-8555

Received 30 October 2002; received in revised form 10 June 2003; accepted 27 August 2003

Abstract

This study is concerned with possible relationships between general foreign language class-room anxiety (FLCA), foreign language reading anxiety (FLRA), gender, extended overseasexperience, and classroom performance. Versions of previously published measurement scales(the FLCAS and the FLRAS) were administered to three different groups in nine intact first-

semester English classes (252 students) at a Japanese university. Based on this data, the pos-sible relationships between the two theoretical constructs of foreign language classroomanxiety and foreign language reading anxiety, and the variables of gender and extended

overseas experience were explored. The results of the analysis suggest that the factor related toself-confidence in speaking English seemed to be significantly affected by overseas experience.Following this, the first-year student subgroup data was analysed for possible predictors of

success in required English classes. It was demonstrated that self-confidence in speakingEnglish, gender and proficiency played an important role in classroom performance of first-year students.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Foreign language anxiety; Classroom anxiety; Reading anxiety; Individual differences; Gender;

Overseas experience; Predictors of performance; Self-confidence; Proficiency

1. Review of the literature

Researchers have attempted to identify and define the construct of anxiety, a keyindividual difference in language learning, for many years. Horwitz et al. (1986)claim that foreign language anxiety is a unique type of anxiety specific to foreignlanguage learning, and their concept has been buttressed by MacIntyre and Gardner

System 32 (2004) 21–36

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

0346-251X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2003.08.002

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Matsuda), [email protected] (P. Gobel).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/system/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

(1989, 1991a) and other theorists. A great deal of this research has focused onanxiety with respect to classroom activities such as speaking and listening, suggest-ing that oral classroom activities are most problematic and anxiety-provoking forforeign language learners (Horwitz et al., 1986; Steinberg and Horwitz, 1986;MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994a; Price, 1991; Mejıas et al., 1991).In contrast, Hilleson (1996), in his diary study, observed various types of anxiety

related to different skill areas. His participants demonstrated anxiety related to notonly speaking and listening but also reading and writing. Other recent studies haveattempted to measure anxiety specific to FL writing and reading. Cheng et al.(1999), for example, investigated the relationship between FL classroom anxiety andFL writing anxiety among English majors in Taiwan by using the Foreign LanguageClassroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS: a five-point, 33-item Likert Scale questionnairedesigned to assess the degree to which students feel anxious during foreign languageclassroom instruction) developed by Horwitz et al. (1986) and the translated versionof the Daly and Miller (1975a,b) Writing Apprehension Test (SLWAT). They con-cluded that FL writing anxiety is a more specific type of anxiety, closely related tothe language-particular skill of writing.Reading anxiety has also been studied. By using the FLCAS and the FLRAS (Foreign

Language Reading Anxiety Scale: a five-point, 20-item Likert scale questionnaire speci-fically developed to measure reading anxiety), Saito et al., (1999) explored links betweengeneral FL anxiety and FL reading anxiety among learners of French, Japanese, andRussian. They found that FL reading anxiety is related but distinguishable from generalFL anxiety. Matsuda and Gobel (2001) conducted a similar study targeting Englishmajors in a Japanese university and found no statistically significant relationshipbetween the FLCAS and the FLRAS as a whole; however, by conducting factoranalyses they found that some subcomponents of the two scales were closely related.MacIntyre et al. (1998) cite several studies (Clement et al. 1977; 1980; 1994;

MacIntyre et al. 1997) that suggest close links between FL anxiety and self-eval-uation, and they discuss the plausibility of considering the two as a single construct:self-confidence. Factor analyses in Cheng et al. (1999) and Matsuda and Gobel(2001) also suggest the important role of ‘‘self-confidence’’ in identifying compo-nents of FL anxiety. Cheng et al. found a significant relationship between ‘‘LowSelf-confidence in Speaking English’’ and ‘‘Low Self-confidence in Writing English.’’Likewise, Matsuda and Gobel (2001) observed a strong link between ‘‘Low Self-confidence in Speaking English’’ and ‘‘Reading Confidence/Enjoyment.’’ Supportingthese findings, Gardner et al. (1997) report high correlations and consistency for themeasures of Language Anxiety, Self-confidence, and Can Do ratings of proficiency.In other words, confident learners experience low anxiety and feel that they have theability to do well, whereas less confident learners claim higher anxiety and feel thatthey lack the ability to perform well. The Can Do ratings mentioned above arelearners’ perceptions of their own abilities, and it has been observed that learnersoften overestimate or underestimate their proficiency (Gardner et al. 1977; Mac-Intyre et al. 1997; Spezzini and Oxford, 1998).Research also points to the relationship between FL anxiety and learners’ actual

