1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study and rationale for the present study

This research project is rooted in a long interest in what it is that makes

English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners anxious during the process of classroom

language learning. Researchers take the position that language anxiety (LA)1

constitutes a distinct emotional response that is different from general, global anxiety.

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986, p. 128) have in fact postulated that LA does not

emanate from a simple transfer of anxiety from other domains, but could best be

defined as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours

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

learning process”.

It is rather telling that many people have a love-hate relationship with foreign

language learning. Indeed, while they may be keen on learning a new language, they

consider it a challenging task and report uncomfortable experiences with relation to it.

Early research into second language acquisition (SLA) sought to associate cognitive

abilities with academic success (Carroll and Sapon, 1959). Language teachers too

tend to assume that students lack motivation, find the lessons uninteresting, or simply

do not have the mental acuity to grasp even rudimentary aspects of the foreign

language, and are therefore incapable of performing satisfactorily in class.

However, Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) seminal research on learners’

motivation and attitudes towards the target language, has triggered much research in

1 Although the present study investigates anxiety about classroom language learning, I have eschewed

terms such as ‘language learning anxiety’ in favour of the more general term, ‘language anxiety’,

which I am using throughout the thesis, given the potential for confusion in light of the LA theory

nomenclature.

2

individual learner differences and affectivity in language learning. Posing the

following question, “how is it that some people can learn a second or foreign

language so easily and do so well while others, given what seem to be the same

opportunities to learn, find it almost impossible?” (ibid., p. 130), the two Canadian

social psychologists urged researchers to shift their focus on individual learner

differences, and, in particular, on learners’ emotional responses to language learning

and their impact on classroom performance and success. According to Dörnyei

(2005), individual differences refer to any aspect that defines each person as different

from the others. Young (1999, p. 21) contended that the human mind consists of

thoughts and emotions which “do not function independently of the body”. Therefore,

when learning a foreign language, emotions or affect, including LA, may interplay

with cognition and the process of learning, and should be taken into account by

language educators. By the same token, when researching language acquisition,

research should not be detached from individual differences and affective factors,

neither should the existence of LA be ignored, given the strong links between

acquisition and affectivity.

Much research has focused on the anxiety associated with second language

speaking, which undoubtedly constitutes one of the most prominent causes of LA

having well-defined, detrimental effects on learning. Fear of losing face in the

presence of the teacher and the peers seems to be of primary concern to students in

most educational contexts where LA research has been conducted. As Guiora and

Acton (1979, p. 199) argued, a different self (i.e., the “language ego”) exists when

using a foreign language, based on the psychological experience that “one feels like a

different person when speaking a second language and often indeed acts very

differently as well”. However, as this thesis will show, LA is a much more complex

3

and multidimensional construct, displaying a wide array of layers of interactions

between students and of factors outside of each individual learner. Additionally, the

possibility of anxiety specific to other skill areas should also be taken into account. At

the outset of my doctoral studies in the UK, I expressed an interest in investigating

LA about writing, an idea that, research-wise, was not conceived of as promising,

given that most people tend to think that anxiety is non-existent in writing situations.

As the present thesis will reveal though, this may not always be the case, as anxiety

about writing in a foreign language truly exists, paving the way for innovative,

constructive approaches to theorising and analysing writing in a foreign language.

What is more, additional research into writing anxiety in foreign language settings is

warranted (Manchón, 2009; Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, and van Gelderen,

2009), given that most writing-anxiety-related research has explored first language

(Daly and Miller, 1975a, 1975b) or second language writing (Rinnert and Kobayashi,

2009).

Further, it is notable that no focused studies examining the nature and

development of the LA of Greek EFL learners have been conducted. Within the Greek

English language teaching (ELT) context, research into LA has examined the nature

of anxiety and the use of affective strategies among Greek university students in

English for specific purposes (ESP) and English for academic purposes (EAP)

contexts only (Karras, 2012). Considering more international perspectives on anxiety,

research to date has primarily concentrated on the anxiety of students enrolled in

language courses in American Higher Education Institutions (e.g., Horwitz et al.,

1986; Pappamihiel, 2002; Yan and Horwitz, 2008), or student LA over foreign

languages other than English (e.g., Elkhafaifi, 2005; Kitano, 2001; Marcos-Llinas and

Garau, 2009). Contextualised studies involving students enrolled in English courses in

4

private language centres and taking into account the peculiarities of the Greek foreign

language education system, discussed in Chapters 3 and 7, could extend our

understandings of LA and build on existent studies in both SLA and psychology.

Thus, what makes the current study distinctive is that it takes into account the local

teaching-learning context as well as local concerns when reflecting on anxiety.

1.2 Personal motivation to undertake the study

I started to learn English at a young age and I still remember how anxious and

self-conscious I was in the classroom. My anxiety would remain stable no matter what

activities the teacher would implement in the classroom, or how many peers would be

present, or whether an upcoming exam or a deadline I would have to meet were

looming. I then moved on to learn French, a process which lasted for a number of

years leading me to an in-depth study of French literature, political history, and the

so-called ‘francophonie’. Studying Italian was my next, and – perhaps understandably

– easiest step, as I could constantly see many similarities between Italian and French

mainly in terms of both languages’ morphosyntactic rules and regularities. The

comparative approach that I adopted towards both languages facilitated my levelling

up to an intermediate class of Italian as a foreign language. Despite my gradually

developing profound love for foreign languages, and my aptitude and success at them,

the anxiety-related parameter would still affect me.

When I first arrived in the UK, being a holder of a Bachelor’s degree in

English language and literature already, I could again sense a precarious level of

anxiety manifested primarily during my attempts to speak within the L2 community.

Back then, I felt as though I was an EFL learner again. I tried to speculate on the

causes of my speaking anxiety, and thought that my personality and low self-

5

confidence combined with the limited opportunities I had to practise speaking in

Greece could be potential anxiety-inducing factors.

My experience of teaching EFL at the University of Essex brought me into

contact with an innumerable number of students from very different backgrounds,

each one carrying unique life experiences, and, clearly, having different affordances

to learn English. I was always interested to know what students liked or disliked about

English and our lessons, and also what was troubling them and thrilling them. I soon

realised that it was not just the linguistic input per se that would ignite feelings of

anxiety among the learners, but non-linguistic factors too, such as the UK Border

Agency regulations about IELTS band scores that would accordingly allow students

to extend their visas or bring their families to the UK. I soon learned that alleviating

students’ LA about EFL learning was not as easy as I thought it would be. It was at

that moment that my curiosity in LA over EFL was born. Starting from such

considerations about my students, and given my different experiences as an EFL

teacher both in Greece and in the UK, as well as my personal profile of an anxious

language learner, an investigation of what exactly makes students anxious in the EFL

classroom was a natural continuation for my research interests and teaching practice.

My negative affective experiences with relation to speaking in EFL were

definitely a stepping stone to research into speaking anxiety, which arguably

constitutes an integral part of this project. However, while reading the literature on

LA, I noticed a paucity of publications into writing anxiety. Given that EFL learning

in Greece relies heavily on students’ writing competence, I felt that research into EFL

writing anxiety could lead to promising insights into how students experience writing

in a foreign language, and could subsequently supplement my research findings of

speaking anxiety, thereby offering a holistic perspective on anxiety about the two

6

productive skills. The data I collected have also shown that participants tended to

distinguish between general classroom LA and skill-specific LA. The present study

therefore follows this line of thought as well.

1.3 Purpose of the study

The project responded to the scarcity of research into the LA of Greek EFL

learners, and aimed at:

exploring the links between LA and language-skill specificity

examining the causes of skill-specific LA

looking at the interrelationship between skill-specific LA and different

proficiency levels, and

investigating the strategies deployed by EFL teachers and learners in order to

minimise students’ classroom and skill-specific LA.

These aims were further split into five research questions:

1. Which factors contribute to the speaking anxiety of Greek EFL learners?

2. Which factors influence Greek EFL learners’ writing anxiety?

3. What is the difference in skill-specific LA among students at different

proficiency levels?

4. What aspects are perceived as the main causes of classroom LA?

5. What strategies do Greek EFL students deploy to minimise their classroom

and skill-specific LA and how do their teachers choose to intervene?

These questions were addressed through a sequential explanatory investigation

using a standardised questionnaire followed by a diary study and in-depth interviews

with the students, as well as in-depth interviews with their EFL tutors, and guided by

a pragmatic research paradigm.

7

1.4 Thesis outline

The thesis consists of eight chapters. The present chapter offers an

introduction to the thesis, providing the background of and rationale for the present

study, delineating my personal motivation to investigate LA, and stating the overall

aims of the project defined through both confirmatory and exploratory research

questions.

Chapter Two constitutes a review of the theories and research that shape

current conceptualisations of classroom LA. The chapter discusses skill-specific LA,

with an emphasis on the productive skills of speaking and writing in EFL. Anxiety-

ensuing factors as well as strategies implemented to allay students’ LA are presented

next. The literature review concludes with a set of reasons why I consider that more

research is needed in the field.

Chapter Three offers background information about my research site aiming to

facilitate a better understanding of the project. The Greek foreign language education

system is described, and the role played by EFL learning on the national curriculum,

on professional development, and on Greek learners’ intentionality to learn EFL, is

emphasised.

Chapter Four details the methodology of the study. Epistemological

assumptions forming the basis of the study are defined first, together with the reasons

why a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was deemed most appropriate for

answering my research questions. Chapter Four also provides information about my

participants, the data collection instruments, and the procedures of collecting and

analysing data, for the quantitative and qualitative component separately. Research

validity and reliability as well as ethical issues in research involving human

participants are then discussed.

8

The findings are presented in two chapters. Chapter Five – Quantitative

Results – covers descriptive statistics, that is, measures of central tendency, and

inferential statistics: one-way analysis of variance, exploratory factor analysis, and

correlational results. Chapter Six – Qualitative Findings – begins with student

participant profiles including their total LA scores and summaries of their interviews

and, where applicable, their diaries. The interview and diary data are presented in

detail in the remainder of this chapter.

The quantitative and qualitative findings are integrated and discussed in

Chapter Seven, which is dedicated to a discussion of the most salient emerging

themes. Sections in this chapter also present the implications of the study for language

educators and researchers.

Finally, the Conclusion in Chapter Eight sums up the research findings by

revisiting each research question, discusses the limitations of the study, and suggests

ideas for further research. In this chapter, I also conclude that the aims I had set out at

the beginning were achieved.

9

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The present chapter aims at reviewing existing research into anxiety-related

phenomena in the foreign language classroom. My research has adopted a linear

approach to investigating anxiety, by measuring learners’ levels of anxiety first –

despite the difficulties of such a measurement –, identifying their sources of anxiety

second, and recommending the implementation of anxiety-reducing strategies third.

This stance was adopted given the conceptual links between LA and anxiety that

manifests in our modern world, as well as the close ties of LA with the discipline of

psychology.

The review therefore consists of six sections: 1. The notion of LA (defining

LA and associated concepts, and discussing the different types of LA and how they

interact with classroom language learning). 2. Skill-specific anxiety with particular

emphasis on the productive language skills (explicating differences in the medium of

communication, before analysing when, why, and how LA appears in EFL speaking

and writing classes). 3. The major stressors (listing a set of interpersonal,

intrapersonal, environmental, cognitive, and affective sources of LA in foreign

language classrooms). 4. LA and its relation to other learner variables, such as level of

proficiency in English (reviewing primarily quantitative, correlational research into

the links between age and LA, and proficiency levels and LA). 5. Anxiety

management and reduction techniques (discussing advice offered in the existing

literature on how language educators could help students minimise their LA in class,

as well as research results from few empirical intervention studies conducted in the

10

field). 6. Research needed (arguing that there is insufficient research in foreign

language learning that addresses LA associated with language skills other speaking,

contextual sources of LA and intervention methods, and concluding that more

qualitative research is also needed).

2.2 Language anxiety: From mainstream psychology to language education

Many different words in the English language relate to the subjective

experience of anxiety, such as “dread”, “panic”, “apprehension”, “nervousness”,

“worry”, and “fear” (Clark and Beck, 2010). This has therefore somehow led to

confusion in the use of the term “anxious”. As will be explained below, SLA

researchers have treated the anxiety-related words listed above as some of the main

psychosomatic symptoms of anxiety arousal. In fact, anxiety is often presented as a

variant of fear (MacIntyre, 2002) or even panic (Ehrman, 1996).Within psychology-

based research, however, most emphasis has been placed on distinguishing between

“anxiety” and “fear” in any theoretical discussions about anxiety. Fear could best be

conceived of as an antecedent of anxiety, and “anxiety is an emotional response

triggered by fear” (Clark and Beck, 2010, p. 5). As Barlow (2002, p. 104) stated, “fear

is a primitive alarm in response to present danger, characterised by strong arousal and

action tendencies”, while anxiety is defined as “a future-oriented emotion,

characterised by perceptions of uncontrollability and unpredictability over potentially

aversive events and a rapid shift in attention to the focus of potentially dangerous

events or one’s own affective response to these events”. What fear and anxiety do

have in common though is a future orientation, with “what if?” questions

predominating (Clark and Beck, 2010). In the EFL learning context, for instance,

questions such as “What if I fail the course?”, or “What if I am not able to understand

11

what the teacher is asking me in English?”, can engender feelings of LA among

students. Rachman (1998) attributed anxiety to subjective unidentified sources, which,

exactly because indeterminate, cause a range of symptoms. Anxiety then persists

because anxious people refrain from entering anxiety-provoking situations, but, on the

contrary, tend to insist on endless reminiscences of past threats, hence being unable to

set emotional processing into action (Rachman, 1998).

Within education, cognition and affect are seen as inextricably entwined and

complementary in nature. Damasio (2000, p. 36) argued that “it is through feelings,

which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed

and public, begin their impact on the mind”. According to MacIntyre (2002),

cognition refers to intelligence, language aptitude, and language learning strategies, as

opposed to affect which encompasses attitudes, motivation, anxiety, self-confidence,

as well as social aspects of language learning. Language learning, therefore, could be

thought of as a symbiosis of body, mind, and emotions (Young, 1999).

Affective factors in the language classroom were highlighted by proponents of

teaching methods, such as Total Physical Response (TPR) and Suggestopedia, who

argued that an important condition for successful language learning is the absence of

stress (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Interest in affect in general, and in anxiety in

particular, was also augmented by Krashen’s (1981) affective filter hypothesis, which

posits that negative emotions, that is, low integrative motivation, low self-confidence,

and high anxiety, signify a strong filter, which is not conducive to SLA. As Krashen

(1981, p. 31) explained, even if students understand the target message, “the input

will not reach that part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the

language acquisition device”, only because their negative psychology will impede

their receptivity and ability to process linguistic input. Krashen (1981) concluded that

12

the combination of comprehensible input that is one degree higher than the learners’

current proficiency level (i + 1) and a low affective filter are likely to contribute to

successful language acquisition.

The humanistic movement also contributed towards shifting the focus of

language teaching to the affective domain. The inner world of the individual,

including thoughts, feelings, and emotions, while considering cognition to a much

lesser extent, was placed at the forefront of language teaching (Tudor, 2001; Williams

and Burden, 1997). Within language education, humanism intends to build a positive

affective relation between the learner and the materials, as well as between the

learner, the teacher, and the peers. Humanistic teaching is “learner-centred” and

“person-centred”, largely mirroring one’s self and underlining the social dynamics of

the language classroom. As Williams and Burden (1997, p. 115) succinctly put it,

“language, after all, belongs to a person’s whole social being; it is a part of one’s

identity, and is used to convey this identity to other people”.

2.3 Defining language anxiety

Emotions can be particularly difficult to define and measure given the fact that

they constitute inner-learner, unconscious variables, and LA is no exception. Indeed,

SLA researchers have underlined that defining, measuring, and researching affective

factors remains a formidable challenge (Nunan and Lamb, 1996; Scovel, 2001).

Nunan and Lamb (1996, p. 208), in particular, commented on the ubiquity of affective

variables, summing up the challenge researchers face as follows:

Within the field of education, there seems to be almost universal agreement that

affective factors are critical to effective learning. […] Because they are difficult to

define, they are extremely difficult to measure, and it is almost impossible to specify

the contribution they make to the learning process. Despite all this, they refuse to go

13

away, and so it is necessary for us to deal with them, doing the best we can with the

blunt instruments at our disposal.

As will be explained in the methodological decisions and considerations in

chapter 4, my own alignment with the social turn in SLA has led me not to rely solely

on self-reports as a means of furthering understanding of LA, but to also design

context-specific instruments and attach great importance to them in order to explore

and conceptualise the complicated and multifaceted nature of LA.

As indicated in the previous section of this chapter, anxiety, fear, and panic

often constitute topics of close proximity, despite psychology researchers’ call for the

need to distinguish between them. Within SLA too, coming to an acceptable

definition of LA is an important step to achieve a greater understanding of LA and its

influence on learning. This section, therefore, will focus on how LA has been defined.

Generally speaking, anxiety in both the psychological and language learning

literature is characterised as a negative emotion with a negative impact on learning. In

SLA, the definitions and conceptualisation of LA have been significantly influenced

by the field of cognitive psychology, yet drawing on this discipline has not reduced

the difficulty of capturing the nature of this psychological construct. Brown (1994, p.

141) argued that anxiety “is almost impossible to define in a single sentence”. Arnold

and Brown (1999, p. 8) opted for a qualitative description, claiming that anxiety “is

associated with negative feelings such as uneasiness, frustration, self-doubt,

apprehension and tension”. Much in the same vein, Spielberger (1983, p. 3) defined

anxiety as “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry

associated with an arousal of the autonomic nervous system”.

The great majority of early LA research falls into two broad approaches to

identifying anxiety (Horwitz and Young, 1991). The first approach views LA as a

14

transfer of anxieties from other domains, for example, stage fright or test anxiety. In

the second approach, researchers claim that there is something unique about language

learning which makes LA a unique experience too. However, as MacIntyre (1999, p.

26) suggested, “these two approaches are not necessarily opposing positions but

represent different perspectives from which to define language anxiety”.

In their seminal research into foreign language classroom anxiety, Horwitz,

Horwitz, and Cope (1986, p. 128) defined LA as “a distinct complex of self-

perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours related to classroom language learning,

arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process”. Horwitz and Young

(1991) further suggested that LA could best be conceived of as situation-specific,

explaining that there is something unique about the language learning process that

makes students anxious about it. Those students may be confident and resilient in

most other contexts, for example, history or maths classes, but rather nervous in the

language class.

MacIntyre and Gardner (1993, 1994) attempted to further delimit LA by

offering two more definitions. The first stated that “language anxiety is fear or

apprehension occurring when a learner is expected to perform in the second or foreign

language” (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993, p. 159). It is important to note that student

performance is often expected to be satisfactory, and students are also expected to

perform through the use of a “severely restricted language code” (Dörnyei, 2001, p.

91), thus aggravating their mounting sensation of anxiety. This definition, however,

seems to encapsulate anxiety that appears before language tasks, somehow ignoring

the possibility of aggravating anxiety while a task unfolds. Their second definition

was thought of as providing for a more comprehensive, narrowed-down, language-

skill-specific description of LA: “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically

15

associated with second language contexts, including speaking, listening, and learning”

(MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994, p. 284). The problem with this latter definition though

is that it encompasses LA specific to speaking and listening only, negating the

existence of LA during writing and/or reading tasks.

Horwitz et al.’s (1986) definition seems to be the most comprehensive of all,

stressing the significance of the unique nature of language learning and language

classrooms and pointing towards a view of LA as a dynamic system, where beliefs,

self-concepts, emotions, and behavioural responses come into play. Thus, throughout

the thesis, LA will be conceptualised on the basis of Horwitz et al.’s (1986)

illuminating definition.

2.4 The nature of language anxiety

2.4.1 Conceptualisation

An important contribution to the conceptualization of LA was made by

Horwitz et al.’s (1986) contention that LA is conceptually similar to three related

performance anxieties, namely communication apprehension, fear of negative

evaluation, and test anxiety.

Communication apprehension is described as a feeling of shyness emanating

from fear or anxiety about speaking in pairs or groups (oral communication anxiety),

in public (stage fright), and in listening to a spoken stimulus (receiver anxiety)

(Horwitz et al., 1986). Test anxiety mainly stems from fear of failure in tests, and

consists of two constructs: worry, referring to “focusing of attention on concerns

about performance, consequences of failure, negative self-evaluation, evaluation of

one’s ability relative to others, and the like”, and emotionality defined as “the

affective-physiological experience generated from increased autonomic arousal”

16

(Deffenbacher, 1980, p. 112). Worry is mostly to do with the psychological and

behavioural dimensions of anxiety, while emotionality encompasses a range of

physical symptoms (Deffenbacher, 1980). Zeidner (2007) further argued that, when

tested, students are likely to feel that their capabilities are inferior to the demands

evoked by the evaluative situation. Fear of negative evaluation appears during social

evaluative situations, where students worry that significant others (i.e. the teacher

and/or the peers) would criticize them. Examples of behavioural reactions to fear of

negative evaluation include sitting passively in the classroom, withdrawing from

activities, or entirely cutting classes (Aida, 1994). Since language learning requires

communication, often through the use of a limited linguistic code, it seems logical

that students who fear communicating or being viewed negatively by others would

find language learning a particularly stressful experience.

Horwitz (1986) examined the relationships between these three anxieties and

LA, and found that the correlations between communication apprehension, fear of

negative evaluation, and LA were non-significant (r = .28 and .36, respectively),

while the correlation between test anxiety and LA was significant but moderate (r =

.53, p=.001). Whilst recognizing the three categories as a potentially useful instrument

to approach LA, Horwitz, Tallon, and Luo (2010, p. 97) still urge caution:

Taken together, these findings indicate that although foreign language anxiety may

share some variance with several other types of anxieties, it is also clearly

distinguishable from these other anxieties and should be considered as an impediment

to language learning in and of itself.

Therefore, whilst these three concepts employed by Horwitz et al. (1986) allow to

better describe LA, it can be deduced that LA should not be seen as a combination of

17

them. In fact, these three categories could function as useful clues as to possible

causes of LA in the language classroom.

MacIntyre and Gardner (1994b) constructed a different theory, which posited

that LA occurs at each of the three stages of the SLA process, namely input,

processing, and output. Firstly, input anxiety refers to negative feelings students may

experience when they are presented with a new word or structure in the foreign

language for the first time. Here, anxiety stems from a joint effort to receive,

comprehend, and encode external information about the language, leading to

approaching input inefficiently. This leads to processing anxiety, where apprehensive

students exercise cognitive power on the material presented to them in an attempt to

mentally organise it and transform it into material they will eventually acquire. Lastly,

output anxiety impedes most attempts to produce the already learned aspects of the

language.

2.4.2 An interdisciplinary approach to LA

To understand what LA means, it is important to place it in the general context

of research into anxiety through the use of an interdisciplinary approach that has leant

heavily on the categorisation of the types of anxiety found in psychology. As

MacIntyre (1999, p. 28) suggested, “even if one views language anxiety as being a

unique form of anxiety, specific to second language contexts, it is still instructive to

explore the links between it and the rest of the anxiety literature”.

Within psychology-based research, two perspectives have been identified as

trait and state anxiety (Spielberger, 1983). Trait anxiety views anxiety as a distinct

personality trait, which remains stable over time and across a variety of situations. By

contrast, state anxiety is “the moment-to-moment experience of anxiety; it is the

18

transient emotional state of feeling nervous that can fluctuate over time and vary in

intensity” (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 28). Working in the field of general education,

Croznier (1997, p. 124) included descriptions of both trait and state anxiety in his

discussion about anxiety:

Personality theorists distinguish state and trait anxiety. Many situations, like

examinations, public speaking, interviews, and going to the dentist are likely to evoke

a state of anxiety in most people. The trait position proposes that some people are

more prone to anxiety than others, in that they react to more situations with anxiety or

react to particular situations with more intense emotion.

The intensity of both state and trait anxiety depends on the “vulnerability” of

each person (Rachman, 1998, p. 27). For example, personality-wise, individuals can

be either introverted or extraverted, and, anxiety-wise, they can be either a little bit

vulnerable or very vulnerable. The interplay between trait and state anxieties about

language learning was elaborated on by Oxford (1999), who suggested that, at the

early stages of the language learning process, LA constitutes a simple state; if

repeated, unpleasant, and negative events lead students to associate anxiety with

performance, then LA will turn into a trait, which can have deleterious effects on

language learning.

SLA researchers, however, have conceptualised LA as situation-specific

(Ellis, 2008; Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre, 1999). To put it simply, LA is neither a

trait nor a state (Bailey, Daley, and Onwuegbuzie, 1999; Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, and

Daley, 2000). It may be stable over time but not necessarily applicable to various

situations, as it only refers to the specific context of using a foreign language.

MacIntyre and Gardner (1989, 1991a, 1991b) have suggested a model that

could potentially be applied to the emergence and maintenance of LA as a latent

variable, and which illustrates how LA can best be conceived of as situation-specific.

19

At the initial stages of language learning, anxiety constitutes an undifferentiated,

stable personality trait, which is not specific to the language learning situation.

Students who are still at those stages of learning a language are therefore not expected

to be able to differentiate their anxiety, “because their experiences in language class

have not had sufficient time to become reliably discriminated from other types of

anxiety experiences” (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991b, p. 303). However, after

repeated experiences with the second language environment, students may begin to

associate feelings of anxiety with the language class. If negative experiences have

occurred, LA is likely to develop.

2.4.3 Boon or burden?

An important distinction in research into LA has been made between

debilitating/inhibitory and facilitating/beneficial anxiety. As previously discussed, the

prevailing view in SLA is that anxiety hinders students’ performance. However, LA

may also be viewed as having a facilitating effect or even no effect at all on learners’

performance (Dörnyei, 2005). The no-effect position largely originated from Sparks

and Ganschow’s (1991) Linguistic Coding Deficit/Differences Hypothesis (LCDH),

which suggested that high performance in foreign language learning depends on

learners’ cognitive abilities, L1 deficiencies, and aptitude. This section will focus on

the controversial debate about anxiety having a positive effect on people or not.

Debilitating anxiety can affect learners either indirectly, causing a range of

psychosomatic symptoms such as worry and self-doubt, or directly through impaired

performance and avoidance behavior (Oxford, 1990). Horwitz et al. (1986) and

Horwitz (2000, 2001) have argued that low self-esteem, demanding classroom tasks,

20

and unfriendly lockstep instructions may cause debilitating anxiety, resulting in

learners’ low achievement in EFL.

However, some emphasis in the existing literature has been placed on

facilitating anxiety, otherwise termed alertness (Young, 1992), positive energy (Aida,

1994), and tension or arousal (Ehrman, 1996). Generally speaking, certain individuals

may appear to thrive in pressure situations. Ehrman (1996) explained that the main

function of this type of anxiety is to create an adequate amount of anxiety relative to

zero anxiety in order to activate cognition and ameliorate performance in the long run.

Two prominent examples of research that examined the nature of facilitating

anxiety are Chastain’s (1975) and Kleinmann’s (1977) studies. In a comparative study

on the influence of anxiety on student test scores in audiolingual classes and in classes

using the traditional approach, Chastain (1975) found a negative correlation between

test scores and anxiety of students enrolled in French classes using the audiolingual

method. However, the results indicated a positive correlation between anxiety and the

scores of German and Spanish students using the traditional method. Chastain (1975,

p. 160) concluded that “perhaps some concern about a test is a plus while too much

anxiety can produce negative results”.

Kleinmann (1977) used a variety of tests to examine the relationship between

the English linguistic structures that were avoided by Arabic and Spanish students and

the linguistic structures of the students’ native languages. The hypothesis was that the

English structures that contrasted most markedly with the native language of the

student would be avoided most frequently. Kleinmann (1977) also hypothesized that

facilitating anxiety would urge learners to use those English structures that their

native peers would tend to avoid. Both hypotheses were confirmed. Spanish students

who scored high on facilitating anxiety measures often used infinitive complements

21

and direct object pronouns in English, structures that were difficult in English and

were therefore avoided by the other Spanish-speaking peers. By the same token,

Arabic learners who scored high on facilitating anxiety measures employed passive

constructions that were usually avoided by the other Arabic-speaking students due to

their divergence from the Arabic syntax. Kleinmann (1977, p. 105) concluded that

“certain affective measures influenced learner behaviour in a foreign language”. In his

review of the research into anxiety, Scovel (1978) commented that Kleinmann’s and

Chastain’s empirical insights into facilitating anxiety have paved the way for re-

theorising and thinking of LA as a complex construct, which is influenced by factors

that are both intrinsic and extrinsic to the learner.

More recently, the facilitating side of LA was empirically investigated by

Spielmann and Radnofsky (2001), challenging once again many of the established

assumptions of LA research, and especially its strongly emphasised debilitating

dimension. The researchers conducted an ethnographic study of a full beginners class

and a false beginners class of students learning French in a summer school in

Vermont, USA. The most notable finding of this study was the researchers’

suggestion that the term ‘language anxiety’ inevitably has negative connotations,

which has led towards the acceptance of a one-dimensional view of LA. The authors

also suggested a shift from ‘anxiety’ to ‘tension’, differentiating between ‘euphoric’

and ‘dysphoric’ tension. The former poses a challenge to the learners, but is

controllable and promotes positive and successful encounters with the language. An

example of euphoric tension that the authors cited referred to learners being taught

through an inductive, more communicative approach, and feeling “quite gratified”

(ibid., p. 268) when being able to choose study materials. Students’ positive

experience was further enhanced by increased attempts to communicate.

22

Nevertheless, the same learners also experienced dysphoric tension, which appeared

as dissatisfaction and frustration arising from their beliefs about which aspects of the

target language they should have focused on in class in order to accelerate their

progress.

Scovel (1978) suggested that facilitating anxiety and debilitating anxiety

should work in tandem. Young (1992) presented a number of different perspectives

on the role that facilitating anxiety plays on SLA by interviewing specialists in the

field. Krashen argued that facilitating anxiety is crucial for activities that promote

conscious learning; Terrell suggested that facilitating anxiety should best be

conceived of as “attention to input” (ibid., p. 161); and, Rardin explained that

facilitating anxiety is always present and operative, resulting in a type of “defensive

learning” (ibid., p. 162), where protective mechanisms are activated in an attempt to

strike a balance between learners’ negative psychology and the ultimate goal of

learning. Bailey (1983), after reflecting in her diary on her own experiences of

learning French in order to pass a translation test which was part of the requirements

for passing her PhD, concluded that many of her own references had origins in her

competitiveness. The researcher commented that competitiveness could arise either

from wanting to do better or be as good as her peers, or from her ideal image of what

a good language learner should be like. These feelings could lead either to facilitating

anxiety, motivating students to work harder and do better, or debilitating anxiety,

pressuring students to avoid classes or the task.

The Yerkes-Dodson Law has been utilised by SLA researchers to explain how

facilitating anxiety actually functions by describing the relationship between

performance and anxiety. An optimal level of arousal is required to enhance students’

quality of performance; however, too much arousal may turn into stress, stress may

23

become anxiety, and anxiety may even result in panic, which will negatively affect

the quality of performance. Figure 1 below shows the variations in anxiety levels with

connection to the quality of performance.

Figure 1. Inverted U-shaped relationship between anxiety and performance (MacIntyre, 1995)

Allwright and Bailey (1991, p. 172) centred too on the relationship between the

quality of performance and the level of anxiety, endorsing the view that success is

partly predicated on the possibility of failure:

Knowing that success is not guaranteed, but that making an effort might make all the

difference between success and failure, we may do better precisely because our

anxiety has spurred us on. If, on the other hand, we would really like to succeed but

feel that no matter how hard we try, we are most likely to fail, then our anxiety is

likely to make it even more difficult for us to produce our best.

Having said this, the debate on whether anxiety is facilitating or debilitating is

still largely tipped in favour of seeing it as a negative, debilitating force. However,

given the above discussion on a number of different anxiety types, such as

trait/state/situation-specific anxiety as well as debilitating/facilitating anxiety, it

24

should be recognised that anxiety is perhaps better seen existing along a continuum as

opposed to discreet either/or categories.

2.5 Speaking anxiety

Most research has shown that LA is linked with oral performance, thus

causing oral achievement in the target language to suffer (Gregersen and Horwitz,

2002; Horwitz, 2000, 2001; Horwitz et al., 1986; Kitano, 2001; Liu, 2006; MacIntyre,

Noels, and Clément, 1997; Woodrow, 2006; Young, 1992). Arguably, speaking is the

skill in which the students’ language ego is most vulnerable due to a high level of

self-exposure that it imposes on them. Daly (1991) gave five explanations for the

development of speaking anxiety: a) genetic predisposition, that is an individual’s

tendency to be sociable and active, b) an individual’s history of reinforcements and

punishments when s/he was a child, c) the lack of rewards during communicative

attempts, d) people’s early development of communication skills, and e) lack of

suitable models of communication. In most classrooms, language tutors face the

dilemma of transforming language learning into a pleasant experience or developing

students’ oral fluency and accuracy (Phillips, 1991). This section will concentrate on

the nature and conceptualisation of speaking anxiety, starting with a discussion about

theoretical concepts associated with it, and then considering empirical evidence on the

construct of speaking anxiety.

2.5.1 Theoretical concepts linked to speaking anxiety

As noted earlier, communication apprehension hinders the production of

language. According to Daly (1991), ambiguity is a characteristic contributing to

communication apprehension. Language learning has the potential for ambiguity, and

25

when speaking, teachers and students do not operate in a vacuum but are often faced

with having to involve in interactions with the premise that they must understand

what is being said. With reference to L2 speaking, and given that students are

expected to communicate orally through the use of unfamiliar sounds or forms, it

seems logical that communication apprehension directly affects the levels of an

individual’s willingness to communicate (WTC; MacIntyre and Charos, 1996;

McCroskey, 1970; McCroskey and Richmond, 1987, 1991). Parallel to LA, WTC

correlates with certain personality variables, such as self-confidence, self-efficacy,

and introversion/extroversion (Mitchell, Myles, and Marsden, 2013). Mejias,

Applbaum, Applbaum, and Trotter (1991, p. 88) have stated that the level of

communication apprehension is critical in language learning, for “if a student is

apprehensive about communicating in a particular language […] he or she will have

negative affective feelings toward oral communication and will likely avoid it”.

The notion of social anxiety in cognitive psychology could also serve as a

means of delineating the complex nature of speaking anxiety. Schlenker and Leary

(1982, p. 645) mentioned that social anxiety “arises whenever people are motivated to

make a desired impression on others, but are not certain that they will do so”. This

definition suggests a positive correlation between social anxiety on the one hand, and

motivation and level of doubt on the other: as both the desire to be approved by others

and the uncertainty of such an event to occur increase, the amount of social anxiety

increases as well (Kitano, 2001; MacIntyre, 2002).

It could be argued that the theory of social anxiety shares some commonalities

with the terror management theory proposed by Greenberg and his colleagues (1992,

p. 913), who speculated that “people are motivated to maintain a positive self-image

because self-esteem protects them from anxiety”. Horwitz et al. (1986) claimed that

26

foreign language learning poses a threat to self-esteem because it is axiomatic that

students will make mistakes when communicating by means of a language they have

not yet fully acquired or mastered. These threats to learners’ self-esteem provoke

anxiety and could be managed by increasing their degree of self-worth.

2.5.2 Empirical evidence on speaking anxiety

Horwitz et al. (1986, p. 127) argued that the foreign language classroom may

“represent serious impediments to the development of second language fluency as

well as to performance”. This may be due to the “severely restricted language code”

through which learners are expected to perform in class, that further renders language

classrooms “inherently face threatening environments” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 91). Given

that learners have to communicate through the medium of a new language, it is highly

likely that they will make mistakes. However, the majority of students fear making

mistakes in classroom oral tasks, and view mistakes as a manifestation of weakness

and incompetence. At the same time, several students believe that speaking is the

most important skill they need to learn in order to master a foreign language (Kitano,

2001; Phillips, 1991). Teachers, too, think of speaking as a vital aspect of the learning

process. Daly’s (1991, pp. 6-7) quote is indicative of this point:

From the start of a person’s schooling, willingness to communicate plays an

important role in how well one performs and how positively one is perceived. In early

studies, scholars found that teachers have a positive bias toward talkative children in

their classrooms […] This bias is reflected in the policy of many teachers to include

classroom participation in grade calculations […] we live in an educational world

where orality is seen as a necessary, personal positive characteristic.

Thus, students’ fear of making mistakes when speaking in a foreign language,

doubled by their beliefs about the enormous significance of learning speaking, are

likely to aggravate their feelings of LA.

27

Learners’ self-perception of their ability is thought to be a distinguishable

aspect of oral performance. Daly (1991, p. 10) associated ‘conspicuousness’, that is

the idea of feeling self-conscious and exposed to an uncomfortable degree, with

learning speaking:

Imagine walking into a party and having everyone turn to stare at you. That

experience alone is likely to make you more anxious. People prefer not to be the

focus of attention especially when they feel they are engaging in an activity where

their competence is low.

This scenario gives an idea of what students may have to cope with. Students are very

often the focus of classroom interaction, they are highly visible, and therefore the

option of falling back on being just one in a class of students is not a viable one.

MacIntyre et al. (1997) explored how students’ L2 actual competence and LA

affect their perceived competence in the L2. The participants in their study were 37

Anglophones enrolled in a first-year philosophy course at a bilingual university, who

had considerable exposure to French. They were administered a LA questionnaire

consisting of items from Gardner’s French use anxiety and French class anxiety scales

(MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989), and a modified version of the “can do” test that

assessed their self-perceived competence on 26 French tasks. The researchers reported

a strong link between actual competence, perceived competence, and LA. In addition,

a significant negative correlation (r=.-60) was found between self-rated speaking

proficiency and LA.

Kitano (2001) administered a survey to 211 Japanese students at two major

universities in the USA and concluded that a significant negative correlation exists

between LA and self-perceived speaking ability. Thus, as students perceived of

themselves as less competent than their peers, their level of LA increased. Much in

28

the same vein, Woodrow (2006) collected quantitative data from 275 participants

enrolled in EAP courses in Australia. The researcher developed the Second Language

Speaking Anxiety Scale (SLSAS) for her study and made use of additional interviews.

The results indicated that speaking anxiety both within and outside the language

classroom was associated with L2 self-perceived performance.

Price (1991) conducted interviews with highly anxious students. The

participants believed that their pronunciation was not accurate and that they were not

pronouncing words as native speakers would do. Perhaps one of the most forceful

comments to be found in the LA literature was made by one of the students that Price

interviewed. After doing an end-of-term oral presentation in French – the foreign

language -, the student made the observation that “I’d rather be in a prison camp than

speak a foreign language” (ibid., p. 104). MacIntyre (1999, p. 39) suggested that such

remarks are indicative of underlying insecurities in language learning:

Some readers might be tempted to dismiss these excerpts as exaggerations. Even if

they are somewhat melodramatic, the statements express deep-seated feelings, and

the underlying sentiment should not be ignored. Language learning provokes a

traumatic reaction in some individuals.

In yet another study, Bailey (1983) reflected on her own language learning

experiences in a personal diary. The researcher concluded that “anxiety can be caused

and/or aggravated by the learner’s competitiveness when he sees himself as less

proficient than the object of comparison” (ibid., p. 27). What Bailey (1983, p. 86)

confirmed, then, is that anxiety is often caused or exacerbated when perceiving

oneself in relation to others, and what the language learner “perceives as real may be

more important to that person’s language learning experience than any external

reality”.

29

Students’ reticence and anxiety was also investigated by Tsui (1996), who

videotaped or recorded lessons of 38 English-as-a-second-language (ESL) secondary

school teachers in Hong Kong. The teachers were shown the videos or given the

recordings, and were then asked to identify a problem they faced while teaching. This

procedure led to a taxonomic system of strategies that they were asked to use for a

period of four weeks. During this period, the teachers also kept a diary where they

reported on their thoughts and on classroom events. At the end of the four-week

period, they videotaped or recorded one more lesson, evaluating the perceived results

and effectiveness of the strategies, and then wrote a report. Analyzing the data, Tsui

(1996) concluded that students’ reticence was due to their fear of making mistakes

and the subsequent, possible derision by peers, teachers’ intolerance of silence,

uneven allocation of turns during which teachers’ attention shifted to those students

whom they knew were willing to provide an immediate answer, and incomprehensible

input mainly because of the way questions were formed or instructions given.

Foreign language learners have also been found to share feelings of fear of

negative evaluation as part of the speaking classes they attend. Gregersen and Horwitz

(2002) measured reactions to oral performance among four anxious and four non-

anxious second-year English language students at the University of Atacama, Chile.

They used videotaped conversations with the participants in order to obtain a sample

of their speaking ability in English, and then conducted interviews to elicit the

informants’ beliefs on their feelings of anxiety and perfectionism. The findings

revealed that the highly anxious participants were influenced by others’ evaluations

and the subsequent possibility of looking foolish, and consistently linked their

mistakes in speaking activities to that possibility. The researchers also found that a

range of perfectionist traits were strongly associated with the four anxious learners,

30

but not with the non-anxious learners. In particular, the perfectionist/anxious students

would not be satisfied with merely communicating in the target language; on the

contrary, they would aim for flawless speech, similar to that of a native speaker, or

otherwise would likely prefer to remain silent until they were certain of how to

express their thoughts. Gregersen and Horwitz (2002, p. 562) concluded that “such

impossibly high performance standards create the ideal conditions for the

development of language anxiety”. Much in the same vein, the students who

compared their pronunciation with that of native speakers in Price’s (1991) study also

feared being looked down on. Additionally, Kitano (2001) concluded that a positive

correlation (r=.316) exists between LA and fear of negative evaluation.

Liu (2006) investigated 547 Chinese undergraduate non-English majors at

three different proficiency levels through the use of an adapted Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz et al., 1986), as well as observations,

reflective journals, and interviews. The researcher found that the students felt the most

anxious when answering questions set by the teacher or when asked to speak English

in class. Further, Young (1990) found that many Spanish learners would be willing to

take part in oral classroom tasks if they were not afraid of saying the wrong thing.

The emergence of fear of negative evaluation as an important component of

classroom speaking anxiety has also been well documented through factor analytic

studies. In a study of 96 second-year Japanese students at the University of Texas at

Austin, Aida (1994, p. 159) found that “speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation

may not be totally independent concepts, but rather are probably different labels

describing one phenomenon in a language learning situation”. Cheng, Horwitz, and

Schallert (1999) investigated the links between second language classroom anxiety

and second language writing anxiety among 433 Taiwanese English majors. The

31

principal components analysis of the FLCAS pointed at low self-confidence in

speaking English as being the most prominent factor of classroom anxiety. Koul et al.

(2009) administered a survey to 1,387 Thai college students to examine their goal

orientations for learning English as well as their anxiety. The researchers concluded

that LA stemmed from fear of failing the class, examination anxiety, fear of negative

evaluation, speaking anxiety, and frustration and apprehension arising from students’

inability to comprehend or express oneself in English. Furthermore, Mak (2011)

examined the sources of speaking-in-class anxiety of 313 Chinese English first-year

university students in Hong Kong. Speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation

again constituted the first factor of the L2 oral anxiety sources taxonomy. In

particular, speaking in front of the class without being prepared in advance, and being

corrected when speaking were the two most frequently mentioned causes of speaking

anxiety.

In a comparative study on anxiety in a reading course and a conversation

course, Kim (2009) administered four sets of questionnaires to 59 students at a

women’s University in Korea and divided the research into two phases. In the pretest

phase, the Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Korean version of the FLCAS, the

Achievement Motivation Questionnaire, and a background questionnaire, were used.

In the main test phase, only the FLCAS and the Achievement Motivation

Questionnaire were administered to the participants. The results showed that the

students were more anxious in conversation classes than reading classes (mean score

of 104 as opposed to 98.4 in the reading classes). The researcher also found that

speaking anxiety stemmed from spontaneous speaking, speaking in front of peers, fear

of negative evaluation, and meeting the requirements of the speaking course.

32

2.6 Writing anxiety

Writing could be considered as the least anxiety-provoking of the four skills.

As Leki (1999, p. 65) succinctly put it,

Unlike when listening and reading, when writing one controls the language and the

content of the message. Unlike speaking, writing allows time to think about the

message, to find words and syntactic structures to communicate the message, and to

change the content and the language after the first attempt is written down.

Nonetheless, the writing process is not always linear for foreign language learners.

Research has also shown that writing can lead to difficulties and apprehension even in

one’s L1 (Daly and Miller, 1975a, 1975b).

Writing anxiety – or, as is more often referred to, writing apprehension –

appears when negative feelings about oneself as a writer and about one’s abilities to

meet the requirements of a writing task emerge, all of which may disrupt certain

aspects of the writing process (Rankin-Brown, 2006). Writing apprehension causes

difficulties with the task at hand, despite the writer having the mental acuity to cope

with it. Cheng et al. (1999) claimed that second language writing anxiety should best

be understood as language-skill-specific, given that it correlates with and predicts

writing achievement.

Research into L2 writing anxiety has sought to identify its sources with a view

to suggesting approaches to writing instruction that may reduce highly anxious

learners’ writing anxiety. Hayes (1996) argued that writing anxiety is caused by

students’ low self-related perceptions of themselves as writers, as well as their fixed

language learning mindsets that successful writing in the L2 is attributable to a natural

talent. Leki (1999) listed a number of writing anxiety sources, including the degree of

preparation learners are normally given to successfully complete a writing task,

33

students’ beliefs about writing, fear of negative evaluation, and differences between

their native language and the target language with respect to rhetorical approaches to

writing. Leki (1999, p. 65) also made a connection between writing anxiety and

attitudes towards writing, claiming that “dislike of writing stems from a variety of

sources, most of which are, sadly, the probable results of educational experiences”.

Anxiety about writing may also be rooted in students not knowing what is

expected from them when working on a writing task. Learners are often sent mixed

messages from writing teachers about how a piece of writing will be evaluated. Leki

(1999, p. 67) commented:

It is in the courses devoted to language, such as composition courses and foreign

language courses, where good content typically cannot save students and where

papers are returned covered with red correction marks, little stab wounds marking

every linguistic and print code transgression the writer has committed. To make

matters worse, it is precisely in these “no-content” language courses that students are

the most confused about “what the teacher wants” in the first place. […] We tell

students that we are interested in their ideas about a topic, that we want to hear what

they think or have to say. But neither writing teachers nor students seem to really

expect that a piece of student writing in a language class will be judged by the ideas

expressed.

Öztürk and Çeçen (2007) maintained that writing anxiety often stems from

language-related difficulties learners are faced with in the L2. Thus, despite having

ideas to elaborate on in writing, their occasional lack of appropriate vocabulary, or

difficulties with spelling, morphology, and syntax, may lead to the production of low-

quality output which does not always reflect their intellect. Student writers may

therefore know what to say, but not how to say it, as they cannot always find the right

target language forms for expressing their ideas (Leki, 1999). From this perspective,

writing anxiety could result from classroom practices, in the sense that students who

are anxious about writing are, generally, less skillful writers and simultaneously

34

deprived of opportunities to improve their writing skills via writing instruction

(Öztürk and Çeçen, 2007).

Madigan, Linton, and Johnson (1996, p. 295) suggested that writing

apprehension could lead to “distress associated with writing and a profound distaste

for the process”, both of which could subsequently cause avoidance behaviour. The

researchers conducted three experiments for the purposes of examining what they

called “the paradox of writing apprehension” (ibid.), that is to say, the fact that

apprehensive writers reported frustration throughout the writing process, but did not

produce poor-quality writings. The first experiment involved 58 students from

psychology classes at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, and tested the correlation

between writing apprehension and performance. It was found that the essays of

apprehensive and non-apprehensive writers differed slightly but not significantly in

terms of noun phrase fluency, right-branching clause fluency, holistic quality, and

syntactic complexity. Experiments 2 and 3 examined the negative influence of self-

talk2 on the writing process. In particular, the second experiment analysed the

compositions of 49 first-semester English composition students and 52 freshmen

psychology students on the basis of a prompt given to them. Results showed that

negative self-talk by and large inflicted writing apprehension: students’ attention was

directed towards self-deprecating thoughts that caused writing apprehension. The

researchers highlighted that it was students’ weak self-concepts about writing that

made them anxious, and not their actual competence in writing. Self-concept is a

psychological construct which represents individuals’ cognitive and affective

evaluative beliefs about themselves (Pajares and Schunk, 2005). Research examining

self-concept has emphasised a number of problems emerging from confusion over

2 Self-talk includes one’s conscious thoughts as well as their unconscious assumptions and perceptions

of the situations they find themselves in. Self-talk is often skewed towards the negative, often leading

to inaccurate, self-deprecating remarks.

35

overlapping terms, such as self-efficacy and self-esteem. Therefore, it is important to

differentiate self-concept from these closely related terms. As Bandura (1997) put it,

self-efficacy is an expectancy belief, referring to people’s beliefs about themselves as

language learners and about how well they can do in a language course. In contrast,

self-esteem is the evaluative dimension of the self, encompassing beliefs as well as

emotions, such as pride, discouragement, or shame (Mercer, 2011c).

Going back to Madigan et al.’s (1996) study, in the third experiment, students

were invited to write two essays, one in a quiet room and one during a lecture, the

latter being thought of as a highly distracting environment, and then complete a

“thought-listing questionnaire” (ibid., p. 305), where students were asked to describe

their experiences of the writing process. The participants were the same as in the first

experiment. The findings showed that the apprehensive writers modified their self-

talk during the quiet and the distracting condition similarly, but non-significantly, to

the non-apprehensive ones. The researchers concluded that differences in how

students performed in writing were due to how they experienced writing anxiety, with

highly apprehensive student writers being anxious before, during, and after the actual

process of writing.

Rankin-Brown (2006) administered the English as a Second Language Writing

Apprehension Test (ESLWAT; Gungle and Taylor, 1989) to ten students enrolled in

English language courses in an Intensive English Program at a university in the

western part of the USA. The respondents were also interviewed as a follow-up to the

questionnaire. Writing apprehension arose as a result of frustration students

experienced due to self-evaluation and self-expectations of the appropriate way to

write, fear of evaluation from the teacher and peers, and, interestingly, fear of losing

their identity when attempting to incorporate new rhetorical patterns in their writings.

36

Woodrow (2011) conducted an exploratory study with 738 Chinese college

English students in order to examine the relationship between anxiety, self-efficacy,

and writing performance using structural equation modelling. A Likert-scale

questionnaire to measure anxiety and self-efficacy was devised for the study. Writing

performance was operationalised through a free writing test. To measure self-efficacy,

the researcher used a ‘can-do’ scale concerning writing activities; to measure anxiety,

the participants were asked to rate how anxious they were when completing micro

activities (i.e., sentence-level writing), macro activities (i.e., paragraph and whole-text

writing, mostly describing a graph or writing an argumentative essay), and translation

activities, which were included because they were part of the College English Test 4

(CET-4) that students had to pass in order to graduate and of the College English Test

6 (CET-6) in order to enter a graduate programme. The results showed that writing

anxiety negatively correlated with self-efficacy (r=-.71), meaning that writing anxiety

predicts low self-efficacy. However, writing anxiety was not correlated with writing

performance. On the contrary, self-efficacy about writing was predictive of writing

performance (r=.43).

To conclude, research into skill-specific anxiety has revealed some of its key

dimensions and main causes, in an attempt to help language educators to create more

comfortable language learning environments. Nonetheless, research into the

relationship between speaking anxiety and writing anxiety is scarce. The present study

also aimed at addressing this gap in the existing LA literature.

2.7 The major stressors

The considerations of this section centre on what potential sources of LA

researchers have managed to identify. Clearly, if teachers and students are aware of

37

possible causes of in-class anxiety, measures of intervention would be easier to

implement successfully.

MacIntyre (1999, p. 30) has commented on the fact that very little empirical

research has been done to establish the origins of LA, and “several authors have

identified the potential sources of language anxiety based on their experience,

theoretical sophistication, and discussions with anxious language learners”. In an

attempt to generalise about the causes of LA, Young (1994) claimed that it may stem

from learner characteristics, teacher characteristics, and classroom procedures. In an

earlier publication, Young (1991) had categorised the possible sources of students’

classroom anxiety into six types: personal and interpersonal anxieties originating from

low self-esteem and competitiveness, learner beliefs about language learning,

instructor beliefs about language teaching, instructor-learner interactions, classroom

procedures, and language testing. Gardner (1991, viii), in his Foreword to Horwitz

and Young’s (1991) groundbreaking volume on LA, reflected on various possibilities

too:

From my own perspective, I kept wondering about the etiology of language anxiety.

Does it derive from more general forms of anxiety in that generally anxious

individuals have a predisposition to also experience language anxiety, or is it

relatively distinct? Does it grow out of experiences directly associated with the

language and the learning context, or is it possible that because the other language is

a representation of another cultural community, there is a predisposition among some

people to experience such anxiety because of their own concerns about ethnicity,

foreignness and the like?

Gardner, therefore, points towards the notion that LA might arise out of the language

learning context, or might be a stable personality trait, or might even be associated

with concerns about one’s identity. Such notions are seen as pertinent in exploring the

complex phenomenon that is LA, and will be discussed in the sections that follow

38

along with an array of other anxiety-ensuing factors that interfere with classroom

language learning.

2.7.1 Self-efficacy beliefs

A factor that may be a source of LA is the beliefs that individuals hold about

themselves as language learners and about how well they can do in a language course.