proficiency and performance, although findings to date have yielded somewhat

22 S. Matsuda, P. Gobel / System 32 (2004) 21–36

inconsistent results. While a large body of research shows a negative relationshipbetween anxiety and proficiency/performance (e.g., Aida, 1994; Bailey, 1983;MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991b; Phillips, 1992), the effects of facilitative anxietyhave also been reported (e.g., Bailey, 1983; MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994b; Tobias,1986; Brown, et al., 2001). In turn, the causal issue remains controversial. WhileClement (1980) reports that self-confidence leads to achievement, Gardner et al.(1997)—based on their causal modeling that yielded a statistically significant pathfrom achievement to self-confidence—suggest that proficiency leads to self-con-fidence. Yashima (2002), however, tested the Gardner theory in a Japanese EFLsetting and reported that the path from L2 proficiency to self-confidence was notsignificant.Then who feels more anxious? What individual variables have an effect on FL

anxiety? Both static and dynamic types of variables should be discussed here. Thestatic type involves human characteristics such as gender, nationality, and first-language background, which generally do not change over time. The dynamic typesof variables are those that change over time and differ among individuals, such aslanguage proficiency, motivation, and self-esteem. It is possible that some, or all, ofthese variables influence FL anxiety.Gender-related anxiety research has yielded conflicting results. Mejıas et al. (1991)

found higher anxiety among Hispanic males than females, and noted that theseresults conflicted with results from their previous studies. Spielberger (1983) exam-ined state anxiety in different conditions and discovered that ‘‘females are moreemotionally stable than males in their reactions to highly stressful or relaxing cir-cumstances (p. 19).’’ Kitano (2001) investigated the anxiety of college learners ofJapanese and reported a correlation between anxiety and self-perception in malestudents. Male students felt higher anxiety when they perceived their spoken Japa-nese less competent than that of others; however, such a relationship was notobserved among female students. MacIntyre et al. (2002) investigated the effects oflanguage, sex, and grade on willingness to communicate (WTC), anxiety, and othervariables among 7th to 9th graders. They found that ‘‘whereas boys’ overall WTCand anxiety levels remain constant across the three grade levels, girls show anincrease in WTC and decrease in anxiety from grade 8 to grade 9’’ (p. 557). Machida(2001) examined FL Japanese language class anxiety based on gender, nationality,first language, and prior foreign language experience. Her study found significantdifferences for gender (female learners are more anxious than male counterparts)and for first language (‘‘other language subgroups’’ displayed lower anxiety thanChinese and English speakers).Even though Machida found no significant relationship between prior foreign

language experience and anxiety, a number of other studies report the effect ofimmersion or intensive courses and their effect on anxiety. The results of moststudies indicate that anxiety levels are notably lower following positive intensivelanguage learning experiences. Gardner et al. (1977) examined students’ atti-tudes, motivation and French achievement prior to and upon completion of afive-week residential summer program. They observed that the summer intensivecourse reduced students’ anxiety about learning and using the language and

S. Matsuda, P. Gobel / System 32 (2004) 21–36 23

concluded that ‘‘anxiety toward speaking French decreases as proficiency andtraining increase’’ (p. 251). Gardner et al. (1979) found that after a 5- or 6-weekintensive French program, both Canadian and American participants demon-strated decreases in anxiety associated with speaking French in the classroomand outside of it. The French Oral Expression test and French Aural Compre-hension test also indicated their higher levels of achievement. Baker and Mac-Intyre (2000) reported similar effects of immersion programs on anxiety.Immersion students demonstrated lower communication apprehension and higherperceived competence than nonimmersion students. Tanaka and Ellis (2003) alsonoted that after a 15-week study-abroad program students indicated a statisticallysignificant change in confidence (i.e., higher confidence and lower anxiety).Kitano (2001), however, found that advanced level students of Japanese with theexperience of having gone to Japan demonstrated a stronger fear of negativeevaluation. She speculates that it was due to the pressure they may have felt toperform better as experienced learners.Some researchers have attempted to delineate clusters of variables that would define

language learning variables (MacIntyre and Charos, 1996; Gardner et al.; 1997;Yamashiro and McLaughlin, 2001; Yashima, 2002), and links between anxiety andproficiency/achievement (sometimes mediated by ‘‘confidence’’) have been examined.By studying the relationships between affective variables and students’ final

grades, Samimy and Tabuse (1992) found that different variables influenced stu-dents’ performance at different times. In their study, variables affecting studentperformance changed over time, with gender, risk-taking (affected by anxiety), andstudents’ status (undergraduate or graduate) being the predictors of students’ suc-cess in the first term, and strength of motivation and outside language opportunitiesbeing determining factors in the following term. Thus, if debilitative anxiety comesinto play and affects students’ performance or achievement, teachers should be ableto identify what it is and help learners cope with or overcome it (cf. Foss andReitzel, 1991; Crookall and Oxford, 1991; Campbell and Ortiz, 1991; Powell,1991).This study investigates the relationships between subcomponents of FL reading

and classroom anxieties and the specific variables of gender, proficiency and expo-sure to the target culture (overseas experience). Following this, we sought variableswhich would be significant predictors of performance among first-year studentsparticipating in the study.The following research questions were explored in this study:

1. What effect does overseas experience have on the theoretical constructs of
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety and Foreign Language ReadingAnxiety?
2. What effect does gender have on the theoretical constructs of Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety and Foreign Language Reading Anxiety?
3. What variables and anxiety factors can be accurate predictors of overall
classroom performance?

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 252 students majoring in English at a large university in Kyoto partici-pated in the research. Three classes each from the first, second, and third-yearcourses were chosen at random to represent their year. The participants consisted of89 first, 85 second, and 78 third-year students. Their proficiency in English rangedfrom high beginner to high intermediate, with all classes containing mixed profi-ciencies. The majority of the high beginners were in the first year classes. Studentages ranged from 18 to 21. The classes of English majors were dominated by femalestudents, with a male-female ratio of 75:177 (see Table 1).School curricula varied according to the school year. First-year students met three

times a week for what is called ‘‘four skills’’ classes (using an ESL textbook seriespublished by Cambridge University Press: Interchange Book 2 that consists of astudent book, a workbook, a video activity book, a CD-ROM, class audio cassettes,and a videotape) and also three times a week for ‘‘content-based’’ classes in whichthey studied in five different content areas in English (Environmental Issues, BritishCulture, Australian Culture, Music, and Japanese Culture) for five or six weekseach. Second-year and third-year students had separate curricula. Second-year stu-dents received six distinct classes per week, including intensive reading, extensivereading, grammar, writing, speaking, and listening. Third-year students met fivetimes a week for intensive reading, extensive reading, business writing, a ‘‘content-based’’ class, and a seminar.

2.2. Materials

Two instruments were used in this study: the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) andthe FLRAS (Saito et al. 1999). The instruments were designed to elicit students’ self-reports regarding anxiety, either over various aspects of reading in a foreignlanguage (FLRAS) or over general classroom anxiety in a foreign language class(FLCAS). All items on both instruments were answered on a five-point Likert Scale,ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ The FLCAS contained 33items, and the FLRAS contained 20 items. Both questionnaires were rewritten inJapanese and checked for accuracy. At the end of the FLCAS, one question wasadded to elicit students’ overseas experience: ‘‘Have you studied abroad? If yes,where? how long?’’

Table 1

Participant data

Year
Participants Male Female Hours of English/week
First
89 23 66 9.0
Second
85 29 56 9.0
Third
78 23 55 7.5

2.3. Procedures

The FLCAS was administered in the 8th week and FLRAS in the 10th week of theSpring semester of 2000. Students were reminded that they were not to answerthe items based on the specific class where the questionnaires were administered, butrather based on general English classes or English reading classes. Two Japaneseteachers and a native teacher administered the questionnaires to the first-year stu-dents in their ‘‘four skills’’ classes. The questionnaires for the second-year studentswere administered by Japanese teachers in one reading and two listening classes. Thethird-year students received the questionnaires from two Japanese and one nativeteacher in their reading classes.Students who filled out the FLCAS but were absent in the 10th week were asked

to fill out the FLRAS in the 11th week. Likewise, students who missed the FLCASin the 8th week were told to fill it out in the 11th week as well. Questionnaires thatwere incomplete, or students who could not be located to fill out both questionnaireswere eliminated from the study, thus slightly reducing the number of participants.Data collection was for the most part successful for each target group, with 95.7%of the first-year, 93.4% of the second-year, and 92.2% of the third year students’data being collected.

2.4. Data analysis

The reliability of the two instruments was determined using Cronbach’s a, and aprinciple component analysis was carried out to analyze construct validity. A var-imax rotation was used and eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and meeting the scree plotcriteria were retained. Significant differences between variables and their interactionswere explored using MANOVA following principle component analysis. An a levelof 0.05 was set for all statistical procedures.

3. Results

3.1. Reliability of the FLCAS and the FLRAS

Internal consistency was computed for each of the Japanese versions of theFLCAS and the FLRAS. Cronbach’s a for the FLCAS was 0.78 (N=252,M=100.75, and S.D.=11.44) and Cronbach’s alpha for the FLRAS was 0.71(N=252, M=61.26, and S.D.=7.3). Kurtosis and skewness help determine whethera distribution is normal, and here kurtosis was 0.037 for FLCAS and 0.339 for theFLRAS and skewness was 0.140 and 0.089 for the two tests, respectively, indicatingnormal distribution (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics).