Self-efficacy beliefs were indeed found to influence students’ LA (Bandura, 1986,

1997; Mills, Pajares, and Herron, 2007). Informed by Bandura’s (1986) social

cognitive theory, self-efficacy is defined as the perception of abilities to perform

actions at a particular level. For example, a student may believe that s/he will get a

high score at an end-of-term test. Self-efficacy influences the choices and actions a

person may take. Thus, a person may attempt a task that s/he is confident about.

Beliefs of personal efficacy do not depend on one’s abilities, but rather on what one

believes might be accomplished with one’s set of skills. Self-efficacy beliefs are,

therefore, often thought of as better predictors of academic success than are actual

abilities, skills, and knowledge (Bandura, 1997).

Self-efficacy beliefs are interconnected with self-confidence, as well as self-

perceptions of competence and performance. Specifically, if a student is self-

confident and has a high sense of self-efficacy, their anxiety levels will remain low

(Cheng et al., 1999; Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels, 1994; MacIntyre et al., 1997). In

fact, within research into the directionality among these constructs, self-confidence

was defined as “self-perceptions of communicative competence and concomitant low

levels of anxiety in using the second language” (Noels, Pon, and Clément, 1996, p.

248). Thus, self-confidence and LA are positively correlated, as opposed to self-

perceived competence found to be negatively associated with LA but positively

39

associated with language learners’ WTC (Baker and MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre,

Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels, 1998). Mills et al. (2007, p. 423) explained that highly

efficacious language learners are even able to transform negative affect into positive

affect in class:

In social cognitive theory, one’s perceived sense of efficacy to exercise control over

potentially problematic situations plays a key role in the arousal of student anxiety.

Those with a stronger sense of efficacy are more apt to take on the “deleterious

happenings” that breed stress with positive expectations and are often more

successful in transforming them into positive events.

Bandura (1997) also posited that self-efficacy beliefs are informed by previous

experiences which can be positive or negative. These beliefs may be based on

previous mastery experiences, for example previous success when doing a similar

task, or previous experiences of failure, for instance in formative or summative

evaluative situations. Self-efficacy beliefs can also be influenced by persuasion of

significant others, for example, a teacher or peer persuading an individual of their

competence, or by self-judgments, either accurate or inaccurate, for example anxiety

can lead to lower self-efficacy due to thoughts of possible failure (Bandura, 1986,

1997). One of the most significant aspects of this is the view that self-efficacy is not

fixed but is informed by the antecedents mentioned above and, most importantly, that

it can be manipulated in the classroom (Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece, 2008). Bandura

(1995) also posited that individuals with a high sense of efficacy create success

scenarios, whereas those doubting their efficacy resort to failure scenarios,

considering their negative experiences only. MacIntyre et al. (1997) also distinguished

between the self-enhancement bias and the self-derogation bias, both influenced by an

individual’s strength of their self-efficacy. Specifically, the former emanates from a

40

desire to strengthen one’s feelings of personal satisfaction and self-worth, whilst the

latter appears in individuals who tend to underestimate their capacities.

Insights from empirical research into LA and self-efficacy could help towards

a greater understanding of the conceptual links between them. MacIntyre et al. (1997)

conducted a study with 37 Anglophone students in English-language sections of a

compulsory first-year philosophy class at a bilingual university in Canada, whose

competence in French varied widely. The participants completed a questionnaire in

English, consisting of a LA scale and a self-rated L2 proficiency scale evaluating their

self-perceptions on 25 different tasks which they then attempted to complete. The

results indicated a significant negative correlation between actual competence,

perceived competence, and LA. In particular, the anxious students were found to

underestimate their abilities, as opposed to their non-anxious counterparts who tended

to overestimate their competence in the L2. Therefore, as their level of anxiety

increased, their subjective competence decreased. Additionally, in the case of

speaking, writing, and comprehension tasks, the mean residual score (i.e., statistically

speaking, it indicates that the participant has made an accurate prediction of their

actual score) for the anxious students was negative, whereas the mean residual score

for the relaxed students was positive.

Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, and Daley (1999) investigated 210 university students

enrolled in French, German, Spanish, and Japanese courses, in order to examine the

factors connected with LA. Using setwise multiple regression analysis, the researchers

found that the students’ expected final foreign language course grades had the highest

significant correlation (r=-.45) with LA. The results also revealed that highly anxious

students had low expectations of their overall score, and low self-perceptions of their

proficiency in the L2.

41

2.7.2 Identity or the ‘self’

LA research has acknowledged issues related to identity. The central tenet is

that foreign language learning is a unique academic discipline impacting on our

identities in powerful and subtle ways. This is because the language being learned is

the object of study and, at the same time, the vehicle through which students are

expected to express themselves and communicate. Such uniqueness and the way the

learner of a foreign language can be confronted with a self that bears no relation to

their true self have led Horwitz et al. (1986, p. 128) to conclude that “probably no

other field of study implicates self-concept and self-expression to the degree that

language study does”.

Stroud and Wee (2006) acknowledged that anxiety in the language classroom

is generally competence-based, because students experience anxiety due to an

overriding concern with their language ability, which is further aggravated by a fear

of evaluation by the teacher and/or the peers. However, Stroud and Wee (2006, p.

300) also argued for identity-based anxiety, defined as a student’s concern “with

maintaining his or her relationship with particular groups than with his or her

language abilities”, accompanied by the desire to be accepted “by one’s peers or a

desire to avoid ridicule from them”. Identity as a source of anxiety is further

commented on:

One, it is possible for the desire for peer acceptance to detrimentally affect language

learning. Two, because such peer groupings or cliques are relatively stable, most

students find it difficult to break away and so identity-based anxiety can continue to

affect a student not just occasionally, but it can in fact become a significantly

pervasive aspect of their experience of classroom culture (Stroud and Wee, 2006, p.

302).

Allwright and Bailey (1991) and Tsui (1996) also observed that some highly anxious

language learners make deliberate mistakes in order to avoid standing out from their

42

less able classmates. In this case, identity-based anxiety comes to the fore, too.

Identity issues and anxiety, therefore, are closely related, with the fear of being

different, of being characterised in an undesirable way, or of being excluded some of

the key aspects to be considered. As Newcombe (2007, p. 64) argued, “identity is

closely linked with notions of inclusion and exclusion”, thus being “an area of

considerable importance for learner success”.

However, in her work on immigrant women in Canada, Norton (2000)

conceived of anxiety as epiphenomenal, that is to say a secondary phenomenon that

results from and accompanies identity, whilst putting the latter at the core of language

learning. The researcher concluded that anxiety depended on whom her participants

were talking to and why, theorising that the way people position themselves or what

identity they negotiate for themselves in interaction, may constitute a manifestation of

anxiety. If people are positioned in ways that are favourable to their sense of self, then

anxiety can be a facilitating force. If, on the contrary, they are positioned in

unfavourable ways, then anxiety can be debilitating. Norton (2000) also put forward

the notion that anxiety and other affective factors are not stable; thus, portraying them

in terms of binary opposites (e.g., motivated and unmotivated, anxious and non-

anxious), as is often the case in the SLA literature, is unlikely to work. These

variables should rather be viewed as fluctuating and fluid over periods of time, shaped

by power differentials in relationships.

Language learners can indeed be negatively affected by both competence- and

identity-based anxiety, and, from this perspective, Stroud and Wee’s (2006) and

Norton’s (2000) comments are particularly pertinent: learners want recognition and

praise for their work and effort, they want to feel that they are part of or are able to

43

integrate in a new, target language community, and, given that they are often

evaluated, they want to feel secure in the language classroom.

2.7.3 The L1

Sparks and Ganschow (1991) suggested that students’ abilities in their native

language may impact on their performance in the foreign language, thus igniting

anxiety, which in such instances is epiphenomenal. The researchers generated the

Linguistic Coding Deficit/Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), which assumed that

students’ difficulties in mastering the phonological, syntactic, and semantic

components of their native linguistic code could result in the arousal of anxiety in the

L2.

Ganschow and Sparks (1996) conducted a study of 154 high school women in

order to examine the conceptual links between LA and L1 deficits as described

through the LCDH. The students were divided into three groups, namely low anxious,

highly anxious, and average anxious, based on their total anxiety score on the FLCAS.

The findings showed that the low-anxious students outperformed their highly anxious

and average-anxious counterparts on most native language skills, implying that the

former were ‘equipped’ with certain mechanisms in their first language which

rendered the whole process of L2 learning easier and less anxiety-provoking.

However, L1 deficiencies as a source of LA have been criticised by

researchers in the field. Zheng (2008) argued that the main drawback of the LCDH

lay on the fact that differences between first and second language development were

not taken into consideration. MacIntyre (1995, p. 90) posited that the LCDH relegated

LA “to the status of an unfortunate side effect”. MacIntyre (1995) and Horwitz (2000)

claimed that certain students would still experience LA, regardless of any L1 deficits.

44

2.7.4 Yan and Horwitz’s grounded theory model of anxiety

Yan and Horwitz (2008) applied the FLCAS to 532 business students in all

four years of the course in a University in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. On

the basis of the FLCAS results, the researchers classified participants in three clusters,

namely high-, moderate-, and low-anxiety clusters. Six students were randomly

selected from each of the four years of the course. From the six in each year, two

students (one male and one female) were chosen from each category of anxiety. Only

three students from level four (one from each of the anxiety level groups) participated

in the study due to their heavy schedules. Therefore, 21 students took part in a semi-

structured interview that lasted for approximately 30-40 minutes each, and was

carried out in their mother tongue.

After conducting the interviews, the researchers used grounded theory analysis

to develop a model of the sources and effects of LA. The variables that were

generated from the interviews were divided into four categories. The variables within

the first category, that is, regional differences, test types, gender, teacher

characteristics, class arrangement, and parental influence, were thought of as “primary

drivers” (Yan and Horwitz, 2008, p. 168), because they influenced, either directly or

indirectly, all the other variables. The second category included language aptitude,

comparison with peers, and learning strategies, which were influenced by the first

category, but in turn were influencing the variables in the third group. Here, the

authors identified LA, and interest and motivation, which “are more likely ‘to be

influenced’ rather than ‘to be influencing’” (ibid., p. 169). Thus, it could be deduced

that affective factors exhibited a passive function, in comparison with the other

variables that described action. The final category, achievement, was influenced by all

the other variables of the model. Despite the fact that early research on LA had

45

revealed that the relationship between anxiety and achievement is bidirectional, in this

study the researchers found that the learners perceived these two variables’ influence

as unidirectional, given that they “only commented on how anxiety kept them from

achieving and did not mention lack of achievement as contributing to their anxiety”

(ibid., p. 173).

Interestingly, the only two variables that were found to exert a bidirectional

influence on each other in this study were LA and interest and motivation. High

anxiety led to low motivation, whilst greater interest and motivation decreased

anxiety. Previous research has not examined the extent to which LA and motivation

are interrelated, and, in fact, the authors here also addressed the scarcity of research

into the possibility of causality among them:

[…] although motivation is generally conceived of as a positive trait with respect to

language learning, it would also seem to play a role in affecting anxiety. It is difficult

to imagine an anxious learner who had no desire or need to learn the language (ibid.,

p. 176).

In other words, the researchers pointed that the conceptual links between anxiety and

motivations are not as clear as is generally assumed.

Yan and Horwitz (2008, p. 153) also touched upon some methodological

issues about LA research, the most important being the prominent use of

questionnaires to group students into different anxiety levels. It is worth noting their

viewpoint here:

Although the findings of previous studies point to several sources and consequences

of language anxiety, their reliance on questionnaires do not allow for an examination

of how anxiety interacts with other learner or situational factors to influence language

learning. Studies that encourage learner reflection through interviews or diary entries

would seem to have the potential to yield a richer understanding of learners’

perceptions of how anxiety functions in their language learning, which, in turn, might

46

lead to a clearer understanding of the general role of anxiety in language learning.

This is of particular interest, as it shows that the author of the FLCAS suggests that

LA research may greatly benefit from new approaches and should move beyond self-

reports. The authors also commented on the fact that most LA research has been

conducted in the USA and Canada, and acknowledged that it should look to other

contexts too. The present study, therefore, responds to Yan and Horwitz’s (2008) call

for attempts to situate LA within broader sociocultural settings outside North

America. These considerations will be discussed further in the methodology chapter.

2.8 Anxiety management and reduction techniques

The golden rule for helping highly anxious students is, above all, to make

them aware of the possibility of LA. Language educators can play a significant role in

this process, by first identifying those learners prone to becoming anxious (Gregersen,

2007). Following on from this, teachers should be able to decide whether students’

anxiety is a global trait or the result of a particular situation happening in class

(Brown, 1994). Jones (2004) added that teachers should also be aware of the

dimensions of anxiety as a social and cultural phenomenon and be in a position to

realise the degree to which face affects people.

Selecting appropriate teaching practices could be another step towards helping

students to alleviate their stress in the language classroom. Tsui (1996) suggested that

teachers lengthen the wait time after questions for which they would not receive any

answer, reformulate questions, occasionally allow students to write down their

answers before sharing them with their classmates, clarify that for some questions

there is no definite response, encourage team work among peers in class, focus on

content rather than on form depending on the aims of the lesson, and aim at

47

establishing a good rapport with the students. Williams and Burden (1997) referred to

the theory of behaviourism, which by and large posits that learning is the result of

environmental rather than genetic factors, and could be explained through operant

conditioning. Therefore, the way teachers plan on their lessons and teach the class

may fundamentally affect students’ anxiety levels. The authors suggested that the

goals of each lesson should be clearly stated, tasks should be broken down into

manageable sets, students should be allowed to work at their own pace, and should

also be given positive reinforcement. Onwuegbuzie et al. (1999) took this a step

further by considering macro-level factors, and proposing that the goals of the whole

course should be made clear well in advance. According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural

theory, the “initial motive for engaging in an activity is what determines its outcome”

(Gillette, 1994, p. 212).

Another important step would be to enhance students’ metacognitive

awareness and self-regulatory processes. The field of foreign language education has

shifted its focus from language learning strategies to self-regulation and the degree to

which individuals are active participants in their own learning (Dörnyei, 2005).

Dörnyei (1994) argued that self-regulated learning allows teachers and researchers to

evaluate broader, more multidimensional constructs, including cognitive,

metacognitive, motivational, behavioural, and environmental processes that learners

might use to enhance achievement. Pajares (2002) suggested that, through small-

scale, practitioner research, teachers should also identify and assess students’ self-

beliefs about their own self-regulatory strategies and develop appropriate

interventions to challenge them and help them to alter their perceptions accordingly.

Through the use of such surveys, instructors might become aware of the strategies

their students use to complete language assignments and include appropriate lessons

48

to teach students the necessary strategies to become more successful language

learners.

Additionally, teachers should nurture students’ self-efficacy beliefs, as these

self-perceptions are related to academic success. This could be achieved by fostering

the sources of self-efficacy, such as personal successful learning experiences, the

successes of peers, and positive feedback when merited (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

Teachers could, in fact, adopt a teacher-as-a-researcher approach to teaching; before

implementing any strategies for allaying students’ LA, they should do some research

on their attitudes, learning styles, and personality types, in order to get to know them

better and be able to choose suitable intervention techniques.

Instilling confidence in students by helping them set clear and realistic targets

and clarifying that making mistakes is only natural is another aspect language

educators could take into account (Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999). In a study of 252

students in nine first-semester English classes at a university in Japan, Matsuda and

Gobel (2004) administered the FLCAS and the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety

Scale (FLRAS; Saito, Horwitz, and Garza, 1999), and found that self-confidence in

speaking English was a crucial predictor of performance. Boosting students’ self-

esteem for the purposes of buffering their anxiety is a helpful strategy too. According

to the terror management theory of social behaviour, individuals are characterized by

an inherent predisposition to maintain a positive image about oneself and to sustain

high levels of self-esteem. This feeling is aroused when one is considered an object of

salience in the community (Greenberg et al., 1992). Therefore, teachers could enhance

students’ positive psychology in class, by reducing evaluation and making comments

that do not accentuate poor performance or low marks.

49

Huang, Eslami, and Hu (2010) examined the relationship between teacher

support and LA. They administered the FLCAS, the Classroom Life Measure, and a

background questionnaire to 158 Taiwanese college students, who were learning

English for an average of 8.1 years and were enrolled as freshmen in the following

programmes: business administration, chemistry, and industrial/electrical/civil

engineering. The findings yielded a statistically significant positive correlation

between teacher support and comfort with learning English (r=.27) and a negative

correlation between teacher support and students’ fear of failing the class (r=-.18), an

indication that the participating students were more confident and competent learners

when they were academically supported by their teachers.

Teachers could also encourage risk-taking among students (Dewaele, 2012;

MacIntyre et al., 1997). If a student fears failure, anxiety emerges. Anxious students

tend to deprive themselves of communication opportunities, and are therefore unable

to assess their level of knowledge and quality of performance in the target language.

A vicious circle then commences, as anxiety remains stable and students do not take

any risks to improve their proficiency. According to Brown (1994), successful

language learners are at the same time successful risk-takers, as they attempt to

produce language despite the possibility of inaccurate output.

With reference to student errors, teachers are advised to select appropriate

error correction techniques based on instructional philosophy and on reducing

defensive reactions within the students (Horwitz et al., 1986). Overt or “offensive”

error correction may embarrass students who are likely to resort to non-participation

or avoidance behaviour (Aida, 1994). Brown (1994) also recommends the use of

recasts, a form of error correction where teachers reformulate the student’s erroneous

utterance as soon as this is spoken. Sheen (2008) conducted an empirical study to

50

investigate whether LA influences students’ ability and the extent to which students

modify their output when provided with corrective feedback in the form of recasts.

Students were initially administered a questionnaire measuring their LA, and were

then divided into four groups on the basis of their total LA score: 13 highly anxious

learners who received recasts, 11 low anxious learners who received recasts, 11

highly anxious learners who received no recasts, and 10 low anxious learners who

received no recasts. The two recast groups attended two treatment sessions, which

were audio-taped, transcribed, and coded for the frequency of recasts. A pretest and

immediate and delayed posttests on speeded dictation and writing were used with all

groups. The results showed that the low anxious recast students outperformed the

highly anxious recast students. In addition, the low anxious learners who benefitted

from recasts produced higher levels of modified output, implying that recasts were

most effective with low anxious learners.

Horwitz (1990, p. 23) introduced the idea of “behavioural contracting”, that is

a form of contract signed by the students and the teacher stating that the teacher’s

expectations from the students could be kept low until the students’ anxiety is

controlled. Young (1991) suggested that anxious students keep a journal, as well as

participate in student support groups or language clubs organised by the language

institutions on a regular basis.

Kondo and Ying-Ling (2004) investigated the anxiety coping strategies of 209

students enrolled in English language courses at two universities in central Japan. The

researchers adopted a three-phase approach to collecting and analysing data. In the

first phase, they measured students’ LA levels and asked them about the strategies

they used in order to reduce their anxiety. The second phase aimed at grouping the

strategies in terms of any commonalities between them. In the third phase, the

51

researchers examined the correlations between students’ LA score and the types of

strategies used. The results revealed the five following strategy types: a) preparation

(the most frequently-cited strategy) referring to the development of study techniques

in order to fully master English and diminish anxiety, b) relaxation including

strategies for overcoming a range of somatic symptoms, such as palpitations,

sweating, fidgeting etc., c) positive thinking where students attempted to shift their

attention to pleasant situations and away from negative self-related cognition, d) peer

seeking by looking for classmates who shared the same feelings of negative affect in

class, and e) resignation in which case students refused to take any steps at all to allay

their anxiety. The researchers made a further classification of the above strategies,

suggesting that preparation could be conceived of as a behavioural strategy, relaxation

as an affective strategy, and positive thinking and peer seeking as cognitive strategies.

Finding ways to minimise speaking anxiety can be a daunting task for

teachers. Phillips (1999, p. 125) argued:

Based on consistent results showing that the speaking skill is the most frequently

cited source of anxiety among language students, one might posit that today’s

emphasis on the development of communicative competence will exacerbate

students’ anxiety about speaking. If teachers are unwilling to renounce the goals of

the oral proficiency movement, they must seek a resolution to the apparent conflict

between those goals and the negative affective reactions engendered by oral practice.

Most students indeed find speaking or simply appearing in front of the class as the

most anxiety-provoking aspect of the lessons. For that reason, group work and pair

work could be used as frequently as possible in language classes. Their function and

utility in the classroom with reference to the reduction of anxiety has been

commented on by many LA researchers:

a) They contribute to an atmosphere of community in the classroom (Kitano,

2001; von Worde, 2003).

52

b) They decrease learners’ exposure to the whole class and the competitiveness

among students.

c) Group practice gives time for more practice (Phillips, 1992). Thus, extra

practice can increase students’ confidence and sense of efficacy.

d) They allow students to take initiatives while working with a partner in class,

and take a proactive role in handling oral activities. In this way, fluency can

also be enhanced, and students’ confidence can be given a real boost.

e) They promote even student participation, reducing self-consciousness, as

students feel that they are singled out from the rest (Berg, 1993).

As regards strategies for coping with writing anxiety, Leki (1999) suggested

the implementation of heuristics, that is, brainstorming, freewriting, looping which

includes three attempts to write the intended text, each time minimising the length of

the previous text by trying to find the text’s centre of gravity, branching and

clustering, outlining, and cubing by answering a set of possible questions about the

topic. Drafting constitutes another helpful approach to process writing, which helps

towards minimising the number of mistakes students are likely to make and towards

reducing their anxiety. Sequenced writing assignments could be another option. Here,

each assignment is based on the previous one, and the students acquire information on

a single topic as well as on the structures necessary to elaborate on that topic. In

addition, Rankin-Brown (2006) lay emphasis on the process approach to writing, and

on the fact that teachers should help students to understand that it is essential to

devote time to writing a draft or multiple drafts, rather than aiming to achieve

perfection from the very beginning.

Öztürk and Çeçen (2007) administered the Second Language Writing Anxiety

Inventory (SLWAI; Cheng, 2004) and a background questionnaire to 15 university

53

students in a preparatory English class in Turkey. They also conducted two additional

reflective sessions in order to explore students’ thoughts on the use of portfolio

keeping as a means of developing writing skills and combating writing anxiety. The

findings revealed that portfolio keeping increased learner autonomy, and helped

participants to expand their vocabulary range and improve in their critical thinking.

Students’ writing anxiety was also reduced, because the portfolios were not grammar-

oriented, students did not have to be fixated on accuracy, and felt more confident

about what they could produce in the target language.

However, one should not jump prematurely to the conclusion that the

strategies discussed in this section “always create consistent results for all language

learners” (Oxford, 1992, p. 30). As already mentioned, LA may interact in a complex

way with other individual learner differences, such as self-esteem, motivation, and

willingness to communicate, and, thus, strategies for minimising anxiety may produce

different effects in language learning and within certain learners. In addition, the

strategies suggested above should not be thought of as distinct, independent ways of

intervention, but rather as a challenge for teachers to make a wise decision about ways

of combining them to cater for the needs of individual students. Finally, it should be

noted that excessive use of or insistence on specific strategies only is likely to lead to

undesired results. As Dewaele (2012, p. 48) argues with reference to risk-taking for

example, “reckless risk-taking is unlikely to have any beneficial effects in foreign

language learning, but moderate and intelligent risk-taking is likely to lead to greater

success”.

54

2.9 Language anxiety and grade level

It can be tacitly assumed that anxiety emerges during the earlier stages of

language learning, when students are still trying to acquire a range of aspects related

to the target language, and is gradually being reduced as soon as learners become

more proficient and fluent. Liu (2006) investigated the levels of anxiety of 547 first-

year undergraduate non-English majors enrolled in an English listening and speaking

course at three different proficiency levels in a university in Beijing, China. The

students were administered an adapted version of the FLCAS and a background

questionnaire, and were also asked to write reflective journals once a week for six

weeks. In addition, two highly anxious, three average anxious, and two low anxious

students and their teachers were interviewed. The teachers were additionally asked to

keep a weekly record of their anxious and relaxed students’ behaviour for the whole

term. The researcher observed and video-recorded some of the classes in order to

cross-check and compare the students’ and teachers’ answers. The results indicated

that the least proficient students had the highest mean score (103.14) on the FLCAS

compared to their most proficient counterparts who had the lowest mean score of

98.65.

Pappamihiel (2002) examined the LA of 178 Mexican immigrant students

attending ESL and mainstream classes in a school in the USA. The participants were

asked to fill in the English Language Anxiety Scale. It was found that the students

who were gradually becoming high achievers in their ESL classes exhibited lower

levels of anxiety than their less proficient counterparts, thus indicating that their

increasing self-confidence helped them to control or minimise their anxiety.

Nevertheless, empirical research has also revealed that very competent

language learners are likely to experience high levels of LA. Gardner and MacIntyre

55

(1993) noted that, at the initial stages of learning, anxiety is not a crucial parameter,

because learners have not yet had any negative affective experiences. Marcos-Llinás

and Garau (2009) conducted a comparative study of 134 college students enrolled in

11 courses of Spanish as a foreign language at various levels. The researchers

administered the FLCAS and a background questionnaire twice in a term in order to

test the stability of LA over time. The ANOVA results showed that the advanced

learners had the highest scores on the FLCAS (M = 113.05). The researchers

attributed this difference to the nature of Spanish as a foreign language and to the fact

that advanced learners are intrinsically motivated to learn the language and do not

think of language learning as a mere requirement to graduate.

Still, learners may experience similar levels of LA irrespective of their level of

proficiency in the L2. Pichette (2009) conducted a questionnaire-based study with 186

French-speaking learners of English or Spanish as a second language in universities in

Quebec, Canada. The questionnaire consisted of items from the FLCAS, the FLRAS,

and the Writing Apprehension Test (WAT; Daly and Miller, 1975a). The results of

the t-tests did not yield any significant differences between first-semester students and

more proficient students. Pichette (2009) argued that the obligatory status of L2

courses in Canadian schools could account for the lack of any difference in LA among

students at different proficiency levels.

2.10 Research needed

While reviewing the literature on LA, considerable attention was given to

Horwitz et al.’s (1986) seminal research into anxiety and their widely used FLCAS, as

well as to speaking anxiety. Other areas frequently discussed in the literature were

56

techniques that language teachers could use in order to help their students alleviate

their stress.

However, several lacunae become apparent in research into LA, therefore

advancing this research and extending it to any of the following areas is warranted:

a) Skill-specificity and LA. Perhaps arguably the most under-represented area in

research into LA is how it relates to language skills other than speaking.

Speaking is clearly the most self-effacing and ego-involving of all four skills,

yet this does not imply that anxiety about listening, reading, and writing is

non-existent. As Mercer et al. (2012, p. 242) commented,

In other words, anxiety for foreign language learning is different from anxiety for

maths; and anxiety for speaking differs from that for writing. This suggests that

research is also needed that examines the possible effects of specific parameters such

as the unique character of particular languages or differences across different skill

domains within a language.

How, then, could we conceptualise LA about the remaining three skills, and

how could we help students cope with writing anxiety, listening anxiety, or

reading anxiety? This study aims for a greater understanding of skill-specific

anxiety, and, in particular, speaking anxiety and writing anxiety.

b) Coping strategies for use by students. As we have seen, empirical research into

what strategies language learners use to cope with their LA has only been

investigated in a limited number of publications (Kondo and Ying-Ling,

2004). The traditional LA models have concentrated on types of pedagogical

intervention that are needed in order to reduce anxiety and advance learning.

However, a problem with this approach concerns the absence of any indication

of how the learners – the actual bearers of anxiety – confront anxiety. As

Ushioda (2011, p. 13) claimed with relation to motivation,

57

Translated into classroom practice, such models thus promote a view of motivation as

essentially controlled by the teacher through various techniques and strategies, rather

than as actively shaped by through personal meaning-making, intentionality and

reflexivity. Moreover, such models focus teachers’ attention on generalised types of

learner behaviour and attitude and how to deal with them, rather than on how to

engage with the complex and uniquely individual people in their classrooms: people

who bring particular identities, histories, goals and motives; people for whom

learning a language is just one small part of their lives; people who are not just

‘language learners’ and who perhaps do not see themselves in these terms.

Thus, it is intuitive that by urging highly anxious students to voice their

thoughts and suggest ways to minimise their LA would be worth investigating

and would hopefully help fellow students faced with similar negative affect

and high levels of anxiety in their language classrooms.

c) Viewing learners holistically. The insights provided by researchers into

understanding language learners as people (Lantolf and Pavlenko, 2001) have

yet to resonate in LA research. Ushioda’s (2009, p. 218) call for a “person-in-

context” view of the learner that is more than a theoretical abstraction is yet to

be addressed, primarily through the design and implementation of more

qualitative, contextualised studies. MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012) have

indeed underlined that affective variables interact in context-dependent, non-

linear ways, recognising the need to reject simple cause-and-effect models that

help to understand and explain affect and LA. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p.

248) also highlighted that research paradigms should extend beyond focusing

on the relationship between psychological variables and L2 achievement so

that we gain insights into the role of the context and the environment:

This prominent emphasis is in accordance with the growing social concern in

virtually all of contemporary SLA research and the challenge is to adopt a dynamic

perspective that allows us to consider simultaneously the ongoing multiple influences

between environmental and learner factors in all their componential complexity, as

58

well as the emerging changes in both the learner and the environment as a result of

this development.

These calls are suggestive of the direction that the field of LA as a whole should be

moving to, that is to say, empirical studies that take into account the whole

environment of the learner in order to interpret anxiety episodes.

2.11 Summary

The principal aim of this chapter was to offer an extensive, critical theoretical

discussion about the nature of LA and how it could function as a constraining factor

on learners’ behaviour in the language classroom. We have seen how LA has been

defined, conceptualised, and related to other disciplines, as well as to what extent it

can be positive and promote classroom language learning. Specifically, LA

researchers have concluded that it is situation-specific because it is often due to

conditions arising during the process of learning a language. LA has also been widely

associated with fear of negative evaluation, communication apprehension, and test

anxiety.

The literature on anxiety about speaking and writing in a foreign language was

also reviewed. Previous research has shown that speaking anxiety is connected with

fear of negative evaluation, fear of making mistakes, and self-perceptions of ability in

a foreign language. Writing anxiety was best conceptualised as being language-skill-

specific given its correlation with writing achievement. Self-perceived competence

and self-concepts were also found to affect writing anxiety levels. Strategies for

coping with general classroom LA and skill-specific LA were detailed next.

Quantitative data regarding the relationship between LA and different proficiency

levels were presented in the last section of this chapter. In fact, it can be argued that

59

the existence of and research into anxiety have been responsible for the large number

of teachers and researchers who contemplate a shift of attention to the affective

domain and the need for awareness of techniques for reducing this negative emotion.

Before describing and discussing my research methodology, a short chapter

detailing important aspects of English language learning and teaching in Greece has

been included, as this was believed to facilitate understanding of the research results

and insights emerging from the study.

60

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH CONTEXT: TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH

AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN GREECE

3.1 Introduction

Ushioda (2013) suggested that by context we do not just refer to geographical

setting but to curricular context too. For a better understanding of the present research

project, this section will offer a brief description of the Greek foreign language

education system, with an emphasis on the teaching of EFL in private language

schools, a facet that will be discussed in relation to the country’s current educational

and socioeconomic profile. Knowing the context of language learning and teaching

certainly helps towards understanding and evaluating learning outcomes.

3.2 English education in primary school

Foreign language instruction in Greece is provided in both state schools and

private foreign language institutes. With respect to state education, English is the first

foreign language young learners are taught at the third grade of primary education, at

approximately the age of 8. A pilot programme to examine the feasibility and

effectiveness of teaching EFL to the first and second grades of primary education

entitled New foreign language education policies in schools: Learning English in

early childhood (implemented within the National Strategic Reference Framework

2007-2013) was put into practice in 2010, and 800 state primary schools participated

in it (Lakasas, 2010; Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, 2010). Such an

educational measure is indicative of an attempt to take advantage of young learners’

well-documented ability to acquire foreign languages more rapidly than older

61

learners. According to the critical period hypothesis, the optimum time to acquire

language if presented with adequate stimuli is the years before puberty; after that,

some aspects of language can be learnt but full mastery cannot be achieved

(Lenneberg, 1967). However, it has been clearly shown that, in instructed language

learning settings, older learners have a superior learning rate mainly due to their

greater cognitive maturity than that of younger learners (Muñoz, 2006).

Young learners at Greek state primary schools are expected to cover a series

of three coursebooks (Sepirgioti et al., 1998; Sepirgioti et al., 1999; Sepirgioti et al.,

2006) over the last three grades of their primary education, that is, grades 4, 5, and 6

respectively. For the third grade of English language instruction, a new coursebook,

written on the basis of principled eclecticism, has been introduced in September 2012

(Alexiou and Mattheoudakis, 2011). The book combines elements of various teaching

approaches including the lexical approach, total physical response, task- and content-

based language teaching. Before the introduction of the new coursebook, teachers

could choose a beginners’ book for young learners from a state‐approved list of

commercially available coursebooks. Such materials and the syllabus aim to take

learners up to the elementary level.

3.3 English education in secondary school

In junior high schools (the first three years of secondary education), English is

compulsory. However, in senior high school (the last three years of secondary

education), when emphasis is placed on the national curriculum relating to university

entrance examinations, English is not compulsory and Greek learners have to choose

among English, French, or German. In the secondary sector, English language

teachers are provided with a long list of state‐approved coursebooks – by both

62

international and local publishers – and are required to choose a coursebook according

to the linguistic and cognitive needs of their students.

Although English holds a high status within the broader context of the Greek

education system, Alexiou and Mattheoudakis (2013, p. 101) take issue with the way

the transition between primary and secondary education of EFL is achieved:

As English was initially introduced in Greece as a foreign language at secondary

schools, consequent decisions had to be made with respect to the expansion and

continuity of the syllabus, the coursebooks and other teaching materials to be used in

the two educational sectors, and foreign language teachers’ training in the respective

sectors. It would be reasonable to assume that the syllabus and resources would be

modified following this change in policy; in fact, both have remained unchanged

since 1997. As a result, the issue of liaison between primary and secondary sector in

foreign language learning needs to be addressed in order to ensure a smooth transition

between the two educational sectors.

The authors emphatically stated that, sadly, the benefits gained from the newly-

introduced early instruction scheme in primary education are likely to be lost when

students move on to secondary education.

3.4 English language learning and teaching in tertiary education

Tertiary education in Greece is provided in universities and technological

educational institutes, and entrance is based on exams. English instruction in higher

education institutions often takes the form of teaching ESP, with a strong focus being

put on jargon, whilst little – if at all – emphasis is placed on learning EAP, or at least

English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP). Modules on English language at

university require students to have some knowledge of English, usually addressing

A2+ levels of proficiency, according to the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). Teachers are expected to

63

produce their own materials for use in class, using materials of their own choice,

seldom prepared in collaboration with the subject specialists.

3.5 The private sector

The instruction of English in Greece is also provided by a thriving private

sector of language schools. Mattheoudakis and Alexiou (2009, p. 232) quote that the

number of private language schools in Greece more than tripled between the years

1985 and 2000 (2,000 private language institutes in 1985 and 7,000 in 2000), and has

continued to increase “as private language tuition seems to have become the norm

rather than the exception”. About 80% of Greek school children attend foreign

language institutes and Greek families spend on average about 880 million euros on

tuition fees and course books (Mattheoudakis and Alexiou, 2009; Angouri,

Mattheoudakis, and Zigrika, 2010). These private institutes provide intensive foreign

language tuition to students of around 7 years old and above. The courses they offer

are not compulsory and cater both for general EFL learning and exam-oriented

learning, targeting the English language exams from acclaimed standardised

examination boards (e.g., Cambridge English Language Assessment, the University of

Michigan), or national standardised English testing centres (i.e., Research Centre for

Language Teaching, Testing, and Assessment, National and Kapodistrian University

of Athens). By contrast, English language instruction provided in state schools and at

the tertiary level is not entirely exam-centred, and internal exams usually take place.

Certified knowledge of English, as well as of other foreign languages, is inextricably

linked to future career development. In fact, a quick glance at job vacancies in a

Greek newspaper will reveal that the vast majority of such announcements require a

64

certified knowledge of English, a need that fortifies the huge success of private

language centres.

The above figures mirror the great importance Greek students attach to the

EFL instruction they can receive via the private sector. This is partly due to their

belief that foreign language tuition in state schools cannot equip them with the tools

necessary to learn English. Large groups of students, lack of standardisation in

services provided, variability in students’ levels of achievement, uninteresting lessons,

unmotivated teachers, and provision of tuition that is not focused on language

certificates, constitute the main reasons why Greek EFL learners favour private

language schools and why the state sector is rather devalued (Angouri,

Mattheoudakis, and Zigrika, 2010; Mattheoudakis and Nicolaidis, 2005; Sifakis,

2009). Private language institutes, therefore, “seem to have become an official part of

the educational system” (Angouri, Mattheoudakis, and Zigrika, 2010, p. 191).

According to Diamantopoulou (2002, 2006), while 91% of Greeks believe in the

usefulness of learning a foreign language, only 28% (the smallest percentage amongst

European Union member states) claim that they have learned a foreign language via

instruction provided in state schools. The latest Eurobarometer survey (2012, p. 102)

also elucidated this point by arguing that “Greece […] stands out from the rest of the

EU in terms of learning through group language lessons with a teacher outside school,

with almost half of respondents in Greece (48%) […] saying they have learnt in this

way”. Greeks’ poor perception of the usefulness of language lessons at school is again

emphasised in the aforementioned survey: “Greece stands out as the country with a

particularly poor perception of the usefulness of language lessons at school with 13%

of respondents saying this is the most effective method they have used” (ibid., p. 107).

Sifakis (2009) and Sifakis and Sougari (2003) have even claimed that state school

65

EFL teaching has the status of TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reason).

Attention is now increasingly being focused on the quality of teaching in Greek state

schools and on the issue of the evaluation of the teachers. The poor standards in the

Greek foreign language education system in the public sector have led the present

government to re‐examine the quality of the country’s education system and formulate

a new policy to bring about necessary changes. Education reform will, thus, require

teachers to rethink classroom practice and focus on continuous professional

development. In addition, there is a growing consensus that traditional forms of

teacher development are inadequate for addressing teachers’ issues and for

confronting the challenges teachers face in their everyday practice (Lignos, 2006;

Papastamatis et al., 2009).

The keen interest in learning EFL in private language institutes also reflects

the high status of English within the Greek socioeconomic environment. 74% of

Greeks believe that English is the most useful language for their personal

development, and 92% think that English is the most useful language for children to

learn for their future (Eurobarometer, 2012). As Greek is one of the least widely

spoken languages outside of Greece, Greek students recognise the necessity to learn a

foreign language that will allow them to communicate with speakers of other

languages abroad. English, with its worldwide influence and current label as an

International Language (EIL; Crystal, 1997) or Lingua Franca (ELF; Jenkins, 2007),

is expected to provide its learners with unique educational and professional

opportunities, hence being the first foreign language Greeks opt for. English could

also be said to be used as a lingua franca within Greece, for instance in interaction

situations with tourists.

66

The European Union is another factor regulating English language learning

and use in its member states (Truchot, 2003). As Sifakis (2009, p. 232) puts it,

“English has no official status [in Greece] but is considered a key prerequisite for

‘surviving’ in today’s globalised world”. We might therefore describe Greek students’

motivation to learn English as representing a generalised international orientation

similar to what Yashima (2009, p. 145) has termed “international posture” in relation

to Japanese learners of English, that is “a tendency to relate oneself to the

international community rather than any specific L2 group”. Additionally,

intranationally speaking, the competitiveness engendered by an unstable and insecure

domestic market where unemployment rates increase dramatically further incentivises

English language learning, explaining students’ vocational orientations to learn

English in an attempt to improve their career prospects.

3.6 English language teachers’ qualifications

In the public sector, at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, English

language teachers are typically native Greeks, whereas a number of native English-

speaking teachers are likely to work in private language schools. Teachers working in

the public sector are all graduates of a university department of English language and

literature. This may not always be the case in the private sector, where holders of a C2

level certificate in English (e.g., Cambridge Proficiency in English; CPE) are likely to

teach EFL. (This, however, was not the case with the EFL teachers participating in

this study.) This case has recently come to court in an attempt to minimise the number

of English teachers who are insufficiently qualified. Native English teachers working

in private institutions are qualified teachers, without necessarily being holders of a

67

degree in English language, but having the advantage of being native speakers of the

language taught.

Unlike other countries, a practical qualification in teaching EFL (e.g.,

Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults; CELTA) is not mandatory for

English language teachers in Greece. In theory, university courses in methodology

would aim at providing students with practical insights into teaching. Nevertheless,

emphasis is placed on raising students’ awareness of a range of approaches to

language teaching, and prospective English teachers are not required to participate in

pre-service training in an actual school/university, guided by supervising teachers.

Given this lack of explicit training in ELT pedagogy, the need for making teaching

practice modules mandatory at university is becoming more and more prominent.

Recent research (Giotis, 2010) has shown that, in the absence of teacher training, EFL

teachers mostly rely on the teacher’s guide or implement the methodology that their

own successful teachers were using in class. Teachers could, however, participate in

continuous professional development workshops organised by associations regulated

by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, such as TESOL Greece or

TESOL Macedonia-Thrace, or by independent schools or colleges.

3.7 Summary

This chapter focused on a description of the English language education

system in Greece, distinguishing between the three main grade levels, namely

primary, secondary, and tertiary education, as well as between state schools and the

private sector. Delineating the research context will help towards a greater

understanding of aspects of the whole environment of the learners that will be shown

to influence their levels and manifestation of LA in the classroom.

68

The next chapter discusses all the methodological aspects taken into

consideration when designing and conducting the present study, and when analysing

the data collected, following suggestions from the relevant literature.

69

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

This chapter delineates the theoretical background of all the methodological

decisions I made with reference to the research design, data collection, and data

analysis and interpretation. The chapter begins with the aims and research questions

of the study. The remainder of the chapter consists of the following sections: research

approach, participants, instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis, validity

and reliability, and ethics.

4.2 Purpose of the study

As stated in the Introduction, the purpose of this study was to respond to the

scarcity of research on the classroom LA of Greek EFL learners, with particular

emphasis on its relationship to language skill specificity, as well as on the causes of

both classroom and skill-specific LA and the strategies deployed to minimise them.

These aims were divided into five research questions:

1. Which factors contribute to the speaking anxiety of Greek EFL learners?

2. Which factors influence Greek EFL learners’ writing anxiety?

3. What is the difference in LA among students at different proficiency levels?

4. What aspects are perceived as the main causes of classroom LA?

5. What strategies do Greek EFL students deploy to minimise their LA and how

do their teachers choose to intervene?

All five research questions were both confirmatory and exploratory in nature,

as they aimed to verify or perhaps disconfirm theory and at the same time explore

70

unanticipated avenues. This dual nature of my research questions was what largely

governed the entire research design, as recommended by the literature (e.g., Teddlie

and Tashakkori, 2009). The quantitative strand was followed by a qualitative

component, expanded by and supplemented with interviews and a diary study in order

to address researchers’ constant call for qualitative projects to investigate individual

learner differences. The next section provides an overview of current methodological

discussions about existing individual differences research with a view to justifying the

need for change in paradigmatic choices.

4.3 Researching individual differences

Research on individual differences in SLA has gained ground over the last 30

years, and the affective dimensions of language learning in particular have interested

scholars in the field. As the term suggests, individual differences should take for

granted that each learner is different, and thereby research into this field ought to

adjust its epistemology and methods to the key assumptions underlying such a notion.

Nonetheless, traditional research on individual differences has mostly been

quantitative in nature, and with a view to examining learner idiosyncracies, and

labeling students according to similarities between them.

In light of the ‘social turn’3 in SLA (Block, 2003), the need for more

interdisciplinary and socially informed approaches to SLA research has been

emphasised. Previous research has relied on group averages and statistics, which tell

us something about individual difference characteristics, but as Ushioda (2009, p.

216) succinctly puts it, they do so “in an abstract collective sense”, thereby

3 Benson and Cooker (2013, p. 4) have very recently taken a strong view of the social turn in SLA,

raising the following question: “Does the social turn in Applied Linguistics simply imply a widening of

the investigative lens, such that individual language learners are always studied within a social context

of some kind, or does it imply a radical reconceptualisation of the individual as subject of research and

practice?”

71

“depersonalising learners” (Ushioda, 2011, p. 12). New insights into SLA research

need to look less into categorising individuals, “and more toward the individual and

the social and environmental factors that help the individual create his or her image as

a learner and as a person” (Pellegrino Aveni, 2005, p. 145). Learners are agents,

whose learning and affect in class is largely contextualised, and it is this context that

“is relevant and necessary to gain a fuller, more ecological understanding of the

individual’s abilities, traits, behaviours, and knowledge” (Duff, 2008, p. 38). This

echoes Dörnyei’s (2005, p. 218) claims about the importance of context in recent

research into individual differences:

The most striking aspect of nearly all the recent ID [i.e., individual difference]

literature is the emerging theme of context: It appears that cutting-edge research in all

these diverse areas has been addressing the same issue, that is, the situated nature of

the ID factors in question. Scholars have come to reject the notion that the various

traits are context-independent and absolute, and are now increasingly proposing new

dynamic conceptualisations in which ID factors enter into some interaction with the

situational parameters rather than cutting across tasks and environments.

From this sociocultural perspective therefore, individual differences research

should focus on a “person-in-context” view of the learner (Ushioda, 2009, p. 218),

which reveals complex and dynamic patterns among individuals, their contexts, and

their personal histories (Benson, 2005; Block, 2003; Lantolf and Pavlenko, 2001;

Larsen-Freeman, 2001; Mercer, 2011a, 2011b; Mercer et al., 2012; Skehan, 1991;

Ushioda, 2009; Williams and Burden, 1997). The practice of investigating LA

qualitatively should therefore start to gain momentum as a promising research

framework in explaining affect in SLA (Ewald, 2007; MacIntyre and Gregersen,

2012; Ushioda, 2012; Yan and Horwitz, 2008). Mitchell et al. (2013, p. 24) have

stressed the need for more “integrated models of learner development” that will help

to depict individual differences, such as LA and WTC. Skehan (1989, p. 118) indeed

72

called for “extended methodologies, settings and goals with anxiety research that

might enable us to step outside the rather restrictive framework within which such

studies are presently conducted”.

Taking into account the shift of focus on qualitative research and my research

questions, a strong qualitative element that would give learners voice was

incorporated. At the same time, and in order to avoid anecdotalism, I had to focus on

those participants that were highly anxious - and not on any students learning EFL –

in order to gain fuller insights into their affect in the classroom. Thus, I could not

entirely rely on the open-ended nature of qualitative research, realising that a

quantitative instrument was indispensable. These methodological decisions are

detailed below.

4.4 Problems in language anxiety research

Problems inherent to LA research bear similarities to problems with

researching individual differences discussed in the above section. However, a

fundamental problem of research into LA concerns difficulties in directly observing it.

Anxiety is internally mediated, and, therefore, an individual’s levels of anxiety could

mainly be inferred from a range of physiological symptoms, such as sweating, or self-

report written or oral accounts. A second problem concerns the fact that LA is not a

monolithic variable but rather constitutes a multifaceted construct which consists of a

range of dimensions that cannot be measured only through quantitative instruments.

Qualitative research could help towards probing into aspects of LA that would

otherwise remain hidden if only questionnaires were administered.

These considerations were taken into account when designing the study.

Questionnaires were administered to help select the most highly anxious cohort of

73

students. To disclose internal and mental processes that were anxiety-induced and on

which students could not directly comment in the questionnaires, learner diaries were

collected and analysed. Interviews were conducted to elucidate both questionnaire and

diary results. Thus, a mixed methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative

research was adopted in order to account for a holistic picture of how, when, and why

anxiety is likely to emerge. The research design and the rationale behind it are

explicated in the following sections.

4.5 Research paradigm: Pragmatism

The 1980s was the era of a fierce ‘paradigm war’ between the two major

research camps of constructivism (i.e. qualitative research) and postpositivism (i.e.

quantitative research) in terms of the epistemology and logic each one was embracing.

The former generally caters for a bottom-up approach where participants' life histories

and worldviews shape the meaning of phenomena and give rise to theories, as

opposed to the latter confirming or disconfirming theories and hypotheses and

involving measurements of and relations between variables. Mixed methods research

has risen as a result of the rejection of a forced choice use of either quantitative or

qualitative inquiry in the social sciences, and was seen as adhering to the principles of

pragmatism, which by and large rejected “the either/or of the incompatibility thesis4”

(Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009, p. 21), and favoured both points of view (Dörnyei,

2007; Greene and Caracelli, 2003; Howe, 1988; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1990;

Rossman and Wilson, 1984). As Brewer and Hunter (2006, p. 55) stated, “rather than

being wedded to a particular theoretical style […] and its most compatible method, 4 “The incompatibility thesis is associated with the supposed link between paradigms and

research methods. According to this thesis, research paradigms are associated with research

methods in a kind of one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, if the underlying premises of

different paradigms conflict with one another, the methods associated with those paradigms

cannot be combined” (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009, p. 15).

74

one might instead combine methods that would encourage or even require integration

of different theoretical perspectives to interpret the data”. Dörnyei (2007, p. 277) also

observed that “maintaining an open and flexible frame of mind and remaining as free

as possible of paradigmatic dogmas” is becoming a prerequisite for good research. As

Howe (1988, pp. 13-14) explicitly stated,

Rather than divorcing paradigms from the conduct of research (but nonetheless

having them dictate what is to count as legitimate knowledge), the compatibilist can

insist on a mutual adjustment between the two such that practice is neither static and

unreflective nor subject to the one-way dictates of a wholly abstract paradigm. […]

Unfortunately, all that incompatibilism seems to have to offer is a forced choice

between two exclusive paradigms and the spin-off of a fragmented research

community – with one group championing the view that their method is the only truly

“scientific” one […], and the other group embracing “multiple realities” so that

researchers are free to speak their own languages, investigate their own questions,

and come up with their own standards of truth.

More than simply using “what works” in order to attain one’s research objectives,

pragmatism is a choice based on the belief that objectivity and subjectivity are not

always in strict contrast, but rather cater for an “inductive-deductive research cycle”

(Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009, p. 87) that facilitates data interpretation.

Consequently, researchers employ quantitative and qualitative research methods to

elicit both quantitative and qualitative data, which are ultimately integrated into an

organic view of the phenomenon under scrutiny. In other words, one approach is used

to help explain and build on the results from the other approach (Creswell, 2009).

Mixed methods research also contributes to the triangulation of data and analysis.

4.6 Research approach: Mixed methods

A number of different terms have been used to refer to a mixed methods

research approach, such as integrating, synthesis, multimethod, and mixed

methodology. However, recent writings use the term mixed methods (Creswell,

75

2009), which will also be used throughout this thesis. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and

Turner (2007) advocated for a contingency theory encompassing all three research

paradigms (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) and understanding their

strengths and weaknesses. They argued that, rather than presenting a dichotomy

between research methods, it is more insightful to view mixed methods research as

situated somewhere between a bottom-up and a top-down approach: in the case of the

former, the research questions determine the research approach, whilst in the case of

the latter the approach is not driven by the research questions. Their paper presents a

comprehensive definition of mixed methods research which is the one I relied on:

Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of

researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches

(e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis,

inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding

and corroboration (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123).

In educational contexts specifically, where the exploration focuses on cognitive as

well as affective aspects of the learning experience as my research did, mixing

methods seems particularly helpful (McDonough and McDonough, 1997).

Additionally, with reference to research into language learning psychology, Mercer et

al. (2012, p. 244) highlighted the necessity of using a mixed methods framework,

arguing that “in order to meet the challenges posed by increasingly complex

perspectives on psychology, researchers will need to be creative in developing a range

of methodologies”.

76

4.6.1 Combining quantitative and qualitative research

Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 202) argued that the main issue to be

considered by researchers when deciding which approach (i.e., quantitative or

qualitative) to use concerns the following:

Is our research topic/question such that it is meaningful to aggregate findings from

many participants, or would producing such a composite score lead to the loss of the

subtle, individual trajectories that are at the heart of the phenomenon we are after?

However, this does not mean that quantitative and qualitative research cannot be

combined within a single study, given that “most topics can be examined

meaningfully following both qualitative and quantitative approaches” (ibid., p. 201).

As mentioned in the previous section, offsetting the limitations of one method

by the strengths of the other method was the basic rationale behind mixed methods

research. Gillham (2000, p. 5) argued that “in research we have to balance the gains

and losses in anything we choose to do”. On the one hand, when examining many

individuals quantitatively, the purpose is to gather information and generalise these

results to the wider population. Therefore, the possibility of understanding the

particular is low.

On the other hand, qualitative studies aim to explore the uniqueness of a small

number of participants, and, therefore, cannot explain the characteristics of bigger

groups (Croker, 2009). Richards (2003, p. 9) stressed that a qualitative approach “is

above all else a person-centred enterprise and therefore particularly appropriate to our

work in the field of language teaching”. Miles and Huberman (1994) also argued that

one of the major strengths of qualitative research is its focus on what “real life” is

like. Qualitative research assesses causality among variables in order to explain how

the different aspects in the worlds of participants affect each other. Creswell (2009, p.

77

4) also stated that “qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the

meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”. Qualitative

research therefore gives researchers the opportunity to focus on individual meaning

and understand individuals in all their complexity.