3.1.1. Principle component analysis of the FLCASA principle component analysis with varimax rotation produced seven factors

with eigenvalues greater than one. To retain all seven factors would create a model


too complex for our purposes, consequently a smaller number of factors wasextracted. Looking at a scree plot of the eigenvalues for this study showed that theplot turned right following factor two. The last five factors were then discarded. Ifthe current model based on two factors is correct, then the two factors will explain asubstantial amount of variance in all items. In this case, only items 11 and 15 weredeleted based on low factor loadings and communalities. The first factor, whichaccounted for 31.1% of the variance included items related to anxiety, fear, andpressure related to performance in the English classroom. Therefore, this componentwas labeled General English Classroom Performance Anxiety (FLCA1). The secondfactor, which accounted for 6.1% of the total variance, included items not specifi-cally related to performance in the classroom and was labeled Low Self-Confidencein Speaking English (FLCA2). See Table 3 for details of each factor.

3.1.2. Principle component analysis of the FLRASUsing the same procedure described above, a principle component analysis of

FLRAS suggested a three-component solution, which accounted for 40.88% of thetotal variance. Items 15 and 16 were deleted based on their low factor loadings andlow communalities, and item 2, which double loaded on factor 1 and factor 2, wasalso deleted for the purposes of clarity.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for FLCAS and FLRAS

Total
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
FLCAS

Total
25,394.000 8894.000 8477.000 8023.000
Mdn
101.000 99.933 102.000 102.000
Mode
98.000 11.986 101.000 96.000
M
100.770 100.000 99.729 102.859
SD
11.428 98.000 10.910 11.192
Min.
72.000 73.000 72.000 73.000
Max.
133.000 128.000 125.000 133.000
Kurtosis
0.037 �0.109 0.122 0.087
Skewness
0.140 0.221 0.057 0.082
N
252.000 89.000 85.000 78.000
FLRAS

Total
15,437.000 5278.000 5327.000 4832.000
Mdn
62.000 59.000 63.000 61.000
Mode
61.000 54.000 62.000 64.000
M
61.258 59.303 62.671 61.949
S.D.
7.326 7.096 7.493 7.004
Min.
41.000 43.000 41.000 43.000
Max.
89.000 79.000 78.000 89.000
Kurtosis
0.339 �0.260 0.285 2.067
Skewness
0.089 0.228 �0.530 0.722
N
252.000 89.000 85.000 78.000

Items in Factor 1, which accounted for approximately 21% of the total variance,were mainly concerned with grammar and vocabulary. Therefore, this factor waslabeled Familiarity with English Vocabulary and Grammar (FLRA1). Factor 2,accounting for 11.79% of the total variance, was concerned mainly with confidencein reading English and reading enjoyment and was labeled Reading Confidence/Enjoyment (FLRA2). Factor 3 accounted for 8.1% of the total variance and inclu-ded a variety of items, many of them dealing either with English culture, ideas, andthe English writing system, so this factor was labeled Language Distance (FLRA3).See Table 4 for details of each factor.

Table 3

Results of factor analysis for FLCAS

Item
Questionnaire items F1 F2 h2
2.
I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class 0.547 0.345
3.
I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in English class �0.657 0.488
4.
It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in English �0.546 0.365
8.
I am usually at ease during tests in my English class 0.384 0.165
9.
I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in English class �0.519 0.411
12.
In English class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know �0.676 0.464
13.
It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English class �0.458 0.276
14.
I would not be nervous speaking English with native speakers 0.583 0.452
16.
Even if I am well prepared for English class, I feel anxious about it �0.652 0.480
19.
I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make �0.423 0.253
20.
I can feel my heart pounding when I am going to be called on in my English class �0.732 0.563
22.
I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for English class 0.407 0.166
24.
I feel very self-conscious about speaking English in front of other students �0.369 0.155
26.
I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other classes �0.747 0.602
27.
I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my English class �0.779 0.657
29.
I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the English teacher says �0.684 0.492
30.
I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to speak English �0.453 0.256
25.
English class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind �0.447 0.424 0.380
33.
I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions which
I haven’t prepared in advance

�0.623
0.454
31.
I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak English �0.626 0.408
21.
The more I study for an English test, the more confused I get �0.308 0.322 0.199
1.
I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in English 0.604 0.562
5.
It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English classes. �0.618 0.384
6.
During English class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing
to do with the course

0.477
0.256
7.
I keep thinking that the other students are better at English than I am 0.573 0.420
10.
I worry about the consequences of failing my English class 0.511 0.358
17.
I often feel like not going to my English class 0.697 0.489
18.
I feel confident when I speak in my English class �0.577 0.444
23.
I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do 0.560 0.388
28.
When I’m on my way to English class, I feel very sure and relaxed �0.570 0.4882
32.
I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of English �0.435 0.339
Eigenvalues
10.26 2.04
Percentage of variance
31.09 6.18
Cumulative percentage of total variance
31.09 37.28

Table 4

Results of factor analysis for FLRAS

Item Questionnaire items F1 F2 F3 h2

1. I get upset when I’m not sure whether I understand what I’m reading in English �0.586 0.376

5. I am nervous when I am reading a passage in English when I am not familiar with the topic �0.375 0.235

6. I get upset whenever I encounter unknown grammar when reading English �0.739 0.636

7. When reading English, I get nervous and confused when I don’t understand every word �0.555 �0.551 0.610

8. It bothers me to encounter words I can’t pronounce while reading English �0.655 0.435

20. You have to know so much about English history and culture in order to read English �0.420 0.308

2. When reading English, I often understand the words but still can’t understand what the author is saying �0.346 �0.377 0.289