Quantitative and qualitative research should not be treated as mutually

exclusive. Miles and Huberman (1994) maintained that qualitative data can be used

when one wants to supplement, validate, or illuminate quantitative data gathered from

the same research context. Counting goes hand in hand with qualitative data analysis,

because “when we identify a theme or a pattern, we’re isolating something that (a)

happens a number of times and (b) consistently happens in a specific way. […] When

we say something is “important” or “significant” or “recurrent”, we have come to that

estimate, in part, by making counts, comparisons, and weights” (ibid., p. 253).

Ivankova and Creswell (2009, p. 145) added that “mixed methods research is also an

intuitive way of conducting inquiry: many individuals look to both numbers and

stories to make sense of everyday events”.

In the current study, the quantitative data and analysis helped to get an overall

picture of the anxiety level distributions of the participants. Then, significant

quantitative results were explored through a longitudinal diary study and qualitative

interviews to gain greater insights into the conceptualisation of LA by highly anxious

students. Both components addressed questions of directionality, identifying possible

elements that might relate to each other and to the focal variable under study.

4.6.2 Choosing methods: The sequential explanatory design

The present study implemented a fixed mixed methods design. The mixing

occurred during the data collection stage where the results obtained from the first

78

quantitative phase informed the collection of data in the second qualitative phase by

selecting participants and developing research instruments. The data were first

connected when selecting participants for the diary study and the interviews, as well

as when thinking of interview questions grounded on the diaries and survey results,

and then when interpreting and discussing the findings from the two stages. The table

below explicates the explanatory design procedures guiding the current project.

Table 1. Explanatory design procedures guiding the study (adapted from Ivankova and

Creswell, 2009)

Quan5 Quan Connect

6 Qual

7 Qual Interpret

8

Survey of

students

(N = 128)

Descriptive

statistical

analysis

Selecting

participants

for

qualitative

follow-up

Diary study

(N = 7)

Follow up

interviews

(N = 13)

Thematic

analysis/Coding

Interpretation

based on

quantitative

and

qualitative

results

Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) claimed that the sequential explanatory

design is well suited when qualitative research is needed to help explain the results of

previously conducted quantitative research, specifically as far as significant or

nonsignificant results as well as outlier or surprising cases are concerned. This design

is therefore suitable for researchers who wish to follow up quantitative results by

forming groups for use in subsequent qualitative research. The sequential explanatory

design, like all mixed methods designs, also aims at triangulating data. However, it

differs from triangulation designs, as the purpose in collecting data through different

instruments is not to compare and contrast the different findings, but rather to help

inform one stage through the other.

5 Quantitative.

6 Mixing occurred at this stage.

7 Qualitative.

8 Mixing occurred at this stage.

79

One of the main strengths of this approach is its emergent nature that provides

the researcher with a straightforward framework for implementation, as the data

collection is carried out in two separate stages and one type of data is collected at a

time (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Table 2 visually displays the sequential

explanatory design procedures guiding this study. The procedure will be explained in

detail in the sections to follow.

Table 2. Visual diagram of explanatory design procedures (adapted from Ivankova and

Creswell, 2009)

Phase Procedure Product

Quan data N = 128

FLCAS and ESLWAT

Background questionnaire

Numeric data

Quan analysis Descriptive statistics

Factor analysis

Correlations

SPSS software

Means, SDs

Factor loadings

Correlation coefficients

Connecting quan and qual

phases

Purposefully selecting

participants

N = 7 diarists

N = 13 interviewees

(the diarists were also

interviewed; all highly

anxious students)

Qual data Learner diaries

Individual interviews

Text data (diary entries and

interview transcripts)

Qual analysis Thematic analysis

Coding form

Codes and categories

Mixing of the quan and qual

results

Explanation of the quan

results based on qual findings

Conclusion

Reporting the results of a study conducted on the premises of this design is

also a straightforward task owing to the sequential nature of this design (Ivankova and

Creswell, 2009). Dörnyei (2010) also claimed that it enriches the final findings

considerably. Much in the same vein, Gillham (2000, p. 101) stated that the interview

findings can illustrate the questionnaire results and “bring your research study into

life”.

80

However, one of the greatest challenges of using a sequential explanatory

design is the lengthy amount of time required for undertaking the research as the data

collection involves two separate phases (Creswell, 2009). The researcher usually

reaches a decision as to which quantitative results need to be further explained and

how the participants will be selected for the second phase after collecting and

analysing the initial data (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Hence, participants should

be informed in advance of the possibility that they may be contacted again.

4.7 Participants

4.7.1 Rationale of choice of sample

In the sequential explanatory design, sampling occurs at two points: in the

quantitative stage and in the qualitative stage. These two sampling stages inform one

another and are not independent. The quantitative research was conducted on the basis

of probabilistic or random sampling, which Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003, p. 713)

defined as the selection of “a relatively large number of units from a population, or

from specific subgroups (strata) of a population, in a random manner where the

probability of inclusion for every member of the population is determinable”. In the

current study, the sampling units were clusters of students that occurred naturally in

EFL classrooms. Hence, with probability sampling, each member of the population

under study has an equal chance of being selected (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison,

2007; Creswell, 2009).

In the second, qualitative strand of this study the participants were selected on

the basis of purposeful sampling. As the name suggests, the sample has been chosen

for a specific purpose. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011, p. 173),

“purposeful sampling in qualitative research means that researchers intentionally

81

select (or recruit) participants who have experienced the central phenomenon or the

key concept being explored in the study”. The key assumption behind purposive

sampling procedures is the selection of “information-rich cases” (Patton, 2002, p.

230) that can provide an in-depth understanding of the research phenomenon by

studying individual cases. The follow up is conducted with a few participants in order

to “obtain their specific language and voices about the topic” (Creswell, 2009, p. 19).

Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 27) also confirmed that “qualitative researchers

usually work with small samples of people, nested in their context and studied in-

depth”.

Mixed methods researchers generally advise that, for the follow-up,

participants that are representative of different groups, or who scored outside the

norm, should be chosen, in order to understand how groups differ and why certain

informants scored as they did. As Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 28) put it, “searching

deliberately for confirming and disconfirming cases, extreme or deviant cases, and

typical cases serves to increase confidence in conclusions”. Patton (2002, p. 234) also

commented:

In statistical terms, extreme case sampling focuses on outliers (the endpoints of the

bell-shaped curve normal distribution) that are often ignored in aggregate data

reporting. […] extreme cases may be information-rich cases precisely because, by

being unusual, they can illuminate both the unusual and the typical.

The highly anxious EFL learners of the present study were taken as extreme cases.

The mean score was calculated, and therefore participants whose total anxiety score

was higher than the mean score were classified as having high levels of anxiety as

opposed to students who scored lower than the mean score and were thus classified as

82

low anxious. The specific characteristics that the highly anxious shared were isolated

and studied in depth.

4.7.2 Participants in the quantitative component

My target population was Greek students enrolled in private language schools

learning EFL. Two institutes where English is studied as a foreign language were

selected from Thessaloniki, the second biggest city in the country situated in northern

Greece. The directors of studies in both schools were ex-colleagues of mine.

Permission to gain access to both schools and conduct my research there was granted

through sending an invitation to the directors to take part in my project.

The selection of the participants in the quantitative component was based on

their age and level of proficiency in EFL. It was believed that adult students would be

better able to offer insightful accounts of their emotions in class given their life

experience and linguistic maturity. It happened that in both institutes adults were of a

B1 level of proficiency and above. I therefore decided to randomly recruit those

students, as they were expected to have a clearer view of what studying EFL entails,

hence being in a position to share their personal episodes of affect in the EFL

classroom.

Based on the above considerations, I targeted a sample of around 200

participants, of which certain students were expected to exhibit low levels of LA and

would thus be excluded from the project. I used cluster sampling, a probability

sampling strategy used for large and diverse populations where the researcher selects

a specific number of clusters (in my case, two language schools) and tests a particular

number of cases from those clusters (in my case, 19 EFL classes) (Cohen et al., 2007;

Dörnyei, 2007, 2010; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). When combined with random

83

sampling – as my strategy for this component was – cluster sampling is believed to

maximise the validity of survey research. It was anticipated that the differing ages and

proficiency levels of the participating students would provide me with interesting

comparisons and insights into their levels of LA.

Of the initial population of 197 respondents, 128 were classified as highly

anxious thus being qualified for this study. Those students’ total anxiety score was

above the mean score for the questionnaire. As explained above, all informants were

adults; the average age was 24.12. There were 44 male and 84 female students. The

minimum length of exposure to English was two years with a maximum length of

eight years. The participating students’ proficiency level ranged from B1 to C2 (in

CEFR standards, from lower intermediate to upper advanced). 86 of the respondents

were studying in higher education institutions in Thessaloniki, as opposed to the

remaining 42 who declared themselves as professionals. In addition, their foreign

language learning experience varied significantly, with the majority of students

having studied French and Spanish, and five students indicating that they have been

enrolled to Arabic and Turkish classes.

4.7.3 Participants in the qualitative component

Interview student participants and diarists were selected from the same

schools. First, a number of completed questionnaires were chosen through criterion

sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994), my conceptual criterion being to ensure high

levels of LA that would lead to insightful and thick descriptions (Denzin, 2001) of the

construct by different informants. These questionnaires were ranked according to the

respondents’ total LA score. Thus, the students with the highest rankings were invited

84

to keep a learner diary and attend the follow-up interview. If unwilling to participate,

the second or third questionnaire in rank was selected.

Patton (2002, p. 244) emphatically stated that “there are no rules for sample

size in qualitative inquiry”; rather the size depends on “what you want to know” and

“what will have credibility”. I initially invited twenty students to participate in the

interview, and fourteen students to write a learner diary for me. These numbers

accounted for a 10-20% of the total number of participants from the quantitative

component. Dörnyei (2010, p. 63) in fact advised researchers “to leave a decent

margin to provide for unforeseen or unplanned circumstances”, as some participants

are likely to drop out, or some questionnaires may have to be disqualified. The

interview schedule was arranged on the basis of the participants’ availability. Quite

often participants did not show up, or would ask me to put off the interview until a

later date. The final number of student interviewees was thirteen. As for the diaries,

the level of attrition (Duff, 2008) was quite high (i.e., 50%). At the end of the diary

study, I received a total of 61 entries from eight diarists over a period of two months.

However, I decided to exclude one diarist who provided only five entries, as I

considered that diary incomplete and inefficient. Therefore, the data that were used

for analysis and interpretation were 56 diary entries from seven diarists.

The eleven EFL teachers who were working in both schools were also

interviewed individually. Table 3 below summarises the biodata of the teacher

interviewees (the teachers’ names in the table are pseudonyms).

85

Table 3. Teacher interviewees’ biodata

Teacher School Levels currently

teaching

Age ELT

experience

(in years)

Qualifications

Argyris 1 Upper-intermediate

Advanced

(A few classes per

year with all levels as

he is the head teacher

in the school.)

42 19 BA English Language

& Literature

MA Theoretical

Linguistics

Linda 1 Intermediate 53 23 BA English Language

MA Linguistics

PhD American

Literature

CELTA

Elisa 1 Lower-intermediate

Intermediate

30 8 BA English Language

& Literature

Antonis 1 Intermediate

Upper-intermediate

Advanced

35 12 BA English Language

& Literature

Bonnie 1 Lower-intermediate

Intermediate

26 4 BA English Language

& Literature

CELTA

Akrivi 1 Advanced 54 25 BA English Language

& Literature

Kiki 1 Intermediate

Advanced

31 7 BA English Language

& Literature

Alexandra 2 Lower-intermediate

Intermediate

39 11 BA English Language

& Literature

Teacher Training

Course, University of

Stockholm

Mary 2 Lower-intermediate

Intermediate

46 17 BA English Language

& Literature

Joanna 2 Upper-intermediate

Advanced

44 13 BA English Language

& Literature

DELTA

Maria 2 Upper-intermediate 32 8 BA English Language

& Literature

4.8 Instruments

Given that LA is usually hard to define and measure, a combination of

different instruments was opted for in order to help explain the results, triangulate

different kinds of data, and relate them in as meaningful a way as possible to capture

the complexity and dynamism of the construct under examination. All instruments are

described below.

86

4.8.1 Quantitative component

4.8.1.1 The use of questionnaires in ELT research

The main strength of questionnaires is that they are efficient in terms of

researcher time, researcher effort, and cost (Dörnyei, 2010). In contrast to interviews,

administering a questionnaire requires personal investment from the part of the

researcher to a lesser extent. Data processing is also a clear and straightforward task

to accomplish. Dörnyei (2010, p. 6) stressed that questionnaires are versatile because

“they can be used successfully with a variety of people in a variety of situations

targeting a variety of topics”. Further, a well-constructed questionnaire can produce

consistent and reliable results and is likely to reduce the bias of interviewer effects

(Dörnyei , 2010). Such biases will be discussed in the section on the use of interviews

in ELT research below.

However, according to Gillham (2000, p. 1), in research methodology “no

single method has been so much abused” as questionnaires. Dörnyei (2010) argued

that questionnaires often result in superficial data as their nature does not allow for

probing deeply into an issue; this may occasionally be augmented by the fact that

respondents are often unreliable and unmotivated, and they tend to leave out or

misread questions. Problems of data quality may indeed arise due to the fact that

questionnaires may be completed hastily and carelessly (Gillham, 2000).

The social desirability bias is another weakness inherent to applied linguistics

research using questionnaires. Participants may not always report on what they truly

feel or believe. As Dörnyei (2010, p. 8) simply put it, “questionnaire items are often

‘transparent’, that is, respondents can have a fairly good guess about what the

desirable/acceptable/expected answer is, and some of them will provide this response

even if it is not true”.

87

Dörnyei (2010) also listed the acquiescence bias, the halo effect, and the

fatigue effect among the most common weaknesses of questionnaire research. The

acquiescence bias concerns the human tendency to agree with statements which they

are unsure about, or to be unwilling to look at the negative aspect of as topic. The halo

effect refers to the tendency for people to overgeneralise; for instance, if their

impression of something or someone is negative, they will not be inclined to say

anything positive about that person or situation. Finally, the fatigue effect is the result

of feeling tired or bored to provide responses towards the end of the questionnaire.

4.8.1.2 Developing the questionnaire

The quantitative data collection instrument used in this study consisted of two

parts, the first one focusing on background, demographic information about the

student participants, and the second covering various aspects of LA (see Appendix A).

I included a cover page with the title of the project and with general instructions

explaining what the study is about and why I am undertaking it, how those specific

participants and their experiences would help me to draw some useful insights

regarding the topic under investigation, informing them about the possibility that

some of them will be contacted soon and will be invited to take part in an interview

and/or a diary study, promising confidentiality and anonymity, and thanking them.

Part I: Biodata and background information

This section of the instrument collected details about the number of years

participants had been studying English for, their gender, age, occupation, other

foreign languages known and level of proficiency in them, as well as orientation and

motivation types for learning EFL. Dörnyei (2010) highlighted the importance of the

88

biodata and background information sections of research questionnaires,

recommending that researchers trade carefully in order to promise confidentiality and

convey the usefulness of those sections for the purpose of each study.

Part II: Language anxiety

As explained in the Introduction, this project aimed at investigating language-

skill-specific anxiety, and specifically speaking and writing anxiety, in EFL

classrooms in Greece. Two questionnaires – the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) and

the ESLWAT (Gungle and Taylor, 1989) – were thus piloted and refined for the

purposes of the study. Before analysing the process of developing the final

questionnaire, I will describe both quantitative data collection instruments, with

special focus on the items they include and on reliability issues emerging from

previous studies using them.

The most well-established and widely used instrument for the identification

and measurement of LA is the FLCAS, which consists of 33 self-report items

assessing the level of students’ anxiety and focusing on self-expectations of poor

performance, comparisons with significant others involved in the language learning

process, psychophysiological symptoms, and avoidance behaviour (Horwitz et al.,

1986). The instrument was originally designed for and administered to approximately

300 students at the University of Texas at Austin. Scores on the scale may range from

33 to 165. Horwitz (1986) reported that the instrument yielded a high internal

consistency of .93, and its test-retest reliability over eight weeks was .83.

The reliability and validity of the FLCAS were also tested by Aida (1994) in a

study of 96 students of second-year Japanese at the University of Texas at Austin. All

participants were asked to complete the FLCAS bearing in mind their experience of

89

learning Japanese as a foreign language in their first year. The results revealed an

internal consistency of .94, similar to that obtained by Horwitz (1986). The test-retest

reliability over the fall and spring semester was .80, showing that the FLCAS can

assess one’s LA levels accurately at different times. In addition, the high test-retest

reliability of the instrument was indicative of the fact that, apart from situation-

specific LA, the FLCAS can also trace one’s trait anxiety (Aida, 1994). Pérez-

Paredes and Martínez-Sánchez (2000) examined the validity and reliability of the

FLCAS too. They administered it to 198 Spanish post-beginner students of English at

a Spanish Official School of Languages. The results yielded a reliability of .89 as

well as a high test-retest reliability of .90 over three weeks.

Even though the FLCAS is not in its entirety related to speaking anxiety,

previous research has shown that, given its association with second language

speaking achievement, it “measures anxiety primarily related to speaking situations”

(Aida, 1994, p. 163). Using the FLCAS in their study of the speaking and writing

components of classroom LA, Cheng et al. (1999) also concluded that FLCAS

concentrates particularly on aspects of speaking anxiety. Rodríguez and Abreu (2003)

contended that the FLCAS indeed measures speaking anxiety, thus being insufficient

to identify anxiety caused by the remaining three skills. Pichette (2009) buttressed

this point of view, arguing that twenty out of the 33 items of the FLCAS focus on

speaking, while the remaining thirteen items measure general classroom anxiety with

no concern over anxiety about writing or reading. Mak (2011) factor analysed the

FLCAS and found that the majority of items loaded on the first factor which clearly

addressed speaking anxiety and its subsequent fear of negative evaluation. Taking

into account insights from previous research, the FLCAS was deemed the most

appropriate quantitative data collection instrument for speaking anxiety.

90

As explained in the literature review, research into writing anxiety developed out of

studies of anxiety that native English writers would experience (Daly and Miller,

1975a, 1975b). Daly and Miller adapted their WAT originally designed for native

English writers for use with second language writers. However, as Woodrow (2011,

p. 511) put it,

There is some concern regarding the appropriateness of this instrument initially

developed for use with native language writers. The questionnaire items do not seem

to capture issues faced by second language writers, such as finding a composition class

a very frightening experience, or feeling good when handing in a composition. This

may be why there are few studies in second language learning using this

instrumentation.

Cheng (2004) developed a writing anxiety instrument, which, despite having good

reliability, concentrated mostly on anxiety about generic writing tasks, a focus that

would not coincide with what I had planned on investigating. The main reason why I

opted to use the ESLWAT was that the statements included in it captured my research

purposes with reference to writing anxiety, namely how anxious students were about

writing in English, and where their anxiety would stem from.

I assembled the final version of the questionnaire from the components of

both instruments. The resulting LA questionnaire consisted of 56 items that were

jumbled up when given to the students. Brown (2001) warned that answers

respondents give to one question may affect answers on subsequent questions. Hence,

randomisation was thought of as a means of controlling problems of ordering effects

and of increasing reliability.

The following modifications were made to the questionnaires:

a) Items related to interaction with native speakers were eliminated, because they

referred to hypothetical situations that did not occur in the English language

classrooms under investigation.

91

b) The term “foreign language” was replaced by “English language”. For example,

the original FLCAS item “I feel confident when I speak in my foreign language

class” was modified to “I feel confident when I speak in my English language

class”.

c) The double-barreled item “I have no fear of my writing being evaluated by my

teacher and/or my peers” was further split into two statements, namely “I have no

fear of my writing being evaluated by my teacher” and “I have no fear of my

writing being evaluated by my peers”.

The variables were measured through a Likert scale. As recommended in the

literature, an odd number of choices (five) was used in order to allow participants to

“sit on the fence” and take the neutral non-opinion option given to them (Brown,

2001; Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2010). According to Brown (2001, pp. 41-42),

“naturally, there are times when a fence-sitting option may be desirable”. Cohen et al.

(2007, p. 326) also stated that the categories on a Likert-type questionnaire should

“exhaust the range of possible responses which respondents may wish to give”. If I

felt that the “undecided” category has been overused or noticed that it has been

interestingly used with specific items, I thought I could follow this up in the

interviews.

Second language researchers have commented positively on the use of Likert

scales in research questionnaires. Skehan (1989, p. 11) argued that “no individual

item carries an excessive load, and an inconsistent response to one item would cause

limited damage”. Additionally, such scales better address the target content domain

than single items, as the former usually include more than one item to capture the

content area; the target is the same but slightly different aspects of it are mentioned in

the questionnaire (Dörnyei, 2010). By way of example, an LA questionnaire using a

92

Likert scale may consist of statements on speaking anxiety addressing different

responses to it which are also phrased differently, such as “I tremble/feel my heart

pounding/am nervous when I speak in my English language class”. Moreover, coding

Likert scales is a straightforward task, hence leaving “no room for rater subjectivity”

(Dörnyei, 2010, p. 26). The answers are assigned a number and are then entered into

a computer database. Therefore, uniformity across questions in terms of the types of

questions and of the nature of data gathered is provided. Brown (2001) added to this

that usually closed-response questions are easier to answer and less likely to be

skipped by participants.

On the other hand, Brown (2001) claimed that closed-response questions

provide a limited range of answers and are less exploratory in nature than open-ended

questions. He concluded that “survey designers may be more likely to find what they

are looking for in closed-ended questions, rather than finding unexpected responses

as they might in open-response questions” (p. 38). However, this shortcoming of

closed-ended questions, and consequently of Likert scales, could be balanced by

incorporating a qualitative phase in the research project, as the present study

implemented.

After the questionnaire was compiled, both sections were translated into the

student participants’ L1 (i.e., Greek) by the researcher. In order to ensure the

equivalence of the English and the Greek version, I consulted two external reviewers,

both working as English language teachers in Greece and holding an MA in

translation from the University of Surrey.

93

4.8.1.3 The pilot study

Field-testing or piloting the questionnaire is a vital step towards constructing a

good instrument, and “any attempt to shortcut the piloting stage will seriously

jeopardise the psychometric quality of the questionnaire” (Dörnyei, 2010, p. 54). The

pilot study can indicate questions with ambiguous wording, too difficult questions,

questions that do not yield any unique data, or questions that are difficult to code, as

well as problems regarding the administration and layout of the questionnaire

(Dörnyei, 2010). Gass and Mackey (2007, p. 3) warned that the piloting stage “can

reveal subtle flaws in the design or implementation of the study – flaws that may not

be readily apparent in the plan itself, but that could otherwise prove costly and time-

consuming, perhaps even leading to the loss of valuable and irreplaceable data”.

The questionnaire was therefore piloted with a very similar sample from one

of the two private language schools (N = 20). After the consent of the director of

studies was gained, I administered the questionnaire to students of two different

classes (i.e., ten B1 students and ten C2 students). The students that took part in the

pilot study were not involved in the main study. The data collected through piloting

the questionnaire were analysed for reliability. The scale proved to be highly reliable

(α = .92). The scale was also tested for internal consistency. As Brace et al. (2006, p.

331) advised, “if items within a scale are intended to measure aspects of the same

construct, then they should all be fairly strongly correlated with each other”.

Correlations among items (i.e., part-whole or item-total correlations) were computed

in order to check for unsatisfactory internal consistency coefficients. The value of

Cronbach’s alpha for the scale if a particular item is deleted was also assessed. The

questionnaire items indeed correlated strongly with each other. Some moderate

correlations among items were also found. Thus, both scales appeared to be reliable,

94

and, in addition, the moderate and strong correlations between items could give a

preliminary idea on groupings of variables that were likely to emerge in the main

study. The inter-item correlations and the item-total correlations for the questionnaire

can be found in Appendices B and C respectively.

4.8 Qualitative component

4.8.2.1 The use of diaries in ELT research

A diary study is defined as "a first-person account of a language learning or

teaching experience, documented through regular, candid entries in a personal journal

and then analysed for recurring patterns or salient events" (Bailey, 1990, p. 215).

Catering for both introspection and retrospection on the part of the learners, it gives

researchers the opportunity to unobtrusively study each learner's views on affective

factors and generally on those “facets of the language learning experience which are

normally hidden or largely inaccessible to an external observer” (Bailey and Oschner,

1983, p. 189). Dörnyei (2007) argued that qualitative research in general involves the

study of individuals with as little obtrusion as possible, and diary studies help

towards this requirement to a large extent.

Generally speaking, a diary study demonstrates its utility in highlighting the

development of participants' emotional experiences over a long period of time and on

many different occasions. In fact, Mercer (2006, p. 66) argued that "the temporally

organised longitudinal nature of a diary study is one of its greatest assets". Bailey

(1983, p. 98) also pointed out that "diary studies allow us to see the classroom

experience as a dynamic and complex process through the eyes of the language

learner". Hence, focusing on learner’s voices and complexity on a longitudinal basis

95

aids language teachers and researchers to better understand classroom language

learning.

However, one limitation of diaries inherent in research on emotions and

anxiety is that participants cannot always have access to unconscious learning

processes or strategies they use to alleviate their stress in the classroom (Gkonou,

2013). Damasio (2000, p. 36) claimed that “there is no evidence that we are

conscious of all our feelings, and much to suggest that we are not”. Learners are not

always aware of the connections among events that take place in class, or the reasons

why they exhibit certain behaviours or adopt specific strategies, and are therefore

unable to report on them. Additionally, some participants may not be good at

describing their thoughts and feelings. Instead, it is the researcher who content-

analyses data, and creates coding schemes and relational models for an in-depth

explanation of emotional and behavioural factors. This lack of evidence of the

unconscious may result in incomplete entries, because events that may be of

particular interest from the researcher's perspective may be omitted by the participant.

Nevertheless, I believe that this could mostly be the case with younger or less

experienced language learners who do not yet possess an inventory of skills and

awareness of the process of second or foreign language learning. In contrast, the

current study was conducted with adult EFL learners who, according to the

demographic information initially obtained, had often already attempted to learn

other foreign languages, ranging from modern foreign languages such as French,

Italian, or Spanish, to less commonly taught and studied languages such as Arabic

and Turkish. I was therefore lucky that my participants had long and varied foreign

language learning experience. Additionally, given that my study was focusing on the

LA of highly anxious EFL learners, the students who took part in it were mostly

96

aware of the nature of their anxiety as they often encountered it in class. Thus,

contextual level factors need to be considered when designing a diary study, as these

could help increase the quality and narrow the scope of the data collected.

4.8.2.2 The present diary study

The diary study for the current project spanned two months. First, a training

session was conducted prior to the commencement of diary keeping to ensure that

participants have understood the purpose of the study and the way they could best

complete their entries. Despite sounding like a daunting task, my main aim was to

help participants see the importance of what they were doing. Apart from benefitting

the researcher, learners should also feel that the project they take part in is beneficial

to them (Allwright, 2003). I tried to highlight this aspect when training the students.

They were all presented with a sheet of guidelines on how to complete their diaries

along with a sample diary entry that I created, both preceded by an introductory

paragraph clearly stating the benefits of the process to them (see Appendix D):

The diary is a very important and helpful tool, which will enable you to think more

deeply about the English lessons that you follow and your needs as a language learner,

whilst at the same time providing you with a clear record of the work you do. In

addition, it constitutes a means of giving you insightful and valuable writing practice.

I hoped that, through my providing a heuristic framework for increasing learners'

awareness of themselves as language learners and by using the diaries as a medium of

regular writing practice in English, informants would be encouraged to submit

successful and complete entries. Having the chance to go through their mistakes with

me was another possibility offered to them as a compensation for their participation.

97

Most of them were keen on arranging post hoc sessions to discuss ways of improving

their writing.

Nonetheless, as is the case with the majority of diary studies, a major pitfall

was the level of attrition (Duff, 2008). Having initially contacted fourteen EFL

learners who gave their consent to participating and attended my training session, I

only received seven complete diaries adhering to the research principles set out at the

beginning. Half of the informants could not achieve the levels of commitment and

dedication required by the study and felt that it interfered with their own schedules.

On the other hand, when interviewed, the diary study participants who returned

complete entries to me commented that their positive attitudes towards writing in

English were motivating enough to allow for their contribution to my project.

Finally, the pilot stage of the diary study was put into practice in September

2010 in order to confirm the effectiveness of diaries as research instruments for the

needs of the current project. The purpose of my pilot diary study was twofold: a) to

ensure the efficiency and clarity of the instructions given to the diarists, and b) to find

out whether the frequency of diary entries (i.e., after each English lesson, twice a

week) was manageable for them. The data showed that I would be able to gather the

information which was relevant to my research topic in the main study. However,

with reference to the second purpose of the pilot stage, I observed that the

participants had failed to produce an entry for every response time scheduled for

them. Consequently, I decided to reduce the scheduled response frequency to just

once per week, which sounded achievable to the students even though from my

researcher perspective it could occasionally have been at the expense of the richness

of data.

98

4.8.2.3 The use of interviews in ELT research

Richards (2009, p. 187) stressed that “only interviews can probe the beliefs

and experiences that might explain their [the participants’] responses. In a profession

like teaching, such understanding can be invaluable”. In fact, the purpose of

qualitative interviewing is to capture how the interviewees view their world, as well

as “the complexities of their individual perceptions and experiences. […] The

fundamental principle of qualitative interviewing is to provide a framework within

which respondents can express their own understandings in their own terms” (Patton,

2002, p. 348).

Having to ask and answer questions is also a natural and common way to

collect information about everyday life topics one might be interested in (Dörnyei,

2007). As Kvale (1996, p. 5) argued, qualitative interviews are a means of

“professional conversation” between people that has a structure and a purpose to

serve research and elucidate aspects of the life world of the interviewees. The

emergent and exploratory nature of interviews, the consideration of the research

setting which can be of paramount importance when doing research in education, the

deep understanding and delineation of the levels of complexity that aspects of

language learning usually involve, and the flexibility when things go wrong that

interviews are characterised by, make them an indispensable and valuable research

instrument. Thus, interviews can enable us to produce exciting results and probe into

findings that would have remained unexplored or even been neglected if

questionnaires were the sole method of research.

99

4.8.2.4 The interview protocol

All interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide from which I

selected questions during the interview, depending on the direction of the discussion.

In this interview type, researchers have clear questions they want answered, but ask

them in a way that invites an open response. Interviewers are thus allowed the

freedom to digress. Specifically, they should allow flexibility to probe some aspects

in depth, to follow up with further questions interesting points made by the

interviewee, and, where necessary, to let the interviewee lead the discussion (Berg,

2007; Richards, 2009). While the interview protocol provided a relatively systematic

coverage of all themes, the interviewees, being considered co-constructors of

meaning, were free to suggest related topics, and I often devised questions in an

attempt to follow up any interesting points they made. The interview topics were

selected so as to test the theoretical assumptions prevalent in the existing literature, to

probe for participants’ interesting answers in the questionnaires, and to give

participants opportunities for subjective spontaneous contributions.

The semi-structured interview has been criticised by researchers in the field

(Dörnyei, 2007; Richards, 2009), who considered it as a compromise because it

draws “to some extent on both of the other types [i.e., structured and unstructured]”

(Richards, 2009, p. 185). This is in fact true: a researcher knows that certain key areas

will need to be identified in order to compare the students’ experiences of these. An

element of structure is therefore important. On the other hand, a general picture is

unlikely to reveal the undercurrents of feelings, expectations, opinions, and so on that

will help investigators understand the reasons for what they see happening. For this,

more open questions will be needed to allow students the freedom to bring to the

surface aspects of their experience that would otherwise remain hidden. Thus, the

100

advantage of semi-structured interviews and the interview guide they are based on is

that they give the interviewer/evaluator the reassurance that s/he has carefully

decided how best to use the limited time available in an interview situation. The

guide helps make interviewing a number of different people more systematic and

comprehensive by delimiting in advance the issues to be explored (Patton, 2002).

In the pilot phase of the project, the interview guides were used with two

student and two teacher interviewees who were respectively studying and working in

one of the two language schools. Their answers and reactions to my questions were

taken into account when adjusting and refining the format, order, and wording of the

questions. No changes were made to the interview protocol for the teacher interviews.

As far as field testing the student interviews was concerned, I noticed that the

interview guide brought a certain level of structure and could be used unchanged with

all student interviewees. However, the pilot interviews further showed that I had to

slightly adjust the student interview guides to cater for the individual responses of

each participant to questionnaire items, paying particular attention to cover intriguing

and unexpected answers given to the questionnaires and, in the case of specific

students only, in the diaries. Please see Appendices E and F for the full student and

teacher interview protocols.

4.9 Data collection procedure

4.9.1 Questionnaires

The questionnaires were administered in December 2010. The researcher was

present during the administration of the instrument in order to deal with participants’

queries. I first gave them some information about my research, that is, the institution I

am conducting it with, its purpose and potential usefulness, and the reasons why I

101

selected the particular participants. Confidentiality and anonymity were also orally

re-emphasised. I then invited the participants to read the instructions and ask me any

questions they had. I also encouraged them to raise their hands if they had any

questions while completing the questionnaire, and address them to me.

4.9.2 Diaries

The diary study began in January 2011 and spanned two months. As explained

in section 4.8.2.2, a training session was arranged with the respondents who were

willing to keep a diary. The diarists were asked to send their diaries to me

electronically at the end of each teaching week. The diary study was also monitored

by the participants’ tutors.

4.9.3 Interviews

4.9.3.1 Teacher interviews

The interviews with the EFL tutors were conducted in December 2010 and

January 2011. The interviews were arranged for a day and time that would suit the

interviewees, normally before or after one of their classes, and took place in rooms

that were available in each language school. All interviews were conducted in

English, and were audio-recorded and transcribed by myself.

4.9.3.2 Student interviews

The interviews with the EFL students were conducted in April 2011, after the

end of the diary study and the preliminary analysis of the diary data. All interviews

took place in the language schools. The language used in the student interviews was

102

Greek. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by myself. The student

interviews were translated selectively, for citation purposes.

4.10 Data analysis

The quantitative data were submitted to descriptive and inferential statistical

procedures, while the qualitative data were analysed thematically. The results of the

two sequential processes were integrated into meta-inferences presented in the

Discussion chapter. The two data analysis processes are described in more detail

below.

4.10.1 Quantitative data

Quantitative data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0. First, descriptive statistics were used to present

and describe data in terms of summary frequencies, means, and standard deviations.

Then, inferential statistics helped to make inferences and predictions on the basis of

the data gathered. These included correlations and difference testing, that is one-way

analysis of variance and factor analysis.

Each of the 128 questionnaires received an individual code which allowed it

to be identified very quickly when needed. The first step of data processing here

involved quantifying the data by converting answers to numbers. The questionnaire

was answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). The coding frame was therefore straightforward. However,

positively worded items, such as “It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English

language classes” and “I feel confident when I speak in my English language class”,

were reversed and recoded. By way of example, if a student selected option “4” (i.e.,

103

agree) for the item “I tremble when I know I am going to be called on in my English

language class”, then s/he would receive four LA points. On the other hand, selecting

“4” for the statement “It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English language

classes” would be assigned 2 LA points. The total classroom anxiety score was

derived by summing the students’ responses to respective items.

4.10.2 Qualitative data

4.10.2.1 Preparation of the data

After conducting the interviews, I manually transcribed them verbatim and

stored them in separate files for each participant along with their questionnaire

responses, and where applicable, their diary entries. The student interviews were

translated selectively, for citation purposes. First, I read through the transcripts and

the diary entries once to get an overall idea of the participants’ viewpoints on the

topic in question, writing thoughts on the margin. As Richards (2003, p. 273)

suggested, “while it is possible to approach the task by coding paragraphs or even

larger sections of data, the most productive approach is probably to work on a line-

by-line basis, leaving any winnowing and sorting until later”.

Scanning the written texts was the second step towards developing a coding

scheme. I used natural breaks in the material, such as cutting off points, which

usually denoted a change in topic. This was largely determined by the sequence of the

questions asked in the interviews. With relation to the interview transcripts, I soon

realised that the texts were structured in a way that the focal points sparsely appeared

throughout them. Even though the interviews followed a question protocol, which

meant that questions and answers would be likely to appear in a linear order across all

transcripts, answers to the same question were found in various pages throughout the

104

texts as participants tended to repeat some of their responses, or felt that they had

something else to add to their previous thoughts and had to go back to a point that

they had made earlier. Thus, I thought that a more holistic approach to reading the

transcripts would be beneficial for grasping the content of the informants’ opinions.

Doing this, I wrote summaries for each participant on Microsoft Word, collating both

the quantitative and the qualitative data I had collected. The summaries listed the

participants’ pseudonyms, their age, gender, other foreign languages known,

occupation, and orientations for learning EFL, as well as their responses to key

questions (e.g., skill-specific anxiety, LA associated with internal and external

factors, etc.). Whenever I noticed a mismatch between responses to questions through

the three research instruments, I made a quick note of the informants’ reasoning as

this would guide the data interpretation at a later stage. Contributing to viewing each

participant holistically, these summaries helped me to write the participant profiles

presented in the Qualitative Findings chapter, useful in understanding their

contributions later.

4.10.2.2 Developing a coding scheme

Qualitative data analysis was an iterative process involving going back and

forth between the data. As Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009, p. 252) also speculated,

“qualitative data analysis is eclectic. It is difficult to “prescribe” a single, particular

data analysis scheme for a particular qualitative database. Typically, each researcher

analysing qualitative data employs an eclectic mix of the available analytical tools

that best fit the data set under consideration”. Creswell (2009, p. 176) added that

qualitative research gives a holistic account of the topic in question as qualitative

researchers view it through a complexity lens, which “involves reporting multiple

105

perspectives, identifying the many factors involved in a situation, and generally

sketching the larger picture that emerges”.

The interview and diary data were coded using first- and second-level, or

pattern, coding. First, the codes were created and defined. Inductive analysis was

used at this stage, which involved discovering patterns, themes, and categories in the

data. This was accompanied by deductive analysis, where the data were analysed

according to existing frameworks from the literature (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Ideas from reading informed this process. Before starting off with coding the

interview data, I had developed a list of codes from the existing literature for the

purposes of having an idea of possible themes that may emerge through the analysis

of my data. Some examples of codes from the existing literature included fear of

negative evaluation, concern over errors, self-concepts, relaxation, and team work.

An example of the codes I gave to three teacher interviews can be found in Appendix

G.

Second, pattern codes were used as a form of meta-code. According to Miles

and Huberman (1994, p. 69), “pattern coding is a way of grouping those summaries

[i.e., the first-level codes] into a smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs. For

qualitative researchers, it’s an analogue to the cluster-analytic and factor-analytic

devices used in statistical analysis”. Pattern coding is a means of constructing “a

cognitive map” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 69) that helps researchers understand

the interaction among people and incidents. Additionally, for multi-case studies,

pattern coding allows for cross-case analysis and for the identification of common

themes and directionality (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Thus, different categories

emerged, which were integrated into core categories. Similar topics were clustered

together in order to reduce my total list of categories. The principle of convergence

106

(Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Patton, 2002) was employed here: I had to figure out what

things fit together by looking for recurring regularities in the data. The process was

concluded when the sets of categories were saturated so that new sources led to

redundancy, and when the analysis began to “overextend” beyond the boundaries of

the issues and concerns guiding the analysis (Patton, 2002). Data were also checked

for divergence in order to see where participants’ voices differed and to facilitate

understanding of the nature of complex and multifaceted variables.

The final schemes (Appendices I, J, and K) consisted of both predetermined

and emerging codes. The qualitative data were also quantified. I counted the number

of times each code occurred in the texts in order to be better able to draw a

conclusion as to which codes were the most frequently mentioned ones for the

participants in my study.

After deciding on my codes, I had them cross-checked by a departmental

colleague to establish inter-coder agreement. According to Creswell (2009, p. 191),

“such an agreement might be based on whether two or more coders agree on codes

used for the same passages in the text”. In order to assess the credibility of qualitative

findings, I also used member checking by taking the interview scripts with the

relevant themes back to two student and two teacher participants in order to

determine whether participants felt that my codes were accurate. With reference to

the utility of member checking or member validation, Richards (2003, p. 264)

claimed that it would be worthwhile to involve participants in the research process in

ways other than just inviting them to take part in an interview or write up a diary on

any aspect of TESOL; “as participants in the research process, they have a wider call

on our attention and it may be worthwhile to involve them in other ways”.

107

4.11 Data quality

As mentioned above, mixed methods research combines quantitative and

qualitative research instruments in a single study. Therefore, the quality of a mixed-

methods research project is assessed separately for its quantitative and qualitative

components, as they both contribute to the overall data (Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei,

2007; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Quality criteria will now be discussed in terms

of quantitative and qualitative research respectively.

4.11.1 Quality in quantitative research

In a nutshell, validity is best defined as representing the extent to which an

instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. Cohen et al. (2007), however,

mentioned that, recently, validity has taken many different forms. Three main types

of validity are particularly important here: criterion validity, content validity, and

construct validity (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; Dörnyei, 2007).

Criterion validity measures whether the scores on the particular instrument

relate to some external standard, such as scores on a similar instrument (Creswell and

Plano Clark, 2011). Researchers often distinguish between predictive and concurrent

validity; the former aims at establishing if the scores predict a criterion measure, as

opposed to the latter which examines if the present results correlate with other results

found by using another instrument (Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2009). As this was a

cross-sectional research project, predictive validity could not be tested at this time,

although it will be possible to do this in future, follow-up projects. As for concurrent

validity, three different data collection instruments were deployed in this study in

order to explain and triangulate data, and in most cases the results as to LA and its

confounding variables converged.

108

Content validity means that the items included in a quantitative instrument are

representative of all aspects of the phenomenon being investigated (Cohen et al.,

2007; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Although it would be difficult to judge

whether a quantitative instrument measures all aspects of classroom anxiety, as well

as speaking anxiety and writing anxiety, the theoretical framework and the final

questionnaire aimed to offer a comprehensive depiction of LA, incorporating facets

that had not been researched together before.

Construct validity refers to the extent to which a test is measuring the

construct it claims to be measuring. This can be achieved by rooting the researcher’s

construction of the target variable in a deep literature search that will elucidate all its

aspects (Cohen et al., 2007). Construct validity can also be ensured through different

research techniques that lead to similar results. My findings, obtained through a

sequential explanatory design and triangulation, corroborated most of the results in

existing publications. However, comparison cannot be total, as new

conceptualisations of LA were offered in this study, specifically with relation to

learner agency and ecosystems.

The literature also distinguishes between internal and external validity, the

former representing the extent to which the researcher can conclude that there is a

cause-and-effect relationship among variables in the study and whether this

relationship can be said to be true, as opposed to the latter which refers to the

generalisability of the findings to a larger population (Creswell and Plano Clark,

2011; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). Of the six most salient threats to internal and

external validity that Dörnyei (2007) listed, only two might apply to this project: the

Hawthorne effect and the social desirability bias. The Hawthorne effect is

documented when participants behave differently when they know they are being

109

studied. As for the social desirability bias, participants in a study may begin to exhibit

performance that they believe is expected of them. As my investigation tapped into

participants’ self-reported perceptions on the nature of their classroom LA, great care

was taken to minimise both effects in the presentation of the project to the students, in

answering their questions during the administration process, and in highlighting the

importance of giving as honest an answer as possible to each statement of the

questionnaire.

As far as reliability is concerned, this means that scores received from

participants should be consistent and stable over time (Creswell and Plano Clark,

2011). One frequent measure of reliability in quantitative research is the internal

consistency coefficient of a scale, or Cronbach’s α. Creswell (2009, p. 150) stated

that “when one modifies an instrument or combines instruments in a study [as was the

case with this project], the original validity and reliability may not hold for the new

instrument, and it becomes important to re-establish validity and reliability during

data analysis”. As seen earlier in the description of my quantitative instrument, the

final questionnaire rendered an internal consistency coefficient of .92, an α value that

means that it is very highly reliable (Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2007). High internal

consistency reliability means that the questionnaire consists of homogeneous items

that “measure the same target area. In psychometric terms this means that each item

on a scale should correlate with the other items and with the total scale score”

(Dörnyei, 2010, p. 94).

4.11.2 Quality in qualitative research

In qualitative research, validity is renamed into trustworthiness conceptualised

as the degree to which a study is valuable in terms of credibility, transferability,

110

dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; also expounded in Cohen

et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2007; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Teddlie and Tashakkori,

2009). Each of these has an equivalent in quantitative research.

The credibility of qualitative findings (equivalent to internal validity in

quantitative research) refers to the extent to which the findings are credible from the

perspective of participants. Credibility can be enhanced by the researcher’s long-term

exposure to the context under investigation – a process that I followed throughout the

data gathering stage –, and the adequacy of the collected data through the use of

different methods of data collection (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), which has also been

achieved as explicated earlier in the Instruments section. Another way to assess

credibility is through the use of member checking or respondent validation, in which

case the researcher provides summaries of the findings to the participants and asks for

confirmation. As discussed in an earlier section (Developing a coding scheme),

summaries of two teacher interviews were written and sent to both language schools.

Additionally, summaries (in Greek) of two interviews were sent to the student

participants.

Transferability (equivalent to external validity in quantitative research)

estimates to what extent the findings can be transferred to other contexts. Given that

qualitative research is very often context-bound, there may be cases where

transferability is difficult to achieve. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested

that transferability can be increased by providing thick description of the research site

in order to allow readers and other researchers to determine whether the findings are

transferable. Following this advice, I offered enough description of my research

context in the Research Context and in the Participants section above so as to make

the project as transparent as possible. The research findings presented in the next

111

chapter will offer the conditions for comparison and contrast between my context and

other settings. In addition, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested incorporating

cross-case analyses in research reports to enhance transferability and strengthen the

theory a researcher attempts to build. The Findings chapter that follows will examine

similarities and differences among participants in detail.

Dependability, being equivalent to reliability in quantitative research, assesses

the possibility that the same results would be obtained again. According to Lincoln

and Guba (1985), dependability can be assessed and increased by keeping an audit

trail of accurate records of the documentation of research design, data, analysis,

reflection, synthesis, and so on, so that the researcher’s decisions are open to others.

Dependability could also be established by relying on multiple coders to reach

agreement for passages in a text (i.e., inter-coder reliability; Creswell, 2009; Creswell

and Plano Clark, 2011). For this purpose, I asked a research student in the department

who is familiar with the Greek ELT context to assign codes to two of my interview

transcripts. The level of inter-coder agreement was satisfactory in the sense that we

agreed on the majority of codes except for the ones that described self-related

constructs. This was mainly attributed to the fact that there are only subtle differences

between self-concepts and, as was also explained in the literature review, the

terminology relating to the self is overlapping. Therefore, what I had for example

coded as ‘self-confidence’ was coded as ‘self-esteem’ by my colleague.

Confirmability, approximating objectivity in quantitative research, is the

assumption that one investigator’s interpretations would also be corroborated by other

researchers. As was the case with dependability above, confirmability of the

qualitative findings is increased through satisfactory levels of inter-coder agreement.

112

4.12 Ethics

Ethical issues in educational and social research often stem from what Cohen

et al. (2007, p. 51) termed the “costs/benefits ratio”, a dilemma “which requires

researchers to strike a balance between the demands placed on them as professional

scientists in pursuit of truth, and their subjects’ rights and values potentially

threatened by the research”. This observation guided my ethical considerations

throughout this project. An application for ethical approval was submitted to the

Department of Language and Linguistics in July 2010. The application described the

procedure of data collection and confirmed that the participants of the study would all

be adults. The consent form that I would get the participants to sign was also attached

to the application. My application was approved in August 2010 and I was therefore

able to proceed to the data collection stage of the pilot study and, later on, the main

study.

The following ethical principles were taken into account in the instrument

design, data gathering, and data processing stages:

a) Informed consent (Appendix L). The directors of studies’ verbal and written

consent was obtained one month before the start of my research, after detailing the

aims and nature of the project to them orally and on the consent form they were

asked to sign. The class teachers who were interviewed were given information

about the project first by the directors of studies and then from me before the start

of each interview, when they were also asked to sign the form. As far as the

students were concerned, they were provided with the necessary information about

the project (including details of voluntariness, anonymity, confidentiality, and

beneficence) on the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition,

before the administration of the quantitative instrument, I took several minutes to

113

explain everything orally to them, specifying that their consent would be

formalised upon completion of the consent form. I also explained the conditions

for conducting the diary study and the interview, as some of them would be invited

to participate in them at a later stage. The interviewees’ oral consent for recording

the conversation digitally was also obtained before each interview. During the

diary writing training session, I once again stressed the issues of anonymity and

non-traceability, and explained orally how each diarist’s name and data would be

handled.

b) Voluntary participation. None of the participants was forced or directly

encouraged to participate in the investigation. Quantitative data were collected in

classroom groups, and all students were happy to get involved. The head teachers

of both schools had already informed the potential student participants that they

would be invited to participate in a research project conducted at the University of

Essex, and this was believed to have augmented students’ desire to please and to

conform. As for the interviews, students were free to decline when invited to

attend one, and three of them did. During the interviews, they were free to skip

any question they wanted, and were not pushed for answers at any time.

c) Anonymity, confidentiality, and non-traceability. These were vital conditions for

my project, and I knew that lack of anonymity would have reduced my

participants’ number as well as the sincerity and dependability of their responses.

Everyone was promised absolute confidentiality and anonymity, and were told that

their biodata and background information would only be used in ways that would

be beneficial to the research findings and pedagogic implications of the project. In

order to maximise non-traceability, I did my best to make sure that the

participants’ pseudonyms were used accurately throughout the reporting stage of

114

the results, and that the direct quotations from the interviews and diaries were not

credited through demographic information. In addition, research findings were

reported in an aggregated manner for both schools, in order to avoid any

unpleasant consequence that school identification could have led to. In addition,

the informants were told that their names, any demographic information relating to

them, and their answers to all questions would be treated with strict confidence.

This was also a point made on the consent form they had to sign before completing

the questionnaire. I explained to the participants that although I asked them for

their name and email address on the cover page, I did so only because some of

them would be further invited to take part in a follow-up interview or a diary

study, and I had to be able to contact them again.

d) Beneficence. Cohen et al. (2007) claimed that potential informants could be

persuaded to participate in research if they could see that this would bring

personal, educational and social benefits. Thus, apart from contributing to the

literature of a lesser documented affective factor through my project, it was my

objective to help students speculate on their stressful reactions to EFL learning and

read their emotions when in class. Through the dissemination of my findings in

Greece and elsewhere, my research was hoped to have the potential to raise

questions that could ultimately lead to the creation of anxiety-free atmospheres in

language schools. This was emphasised to all the participants before the

administration of the questionnaire and the data collection through interviews, and

later again during the diary keeping training session. With reference to the latter,

and as was also explained in the section on the present diary study (4.8.2.2) earlier,

I highlighted that diary writing could provide students with invaluable writing

115

practice. What is more, I gave them the opportunity (and most of them seized it) to

arrange individual tutorial-like sessions with them and discuss their writings.

4.13 Conclusion

This chapter offered an in-depth discussion of the methodological decisions I

made with reference to the research design of the present project. A critical overview

of theories of mixed methods research, and of the research paradigm and approach

governing this study were presented first in order to explicate what type of research

was conducted and why. Detailed information about the participants, the instruments,

and the techniques of data collection and analysis, was provided for the quantitative

and qualitative components of the study. The main aspects of quality in quantitative

and qualitative research, as well as ethical issues, were discussed next. In Chapters 5

and 6 that follow, I present the quantitative results and qualitative findings of this

project.

116

CHAPTER 5

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

5.1 Introduction

As justified in the Methodology chapter, the study implemented a sequential

mixed methods design, using quantitative and qualitative data to address the research

questions. This chapter reports on the quantitative results of this project, whereas the

next chapter will present the qualitative findings. Although the two strands are

presented in two separate sections, they are complementary and will be integrated in

the Discussion chapter.

This chapter is organised into two main parts: descriptive statistics and

inferential statistics. In the first section, the distribution and frequencies of each

questionnaire item are presented. The second section concentrates on group effects

through correlations and analysis of variance, as well as on multivariate statistics, and

in particular factor analysis.

5.2 Descriptive statistics

In this section, measures of central tendency, that is the means (M) and

standard deviations (SD), as well as the frequencies, of speaking anxiety and writing

anxiety variables will be presented. The section aims at providing a rough idea of the

participants’ conceptualisations of classroom speaking and writing anxiety.

Before moving on to describe the statistics for the LA questionnaire, I present

the results of the normality tests I performed in order to check that the data were

normally distributed. Table 4 shows the results of the Kolgomorov-Smirnov test and

117

the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Shapiro-Wilk test is appropriate for sample sizes as large

as 2000, therefore it is used here as the numerical means for assessing normality.

Table 4. Tests of normality for the LA questionnaire

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Stati

stic Df Sig.

Stati

stic df Sig.

Total Anxiety

Score

.059 128 .200*

.983 128 .513

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

The Sig. value of the test is .513, that is, greater than .05, which allowed me to

conclude that the data came from a normal distribution. The normality of the data is

also represented graphically in Figure 2.