3. When I’m reading English, I get so confused I can’t remember what I’m reading �0.475 0.381

12. I enjoy reading English 0.740 0.633

13. I feel confident when I am reading in English 0.845 0.717

14. Once you get used to it, reading English is not so difficult 0.627 0.541

18. I am satisfied with the level of reading ability in English that I have achieved so far 0.629 0.468

4. I feel intimidated whenever I see a whole page of English in front of me �0.484 0.424

9. I usually end up translating word by word when I’m reading English in front of me �0.630 0.455

10. By the time you get past the funny letters and symbols in English, it’s hard to remember what you’re reading about �0.510 0.367

11. I am worried about all the new symbols you have to learn in order to read English �0.626 0.470

17. I don’t mind reading to myself, but I feel very uncomfortable when I have to read English aloud �0.472 0.256

19. English culture and ideas seem very foreign to me �0.631 0.492

Eigenvalues 4.20 2.36 1.62

Percentage of Variance 20.99 11.79 8.10

Cumulative percentage of total variance 20.99 32.79 40.89

S.Matsu

da,P.Gobel/

System

32(2004)21–36

29

3.1.3. Sampling subjectsThe factors emerging from factor analysis are affected by the subjects. The argument

for homogeneity of subjects would suggest that all three groups of students (first-, sec-ond-, and third-year students) not be grouped together, since they may be distinctlydifferent based on their experiences or lack thereof. However, since we are trying toreflect a real population (that of one faculty at a specific university), the decision wasmade to pool all participants together for the factor analysis. In addition, homogeneoussamples lower variance and, consequently, factor loadings. A situation ill suited toexploratory factor analysis, where high factor loadings are desirable (Kline, 1994).

3.2. MANOVA

Using the factor scores from both factor analyses, a multiple analysis of variance(MANOVA) was performed to see if there was any significant effect for the inde-pendent variables of gender and overseas experience. The dependent variables in thestatistical procedure were the three factors for the FLRAS and the two factors forthe FLCAS. Students with overseas experience accounted for 62 out of 252 students.Those had studied abroad in English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada,New Zealand, UK, and USA for more than two weeks. The length of stay rangedfrom 2 weeks to 5 years (mean: approximately 97 days, mode: 1 month). An analysisof the differences in length of experience did not uncover any bias towards thosewith longer overseas experiences. This may be explained by the fact that the studentsparticipated in a variety of programs, hence the range of their experiences did notaccurately correlate with their length of stay. A significant effect for the independentvariable of overseas experience was found (P<0.04, df=5, 243). Univariate analysisindicated that the significant factor (P<0.007; df=1, 247) in this analysis wasFLCA2 (Low Self-confidence in Speaking English).

3.3. Predictors of performance

Finally, the subset of first-year students (89 students) were used to explore theseanxiety factors as possible predictors of class performance. The first-year subset waschosen for two reasons: adequate information on their overall proficiency (in theform of TOEIC scores) was available; and the structure of their English classes wasunified, allowing for more accurate interpretation of their performance. In fact,although the students had six classes per week, they were given unified grades forboth the content classes and the four skills classes, making it easier to judge overallclass performance.The research questions for this subset were as follows:

1. What variables can be accurate predictors of classroom performance?
2. What anxiety factors can be accurate predictors of classroom performance?
Based on their course grades for the six classes (divided into content class gradesand four skills class grades) a sequential regression analysis of each class set was


performed in an effort to uncover significant predictors of the dependant variable ofperformance. The independent variables in the analysis were: proficiency (TOEICscores), gender, FLCA1, FLCA2, FLRA1, FLRA2, and FLRA3.The results of the analysis for content classes revealed that FLCA2 and Gender

were significant predictors of performance. In the four skills classes gender, as wellas FLCA2 and TOEIC scores were significant predictors of performance(see Tables 5and 6). By looking at the partial correlations for the significant variables it waspossible to determine how much these variables contributed to the prediction of thedependent variable, performance. The unique contribution of these significant inde-pendent variables to the prediction of the dependent variables was as follows. ForClass A: FLCA2 14%; Gender 5%. For Class D: FLCA211%, Gender 15% andTOEIC 18%. In other words, the percent of variance uniquely accounted for by thesignificant variables in Class A was 19% and in Class D 44%.

4. Discussion

In our previous study (Matsuda and Gobel, 2001), we found almost no statisti-cally significant correlation between the two scales, suggesting that FL reading

Table 5

Regression analysis for class A (content classes) N=89

Variable
B SE B bT sT
FLCA1
�0.311 0.785 �0.045 �0.396 0.693
FLCA2
2.628 0.715 0.437 3.671 0.000*
FLRA1
1.203 0.731 0.171 1.646 0.103
FLRA2
�0.921 0.721 �0.142 �1.277 0.205
FLRA3
0.254 0.703 0.041 0.363 0.717
GENDER
�3.113 1.491 �0.215 �2.088 0.040*
TOEIC
0.008 0.008 0.119 1.082 0.282
(Constant)
73.312 4.490 16.325 0.000
* P<0.05.

Table 6

Regression Analysis for Class D (four skills classes) N=89

Variable
B SE B bT sT
FLCA1
0.445 0.633 0.069 0.703 0.484
FLCA2
1.630 0.577 0.289 2.826 0.006*
FLRA1
0.469 0.589 0.071 0.796 0.428
FLRA2
�1.121 0.581 �0.184 �1.927 0.057
FLRA3
�0.399 0.566 �0.068 �0.705 0.482
GENDER
�4.916 1.202 �0.362 �4.090 0.000*
TOEIC
0.025 0.006 0.367 3.887 0.000*
(Constant)
73.079 3.619690 20.189 0.0000
* P<0.05.


anxiety is very specific and independent of more general types of FL anxiety. Itemsfrom both measures loaded on different components except for ‘‘low self con-fidence,’’ which was found to be a significant component of both anxiety scales. Inthe present study we saw a clear connection between FLCA2 (Low Self-confidencein Speaking English) and overseas experience. This seems to make sense, since stu-dents who have spent time overseas have greater opportunities to communicate inthe target language. Not only do they have the opportunity for more practice, butother affective factors such as motivation may also come into play. This result issupported by previous research on immersion and intensive language courses/experience (i.e. Gardner et al., 1977, 1979). Considering the fact that many institu-tions these days provide various study abroad programs, teachers should encouragestudents to take advantage of these opportunities and participate in those programs.The findings in this study indicate that overseas experiences benefit students in termsof enhancing their self-confidence and ultimately achieving higher grades.Self-confidence was also represented in our regression analysis of first-year cour-

ses, where FLCA2 was seen as a significant predictor of classroom performance forboth content and four-skills courses. Contrary to the direction demonstrated byGardner et al. (1997), the results of this study suggest the path from self-confidenceto achievement and support Clement et al. (1994: 441) in that ‘‘Self-confidence influ-ences L2 proficiency both directly and indirectly through the students’ attitudetoward and effort expanded [sic] on learning English.’’ The results indicate the exis-tence of self-confidence as a key variable and underscore the importance of fosteringstudents’ self-confidence in the classroom. The implication is that teachers need toreduce anxiety and enhance self-confidence by encouraging students’ involvement inclassroom activities and creating a comfortable atmosphere. Crookall and Oxford(1991) state that teachers should try to lessen learners’ anxiety by ‘‘making theclassroom as friendly and relaxed as possible’’ (p. 142). One student’s comment inclass evaluations revealed that students are aware of the teacher’s emotional state:‘‘The teacher was very relaxed, so we too were able to relax and study.’’ This indi-cates that the teacher’s character and psychological state can affect class atmo-sphere. Thus, teachers need to train themselves to be relaxed in class. Also, theyconstantly need to evaluate the classroom climate and try to make improvements ifnecessary. Videotaping their own teaching and analyzing it objectively may be oneway to see what is going on in the classroom from a participant’s point of view.Observing other teachers’ classes or participating in teacher-training workshops mayalso provide clues for creating a better classroom.Using various activities such as pair work, small group work, games, and role-

plays may enhance class atmosphere as well. Students feel more comfortable aboutspeaking with a small number of people than confronting the whole class. It shouldbe noted, though, that students have their own preferences and beliefs about class-room activities. In other words, some students may like pair work but not groupwork. Some may find playing games relaxing and fun, but others find it embarras-sing and unproductive even if it is related to language learning. Teachers have tosensitize themselves to judge what is appropriate and useful for the group they areteaching. This requires creativity and flexibility as well. Teachers should also


endeavor to stay abreast of the latest theories and approaches to reinforce theirteaching techniques.Since we found that self-confidence plays an important role, giving students a

sense of achievement should become a primary objective in the classroom. By start-ing with pair work and giving them enough practice and training, students feelconfident about what they are doing. Then, teachers can gradually change to a morechallenging pattern (group work and class work) or start mixing various classroomsettings so that students feel that no pattern is new and that there is no need toworry. As research shows, when sufficient time and practice are given, moderateamounts of anxiety can produce positive results (e.g., MacIntyre and Gardner,1994b; Tobias, 1986). When students get accustomed to a variety of activities andfeel comfortable with each other, the classroom climate becomes unthreatening.Students’ self perceptions about what they can do are closely related to self-con-fidence, which turned out, in this study, to be a predictor of success.Another rather obvious result was that Proficiency (operationalized as TOEIC