118

Figure 2. The normal Q-Q plot for the LA questionnaire

5.2.1 Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

The main descriptive statistics for the data collected through the adapted

FLCAS are summarised in Table 5. As can be seen in the means column of the table,

item 10 (“I worry about the consequences of failing my English language class”) had

the highest mean value (M = 3.34) with 74 out of a total of 128 students either

agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. One of the findings of the study

therefore is that students’ anxiety stemmed from their fear of failing the course. Items

2 (“I don’t worry about making mistakes in my English language class”) and 22 (“I

don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for my English language class”) also had

considerably higher mean values than others (i.e., 2.86 and 2.85 respectively). Thus,

119

most students rated their concern over errors and their anxiety over being well

prepared for the lesson very highly, demonstrating that these two variables also

influenced their levels of anxiety in the EFL classroom.

Looking at the frequencies section in Table 5, an overwhelming majority of

the participating students either strongly disagreed or disagreed with items 17 (“I

often feel like not going to my English language class”; N =117) and 26 (“I feel more

tense and nervous in my English language class than in my other classes”; N = 101).

In other words, most of these students did not exhibit avoidance behaviour in the

form of skipping class, nor did they feel more anxious in their EFL class than in any

of their other classes. Although a vast majority of students claimed not to avoid the

lessons, just over half of the respondents (N = 68) marked their unwillingness to take

more EFL classes (item 5), and 86 of them reported being worried about the classes

even before entering them (item 28).

120

Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies for the items of the FLCAS questionnaire

No. Variable M SD

Frequencies

SD9

D N A S

A

1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my English language class. 2.72 1.115 14 52 26 28 8

2. I don’t worry about making mistakes in my English language class. 2.86 1.135 13 45 25 37 8

3. I tremble when I know that I am going to be called on in my English language class. 2.01 .968 41 51 22 12 0

4. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in the English language. 2.44 1.135 29 43 25 28 2

5. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English language classes. 2.66 1.187 16 52 29 17 13

6. During my English language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with

the course.

2.64 1.078 17 48 33 24 6

7. I keep thinking that the other students are better at English than I am. 2.49 1.122 26 45 31 20 6

9. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in my English language class. 2.17 1.066 41 45 22 19 1

10. I worry about the consequences of failing my English language class. 3.34 1.179 15 15 24 60 14

11. I don’t understand why some people get so upset over English language classes. 2.62 1.130 17 45 35 22 7

12. In my English language class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know. 2.27 1.167 34 54 14 19 6

13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English language class. 2.14 1.048 41 46 26 12 3

15. I get upset when I don’t understand what the English teacher is correcting. 2.68 1.150 21 44 22 37 4

16. Even if I am well prepared for my English class, I feel anxious about it. 2.58 1.320 32 40 19 24 13

17. I often feel like not going to my English language class. 1.48 .896 86 31 1 7 2

18. I feel confident when I speak in my English language class. 2.34 1.090 23 49 32 17 3

19. I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make. 2.14 .876 31 57 32 7 1

20. I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called on in my English language class. 2.18 1.111 39 43 24 18 2

22. I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for my English language class. 2.85 1.137 11 50 24 33 10

23. I always feel that the other students speak the English language better than I do. 2.40 1.104 28 42 30 25 1

24. I feel very self-conscious about speaking the English language in front of other students. 2.55 1.170 5 5 14 50 52

9 SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neither Agree Nor Disagree; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

121

25. My English language class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind. 1.98 1.068 50 46 16 12 3

26. I feel more tense and nervous in my English language class than in my other classes. 1.81 .962 58 43 18 6 2

27. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my English language class. 2.20 1.045 33 53 24 14 3

28. When I’m on my way to my English language class, I feel very sure and relaxed. 2.31 .994 24 62 23 16 3

29. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the English teacher says. 2.41 1.160 29 48 22 23 5

30. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to speak the English language. 2.61 1.117 16 48 32 24 6

31. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the English language. 2.99 .992 2 8 5 51 51

33. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions which I haven’t prepared in advance. 2.49 1.012 19 54 31 21 3

122

Participants’ disagreement with items depicting purely negative

psychosomatic and behavioural reactions to classroom speaking anxiety was also

evident. Specifically, 92 students disagreed with item 3 (“I tremble when I know I am

going to be called on in my English language class”), 88 with item 12 (“In my

English language class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know”), 87 with item 13

(“It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English language class”), 86 with

item 9 (“I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in my English

language class”), 86 with item 27 (“I get nervous and confused when I am speaking

in my English language class”), and 82 students with item 20 (“I can feel my heart

pounding when I am going to be called on in my English language class”). This is a

clear indication that classroom speaking anxiety has more of a psychological and

cognitive rather than physical impact on the participating students.

Another important implication emerging from Table 5 is students’ low sense

of self-confidence and self-efficacy. In particular, 36 participants agreed with item 1

(“I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my English language

class”), and 72 disagreed with item 18 (“I feel confident when I speak in my English

language class”). The interviews and diary entries will provide more details about the

close and complex connection between self-concepts and LA.

Among other revealing findings, Table 5 also shows that the respondents were

preoccupied with negative evaluations by their peers. Specifically, a vast majority of

students (N = 102) either strongly agreed or agreed with statements 24 (“I feel very

self-conscious about speaking the English language in front of other students”) and

31 (“I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the English

language”), with the latter item reaching the highest mean score (M = 2.99) out of all

the items in the questionnaire. Despite fearing evaluation by classmates, students

123

maintained a strong sense of self, neither believing that the other students are better at

English than them nor thinking that their peers speak the language better than them.

On the other hand, students disagreed with items 19 (“I am afraid that my English

teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make”) and 33 (“I get nervous when the

English teacher asks questions which I haven’t prepared in advance”). This study

therefore suggests that students mostly feared evaluation by their classmates rather

than their teacher.

5.2.2 English as a Second Language Writing Apprehension Test (ESLWAT)

The main descriptive statistics for the data collected through the adapted

ESLWAT are summarised in Table 6. One immediate evident result is that, as was

the case with the FLCAS too, a very large majority of the participating students (N =

102) claimed that they did not avoid writing in English (item 1), nor did they think

that the EFL writing classes were a frightening experience for them (item 5). Students

did not endorse statements describing negative psychosomatic reactions to writing

anxiety either. In particular, 92 students strongly disagreed or disagreed with item 7

(“My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition in English”), and

86 with item 13 (“I’m nervous about writing in English”).

A brief look at the table also reveals that many statements concentrate on

students’ attitudes towards the writing skill and towards the English writing class. As

seen in the frequencies’ columns, it is rather telling that approximately half of the

respondents were not particularly keen to work on writing in English. Only 18

students either agreed or strongly agreed with item 3 (“I look forward to writing

down my ideas in English”), 13 with item 6 (“Handing in a composition written in

English makes me feel good”), 18 with item 10 (“I like to write my ideas down in

124

English”), 13 with item 15 (“I enjoy writing in English”), 20 with item 17 (“Writing

in English is a lot of fun”), and 8 with item 19 (“I like seeing my thoughts on paper in

English”). More detailed analyses of the students’ interviews will provide further

insights into these statistics later, and will examine whether negative attitudes to

writing influence and/or are influenced by writing anxiety.

Other noteworthy descriptive statistics related to the ESLWAT include those

questionnaire items depicting students’ self-concepts again (i.e., items 11, 21, 22, 23,

24). Most participants reported feelings of low self-confidence in expressing their

ideas clearly in writing, and weak self-efficacy as far as writing good compositions is

concerned. However, they believed they could efficiently manage the time to be

devoted to a writing task, submit a well-written final product, and, interestingly, write

in English equally well with, or even better than, other people. One therefore wonders

if writing anxiety could be associated with different stages of a writing lesson,

namely process and product writing. As we will see below, the qualitative findings

will provide more details about such relationships. Finally, looking back at the table

again, it is interesting to note that most students would fear more if their written work

was evaluated by their peers rather than by their tutor.

125

Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies for the items of the ESLWAT questionnaire

No. Variable M SD Frequencies

SD D N A SA

1. I avoid writing in English. 1.87 1.007 57 45 15 8 3

2a. I have no fear of my English writing being evaluated by my teacher. 2.70 1.154 17 49 28 24 10

2b. I have no fear of my English writing being evaluated by my peers. 2.28 .988 25 64 19 18 2

3. I look forward to writing down my ideas in English. 2.55 .912 15 47 48 16 2

5. Taking an English composition course is a very frightening experience. 1.90 .954 48 54 15 8 2

6. Handing in a composition in English makes me feel good. 2.50 .823 12 54 49 12 1

7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition in English. 2.14 1.010 36 56 21 12 3

10. I like to write my ideas down in English. 2.50 1.019 19 46 44 13 5

11. I feel confident in my ability to express my ideas clearly when writing in English. 2.24 .876 23 59 34 11 0

13. I’m nervous about writing in English. 2.23 1.021 30 56 23 16 2

15. I enjoy writing in English. 2.29 .915 24 53 37 13 0

17. Writing in English is a lot of fun. 2.67 1.005 13 40 54 13 7

19. I like seeing my thoughts on paper in English. 2.29 .843 20 61 39 6 2

21. I have a terrible time organising my ideas in an English composition course. 2.12 .953 34 55 26 11 1

22. When I hand in an English composition, I know I’m going to do poorly. 2.02 .803 32 70 18 8 0

23. It’s easy for me to write good compositions in English. 2.57 .919 9 57 41 17 3

24. I don’t think I write as well in English as most people. 2.34 .959 20 60 30 15 2

126

5.3 Inferential statistics

The procedures conducted for inferential purposes are presented in this

section. Although more tests were initially conducted, only those tests with

statistically significant results appear here as these are generalisable.

5.3.1 One-way ANOVA: Level of proficiency in English and language anxiety

ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) is used with quantitative research involving

more than two conditions, testing whether these different conditions have resulted in

significantly different scores. In statistical terms, ANOVA will tell us whether the

change in the independent variable has affected the scores of the dependent variable

(Brace, Kemp, and Snelgar, 2006; Dörnyei, 2007). One-way ANOVA was selected

since the distribution of the data was normal in this case too. Table 7 below shows the

results of the normality test.

Table 7. Normality test for the four groups of four independent variables

Tests of Normality

Level of student

proficiency in

English

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statisti

c df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Total Anxiety

Score

Lower

Intermediate

.128 24 .200* .956 24 .370

Upper

Intermediate

.084 32 .200* .984 32 .898

Lower Advanced .106 43 .200* .967 43 .252

Upper Advanced .082 29 .200* .966 29 .455

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

127

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was used to test for differences in LA

levels among students of different levels of proficiency in EFL. As explained in the

Methodology chapter, the participating students were divided into four proficiency

levels on the basis of CEFR, namely B1 (i.e., lower intermediate), B2 (i.e., upper

intermediate), C1 (i.e., lower advanced), and C2 (i.e., upper advanced). LA levels

differed significantly across the four groups, F (3,124) = 5.446, p = .001. Tables 8

and 9 present the sample ANOVA statistics for the present study, including

descriptive statistics for the subsamples compared.

Given that a major limitation of the results from a one-way ANOVA is that it

is unclear how the means differ, a post-hoc Tukey test was conducted to test all

possible pair-wise comparisons (i.e., B1 and B2, B1 and C1, B1 and C2, B2 and C1,

B2 and C2, C1 and C2). Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the four groups indicated

that the lower intermediate group (M = 129.12, 95% CI [120.02, 138.22]) gave

significantly higher LA levels than the upper advanced group (M = 105.1, 95% CI

[96.65, 113.54]), p = .001. Comparisons between the upper intermediate group (M =

112.62, 95% CI [104.76, 120.48]) and the other three groups, as well as between the

lower advanced group (M = 112.83, 95% CI [105.99, 119.68]) and the other three

groups, were not statistically significant at p < .05. Table 10 illustrates the results of

the Tukey post-hoc multiple comparisons of the four groups.

128

Table 8. Sample ANOVA statistics for the present study

ANOVA Total Anxiety Score

Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups (Combined) 7903.380 3 2634.460 5.446 .001

Linear Term Unweighted 6978.130 1 6978.130 14.425 .000

Weighted 6404.606 1 6404.606 13.240 .000

Deviation 1498.774 2 749.387 1.549 .217

Within Groups 59984.675 124 483.747

Total 67888.055 127

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for all four subsamples compared

Descriptives Total Anxiety Score

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Between-

Component

Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound

Lower Intermediate 24 129.1250 21.54533 4.39792 120.0272 138.2228 86.00 167.00

Upper Intermediate 32 112.6250 21.80670 3.85492 104.7628 120.4872 72.00 162.00

Lower Advanced 43 112.8372 22.23460 3.39075 105.9944 119.6800 72.00 160.00

Upper Advanced 29 105.1034 22.20255 4.12291 96.6581 113.5488 71.00 151.00

Total 128 114.0859 23.12037 2.04357 110.0421 118.1298 71.00 167.00

Model Fixed Effects 21.99426 1.94404 110.2381 117.9337

Random Effects 4.65401 99.2748 128.8971 68.28788

129

Table 10. Mean differences among the four groups

Multiple Comparisons

Total Anxiety Score

Tukey HSD

(I) Level of student

proficiency in

English

(J) Level of

student

proficiency in

English

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Lower Intermediate Upper

Intermediate

16.50000* 5.93913 .032 1.0332 31.9668

Lower Advanced 16.28779* 5.60411 .022 1.6935 30.8821

Upper Advanced 24.02155* 6.06936 .001 8.2157 39.8274

Upper Intermediate Lower

Intermediate

-16.50000* 5.93913 .032 -31.9668 -1.0332

Lower Advanced -.21221 5.13489 1.000 -13.5845 13.1601

Upper Advanced 7.52155 5.63898 .543 -7.1635 22.2066

Lower Advanced Lower

Intermediate

-16.28779* 5.60411 .022 -30.8821 -1.6935

Upper

Intermediate

.21221 5.13489 1.000 -13.1601 13.5845

Upper Advanced 7.73376 5.28497 .463 -6.0294 21.4969

Upper Advanced Lower

Intermediate

-24.02155* 6.06936 .001 -39.8274 -8.2157

Upper

Intermediate

-7.52155 5.63898 .543 -22.2066 7.1635

Lower Advanced -7.73376 5.28497 .463 -21.4969 6.0294

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

130

5.3.2 Factor analysis: Intraconstruct relationships

Exploratory factor analysis is a type of multivariate statistics that examines

whether one or more factors underlie a number of variables. The analysis usually

identifies the number of factors as well as which of the variables make up which

factor. Exploratory factor analysis therefore aims at reducing data by extracting

factors from the variables. Dörnyei (2010, p. 91) explained:

A well-designed questionnaire contains several items focused on each content area and

therefore the parallel items need to be summed up in multi-item scales for the purpose

of analysis. By so doing, we can create fewer but broader variables that carry almost as

much information as the original variables.

Creswell (2009, p. 218) also stated that, with factor analysis, a researcher qualifies

quantitative data as s/he “may create factors or themes that then can be compared

with themes from the qualitative database”.

For factor analysis to produce a reliable result, a sampling adequacy should be

guaranteed. This could be detected using the following two tests:

a) The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, an index used to

examine the appropriateness of factor analysis. Large KMO values (i.e., between

0.5 and 1.0) are good because they show that correlations among pairs of variables

(i.e., potential factors) can be explained by other variables. On the contrary, values

below 0.5 imply that factor analysis may not be appropriate.

b) The Bartlett’s test of sphericity, used to test the hypothesis that the correlation

matrix is an identity matrix, that is, the variables are uncorrelated in the

population; each variable correlates perfectly with itself (r = 1), but has no

correlation with other variables (r = 0). If the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is

significant, then factor analysis is feasible.

131

Taking into account the above assumptions, the present study showed that

factor analysis for both the FLCAS and the ESLWAT was appropriate. Tables 11 and

12 present the results of the KMO and Bartlett’s tests.

Table 11. KMO and Bartlett’s test for FLCAS

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy.

.842

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 1519.760

Df 406

Sig. .000

Table 12. KMO and Bartlett’s test for ESLWAT

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy.

.860

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 744.485

Df 136

Sig. .000

The FLCAS and the ESLWAT were therefore subjected to exploratory

principal components analysis with varimax rotation in order to identify those

components that best define each of the two anxiety measures. What follows are

general guidelines of the analytical approaches adopted to investigate the component

structure of both scales.

Selection of the best rotated solution was based on several considerations.

First, an important guideline for the selection of the number of components to be

extracted was the scree plot. Extraction of components that were one above and one

below the solution suggested by the scree plot was also examined in order to choose

the solution that accounted for as much total variance as possible and which would

help me to retain an interpretable component structure. Second, following the

suggestions made by Cheng et al. (1999), an item could be included in a factor if it

132

had a primary loading of a minimum of .50 and no secondary loadings within .20 of

the primary loading. This second criterion was applied to establish a cutoff point for

inclusion of a variable in a factor for interpretation purposes.

The principal components analysis of each instrument based on the

considerations mentioned above is presented in the following two sub-sections.

5.3.2.1 Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

The initial run of the FLCAS produced nine factors with eigenvalue greater

than one. On the basis of the criteria listed in section 5.3.2, a three-component

solution, accounting for 42.5% of the total variance, was selected. Table 13 presents

the loadings of variables on factors and the percentage of the variance for each factor.

The first component (FLCAS1) consisted of ten items accounting for 18.5%

of the total variance. Most of these items seem to share a feeling of speaking anxiety,

low self-beliefs, and fear of negative evaluation by the peers, thereby signifying that

anxiety about speaking in English forms an integral part of LA. A number of self-

related constructs, such as self-confidence and self-efficacy, also emerged as part of

factor one. Specifically, the two items with the highest loadings on this factor (items

20 and 23, loadings = .668 and .664 respectively) address negative anxiety reactions

to speaking English and low self-perceptions of ability when compared with others.

Similar feelings are expressed through items 31, 7, 3, 1, and 13. A positively worded

item (item 18), referring to self-confidence with respect to speaking English, was also

loaded on this factor. The remaining two items (item 26 and 8) are not speaking-skill-

specific, but on the contrary reflect global worry about the English class. The former,

which marks a contrast between English language classes and other subject classes,

was highly loaded on this component, as opposed to the latter that targets testing

133

situations in class and which had the lowest loading out of all variables in factor one.

This first component (FLCAS1) was labeled Speaking anxiety and fear of negative

evaluation.

The second FLCAS component (FLCAS2), explaining 16.6% of the total

variance, included five items that characterise students’ negative affect with

connection to the English teacher. In particular, items 15, 4, and 29 depict dread of

failing to understand what the teacher is saying or correcting, while items 19 and 33

respectively describe students’ fear of being corrected by the teacher or being asked

again by the teacher to respond in the English language class. This factor was named

Anxiety towards the English teacher.

Lastly, three items comprised the third FLCAS factor (FLCAS3), accounting

for 7.3% of the total variance. The items included here indicate participants’ attitudes

towards the English class and the extent to which they are relaxed during the lesson.

This component was called Comfortableness with taking English classes.

134

Table 13. Factor loadings of the FLCAS items and percentage of variance

Label Speaking anxiety

and fear of negative

evaluation

Anxiety towards

the English

teacher

Comfortableness

with taking

English classes

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

20. I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called on in my English language class. .668

23. I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do. .664

31. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak in English. .651

26. I feel more tense and nervous in my English language class than in my other classes. .644

7. I keep thinking that the other students are better at English than I am. .639

3. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in my English language class. .602

1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my English language class. .599

18. I feel confident when I speak in my English language class. .529

13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English language class. .524

8. I am usually at ease during tests in my English language class. .501

15. I get upset when I don’t understand what the English teacher is correcting. .837

4. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in the English language. .790

29. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the English teacher says. .735

19. I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make. .692

33. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions which I haven’t prepared in advance. .687

11. I don’t understand why some people get so upset over English language classes. .686

28. When I’m on my way to my English class, I feel very sure and relaxed. .627

5. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English language classes. .579

% of variance 18.5 16.6 7.3

135

5.3.2.2 English as a Second Language Writing Apprehension Test (ESLWAT)

In the initial run of the rotated component matrix on the ESLWAT items, four

factors with eigenvalue greater than one emerged. Based on the considerations

outlined in section 5.3.2, a three-component solution was selected for the ESLWAT.

The three selected components accounted for 51.9% of the total variance. Table 14

presents the loadings of variables on factors and the percentage of the variance for

each factor.

Six items were loaded on the first factor (ESLWAT1), accounting for 20.2%

of the total variance. All items included in this factor are worded positively and

indicate students’ likes and dislikes with respect to writing in English. Compared

with the remaining two items, the first four items that loaded on this factor share

similar loadings. This factor was given the label Attitudes towards writing in English,

to encompass both positive and negative student attitudes to writing.

The second factor (ESLWAT2) included five items and accounted for 18.3%

of the variance. The first four items are negative-toned, and refer to negative self-

perceptions and concern about potential failure in writing classes. In particular, item

22 describes students’ low self-perceptions of performance in EFL writing, item 7

indicates that writing anxiety is symptomatic of mind block, item 21 measures

students’ difficulty with the writing process, and finally item 5 implies that a

sentiment of fear is connected with EFL writing classes. On the contrary, the last item

that was loaded on this factor, item 23, addresses students’ levels of self-efficacy in

relation to English writing. Therefore, this factor presents a Self-derogation

dimension when writing in English.

The last ESLWAT component (ESLWAT3), consisting of two items and

accounting for 13.4% of the total variance, is characterised by a strong evaluation

136

apprehension element either by the teacher or by the peers. This component was

named Fear of negative evaluation.

137

Table 14. Factor loadings of the ESLWAT items and percentage of variance

Label Attitudes

towards writing

in English

Self-derogation

when writing in

English

Fear of negative

evaluation

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

10. I like to write down my ideas in English. .716

17. Writing in English is a lot of fun. .714

15. I enjoy writing in English. .712

3. I look forward to writing down my ideas in English. .711

19. I like seeing my thoughts on paper in English. .607

6. Handing in a composition written in English makes me feel good. .582

22. When I hand in an English composition, I know I am going to do poorly. .785

7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition in English. .761

21. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in an English composition course. .647

5. Taking an English composition course is a very frightening experience. .574

23. It is easy for me to write good compositions in English. .573

2a. I have no fear of my English writing’s being evaluated by my teacher. .824

2b. I have no fear of my English writing’s being evaluated by my peers. .653

% of variance 20.2 18.3 13.4

138

5.3.3 Correlations: Interconstruct relationships

Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the overall

FLCAS and ESLWAT, as well as their subcomponents. Table 15 presents the

correlation matrix.

Table 15. Correlations among the overall FLCAS, overall ESLWAT, and their

subcomponents

CA10

CA1 CA2 CA3 WA11

WA1 WA2 WA3

CA 1.000

CA1 .913* 1.000

CA2 .731* .499* 1.000

CA3 .451* .291* .185* 1.000

WA .543* .477* .340* .362* 1.000

WA1 .393* .356* .175 .342* .823* 1.000

WA2 .553* .437* .425* .336* .815* .493* 1.000

WA3 .304* .300* .161 .154* .605* .327* .375* 1.000

* p < .05

A significant and moderate correlation (r = .54) was found between the

FLCAS and the ESLWAT. In addition, the strongest correlation was between the

overall FLCAS and ESLWAT2 (Self-derogation when writing in English; r = .55)

and between the overall ESLWAT and FLCAS1 (Speaking anxiety and fear of

negative evaluation; r = .47).

The overall FLCAS was highly correlated with FLCAS1 (Speaking anxiety

and fear of negative evaluation; r = .91), less highly correlated with FLCAS2

(Anxiety towards the English teacher; r = .71), and moderately correlated with

FLCAS3 (Comfortableness with taking English classes; r = .45). As far as the writing

anxiety correlations are concerned, there were significant and high correlations

between the overall ESLWAT, ESLWAT1 (Attitudes towards writing in English; r =

.82) and ESLWAT2 (Self-derogation when writing in English; r = .81). Lastly, a

10

FLCAS. 11

ESLWAT.

139

significant and moderate correlation was found between the overall ESLWAT and

ESLWAT3 (Fear of negative evaluation; r = .60).

5.4 Conclusion

The descriptive statistics demonstrated that speaking anxiety is largely

associated with students’ fear of failing the course and concern over errors. Students

also reported that they did not avoid their speaking and writing classes. A strong link

was found between skill-specific anxieties and weak self-concepts. The one-way

ANOVA showed that the lower-intermediate students gave significantly higher LA

levels than their more advanced counterparts. Finally, the exploratory factor analysis

revealed that speaking anxiety was again related to fear of negative evaluation,

anxiety towards the English teacher, and students’ less comfortableness with taking

English classes. Factor analysing the writing anxiety questionnaire showed that

writing anxiety stemmed from attitudes towards writing in English, self-derogation

when writing in English, and fear of negative evaluation.

The quantitative results have provided some interesting initial insights into

Greek students’ LA, and will find solid support in the qualitative findings that are

presented in the next chapter. The interview and diary analyses will also enrich these

results by suggesting additional dimensions to the complexity of the LA of Greek

EFL learners. The quantitative and qualitative results will then be discussed together

in Chapter 7.

140

CHAPTER 6

QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

6.1 Introduction

The role of the interviews and the diary study in this project was to shed light

on the statistics and explore unexpected insights and viewpoints that would have

otherwise been hard or even impossible to obtain through the questionnaire. As such,

the data were analysed combining deductive and inductive approaches. Respectively,

a categorical scheme suggested by the quantitative analysis of the questionnaires and

by the existing literature was applied, whilst at the same time a dialectical stance was

adopted in order to identify additional themes that were meaningful to the

participants. Every individual view expressed in this qualitative strand of the project

was appreciated in itself as a source of subjective meaning contributing to the general

understanding of the topic under investigation.

The presentation of the qualitative findings will primarily be guided by

research questions 4 (What aspects are perceived as the main causes of classroom

LA?) and 5 (What strategies do Greek EFL students deploy to minimise their

classroom and skill-specific LA and how do their teachers choose to intervene?).

However, insights from the learner diaries and student and teacher interviews will

supplement the quantitative results reported in the previous chapter, namely those

relating to speaking anxiety and writing anxiety. Before presenting the results, short

profiles will be included for every participant, which provide a useful background for

the presentation of the qualitative results and aim at extending our understanding of

the participants’ viewpoints.

141

6.2 Participants’ profiles

Information about the teacher participants was provided in the Methodology

chapter. Table 16 offers important background information about my thirteen student

participants, which will be very useful in understanding their contributions later. The

table contains their pseudonyms, their gender and age, their total anxiety score, and a

brief summary of their interviews and, for some of them, of their diaries. These

summaries were written by myself after the data analysis stage, and consist of direct

citation, concentrating on the salience of the students’ references to LA. Miles and

Huberman (1994, p. 86) in fact advised researchers to include “individual case

synopses” that aim to disclose what is important to each individual’s experience.

Mann (2011, p. 6) commented that there is something appealing in qualitative

interviews, but “they often tend to be presented bereft of context and methodological

detail”. Summarising the participating students’ thoughts and feelings about

classroom EFL learning was therefore thought of as a means of contextualising both

the interviews and diaries, and of giving the reader a rough idea of how LA is

distributed and manifests within the students. Participants are listed according to their

anxiety score starting with the most anxious interviewee. The reader is advised to

read the remainder of this chapter in conjunction with Table 16.

142

Table 16. Student participants’ profiles

Participant Gender Age Total LA score

(min. = 56,

max. = 280)

Interviewee Diarist Summary

Natassa F 26 254 Yes No My anxiety stems from my belief that I am not good, that I may fail the

course and also fail to meet others’ expectations. I become anxious when I

speak in English, I get embarrassed. I get very anxious when I see my

classmates writing; I do not focus on my writing but on what the others are

doing. I am competitive against my classmates; I feel I have to do better

than them. What I know I am good at doesn’t make me anxious. When I get

anxious, I sometimes cry because I think I didn’t do as well as I could do. I

used to be afraid of English because of a strict teacher I had in the past. I

like being told that I am good at English. Marks – especially for skills I am

good at – make me anxious. It’s the way my mistakes are perceived by my

teacher rather than the mistake I’ve made that makes me anxious. I did very

well in two speaking tasks before Christmas – it was right before the

holiday, I was in a good mood, and my anxiety was productive and under

control. When I get anxious, my heart beats fast, I may suffer from stomach

disorders, and I feel like my mind stops working. I am concerned over

others’ opinions. I am not self-confident and I believe that the others are

better than me. When my peers speak in class, I don’t focus on what they

say but try to think of what I will say. I often focus on my anxiety rather

than on any weaknesses I may have in English; it’s like a reluctance to face

what’s difficult.

Kalliopi F 27 242 Yes No I become anxious when I am not well prepared for the class. Exams may

also make me nervous. In class, I become anxious because I have to be

fluent. When I was younger, I used to become very anxious at the presence

of my teacher and peers; now, things are different. I am not as anxious as I

used to be because I have better English now. I sometimes become anxious

when I don’t have time to do all my homework. I never skip classes. When I

become anxious, I don’t cry or anything, but I avoid eye contact with the

teacher and I feel bad about it. If I fail, I will worry a lot because I will feel

that I haven’t studied enough. I like English and the lesson is always

143

pleasant. I avoid comparing myself with my classmates. I believe that one’s

anxiety depends on one’s personality. Anxious teachers, or teachers with a

judgmental attitude, can make students anxious too. Being anxious may also

mean that you want to do well.

Sophia F 19 239 Yes No Writing in English is my concern. I feel self-conscious when I speak in

English at the presence of my peers. I am filled with remorse when I haven’t

studied much, and this is what I believe part of my anxiety about English

stems from. However, when I am not well prepared, it means I haven’t

expended much effort so I expect I will not do well. If I have studied hard, I

get anxious because I don’t want to fail. Peers can either be very anxious

themselves, or snobbish about others; in either cases, they can make you

anxious. I really like working with the two teachers I have now, and

comparing them with some other English language teachers that I had in the

past, I drew the conclusion that teachers can make a real difference to the

learning process and to how anxious students feel about English. Lessons

should take place in a friendly classroom atmosphere, otherwise students are

not really keen to attend. In the language school, they announce the results

of our tests, and hang them on the wall; I don’t like this practice, I don’t

want other students to know what mark I got. Whatever you are good at

doesn’t make you anxious. If English language learning is your own

conscious decision, then I believe you have positive attitudes towards

English and this reduces your stress.

Nikos M 29 226 Yes No I am anxious about English because I feel I am not good enough to succeed.

I once failed the Michigan proficiency preliminary exam; I got 21 instead of

23. I am self-confident when speaking in English, because I know I can lead

the discussion the way I want. Writing makes me anxious, because I know

that it’s either you know the topic and have ideas about it, or you don’t.

When I am anxious, I get fidgety, I sweat, and I stutter. Anxiety is a

personality thing. There are no specific strategies to use to minimise my

anxiety about English. What I try to do is get well-prepared for the class and

study more. I am a perfectionist and I believe this increases my anxiety. I

don’t want to fail. I worry when I see I’ve made many mistakes in my

writing, but at the same time this encourages me to study more. I may avoid

something if I realise that it’s not worth it. I will not get anxious about

144

something that I feel will not offer me much. The reason why I am learning

English is because I need it for my job. This makes me anxious because if I

fail it means I am not well-qualified to get that post at work. In writing, I

have to think of ideas and then use the correct English to express them.

Zoe F 27 225 Yes No In the classroom, I am anxious about essay writing, or making grammar

mistakes when I speak, because I am used to speaking in Greek. I think that

my classmates are doing better than me, or they will make fun of me if I

make a mistake. If I am not well prepared for the lesson, or if I don’t do

things the way my teacher wants, I become anxious. I often freeze in class

and feel like I can’t speak. I want to see the classroom as a community

where I can get help from my classmates, and where they can explain to me

things I may have not understood. I become anxious when my teacher is

correcting me, because the number of the mistakes that I will make is an

indication of my level. Teachers do not actually mark our speaking, which is

something that makes speaking more stressful than the other three skills.

Language anxiety is also a matter of experience. Teacher attitude does play

a crucial role in how students perceive of themselves, and in how anxious

they get during the lessons. When I am anxious, I get fidgety in class and

can’t concentrate. It helps me to feel that I can rely on my classmates when I

am anxious, when I have a question about the lessons, or when I can’t come

up with ideas in writing.

Elisa F 19 214 Yes Yes When I am anxious, I get a stomach ache. Anxiety affects my performance,

and I suddenly feel that I cannot achieve my full potential in class. When I

get anxious, I try to think positively, to think that everything is OK. Writing

in English makes me anxious, because I am never sure whether I will have

the time to write down everything that I want. Vocabulary makes me

anxious; there are different English words with very similar meanings and

with only one equivalent in Greek, so it’s not always easy to choose the one

you need in English as there are only subtle differences between them.

Thinking in terms of my first language does not really help much. In the

past, I had a teacher who was so anxious that I was hoping for the lesson to

finish as soon as possible. English makes me anxious because it’s not my

mother tongue.

Maria F 23 211 Yes Yes I become anxious when I know I am not well-prepared for the class and the

145

teacher asks me questions. When I get anxious, I avoid eye contact with the

teacher. Anxiety is a fear of failure. If I fail the English course, I will feel

that the effort I expended was worthless. I sometimes compare myself to

other students. My mind often stops working when I become anxious.

Anxiety depends on our personality. Anxiety can signify some positive

things, for example that a student cares about his/her performance in

English. Since we have easy access to English nowadays, we can practise

the language, improve our English, and reduce our anxiety over it.

Kiki F 35 207 Yes Yes To me, anxiety equals fear of failure. When I get anxious, I forget things I

know; when I leave the classroom though, I remember everything and I am

able to spot my mistakes, and this is so irritating. I become anxious when I

speak in English, because of the limited time I have at my disposal to think

and say something; even if I were given more time, I believe that it wouldn’t

be enough. I have to do well and get the certificate, for professional

development purposes. I like being corrected as this helps me to improve. I

get anxious when I speak in English and my teacher can’t understand what I

am saying. I am the oldest student in the class, and I feel I have to do well. I

always try to encourage myself. I am concerned over others’ opinions about

me. When something makes me anxious, I don’t usually avoid it but I try to

do it. I always do my homework. If I fail, I will need to pay extra money,

and this also makes me anxious. I sometimes feel there are so many things

to learn, especially when it comes to vocabulary and words that mean many

different things.

Anna F 18 203 Yes Yes If I am well-prepared for the class, I am not anxious. When I get anxious, I

talk to my teachers and I also try to think positively. I like writing in English

and that’s the main reason why I was keen to keep a diary for you. I think I

sometimes push myself, because I don’t want to be perceived as a weak

student in the eyes of my peers. I don’t like being laughed at. I get anxious

when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying. I feel nice when I get a

high mark. A low mark I may get may stem from my anxiety. When I am

anxious, my mind stops working and I can’t understand what I am being

told or what I am reading. I become anxious when something is difficult, or

when I am not given enough time to do it. In writing in English, I get

anxious because we are given a word limit. When I get anxious, I get

146

fidgety, I sweat, I may get a terrible stomach ache, and I feel bad and tense.

If I am anxious over something, I don’t usually avoid it; it really depends on

how important that thing is.

Danae F 18 200 Yes Yes I am anxious about speaking in English because I am afraid that I will make

mistakes. I get anxious when I am not sure whether I’ve used the correct

verb tense or the right word. I fear being laughed at. I am more anxious in

my English class than in my other classes, because I have to use a foreign

language. I am anxious when I know I am not well-prepared for the class,

and particularly when I haven’t studied the vocabulary. Some English words

have more than one meaning, or may not have a Greek equivalent, and this

makes me anxious. When I am anxious, my memory suffers and my heart

beats fast.

Fanis M 18 197 Yes Yes Anxiety is a kind of fear. When I get anxious, I get a stomach ache. When I

get anxious, I try to encourage myself. I am afraid that I will make mistakes

and this usually increases my anxiety. Different words that mean pretty

much the same thing may make me anxious. Whenever I become anxious, I

think positively, and I try to shift my focus from my anxiety to the task at

hand.

Ioanna F 18 192 Yes Yes I become very anxious when I know that I don’t have enough time for the

writing task, and when I am told in advance that something is difficult.

Writing in class is the most anxiety-provoking activity for me. Sometimes I

am about to cry when I know that the time I have at my disposal is so

limited. When I am anxious, I usually complain in class. I try to shift my

attention to the English task, and forget about my anxiety. I get anxious

when for example I get 59 and the pass mark is 60. Aspects of the lesson

that I like don’t make me anxious.

Katerina F 19 187 Yes No When I am anxious, I freeze. I can get very anxious when I realise that I am

not being understood by my interlocutor(s). I become anxious because I

want to be perfect. Working in pairs or groups in class also makes me

anxious, because I feel that the onus is on me to ensure that the task will be

completed on time and successfully. Peers can make you anxious when you

realise that they are doing much better than you; that’s why placing students

in the right class according to their level really does matter. Making

mistakes is seen as something natural by our teacher; in fact, we are

147

encouraged to learn the language through trial and error in order to avoid

making mistakes later on, in an exam and when we are actually using the

language for communication purposes. When I have studied hard, I become

anxious because I don’t want to fail. If I don’t do well despite having

studied, I feel even worse. Positive thinking helps me a lot. One’s

motivation to learn English may determine one’s anxiety levels.

148

6.3 Skill-specific anxieties

6.3.1 Speaking anxiety

Speaking anxiety concerned most students and emerged as a multifaceted

variable comprising a range of subjective aspects and effects. The key concepts

associated with it can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Key concepts associated with speaking anxiety

As evidenced in Figure 3, students’ speaking anxiety stemmed from concerns

over language use, classroom dynamics, the schools’ policy on language education,

and psychological factors connected with EFL learning. First, a recurrent justification

that both students and teachers gave for anxiety over speaking in EFL was that, when

using English to communicate, learners needed to make sure that their pronunciation,

grammar, and lexical choice and use remained accurate. Second, learners themselves

were aware of the fact that they were expected to speak spontaneously with limited or

even no preparation time before their actual speaking took place. Maria’s account

was quite self-explanatory:

Speaking anxiety

Language use:

•Accuracy

•Speaking spontaneously

•Pauses

Classroom dynamics

Psychology:

•Self-concepts

•Fear of negative evaluation

School policy

149

I am anxious in class when the teacher asks questions and I have to think on my feet.

Sometimes I may not remember the English word. Or, I will need to choose the correct

verb tense or the correct preposition. The last two are a nightmare! And also speaking

should be spontaneous and you don’t have enough time to think like in writing.

Similar frustrations were generated by Kiki and Elisa in their diaries12

:

Yesterday we were talking about theatre in class and when it was my turn to speak, I

really couldn’t do it. I have a problem in saying something, I feel that I should have

plenty of time to think and to organise my thoughts, to choose the correct words, and

to express my opinion in the end. How much better things would be without the

speaking.

Especially when it comes to the speaking part, I get really nervous and confused. The

short time I have is not always enough for me to think and speak right.

In her interview too, Kiki emphasised the spontaneity required when speaking,

drawing an interesting comparison between speaking in EFL and driving:

While speaking, my interlocutor is waiting for my reply. If I had time to think about

my answer, that would be fine. But this is impossible. Time flies and I need to say

something. I am like this when I am driving. I am thinking that if someone comes and

stops right behind me, I am bothering him/her and I have to go. I have to be quick.

Teachers too emphasised the effect of the nature of speaking as a skill on their

students’ speaking anxiety. Bonnie claimed that, with spoken English, students were

experiencing long, negative pauses trying to collect their thoughts and their speech,

and Alexandra explained students’ high degree of speaking anxiety through the fact

that “in speaking, whatever you’ve said, you can’t take it back”.

Many students went on to discuss the critical role that mainly peers and

occasionally tutors played on their levels of speaking anxiety in class, proving that

classroom dynamics could influence the amount, quality, and type of spoken

interactions produced by them. These distinctive dynamics interplayed with the third,

12

Diary entries are kept in the original.

150

psychological dimension of the speaking anxiety model. Peer pressure weakened

students’ self-concepts, and their sense of self-efficacy and self-confidence, whilst at

the same time increasing their fear of negative evaluation. Although capable of

producing an accurate sentence, Natassa recollected the following classroom event:

We were chatting in class, and my classmate asked me something and I answered

‘Because I am foolish’. Then she asked me what this word meant. And the others were

laughing. So this situation influenced me negatively and then I was wondering if I had

made a mistake, or said something wrong. And above all it made me feel embarrassed

about speaking in English. I just doubt myself and my capacities and I believe that the

other students are better than me.

Natassa also offered a noteworthy glimpse into the influence of peer pressure on her

decision to speak in class, confessing that she even postponed speech production until

she was absolutely certain that what she had to say was accurate:

I get nervous when my peers make fun of me. However, the thing is that I never speak

in class unless I am 100% sure that I have the answer. I think there is an element of

anxiety there too. And also I don’t want them to judge me, or to think less of me,

because this will make me worry about my performance and I won’t be able to do well

in the next lesson.

Of the participants who referred to their English teachers as assessors of their

performance in class, most agreed that their comments were much appreciated and

well-received, and indeed maintained that giving feedback formed an integral part of

a teacher’s job. However, Kalliopi’s point of view appeared to be at odds with the

general picture. In an attempt to avoid becoming weak in the eyes of her teacher,

Kalliopi summarised the precaution expressively:

K: I really fear making mistakes, not because I’ve made a mistake and that means that

I haven’t studied enough, but rather because I tremble from my teacher’s and my

peers’ reaction to it. I know that my teacher calls on us in a predictable order and I

know when it is my turn to speak. So I read my question again and again to make sure

151

that I can give as accurate an answer as possible, but I ignore everything else that goes

on in the classroom at that time.

I: From your experience, what could your teacher’s reaction be like?

K: I don’t know. I think that my teacher will have a condescending attitude and will

tell me that I am not well prepared. And that my classmates will laugh at my mistake.

I: Does this happen in the end?

K: Well, I think that in a class there will possibly be one or two students that you don’t

like or they don’t like you. That’s why I am expecting them to laugh at my mistake. As

for the teacher, I think I want to show him that I am doing my best. But now that I

come to think about it, maybe it’s just a situation I’ve created in my mind. It may be

something like a phobia.

Whether it was a real or an imaginary situation, Kalliopi’s fear of being negatively

evaluated by her teacher ignited speaking anxiety in class. Kalliopi also felt that the

EFL classroom was as hierarchically structured an entity as a company, with the

teacher holding a high status in class much in the same way as a boss is leading a

company:

I see my teacher as my boss. When I know I am seeing someone who is superior to me

and I know that I will be judged by the way I’ll answer his/her questions, I get nervous.

I am not self-confident and I feel that my level of English is low.

Zoe also thought that the interactional context generates feelings of speaking anxiety:

In speaking, I first need to check what the communication with my interlocutor is like,

if s/he is friendly and easy-going, or if s/he is strict. The latter is definitely stressful

and makes me not want to speak much or even not at all.

Difficult interactional situations in class, where students notice that they cannot get

their message across, were also referred to in the interviews. Katerina said:

I become anxious when the others do not understand what I am saying. Then I try to

use other words to explain it.

Kiki shared a similar feeling:

152

I am anxious when I realise that Joanna [i.e., her teacher] cannot understand what I am

talking about, which means that I cannot get my message across.

Several teacher interviewees attributed new students’ speaking anxiety to the

language school’s policy on conducting the lessons through the medium of the L2

only. It was rather interesting to see that EFL teachers believed that external factors,

such as curricular decisions about the language of the lessons, could influence

learners’ speaking anxiety in the immediate language class. Bonnie said:

Because in most English language schools, I don’t know how many classes there are

and teachers speak in English. Many times I’ve come across students, new students

who told me ‘We never speak in the classroom. We just write and the teacher speaks.’

So they are not accustomed to talking in English. But they have to. They find that it is

something the teacher should do so I think that they find it more difficult, speaking in

English. So speaking anxiety, it’s a combination of anxiety and that many of them are

not used to speaking in English.

Teachers’ alleged insistence that the L1 should be avoided in the EFL classroom

translated into lessons that many of the students found demotivating, pointless, and

stressful. Argyris recounted the following:

But when a student comes from another school, an adult, at the age of twenty, twenty-

two, and they start working with our method, speaking only in English, this makes

them very stressed, because they are saying ‘Come on, are we going to talk in English

all the time?’, or ‘Am I supposed to stand up and talk in front of an audience?’, or ‘Am

I supposed to debate with other students?’. So they, it depends on when they come to

the school, and how they are trained.

Alexandra gave a similar answer:

They are not used to speaking in English. And that’s why what we try to do here at this

school anyway is that we try to speak as much English as possible from the younger

ages as well. Even though they won’t understand everything, and maybe that’s a

source of anxiety for them, when they start and they come to school and everyone

speaks English. They have that reaction a lot of times and I say everything in English

in the beginning and they sort of, you see the look on their faces, when they’re like ‘Oh

my God, what is she saying?’

153

However, Zoe had very strong views about the way oral practice of English was used

in class, explaining that it did not lead to extensive speaking practice (which would in

consequence increase students’ self-confidence and lower their speaking anxiety) due

to its reliance on formulaic exchanges between the teachers and the students:

Most of the times when we have an English lesson there is not much focus on

conversing in English. I mean that you go to the school and you work on exercises, or

the teacher tells you how to write an essay. Lessons usually focus on the writing

component rather than on speaking. Even when we enter the classroom and we speak

English with the teacher, it’s just the basics we say, such as hi, how are you, did you

do your homework. This is in every lesson. And even though teachers stress the

importance of speaking in English in class, I don’t think this is done in a way that will

help me to learn more, increase my confidence in my speaking abilities, and reduce my

anxiety about speaking.

6.3.2 Writing anxiety

Teacher and student interviewees attributed writing anxiety to a range of

factors that occasionally overlapped, as summarised in Table 17. The figures in

brackets refer to the number of mentions of each factor by the teacher and student

participants.

Table 17. Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the causes of writing anxiety

Teachers Students

L1 writing deficiencies (6) Lack of ideas (7)

Lack of ideas (2) Limited time to work on an activity (5)

Less experience with foreign language

writing strategies (2)

Writing in class (2)

Concern over errors (red pen) (1) Concern over errors (teacher’s reaction) (1)

Limited time to work on an activity (1) L1 writing deficiencies (1)

From a teacher perspective, L1 writing deficiencies along with difficulties in

generating ideas constituted the two most widely-mentioned causes of EFL writing

in-class anxiety. A justification that teachers gave for L1 writing deficiencies

154

concerned the structure of the schooling system which does not teach students how to

advance their critical thinking skills and be able to write their thoughts down. In order

to succeed in L1 writing, students usually have to memorise the taught input, and then

insert it into their work, without being explicitly taught argument, paragraph, and

essay structure. Teachers maintained that if students had developed their L1 writing

skills, they would have then been able to transfer them to the L2. Mary gave an

excellent example of her own experience and teaching practice:

One very good example of that was this year’s first certificate classes. They had a topic

on, describe technology, the meaning of technology in your daily life. ‘What can we

say about that? We don’t have any ideas.’ And they start to panic, it’s obvious how

anxious they are about such tasks. I just said ‘What are you talking about? Give me all

your mobile phones, switch them off, and I’ll put them in a little box, and I’ll lock this

box and I’ll give it to you tomorrow. And then think and tell me about technology in

daily life.’ And they said, ‘What? I can’t live without my mobile.’ And I wanted to

show them ‘OK, think about that, think about leaving your mobile phones here for 24

hours and then think about how you become like dependent. So try to develop ideas.’

And they are not taught to develop their own ideas, because of the system of just copy

and paste.

Joanna also described L1 writing deficiencies as follows:

They say they’ve never seen a paragraph before, the topic sentence. And we spend a

lot of time, especially in proficiency classes.

Similarly, but from a student perspective, Kalliopi also explained how writing anxiety

in EFL was heavily dependent on lack of L1 writing strategies:

I find writing difficult and I don’t do as well as I would want to. I am afraid of writing

in English because I also think that I was not taught how to write well even in Greek. I

feel that it took me many years to be able to write good essays, so writing was always

what would make me anxious in my English classes too, and I think that I completely

dislike it.

155

By contrast, most students referred to lack of ideas as the major cause of

writing anxiety, and linked this lack to language-skill specificity. Although a fluent

and self-confident English speaker, Nikos explicated how his difficulty in

brainstorming ideas with relation to writing in a foreign language aroused feelings of

writing anxiety:

I can’t come up with ideas in writing. So when I sit down and write, let’s say a story, I

can’t come up with the appropriate ideas about what I want to write, and also I want to

adjust my ideas to the English I have. I wouldn’t like to address a topic that I am not

well aware of, but rather a topic I know something about. And this combination is

quite difficult. To think of a story and to adjust your English to that story.

Ioanna had very strong views about her writing anxiety which mainly stemmed from

writing tasks set unexpectedly in class, strict time limits within which tasks should be

completed, and again lack of ideas. When interviewed, she said:

I like writing, but when the teacher asks us to write in class without being told that we

would do so, I become anxious, because I think I will not have enough time to

complete the task. How will I organise my thoughts? What will I write?

In her diary, Ioanna also wrote:

Today, though the lesson started with a very interesting talk, it ended very

stressfully… The big surprise came when we were told that we were going to do

writing in class. No one was happy about that and everyone started complaining. I got

very angry and anxious because we only had half an hour to finish it. I actually got so

angry that I didn’t know what to write and wrote about half a page, maybe a little

more. I wasn’t the only one that didn’t have time since the others ran out of time as

well. Really after that, the lesson was not pleasant at all. I wish we hadn’t done that

writing task or our teacher could have at least warned us about it.

Writing activities, however, should be timed in order to fit in with the total duration

of lessons, and to familiarise students with the format of future exams, the teachers

said.

156

As far as mistakes in writing were concerned, the teacher perspective was in

stark contrast to the equivalent student one. Specifically, one teacher mentioned that,

for many students, the red pen in particular had negative connotations and was

associated with judgment and discouraging correction, thereby increasing writing

anxiety levels. On the other hand, from the point of view of students, concern over

mistakes in writing was associated with fear of negative evaluation by the teacher,

and with the notion that teachers are more tolerant with mistakes in speaking than in

writing. Kalliopi’s quote was illustrative of that point:

I feel that if I make a mistake in speaking my teacher knows that in an attempt to

express what I have in mind I got confused and chose the wrong preposition or the

wrong word. On the contrary, in writing, I very often fear that when my teacher will

read what I wrote, she will think like “Why did she make so many mistakes? She had

time at her disposal, she could use a dictionary or her notes, and still she made

mistakes”.

Comparing and contrasting student and teacher perspectives to writing anxiety

has led to interesting insights into it, revealing the complex nature of writing anxiety.

The following sections focus on factors associated with general classroom anxiety,

which are either internal or external to the language learners, and which affect their

LA in differing degrees.

6.4 Internal anxiety-inducing factors

Internal anxiety-inducing factors were defined as being any factors which are

centred primarily within an individual, such as learner personality, self-concepts, and

learner agency.

157

6.4.1 Personality

Highly anxious student participants reported on aspects of their personality

that determined the level of their classroom LA. Perfectionism was conceived of by

certain students as one of the personality-related facets of LA that led them to set

themselves higher personal performance standards and react badly to failures. Nikos

explained:

I am a strict judge of myself, and of others. I always evaluate my level of English, and

I become anxious because I don’t want to fail. You don’t want to fail and you want to

be perfect. Like James Bond, for instance.

Sophia exemplified two different types of individuals and their subsequent degree of

anxiety:

I believe that anxiety is clearly a personality trait. You are a perfectionist and due to

your personality you are prone to worry and anxiety. Or, you are at the other end of the

continuum, you don’t care, that’s your philosophy of life, and you think that life is too

short to spend time on unimportant issues and become anxious. Obviously I belong to

the first category, and I get anxious about English just because I want to do well.

Perfectionism was also illustrated by only one of the teacher interviewees. Argyris

drew an interesting generalisation about top students in his English language classes:

They want to be successful, the stressors are that, they are the students and they want

to show that they have some knowledge between them. The very very good students,

what we say the ‘fyta’, the geeks, these are stressed because they are who they are, and

they are sometimes stressed because they want to release this etiquette.

Differing degrees of conscientiousness, which constituted the second

dimension linked to personality-stemming LA, were also found to influence learners’

affect in the classroom. Some participants maintained that their self-awareness of not

being diligent sometimes, either due to commitments other than the language classes,

158

or owing to their laxity and negligence, dramatically increased their levels of in-class

LA. Danae said:

I quite often feel anxious before entering the classroom, especially when I haven’t

studied the vocabulary. And very often I think that the teacher will ask the meaning of

a word and I will have no answer to give. Of course this happens when I am busy with

university commitments or stuff like that.

Having a job which is based on a hectic schedule, Nikos also felt that he could not

study as much as he would want to:

I work very long hours, almost every day, and I become anxious because sometimes I

wish I could have studied more, and I must say that sometimes I am not at all happy

with how hard I managed to study at home.

Interestingly however, Sophia described the exact opposite:

When I haven’t studied, I am no nervous at all. I get extremely anxious when I am well

prepared. Because you’ve expended some effort, and you don’t want to fail. If you

don’t do well despite having studied, you feel even worse.

It is therefore interesting to see the complications that might arise when students

realise that they have not studied much, often due to conditions that were beyond

their control. These complications impact on personality dimensions, which

concomitantly interact with their LA about the English classes, often in a negative

manner.

6.4.2 Self-concepts

A recurrent motif throughout the qualitative data was the student participants’

frequent mentions of a range of self-concepts, such as self-confidence, self-efficacy,

and self-perceptions of ability in EFL. It is important to note, however, that self-

159

concepts exerted both a negative and a positive influence on students’ classroom LA

levels, functioning as a cause of LA and as a means of allaying stress respectively.

Only a few students were found to make self-deprecating remarks and to have

a low sense of the self-concepts mentioned above. Elisa felt that, owing to the

inevitability of making mistakes in English as this was not her mother tongue, her

self-confidence weakened hence igniting sentiments of LA and worry. Confronted

with similar, negative self-beliefs, Natassa summarised her low self-efficacy and

subsequent high LA expressively:

I usually check what other people are doing in class instead of focusing on my own

work. If they are writing and I am not, I become very anxious. At that point, I may

even forget everything I know and do very bad.

Natassa interestingly added that she constantly wanted to be told by her teacher that

she was a good student. This praise was hence construed as a boost to her self-esteem

and as a means of allaying her LA. Sophia also made a noteworthy remark with

connection to her low self-perceived competence and its influence on her classroom

LA levels.

Being a perfect student is not what I am aiming for. I have never been the best student

in the class and I am not expecting to be the best either, but I think that my anxiety

stems from the fact that I am filled with remorse for not being good enough. It happens

unconsciously I think.

Nevertheless, most of the student participants tended to strengthen their self-

concepts, and hence exhibit lower levels of LA, in respect to those skills or activities

for which their self-perceived competence was high. They commented:

I: Speaking never makes me anxious.

C: Why not?

160

I: Because I believe I am fluent. I can use the language very competently. (Ioanna,

interview)

I know I am good. The comments I get from my teacher are always good. There is no

chance of me not doing my homework. I am a hard-working student. There are other

reasons that make me anxious. (Kiki, interview)

I like writing. That’s why I started keeping a diary for you, because I like writing both

in English and in Greek. That’s why I am comfortable when writing essays, because I

know I am good at it. (Anna, interview)

Additionally, Nikos attributed his self-confidence when speaking English to his

inherent ability to manage discussions skillfully both in Greek and in a foreign

language.

I am self-confident when I am speaking in English, because in general I can lead

conversations away from topics I am not familiar with. This is a skill I have cultivated

throughout my work experience too.

From a teacher perspective, Antonis spoke about his students’ low self-perceptions

of ability and low self-efficacy, both having a profound impact on their level of

classroom LA.

I have a group this year, all adults group, and I think that their level of anxiety is

mostly elevated by the fact that they can’t understand grammar. And even though I am

trying to make them talk generally about everyday stuff, they keep concentrating on

“Oh, we make mistakes when we talk so we have to learn the grammar.” But they can’t

learn the grammar, so that’s a vicious circle of stress. They are stressed because adults

that come to learn English are people who, in their teenage years, found it very

difficult to learn English so they sort of know that they are not good at it.

6.4.3 Learner agency

Learner agency, that is to say, an individual’s will and capacity to act, was

found to play a critical role on the development and maintenance of LA. Students

161

mentioned that, as independent adults, they needed to balance their agentic resources

skillfully in order to achieve their goal to master the target language. Concerns over

time management, work-life balance, responsibility to cover their English language

lesson tuition fees, and studying English to become proficient, were daunting tasks

which increased the learners’ fear of failure and LA. Nikos commented:

When you are an adult, you work, you may not have much time to study and you

would wish to be able to study more, you have to pay your bills, your tuition fees, the

books you are using in class. You have to be a conscious individual who cares about

the English classes and wants to succeed. You have to learn English because at this age

you don’t want to waste your time and also you don’t want to pay all over again in

case you fail. So my anxiety results from all this effort I am expending, both in

financial and ethical terms.

Nikos explained that his anxiety would stem from his fear that he would fail the

course, which in turn would stem from the realisation that having to balance work,

life, and studying is difficult and may lead to failure. An interesting connection

emerges here between attributions that learners make for their possible failures and

the way these attributions mediate the effect of possible failures on LA.

Another way that learner agency was found to exert influence upon LA

concerned students’ realisation that English language learning is mandatory. Kiki

explained this with saddening pragmatism:

S: Years have passed by. I am 35 years old and I am still learning English. I should

have attempted it when I was younger, but I was lazy.

C: Why do you say so?

S: Because I have no time to waste. I must learn English. I am not young. Younger

learners, children, are still young and are therefore not constrained by time, but I am.

She went on to argue that her aim was to learn the language, and that she felt the need

to prove herself in what she was doing, something she was finding very stressful at

her age.

162

Kiki’s awareness of the importance of knowing English emanated from the

structure of the Greek foreign language education system, which actually imposes a

set of success-oriented beliefs on students. One of the requirements for admission to

various posts in the public sector concerns certified knowledge of English, and this

broadly dictates that failure is not an option for the students. Danae emphatically

stated the following:

When I was younger, I was lazy and I wasn’t studying English. I can now understand

how important having certified knowledge of English is. I mustn’t fail. I need the

points to have more chances to get a job in a state school.

The fact that certified knowledge of English is a prerequisite for getting a good job in

the public sector seemed to motivate Danae to work towards completing her goal.

However, the requirement of an English language certificate for jobs increased her

fear of failure and rose her anxiety about failing the course.

Self-perceptions of ability in the target language were another principal

component contributing to learners’ sense and exercise of agency. Certain students

appeared to hold weak self-concepts that made them avoid studying harder. Thus, in

this case, they exercised their sense of agency through non-participation and non-

action, which led to mounting levels of anxiety. The extract below illustrates this

point.

Being a perfect student is not what I am aiming for. I have never been the best student

in the class and I am not expecting to be the best either, but I think that my anxiety

stems from the fact that I am filled with remorse for not being good enough. It happens

unconsciously I think.

It should be noted, however, that students’ self-perceived abilities do not always

reflect their actual abilities. Given that the study did not include any objective

163

measures of the participants’ actual performance and achievement in EFL other than

information about their CEFR scores, the reliability of their comments on their self-

perceived performance could not be tested.

Another insightful comment that the majority of students made concerned the

complex interplay between learner agency, age, and LA. Students argued that older

learners (i.e., adults) are active agents in their own learning and, in most cases, have

developed a sense of need for achievement and internal attributions, which, in the

case of the highly anxious EFL learners in this study, ignited feelings of LA. This

was illustrated by Sophia and Zoe in the following excerpts:

When you are young, you don’t really understand why you are learning English. It’s

almost always your parents’ decision to attend lessons in the language school. But as

you grow up, you realise that it is something useful and that you have to expend effort

on it if you want to achieve something. Not only are you learning English out of your

own volition, but it’s also the realisation that you have to do well in it, and this may

increase your anxiety about English in class. It’s also the fact that things are more

difficult, the input is getting harder and you need to study more. And this makes me

anxious.

The younger we are, the more naïve we also are, and therefore the less anxious. While

growing up, we have to be responsible individuals and manage language learning

satisfactorily. Now, I feel I have to do well. When I was younger, I think I didn’t care.

Notably, the findings reveal that age could impact on differential levels of LA, as

well as on how learners shape their sense and exercise of agency.

6.5 External anxiety-inducing factors

External anxiety-inducing factors were defined as those factors that largely

stem from outside the individual, such as experiences with significant others and

linguistic input. It should be noted that the distinction between internal and external

factors cannot always be sustained, as they may not be truly independent categories.

164

For example, as it will also be seen below, an external anxiety-ensuing factor, such as

prior EFL learning experiences, can have a serious impact on an internal anxiety-

ensuing factor, such as self-concept, thus indicating that the two are inseparable.

However, I felt that this distinction can serve to make the dynamic causes of LA more

comprehensible.

6.5.1 Significant others

In the classroom context, the presence of the teacher and/or the peers was an

important factor affecting students’ levels of LA. With connection to evaluation by

the English teacher, an interesting link emerged here between students’ fear of losing

face and a sense of a need to impress the teacher. This was apparently supported by

students’ unwillingness to query when they have not understood. As Akrivi

described,

What causes anxiety in the classroom would be the fact that they do not understand

what I am talking about, and they feel they are missing out, and I’ve explained the

grammar point on the board, and they haven’t a clue of what I am talking about. They

are too embarrassed to ask me to repeat it, or they are too embarrassed to show that

they don’t understand.

A few student interviewees also highlighted their fear of losing face at the

presence of the teacher, as well as their desire to impress the teacher. Natassa

explained that the lack of praise by her teacher led to high LA and also made her

think that her teacher was not satisfied with her performance. Kalliopi stressed that

she did not want her teacher to think less of her. Maria felt that her teacher’s

corrections and evaluation were an indication of her level of proficiency in EFL; thus,

if the comments and corrections on her work were many, she would think that her

teacher might believe that she is not a capable student. On closer examination of the

165

data therefore, it seems not to be the teacher per se who increases students’ LA levels,

but rather the importance students attach to their teachers’ impression of them.

Another recurrent justification that teacher interviewees gave for explaining

the significance of teachers as ‘significant others’ during the process of language

learning concerned students’ need to match the teachers’ expectations. Kiki

questioned whether teacher expectations were made clear to the students, explaining

that teachers should first decide what to expect from each student on the basis of

his/her capabilities. Expressing similar concerns, Linda argued that “not knowing

what it is that the teacher wants […] really scares them [i.e., the students].”

Apart from the teachers, other ‘significant others’ in the classroom are the

peers. Accounts that surfaced in the interviews concerned students’ dislike of being

negatively evaluated by their peers rather than their teacher. Sophia had very strong

views about her classmates, thinking that their behaviour was the main source of her

LA.

Classmates can make me anxious in two different ways. First, they are anxious too,

they are getting hysterical, and they make me anxious, and this is something very

common. I mean you are on your way to the lesson and you are relaxed, but as soon as

you enter the school you realise how anxious they are, so you become anxious too.

Second, they can be a bit of a snob and you know that they are stronger students than

you actually are. So, you try to be like them, but by the time you realise that that’s not

possible, your feelings of anxiety overwhelm you.

As illustrated by Sophia, peer pressure may lead to competitiveness and tenseness.

Confronted with a similar problem, Zoe believed that her classmates could do better

than her, and feared facing derision if she said something wrong. Katerina, in turn,

considered that the discrepancy between the level of proficiency of students of the

same class seemed to generate most competitiveness-stemming problems. Anna

166

spoke about how she invoked her own anxiety in order to avoid her peers’ severe

criticism:

I sometimes feel that I put pressure on myself, because I don’t want to show to my

peers that I am not good at English or that I can’t do it. And I don’t like being laughed

at, so I try to study hard to avoid making mistakes.

Another emotionally laden account of the effects of peer pressure was offered by

Natassa:

I usually check what other people are doing in class instead of focusing on my own

work. If they are writing and I am not, I become very anxious. At that point, I may

even forget everything I know, and I will perform badly.

By contrast, Nikos explained why his classmates did not ignite feelings of LA, a

statement which resonates with Katerina’s opinion reported above:

My peers don’t make me anxious. First, one of them is my sister so I am aware of her

reactions. The other students are of the same level of proficiency as me, perhaps even

of a lower level, so neither anxiety nor competitiveness can affect me.

When given the hypothetical situation of perceiving himself as less capable than his

classmates, he said that this would definitely be hurtful and influence his LA in class.

Fanis offered important insights into this aspect, adding that negative evaluation and

criticisms were most often initiated by the weakest members of the group she

belonged in. Expressing similar concerns, one of the teachers, Linda, recollected the

following sad classroom event:

In this class, there are eight students and there is one person who makes remarks a lot

of times about the pronunciation. I mean it is funny because that student makes

mistakes too but I don’t know if she does it because she feels bad about herself. But

I’ve spoken to her two or three times privately as nicely as I could. I’ve been saying

something like ‘You are really trying to help, but.’ In fact she wasn’t trying to help,

167

she was making fun of somebody but I didn’t want to say that. And I think that stresses

the other students. It calls attention to what they can do. We try to call attention to

what they can do, of course this is what we do as teachers. But now that you are asking

me about peer pressure, yes, there is one person in this particular group who creates a

kind of bad atmosphere sometimes.

The comments included in this section are first indicative of the importance

that students attach to the impression that their teachers and peers get of them, and

second of the effect on LA of thinking that this impression might be negative.

6.5.2 The input

From the student perspective, input-stemming classroom LA was governed by

difficulties with lexical items. Students’ diary entries were overloaded with mentions

of vocabulary-related problems, and with their subsequent experiences of LA in the

classroom. Specific problems with lexis included learning the meaning of

polysemous words and words belonging to the same lexical group, lacking topic-

related vocabulary needed to perform certain tasks, and having to deal with unknown

words. Some examples are listed below:

I’m afraid of the vocabulary and it’s true that English language is very complicated!

One word can mean many things! For example minutes means the minutes of the hour

but also the records of a meeting! Couldn’t English people find another word? (Kiki)

Bite-sip-chew-gulp-lick-swallow! Six words to describe more or less the same thing.

(Fanis)

I felt a little bit nervous this moment because I like sports and I can’t select what’s my

best. I don’t know some words and I can’t explain the rules of some sports and that

makes me nervous. (Danae)

My score on reading was good although I had so many unknown words and I got very

anxious. (Maria)

168

When interviewed, Fanis stressed that different vocabulary items in English that are

translated with the same word in Greek seem to generate LA.

Vocabulary makes me anxious very often, because even though there are many words

with one meaning, each word is usually used in different occasions. I mean that we

can’t use two words that are translated the same in Greek in the same sentence. Each

word should be used in a different context.

Similar frustrations were generated by Elisa in her interview.

I think that vocabulary is what makes me very anxious. Although certain words may

look like synonyms, they can’t be used in the same sentence. If you write a sentence

and you replace a word with what seems to be a synonym given also the translation in

Greek, the resulting sentence is likely to be wrong. The language is also rich in terms

of words. We are using a book, the Words you need, and the words in there are so

many. I wonder if I will ever be able to memorise them all. If I have a look at the book

now, I am sure I will not remember most of them despite having studied a lot.

Diarists also expressed concerns about, and a kind of fear of, the complicated nature

of the target input and how it could interfere with learning and with producing

accurate output:

I hope that I’ll manage to remember all the details when I’ll have to speak or to write.

(Kiki)

Phrasal verbs are another complicated chapter of English. How easy is it to keep so

many things in mind? To speak English with so many rules and exceptions in mind?

(Fanis)

It’s just that sometimes I get very anxious and I’m worried that I’m not going to

remember all the new vocabulary I’m learning. I always seem to forget some words.

(Elisa)

Reading the teacher interviews, only Linda referred to target input as a source

of classroom LA, admitting that, whilst input could be one degree harder than

learners’ current level of proficiency, a wrong choice of too difficult materials was

169

one of the origins of her students’ LA. Being very forthcoming, she kept on

explaining with saddening pragmatism why her decision of what to teach apparently

translated into a stressful classroom atmosphere:

The book was our fault, because the book was really too hard for them, but I can see

that they were anxious about it and you know if I had chosen a different book, it

wouldn’t have been a stressful situation. […] the book that we’ve read, Fahrenheit 451.

I didn’t know the students so once we were reading the book and I can see that it was

too hard, I can see that it was making them nervous, because it made them feel that

they didn’t know very much. […] I think that was a big source of stress. They were

asked to do something which was beyond, they did it but it was beyond what they

could do comfortably. So, if what is taught, it’s not matched nicely with their level. I

mean you don’t want to be right at their level, you want to be a little harder. But this

was may be instead of one degree too hard which would have been good, it was

probably three degrees too hard which was stressful.

Linda’s comments are indications that evaluating language teaching materials prior to

their use and analysing students’ needs at the beginning of a course do not always

constitute standardised practices in language teaching situations. As the interview

was developing, she repeated her previous point, this time somehow contradicting

herself:

These students, I’ve been pushing with this book that is too hard, they kind of resist

but on the one hand I know I made a mistake, the book is too hard, but on the other

hand I know as a language learner and as a language teacher that if you always give

people what they’re comfortable with, they don’t learn. You have to give them

something that’s a little bit too hard and provide a safe little environment, so that’s,

that’s the way it works when you teach.

The excerpts also demonstrate that, on the one hand, Linda intended to incentivise

language learning by challenging her students with input that was slightly harder than

their current level of proficiency in EFL, whilst, on the other hand, the incongruity

between input level and proficiency level had unforeseen results on the students’

academic performance and on their LA.

170

6.6 Prior foreign language learning experiences

Interestingly, LA appeared as a manifestation of events occurring outside

class which exerted significant influence on students’ affective behaviour in class.

Events taking place outside class concerned learners’ past foreign language learning

experiences, and local norms and beliefs about successful language learning.

Learners’ prior foreign language learning experiences were found to be linked

with their current levels of classroom LA. In particular, the participants commented

on negative past occurrences that clearly control their anxiety over EFL learning.

First, it is notable that English language tutors’ attitude has made quite an impact on

the students’ present LA. Former EFL teachers who were very anxious themselves, or

who had a condescending manner, were mentioned as a major source of learners’

anxiety in class. The extracts below by Elisa and Maria further illustrate this point.

I think that teachers transfer their stress to their students. I had an English teacher a

few years ago who was so anxious in class that I always hoped for the lesson to finish

in order to calm myself down. She was flicking through the book nervously, telling us

what we will do now, in one month, in three months, when we will write our tests. And

I also believe that this is bad for a teacher’s image too.

The teacher I had was very tough and demanding, and had a judgmental attitude

towards students. You were afraid of him just by looking at him. He was always asking

us to do the difficult exercises in the book, because he was saying that the easier ones

are only for idiots. I believe he was a qualified teacher, but he should really work on

his manner.

Past teacher-related negative foreign language learning experiences could also

be due to teachers putting pressure on students to succeed. Natassa describes such an

experience.

I used to hate English, but the teacher was to blame for that. She was weird. […] She

was demoralising me, and I was avoiding classes, I wasn’t doing my homework. […]

That school was in my hometown, you know, it’s a small town in a remote area, and

171

she wanted us to pass the exam to prove that her institute is good. All this was putting

pressure on me. Then I failed the exam, and stopped studying English. I registered

again for English lessons when I came here to go to university. Now I like English, but

I still feel I have a kind of fear of it.

Locality and its emergent beliefs about foreign language learning success shape one’s

experiences and influence one’s levels of LA in present and future encounters with

the language in instructional settings. Natassa’s experience suggests the existence of

an occasional, informal macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979): local, success-oriented

beliefs about language learning have subtle effects on affective behaviour in class,

and these overarching social and educational norms governing small institutions in

remote, provincial areas again influence the microsystem, that is the current EFL

classroom.

The second aspect of prior language learning experiences concerns instances

of failure in formal examinations in the past, or having scored marks on tests that

were approaching the borderline. Both were shown to induce feelings of fear of

upcoming failure among learners and consequently increase their LA. Nikos

recollected the following account:

S: Anxiety is part of my life that I can’t get rid of. It follows me in almost everything I

do. With relation to English, I am anxious because I believe that I am not good enough

to succeed.

I: Why not?

S: Because I once failed the Michigan preliminary exams, I got 21 instead of 23 which

was the pass mark.

This extract demonstrates that LA is a dynamic variable, resulting from a linear

process of interaction between different conditions. Global anxiety pre-exists within

the learner and is a stable personality trait, presumably manifesting under stressful

circumstances, including language learning among others. This leads to a situation-

specific form of anxiety, i.e., classroom LA, which dramatically increases due to an

172

inherent fear of failure stemming from an unlucky past examination event. In

addition, the fact that a student may receive a mark only two points below the pass

mark adds extra feelings of despair to one’s affective state.

Learner self-concepts and the way they are shaped also appear interrelated

with past learning experiences. With reference to EFL speaking in particular, students

reported feelings of self-consciousness and low self-confidence, which stemmed from

interpersonal interactions and engendered speaking-specific classroom LA, as Sophia

and Natassa said.

In my previous language school, I would make a pronunciation mistake and I would be

laughed at for the next couple of weeks. And I really wonder if those students were

considering themselves so expert to criticise the level of English of others. I was so

young back then and couldn’t understand how such an event could affect my

willingness to speak now. Now I always think that someone will make fun of me and

my English.

My teacher tells me that I am good at speaking, and that I have a good accent which

sounds American. However, I feel embarrassed whenever I speak because the other

students make fun of me sometimes. For example, I pronounce the word the as /ðə/and

not as /ðiː/ and the others make fun of this, because they think it sounds too American.

And it was the teacher who started all this by commenting on my pronunciation in

front of the whole class.

The second student was confronted with the fact that fellow students would perceive

her differently from the way they perceived themselves. Specifically, the student was

perceived by others as being “too foreign” for their native group, a self-belief that

accentuated the potential of group membership to provoke LA and that further stifled

future oral attempts.

173

6.7 The Greek foreign language education system

Another interesting finding that emerged from the qualitative data analysis

revealed that the Greek foreign language education system exerted influence on

students’ LA about EFL learning. Anna commented:

Why do we need to get so many certificates? I mean, I may be able to speak English

without holding the proficiency or the first certificate. It would really be interesting to

see if this is the case in other countries too. My friends in France do not even know

what proficiency and first certificate mean. They don’t have to have a collection of

foreign language certificates as we do.

Thus, the structure of the system and the certified knowledge of English (and of other

foreign languages too) that it dictates increase students’ need for achievement, fear of

failure, and LA.

Teachers have also commented on the connection between English language

certificates, fear of failure, and LA. Mary drew an interesting conclusion about the

dynamic nature of LA, arguing that intermediate-level students who have not yet had

any exam classes lead to language certificates are more anxious than their more

experienced counterparts:

The intermediate students are more anxious than the advanced students in this school,

because the former have not yet taken the main, big English exam, the first certificate.

And they know that everybody has to have the first certificate to get a good job.

Therefore, it is clear that students’ awareness of how the education system and the

job market work affect their levels of LA in the classroom. These links will be

discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

174

6.8 Coping strategies

One goal of this project was to develop a typology of strategies for coping

with classroom LA. As will be discussed below, teachers and students can make their

own unique contributions to a research project. Hence, this section is divided into two

main themes: what students do to alleviate their stress about English language

learning, and what instructors do to help students cope with their LA in instructed

language learning contexts.

6.8.1 What students do

Although affective strategies are directed towards minimising students’ LA,

the findings indicated that Greek EFL learners mostly opted for an array of

metacognitive strategies instead. Table 18 lists the tactics for coping with LA

organised by six strategy types. The statements contained in the table were mentioned

by the students in their interviews and diaries.

175

Table 18. Tactics for coping with LA organised by six strategy types

Strategy type Tactics

Positive thinking I try to think of something that makes me happy. I think of times when

I’ve studied hard. I try to think positively. I think of a success in the

future. I try to think that I will do very well. I think of something else. I

think of both success and failure possibilities, and I choose the one I like.

I try not to think of my anxiety. I tell myself that I will do it. I tell myself

that I am not anxious. I tell myself that there’s still time to practise. I tell

myself that there is no reason to be anxious. I tell myself that learning is

more creative than being anxious. I try to convince myself that I will be

able to find a solution.

Preparation I review the material covered in class. I try to do my best. I aim to

improve my grade. I study hard. Overviewing for the vocabulary test is

for my own good. The more vocabulary I study, the easier these exercises

become, and the less my anxiety is. I think carefully of my weaknesses

and I try to work on them. The more I learn about the English language,

the less anxious I am. I prepare myself better. I ask the teacher some

questions. I ask my teacher to rephrase her question. I read the questions

carefully. I try to guess the meaning of an unknown word. I peruse the

material before I am called on by the teacher.

Seeking practice

opportunities

I try to keep in touch with English. I listen to many English songs. I

watch many English films.

Relaxation I close my eyes and I go to a place that calms me down. I try to relax. I

try to calm down. I try to take it easy. I drink water. I take a deep breath.

Peer seeking I ask other students if they understand the class. If possible, I try to

compare my answers with other students’ answers at the end of the task.

Unless the teacher asks us to work individually, I work together with the

person sitting next to me.

No strategy use I don’t really believe that there exists a specific strategy you can use to

reduce your anxiety, because as I said before anxiety is a personality

trait.

The first strategy set, Positive thinking, is characterised by a range of tactics

that divert students’ attention from the anxiety-provoking situation to pleasant, and in

most cases imaginary, conditions, including scenarios of success in EFL learning

among others. Students reported the following:

I try to think about something that makes me happy, such as a good mark on a test or a

task, or think about times when I’ve studied hard. I try to think positively so I feel

more relaxed. (Anna)

When I am anxious, I try to think positively, to think about a success in the future, that

I will do very well. (Fanis)

176

I try to think of why I get anxious. Then I consider all the possibilities, for example if

this happens, it will result in this and that etc. I try to come up with a rational

explanation to any result, and choose the result I like. To feel that I have found a

solution to whatever might happen in the end. And I think I am not anxious this way.

(Kalliopi)

Students who reported use of positive thinking also felt that suppressing stressful

thoughts and focusing on the task at hand would facilitate language learning, and

hence reduce their anxiety associated with the language class. Ioanna, for example,

said:

When I am anxious, I avoid thinking about my anxiety and try to shift my focus on the

task itself. For example, the teacher once asked us to do some writing in class. At that

moment I was feeling that I couldn’t write a word. But in the end I did very well. I

tried to forget my anxiety.

Fanis made a similar remark:

I am trying not to focus on my anxiety. I know I want to learn English and I will do it.

I am an optimist and I put effort in what I am doing. I am also trying to find a solution

to overcome my anxiety rather than letting it interfere with my learning and

performance in class.

The second category, Preparation, refers to strategies that aim at improving

study and learning skills, as well as performance (e.g., I study hard, I try to guess the

meaning of unknown words, I prepare myself better). Students resorting to

Preparation strategies highlighted that, while they felt their level of competence in the

target language increased, their anxiety declined in a fairly consistent manner.

Danae’s account was quite illustrative of this point:

I worry if I get a low mark. I then review the class lessons to make sure I know what

has been covered. Then I feel like I know everything, I feel more competent. And I aim

for a higher mark next time.

177

The third category, Relaxation, involves strategies addressing psychosomatic

anxiety symptoms, which could be overcome by taking a deep breath for instance, or,

more interestingly, mentally travelling to a place one likes (e.g., I close my eyes and I

go to a place that calms me down), as well as dissuading oneself to take the whole

stressful situation seriously (e.g., I try to take it easy). Katerina summarised this

strategy set expressively.

The best way to reduce your anxiety is to close your eyes for two minutes and think of

something irrelevant, something calm. Just go to a place that calms you down.

Peer Seeking constituted the fourth strategy set, and consisted of tactics that

were indicative of students’ willingness to boost their self-confidence by looking for

classmates who had difficulty in understanding the class too. Zoe put this very

competently:

If I know that someone else has the same problem as me, I will think that s/he is not

any better than me. That’s a relief, I believe.

Other students mentioned that they sought opportunities to work collaboratively in

the classroom mainly prior to a whole-class oral task. Maria made her point quite

succinctly:

If you panic because you don’t have the answer or because you can’t understand

something and you may not feel at ease to ask the teacher, you can work with the

person sitting next to you. I believe that this also reduces competitiveness among

classroom members, and you feel relaxed when you go to class.

Strategy categories 5 (i.e., Seeking practice opportunities) and 6 (i.e., No

strategy use) were less commonly suggested by the participants. Maria maintained

that looking for opportunities to practise English is getting easier and easier

178

nowadays, given the status of English as an EIL and the increasingly technological

age we live in. Practising English outside class mostly through the use of authentic

materials was what she was opting for, thinking that increasing her mastery of the

language could reduce her anxiety about English. As far as the sixth strategy set is

concerned, Nikos expressively argued:

I don’t really believe that there exists a specific strategy you can use to reduce your

anxiety, because as I said before anxiety is a personality trait. One of my friends

suggested that we scream into a pillow. It helps to release your stress, she said. How

can you do this in class? I did it at home, it doesn’t work.

A final note concerns most students’ claims that they did not necessarily

resort to avoidance behavior in an attempt to minimise their LA. On the contrary,

they felt that risk taking was sometimes indispensable to help them overcome their

stress. Exercising their agency in an attempt to prioritise tasks and needs and evaluate

the importance and usefulness of a task was another strategy certain students adopted.

The extracts below support this point.

If I am very anxious, and what I’ve been asked to do is something I really have to do

and can’t avoid, I will do it because I will have no other choice. You need to take risks

at some point. I believe that anxiety is a kind of fear and something we have to get

over. If there is no other way out, we will overcome our fears and whatever will be,

will be. (Natassa)

Whether I would avoid an activity, that’s a good question. It depends on the activity. If

it is something that will not offer anything to me and there is no point doing it, I will

avoid it, yes. If it is something that I have to expend effort for in order to succeed, I

will not avoid it. I will try to overcome my anxiety instead. (Nikos)

Of the thirteen student interviewees, only Kalliopi admitted that she occasionally put

studying English off and avoided an instructor whose condescending attitude made

her feel uncomfortable. She confided:

179

She has this stern look. […] Sometimes I feel I don’t want to attend her lesson. I

usually do the homework she assigns, but if I have other things to do, I will put that

off. To be honest, I partly like the fact that I don’t always have time to do my

homework for her class.

For Kalliopi, avoidance is not an anxiety-coping strategy, but rather a means of

revolting against a teacher whom she does not wholeheartedly approve of.

6.8.2 What teachers do

Given the well-documented consequences of classroom LA, teachers were

asked what techniques they deployed in their classes to help their students to

minimise their anxiety.

The majority of the teachers suggested that praising the students with a view

to boosting their self-confidence was their main aim. While the interviewees

acknowledged the importance of being realists when evaluating students’

performance, they believed that showing trust in students’ abilities, highlighting their

strengths, and placing emphasis on those skills they have improved in, could reduce

their LA. Linda, who was teaching American literature to advanced students, said:

“What I’ve been doing with this book is emphasising that they are good, that I

wouldn’t bring this in to just anybody.” Antonis expressed this view in unambiguous

terms: “We try to point out that we are sure that they are going to make it.” He

mentioned later that he was keen to award students’ successes during lessons, by

focusing on aspects of the language or on skills they are good at. Kiki also stated that

she tried to shift the students’ focus on their strengths when she realised that some of

them were anxious in class:

When I see that they are stressed, I say ‘Don’t worry so much about that, focus on the,

on how much you have improved compared to previous times.’ That’s what I tell them.

To focus on important things. I tell them ‘Look, that’s what you have done right. Good

180

for you, that was one thing that you improved.’ Even if ten other things were still

wrong, I won’t focus on them on that specific day.

Error correction was the second thematic unit mentioned by teachers as a

means of reducing students’ LA. The first step was to help students adopt the attitude

that mistakes were a crucial part of the language learning process and, therefore, they

would be made by everyone. Teachers said that, in fact, mistakes were a sign that

their students were actually learning and that their interlanguage was developing.

Alexandra explained how she felt making mistakes benefitted her students:

I say that a lot, that if you knew everything, you wouldn’t be here. You have to make

mistakes, it’s normal to make mistakes. I make mistakes. And we are here to learn

from each other, so it’s good that you made a mistake, because now the others won’t

make the same mistake. So I try to sort of make them understand that we are actually

learning from the mistakes and that it’s not always ideal to be perfect. If they were

perfect, they wouldn’t be here.

Similarly, Linda offered a noteworthy glimpse of how she believed making mistakes

was interpreted by her students:

‘Why have I made all these mistakes?’ And I say ‘Well, they are tiny mistakes.’ I mean

a spelling mistake is silly. It doesn’t mean that you don’t know English. So yes

sometimes they get a little nervous. They feel like they don’t know very much when

they see mistakes. We all make mistakes. I make mistakes when I speak English. I

mean just I do, not grammar mistakes but I start talking really fast, you know, it’s

natural. But they are not experienced enough to know that, so they, they take it as a

sign that they don’t know something.

Next, interviewees spoke about ways of approaching error correction with

sensitivity to student feelings. They felt that writing comments that did not accentuate

the errors so much instead of using numerical scales to assess their students’

competence was an evaluation strategy that was well-received by the latter. Teachers

commented:

181

I write comments such as: I really like the discussion. You wrote elegant sentences.

This was nice, but it would be nicer if you had more details. You had a few mistakes. I

think that you misunderstood a few things about the book, because the character wasn’t

really very nice. So I give them some comments, and I always give some kind of a

comment that softens the way they receive the correction. (Linda)

There are cases where adults are very competitive and get stressed over marks and

grades, and the last few years we are trying to avoid stressing so much the grades, that

100%. (Antonis)

Team work seemed to be the thematic thread running through the interviews

of the teachers who suggested enhancing peer support and fostering a sense of

community amongst learners in the EFL classroom. Participants discussed the

usefulness of pair work and group work in terms of the input students were presented

with, and also in terms of mistakes they were likely to make. At the input level,

teachers commented that team work made input seem less difficult to students’ eyes:

What makes them like pair work is the fact that they think, and probably it’s true, that

through team work they can eliminate any difficulties they might have. They think that

the other person is going to help them fill in the gaps of some parts that they don’t do

well… They find it entertaining. They find that, as I said, it can help them present their

final work better and it will probably be more correct, so this gives them extra motive

to try, and they are more confident in that case. (Antonis)

Much in the same vein, Linda also justified why she used team work in class:

I try to use group work when it’s a little hard, because it seems like that when you can

work it out with one other person, you are not all on your own. That seems to help.

They like working in pairs and small groups this crowd. They think they get energised.

[…] But working with another partner usually helps I think to alleviate stress.

At the feedback level, teachers maintained that students did not feel being

singled out, but rather saw their mistakes as a collective thing. Through team work,

learners thought, as Bonnie said, that “we are a group, so it is after the group, not just

me that is getting it wrong”, a feeling that, according to Argyris, increased their

182

confidence and self-esteem. Joanna mentioned that she made sure her students first

developed their ideas in pairs or small groups in order to “calm each other that way,

before they speak out”. Alexandra also explained that her students could identify with

each other when paired up or asked to work in groups:

A lot of people share the same thoughts, or have the same questions, so they have to

feel like ‘OK, I am not different from the others. We are the same, we have the same

questions, we’re wondering about the same things.’ […] Students look back at their

mistakes as a group and not individually, because a lot of mistakes that are made are

usually very common in more than one student’s work and they don’t see that.

Despite the positively-toned teacher comments on the usefulness of team work, it is

worth mentioning that some students took issue with it adding that problems with

hierarchy within the group were likely to arise, with some students being overly laid-

back as opposed to some others who would become anxious in order to complete the

task. Katerina offered an important insight into this:

I get very anxious when the teacher asks us to work in a group in class. Because

usually there is a problem with the hierarchy within the group. One of us has to be the

leader and say ‘Well, we will work this way, etc.’. Or, not necessarily the leader,

because this is a strong word, but someone who has to push others to take initiatives.

This is very stressful for me, because if none of us takes, if none of us tries to do that, I

will have to do it. And I will have to urge the others to work more to finish the task, or

the exercise, or whatever the teacher has assigned us to do. And if we do not manage to

complete the task, I usually feel guilty and I have to shoulder the responsibility.

Apart from these three unanimously mentioned categories of strategies for

reducing students’ LA, some teachers suggested a range of teaching practices that

they employed in order to help their learners to alleviate their stress. First, with

reference to correcting speaking, two teachers reported on the use of recasts. They

believed that, by reformulating what the students had said, they corrected a speaking

mistake in an unobtrusive way, ruling out the possibility that students would expose

183

themselves to ridicule in the eyes of peers. In addition, Eliza said that she made sure

that target vocabulary was pre-taught prior to tasks, Kiki highlighted the value of

brainstorming prior to writing activities, and finally Linda and Mary suggested

breaking a big task, such as writing an essay, into smaller, manageable tasks for the

students, for instance, writing one sentence for each of the main essay parts first.

Teachers speculated that applying teaching methods such as the ones outlined above

contributed to teaching EFL in an anxiety-free classroom atmosphere.

6.9 Conclusion

It may be concluded that the diary study and the interviews provided support

for most of the quantitative results reported in Chapter 5, but also revealed some

unexpected insights, such as the link made between learner agency and LA. This

connection has not been addressed to date, and it is hoped that the current project will

contribute to the field of second language studies. Very useful insights were also

offered by students’ and teachers’ recounts of stories and events occurring in class, all

contributing towards a better understanding of the complex nature of LA. All these

findings will be essential in refining the theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2

and shaping the future projects that will emerge from the present one.

The quantitative and qualitative strands of my project will now be integrated

in the next chapter, Discussion, and the findings will be contrasted with existing

studies addressing similar concepts.

184

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION

7.1 Introduction

This chapter integrates the quantitative results reported in Chapter 5 with the

qualitative findings presented in Chapter 6, offering a holistic interpretation of the

data that neither statistics nor thematic analysis would have facilitated separately. The

quantitative and qualitative data have been linked into meta-inferences, in line with

the principle of sequential mixed method analyses (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011;

Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009), which guided the research design of this project.

The first part of the chapter is dedicated to explicating those themes that were

found to be particularly important to the participating Greek EFL learners and their

tutors, as identified in Chapters 5 and 6: skill-specific anxieties, the relation between

LA, different proficiency levels, learner agency, and self-concepts, as well as other

internal and external anxiety-inducing factors, and anxiety-coping strategies.

Unexpected findings will also be discussed extensively in this section. Based on the

complexity of student conceptions, identifiable sources of LA, and reported

behaviours, the chapter ends with a holistic view on LA in English language

education.

7.2 Emerging themes

The main themes that emerged from my quantitative and qualitative results

will be discussed with reference to my Literature review (Chapter 2) and Research

context (Chapter 3), comparing and contrasting my findings with the existing studies

that addressed similar concepts.

185

7.2.1 Skill-specific anxieties

One of the goals of the present study was to examine the nature and relative

independence of EFL speaking anxiety and writing anxiety, as stated in research

questions 1 and 2 respectively. The component structures of the FLCAS and the

ESLWAT emerging in this study indeed argue for treating speaking anxiety and

writing anxiety as two independent, distinguishable variables, each depicting

somehow different aspects of classroom skill-specific anxiety. In particular, some

highly anxious students may suffer from fear of speaking English and being

negatively evaluated, some from flawed performance in the presence of the teacher,

and some from aversion to attending their English language class. By the same token,

when writing in English, highly anxious EFL learners may be afflicted by negative

attitudes towards the task at hand, self-derogatory thoughts, and fear of negative

evaluation.

The qualitative data have also shown that both anxiety types appear to be

language-skill-specific, because the requirements of speaking and writing as language

skills influence students’ levels of speaking anxiety and writing anxiety respectively.

With reference to speaking anxiety, students were fixated on accuracy and frequently

commented on the spontaneity that speaking involves. A strong link was also found

between making mistakes and facing derision by peers given the relatively high

degree of self-exposure that speaking in a foreign language entails. The participants’

precarious level of classroom speaking anxiety, interconnected with the possibility of

being negatively evaluated by their peers, could potentially reduce their levels of

intended effort when speaking in class and ultimately result in poor achievement.

MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels (1998, p. 547) doubted the quality of a

language programme that does not cater for an increase in learners’ WTC:

186

(…) the ultimate goal of the learning process should be to engender in language

students the willingness to seek out communication opportunities and the willingness

actually to communicate in them. A programme that fails to produce students who are

willing to use the language is simply a failed programme.

These findings point out that the role of the teacher needs to be reconsidered to a

certain extent. Apart from the traditional teacher roles mentioned in the literature on

language teaching (Harmer, 2007), including those of a prompter, controller,

assessor, resource, and tutor, teachers should also act as moderators of classroom

events that could generate personal feelings of inadequacy within learners.

By contrast, skill-specific writing anxiety was heavily dependent on L1

writing deficits and inability to come up with ideas on suggested writing topics. In the

light of these associations, Cheng et al.’s (1999) claims about language-skill-

specificity with regard to second language speaking anxiety and writing anxiety

reinforce my findings. Despite the fact that no correlations have been calculated

between skill-specific anxieties and achievement in respective skill-related activities

in my study, the quantitative and qualitative data detailed the distinctive nature of

speaking anxiety and writing anxiety that may affect students differently.

Factor analysing the ESLWAT, the emergence of attitudes as its first

component echoes Natassa’s and Sophia’s leitmotif that, if a student likes a specific

aspect of the language, then s/he will get anxious over it because of a desire to do

well; on the other hand, if it is an aspect one is not very fond of, then one’s anxiety

about it will decrease. Positive attitudes have been associated with intrinsic interest in

learning an L2 and a strong L2 self-concept (Csizér and Kormos, 2009). It follows

that student positive attitudes and writing anxiety are also interrelated. As this link

emerged with connection to writing anxiety, it becomes clear that teachers should

implement writing teaching strategies that will grow enjoyment of EFL writing. First

187

of all, it is important to ease students’ fears about producing written work in the L2

that is below what they could have produced in their native language. Adult learners

are often hesitant to produce language that is sub par their L1 skills. Process writing

could help students incorporate skills at a natural pace and encourage them to

improve their understanding of writing as a task and of the materials covered. Rather

than focusing students on working on perfection in the first draft, various writing

sessions could be set and writing tasks could be broken into smaller manageable

units, a teaching writing technique that was also employed by certain teacher

interviewees. It is important to instill the idea in students that writing is a cyclical and

iterative process, offering opportunities for interaction between stages and sub-

processes. Rankin-Brown (2006, p. 5) also suggested that teachers “assign papers that

address topics students are already familiar with”. Through theme-centred modules,

students are able to develop critical thinking skills and writing strategies to

implement with topics they already know and are willing to discuss.

One of the most intriguing findings regarding writing anxiety was the serious

complication of L1 writing deficiencies and lack of L1 writing strategies that

appeared when writing in EFL. The literature on L2 writing suggests that it is only

natural that students will attempt to transfer their knowledge of L1 writing to L2

writing. According to Manchón (2009, p. 12), the “multilingual nature of foreign

language writing” requires this transfer, which is “bidirectional, and […] includes

transfer of knowledge, skills and, very importantly, the use of the writer’s total

linguistic repertoire at product and process levels”. Further, the amount of transfer

will clearly depend on the students’ proficiency level, with low-level learners

transferring L1 textual features to L2 writing as opposed to more advanced students

who are more likely to rely on L2 textual features in the development of L2 writing

188

skills (Rinnert and Kobayashi, 2009). Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, and van

Gelderen (2009, p. 81) claimed that in foreign language writing, “L1 writing

expertise and metacognitive knowledge can be used for conceptual (prelinguistic)

preparation”. The authors concluded saying that “the relationship between L1 and

foreign language writing proficiency is without doubt mediated by foreign language

linguistic knowledge, but the issue of how and to what extent these three constructs

interact is still not settled” (ibid., p. 82).

In this study, however, the teacher participants explained that students were

not aware of rhetorical and organisational patterns of writing in their L1. Therefore,

such a transfer was unlikely to exist. This may be due to an overwhelming emphasis

on reading over writing in Greek schools, which appears to be related in part to

educational policies stressing historical and cultural heritage through reading classics

(i.e., Ancient Greek) and modern Greek literature. As far as L1 writing training is

concerned, it emphasises a type of text in which a particular position with supporting

evidence is provided. This kind of writing attaches importance to logical

argumentation, which seems to echo the typical characteristics and conventions of

English academic writing, as well as opinion writing included in EFL textbooks.

Thus, L1 writing instruction appears to promote aspects similar to those of English

opinion-writing. The domain of writing in Greek can often be tightly specified by

exam boards, and therefore the instruction promotes the use of specific discourse

types in essays, as could also be the case when studying English for an exam. One

therefore wonders what it is that Greek students lack when it comes to writing both in

their L1 and L2. Comparing the education systems of Greece and the UK on the basis

of my experience as a learner and as a teacher, I feel that the absence of lateral

thinking, the prescribed nature of what to write and how to write it, and the insistence

189

on rote learning and memorisation evident in all levels of the Greek education

system, could explain EFL students’ disposition to become anxious about writing.

Having said that, one facet common to both speaking anxiety and writing

anxiety was fear of negative evaluation. Specifically, the respondents endorsed items

of both quantitative data collection instruments that were related to evaluation by

peers and disagreed with statements depicting negative reactions to teacher

evaluation. Insights from the interviews showed that this finding is interrelated with

student beliefs about the role of teachers. Many interviewees talked about the “duty”

teachers had to evaluate students’ oral and written work, hence evaluation was what

students would expect their tutors to do, provided that this was conducted in a non-

judgmental manner. With reference to writing anxiety in particular, students felt that

feedback from their tutors helped them to clarify what level they had reached and to

set the syllabus for future work. This finding corroborates Harmer’s (2007) claims

that EFL teachers often act as feedback providers or assessors, evaluating students’

performance and informing them about their progress. From a cultural standpoint too,

this finding resonates with Wan, Low, and Li’s (2011) conclusion that, for Chinese

EFL learners, teachers are conceived of as providers and evaluators.

On the contrary, evaluation by peers was not part of the learners’ set of beliefs

about classroom language learning. Students would not expect their peers to evaluate

them, and, whenever evaluation did occur, it had a detrimental effect on LA levels.

Several students even highlighted that, when speaking, they would face derision by

the weakest members in the class, a situation that translated as competitiveness or

envy. These findings confirm a massive body of literature emphasising frequent

instances of peer pressure in class, as well as a stringent need for social approval,

which maximise students’ levels of in-class speaking anxiety (Aida, 1994; Cheng et

190

al., 1999; Gregersen and Horwitz, 2002; Horwitz et al., 1986; Kitano, 2001; Mak,

2011; Young, 1990). Individuals are formed by socialisation (Benson and Cooker,

2013), thus their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours are often influenced by significant

others’ reactions to those projected behaviours. Individuals tend to exhibit different

emotional responses to the audience’s reactions (Leary, 1995), thus feeling that they

are perceived the intended way may motivate them to believe they are approved by

their significant others (Leary and Kowalski, 1990), and may also subsequently

motivate them to develop positive affective behaviours towards language learning.

The data have also shown that this social dimension of skill-specific anxieties

often led to social comparisons among learners, which might to a certain degree have

been unconscious processes, with students having no control over them, resulting in

feelings of competitiveness that students were not always in a position to

acknowledge. Zoe’s answer when asked whether she believed she was competitive

was quite revealing:

I am not competitive. It’s just that I want all students in the same class to be of the

same level of proficiency. Is it competitiveness? I don’t know. I don’t want to feel I am

inferior to others.

Leary (1995) explained that, while behaving in a way that is not yet part of their self-

concept, individuals may learn new things about themselves; they may even come to

realise that they actually are the way they presented themselves. According to the

social comparison theory, after people compare and find differences, they are led to

pressures towards uniformity, either by changing self or changing others, in an

attempt to feel they belong to a homogeneous group (Wheeler, 1991). Many student

interviewees in fact stressed the importance of being carefully placed in groups on the

191

basis of their proficiency levels, in order to avoid heterogeneous, mixed-ability

classes, where students may feel either superior or inferior to their classmates.

At the same time, “social comparisons may also be consciously directed by a

learner depending on their self-related needs” (Mercer, 2011, p. 10). Hence, to satisfy

these needs, students may engage in upward social comparisons, comparing

themselves with peers that they perceive as better than themselves, or downward

social comparisons, with those considered less able (Mercer, 2011). Wheeler (1991,

p. 8), however, questioned the directionality of these downward and upward drives,

saying “if one wanted to be better than others, should one compare downward to

assure being better, or should one compare upward to compete for the better

position?”. Thus, upward social comparisons are not necessarily negative. As Wood

and Taylor (1991, pp. 26-27) argued,

Indeed, people appear to be interested in obtaining any information they can about the

distribution of others’ standings on the dimension under evaluation. It seems likely that

knowing one’s own score may have little meaning by itself; one may need to know

where others stand on that dimension to have a context for interpreting one’s own

score. Thus, individuals are clearly interested in comparing with others who are

different from themselves along the dimension under evaluation, perhaps as an initial

step toward self-evaluation. […] one may learn from others who are more skilled, and

one may be inspired by their example. Indeed, many researchers have interpreted

upward comparisons as reflecting achievement motives.

Applying insights from the social comparison theory to language teaching is not an

easy task, and no teacher would approve of students being competitive. However, the

theory has the potential to suggest a pedagogy that promotes self-evaluation and

urges students to set clear and achievable targets to improve their learning.

Two important insights, of theoretical and methodological nature respectively,

follow from the findings on language-skill specificity and LA:

192

a) The need for a re-evaluation of the crucial role of writing anxiety on EFL learning

should be underlined. Writing too – and not just speaking – should be conceived of

as involving a challenging amount of self-exposure when practiced in class. The

present study has revealed that writing anxiety may also emanate from students’

fear of negative evaluation by their peers, trepidation about being less competent

than their peers, and low self-confidence when writing in English. Therefore,

helping students to develop practical writing skills, including techniques for

generating and expressing ideas, would make them feel psychologically secure in

the EFL classroom. Given that students may see the foreign language classroom as

a place where any correction equals failure, teachers should make the classroom as

non-threatening as possible. Measures like selective error correction by taking into

account the main foci of the writing activity and by accompanying it with

comments that do not immediately accentuate the errors, could be taken by

teachers to help students overcome their writing anxiety. The link between

classroom anxiety and achievement is an important indication that we do need to

care about our students’ anxiety and psychology if we care about their

achievement.

b) FLCAS could be used for the purposes of operationalising speaking anxiety. Even

though the FLCAS is not in its entirety related to speaking anxiety, it loaded

primarily on items depicting speaking anxiety situations in the classroom, thereby

suggesting, first of all, that anxiety over speaking emanates from the broad English

language classroom context. The statistically significant high correlation (r = .91,

p < .05) between classroom LA and speaking anxiety revealed that the two

variables are directly proportional. In Aida’s (1994) and Mak’s (2011) studies too,

items relating to speaking anxiety loaded on the first factor, which again

193

significantly and strongly correlated with general classroom anxiety. Therefore,

corroborating the existing literature, the findings of the present study also reveal

that the FLCAS is a quantitative classroom anxiety instrument that measures

primarily speaking anxiety, a finding that is consistent with Cheng et al.’s (1999)

as well as Aida’s (1994, p. 163) conclusion that “the FLCAS appears to measure

anxiety primarily related to speaking situations”.

7.2.2 Self-concept and language anxiety

The importance of viewing language and self as closely interrelated has often

been emphasised in the research on self (Cohen and Norst, 1989; Mercer, 2011),

identity (Morita, 2004; Norton, 2000; Williams and Burden, 1997), and more recently

through the introduction of the ‘L2 Motivational Self System’ model of motivation13

(Dörnyei, 2009). Indeed, Cohen and Norst (1989, p. 61) claimed that “there is

something fundamentally different about learning a language, compared to learning

another skill or gaining other knowledge, namely, that language and self are so

closely bound, if not identical, that an attack on one is an attack on the other”. Csizér

and Kormos (2009, pp. 109-110) explained that their research “underlines the

importance of self-concept in affecting motivated behavior and shows that self-

regulated behavior is hardly possible unless students have a positive image of

themselves as users of another language”. Williams and Burden (1997, p. 115) also

stressed the strongly social nature of language learning by concluding that “language,

13

Dörnyei (2009, p. 29) argued that “for some language learners the initial motivation to learn a language

does not come from internally or externally generated self images but rather from successful engagement

with the actual language learning process (e.g. because they discover they are good at it)”. Based on this

conclusion, Dörnyei (2009) proposed the ‘L2 Motivational Self System’, consisting of the ideal L2 self (i.e.,

the attributes one would ideally like to possess), the ought-to L2 self (i.e., the attributes one believes one

ought to possess, usually foisted on individuals by others), and the L2 learning experience (i.e., aspects of

the immediate learning environment and experience, such as the curriculum, the peers, the teacher).

194

after all, belongs to a person’s whole social being; it is a part of one’s identity, and is

used to convey this identity to other people”.

The study of the relationship between LA and a range of interrelated self-

beliefs, such as self-concept, self-confidence, self-esteem, self-perceived competence,

and self-efficacy, has also demonstrated that negative self-related beliefs caused

anxiety among students (Bailey, 1983; Foss and Reitzel, 1991; Horwitz et al., 1986;

Kitano, 2001; Price, 1991; Young, 1991). Horwitz et al. (1986, p. 128) contended that

“probably no other field of study implicates self-concept and self-expression to the

degree that language study does”. The findings in this study corroborate previous

research, but also provide further evidence for both an adverse and a beneficial effect

of self-concept upon LA. Whilst negative self-related cognition increased students’

LA in the classroom, positive self-concepts reinforced their feelings of self-worth and

functioned as a means of battling against LA. Although the highly anxious EFL

learners that participated in this study were found to often make self-deprecating

remarks and have a low sense of self-efficacy, they tended to strengthen their self-

concept in respect to those skills or activities for which their self-perceived

competence was high. Ioanna believed she was fluent, and therefore speaking would

not make her anxious; Kiki also underlined the fact that she knew she was a strong

and diligent student (see section 6.4.2). One could therefore surmise that EFL

learners had formed their own affective evaluative beliefs about themselves and

seemed to be aware of their skill development. This should not mean, however, that

students’ self-perceived abilities always reflect their actual abilities (Kitano, 2001). In

general, individuals tend to ascribe their own personal interpretations to images from

others and to construct their self-concepts based on how they believe others perceive

and judge them in a particular context. It is important to note at this point that one’s

195

interpretations may be accurate or, quite often, inaccurate, leading to a low sense of

self-worth and, consequently, high levels of LA.