scores) was also seen as a significant predictor of classroom performance among thefirst-year students. What was interesting was that it was found as a significant pre-dictor only in the four-skills class. In this class, higher TOEIC scores were correlatedwith higher grades. This would seem to suggest that the nature of the four-skillscourse was substantially different from the content course. In the four-skills course,reading and writing assignments and grammar-based tests received more weightthan in-class participation grades. In the four-skills class, 40% of the final gradeswere based on writing/reading assignments and written tests; 40% was based onclass participation (20% by each teacher), and 10% was for attendance. On theother hand, in the content course, where five native teachers rotated in 5–6 weekcycles, students’ willingness to participate in in-class discussions and oral present-ations was considered a more important part of the grade. All the content teachersassigned at least one oral presentation in their classes, which means each studentmade five or more oral presentations in the academic year. Those presentations andclass participation made up 75–80% of the final grades; the remaining 20–25% wasbased on writing assignments and written tests.Finally, the variable of Gender needs to be dealt with. Although a number of

previous studies found a significant relationship between gender and anxiety, theMANOVA in this study revealed no significant effect of Gender as an independentvariable on anxiety of the students as a whole. However, Gender did turn out to be asignificant predictor of performance with first-year participants. In this study,the dependent variable of performance was studied among first-year studentsonly, for the simple reason that sufficient classroom and proficiency data wasavailable for first-year students only. It might be interesting to see, though, ifGender marks difference as a determinant of success for second-year and third-yearstudents. If determining variables change over time, as is suggested by Samimy andTabuse (1992), however, it is speculated that different predictors of performanceemerge for more experienced learners.We should also point out the limitations of this study. The major limitation of this

study is the low reliability of both questionnaires, and it is this low reliability that


may have had an effect on the findings of the principle component analysis. Thereare a number of possibilities why the reliability for these two scales was low. Pos-sible sources of variance include variance due to questionnaire administration,variance attributable to the participants, and variance attributable to thequestionnaire items.The results need to be interpreted with caution because although students were

told to answer about English classes in general, they may have responded based onthe specific class they were attending at that time. In addition, whether the admin-istrator was Japanese or non-Japanese may have influenced subject responses tocertain items. It must also be noted that responses may have been different hadthe questionnaires been administered at the beginning or end of the semester, ortogether (as was done with Saito et al., 1999).Variance attributable to the participants and different curricula could have some-

how affected their anxiety reactions as well. Third-year students do not actually haveconversation class, but may be required to speak in a more challenging situation inreading/writing classes. First-year students learn to read in an integrated ‘‘four-skills’’ course, so they were not really exposed to extensive reading yet. We also didnot take students’ individual experiences or proficiency into consideration.

5. Conclusion

The present research has pointed towards: how exposure to the target language/culture may affect general classroom/reading anxieties; what effect gender has onanxiety constructs; and what factors influence classroom performance. A significanteffect for the independent variable of overseas experience was found: The studentswith overseas experience demonstrated lower anxiety (i.e., higher self-confidence) inspeaking English. Unlike in other studies (cf. Kitano, 2001), gender was not foundto have a significant effect on overall general/reading anxieties or subcomponents ofboth anxieties such as Low Self-confidence in Speaking English, Reading Con-fidence/Enjoyment, etc. However, when predictors of performance for first-yearstudents were examined, gender turned out to be one of the key elements to success.Self-confidence in speaking English and gender (female) were common predictors ofperformance for both four-skills and content classes; however, objective proficiency(operationalized as TOEIC scores) was a predictor only for the four-skills class. Thissuggests that the nature of the course could influence the determinants of success.One obvious next step in this research process is to conduct more in-depth surveys

and, more importantly, interview both teachers and students in an effort to validateand expand upon our results.

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, 155–168.


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.

Bailey, K.M., 1983. Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and

through the diary studies. In: Seliger, H.W., Long, M.H.. Classroom Oriented Research in Second

Language Acquisition, Newbury House, Rowly, MA, pp. 67–102.

Brown, J.D., Robson, G., Rosenkjar, P.R., 2001. Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies and lan-

guage proficiency of Japanese students. Motivation and Second Language Acquisition 23, 361–398.

Campbell, C.M., Ortiz, J., 1991. Helping students overcome foreign language anxiety: a foreign language

anxiety workshop. In: Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and

Research to Classroom Implication. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 153–168.

Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E.K., Schallert, D.L., 1999. Language Anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking

components. Language Learning 49, 417–446.

Clement, R., 1980. Ethnicity, contact, and communication competence in a second language. In: Giles,

H., Robinson, W.P., Smith, P.M. (Eds.), Language: Social Psychological Perspectives: Selected papers

from the first International Conference on Social Psychology and language held at the University of

Bristol, England, July 1979. Pergamon Press, Oxford; New York, pp. 147–154.