On the other hand, this study also indicated that self-concepts are likely to

function as anxiety-reducing factors too (MacIntyre and Gregersen, 2012; Mruk,

2006). Clearly, both the positive and negative nature of self-concepts will impact on

language development, either promoting or detracting students from it respectively. It

is possible, however, that anxious students may be able to handle anxiety-provoking

situations if they possess high self-esteem. Greenberg and his colleagues (1992, p.

913) proposed a terror management theory, which posited that “people are motivated

to maintain a positive self-image because self-esteem protects them from anxiety”. As

Horwitz et al. (1986) noted, students with low self-esteem are likely to be more

vulnerable to the threats caused by the uniqueness of the language learning process

and the overall language learning environment, as opposed to individuals with a sure

sense of self-worth, likely to manage those threats more effectively.

With the students participating in this study, the amount of linguistic

knowledge did not always constitute the factor that impeded communication, but it

was their self-esteem that needed to be given a real boost. Natassa – the most anxious

student in this study – underlined the importance of such a strategy by saying that she

wants to be praised by her teachers and to be told that she is good at English. External

incentives, such as praise, can motivate students to act and increase their confidence

as learners of a foreign language. Although consolidating a stable form of self-esteem

is largely the result of a developmental process which takes time (Mruk, 2006), this

type of positive emotion, as well as praise, interest, and enjoyment, may help students

to build strengths against negative emotions (Gardner, 1985; MacIntyre and

Gregersen, 2012).

196

However, praise should be used carefully, and teachers need to take care not

to inadvertently instill students with unrealistic ideas about language learning and

unrealistic expectations of themselves as language learners. Research has shown that

overusing praise by praising students for easily achieved successes and unsolicited

help can have debilitating effects on self-perceived competence, because students

tend to see this easily gained form of praise as a low-ability cue (Dweck, 2007;

Weiner, 1986). Mercer and Ryan (2010, p. 442) also suggested that feedback and

praise should focus “on learners’ effort, the process of learning, and beliefs about

developing one’s ability through hard work”.

With reference to writing, analysing the ESLWAT also showed that most

students were not self-confident in expressing their ideas clearly in writing, and

reported low self-efficacy in writing good compositions. However, a vast majority

believed that they could submit a well-written final product. One could therefore

presume that writing anxiety could be associated with different stages of a writing

lesson, namely process and product writing, as the students’ self-concept appeared to

be weak during the process of writing but strong with relation to the end product.

Students rationalised that process writing creates a certain amount of stress due to

lack of L1 writing strategies and their transferability to the L2. This insight into

differential levels of writing anxiety was also facilitated by the student interviews,

where several students spoke about their anxiety and initial negative reactions to

writing within strict time limits on the one hand, and their well-written final piece on

the other, for which they received very good marks by teachers.

In the previous section, I argued that process writing should be viewed as a

cyclical and non-linear process, where interactions between stages are normal and

should form part of the EFL writing process. Teachers should therefore encourage

197

and train students to plan, draft, re-plan, draft, edit, etc. their written piece before they

produce and submit the final version. Although process writing may be time-

consuming and may meet, at least initially, with some resistance on the part of the

learners, it could contribute to defragmenting EFL writing, and could also help

learners to become better writers in their out-of-class or post-course English studying

routes.

7.2.3 Learner agency and language anxiety

One of the most intriguing themes of the present study, which I was not

aiming at investigating from the outset but which emerged through the qualitative

data analysis phase, was the student interviewees’ high sense and exercise of agency

leading to differential levels of classroom LA (Gkonou, forthcoming). Within

psychology- and anthropology-based research, agency is viewed as “the

socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112). Within much of

SLA, however, and given the fact that one’s capacity to act is likely to be influenced

by their cognitive and motivational affordances, agency refers to an individual’s will

and capacity to act (Gao, 2010). More recently, Mercer (2012, p. 42) defined agency

as being composed of two dimensions that cannot be meaningfully separated:

Firstly, there is a learner’s sense of agency, which concerns how agentic an individual

feels both generally and in respect to particular contexts. Secondly, there is a learner’s

agentic behaviour in which an individual chooses to exercise their agency through

participation and action, or indeed through deliberate non-participation or non-action.

Agency is therefore not only concerned with what is observable but it also involves

non-visible behaviours, beliefs, thoughts and feelings; all of which must be understood

in relation to the various contexts and affordances from which they cannot be

abstracted.

Thus, learners may feel that they want and are able to act (i.e., sense of agency), and

then proceed to real action and participation (i.e., exercise of agency). At the same

198

time, their denial to act or participate in specific contexts for specific reasons is also

an indication of their sense and exercise of agency.

Agency can therefore have a major impact on learning outcomes, and, as van

Lier (2008) put it, successful language learning depends on the activity and initiative

of the learner (van Lier, 2008). Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001, p. 145) emphasised that

learners are “people with human agency who actively engage in constructing the

terms and conditions of their own learning”. However, as Mercer (2012, p. 41)

argued, “before a learner engages their agentic resources and chooses to exercise their

agency in a particular learning context, they have to hold a personal sense of agency –

a belief that their behaviour can make a difference to their learning in that setting”.

Much in the same vein, Bown (2009, p. 580) also explained that “to effectively

manage learning and regulate emotional responses, learners must be aware of their

own agency and must believe themselves capable of exercising that agency”. Hence,

autonomous and self-regulated learning behaviour depends on learners’ awareness of

themselves as active agents, capable of exerting influence on and shaping their own

language learning experiences.

Agency was found to be largely mediated from a range of settings

surrounding the students, as well as from the temporal and spatial dimensions

associated with those settings. As Carter and Sealey (2000, p. 11) argued,

Too great an emphasis on structures denies actors any power and fails to account for

human beings making a difference. Too great an emphasis on agency overlooks the

(we would claim) very real constraints acting on us in time and space. And reducing

each to merely a manifestation of the other […] necessarily results in a theory which is

unable to capture the complex relations between them.

Thus, contextual and personal factors should not be abstracted, but should rather be

seen as interacting with each other in order to lead to desirable results. Within

199

psychology, Bandura (1989, 1997) also attached importance to the interplay between

environmental and intrapersonal (e.g., cognitive, affective, and motivational) factors,

and posited that individuals should not be merely viewed as agents reactive to their

contexts, but at the same time as proactive agents who are able to change them.

Within SLA too, learner agency along with self-concept, beliefs, motivation, affect,

and self-regulation were found to interact within a system of reciprocal causation

(Mercer, 2011). Investigating how learners exercise their agency in their selection

and use of strategies, Gao (2010) concluded that the interaction of context and agency

can initiate strategy use, and that the concept of learner agency needs to be extended

to include aspects other than a learner’s metacognition and self-regulation.

Thus, learner agency should not be seen as a monolithic variable, but rather as

a latent construct which is shaped by numerous contextual, sociocultural, and

intrapersonal factors influencing the students. This echoes Lantolf and Pavlenko’s

(2001, p. 155) call for “a more complex view of second language learners as agents”.

Consistent with these views, this study made a link between learner agency and LA, a

connection not addressed to date.

As was the case with self-beliefs too, the findings illustrated that the role of

learner agency on LA was dual, consisting of a range of dimensions which, although

occasionally contributing towards increasing students’ anxiety, often helped them to

develop internal mechanisms to control it. The findings of the present study therefore

posed questions of directionality between classroom LA and learners’ sense and

exercise of agency, which could certainly contribute towards stimulating further

research into analysing the components of the agentic system of highly anxious EFL

learners in particular. Since research into the relationship between LA and learner

agency is scarce, this study aimed to reach a better understanding of the subject, with

200

the hope of identifying practices that language educators could put in place to help

students with a strong sense and exercise of agency better deal with their classroom

LA.

The most salient component of the informants’ agentic system was

metacognitive knowledge gained through self-evaluation and self-perceptions of

ability in EFL. As was mentioned above, the participating students were frequently

constructing their self-evaluative judgments and were aware of their skill

development. Clearly, self-regulation will influence agency as well as students’

decisions about “how to allocate their agentic resources” (Mercer, 2011, p. 433) and,

thus, what they need to focus on. Mercer (2011, p. 431) also stressed that self-

perceived competence “will affect decisions about how to exercise agency as well as

the degree to which a learner feels able to direct their agency in ways to enhance their

learning”. Metacognitive knowledge therefore leads to “healthy reflection and

evaluation of one’s thinking which may result in making specific changes in how one

learns” through a targeted and well-defined agentic behavior in the classroom

(Anderson, 2012, p. 170). Therefore, metacognition and agency should be considered

complementary to each other in revealing the process and goals of autonomous

learning (Gao and Zhang, 2011).

Although the metacognitive dimension of agency seems to promote learner

self-regulatory processes towards planning for effective learning, increasing self-

confidence and hence reducing LA, it may as well determine an adverse outcome.

Dörnyei (2005, 2009) claimed that students will tend to compare their self-perceived

performance with future goals, and, if they notice any gap, they will be motivated to

act. Higgins (1987) suggested his self-discrepancy theory, which postulates that

individuals are motivated to reduce the discrepancy between their actual self and the

201

behavioural standards of their ideal or ought-to selves. The discrepancy between their

actual self and their ideal selves initiates self-regulation and metacognition. However,

any gaps between students’ perceived competence and the accomplishment of future

goals may also accentuate their potential fear of failure in their studies and maximise

their anxiety over academic achievement, because students are likely to

underestimate their capacities to narrow that gap. On the one hand therefore, students

should be encouraged to set goals and exercise their agency towards achieving them.

On the other hand, highly anxious EFL learners’ failure or even reluctance to exercise

their agency and exhibit self-regulatory behaviour just because they believe their

competence is below par, is likely to ignite more anxiety.

Another particularly noteworthy dimension of the informants’ agentic system

concerns their time management skills in an attempt to prioritise tasks and personal

needs. Given that this study was conducted with adult learners who have to balance

their goal to become proficient in the language and their other life goals, such as to go

to work, deal with accommodation-related tasks, and attend other classes, it becomes

clear that learner agency influences classroom LA. As age increases, learners go

through a maturation phase where they feel that they understand the significance

behind learning English, take a proactive role, and continuously build their sense of

agency. Students generally felt that they needed to prioritise concurrent needs and

goals, and as far as EFL learning was concerned, they thought that their goal to

master the language should be attained. As Nikos said, an adult would have to

oversee a number of different tasks on a daily basis, therefore s/he would not “want to

waste [their] time” in the EFL classroom. Thinking that mastering the language is a

goal to be sought for, an increasing fear of failure accompanied by high LA emerges,

and students feel that mastering the L2 is not well within their means.

202

Students’ precarious levels of fear of failure and their stringent need for

achievement also appeared to pressure them to exercise their agency in the EFL

classroom. An explanation for this could be their fixed set of success-oriented beliefs,

which could in turn be attributed to the structure of the Greek foreign language

education system. Strong claims, such as “I mustn’t fail” (Kiki, interview), reveal that

failure is not an option for the students. In the absence of a longitudinal,

developmental study, it is unclear whether these success-oriented beliefs were

initially externally formed and imposed, and then gradually internalised by the

students, or whether they formed an integral part of the students’ beliefs about the

scope of language learning in general. In fact, when certain beliefs are dominant

within one’s immediate sociocultural environment, individuals tend to internalise

them unconsciously and spontaneously. This dynamic relationship between what

individuals believe (i.e., their self-concept) and what others impose on them to

believe (i.e., their ideal self, or their ought-to self; Dörnyei, 2009) is demonstrated in

the evidence that, in fact, one’s ideal or ought-to self can change their self-concept.

As Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 82) commented,

[…] it is not always straightforward to decide at times of social pressure whether an

ideal-like self state represents one’s genuine dreams or whether it has been

compromised by the desire for role conformity. Indeed, group norms, as their name

suggests, impose a normative function on group members and because humans are

social beings, most of us adhere to some extent to these norms. This means that there is

a pressure to internalise our ought selves to some extent, resulting in various degrees of

integration.

Thus, the internalisation of social values and identities conditions one’s personal

values and preferences. The process of internalisation helps to explain how specific

external orientations can be assimilated into one’s self-concepts. Different people and

different contexts can play a significant role in students’ internalisation of beliefs

203

about success in language learning. Therefore, “aspects of context shape the learner’s

experience, and, reciprocally, […] the learner shapes the context to meet her needs

and aspirations” (Noels, 2009, p. 299).

Internalisation could, on the one hand, lead to devastating negative

consequences in academic environments, given that students are often externally

imposed to consider English simply as an academic subject that one has to study in

order to succeed, or graduate, or be given a promotion, before moving on to more

personally relevant pursuits. Thus, students may not view the English class as an

opportunity to become proficient speakers of the language and acquire and develop a

skill for life, but rather as a place that will guarantee them success in English for job.

This could further endanger their intrinsic interest in the language, if there is one, or

prevent them from gradually developing one. On the other hand, internalisation can

as well serve educational purposes in two ways: a) students could be encouraged by

their teachers to appropriate learning goals that they see as personally relevant, and b)

doing something that one does not necessarily believe in may open up learning

possibilities, which a student of little experience might never try otherwise, thus

being very educational in itself.

Another component contributing to students’ sense of agency and mounting

LA is their beliefs about language learning. Mercer and Ryan (2010) talked about

mindset beliefs and distinguished between a fixed mindset, referring to students

believing that language learning abilities largely depend on an innate, fixed talent,

and a growth mindset, in which case one’s ability to learn a language is attributable to

effort and studying. They explained that the type of mindset will influence a student’s

sense of agency. The findings of the present study demonstrated that the majority of

students possessed a growth mindset, and were continuously referring to vocabulary

204

as something they needed to work hard on. Participants also stressed that they were

looking for ways of how best to learn vocabulary. These mindset beliefs had a

considerable impact on learners’ LA levels, and could indicate whether language

learning development was within their control: students acknowledged the relative

difficulty of lexical input, and the subsequent difficulty in acquiring it, and, therefore,

tried to find appropriate ways of acting and of exercising their agency in order to

study new vocabulary.

Three important insights follow from these findings:

a) Developments in research on agency can inform, and even transform, theoretical

and methodological conceptualisations of LA. Although agency has been widely

associated with language learner identity and autonomy (Benson and Cooker,

2013; Bown, 2009; Toohey and Norton, 2003; Ushioda, 2007), the study of the

agentic system of highly anxious EFL learners can indeed provide insights into the

complexity of the constructs of both agency and LA. This leads to a call for more

studies on the interconnection between LA and learner agency.

b) Enhancing learners’ self-regulation and metacognitive knowledge could not only

lead to effective language learning in the long run, but could also give students the

opportunity to speculate on and analyse the way they think in an attempt to

identify ways to diminish the anxiety they are faced with in the classroom. This

aspect will be discussed in more detail in the section on coping strategies below.

c) Language learners should be viewed and understood as people “who are

necessarily located in particular cultural and historical contexts” (Ushioda, 2009,

p. 216), who have a variety of social roles, and who are proactive agents and

moderators of their own learning. The contexts surrounding the students, ranging

from sociocultural, out-of-class settings, to formalised learning contexts such as

205

the language classroom, shape and determine their behaviour and emotions in

class. Language educators should therefore urge learners to develop and improve

self-monitoring and self-regulatory skills, and build strong motivational

attributions. Having control over one’s own learning brings more self-confidence

to students, and, hopefully, less anxiety.

7.2.4 An ecological approach to language anxiety

The findings of the current study relate well to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993)

nested ecosystems model, according to which human behavior is structured over four

layers: micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystem, ranging from the immediate setting to

the overarching social and cultural context. The microsystem, which is the innermost

layer, operationalised through the EFL classrooms, has been extensively discussed in

the previous sections and will also be discussed in the sections that follow. The

second level, the mesosystem, reflects the interrelatedness between the classroom and

other settings containing the students. Students’ past language learning experiences

having occurred outside the current classroom but exerting an influence on LA in the

current classroom are grouped under this level.

The mesosystemic level in this study was found to comprise aspects such as

prior self-concepts, prior achievement, direct feedback from and reflected appraisals

of others, and past teachers’ attitude in the form of judgmental manner towards

students, all influencing students’ present degree of LA in the classroom. Within

psychology, the effect of one’s prior achievement on current behavior and affective

state was seen in the ‘Reciprocal Effects Model’ (REM; Marsh, 2006). According to

the REM model, prior self-concept affects subsequent achievement, and also prior

achievement affects self-concept development. This could perhaps be extended to

206

LA-related literature and, notably, to the present study, the findings of which revealed

that prior LA influences future achievement and prior achievement affects LA

development. Daly (1991, p. 10) claimed that “people who previously have had

positive experiences learning languages are, in all likelihood, less anxious about

conquering another one than are those who recollect nothing but fear, anxiety and

failure from prior attempts”.

In the context of the present study, and in particular in Natassa’s and Nikos’s

case (see section 6.6), their negative past experiences with failure and with strict

teachers influenced their subsequent language learning experience to the point that

they were anxious about failing the course or about being taught by a tutor with a

similar attitude to teaching. Therefore, acknowledging prior experience as an

influence on how LA develops is a perspective that should be taken into account

when attempting to conceptualise anxiety. LA and achievement were often found to

have a bidirectional relationship (Horwitz, 2001; Kitano, 2001; Marcos-Llinás and

Garau, 2009; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999; Pappamihiel, 2002; Phillips, 1992;

Woodrow, 2006), and in fact measures of achievement were extensively used in

correlational studies investigating the relationship between these two variables. The

findings of the present study, therefore, support existing research, with the exception

of Yan and Horwitz’s (2008) study, whose model did not indicate any influence of

achievement on the anxiety of Chinese EFL learners, and vice versa. According to the

authors (ibid., p. 173), “they [i.e., the learners] only commented on how anxiety kept

them from achieving and did not mention lack of achievement as contributing to their

anxiety”.

From this ecological approach to LA though, the most interesting finding

concerns the existence of a third systemic level that could be conceived of as falling

207

somewhere between an exosystem and a macrosystem. Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993)

claims that the exosystem refers to the interconnection between two or more settings,

at least one of which does not contain the individual but influences his/her behaviour

in the classroom. As for the macrosystem, it entails the overarching socioeducational

norms, including the indigenous learning culture as well. At this level therefore, the

exosystem and macrosystem encapsulate two important dimensions: Natassa’s – the

most anxious student’s – concerns over local, success-oriented beliefs about language

learning having a subtle effect on student affective behaviour in class; and, the nature

and structure of the Greek foreign language education system which influences

students’ LA levels. These two aspects will be discussed next.

Natassa argued that her teacher owned a language school in a rural area in

Greece; students’ success at learning English would be a means of advertising the

quality of teaching offered by the school. Overall, a student’s success at foreign

language learning mirrors a school’s high quality of education programmes. As such,

teachers’ and school owners’ anxiety and their expectations from their students are

likely to engender anxiety within the latter. Concomitantly, a country’s foreign

language education system extends to educational policies implemented by each

language school. It is therefore important not to lose sight of the big picture when

assessing teaching and learning practices and their detrimental effect on students’ LA.

Just like students feel controlled by the teacher and have their autonomy stifled and

their anxiety augmented, so too teachers feel controlled by higher order factors and

administrative bodies. Exosystemic and macrosystemic factors thereby influence not

only student LA, but also teacher behaviour that often impacts on student affective

behaviour within the microsystem.

208

As explained in the Research Context chapter, foreign language learning in

Greece is urgently needed for international communication, as Greek is one of the

least widely spoken languages outside of Greece. However, additional instrumental

reasons, stemming from higher education norms and the indigenous culture of

learning, put much pressure on learners too. The education system in general revolves

around formal examinations. Foreign language learning too targets exams from

international acclaimed examination boards, or national standardised English testing

centres. The public sector, where an overwhelming majority of citizens aspire to work

in, is monitored by the Supreme Council for Civil Personnel Selection (ASEP) and is

structured on the basis of a point factor system, where many points go to English and

other foreign language certification as a prerequisite for securing the top jobs there.

Within the context of the present study therefore, the Greek foreign language

education system, sharing both exosystemic and macrosystemic features, increases

EFL students’ LA in the microsystem, the immediate EFL classroom.

Noteworthy among the findings on viewing LA ecologically was the insight

that not only did the exosystem and macrosystem ignite feelings of LA in the

classroom, but might have also endangered students’ intrinsic interest in the

language. As generalised a practice as it is on an international scale, it is known that

upcoming exams, like any other form of contingent reward, undermine students’

intrinsic motivation to learn the foreign language. When individuals know that they

will be rewarded for performing a task, the extrinsic incentive becomes more salient

than the intrinsic one (Deci and Ryan, 1985). As Noels (2009, p. 297) put it, “the

cause of the action is removed from the person’s own wishes, and is experienced as a

form of control. As long as that contingency is present, a student would engage in

language learning; once removed, that engagement would desist”. This study revealed

209

that Greek students feared failure and attached great importance to succeeding in the

course and in future exams. From a cultural point of view, this finding confirms

Ryan’s (2009, p. 125) analysis of English language teaching in Japanese secondary

schools, which he found “has a clearly defined instrumental function, stripped of any

communicative function”, where English is seen “as content for a series of

examinations that have profound consequences for future academic or career

prospects”.

At a teaching and learning practice level, however, several students expressed

their discontent with less interactive and occasionally exam-centred forms of

teaching, and did not universally reject communicative activities, but rather stressed

their usefulness in the acquisition of English as a communication tool. Zoe explained:

In our English lessons there is not much focus on conversing in English. I mean that

you go to the school and you work on exercises, or the teacher tells you how to write

an essay. Lessons usually focus on the writing component rather than on the oral one.

Even when we enter the classroom and we speak in English with the teacher, it’s just

the basics we talk about, such as hi, how are you, did you do your homework. This is

in every lesson.

Rejection of communicatively-oriented activities occurred only when certain tasks

were perceived as offering limited learning attainment potential. The Greek culture of

learning should therefore be dynamically understood.

These findings set a new research agenda that could contribute towards

making LA research more ecological. As Williams and Burden (1997, p. 190) pointed

out, “what is of particular significance to us here is that ecological or systems

approaches emphasise the importance of taking into account the total environment of

the learner if we are to explain adequately how and why people learn”. Raising

awareness of the existence of the four systems could thereby benefit language

teachers, urging them to scrutinise their students’ ecosystemic behaviour in an

210

attempt to alleviate their stress in the classroom. Whilst teacher intervention could be

achieved by bottom-up innovation in the microsystem, a top-down approach to the

remaining ecosystems is also required to help allay students’ in-class LA (Peng,

2012). Teachers could become aware of the realities of the different contexts that

surround their students, and engage in pedagogical decision-making aimed at

enhancing their learners’ options and learning potential.

7.2.5 Level of proficiency and language anxiety

One of the aims of the present study was to investigate the difference in

language anxiety among students at different proficiency levels, as mentioned in the

third research question. The quantitative data collection instruments indicated that the

B1 students experienced the most anxiety and the C2 students the least, with B2 and

C1 students falling between the other two, thereby corroborating MacIntyre and

Gardner’s (1991a, p. 111) conclusion that “as experience and proficiency increase,

anxiety declines in a fairly consistent manner”. Liu’s (2006) and Pappamihiel’s

(2002) claims that higher level students were less anxious than their lower-level

counterparts in their studies also resonate well with my participants’ viewpoints.

The strong link between lower proficiency levels and LA could first be

attributed to learners’ relatively limited exposure to the L2 by the time they reach B1.

It is clear that lower-level students will possess a smaller amount of knowledge of the

target language, and will have fewer opportunities for English use than their more

advanced counterparts. What is more, adult learners often feel ashamed and

embarrassed when they realise that they cannot get their intended meaning across in

the foreign language. Their self-consciousness is also aggravated by fears about

211

producing work in the L2 that is not up to par with what they could have produced in

their native language.

Another difference between the advanced levels and the lower intermediate

levels concerns the different foci of both learning and teaching. Aspects such as how

much is taught, the complexity of the rules given, the type of practice activities used,

and the way in which meaningful contexts to bring target language to life are created,

may increase students’ LA over the target linguistic input. In lower-level EFL classes,

explicit teaching of grammar rules and new structures, as well as of new lexical

items, is still ongoing, thereby restricting learners to acquiring rules and occasionally

minimising teachers’ flexibility on what to teach. Students’ main focus of learning is

getting things right by trying to incorporate the rules in their oral and written output.

Accuracy is therefore emphasised at the expense of fluency. We have seen that

Antonis’s students still seemed fixated on accuracy despite his efforts to get them

talking as much as possible.

I have a group this year, all adults group, and I think that their level of anxiety is

mostly elevated by the fact that they can’t understand grammar. And even though I am

trying to make them talk generally about everyday stuff, they keep concentrating on

“Oh, we make mistakes when we talk so we have to learn the grammar”.

The importance that students attach to the need to work on accuracy can maximise

their self-consciousness and pose a threat to their self-esteem. Even if teachers

establish that they are delighted for students to speak anything at all, it is entirely up

to each individual student’s personality how mistakes and correction are perceived.

Less experience with EFL learning and strategies could also be a hindrance in

the case of B1 students. As Mary, one of the tutors, commented, B1 students have not

yet taken any formal English examination, which is what the vast majority of foreign

212

language learners intend to do in Greece. Dendrinos and Zouganeli (2012) explained

that reaching B2-level proficiency in English is the goal for most Greek students. On

the contrary, advanced students are experienced exam takers and thus accustomed to

techniques and types of tasks EFL learning entails. I have mentioned elsewhere that,

as students amass experience and autonomy, they are better able to find their own

ways to minimise LA – and also anxiety in trait, global terms. In consequence, it

appears that experience and proficiency levels go hand in hand, influencing students’

amount of LA accordingly.

The qualitative findings, however, contradicted the quantitative results to a

certain extent, offering implications for a complex interplay between L2 input,

proficiency levels, and LA. Specifically, several students spoke about the difficulty

and overwhelming amount of lexical input, and commented that, although they were

now proficient in the language, they had to cope with advanced linguistic input and

demanding tasks, therefore not perceiving their advanced level of competence as a

facilitating factor towards alleviating their LA.

Such accounts, which surfaced in the interviews, could indeed be associated

with the curricular standards set for advanced classes. EFL students in those classes

know that they are expected to produce more authentic-like language and not restrict

themselves to the production of formulaic sentences and structures. I have argued

above that lower-level EFL students lack linguistic knowledge, and are therefore

likely to become anxious when they realise that they cannot express themselves.

Having acquired more linguistic input, however, does not always account for a

decrease in anxiety levels, because advanced students, just because they are advanced

and know a lot, have more chances of noticing their own errors. As Kitano (2001, p.

558) claimed, “when they make errors in relatively easy expressions that they learned

213

in earlier stages of language study, some students are ashamed and embarrassed”.

Another possibility is that teachers’ reactions to mistakes at these levels of EFL

learning may also be stronger. It is likely that some teachers might not be as tolerant

against mistakes as teachers at the lowest levels, but on the contrary set higher

expectations for their students as the levels progress. These factors could explain the

rise in advanced students’ LA levels since they are aware of the increase in the

difficulty of instruction and in the performance standards set for them.

Given the relative mismatch between the quantitative and qualitative data, the

findings regarding the connection between proficiency levels and LA should be

treated with caution. Above all, one could conclude that students of any level of

proficiency are influenced by LA in differing degrees.

7.2.6 Coping strategies

The fifth research question aimed at exploring strategy use as a means to cope

with LA. The findings indicated that the majority of students opted for Positive

Thinking and Preparation. This finding partially supports Kondo and Ying-Ling’s

(2004) study on Japanese students’ anxiety-reducing strategies, where Preparation

was reported to be used more frequently than any other strategy, as opposed to

Positive Thinking ranking third in order of students’ strategy preference. Dörnyei’s

(2009, p. 35) discussion about strengthening students’ vision of their ideal L2 self

through the use of the “positive imagery approach” reinforces my findings that

positive thinking could be effectively used as a means of counteracting LA.

According to this approach, which is mostly used in psychotherapy, students could

resort to “highly pleasurable, relaxing images to counteract anxiety” (ibid.), a strategy

that a large majority of the participating students indeed have adopted.

214

It is interesting to note that, even though highly anxious students are generally

found to resort to task-irrelevant thoughts and avoidance-oriented behaviour in an

attempt to reduce their LA, the findings of the present project seem to indicate the

exact opposite. Preparation in particular, which obviously caters for on-task

classroom behavior, provides students with opportunities for active coping with their

stress (Zeidner, 1998), requiring them to focus on the actual problem. As Kondo and

Ying-Ling (2004, p. 263) succinctly put it, “congruence between active coping and

Preparation is obvious; both provide a sense of mastery over the source of the stress,

divert attention from the problem, and discharge energy following exposure to

threat”. It thus follows that for the students of the present study too, focusing on the

task at hand or on longer-term tasks (e.g., advancing proficiency in EFL) contributed

to suppressing their self-deprecating thoughts and minimising their levels of LA.

Of particular interest too was students’ denial that they tended to avoid their

English classes or classroom tasks that could increase their LA, a finding that seems

to contradict those in much of the existing research (Bailey, 1983; Bown, 2006;

Horwitz et al., 1986; Oxford, 1999). Instead, student interviewees reported conscious

use and exercise of their sense of agency when encountering an extremely difficult

and hence potentially anxiety-provoking task. Their decision to act or not to act, that

is, to do or to avoid the task, largely depended on where their priorities lay and on the

significance of that particular task to them. If not doing the task would lead to

undesired results, the students would proceed with completing it. On the other hand,

if avoiding it would not make any difference, they would avoid it. I have mentioned

elsewhere that research into the complex interrelationship between anxiety and

agency is still in its infancy in the field of SLA, with no empirical evidence to verify

it. However, further investigation of this issue could extend our understanding of the

215

newly-introduced construct of learner agency, and inform, or even transform, our

conceptualisations of LA as a whole.

Another insight emerging from the data is Greek EFL students’ highly

developed metacognition and self-regulation. Most students seemed self-determined

and, on the basis of the background information gathered from them regarding their

learning of foreign languages, their self-regulation was doubled by an apparent gift

for foreign languages. Nevertheless, this potential is largely overlooked in the English

class. It emerged that many students used this potential outside the classroom,

increasing their exposure to English through popular songs and videos, literature, and

other pursuits, therefore showing academically fruitful intrinsic motivation. The

English classes appear to help students acquire the necessary language skills, but

potentially deprive them of cultivating their intrinsic interest in the language. Having

said this, maintaining and protecting students’ motivation as well as increasing their

exercise of agency could make language learning more personally relevant and

effective (Little, Ridley, and Ushioda, 2002; Ushioda, 1996, 2009), and less stressful.

The significance of fostering self-regulation should thus be underscored. According

to Bandura (2001), self-regulation could in fact be the medium through which

students can exercise their agency. Ushioda (1996) stressed the need for teachers to

support students in developing their capacity to become self-regulated agents. Bown

(2006) claimed that the focus should be shifted on the process of developing self-

regulation. To achieve this objective, teachers should guide students through self-

assessment of their strengths and weaknesses related to EFL learning as well as of

their learning goals, by urging them to keep a language learning diary, providing

constructive feedback, and designing individual study plans in collaboration with

each student. As Bown (2006, p. 580) suggested, “the task of the instructor in a self-

216

instructional context is not only to transmit the material or to correct errors but also to

help learners to reflect on and evaluate their own achievements and learning

experience. Instructors will need to act as counselors”.

From the perspective of the teachers, reducing student anxiety levels could be

achieved by focusing either on individual characteristics that increase students’ LA,

or on classroom and instructional factors that maximise one’s anxiety (Horwitz et al.,

1986, 2010). By identifying which individual traits or classroom practices make

students anxious, teachers would be better able to take drastic measures to reduce

anxiety. My findings resonate well with this: the teacher interviewees reported on

employing praise and team work, helping students to recognise that mistakes are a

natural part of the learning process, approaching error correction with sensitivity to

student feelings, and deploying a range of teaching practices including recasts, pre-

teaching vocabulary, brainstorming prior to writing, and breaking a task into smaller

parts. The strategies used by the English teachers of this study did not directly target

distinct student personality traits, but rather took into consideration the overall

ecologies of learning, the classroom dynamics, and those teaching techniques that

could reduce negative affective and emotional responses to learning English.

Focusing on individual student characteristics was not a strategy that students would

expect their teachers to adopt either. Two of the students, Elisa and Nikos, had strong

views about the role of the EFL teacher:

The teacher’s role is not to console the students. He is not a psychologist. (Elisa)

I think that the teacher should focus on the essence of the lesson and on whether we are

learning and progressing. I don’t think there’s enough time to focus on how students

will cope with their anxiety. (Nikos)

217

In this light, it is clear that teachers and students treat LA differently, choose different

methods of intervention, and view their own roles as well as each others’ roles from

different angles. Teachers and students can influence the learning experience

differently, and therefore trying to see how and why their opinions differ is a fruitful

research trajectory (Williams, personal communication).

7.3 Viewing language anxiety holistically

The findings discussed in this chapter provide further evidence for the

multidimensional nature of LA and pave the way for a potentially fruitful re-

conceptualisation of this construct. Existing work has shown that LA could best be

conceived of as situation-specific, without however looking into the dynamic

processes of development and maintenance of LA within highly anxious EFL

learners. Rather, LA was generally thought of as the result of having to perform

satisfactorily by relying on limited linguistic resources. In addition, it should be

acknowledged that, although anxiety appeared to hinder the performance of the

participating students, it is not necessarily always debilitating, given the fact that

some highly anxious students in this study were also high performers, as is evidenced

by their interviews and their teachers’ interviews. This could indicate that LA is and

indeed should be viewed as a complex construct consisting of a range of dimensions.

The present study also suggested that, in the case of highly anxious EFL

students, LA could indeed be conceived of both as a personality trait and as a state,

dynamic condition. Students’ appraisals of their experiences indicated that a sense of

pre-existing global anxiety, which was robust and did not fluctuate over time, was

accompanying their classroom language learning trajectories since the very

beginning; and in fact their high levels of LA when interviewed were the result of a

218

transition from low to high anxiety throughout the period of English studies. Hence,

research into LA should not be viewed as a question of either/or, but rather as a

combination of both trait/stable and situation-specific/dynamic dichotomies of LA in

EFL classrooms. As a multifaceted construct, it is likely to be composed of both

dimensions in differing degrees depending on a variety of personal and contextual

factors, all being discussed in detail above.

The findings have also shown how LA cannot meaningfully be understood as

a single monolithic variable but is perhaps best conceived of as a complex, dynamic

system composed of a multitude of interrelated components. Early research has not

made any connections between LA and other learner and contextual variables.

Nevertheless, recent empirical investigations into LA have started to move towards

this new direction, currently dominating the field of SLA research. Yan and Horwitz

(2008, p. 152) emphatically stated that “it is […] clear that anxiety does not work in

isolation”. As Peng (2012, p. 9) also argued with reference to Chinese EFL learners’

WTC, “L2 WTC in the innermost system – the classroom – seems to be nurtured by,

and thus fluctuate because of the interaction between the factors internal and external

to individual learners, and inside and beyond the classroom walls”. Gardner,

Tremblay, and Masgoret (1997, p. 356) also suggested that, by considering variables

collectively rather than investigating them separately, we can more easily “determine

the processes by which individual difference variables influence how well people

acquire a L2”.

7.4 New directions: Using complexity theory in language anxiety research

Throughout this thesis, I have often described LA as a complex and dynamic

variable which influences and is influenced by a range of other variables, all

219

operating within the learners’ experience of learning EFL. For the participating

students, apart from constituting a stable personality trait, the experience of LA was

also largely context-dependent. A myriad of other factors, which were controlled by

the learners, but were also often extraneous to them, seemed to account for a variation

in anxiety levels from time to time and across situations.

Larsen-Freeman (1997, p. 157) characterised language learning as a non-

linear process, and explained that “we will never be able to identify, let alone

measure, all the factors accurately. And even if we could, we would still be unable to

predict the outcome of their combination”. Thus, rather than trying to extricate

constructs inherent in language learning, it is important to acknowledge that they are

dynamically interconnected.

One of the most recent developments in applied linguistics research is the use

of complexity theory to interpret phenomena through the use of organic, holistic

models that have replaced linear, cause-and-effect approaches to understanding

learner behaviour in class. The contribution that complexity theory could make to

research into language learning psychology by looking at interconnections, context,

dynamics, and complexity among variables, has recently been stressed by Mercer et

al. (2012), and could indeed constitute a promising research framework. Larsen-

Freeman (2012, pp. 206-207) defined complexity theory as follows:

CT/DST [i.e., Complexity Theory/Dynamic Systems Theory] aims to account for how

the interacting parts of a complex system give rise to the system’s collective behaviour

and how such a system simultaneously interacts with its environment. […] “complex”

does not merely mean “complicated”. Although the components of a CT are usually

numerous, diverse, and dynamic, a defining characteristic of CT is that its behaviour

emerges from the interactions of its components. […] The traditional scientific

method, which is based on analysis, isolation, and the gathering of COMPLETE

information about a phenomenon, is incapable of dealing with such complex

interdependencies.

220

Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) stated that complex systems are in a constant

state of flux. This can lead to changes in the system as a whole and in the ways in

which the components of the system interact. As Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 37)

explained, “because of the multiple interactions of the system constituents – which

also involve environmental factors – the system is constantly in flux, but the direction

of change cannot be ascribed to any single variable in isolation as it is a function of

the overall state of the system”. Therefore, there is one single cause of change, but

multi-directional relations among variables within a larger system, “which can

interact in unpredictable ways and can vary in their relative significance” (Mercer,

2012, p. 44).

It is important to note, however, that not every system is a complex system,

because, in theory, a complex system should be composed of at least two elements.

On the basis of the findings of the present study though, LA could be understood as a

complex dynamic system, and the findings here could be re-examined in light of

complexity theory advancements in the future. Currently, LA research is still in its

infancy regarding complexity approaches. However, the potential of a complexity

perspective in respect to LA should not be disregarded, as this could lead to a more

comprehensive understanding of anxiety about language learning. As Dörnyei and

Ushioda (2011) claimed, complex systems may indeed offer the closest

approximation of reality.

7.5 Conclusion

It can be concluded that the interviews and the learner diaries provided

support for most of the quantitative results reported in Chapter 6, and also revealed

some additional, emerging themes, such as the interrelationship between LA, learner

221

agency, and ecologies of learning. What is more, the qualitative findings showed that

anxiety could not – and should not – be isolated from other learner variables,

including level of proficiency in English, age, degrees of self-regulation, and self-

concepts, neither from the broad language learning context.

Taken together, the findings of the present study call for a need for qualitative,

situated studies of LA that focus on individual learners in all their complexity and

take into account the wide range of environments in which people function.

222

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION

8.1 Introduction

This thesis investigated the factors that induce skill-specific anxiety and

general classroom LA to Greek EFL learners, as well as the strategies that both

teachers and students deploy in an attempt to minimise the anxiety levels of the latter.

Specifically, the aim of the research project was to gain insights into the LA of Greek

learners of EFL and its implications for classroom involvement and behaviour, in

order to address the scarcity of research into the nature and possible repercussions of

this construct for English language learning and teaching in Greece. The project also

aimed at contributing to the field of English language teaching as a whole, by testing

and suggesting new ways of viewing LA.

This chapter draws conclusions on the basis of the quantitative and qualitative

findings presented in Chapters 5 and 6, and the emergent themes extensively

discussed in Chapter 7. The conclusions are summarised by revisiting the research

questions of the study. Implications for teaching are discussed next, followed by the

limitations of the present study and suggestions for future research.

8.2 Aims achieved

My literature review ends with some reasons why I consider that more

research is needed in the field of LA. I argue for a need for examining LA that is

specific to skills other than speaking, conducting empirical research into anxiety

coping strategies used by learners themselves, and implementing more in-depth,

qualitative research designs to LA research.

223

This project has addressed the above aims. In particular, writing anxiety has

been meticulously investigated through a survey and qualitative instruments, and

compared and contrasted with speaking anxiety. Researching anxiety about listening

and reading would be the focus of a whole new project, and, therefore, selecting for

investigation a language skill (i.e., writing) that was believed to extend the existing

literature in the field was thought of as a promising route.

Examining strategies that learners often use to cope with their LA was another

innovative aspect of the present study. As explained in the review of the literature,

research into this is necessary but scarce. Hardly any attention has been given to or

empirical research done to establish strategic learning of highly anxious EFL learners,

although there are solid findings to confirm that an array of strategies could prove to

be useful for teachers of highly anxious students. There is a need for comprehensive

models aiming to describe not only the possible, but also the actual strategies that

could help towards alleviating anxiety. Knowing what anxious language learners do

to allay their stress in the classroom can certainly help individuals suffering from

similar negative psychological conditions. The present study addressed this gap by

offering a comprehensive typology of strategies deployed by Greek EFL learners,

which could also be useful for students learning EFL in similar contexts.

Finally, recent calls by SLA researchers for situated studies that attach great

importance to the whole environment surrounding language learners were not ignored

in this project. A qualitative research framework combining interviews and learner

diaries was established, revealing that LA is manifested within the language

classroom, but is in fact controlled by a variety of settings containing the students,

most of which expand beyond the typical language class.

224

8.3 Revisiting research questions

8.3.1 Research Question 1: Which factors contribute to the speaking anxiety of

Greek EFL learners?

This research question aimed at investigating the factors that are associated

with L2 speaking anxiety. In the quantitative data collection phase, speaking anxiety

was operationalised through the FLCAS. Factor analysing the instrument revealed

that fear of negative evaluation, anxiety towards the English teacher, and

comfortableness with taking English classes were the main components of speaking

anxiety. The qualitative findings elucidated the quantitative results, and indicated that

speaking anxiety may emanate from concerns over language use, classroom

dynamics, self-concepts, and exosystemic factors. Combining insights from

quantitative and qualitative data produced a coherent picture of speaking anxiety, and

in fact neither quantitative nor qualitative data could have revealed much separately,

but in consonance they have facilitated a glimpse into a widely recognised

phenomenon consisting of a number of different aspects inside and outside of the

learner.

8.3.2 Research Question 2: Which factors influence Greek EFL learners’ writing

anxiety?

The second research question focused on a componential analysis of writing

anxiety. Factor analysing the ESLWAT showed that attitudes towards writing in

English, self-derogation when writing in English, and fear of negative evaluation,

were conceptually linked with EFL writing anxiety. The qualitative data highlighted

some more antecedents to writing anxiety in EFL classrooms in Greece, including L1

writing deficiencies, lack of ideas, and limited time allotted to writing tasks in class.

225

These findings represent a step forward towards a better understanding of EFL

writing anxiety, given that the majority of research into it has been conducted in L1

settings. Taking into account the prominent status of writing in the Greek education

system, investigating the factors that interplay with writing anxiety could help

teachers to start their own bottom-up “reform” to teaching writing in a foreign

language.

8.3.3 Research Question 3: What is the difference in language anxiety among

students at different proficiency levels?

In order to address this research question, a one-way analysis of variance of

the total LA scores of students at four different proficiency levels was calculated. The

results showed that the lower intermediate group (i.e., the lowest-level group taking

part in this project) gave significantly higher LA levels than the upper advanced

group (i.e., the highest-level group participating in the study). This result resonates

well with the literature to date. The qualitative data have further shown that, at least

within the Greek EFL learning context, it is not just the students’ high or low level of

proficiency in English that may determine their anxiety, but that their competence

may well interact with their age, language learning experience, course expectations,

and personal standards of successful performance. The interrelatedness of these

factors should not be ignored.

8.3.4 Research Question 4: What aspects are perceived as the main causes of

classroom language anxiety?

This research question has probably yielded the most interesting results of this

project, as aspects such as learner agency, ecologies of learning, weak self-concepts,

226

fear of failure, and a mark-centred mentality, were found to influence the students’

LA levels dramatically. Research to date has mostly focused on how errors, a

condescending teacher attitude, and fear of negative evaluation, ignite LA. However,

the current study has revealed that LA is not a static variable, but is multidimensional

and largely determined by a vast array of contextual and personal factors.

8.3.5 Research Question 5: What strategies do Greek EFL students deploy to

minimise their language anxiety and how do their teachers choose to intervene?

The final research question aimed at investigating strategies of potential help

to highly anxious students by looking at the issue from the perspective of the

educators, as well as actual strategies that EFL learners deploy in order to minimise

their LA. Students reported on using metacognitive strategies, such as positive

thinking, preparation, opportunities for practice, and peer seeking. Relaxation was the

only affective strategy that was sometimes mentioned by the students. Teachers, on

the other hand, referred to lenient error correction, team work, praise, and certain

teaching practices perceived of as anxiety-buffering. It is important to note here that,

despite the differences between the student and the teacher perspective, seeing their

thoughts in combination could in fact open up new paths to confronting the negative

effects of anxiety in language classrooms.

8.4 Implications for the classroom

Most implications for classroom practice have already been stated indirectly

or directly, but I would like to emphasise here what I believe are the crucial ones. It is

important to acknowledge at this stage though that it is not possible to extrapolate

from a study of a subgroup of highly anxious students to a whole classroom.

227

The most salient point extensively discussed throughout this chapter concerns

the importance of understanding EFL learners as holistic beings nested within the

bigger systems of their personal histories and the entirety of their lives and multiple

contexts. Clearly, different learners will have different language learning and life

experiences, all influencing their affect and performance in the classroom to varying

degrees. The strong links between LA, learner agency, and the ecology of learning

provide further empirical support for regarding students as individuals whose learning

is contingent upon different contexts. Language educators should therefore be aware

of the wide range of external factors that may mediate in-class anxiety. Language

learning is a socioculturally mediated process, and learners are likely to be affected

by other settings containing them.

Secondly, given the pervasive influence of peer pressure on students’ anxiety

in class, language educators should be able to find ways to confront episodes of

competitiveness and social comparisons among students. The latter should be made

aware of the fact that all students attend lessons for the same purpose, and inevitably

face similar difficulties. Teachers must also be careful not to show favouritism

towards any one of their students, as each student in the room needs to feel valued. If

felt that a student is stronger than their fellows, teachers should grasp the opportunity

to indirectly involve strong students in the teaching process. Encouraging students to

work together and creating a friendly, non-self-effacing classroom atmosphere would

also benefit both students and the teacher. It is important for students to feel that they

know each other well and can seek for peer support whenever needed.

Thirdly, the significance of analysing students’ needs prior to the

commencement of a language course, as well as for the duration of the course, can

cater for more successful teaching. Students need to be able to express themselves, to

228

talk about what worries and what thrills them, as well as what helps them engage

more and learn better. When such communication between teacher and students

occurs, the teacher gains crucial insights into the learners’ own concerns, anxiety

causes, and motivational processes, which will help towards designing as tailor-made

courses as possible to cater for students’ needs.

8.5 Limitations and future research

In the absence of a longitudinal or ethnographic investigation of LA about

EFL learning, fluctuations in anxiety levels could not be measured, neither could the

reasons why certain fluctuations might occur be identified. Therefore, interpretive-

qualitative case studies of learners and teachers, learner autobiographies, and life

histories could be suitable future options. Additionally, changes in LA levels over

time, as well as the significance of such changes, could also be examined through a

complex dynamic systems lens.

The present study provided insights into how LA interacts with learner

agency, and moved towards establishing an ecological understanding of LA in EFL

classrooms in Greece. Given that these conceptual links unexpectedly emerged from

the qualitative data analysis but indeed contributed to a preliminary attempt to create

a new theoretical framework for LA, more studies aiming to connect LA, agency, and

the ecologies of learning could supplement the above findings.

Particularly salient dimensions of speaking anxiety and writing anxiety also

emerged from this project. However, only anxiety over the productive skills was

assessed. Future projects could also look at skill-specific anxiety with reference to the

receptive skills of reading and listening, as well as LA about sub-skills, such as

pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar.

229

A final note concerns the use of direct observations of learners in the language

classroom. The participants’ responses in the interviews along with their diary entries

were taken as faithful representations of their classroom affective behaviour. As

Ohata (2005, p. 140) pointed out with reference to the difficulties of researching

anxiety, interviews are useful “to access things that cannot be directly observed, such

as feelings, thoughts, intentions, or beliefs”. However, observing the actual lessons

would possibly provide valuable insights into affective reactions to classroom

language learning, such as peer pressure, or fear of making a mistake, that interviews

cannot, by nature, reveal.

230

REFERENCES

Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30,

109-137.

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign

language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language

Journal, 78(2), 155-168.

Alexiou, T., & Mattheoudakis, M. (2011). Bridging the gap: Issues of transition and

continuity from primary to secondary schools in Greece. In E. Kitis, N.

Lavidas, N. Topintzi, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 19th

International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki:

Monochromia.

Alexiou, T., & Mattheoudakis, M. (2012). Magic Book: A1 level Student’s Book for

the third grade. Athens: Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs.

Alexiou, T., & Mattheoudakis, M. (2013). Introducing a foreign language at primary

level: Benefits or lost opportunities? Research Papers in Language Teaching

and Learning, 4(1), 99-119.

Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in

language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-141.

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An

introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, N. J. (2012). Metacognition: Awareness of language learning. In S.

Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning:

231

Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 169-187). Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Angouri, J., Mattheoudakis, M., & Zigrika, M. (2010). Then how will they get ‘the

much-wanted paper’? A multifaceted study of English as a foreign language in

Greece. In A. Psaltou-Joycey & M. Mattheoudakis (Eds.), Advances in

research on language acquisition and teaching (pp. 179-194). Thessaloniki:

Greek Applied Linguistics Association.

Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in

language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning:

Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long

(Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67-

103). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programmes. In J.

C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 215-

226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, K. M., & Oschner, R. (1983). A methodological review of the diary studies:

Windmill tilting or social science? In K. M. Bailey, M. H. Long, & S. Peck

(Eds.), Second language acquisition studies (pp. 188-198). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Bailey, P., Daley, C. E., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999). Foreign language anxiety and

learning style. Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 63-76.

Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Correlates of anxiety at three

stages of the foreign language learning process. Journal of Language and

Social Psychology, 19(4), 474-490.

232

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.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American

Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.

Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review

of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety

and panic (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Benson, P. (2005). (Auto)biography and learner diversity. In P. Benson & D. Nunan

(Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 4-

21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Benson, P., & Cooker, L. (2013). The social and the individual in applied linguistics

research. In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual:

Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp. 1-16).

Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th

ed.).

Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

233

Berg, V. C. K. (1993). Managing learner anxiety in literature courses. The French

Review, 67(1), 27-36.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language

learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 570-583.

Brace, N., Kemp, R. & Snelgar, R. (2006). SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data

analysis using SPSS for Windows (versions 12 and 13) (3rd

ed.). Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesising

styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by

nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In M.

Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 37-

43). New York: Freeman.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). The Modern Languages Aptitude Test. San Antonio,

TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure and agency: What can realist

social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3-20.

234

Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition.

Language Learning, 25(1), 153-161.

Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale

development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing,

13(4), 313-335.

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

Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3),

417-446.

Clark, D. A., & Beck, A. T. (2010). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders: Science

and practice. New York: Guildford Press.

Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and

group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3),

417-448.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th

ed.). London: Routledge.

Cohen, Y., & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: affective

barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Journal, 20(2), 61–

77.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed

methods research (2nd

ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

235

Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham & R. A.

Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical

introduction (pp. 3-24). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Croznier, W. R. (1997). Individual learners: Personality differences in education.

London: Routledge.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning

behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian

secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda

(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98-119). Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

Daly, J. A. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for

language educators. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety:

From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 3-15). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument to

measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(3), 242-

249.

Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975b). Further studies on writing apprehension: SAT

scores, success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses and sex

differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(3), 250-256.

Damasio, A. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion and the making of

consciousness. London: Vintage Books.

236

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason

(Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111-124). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dendrinos, B., & Zouganeli, K. (2012). European survey on language competences:

The Greek participation. Interim National Report. Research Centre for

Language Teaching, Testing, and Assessment: National and Kapodistrian

University of Athens.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent

variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for

language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 42-57).

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Diamantopoulou, A. (2002, March 24). Do you speak English? On languages and...

ideologies. To Vima tis Kiriakis. Retrieved from

http://www.tovima.gr/print_article.php/?e=B&f=13522&m=B56&aa=1

Diamantopoulou, A. (2006). Intelligent Greece: In a changing Europe, in a changed

world. Athens: A. A. Livanis Publications.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.

The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

237

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda

(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,

administration, and processing (2nd

ed.). London: Routledge.

Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership,

65(2), 34-39.

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

classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 206-220.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Erhman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eurobarometer Survey (2012). Europeans and their languages. European

Commission.

Ewald, J. D. (2007). Foreign language learning anxiety in upper-level classes:

Involving students as researchers. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 122-142.

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

language anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 437-454.

238

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1996). Anxiety about foreign language learning

among high school women. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 199-212.

Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context.

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gao, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and

metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. In

G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in

language learning (pp. 25-41). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (1991). Foreword. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language

anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. vii-viii).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second

language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective

variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157-194.

Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P., & Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Towards a full model of

second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language

Journal, 81(3), 344-362.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language

research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success: Sociocultural theory and

children with special needs. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian

approaches to second language research (pp. 195-210). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

239

Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. London: Continuum.

Giotis, G. (2010). EFL teachers’ first year of teaching. Research Papers in Language

Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 117-134.

Gkonou, C. (2013). Some methodological issues in using learner diaries to

investigate classroom anxiety. ELT Research, 28, 4-6.

Gkonou, C. (forthcoming, 2014). Agency, anxiety, and activity: Understanding the

classroom behaviour of EFL learners. In P. Deters, X. A. Gao, E. R. Miller, &

V. Vitanova (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Theorising and Analysing

Agency and Second Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Rosenblatt, A., Burling, J., Lyon, D.,

Simon, L., & Pinel, E. (1992). Why do people need self-esteem? Converging

evidence that self-esteem serves an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 913-922.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed

methods practice. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed

methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 91-110). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Gregersen, T. S. (2007). Breaking the code of silence: A study of teachers’ nonverbal

decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research,

11(2), 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(3), 562-570.

240

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.

105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guiora, A. Z., & Acton, W. R. (1979). Personality and language behaviour: A

restatement. Language Learning, 29(1), 193-204.

Gungle, B. W., & Taylor, V. (1989). Writing apprehension and second language

writers. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:

Empowering ESL students (pp. 235-248). New York: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in

writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The signs of writing (pp. 1-27).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a

foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 559-562.

Horwitz, E. K. (1990). Attending to the affective domain in the foreign language

classroom. In S. S. Magnam (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the

learner (pp. 15-33). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of

Foreign Languages.

Horwitz, E. K. (2000). It ain’t over till it’s over: On foreign language anxiety, first

language deficits, and the confounding of variables. The Modern Language

Journal, 84(2), 256-259.

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.

241

Horwitz, E. K., Tallon, M., & Luo, H. (2010). Foreign language anxiety. In J. C.

Cassady (Ed.), Anxiety in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions for

academic anxieties (pp. 95-115). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research

to classroom implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or

dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.

Huang, S., Eslami, Z., & Hu, R. S. (2010). The relationship between teacher and peer

support and English language learners’ anxiety. English Language Teaching,

3(1), 32-40.

Ivankova, N. V., & Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods. In J. Heigham & R. A.

Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical

introduction (pp. 135-161). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed

methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Jones, J. F. (2004). A cultural context for language anxiety. English Australia, 21(2),

30-39.

Karras, I. D. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and the use of affective language

learning strategies among Greek university students in an ESP/EAP context.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the National Archive of PhD Theses.

(http://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/27011?locale=en)

242

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

and motivation across different classroom contexts. Foreign Language Annals,

42(1), 138-157.

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern

Language Journal, 85(4), 549-566.

Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition.

Language Learning, 27(1), 93-107.

Kondo, D. S., & Ying-Ling, Y. (2004). Strategies for coping with language anxiety:

The case of students of English in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(3), 258-265.

Koul, R., Roy, L., Kaewkuekool, S., & Ploisawaschai, S. (2009). Multiple goal

orientations and foreign language anxiety. System, 37(4), 676-688.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lakasas, A. (2010, September 9). English language learning in the first and second

grade of primary school. Kathimerini. Retrieved from

http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_100011_09/09/2010_414324

Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory:

Understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner

contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141-158).

London: Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and

differential success in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.),

243

Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 12-24). Harlow, Essex:

Pearson Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary

theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2), 202-214.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied

linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1990). An introduction to second language

acquisition research. London: Longman.

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal

behaviour. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature

review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47.

Leki, I. (1999). Techniques for reducing second language writing 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. 64-88).

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

Lignos, D. (2006). Σκέψεις και διαπιστώσεις για την επιμόρφωση των εκπαιδευτικών

[Thoughts and findings concerning teachers’ education]. Virtual School, The

Sciences of Education [Online]. Retrieved from

http://www.auth.gr/virtualschool/3.3/Praxis/LignosTrainingEducators.html

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Little, D., Ridley, J., Ushioda, E. (2002) (Eds.). Learner autonomy in the foreign

language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum, and assessment. Dublin:

Authentik.

244

Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels.

System, 34(3), 301-316.

MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language

teachers. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language

learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere

(pp. 24-45). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language

acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed

Language Learning (pp. 45-68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualising

willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and

affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.

MacIntyre, P.D., & Gardner, R.C. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning:

Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2), 251-275.

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

anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning,

41(1), 85-117.

MacIntyre, P.D., & Gardner, R.C. (1991b). Language anxiety: Its relation to other

anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language

Learning, 41(4), 513-554.

245

MacIntyre, P.D., & Gardner, R.C. (1994a). The subtle effects of language anxiety on

cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-

305.

MacIntyre, P.D., & Gardner, R.C. (1994b). The effects of induced anxiety on

cognitive processing in computerised vocabulary learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 16(1), 1-17.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and

other emotions in language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams

(Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and

practice (pp. 103-118). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of

second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language

Learning, 47(2), 265-287.

Madigan, R. J., Linton, P. W., & Johnson, S. (1996). The paradox of writing

apprehension. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Randsell (Eds.), The science of writing:

Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 295-308).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL

learners. System, 39(2), 202-214.

Manchón, R. M. (2009). Introduction: Broadening the perspective of L2 writing

scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In R. M.

Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and

research (pp. 1-22). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Mann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics.

Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 6-24.

246

Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the

foreign language classroom. System, 32(1), 21-36.

Marcos-Llinás, M., & Garau, M. J. (2009). Effects of language anxiety on three

proficiency-level courses of Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language

Annals, 42(1), 94-111.

Marsh, H. W. (2006). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice:

The role of self-concept in educational psychology. 26th

Vernon-Wall Lecture.

British Psychological Association.

Mattheoudakis, M. & Alexiou, T. (2009). Early foreign language instruction in

Greece. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning.

Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mattheoudakis, M., & Nikolaidis, K. (2005). Stirring the waters: INSET in Greece.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 49-66.

McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech

Monographs, 37(4), 269-277.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate and

interpersonal communication. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.),

Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A

cognitive view. In M. Both-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition and

anxiety (pp. 19-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language

teachers. London: Arnold.

247

Mejias, H., Applbaum, R. L., Applbaum, S. J., & Trotter, R. T. (1991). Oral

communication apprehension and Hispanics: An exploration of oral

communication apprehension among Mexican American students in Texas. In

E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and

research to classroom implications (pp. 87-97). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Mercer, S. (2006). Using journals to investigate the learners’ emotional experience of

the language classroom. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Applicada, 6, 63-91.

Mercer, S. (2011a). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and

change. System, 39(3), 335-346.

Mercer, S. (2011b). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system.

System, 39(4), 427-436.

Mercer, S. (2011c). Frames of reference used by language learners in forming their

self-concepts. ForumSprache, 6, 6-22.

Mercer, S. (2012). The complexity of learner agency. Apples – Journal of Applied

Language Studies, 6(2), 41-59.

Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of

natural talent. ELT Journal, 64(4), 436-444.

Mercer, S., Ryan, S., & Williams, M. (Eds.). (2012). Psychology for language

learning: Insights from research, theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

248

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate

French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning,

57(3), 417-442.

Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs (2010). New foreign language education

policies in schools: Learning English in early childhood. Retrieved from

http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/peap/

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language

academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603.

Mruk, C. J. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice. New York: Springer.

Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project.

In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Newcombe, L. P. (2007). Social context and fluency in L2 learners: The case of

Wales. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Noels, K. A. (2009). The internalisation of language learning into the self and social

identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and

the L2 self (pp. 295-313). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Noels, K. A., Pon, G., & Clément, R. (1996). Language, identity, and adjustment:

The role of linguistic self-confidence in the acculturation process. Journal of

language and social psychology, 15(3), 246-264.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational

change. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

249

Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning

process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should

know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (1992). Who are our students?: A synthesis of foreign and second

language research on individual differences with implications for instructional

practice. TESL Canada Journal, 9(2), 30-49.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). “Style wars” as a source of anxiety in language classrooms. In

D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A

practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 216-237).

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Factors associated with

foreign language anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(2), 217-239.

Öztürk, H., & Çeçen, S. (2007). The effects of portfolio keeping on writing anxiety of

EFL students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 218-236.

Pajares, M. F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy.

http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/eff.html [Accessed 16.06.2013]

Papastamatis, A., Panitsidou, E., Giavrimis, P., & Papanis, E. (2009). Facilitating

teachers’ and educators’ effective professional development. Review of

European Studies, 1(2), 83-90.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English

language anxiety. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(3), 327-355.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd

ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

250

Pellegrino Aveni, V. A. (2005). Study abroad and second language use: Constructing

the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peng, J.-E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to

communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40(2), 203-213.

Pérez-Paredes, P. F., & Martínez-Sanchéz, F. (2000). A Spanish version of the

foreign language classroom anxiety scale: Revisiting Aida’s factor analysis.

RESLA, 14, 337-352.

Phillips, E. M. (1991). Anxiety and oral competence: A classroom dilemma. The

French Review, 65(1), 1-14.

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

performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 14-26.

Phillips, E. M. (1999). Decreasing language anxiety: Practical techniques for oral

activities. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language

learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere

(pp. 124-143). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

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

Language Annals, 42(1), 77-93.

Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety:

Interviews with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young

(Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications

(pp. 101-108). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ranchman, S. (1998). Anxiety. Hove: Psychology Press.

Rankin-Brown, M. S. (2006). Addressing writing apprehension in adult English

language learners. Proceedings of the CATESOL State Conference.

251

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language

teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative

research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 182-199).

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language

settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón

(Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research

(pp. 23-48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Rodríguez, M., & Abreu, O. (2003). The stability of foreign language classroom

anxiety across English and French. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 365-

374.

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1984). Numbers and words: Combining

quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study.

Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643.

Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and

Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation,

language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120-143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

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

The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 202-218.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A

conceptualisation model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641-669.

252

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a

blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands

of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign

language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education:

Theory, research and applications (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the

anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142.

Scovel, T. (2001). Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition.

Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Sepirgioti, M., Karidi, M., & Kosovitsa, C. (2006). Fun Way English 1: Student’s

book (11th

ed.). Athens: Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs.

Sepirgioti, M., Papapetrou, M., Karidi, M., & Kosovitsa, C. (1998). Fun Way English

3: Student’s book (2nd

ed.). Athens: Ministry of Education and Religious

Affairs.

Sepirgioti, M., Papapetrou, M., Karidi, M., Kosovitsa, C., & Kortesi, Z. (1999). Fun

Way English 2: Student’s book (5th

ed.). Athens: Ministry of Education and

Religious Affairs.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning.

Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874.

Sifakis, N. C. (2009). Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: The Greek

context. ELT Journal, 63(3), 230-237.

Sifakis, N. C., & Sougari, A. M. (2003). Facing the globalisation challenge in the

realm of English language teaching. Language and Education, 17(1), 59-71.

253

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London, NY:

Edward Arnold.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275-298.

Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences:

Affective or native language aptitude. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 3-

16.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spielmann, G., & Radnofsky, M. L. (2001). Language learning under tension: New

directions from a qualitative study. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 259-

278.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2006). Anxiety and identity in the language classroom. RELC

Journal, 37(3), 299-307.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and

behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:

Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and

behavioural sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Toohey, K., & Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural

settings. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across

cultures (pp. 58-72). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

254

Truchot, C. (2003). Languages and supranationality in Europe: The linguistic

influence of the European Union. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.),

Languages in a globalising world (pp. 99-110). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M.

Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145-167).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.

Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson

(Ed.), Learner autonomy 8: Teacher and learner perspectives (pp. 5-24).

Dublin: Authentik.

Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self

and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity

and the L2 self (pp. 215-228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X.

Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language

learning (pp. 11-24). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Ushioda, E. (2012). Motivation: L2 learning as a special case? In S. Mercer, S. Ryan,

& M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from

research, theory and practice (pp. 58-73). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Global issues and local concerns. In E.

Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation (pp. 1-17).

Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

255

van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner

(Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163-

186). London: Equinox.

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

8(1), 1-15.

Wan, W., Low, G. D., & Li, M. (2011). From students’ and teachers’ perspectives:

Metaphor analysis of beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles. System, 39(3), 403-415.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Wheeler, L. (1991). A brief history of social comparison theory. In J. Suls & T. A.

Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 3-22).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social

constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, J. V., & Taylor, K. L. (1991). Serving self-relevant goals through social

comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary

theory and research (pp. 23-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC

Journal, 37(3), 308-328.

Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety.

System, 39(4), 510-522.

Yan, J. 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(1), 151-183.

256

Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL

context. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and

the L2 self (pp. 144-163). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

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

speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539-553.

Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does the

anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426-439.

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

perspective: Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin.

Foreign Language Annals, 25(2), 157-172.

Young, D. J. (1994). New directions in language anxiety research. In C. A. Klee

(Ed.), Faces in a crowd: The individual learner in multisection courses (pp. 3-

46). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Young, D. J. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A

practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. In D. J. Young

(Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical

guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 3-9). Boston:

McGraw Hill.

Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.

Zeidner, M. (2007). Test anxiety: Conceptions, findings, conclusions. In P. Schutz &

R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 165-184). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Zheng, Y. (2008). Anxiety and second/foreign language learning revisited. Canadian

Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1(1), 1-12.

257

APPENDIX A: THE

QUESTIONNAIRE

258

A MIXED METHODS APPROACH TO RESEARCHING LANGUAGE ANXIETY

IN GREEK EFL LEARNERS

Dear Student,

I am conducting a piece of research as part of my PhD thesis, which has the

following title: “A mixed methods approach to researching language anxiety in Greek

EFL learners”. The thesis will cover issues of English language anxiety in the classroom,

focusing on anxiety specific to speaking and writing in English, the causes of anxiety, and

suggested intervention methods.

Given your experience as a Greek learner of English, I am asking you to be

involved in the investigation and I invite you to spend a short time in the completion of

the enclosed questionnaire.

Please note that, on the basis of the questionnaire results, a certain number of you

may be invited to take part in a diary study and/or a follow-up interview either

individually or in groups. Your name and e-mail address will be kept confidential and will

only be used by the researcher in order to contact you for the purposes of the

diary/interview study if necessary.

May I thank you in advance for your valuable cooperation.

Christina

Christina Gkonou

PhD Researcher

University of Essex

Department of Language and Linguistics

Wivenhoe Park

CO4 3SQ

Colchester

United Kingdom

E-mail: cgkono@essex.ac.uk

259

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Age:

2. Gender:

A. Male B. Female

3. Length of studying English:

4. Foreign languages known (please also indicate level):

A. _______________

B. _______________

C. _______________

D. _______________

5. Occupation:

A. Student B. Employed

6. Reasons for studying English (you can circle more than one answers):

A. Professional development

B. Obligatory status of English in the Greek educational system

C. Personal preference for learning foreign languages

D. Other (please state): ___________________________________

260

SECTION B: QUESTIONNAIRE

Please provide your answer to the following statements by circling the most

appropriate number (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, 5

= strongly agree). Circle ONE number only.

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Un

certa

in

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English language

classes.

2. During my English language class, I find myself thinking

about things that have nothing to do with the course.

3. I’m nervous about writing in English.

4. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in my

English language class.

5. I worry about the consequences of failing my English

language class.

6. Taking an English composition course is a very frightening

experience.

7. I don’t understand why some people get so upset over

English language classes.

8. I look forward to writing down my ideas in English.

9. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the

English teacher says.

10. In my English language class, I can get so nervous I forget

things I know.

11. I feel confident in my ability to express my ideas clearly

when writing in English.

12. Even if I am well prepared for my English language class,

I feel anxious about it.

13. I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for my English

language class.

14. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in

my English language class.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

261

15. My English class moves so quickly I worry about getting

left behind.

16. I have no fear of my English writing’s being evaluated by

my teacher.

17. I feel very self-conscious about speaking English in front

of other students.

18. I feel more tense and nervous in my English language

class than in my other classes.

19. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a

composition in English.

20. When I’m on my way to my English class, I feel very sure

and relaxed.

21. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to

learn to master the English language.

22. I like to speak in English.

23. I feel anxious when I work in groups in my English

language class.

24. I often feel like not going to my English language class.

25. I don’t worry about making mistakes in my English

language class.

26. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my

English language class.

27. I keep thinking that the other students are better at English

than I am.

28. I feel anxious when I work in pairs in my English

language class.

29. I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called

on in my English language class.

30. I don’t think I write as well in English as most people.

31. Speaking in English is a lot of fun.

32. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English

language class.

33. I like seeing my thoughts on paper in English.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

262

34. I always feel that the other students speak English better

than I do.

35. I enjoy speaking in English.

36. When I hand in an English composition, I know I’m going

to do poorly.

37. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I

speak in English.

38. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher

is saying in the English language.

39. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation

in my English language class.

40. I enjoy writing in English.

41. I feel confident when I speak in my English language

class.

42. I get upset when I don’t understand what the English

teacher is correcting.

43. I avoid writing in English.

44. Handing in a composition written in English makes me

feel good.

45. I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct

every mistake I make.

46. I have no fear of my English writing’s being evaluated by

my peers.

47. I look forward to speaking in English.

48. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in an English

composition course.

49. It is easy for me to write good compositions in English.

50. Writing in English is a lot of fun.

51. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions

which I haven’t prepared in advance.

52. I like to write down my ideas in English.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

263

SECTION C: Anything else?

Please refer to anything else you would like to add regarding your English lessons

and any feelings of anxiety about them:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_________________________

264

APPENDIX B: INTER-ITEM

CORRELATIONS FOR THE

QUESTIONNAIRE (pilot study)

265

Anxiety1 Anxiety2 Anxiety3 Anxiety4 Anxiety5 Anxiety6 Anxiety7 Anxiety8 Anxiety9 Anxiety10 Anxiety11 Anxiety12 Anxiety13

Anxiety1 1,000 ,221 -,167 ,069 ,082 ,285 ,439 -,347 -,063 -,221 ,673 ,285 -,225

Anxiety2 ,221 1,000 ,351 ,311 -,190 -,369 -,003 ,358 -,134 -,377 ,421 ,249 ,203

Anxiety3 -,167 ,351 1,000 ,386 ,303 -,138 -,182 ,281 -,033 -,009 -,259 ,249 ,617

Anxiety4 ,069 ,311 ,386 1,000 ,297 ,013 -,172 ,217 -,106 -,173 ,399 ,247 ,292

Anxiety5 ,082 -,190 ,303 ,297 1,000 ,594 ,174 ,280 ,151 ,203 ,073 ,074 ,256

Anxiety6 ,285 -,369 -,138 ,013 ,594 1,000 ,140 ,031 -,115 ,071 ,345 ,074 -,381

Anxiety7 ,439 -,003 -,182 -,172 ,174 ,140 1,000 ,075 ,711 ,337 ,294 -,223 ,105

Anxiety8 -,347 ,358 ,281 ,217 ,280 ,031 ,075 1,000 ,300 ,189 ,107 ,353 ,323

Anxiety9 -,063 -,134 -,033 -,106 ,151 -,115 ,711 ,300 1,000 ,819 ,035 -,192 ,429

Anxiety10 -,221 -,377 -,009 -,173 ,203 ,071 ,337 ,189 ,819 1,000 -,092 -,146 ,414

Anxiety11 ,673 ,421 -,259 ,399 ,073 ,345 ,294 ,107 ,035 -,092 1,000 ,242 -,204

Anxiety12 ,285 ,249 ,249 ,247 ,074 ,074 -,223 ,353 -,192 -,146 ,242 1,000 ,196

Anxiety13 -,225 ,203 ,617 ,292 ,256 -,381 ,105 ,323 ,429 ,414 -,204 ,196 1,000

Anxiety14 ,247 -,284 -,259 -,490 ,008 -,085 ,627 -,221 ,598 ,499 -,010 -,249 ,259

Anxiety15 ,104 -,024 -,214 -,239 ,090 ,028 ,370 ,180 ,352 ,335 ,242 -,218 ,184

Anxiety16 -,172 ,303 -,321 -,209 -,372 -,581 -,363 ,055 -,252 -,289 -,122 ,017 -,120

Anxiety17 -,051 ,241 ,145 -,043 -,009 -,397 ,410 ,412 ,779 ,646 ,092 ,146 ,643

Anxiety18 ,207 ,540 ,299 -,209 -,233 -,232 -,025 ,055 -,005 -,020 ,031 ,386 ,163

Anxiety19 ,124 ,523 ,422 ,165 -,085 -,027 -,159 ,252 -,055 -,090 ,240 ,511 ,097

Anxiety20 -,132 ,046 ,011 -,507 -,092 ,116 -,279 ,194 -,289 -,222 -,294 ,341 -,354

Anxiety21 -,303 ,312 ,446 -,283 -,042 -,107 -,132 ,169 ,110 ,210 -,267 -,020 ,238

Anxiety22 ,391 ,145 -,212 -,042 -,239 ,143 ,268 -,267 -,114 -,320 ,460 -,122 -,231

Anxiety23 ,156 ,325 ,260 ,275 ,310 -,234 ,493 ,246 ,482 ,262 ,156 ,060 ,757

Anxiety24 ,015 -,195 ,309 -,101 ,549 ,125 ,547 ,189 ,762 ,756 -,120 -,104 ,590

Anxiety25 -,031 ,211 ,498 -,061 ,128 -,230 ,323 ,073 ,450 ,412 -,092 -,335 ,540

Anxiety26 ,360 -,043 ,365 ,420 ,215 ,116 ,308 -,149 ,305 ,245 ,244 ,148 ,333

Anxiety27 ,148 -,175 ,264 -,068 ,462 ,380 ,313 -,094 ,255 ,464 -,068 -,082 ,422

266

Anxiety28 -,081 ,066 ,381 ,530 ,248 ,107 ,124 ,088 ,077 ,099 ,107 -,196 ,449

Anxiety29 -,507 ,164 ,335 -,068 ,139 -,111 ,237 ,513 ,497 ,369 -,175 -,164 ,543

Anxiety30 ,006 ,429 ,624 ,051 ,390 -,126 ,270 ,352 ,265 ,092 -,053 -,019 ,558

Anxiety31 ,368 ,550 ,153 ,081 -,390 -,506 ,183 ,032 ,142 -,155 ,184 ,353 ,074

Anxiety32 ,227 ,439 ,095 -,013 -,260 -,384 ,230 ,195 ,528 ,462 ,327 ,327 ,392

Anxiety33 ,227 ,439 ,095 -,013 -,260 -,384 ,230 ,195 ,528 ,462 ,327 ,327 ,392

Anxiety34 ,077 -,215 ,324 ,334 ,317 ,310 -,115 -,116 -,254 -,135 -,163 ,201 ,072

Anxiety35 ,368 ,358 -,102 -,257 -,207 -,123 ,291 ,194 ,300 ,103 ,414 ,353 ,012

Anxiety36 ,047 ,029 ,367 -,093 ,187 ,215 ,046 ,095 ,134 ,163 -,010 ,211 ,138

Anxiety37 ,339 ,245 -,070 ,195 -,246 -,242 -,004 ,216 ,233 ,218 ,467 ,625 ,136

Anxiety38 ,323 ,236 -,281 -,101 -,316 -,419 ,567 ,103 ,650 ,360 ,397 ,042 ,216

Anxiety39 ,625 ,332 ,024 ,075 ,373 ,384 ,620 ,254 ,205 -,064 ,526 ,164 -,104

Anxiety40 ,203 -,070 -,018 -,195 ,267 ,137 ,650 ,365 ,768 ,695 ,137 ,081 ,225

Anxiety41 -,106 ,142 ,012 -,401 -,232 -,318 ,361 ,326 ,658 ,567 -,096 ,241 ,425

Anxiety42 ,334 ,172 ,098 ,000 ,117 -,147 ,767 ,186 ,789 ,561 ,206 ,090 ,525

Anxiety43 ,114 ,142 ,142 ,075 ,271 ,000 ,000 ,090 ,176 ,287 ,085 ,458 ,553

Anxiety44 ,348 ,119 ,212 -,028 ,365 ,333 ,680 ,183 ,359 ,053 ,254 ,000 ,167

Anxiety45 ,313 ,160 -,378 -,354 -,055 ,244 ,233 ,073 ,323 ,429 ,505 ,067 -,183

Anxiety46 ,512 ,231 ,036 -,075 ,220 ,149 ,781 ,382 ,528 ,143 ,363 ,327 ,104

Anxiety47 ,317 ,320 -,178 ,142 -,120 -,286 ,055 ,031 ,235 ,125 ,515 ,261 ,169

Anxiety48 ,385 ,532 -,202 -,148 -,363 -,172 ,075 ,162 ,077 ,021 ,596 ,286 -,060

Anxiety49 ,405 ,211 -,011 ,235 ,092 ,089 ,135 ,129 ,289 ,222 ,601 ,446 ,105

Anxiety50 ,503 ,346 ,134 ,093 ,111 -,065 ,377 ,142 ,407 ,258 ,385 ,537 ,348

Anxiety51 ,076 ,351 ,189 -,150 -,180 -,259 ,331 ,153 ,467 ,399 ,105 ,155 ,518

Anxiety52 ,395 ,346 ,202 ,223 ,184 ,005 ,392 ,365 ,417 ,135 ,399 ,524 ,183

267

Anxiety14 Anxiety15 Anxiety16 Anxiety17 Anxiety18 Anxiety19 Anxiety20 Anxiety21 Anxiety22 Anxiety23 Anxiety24 Anxiety25 Anxiety26

Anxiety1 ,247 ,104 -,172 -,051 ,207 ,124 -,132 -,303 ,391 ,156 ,015 -,031 ,360

Anxiety2 -,284 -,024 ,303 ,241 ,540 ,523 ,046 ,312 ,145 ,325 -,195 ,211 -,043

Anxiety3 -,259 -,214 -,321 ,145 ,299 ,422 ,011 ,446 -,212 ,260 ,309 ,498 ,365

Anxiety4 -,490 -,239 -,209 -,043 -,209 ,165 -,507 -,283 -,042 ,275 -,101 -,061 ,420

Anxiety5 ,008 ,090 -,372 -,009 -,233 -,085 -,092 -,042 -,239 ,310 ,549 ,128 ,215

Anxiety6 -,085 ,028 -,581 -,397 -,232 -,027 ,116 -,107 ,143 -,234 ,125 -,230 ,116

Anxiety7 ,627 ,370 -,363 ,410 -,025 -,159 -,279 -,132 ,268 ,493 ,547 ,323 ,308

Anxiety8 -,221 ,180 ,055 ,412 ,055 ,252 ,194 ,169 -,267 ,246 ,189 ,073 -,149

Anxiety9 ,598 ,352 -,252 ,779 -,005 -,055 -,289 ,110 -,114 ,482 ,762 ,450 ,305

Anxiety10 ,499 ,335 -,289 ,646 -,020 -,090 -,222 ,210 -,320 ,262 ,756 ,412 ,245

Anxiety11 -,010 ,242 -,122 ,092 ,031 ,240 -,294 -,267 ,460 ,156 -,120 -,092 ,244

Anxiety12 -,249 -,218 ,017 ,146 ,386 ,511 ,341 -,020 -,122 ,060 -,104 -,335 ,148

Anxiety13 ,259 ,184 -,120 ,643 ,163 ,097 -,354 ,238 -,231 ,757 ,590 ,540 ,333

Anxiety14 1,000 ,674 -,063 ,426 -,153 -,426 -,204 -,138 ,196 ,321 ,527 ,379 ,027

Anxiety15 ,674 1,000 ,051 ,303 -,397 -,482 -,320 -,313 ,294 ,304 ,335 ,471 -,138

Anxiety16 -,063 ,051 1,000 ,069 ,134 -,108 ,271 -,024 -,314 -,140 -,461 -,269 -,660

Anxiety17 ,426 ,303 ,069 1,000 ,387 ,314 -,237 ,329 -,124 ,611 ,616 ,515 ,332

Anxiety18 -,153 -,397 ,134 ,387 1,000 ,792 ,394 ,746 -,100 ,140 ,078 ,145 ,151

Anxiety19 -,426 -,482 -,108 ,314 ,792 1,000 ,300 ,660 ,087 ,000 -,015 ,063 ,365

Anxiety20 -,204 -,320 ,271 -,237 ,394 ,300 1,000 ,414 -,268 -,548 -,260 -,420 -,579

Anxiety21 -,138 -,313 -,024 ,329 ,746 ,660 ,414 1,000 -,174 ,000 ,240 ,329 ,000

Anxiety22 ,196 ,294 -,314 -,124 -,100 ,087 -,268 -,174 1,000 ,085 -,142 ,150 ,252

Anxiety23 ,321 ,304 -,140 ,611 ,140 ,000 -,548 ,000 ,085 1,000 ,611 ,516 ,413

Anxiety24 ,527 ,335 -,461 ,616 ,078 -,015 -,260 ,240 -,142 ,611 1,000 ,669 ,461

Anxiety25 ,379 ,471 -,269 ,515 ,145 ,063 -,420 ,329 ,150 ,516 ,669 1,000 ,426

268

Anxiety26 ,027 -,138 -,660 ,332 ,151 ,365 -,579 ,000 ,252 ,413 ,461 ,426 1,000

Anxiety27 ,295 ,163 -,546 ,110 ,108 -,152 -,222 ,188 -,126 ,480 ,656 ,404 ,294

Anxiety28 ,019 ,286 -,520 -,099 -,436 -,332 -,616 -,256 ,182 ,448 ,230 ,374 ,271

Anxiety29 ,207 ,225 -,239 ,493 ,088 ,199 -,012 ,517 ,153 ,411 ,464 ,445 ,011

Anxiety30 ,160 ,327 -,205 ,397 ,232 ,227 -,116 ,347 ,174 ,623 ,609 ,781 ,270

Anxiety31 -,063 -,195 ,124 ,326 ,538 ,463 ,086 ,084 ,150 ,246 ,017 ,145 ,257

Anxiety32 ,352 ,181 ,141 ,733 ,525 ,416 ,020 ,313 -,062 ,304 ,303 ,269 ,138

Anxiety33 ,352 ,181 ,141 ,733 ,525 ,416 ,020 ,313 -,062 ,304 ,303 ,269 ,138

Anxiety34 -,287 -,262 -,530 -,483 -,222 -,187 -,052 -,289 -,069 ,084 ,100 -,099 ,223

Anxiety35 ,332 ,329 ,055 ,498 ,400 ,463 ,194 ,169 ,484 ,164 ,189 ,218 ,122

Anxiety36 ,149 ,088 -,469 ,006 ,117 ,261 ,324 ,275 ,278 ,000 ,359 ,237 ,093

Anxiety37 ,119 ,200 ,180 ,489 ,203 ,317 -,052 -,202 ,017 ,084 ,012 -,025 ,223

Anxiety38 ,583 ,494 ,152 ,738 ,127 ,060 -,337 -,150 ,302 ,437 ,299 ,335 ,245

Anxiety39 ,088 ,236 -,333 ,064 ,115 ,104 -,020 -,157 ,294 ,380 ,335 ,202 ,239

Anxiety40 ,395 ,339 -,274 ,630 ,175 ,043 -,096 ,058 -,189 ,421 ,753 ,422 ,334

Anxiety41 ,407 ,087 ,043 ,799 ,575 ,375 ,223 ,508 -,108 ,356 ,464 ,227 ,059

Anxiety42 ,516 ,259 -,292 ,726 ,292 ,081 -,331 ,065 ,000 ,756 ,726 ,474 ,468

Anxiety43 ,088 -,167 ,000 ,478 ,538 ,390 ,000 ,376 -,186 ,548 ,383 ,000 ,226

Anxiety44 ,376 ,325 -,614 ,124 -,043 ,058 -,067 ,000 ,552 ,424 ,497 ,375 ,308

Anxiety45 ,305 ,323 ,047 ,351 ,361 ,255 ,196 ,288 ,152 ,000 ,234 ,082 -,108

Anxiety46 ,352 ,146 -,211 ,454 ,269 ,254 ,120 ,000 ,093 ,342 ,383 ,101 ,264

Anxiety47 ,340 ,384 ,293 ,446 ,074 ,173 -,157 -,134 ,301 ,234 ,071 ,092 ,051

Anxiety48 ,235 ,491 ,298 ,370 ,319 ,307 ,072 ,051 ,410 ,075 -,083 ,176 -,099

Anxiety49 ,099 ,120 -,178 ,467 ,252 ,544 -,135 ,038 ,379 ,219 ,260 ,129 ,489

Anxiety50 ,160 -,161 -,072 ,667 ,694 ,632 -,007 ,303 -,033 ,482 ,398 ,118 ,504

Anxiety51 ,367 ,024 ,007 ,690 ,627 ,422 ,011 ,580 -,079 ,390 ,309 ,268 ,150

Anxiety52 -,038 -,200 -,180 ,571 ,506 ,692 ,052 ,202 ,069 ,337 ,341 ,099 ,543

269

Anxiety27 Anxiety28 Anxiety29 Anxiety30 Anxiety31 Anxiety32 Anxiety33 Anxiety34 Anxiety35 Anxiety36 Anxiety37 Anxiety38 Anxiety39

Anxiety1 ,148 -,081 -,507 ,006 ,368 ,227 ,227 ,077 ,368 ,047 ,339 ,323 ,625

Anxiety2 -,175 ,066 ,164 ,429 ,550 ,439 ,439 -,215 ,358 ,029 ,245 ,236 ,332

Anxiety3 ,264 ,381 ,335 ,624 ,153 ,095 ,095 ,324 -,102 ,367 -,070 -,281 ,024

Anxiety4 -,068 ,530 -,068 ,051 ,081 -,013 -,013 ,334 -,257 -,093 ,195 -,101 ,075

Anxiety5 ,462 ,248 ,139 ,390 -,390 -,260 -,260 ,317 -,207 ,187 -,246 -,316 ,373

Anxiety6 ,380 ,107 -,111 -,126 -,506 -,384 -,384 ,310 -,123 ,215 -,242 -,419 ,384

Anxiety7 ,313 ,124 ,237 ,270 ,183 ,230 ,230 -,115 ,291 ,046 -,004 ,567 ,620

Anxiety8 -,094 ,088 ,513 ,352 ,032 ,195 ,195 -,116 ,194 ,095 ,216 ,103 ,254

Anxiety9 ,255 ,077 ,497 ,265 ,142 ,528 ,528 -,254 ,300 ,134 ,233 ,650 ,205

Anxiety10 ,464 ,099 ,369 ,092 -,155 ,462 ,462 -,135 ,103 ,163 ,218 ,360 -,064

Anxiety11 -,068 ,107 -,175 -,053 ,184 ,327 ,327 -,163 ,414 -,010 ,467 ,397 ,526

Anxiety12 -,082 -,196 -,164 -,019 ,353 ,327 ,327 ,201 ,353 ,211 ,625 ,042 ,164

Anxiety13 ,422 ,449 ,543 ,558 ,074 ,392 ,392 ,072 ,012 ,138 ,136 ,216 -,104

Anxiety14 ,295 ,019 ,207 ,160 -,063 ,352 ,352 -,287 ,332 ,149 ,119 ,583 ,088

Anxiety15 ,163 ,286 ,225 ,327 -,195 ,181 ,181 -,262 ,329 ,088 ,200 ,494 ,236

Anxiety16 -,546 -,520 -,239 -,205 ,124 ,141 ,141 -,530 ,055 -,469 ,180 ,152 -,333

Anxiety17 ,110 -,099 ,493 ,397 ,326 ,733 ,733 -,483 ,498 ,006 ,489 ,738 ,064

Anxiety18 ,108 -,436 ,088 ,232 ,538 ,525 ,525 -,222 ,400 ,117 ,203 ,127 ,115

Anxiety19 -,152 -,332 ,199 ,227 ,463 ,416 ,416 -,187 ,463 ,261 ,317 ,060 ,104

Anxiety20 -,222 -,616 -,012 -,116 ,086 ,020 ,020 -,052 ,194 ,324 -,052 -,337 -,020

Anxiety21 ,188 -,256 ,517 ,347 ,084 ,313 ,313 -,289 ,169 ,275 -,202 -,150 -,157

Anxiety22 -,126 ,182 ,153 ,174 ,150 -,062 -,062 -,069 ,484 ,278 ,017 ,302 ,294

Anxiety23 ,480 ,448 ,411 ,623 ,246 ,304 ,304 ,084 ,164 ,000 ,084 ,437 ,380

Anxiety24 ,656 ,230 ,464 ,609 ,017 ,303 ,303 ,100 ,189 ,359 ,012 ,299 ,335

Anxiety25 ,404 ,374 ,445 ,781 ,145 ,269 ,269 -,099 ,218 ,237 -,025 ,335 ,202

270

Anxiety26 ,294 ,271 ,011 ,270 ,257 ,138 ,138 ,223 ,122 ,093 ,223 ,245 ,239

Anxiety27 1,000 ,500 ,173 ,325 -,229 ,025 ,025 ,467 -,229 ,229 -,296 -,182 ,288

Anxiety28 ,500 1,000 ,274 ,312 -,206 -,150 -,150 ,539 -,353 ,163 -,217 -,136 ,150

Anxiety29 ,173 ,274 1,000 ,560 -,094 ,213 ,213 -,203 ,243 ,405 -,203 ,153 -,025

Anxiety30 ,325 ,312 ,560 1,000 ,276 ,171 ,171 ,084 ,352 ,460 -,074 ,174 ,469

Anxiety31 -,229 -,206 -,094 ,276 1,000 ,569 ,569 ,050 ,597 ,253 ,547 ,532 ,404

Anxiety32 ,025 -,150 ,213 ,171 ,569 1,000 1,000 -,354 ,644 ,278 ,723 ,701 ,111

Anxiety33 ,025 -,150 ,213 ,171 ,569 1,000 1,000 -,354 ,644 ,278 ,723 ,701 ,111

Anxiety34 ,467 ,539 -,203 ,084 ,050 -,354 -,354 1,000 -,365 ,363 -,193 -,489 ,277

Anxiety35 -,229 -,353 ,243 ,352 ,597 ,644 ,644 -,365 1,000 ,490 ,630 ,704 ,404

Anxiety36 ,229 ,163 ,405 ,460 ,253 ,278 ,278 ,363 ,490 1,000 ,119 -,006 ,308

Anxiety37 -,296 -,217 -,203 -,074 ,547 ,723 ,723 -,193 ,630 ,119 1,000 ,659 ,123

Anxiety38 -,182 -,136 ,153 ,174 ,532 ,701 ,701 -,489 ,704 -,006 ,659 1,000 ,255

Anxiety39 ,288 ,150 -,025 ,469 ,404 ,111 ,111 ,277 ,404 ,308 ,123 ,255 1,000

Anxiety40 ,411 -,035 ,157 ,336 ,282 ,431 ,431 -,006 ,365 ,152 ,335 ,518 ,569

Anxiety41 ,149 -,294 ,523 ,207 ,385 ,725 ,725 -,356 ,560 ,236 ,364 ,567 ,032

Anxiety42 ,492 ,198 ,285 ,412 ,465 ,604 ,604 ,032 ,372 ,152 ,319 ,660 ,518

Anxiety43 ,451 -,082 ,225 ,171 ,090 ,417 ,417 ,000 ,180 ,088 ,185 ,096 ,000

Anxiety44 ,335 ,350 ,474 ,618 ,183 ,062 ,062 ,240 ,434 ,620 -,103 ,231 ,712

Anxiety45 ,169 -,301 ,092 ,017 ,165 ,612 ,612 -,358 ,623 ,305 ,396 ,429 ,323

Anxiety46 ,056 -,184 ,150 ,277 ,382 ,375 ,375 -,162 ,494 ,132 ,300 ,502 ,667

Anxiety47 -,303 -,149 ,060 ,141 ,414 ,683 ,683 -,373 ,720 ,265 ,730 ,696 ,100

Anxiety48 -,238 -,205 ,029 ,172 ,456 ,668 ,668 -,443 ,823 ,235 ,690 ,647 ,286

Anxiety49 -,138 -,170 ,102 ,219 ,453 ,580 ,580 -,170 ,777 ,415 ,717 ,567 ,320

Anxiety50 ,167 -,307 ,057 ,215 ,537 ,674 ,674 -,200 ,537 ,082 ,530 ,510 ,352

Anxiety51 ,264 -,085 ,442 ,138 ,153 ,688 ,688 -,464 ,281 -,008 ,193 ,399 -,095

Anxiety52 -,120 -,312 ,134 ,310 ,613 ,508 ,508 -,148 ,613 ,206 ,534 ,489 ,492

271

Anxiety40 Anxiety41 Anxiety42 Anxiety43 Anxiety44 Anxiety45 Anxiety46 Anxiety47 Anxiety48 Anxiety49 Anxiety50 Anxiety51 Anxiety52

Anxiety1 ,203 -,106 ,334 ,114 ,348 ,313 ,512 ,317 ,385 ,405 ,503 ,076 ,395

Anxiety2 -,070 ,142 ,172 ,142 ,119 ,160 ,231 ,320 ,532 ,211 ,346 ,351 ,346

Anxiety3 -,018 ,012 ,098 ,142 ,212 -,378 ,036 -,178 -,202 -,011 ,134 ,189 ,202

Anxiety4 -,195 -,401 ,000 ,075 -,028 -,354 -,075 ,142 -,148 ,235 ,093 -,150 ,223

Anxiety5 ,267 -,232 ,117 ,271 ,365 -,055 ,220 -,120 -,363 ,092 ,111 -,180 ,184

Anxiety6 ,137 -,318 -,147 ,000 ,333 ,244 ,149 -,286 -,172 ,089 -,065 -,259 ,005

Anxiety7 ,650 ,361 ,767 ,000 ,680 ,233 ,781 ,055 ,075 ,135 ,377 ,331 ,392

Anxiety8 ,365 ,326 ,186 ,090 ,183 ,073 ,382 ,031 ,162 ,129 ,142 ,153 ,365

Anxiety9 ,768 ,658 ,789 ,176 ,359 ,323 ,528 ,235 ,077 ,289 ,407 ,467 ,417

Anxiety10 ,695 ,567 ,561 ,287 ,053 ,429 ,143 ,125 ,021 ,222 ,258 ,399 ,135

Anxiety11 ,137 -,096 ,206 ,085 ,254 ,505 ,363 ,515 ,596 ,601 ,385 ,105 ,399

Anxiety12 ,081 ,241 ,090 ,458 ,000 ,067 ,327 ,261 ,286 ,446 ,537 ,155 ,524

Anxiety13 ,225 ,425 ,525 ,553 ,167 -,183 ,104 ,169 -,060 ,105 ,348 ,518 ,183

Anxiety14 ,395 ,407 ,516 ,088 ,376 ,305 ,352 ,340 ,235 ,099 ,160 ,367 -,038

Anxiety15 ,339 ,087 ,259 -,167 ,325 ,323 ,146 ,384 ,491 ,120 -,161 ,024 -,200

Anxiety16 -,274 ,043 -,292 ,000 -,614 ,047 -,211 ,293 ,298 -,178 -,072 ,007 -,180

Anxiety17 ,630 ,799 ,726 ,478 ,124 ,351 ,454 ,446 ,370 ,467 ,667 ,690 ,571

Anxiety18 ,175 ,575 ,292 ,538 -,043 ,361 ,269 ,074 ,319 ,252 ,694 ,627 ,506

Anxiety19 ,043 ,375 ,081 ,390 ,058 ,255 ,254 ,173 ,307 ,544 ,632 ,422 ,692

Anxiety20 -,096 ,223 -,331 ,000 -,067 ,196 ,120 -,157 ,072 -,135 -,007 ,011 ,052

Anxiety21 ,058 ,508 ,065 ,376 ,000 ,288 ,000 -,134 ,051 ,038 ,303 ,580 ,202

Anxiety22 -,189 -,108 ,000 -,186 ,552 ,152 ,093 ,301 ,410 ,379 -,033 -,079 ,069

Anxiety23 ,421 ,356 ,756 ,548 ,424 ,000 ,342 ,234 ,075 ,219 ,482 ,390 ,337

Anxiety24 ,753 ,464 ,726 ,383 ,497 ,234 ,383 ,071 -,083 ,260 ,398 ,309 ,341

Anxiety25 ,422 ,227 ,474 ,000 ,375 ,082 ,101 ,092 ,176 ,129 ,118 ,268 ,099

272

Anxiety26 ,334 ,059 ,468 ,226 ,308 -,108 ,264 ,051 -,099 ,489 ,504 ,150 ,543

Anxiety27 ,411 ,149 ,492 ,451 ,335 ,169 ,056 -,303 -,238 -,138 ,167 ,264 -,120

Anxiety28 -,035 -,294 ,198 -,082 ,350 -,301 -,184 -,149 -,205 -,170 -,307 -,085 -,312

Anxiety29 ,157 ,523 ,285 ,225 ,474 ,092 ,150 ,060 ,029 ,102 ,057 ,442 ,134

Anxiety30 ,336 ,207 ,412 ,171 ,618 ,017 ,277 ,141 ,172 ,219 ,215 ,138 ,310

Anxiety31 ,282 ,385 ,465 ,090 ,183 ,165 ,382 ,414 ,456 ,453 ,537 ,153 ,613

Anxiety32 ,431 ,725 ,604 ,417 ,062 ,612 ,375 ,683 ,668 ,580 ,674 ,688 ,508

Anxiety33 ,431 ,725 ,604 ,417 ,062 ,612 ,375 ,683 ,668 ,580 ,674 ,688 ,508

Anxiety34 -,006 -,356 ,032 ,000 ,240 -,358 -,162 -,373 -,443 -,170 -,200 -,464 -,148

Anxiety35 ,365 ,560 ,372 ,180 ,434 ,623 ,494 ,720 ,823 ,777 ,537 ,281 ,613

Anxiety36 ,152 ,236 ,152 ,088 ,620 ,305 ,132 ,265 ,235 ,415 ,082 -,008 ,206

Anxiety37 ,335 ,364 ,319 ,185 -,103 ,396 ,300 ,730 ,690 ,717 ,530 ,193 ,534

Anxiety38 ,518 ,567 ,660 ,096 ,231 ,429 ,502 ,696 ,647 ,567 ,510 ,399 ,489

Anxiety39 ,569 ,032 ,518 ,000 ,712 ,323 ,667 ,100 ,286 ,320 ,352 -,095 ,492

Anxiety40 1,000 ,555 ,796 ,185 ,360 ,452 ,623 ,084 ,191 ,318 ,498 ,245 ,517

Anxiety41 ,555 1,000 ,649 ,519 ,169 ,477 ,454 ,273 ,343 ,322 ,620 ,752 ,475

Anxiety42 ,796 ,649 1,000 ,414 ,481 ,317 ,647 ,236 ,198 ,331 ,667 ,540 ,542

Anxiety43 ,185 ,519 ,414 1,000 ,000 ,306 ,125 ,256 ,082 ,360 ,703 ,569 ,369

Anxiety44 ,360 ,169 ,481 ,000 1,000 ,133 ,604 ,095 ,122 ,290 ,196 ,079 ,360

Anxiety45 ,452 ,477 ,317 ,306 ,133 1,000 ,230 ,505 ,702 ,539 ,413 ,349 ,264

Anxiety46 ,623 ,454 ,647 ,125 ,604 ,230 1,000 ,149 ,225 ,330 ,638 ,392 ,739

Anxiety47 ,084 ,273 ,236 ,256 ,095 ,505 ,149 1,000 ,759 ,772 ,410 ,186 ,373

Anxiety48 ,191 ,343 ,198 ,082 ,122 ,702 ,225 ,759 1,000 ,616 ,341 ,264 ,292

Anxiety49 ,318 ,322 ,331 ,360 ,290 ,539 ,330 ,772 ,616 1,000 ,641 ,160 ,724

Anxiety50 ,498 ,620 ,667 ,703 ,196 ,413 ,638 ,410 ,341 ,641 1,000 ,634 ,850

Anxiety51 ,245 ,752 ,540 ,569 ,079 ,349 ,392 ,186 ,264 ,160 ,634 1,000 ,333

Anxiety52 ,517 ,475 ,542 ,369 ,360 ,264 ,739 ,373 ,292 ,724 ,850 ,333 1,000

273

APPENDIX C: ITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATIONS FOR THE

QUESTIONNAIRE (pilot study)

274

Item-Total Statistics

Scale

Mean if

Item

Deleted

Scale

Variance

if Item

Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Squared

Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if

Item

Deleted

Anxiety1 135.9333 597.495 .314 . .925

Anxiety2 135.8000 600.600 .353 . .924

Anxiety3 134.9333 615.210 .236 . .925

Anxiety4 136.2667 618.781 .045 . .927

Anxiety5 136.1333 609.410 .188 . .926

Anxiety6 136.2000 622.886 -.027 . .927

Anxiety7 136.2000 584.457 .530 . .923

Anxiety8 135.8667 604.981 .360 . .924

Anxiety9 136.7333 591.924 .635 . .922

Anxiety10 136.9333 601.924 .457 . .924

Anxiety11 136.2000 601.600 .410 . .924

Anxiety12 136.0000 602.571 .289 . .925

Anxiety13 135.6000 592.400 .481 . .923

Anxiety14 135.9333 605.638 .337 . .924

Anxiety15 135.8667 608.695 .256 . .925

Anxiety16 135.4000 640.114 -.338 . .930

Anxiety17 136.4000 589.114 .761 . .922

Anxiety18 135.7333 599.067 .413 . .924

Anxiety19 135.4667 598.981 .422 . .924

Anxiety20 136.4000 628.400 -.181 . .927

Anxiety21 136.3333 610.381 .255 . .925

Anxiety22 136.0667 616.210 .121 . .926

Anxiety23 135.6667 593.095 .634 . .922

Anxiety24 136.6000 593.543 .655 . .922

Anxiety25 136.3333 597.810 .462 . .923

Anxiety26 136.0667 597.210 .439 . .924

Anxiety27 135.8000 604.314 .306 . .925

Anxiety28 135.6000 618.971 .048 . .927

Anxiety29 136.1333 598.981 .404 . .924

Anxiety30 136.1333 595.124 .547 . .923

Anxiety31 136.8667 601.981 .426 . .924

Anxiety32 136.4667 586.267 .717 . .921

Anxiety33 136.4667 586.267 .717 . .921

275

Anxiety34 135.8000 629.457 -.169 . .928

Anxiety35 136.8667 591.838 .651 . .922

Anxiety36 135.9333 603.924 .374 . .924

Anxiety37 136.8000 600.886 .463 . .924

Anxiety38 136.9333 595.352 .612 . .923

Anxiety39 135.8667 595.410 .527 . .923

Anxiety40 136.2000 591.743 .672 . .922

Anxiety41 136.1333 581.124 .633 . .922

Anxiety42 136.0000 589.714 .811 . .921

Anxiety43 136.6667 601.238 .496 . .923

Anxiety44 135.2667 597.495 .544 . .923

Anxiety45 137.0667 601.067 .512 . .923

Anxiety46 135.8667 600.267 .658 . .923

Anxiety47 136.5333 599.124 .462 . .923

Anxiety48 136.6000 597.971 .465 . .923

Anxiety49 135.9333 599.067 .667 . .923

Anxiety50 136.4000 585.543 .775 . .921

Anxiety51 136.9333 605.210 .581 . .923

Anxiety52 136.5333 589.552 .723 . .922

276

APPENDIX D:

GUIDELINES FOR DIARISTS

277

LEARNER DIARY

Dear Student,

The diary is a very important and helpful tool which will enable you to think in

more detail about the English lessons that you are now taking and your needs as a

language learner, whilst at the same time providing you with a clear record of the work

you do. In addition, it constitutes a means of giving you insightful and valuable writing

practice.

For the next two months (8 weeks) I would like you to write about the English

lessons that you are taking, every time you have a class. There is no word limit to your

texts, but you are advised to spend approximately 20 minutes on each diary entry. As soon

as you finish each entry, I would appreciate it if you sent your texts electronically to the

email address below. You can also email me in case you have any questions about your

diary or about the project. Your English teacher will monitor the whole process, and,

therefore, you could address some of your questions to him/her. Your diaries will not be

corrected, but any mistakes can be pointed out to you if desired/requested. Your diary

entries will be used for research purposes only, and all information supplied, including

any names, will be treated confidentially. Anonymity is guaranteed.

It would be useful if your diary could include some of the following points:

Date of the particular lesson.

Your own impression of your performance in class.

What you found the most/least anxiety-provoking.

What you really enjoyed.

What you would like to have been done differently.

How (if at all) anxious you felt when speaking in class.

How (if at all) anxious you felt when working on writing in class.

In what way(s) you believe your anxiety manifests in class.

How you think you might overcome your anxiety about English classes.

In what way(s) your teacher could help you to overcome your anxiety.

What you think/feel about your teacher.

What you think/feel about your peers.

Many thanks for your time and effort.

Christina

Christina Gkonou

PhD Researcher

University of Essex

Department of Language and Linguistics

Wivenhoe Park

CO4 3SQ

Colchester

United Kingdom

278

E-mail: cgkono@essex.ac.uk

Below is a sample diary entry:

09/06/2010

Today the English lesson was quite interesting, because we had a discussion about

wildlife and how to protect it. This is one of my favourite topics. However, I don’t think I

did that great today, because when the teacher asked me to describe a picture showing

some animals in danger I could not remember some of the words I needed. I mean, I knew

them but I do not know what happened at that moment. Actually I wasn’t expecting my

teacher to ask ME, and I became anxious. My classmates made me nervous as well,

because they were raising their hands and I couldn’t concentrate. But I should not get

worried. As my teacher said, practice makes perfect and I know that this is just the

beginning of the year!

I liked the fact that the teacher gave us lots of new vocabulary on that topic. I think

that new vocabulary is always useful for speaking, and for writing, listening, and reading.