Clement, R., 1994. Dornyei, Z, & Noels, K. A. Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the

foreign langauge classroom. Language Learning 44 (3), 417–448.

Clement, R., Gardner, R.C., Smythe, P.C., 1977. Motivational variables in second language acquisition:

A study of Francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 9, 123–133.

Clement, R., Gardner, R.C., Smythe, P.C., 1980. Social and individual factors in second language acqui-

sition. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 12, 293–302.

Crookall, D., Oxford, R., 1991. Dealing with anxiety: Some practical activities for language learners and

teacher trainees. In: Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research

to classroom Implication. Prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 141–150.

Daly, J.A., Miller, M.D., 1975a. The empirical development of an instrument of writing apprehension.

Research in the Teaching of English 9, 242–249.

Daly, J.A., Miller, M.D., 1975b. Further studies in writing apprehension: SAT scores, success expectations,

willingness to take advanced courses, and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English 9, 250–256.

Foss, K.A., Reitzel, A.C., 1991. A relational model for managing second language anxiety. In: Horwitz,

E.K., Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implication.

Prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 129–140.

Gardner, R.C., Smythe, P.C., Brunet, G.R., 1977. Intensive second language study: Effects on attitudes,

motivation and French achievement. Language Learning 27, 243–261.

Gardner, R.C., Smythe, P.C., Clement, R., 1979. Intensive second language study in a bicultural milieu:

An investigation of attitudes, motivation and language proficiency. Language Learning 29, 305–320.

Gardner, R.C., Tremblay, P.F., Masgoret, A., 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: an

empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81, 344–362.

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: Bailey, K.M., Nunan, D. (Eds.), Voices from

the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 248–277.

Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., Cope, J.A., 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language

Journal 70, 125–132.

Kitano, K., 2001. Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal 85 (4),

549–566.

Kline, P., 2001. An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge, London, UK.

Machida, S., 2001. Anxiety in Japanese-language class oral examinations. Sekai no Nihongo Kyoiku 11,

115–138.

MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., Donovan, L.A., 2002. Sex and age effects on willingness to

communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French

immersion students. Language Learning 52 (3), 537–564.

MacIntyre, P.D., Charos, C., 1996. Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language

communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15 (1), 3–26.


MacIntyre, P.D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z.M., Noels, K.A., 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to

communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal

82, 545–562.

MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1989. Anxiety and second language leaning: Toward a theoretical

clarification. Language Learning 39, 251–275.

MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1991a. Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to proces-

sing in native and second languages. Language Learning 41, 513–534.

MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1991b. Methods and results in the study of anxiety in language learning:

A review of the literature. Language Learning 41, 85–117.

MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1994a. The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive

processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 1–17.

MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1994b. The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in

the second language. Language Learning 44, 283–305.

MacIntyre, P.D., Noels, K.A., Clement, R., 1997. Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency:

the role of language anxiety. Language Learning 47, 265–287.

Matsuda, S., Gobel, P., 2001. Quiet apprehension: reading and classroom anxieties. JALT Journal 23,

227–247.

Mejıas, H., Applebaum, R.L., Applebaum, S.J., Trotter, R.T., 1991. Oral communication apprehension

and Hispanics: an exploration of oral communication apprehension among Mexican American students

in Texas. In: Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to

Classroom Implications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 87–97.

Phillips, E., 1992. The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes.

Modern Language Journal 76, 14–26.

Powell, J.A.C., 1991. Foreign language classroom anxiety: Institutional responses. In: Horwitz, E.K.,

Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implication. Prentice

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 129–140.

Price, M.L., 1991. The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly anxious

students. In: Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.J. (Eds.), Language anxiety: From Theory and Research to

Classroom Implications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 101–108.

Saito, Y., Garza, T., Horwitz, E., 1999. Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal 83,

202–218.

Samimy, K.K., Tabuse, M., 1992. Affective variables and a less commonly taught language: A study in

beginning Japanese classes. Language Learning 42, 377–398.

Spezzini, S., Oxford, R., 1998. Perspectives of preservice foreign language teachers. System 26, 65–76.

Spielberger, C.D., 1983. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Consulting Psycholo-

gists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Steinberg, F.S., Horwitz, E.K., 1986. The effect of induced anxiety on the denotative and interpretive

content of second language speech. TESOL Quarterly 20, 131–136.

Tanaka, K., Ellis, R., 2003. Study abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about language

learning. JALT Journal 25, 63–85.

Tobias, S., 1986. Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. In: Schuwarzer, R. (Ed.), Self-related

Cognition in Anxiety and Motivation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35–54.

Yamashiro, A., McLaughlin, J. 2001. Relationships among attitudes, motivation, anxiety, and English

language proficiency in Japanese college students. In: JALT Applied Materials: Second Language

Research in Japan. JALT, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 113–127.

Yashima, T., 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context.

Modern Language Journal 86 (1), 54–66.


sem ii curs 7 si 8 pag 1-4

Documents