In fact, when the teacher asked us to write a short essay in class on action we could take in

order to protect wildlife, I think I made good use of the vocabulary taught. Also, the topic

was motivating enough to help me develop my ideas. I handed in the essay, so I now have

to wait till the next lesson to see what mark I’ll get… To be honest, I feel I’m better at

writing than speaking!!

279

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW

PROTOCOL FOR STUDENT

INTERVIEWS

280

STUDENT INTERVIEWS – QUESTIONS

1) How would you define anxiety?

2) Which aspect of English language learning do you think makes you the most / the

least anxious? Why?

3) Are you anxious about speaking? Why / Why not?

4) Are you anxious about writing? Why / Why not?

5) What do you like / dislike about English?

6) How do you perceive mistakes?

7) Are you a perfectionist?

8) Do you avoid things that make you anxious? If yes, how often? If no, why not?

9) Do you think that you are a good student?

10) How do you think that you show your anxiety?

11) Do you think that your peers affect your level of anxiety in the English classroom?

If yes, how?

12) In what ways do you think that your teacher helps you to overcome your anxiety?

13) Are there any strategies that you use to reduce your anxiety?

281

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW

PROTOCOL FOR TEACHER

INTERVIEWS

282

TEACHER INTERVIEWS – QUESTIONS

1) What do you think about the role of English language anxiety? Can it be positive,

negative?

2) Which groups of students are more anxious in your EFL classrooms? The

intermediate or the advanced ones?

3) What do you think about English language anxiety in relation to speaking and

writing?

4) Which factors account for a potential difference in the amount of anxiety in the

above two skills?

5) What major stressors have you noticed during your experience of teaching English

to Greek students?

6) How does your role as an EFL teacher relate to students’ English language

anxiety?

7) What types of classroom activities or classroom situations are more anxiety-

provoking for your students?

8) How does anxiety manifest in your learners?

9) What strategies do you use to successfully cope with your students’ language

anxiety?

10) What do you think about the role of the peers?

283

APPENDIX G: EXAMPLE OF

CODING INTERVIEW DATA

284

EXAMPLE OF CODING INTERVIEW DATA

Interview transcript #1

I: Hello and thank you for attending

my interview.

L: You’re welcome.

I: My first question is whether you

think that anxiety is positive or

negative or both.

L: I think anxiety meaning stress, I

think a little bit might be positive for

some people to push them, but in

general a lot of anxiety is

debilitating. I think it, it blocks

people, it, it makes them feel so bad

that their mental state stops them

from continuing. That’s my opinion.

I: And which students do you think

are more anxious? The advanced

ones or the intermediate ones?

L: The ones I’ve met here, I’ve only

been here a short while, but in this

frontistirio I would say the

intermediate ones are, have been the

most anxious and I guess may be the

more advanced ones are more

confident because they know they

have strong abilities, but in this

group, this group here is lower than

the one I had before and there is

more anxiety in this group than in

the previous which was all very

strong language learners.

I: So you think this is because of the

language.

L: I’m guessing it could be. I don’t,

there are probably other factors, but

that could be one, one of the reasons.

I: So what do you teach? Are you

teaching literature?

L: Yes, I’ll tell you about that later.

I: No, it’s OK. I don’t mind.

L: The book we are doing, I chose

the book with Argiris, and the book

we are doing is a great book, it’s

called “Fahrenheit 451”. We’ve read

that book with more advanced

students and they got it immediately.

It’s symbolic and they loved it. And

this group, you know, were a little

ANX AND GRADE

LEVEL

SOME ANX =

FACILITATING

GENERALLY =

DEBILITATING

MENTAL STATE

STOPS

INTERMEDIATE

SS MORE ANX

ADVANCED SS:

MORE

CONFIDENT,

STRONG

ABILITIES/LEARN

ERS

285

stressed about it, because they, they

couldn’t get it, they, they, they

didn’t quite understand the story.

The book was our fault, because the

book was really too hard for them,

but I can see that they were anxious

about it and you know if I had

chosen a different book, it wouldn’t

have been a stressful situation.

I: I see. Do you think that your

students are more anxious during

speaking or writing in class?

L: In class? Let me think which one.

They seem to do both fairly well.

They really, they are really

exuberant, they like talking, even

when we are talking about a story, a

book, and they write pretty well so

they, they don’t look stressed really

with either one. May be they are,

they hide it, when they write they

seem to enjoy it or they, they least

they do what I tell them to and the

quality looks fairly good, so to me

neither one really.

I: OK, that’s fair enough. What are

the factors that make Greek students

anxious?

L: I think not knowing what’s

expected, so I think that when

somebody gets an assignment or

they are given a reading passage or

they are asked to do a writing

assignment and they don’t

understand what it is that the teacher

wants, that really scares them so

usually if you make the directions

really clear or take a big task and

break it into smaller tasks for them

instead of saying “Write an essay for

homework”, you can say “Write

three sentences that tell me about

your idea and write three sentences

about, you know, the main parts of

your essay, beginning, the middle,

and the end”. And then the next

week bring that to class and then,

you know, if you break it into

something smaller, it somehow

makes them feel less stressed I think.

ANX CAUSE

ANX CAUSE

ANX REDUCING

STRATEGY

TOO DIFFICULT

MATERIALS

ANX RELATED

WITH WHAT ONE

CAN DO WELL (?)

WHAT THE T

EXPECTS/WANTS

TEACHING

PRACTICE: CLEAR

INSTRUCTIONS,

BREAKING TASK

(STH SS CAN

MANAGE EASILY)

286

Something that they can manage

easily.

I: Any other sources that you can

think of?

L: Of stress? I think their parents a

lot of times are source of stress. I

don’t want to say bad things but, you

know, it looks really strange to me,

because you know we spend a lot of

time learning how students’ minds

work especially out of lessons, and

then we see the parents you know

pushing them to get their

Proficiencies when they are thirteen

or pushing them to take swimming

lessons and music lessons and

French lessons, I mean too much. I

saw that a lot with my own daughter,

I saw some of her friends, their

parents were, they, they wanted the

best for their children, they wanted

their children to have careers and

things that they didn’t have

themselves, but I think they are

going about it in the wrong way.

They give the children too many

things to do and this is bad as just

not giving them enough. So that’s

another source of stress I think that,

not to be saying anything negative,

but I think that’s where some of the

stress comes from, the parents.

I: Yes, I agree with you actually. Do

you think that there are any

particular activities that you do in

class and make the students feel

anxious?

L: I think whenever we do

something, we do an activity,

reading or writing that’s too hard for

them so, like the book that we’ve

read “Fahrenheit 451”, I real, I

didn’t know the students so once we

were you know reading the book and

I can see that it was too hard, I can

see that it was making them nervous,

because it made them feel that they

didn’t know very much. They know

a lot actually but the book was just

too hard for them. If I would have an

ANX CAUSE

ANX CAUSE

SIGNIFICANT

OTHERS:

PARENTS (BUT

WITH YOUNGER

SS)

INPUT

DIFFICULTY

(activities that are too

hard for the Ss)

287

easier book I think it would, they

would have felt better about it.

I: OK, so it was above their level of

proficiency.

L: Yes, it was above their level. I

didn’t know them and I brought the

wrong book so they have already

bought it and we were already

starting it so we couldn’t change

really but I think that was a big

source of stress, they were asked to

do something which was beyond,

they did it but it was beyond what

they could do comfortably.

I: So the materials can sometimes

make them feel a bit more anxious.

L: Yes, if it’s not matched nicely

with their level, I mean you don’t

want to be right at their level, you

want to be a little harder, but this

was may be instead of one degree

too hard which would have been

good, it was probably three degrees

too hard which was stressful.

I: What about their peers? Do you

think students are influenced by

them?

L: Well, in this class, they are eight

students and there is one person who

makes remarks a lot of times about

the pronunciation or, I mean it is

funny because that student makes

mistakes too but I don’t know if she

does it because she feels bad about

herself but I’ve spoken to her two or

three times privately as nicely as I

could, you know I’ve been saying

something like “You are really

trying to help, but”. In fact she

wasn’t trying to help, she was

making fun of somebody but I didn’t

want to say that and I think that

stresses people. It calls attention to

what they can do. We try to call

attention to what they can do, of

course this is what we do as

teachers, so yes there is one person

in this particular group who creates a

kind of bad atmosphere sometimes.

I: Is that person a strong student or a

ANX CAUSE

ANX CAUSE

WRONG CHOICE

OF MATERIALS

(too difficult,

mismatch between

what T chose and

what Ss could do

comfortably)

i + 1

ONE DEGREE TOO

HARD: GOOD,

THREE DEGRESS

TOO HARD:

STRESSFUL

PEERS: MAKING

FUN OF EACH

OTHER, IT CALLS

ATTENTION TO

WHAT THEY CAN

DO

288

weaker student? Because students

themselves admit that the, those

people in class who usually make

fun of the rest are usually you know

the weaker students.

L: She is, she is not the strongest

student but she is not the weakest

student in class either. I’d say

average, but may be she just has you

know some other kind of insecurity.

I: Yes, what you’ve said before.

When your students are anxious, if

they are, do they show it in any

specific way? Can you understand

it?

L: Yes, behaviour. They get fidgety,

and you know they giggle, it’s hard

to keep them focused. If they are not

stressed and you have the materials

that are perfectly suited to their

level, it’s smooth and they just flow

in the activities, but when it’s too

hard and they are getting stressed,

you get this fidgeting and it’s, you

understand that you’ve brought

something that it’s too hard and that

they are reacting.

I: Do you use any strategies to help

them overcome this anxiety?

L: Well, what I’ve been doing with

this book is emphasising that they’re

good, that I wouldn’t bring this in to

just anybody. I spend a lot of time

helping them understand the book.

Before we read I give them

sometimes a little like outline, if say

I’m gonna give them, next week we

are going to read twenty pages, the

week before I give them a summary

of the main points so when they are

reading they know where they are

headed, or I give them, I always give

them a list of the characters and you

know if they are good, they are bad,

you know something, some

characteristics about the character.

Sometimes I give them some

questions to guide them to the story,

I try to give them something so that

they are not just reading on their

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

PRAISE

TEACHING

PRACTICE:

SCAFFOLDED

TASKS (giving Ss

289

own, that they have some kind of

scaffolder or some, something to

assist them. So I do that before they

start reading for a homework. In

class, I spend a lot of time defining

vocabulary or helping them extract

the main meaning of a passage,

sometimes I put them in groups and

I have them work on an activity you

know together, so that they can kind

of share information and then we

have a whole class discussion with

the teams reporting. So I guess I try

to use group work when it’s a little

hard, because it seems like that when

you can work it out with one other

person, you are not all on your own.

That seems to help, they, they like

working in pairs and small groups

this crowd, you know they think

they get energised and, you know,

they speak into Greek sometimes but

as long as they are talking about the

lesson, I mean I push them to use

English but they are Greeks, you

know they are all Greek speakers, so

it’s a little unnatural. So if they use

Greek but they are talking about the

problem, the work, I don’t mind that

much. I might you know remind

them. But working with another

partner usually helps I think to

alleviate stress.

I: That was my next question

actually, I mean to what degree you

use pair work or group work.

L: A lot, a lot. In fact when I was

first starting to work here, it was

really funny. It’s just the way I was

trained to be a teacher so I had the

students in pairs and they were all

talking, and they were talking

loudly, because they were eight kids

and there were three groups and they

were excited about their work, and

Argiris came in because he thought

“Oh the new teacher! The students

are misbehaving”, you know. He

was worried about me that they

weren’t being respectful, so he came

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

outline, list of

characters, questions)

GROUP WORK

(“when you can work

it out with one other

person, you are not

all on your own”)

290

in and he said “What’s going on?”. I

said “Oh nothing, you know, we are

just doing group work” (laughs). So

you know it’s noisy and some people

don’t like that noise, but you know

to me if it’s noisy, it means they are

doing something. Unless it’s writing

or reading, if I am telling them to

read quietly, I don’t want talking.

But if it is a group activity and they

are having a conversation to figure

out the questions, I’m excited, I

mean I like that. So yes I use it,

every class period I have some kind

of a group activity.

I: Yes, they learn and they also, you

know, they are on task.

L: Yes, just keeping them on task,

but if, you know, you go round and

remind people, I think they stay on

task.

I: OK, good. What about mistakes?

How do you think the students feel?

L: You mean in writing or speaking?

I: In either.

L: In speaking, when we’re in class

talking, I, I never correct a mistake

ever. I just think that we put people

off. I mean I know me when I am

speaking Greek and I have a teenage

daughter. She wants to help me but

when we are at a gathering with our

friends, I speak English to her but

we’re at a dinner party and every

time I say something, she is

interrupting me and correcting me. I

mean it puts you off. And she is my

daughter, we are close, but if your

teacher does that to you, it must be

far worse, because you know the

teacher is an authority, so I never,

you know, for a lot of other reasons,

I don’t want to stop them talking, I

want them to keep talking. But in

writing I correct selectively, I don’t

correct everything, but it depends,

you know if I say this week we’re

going to work on structure, this

week we’re going to work on

grammar. I usually have a focus, you

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

NO ERROR

CORRECTION IN

SPEAK (“it puts you

off”)

SELECTIVE

ERROR

CORRECTION IN

291

know a writing activity, and I make

the corrections based on you know

what the focus is. I don’t correct

every little sense mistake but the big

things.

I: So when they get a composition

back, or an essay, or something, do

you think that students are afraid of

mistakes? How do they feel?

L: Well, that’s a good question. Just

recently these few weeks, we’ve

been working on a little project, so

the book that they are reading every

week afterward we are discussing it,

their homework assignment is to

choose a scene, describe you know,

what’s important to them in that

section of the book, describe the

scene in a paragraph, and then next

week they’re going all to bring me

their pages and we’re going to make

a book and bind them. So it’s a

book, their own recollections of the

story. So before they make the final

copy with the art work, I want them

to give me you know just on a

scratch paper their writing so I can

correct it, the spelling, before they

put it in the beautiful book version.

So on that I correct just about

everything because when they turn

in the book they want it to be

something that’s going to be

beautiful that they’ll remember and I

can see this “Why have I made all

these mistakes?”. And I say “Well,

they are tiny mistakes”. I mean a

spelling mistake is silly, I mean that

doesn’t mean that you don’t know

English, so yes sometimes they get a

little nervous, they, they feel, I think

if you’re not careful, they feel like

they don’t know very much when

they see mistakes. We all make

mistakes, I make mistakes when I

speak English, I mean just I do, not

grammar mistakes but I start talking

really fast, you know, it’s natural.

But they are not experienced enough

to know that, so they, they take it as

ANX CAUSE

WRIT (depends on

focus of writing task)

CONCERN OVER

ERRORS (they feel

like they don’t know

very much when they

see mistakes)

292

a sign that they don’t know

something. So I have to be really

careful how I, you know, present

that to them, and always say

something like well, you know, I’m

grading, always give some kind of a

comment that softens the way they

receive the correction.

I: Do you think that they care a lot

about their grades? Do you give

grades?

L: In this class I give, I’ll tell you

about my other school because I

have to give grades there. This one I

give, a plus is very good, I’ll show

you on the board (writes on the

board). This means excellent, this

means OK and that means not, not

very good, so mostly they get this

and this. I don’t put, but I write

comments, you know I write, you

know, I really like you know the

discussion, you know, the character,

you wrote elegant sentences, or here

I would say “This was nice, but it

would be nicer if you had more

details. You had a few mistakes. I

think that you may, you

misunderstood a few things about

the book, because the character

wasn’t really very nice”. You know,

so I give them some comments, and

again I try to write comments in a

way that doesn’t, you know,

accentuate the errors so much, as

you know what you can learn from

it. But in the school where I work

during the day, I had to give 95, 98, I

have to give a real fixed grade for

everything, and the kids are really

anxious to see what their grades are.

I: Is there anything else that you

would like to add?

L: About stress? Well, I guess as a

teacher my, one of my major

objectives is to create the kind of

classroom environment where stress

is minimised, because the work itself

is stressful. I mean, when you are

doing, when you are getting ready

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

ERROR

CORRECTION:

POSITIVE

COMMENT (which

softens the way Ss

receive correction)

COMMENTS THAT

DO NOT

ACCENTUATE

THE ERRORS SO

MUCH

293

for a language exam or when you are

reading a difficult book, that by,

even with a great class that you

really like as a teacher, that’s

stressful. Any time you learn

anything new and leave behind the

old part of yourself, that’s stressful.

So learning by definition has some

stress built in, so I try really hard to

be relaxed but firm, you know kind

of laid back, that there are clear rules

and this is what I want and when it’s

time to work, it’s time to work. You

know, they are young, give them a

break, let them be themselves, but

make it clear that there is a time to

work and a time to goof off. So I

usually let them kind of goof off the

first five minutes and you know they

are chatting and all that, and then we

have a really serious work period,

and then the second half of the class,

that’s when I do group work, you

know something that’s more

relaxing, and in the last five minutes

they are kind of chattering. So I try

to structure the lessons so that they

are not always asked to be perfect,

you know they can be relaxed a little

bit, and I try to be friendly but you

know not let anything happen, you

know not just to let them do

anything, but to let them know you

know that I care about them and I

think of them as my young friends,

to make a sweet environment, a

place where they would like to

come.

I: That’s very important, the

teacher’s behaviour and the teacher

being friendly.

L: I think so too. So I try really hard

to build that kind of a classroom

environment. That’s, that’s a major

goal of mine actually in all my

classes.

I: Do all students take the literature

classes?

L: No, no. Argiris started it this year

because I know a little bit about that

LEARNING STH

NEW, LEAVING

BEHIND THE OLD

PART OF

YOURSELF

LEARNING BY

DEFINITION HAS

SOME STRESS

BUILT IN

AIM: TO MAKE A

SWEET

ENVIRONMENT, A

PLACE WHERE SS

WOULD LIKE TO

COME

294

and I use literature a lot, so he asked

me if I would come and do this you

know start it off. So I did a literature

class in the fall, I’m doing this one

on literature with university

students, and he is doing another one

too. So it’s kind of, we’re

experimenting and I think, you

know, he’ll decide in April whether

he wants to keep with the same or

just a few, or expand it. I haven’t

spoken to him yet, I don’t know

what his plans are, but he’s really

excited about literature on a personal

level. I don’t know about other

teachers, if you know there is

interest but we both are.

I: Good. Do you feel anxious when

you teach?

L: No, no, never. I do in my other

job. I’ll tell you when I feel anxious.

I have a lot of work, a lot of work, a

lot of classes, a lot of papers to

grade, and for example today I had

three groups to meet and in one I

wasn’t as well prepared as I wanted

to be, just because, not because I

was lazy, but because I had to go to

bed last night, I just couldn’t finish.

So that’s what makes me anxious,

when I am not as well prepared as I

know I should be. You know

sometimes it’s not possible because

you have too many other things to

do, but it doesn’t just make me

anxious, it makes me feel upset with

myself. So that’s what makes me

anxious. But mostly I feel

comfortable, especially here with

these students, they’re from the

neighborhood, I see them at

Masoutis, I see them you know

around the neighborhood, and my

other school too, even though I don’t

have that same closeness, these are

not kids so I like them and it’s

mostly stress you know when I

haven’t finished grading the papers

that I’ve promised them, you know

the workload is what stresses me,

295

not the students. The workload can

be very stressful in a teacher’s life,

as I am sure you know.

I: I’m still studying and working not

as an EFL teacher. I will do that over

summer. But I’m doing, I’m

teaching some undergrads in Essex.

L: Like applied linguistics classes?

I: It’s “Foundations of Linguistics”,

it’s a lecture-based class, so I have

two groups of students there and I

really feel anxious and what makes

me anxious is that most of them are

English and I am not, so I’m afraid

of the types of questions they might

ask or the vocabulary they might

use. Till now I didn’t have any

problem and I could cope with their

questions, but you know it’s a

different kind of context and

different reasons for being anxious.

But it’s a good experience anyway.

L: Oh, I’m sure it is. Yes, perfect for

you.

I: But I am looking forward to EFL

classes. They are different.

L: Yes, they are. Different kind of

skills involved. It’s a, I like teaching

linguistics classes too, but this is

somehow more personal than

language learning. Your identity is

wrapped up in the language that you

use and, so you have to push people

to go out on a limb. These students,

I’ve been pushing with this book that

is too hard, you know they kind of

resist but on the one hand I know I

made a mistake, the book is too

hard, but on the other hand I know

as a language learner and as a

language teacher that if you always

give people what they’re

comfortable with, they don’t learn.

You know, you have to give them

something that’s a little bit too hard

and provide a safe little

environment, so you know that’s,

that’s the way it works when you

teach. You have to be a little out

there in a, in a terrain. And when we

296

teach too, what you’re doing with

your linguistics course, I mean

you’re growing and developing by

doing that you know with native

speakers. I’m sure you cover the

class competently and beautifully,

but you’re you know you have to

prove it to yourself that you can do it

and that’s what you are doing.

I: That’s very true. Is there anything

else you would like to add?

L: Well I hope when you’re done

with your research you’ll come and

let us know how the project goes. I’d

love to hear about it.

I: I will.

L: And last thing to say. As for

stress, the classroom management

has a lot to do with it and planning

materials that are suited for the

particular group of students. Like I

just said, I didn’t do that so well

with this group and I’m seeing the

results. I mean you know if the

materials had been a little easier, I

would see a little different

interaction in class, so that’s part of

it too.

I: I see, thank you very much.

L: Oh you’re welcome. It’s been a

pleasure.

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

CHOOSING

MATERIALS THAT

MATCH THE SS’

LEVEL

OF PROFICIENCY

297

Interview transcript #2

I: First of all, I would like to thank

you for attending my interview and I

would like to ask you first what you

think about the role of anxiety in the

classroom.

A: Do you mean if it, if it plays a

role?

I: Yes.

A: Well, yes. What I try to tell a lot

of students even the younger ones,

from A senior level to, to my

students in Lower, what I say is

everything, not only teaching and

learning a language, you need a bit

of stress, and the amount of stress

you have can be both good and bad.

But if I have too much stress, it has a

negative effect on the results. And if

I am not stressed at all, which is the

situation with a lot of students right

now, they are not seeing the

importance of what they are doing, if

they are not stressed they don’t have

good results either. So you have to

have stress which is in the middle

somewhere, which is sometimes

hard to have. They either stress too

much or they don’t stress at all.

I: So you think it can be both.

A: Definitely, definitely.

I: So, when you let’s say have to

teach students who are indifferent,

probably not anxious at all…

A: Sometimes they are indifferent,

but I think it doesn’t have to do with

the, with the class itself, or with

lessons, or even with me sometimes.

I think it has to do with the, the

stress that they generally have in

their lives today because they have

to go to private schools, they have to

do all the different activities, the

extra activities apart from the school

or the university, which I think is too

much for the students here. And I

can compare it, because I’ve seen,

I’ve been to school and gone to

school in Sweden, and it’s nothing

like it, nothing like it. And I think

ANX TYPE

SOURCE

FACILITATING

EDUCATION/SCHO

OLING SYSTEM

298

one of the things that stresses the

students the most and the result is

that they sort of lean back and they

say “OK, I’m not gonna do

anything”.

I: I see. So it has to do with them.

A: Not always, not always but a lot

of the times, if it has to do with

them, usually I can’t do anything

about it. But if I see that they

actually make a difference when I’m

trying something different, or saying

something, or trying to sort of get

their attention and try to make them

understand how important it is for

them to study, or to listen, or even

try, ok? When they do that, then I

know that they are not indifferent

and I know that it plays a role what I

do. But I can’t affect all the students,

so it has to do both with them and

with me, the teacher.

I: Yes, it’s a combination.

A: Yeah, it is.

I: Which students do you think are

more anxious? The advanced

students or the lower level learners?

A: I think like A senior level at least

and C senior level are more stressed

than the older ones.

I: Why?

A: Because the younger ones are still

in a phase where they take it more

seriously. The older ones, even

though they are taking exams soon

are sort of thinking about a hundred

other things, internet, the mobile

phones, sending messages, love,

fights with parents, and all these

other things, which is a part of their

lives. On the other hand, yes sure,

the younger kids have life too, but

they are still not in control of their

life. So they should have had their

parents looking after them and

telling them “You have to study”. So

I think the younger students are

more stressed than the older ones,

that’s what I seem to get from the

students.

MANIFESTATION

OF ANX

GRADE LEVEL

AND ANX

AVOIDANCE

BEHAVIOUR

LOWER LEVEL –

YOUNGER AGE

299

I: Does this imply that it has to do

with their age rather than with their

level?

A: Probably, probably, yeah,

because even the adults, I think they

have the, the amount of stress that

they should have, because they are

adults, they know how to study, they

know how to, when to study, they

have learnt a lot of things growing

up, so they know “OK, I have to do

it this way”, whereas I see and a lot

of times when I do, when I see

students I say “OK, tell us how do

you study?”. How do you study?

How do you do this? So people can

get ideas, because the problem a lot

of times is that they think they are

studying when sitting and doing

their homework and they might be

sitting for an hour and do nothing

and that stresses them. And they

stress and they come to class saying

“I tried to do it but I couldn’t”, “I

didn’t manage to do it”, etc. The

adults know how to handle that, they

know how to study, they know

which time of the day works best, so

they don’t have the hundred other

factors that stress the younger kids

than the adult. They know how to

cope with it. The younger students,

OK, it’s not that difficult for them,

so they, they have a little stress for

silly things for us.

I: Are the adult students more

experienced as students, or as

learners, than young learners?

A: As learners, yes, definitely.

I: What about the level of their

knowledge, their level of

proficiency? Do you think that a

student who is in a CPE class, let’s

say, whose level of English is

higher, do you think that this student

feels more confident?

A: Yes, I do. Because being good at

something, whatever it is, it gives

you confidence, because you, you

identify yourself as being a good

FACTORS

RELATING TO ANX

AGE

300

learner and having knowledge of

something and being better than

someone else, which means that

you’re, this is may be, not may be, it

is a bad thing to sort of look down

on others and say that “OK, I am

better than them”. So, sure,

definitely, it does play a big role for

the confident, for the confidence in

the student, in the adult, whatever it

is.

I: OK, thank you. What about the

anxiety in relation to speaking and

writing?

A: I think that the students I teach

are more stressed when it comes to

speaking than writing, because when

you’re writing you can rub out any

mistakes you’ve made, you can

correct it, you can think about it, you

can rewrite it, you can write

something, leave it for a day and

look through it again, which they

don’t do anyway, but you have the

opportunity to do it and that’s a

relief. Whereas in speaking whatever

you’ve said, you can’t take it back,

so their problem, they are more

stressed with that part I think. They

have more anxiety into how to speak

and what should I say, and in that

moment you usually think in Greek

which is something we try to help

them with, so that they think in

English when they are expressing

themselves, to use the English

grammar not the Greek one, because

that’s when they make mistakes,

when they try to express themselves.

I think most anxiety is experienced

in speaking and not writing.

I: Writing is more personal, it gives

them more chances to…

A: Yes, they have the chance to

correct it and review it and think

about it and perhaps look up words

to, to express themselves exactly as

they would like. And they can’t

really do it in speaking in a

classroom or being in a foreign

FACTORS

RELATING TO ANX

SKILL-SPECIFICITY

LEVEL OF

PROFICIENCY

SOURCES:

peer pressure

competitiveness

SPEAKING

MISTAKES – FEAR

301

country and have to speak.

I: OK. So what do you think are the

sources of anxiety? Why do students

get anxious?

A: Where does stress come from?

(laughs) I should know, I’m a person

that stresses a lot. I’m not sure, I’m

not sure. Probably when they are not

feeling confident, it comes out.

Competition, afraid to make a

mistake, because a lot of them, the

first thing they would say is “No, no,

I don’t know how to say. How do I

say this?”, and they start speaking in

Greek. And then you have to sort of,

OK, if you knew everything, you

wouldn’t be in a private school, you

wouldn’t attend it at all, if you knew

everything. You are here to make

mistakes and other people are in a

class and won’t do private, because

we learn from each other’s mistakes.

That’s one thing that we try to do to

make them feel more calm, but I

think the stress comes from that,

competition, always wanting to be

on top, so if you make a mistake it

means that you don’t know it very

well. And that they are not feeling

that confident as someone who uses

language more frequently and knows

it, as we do or as an adult does.

I: I see. Is it a personality thing?

A: Yes, perhaps that’s personality.

I: What do you think about the role

of the teacher?

A: A very important one. You mean

in relation to anxious, anxiety?

I: Yes.

A: We can, for the students that

actually are there a hundred and fifty

percent, not the ones that are laid

back and don’t pay attention that

much, those people I don’t think we

affect them that much. We do affect

them because we affect people every

day without knowing it, but a

teacher does, we can make them feel

as stressed as we want them, we can

make them feel more relaxed if we

SOURCE

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

FACTORS

RELATING TO ANX

TEACHER

INFLUENCE

LOW SELF-

CONFIDENCE

PEERS

MISTAKES

MAKING SS

UNDERSTAND

THAT MISTAKES

ARE A NATURAL

PART OF THE

PROCESS

PERSONALITY

302

want to. We can sort of, we can push

them but these are the students that

really listen to you and may be look

up to you and focus on whatever

you’re telling them. Those students

you can, you can give them a lot of

anxiety and stress but also you can

make them feel more relaxed. But

it’s I think a mixture of what we’ve

said before, that if they’re not

confident enough, whatever I say

won’t change it. It’s something that

they have to cope with and try to

change, because all the changes can

be made only if a person wants to

make a change. And stress is

something important and difficult to

sort of get away from. It’s difficult

like if I look back at, and just look at

myself, and I stress in most of the

situations, I’m, I’m a stressful

person, and I’ve tried many times to

sort of think “OK, when am I

stressing? I’ve done this before, I

know what to do”. But then again,

the next time I’m in the same

situation, I’ll be stressed like it was

the previous time. So, we do affect

them but I don’t know to what

degree we affect them and change it

in a way.

I: OK, so the, the only case that the

teacher can make students anxious is

because the teacher has to do it, let’s

say.

A: That we have to make them feel

stressed?

I: Yes, because they don’t care that

much, so you have to make them

feel stressed, to understand, to

realize the importance of what they

are doing and to realize why their

parents are paying for these classes.

A: For me I think yes. That’s the

only time I want to stress someone. I

prefer preparing them than stressing

them, so telling them two, three, four

weeks ahead what they’re having in

the, in the weeks to come so they

can sort of plan and know what they

303

are doing, so they won’t stress. So a

lot of times what I do is, not a lot of

times, I think always, I try to prepare

them so I won’t have to come to the

situation where I have to stress them,

in order to have a, a good result in

something.

I: I see. Do teachers make students

anxious?

A: Yes, sure, when being strict,

being demanding. The thing is, I

think there is a difference between,

because that’s the thing, I didn’t go

to school here at all, never. The

students, the teachers don’t work

like the way they work here from

what I’ve come to understand, thank

God (laughs).

I: From the students?

A: Yes, because we have a lot of

discussions with people, and

students have felt that the teachers

don’t give them credit for the things

that they do well, that they sort of

separate the good students from the

bad ones, if they have good

relationships with their parents, if

the parents have a good job, they

show that, the teachers have shown

very clearly to the students that we

have our favourites and the students

feel very very bad, really bad. They

come and, and discuss it with me a

lot of times and I said OK, of course

it happened to me as well, that I

have had teachers that did that, but

most of them weren’t like that, in

Sweden at least. The system is

totally different, the school is totally

different, there is much more

pressure to the teachers at school,

that they have to be good and they

have to, they have to reach a few

goals, and not only teaching a book

in a subject, but teaching the

students manners, and a student

can’t learn manners from a teacher

who isn’t a good role model. So I

think, we do have a lot of bad

experiences, of course, but I don’t

SOURCE

TEACHER

INFLUENCE

T BEHAVIOUR

FAVOURITISM

304

think I have as many as the students

here (laughs).

I: I see. You referred to the fact that

the students are afraid of making

mistakes and that this is a source of

anxiety.

A: Yes.

I: What do you do about it?

A: I use different techniques

depending on the ages. The younger

students, the A senior level let’s say,

sometimes I don’t correct them. Not

at that minute. I would let them

finish whatever they are saying,

because I don’t think it’s correct to

interrupt when they have sort of

organised an idea either in their head

and they want to express it, I think I

push away from trying if I correct

them at that minute. So I usually let

them finish and may be afterwards

when they finish, and this is a very

usual, a very common technique,

because I’ve done, I’ve asked the

same question to other teachers in

Sweden actually (laughs), I was

observing the same thing. It’s very

common to do that, when they’ve

said something wrong, I repeat it but

I don’t repeat the mistake, I say it

correctly. Other times I won’t

correct anything if I am asking a

question to all students, I would ask

everyone so more people are, are

gathered and make the same

mistake, so then I can write on the

board and no one feels like it was me

who made that mistake and they feel

that OK, it’s very normal to make

this type of mistake, and then I say

“So what do you think? What do you

think?”, more people answer, and

then I say “OK, let’s remember that

when we’re expressing this, we use

this, remember, we’ve said it”, and

sort of look back at it as a group and

not individually, because a lot of

mistakes that are made are usually

very common in more than one

students and they don’t see that.

STRATEGY

ERROR

CORRECTION

RECASTS

WHOLE CLASS

CORRECTION

305

Even though I know it and they

would know it as well, they stress

about it anyway, even though they

know, I say that as well, I say that a

lot, that if you knew everything you

wouldn’t be here. You have to make

mistakes, it’s normal to make

mistakes, I make mistakes, and we

are here to learn from each other, so

it’s good that you made a mistake,

because now the others won’t make

the same mistake, so I try to sort of

make them understand that we are

actually learning from the mistakes

and that it’s not ideal always to be

perfect. If they were, they wouldn’t

be here. So I just, my way of

correcting is usually either repeating

what they’ve said in a, in the correct

way, or just not paying attention to

that exact moment, making more

people to say something and see if

they’ve made the same mistake.

I: Did you receive any training?

A: Yes. In Sweden we have to do

practice.

I: Teaching practice?

A: Yes. We had to do it for like, we

were sent to a school where we had a

person who was like a supervisor

who would be with us during the

lessons, but we had to organise the

lessons, and all the lessons, as a

teacher would, for about I think two

months, may be more, but then we

had to go and have contact with this

school and with the classes etc. And

I’ve done these types of questions

with other teachers as well in the

same schools.

I: OK. Do you think that there is any

particular activity that makes

students anxious?

A: Perhaps, like we said before, the,

the speaking perhaps, because they

are not used to it, they are not used

it, and that’s why what we try to do

here in this school anyway is that we

try to speak as much English as

possible from the younger ages as

TALK TO SS

ABOUT PROCESS

OF LEARNING,

THAT MISTAKES

ARE ONLY

NATURAL

306

well, even though they won’t

understand everything, and may be,

may be that’s an anxiety for them,

when they start and they come to

school and everyone speaks English,

and they have that reaction a lot of

times when they come from B

juniors to A seniors and I say

everything in English in the

beginning and they sort of, you see

the looking on their faces, when

they’re looking “Oh my God, what

is she saying?” (laughs). We just try,

I think when, when the kids

understand that you’re doing this for

their good, but they don’t, usually

they don’t understand it the first

year, like I have my C seniors that I

have for three years, they don’t get

that stressed anymore because they

know me, they feel secure, they feel

confident, they know that they can

ask everything, so I don’t think any

activity stresses them more than

another one. But perhaps that we

speak too much English, the

speaking part, I think that’s, yes I

think it’s the speaking more

stressful.

I: Do you think that they show this

kind of anxiety to you? Do they

make it obvious?

A: Yes, they do.

I: In what ways?

A: They say it, “Ah I know, I

know”. The way they speak, they

stress their body language (laughs),

they don’t have to say it sometimes,

the body language. Some of them of

course show that they are stressed,

because they want you to sort of,

not, how to say it, not feel sorry for

them, but sort of show compassion

“Oh may be I shouldn’t give you

that much”. But they show it by just

saying it. Some other students, you

know, biting nails, that type of thing,

but I don’t know.

I: Do you help your students to cope

with their stress?

SOURCE

(ACTIVITY)

SYMPTOM

SPEAKING:

Ss not used to

speaking

in/listening to

English all the

time.

Therefore, Ss

cannot always

understand the T

– frustration.

BEHAVIOURAL

307

A: Yes, I try to make them

understand that there is no point in

stressing, because we know our job,

we know when we are giving too

much homework and we know how

much we should give them or what

to expect of them, so they sort of

have to understand that there is no,

there is no meaning to, there’s, it’s

useless stressing for something that

we know you don’t have to stress

about, even though that’s tough to

sort of get through to the kids,

because they are young. I wouldn’t

ignore it totally, but I would try to

make them understand, that’s what I

do when they are complaining “Oh

my God. Miss, we won’t have time

to do this” and “We won’t do this”

and “How can we do that?”. They

show this and give you the

impression that they are really

stressed and they won’t be able to,

they won’t manage to do it, and you

just say “Yes, you will. You have to

plan your time”. That’s why we tell

you one week in advance, you plan

it. And that’s what adults do, and

that’s what you have to do, you

won’t leave it, that’s why I said like

before, I sort of prepare them instead

of sort of pushing them in a situation

where they have to stress in the end.

So yes, sure they show it, but

sometimes they do it just to be

pampered, and other times they are

really stressed, they are having it as

a character in them, because some,

some people are stressed and it’s not

always a negative thing, it doesn’t

have to be a negative thing.

I: Yes. Is there any other strategy

that you have used with anxious

students and think it works?

A: The anxiety that I see to my

students in the Lower class, what I

try to do there is usually if I can,

something I believe in is that, like all

people they want to be seen as an

individual, as a person. So what I am

‘TEACH’ TIME

MANAGEMENT

SKILLS?

PLAN/ASSIGN

TASKS/HOMEWOR

K/ IN ADVANCE

PREPARATION

308

trying to do there is, in a way that

others won’t notice it, show that I

am there for them, that I can listen to

them, that they can talk to me, that

they can ask for help, whatever it is,

may be it’s not about English, so

they feel confident with me. If they

feel confident with me, and again

it’s about the students that actually

care because if you don’t care, they

will not even be stressed, they won’t

even be anxious, so what I am trying

to do is that, to show them that I am

there for them so that they can talk

about it, and I think then they trust

me, and when I say that you don’t

have to stress about this, you can do

it, you should do this, and this, and

this, if they have the trust in me, they

will be able to manage whatever

they have in front of them, if it is an

exam, or a writing, or whatever it is,

and they will do it without being that

stressful. So I think that, that’s what

I try to do. And I think even a clap,

you know, on the shoulder

sometimes is enough to show them

that OK, she is here, you know, she

is looking, she is noticing.

I: What about pair work and group

work? Do you think it helps students

to release the stress they might feel?

A: When I did it the first time in the

class, it was group work actually, not

even pair work, it was difficult for

them to sort of get organised with it,

they weren’t used to it, so I think

when they are used to pair work or

group work, I think it can be really

useful and that it actually helps

because it goes back to what I’ve

said before, that a lot of people share

the same thoughts, or have the same

questions, so they have to feel like

“OK, I am not different from the

others. We are the same, we have the

same questions, we’re wondering

about the same things”. They learn

from each other. But when they are

not used to it and, it’s easy for them,

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

BUILD T-S TRUST

309

because they are not organised, it’s

easy for them to sort of not do what

they have to. So they start talking in

Greek, and fool around, you know

doing other things and not

concentrating, so that’s the negative

part, it doesn’t release the stress or

help them with the stress if they are

not well organised. But this is

something, if you want to be

successful with pair work or group

work, this is a process that you have

to go through anyway. But I think

it’s, it is helpful.

I: OK. Is there anything else that you

would like to add?

A: No.

I: OK. Thank you very much then.

A: Thank you.

VIEWING

LANGUAGE

CLASSROOM AS A

COMMUNITY

310

Interview transcript #3

I: First of all, I would like to thank

you for attending the interview and

the first question is whether you

think that anxiety is positive or

negative for the students.

A: Anxiety. Well, I think that… let’s

talk, if, if we define what anxiety is

and the symptoms of anxiety like

stress. Would stress be a synonym to

anxiety?

I: Yes.

A: Let’s say, it’s not necessarily, it’s

good to be anxious about something

in order to motivate you to finish it.

However, it’s unhealthy to have

prolonged periods of anxiety, where

you are forever anxious. So within

the class there should be no anxiety,

but generally you should be anxious

to finish something. There is a huge

difference. And I believe that, if

you’re anxious in the class, then

you’re blocked and you don’t learn,

so no, you shouldn’t have anxiety

within the lesson, but you should be

anxious in a positive way to finish,

to help you finish. Because if you’re

not anxious and you’re indifferent,

you might just give up. And if

you’re too anxious and you are

overwhelmed by the anxiety, you

may also give up, because you can’t

handle the anxiety, or the symptoms

of it, or whatever.

I: What about anxiety in relation to

students’ level of proficiency? I

mean, do you think that advanced

students are more anxious than

intermediate students, or vice versa?

A: Depending on their age. If you

have a student who is finishing

university and is intermediate and

hasn’t gone into first certificate

level, the lower, they are very

anxious, because they want to finish,

they think that they’ve, sort of, the

years have passed and they haven’t

reached certain levels, they become

very anxious, and students who…

ANXIETY AND

STRESS

FACILITATING

ANX

TRAIT ANXIETY

SYMPTOM

FACTOR

AFFECTING ANX

LEVELS

Motivates you to

finish something

DEBILITATING

BLOCK – NO

LEARNING

In-class anxiety vs.

trait anxiety

Low anxious Ss or Ss

who never become

anxious – lack of

motivation

AGE (perhaps

stronger influence

than level of

proficiency)

IMPLICATIONS

ABOUT GREEK

FOREIGN

LANGUAGE

EDUCATION

SYSTEM

311

Well, it depends, if they are good

students, they are not that anxious.

And it depends on the personality as

well, so I wouldn’t say that there is a

huge difference between proficiency

and intermediate and their level of

anxiety. I would say it’s more on the

personality and how confident they

are in the, in the subject.

I: OK. What about speaking and

writing in relation to students’

anxiety? Are they more anxious

when they speak in English, or when

they write in English?

A: Oh, OK. They become anxious

when there is a time, as far as

writing is concerned, they become

anxious when they are limited. They

have to write an essay in half an

hour, they become very anxious. If

they are given ample time, they

write and they write very well. I do

both, I get to write at home for as

long as they like, and then at the

frontistirio, at the school, where they

have to write within a certain limit

of time. When they have to write

within a certain limit of time, they

are anxious to finish, so there is a lot

more anxiety there. But when they

are writing with, they can refer to the

dictionary or resources or vocab and

stuff like that, I don’t think that there

is any anxiety there. In fact, that

could be pleasure. With speaking,

there is anxiety when there is, there

is lack of knowledge, like when

there is a lack of grammar or vocab,

they, they might become anxious.

Yes, all that might be embarrassed, I

don’t know if, if you can call that

anxious, there might be embarrass,

shy, other factors might come into it.

I: Because of their classmates?

A: Yes, they feel exposed let’s say,

or they feel, yes they feel that you

know they might say something

wrong.

I: Regarding writing, why do they

have to write in thirty minutes?

PERSONALITY

CONFIDENCE

SKILL-SPECIFICITY

SKILL-SPECIFICITY

SOURCE OF

SPEAKING ANX

HIGH

PERFORMERS

Self-confidence but

also self-efficacy

here (“how confident

they are in the

subject”)

WRITING

ANXIETY: time

constraints

(effect on

achievement)

SPEAKING ANX:

no input

Ss may find this

embarrassing

EMBARRASSED:

Peer pressure

Fear of making a

mistake

312

A: Because it’s an exam skill, so

they are prepared for the exam. Near

the end they are prepared for this,

but throughout the year we teach

them how to write properly and at an

academic level. And we allow them

to take time over writing and to

experiment with words, expressions,

etc, to develop ideas. They like that,

it’s good.

I: Are there special classes about

writing?

A: Yes, there are. I do most of the

writing classes with them in this

school.

I: So what do you think causes this

anxiety to the students? One source

might be their classmates, as we said

before.

A: With all the skills? Yes, anxiety

in the classroom. What causes

anxiety in the classroom? Generally

now, what causes anxiety in the

classroom would be the fact that

they do not understand what I am

talking about, and they feel they are

missing out, and I’ve explained the

grammar point on the board, and

they haven’t a clue of what I am

talking about. This might cause

anxiety. They are too embarrassed to

ask me to repeat it, or they are too

embarrassed to, to show that they

don’t understand. Then they think

“Oh my god, I haven’t understood

this”. That might cause anxiety.

Anxiety may also be caused by the

teacher’s reactions, or a negative

reaction, or if it’s, if you insult the

student, and the student is a little bit

more sensitive and you are not

aware. You might unwillingly say

something without, unintentionally

rather, say something and they take

it the wrong way. But I don’t know

if that causes anxiety, or if it causes

something else, like worry. Because

I define anxiety with stress, you

know like heartbeat, blocking of the

mind, worrying. In relation to the

ANX SOURCE

NOT

UNDERSTANDING

THE TEACHER

BELIEF THAT THE

TEACHER MAY

THINK LESS OF

THEM

T ATTITUDE

313

teacher in general, students feel that,

if they feel worried in the lesson

because the teacher might have said

something and they took it wrong,

they might not want, they might feel

anxious for the next lesson. They

might not want to go to the lesson.

And each student is different. Some

people have a different sense of

humour, others are more

hypersensitive, others do not take to

jokes easily, others are very nervous

and they don’t understand your

humour. And again it’s a cultural

thing, because I am a native speaker

and I use a different type of humour.

But going back to what I said before,

if they haven’t understood

something, I give them time within

the lesson, in the writing, I see them

individually as well, and this allows

them to ask any questions, and then

allows me to focus on them as

individuals. It’s not just a classroom

situation, we, we, I assign something

for the rest of the class to do. Then I

see them individually. It depends on

the student, and it also depends on

the class size. The smaller the class

size, the easier I think it is. I think.

I: Is there any particular classroom

activity that you think makes your

students anxious?

A: Yes, when I give them a topic to

talk about, and I do this on purpose,

to make them anxious actually. I

give them a topic. This is near the

end actually I do this. I give them a

topic and I time them to speak for

two minutes non-stop. Whatever.

Near the end of the course, so they

are quite proficient, they are quite

fluent. They, they have enough

vocab. I wouldn’t do that in the very

beginning, but by the end of the

course they should be at a certain

level, and this is more like a game. I

give them like, what’s the

importance of history in education,

because it’s something. May be

ANX-PROVOKING

ACTIVITY

Teacher attitude

affects levels of

student motivation

TIMED SPEAKING

314

something even easier, describe your

favourite meal. And they have to

talk about this non-stop for two

minutes. Even though they run out

of things to say, the time still like,

you give them that two minutes

thing, and there is a gap of silence

that causes them to become anxious.

That’s, that’s to train them, to see

what, to train them to be able to

speak more, to expand on their

points, to you know like, to help

them speak. And probably be quick.

Yes, for example, the importance of

history. So they begin and they say

whatever they have to say and then I

say “Well, you could have said this”,

“You could have used your own

experiences”. If you use your own

experiences, then you have more to

say. Or you can bring up a memory

of your history class, giving them

ideas then, first to show them what,

how they would do it, and then

provide some suggestions for them

to find tricks in filling up the two

minutes. Again, this is an exam skill,

what I am teaching them. And it

becomes fun actually, I think. You

know, they start laughing or to

break, to break the kind of anxiety,

you may get, it depends on how you

handle the situation as well. If you,

if I see that a student can’t talk, I

don’t force them to. I don’t make

them talk, I just think all right, OK.

There is no point in causing them the

anxiety.

I: How do you help your students to

overcome or reduce their anxiety?

A: By saying that you’re good, by

encouraging them, that’s really

good, especially when they come up

with “Ah, I’m not good at this”, “I

didn’t do this well”, point out the

things that they are good at, “But

look, here you did pretty well”, and

keep emphasising, as I do, that I am

very strict and that I have high

expectations, so really they are at a

ANX-COPING

STRATERY

PRAISE

315

very good level, but as far as I am

concerned, I am a little bit strict and

I demand more of them than what is

needed. And I make that clear, that

your performance is good and that

you are capable of passing, even

though I’ve given you a lower mark,

because I expect more from you.

And basically offer suggestions, or,

for example with writing. If they get

something wrong in their writing, or

if they haven’t understood, the

introduction isn’t good, I give them

a model for, individually.

I: A model composition?

A: No, a model introduction. No, I

write, I write the introduction for

them in a very simple way knowing

very well that they could do the

same. Or if with the writing, because

the writing a lot of the time they

might write word for word in Greek,

point out when they are translating

word for word and keep repeating,

repeating their mistakes. Learning

from their mistakes. And the more

they learn, the more familiar they

become. I think the more familiar

they become with my method, the

less anxious they also become.

I: You said that you give them low

marks for a good purpose of course.

Do you think that they pay attention

to marks?

A: Yes. The mark is very important

for them. It’s an indication of their

level.

I: Does it make them anxious?

A: I don’t know. It must, of course it

must. And in fact I think it, it breaks

the trust. Subconsciously, if not

consciously, they resent their low

marks. And I think it’s only natural.

If I were given a mark by you and

you gave me five out of ten instead

of eight, I would resent you, even

though it’s not your fault, it’s my

performance, I would resent you. It’s

only natural I think.

I: I see. Do you think that mistakes

ANX-COPING

STRATEGY

SOURCE

FAMILIARISING

SS WITH

TEACHING STYLE

MARKS

316

make them nervous?

A: Yes, at the beginning yes. I’m all

for correcting everything. I don’t

know why. I just think that you need

to correct. If you’re writing and

you’re here, your purpose is to learn,

especially at a proficiency level.

When you’re doing proficiency,

you’re at a level where you want to

learn more and you already know a

lot and you are perfecting what you

know. So basically yes I give, I

have, I give a lot of corrections. And

that way I believe that as the time

progresses which has been my

experience, the errors get less, fewer

and fewer, and they feel proud of

themselves. And I don’t think it’s

bad to make them anxious at the

beginning, to show them that “You

don’t know that much”, and yes, it’s

the reward at the end that they have

developed. At the beginning it’s hard

to accept but you do, I’m for that.

I: Yes. Do you think that they

express their anxiety in certain ways

in the classroom?

A: Yes, I think they do, unless they

hide it well.

I: Is there any specific behaviour that

you’ve noticed?

A: They talk to the person next to

them to explain it rather than ask me.

And because this is a very small

class and it’s very easy to manage

that, you allow that to happen. How

else do they express their anxiety?

By challenging you about their

mistakes, yes they challenge. I say

this and I think this is correct, you

know, in their anxiety to be right,

that kind of thing, they challenge

you. What else? I can’t think of

anything else.

I: That’s OK. I think this is my last

question. Do you ask them to work

in pairs or groups during the lesson?

A: No, very rarely.

I: What for?

A: No, this is done individually,

ERROR

CORRECTION

BEHAVIOUR

Error correction may

make Ss anxious, but

helps them to see

what they need to

improve in, and also

how much they

developed.

Asking peers

questions –

embarrassed to ask

the T

Challenging the T –

not accepting the fact

that they have made a

mistake

317

because we do process writing. I

give them a topic and I give them,

now write an introduction. And they

write an introduction. And then I

correct it with them. And if it’s a

very small group, if it’s a very small

group, if there is four of them, I

correct each person’s work with the

others watching, so using it as a

model for everybody. That kind of

thing. No, I don’t get them to do a

lot of group work or pair work. And

I don’t ask them to correct each

other’s essays either. I don’t see the

point. But a lot of them actually do

want to listen, they are really

interested. There is a lot of

motivation in this school, where they

might sit and say “Oh that as well”. I

do the common mistakes at first, at

the beginning, common mistakes on

the board, and we play a game, it’s

like a game. We go round in class,

you know spending game or

something, and then I give them

something to do while I see each one

individually. And if someone is

sitting close by, they might pick up

something, or they might ask, and

that’s it. They learn from each

other’s mistakes.

I: Thank you. Is there anything else

you would like to add?

A: Not really (laughs).

I: Thank you very much then.

A: Thank you.

318

APPENDIX H:

EXAMPLE OF CODING DIARY

DATA

319

Ioanna’s diary

20/1/2011

Today’s English lesson was very

enjoyable. It was nice to start

differently today. Firstly we talked

about the UK terror detention limit

which I found quite interesting and

was a relaxing way to start the

lesson with. We didn’t do any

writing today which was a relief to

me since writing usually makes me

anxious. Correcting the homework

was a bit boring though later we had

a lot of fun talking about the

preparations we would make if we

had a big event going on. It was

really nice to listen to everyone’s

ideas. Later on we did some

grammar exercises concerning

inversions. Even though we had

some time pressure when asked to

do an exercise in class, I didn’t feel

anxious and most of my answers

were correct too. Everyone

participated and seemed interested in

the lesson which gave a pleasant

tone to the atmosphere. The

highlight of the lesson was the end

when we watched a very interesting

video about a professor who made

some interesting points on how we

could solve the economic crisis in

Greece. I really found today’s lesson

pleasant and interesting and I believe

that my oral participation in class

was satisfactory. I hope we have

more lessons like today’s without

any anxiety and a lot of positive

energy.

28/1/2011

Today we had another pleasant

English lesson. First of all the test

we were supposed to have was

postponed. That was a small relief

since I won’t have to stress about it.

We started the lesson with listening.

I actually got a bit stressed because

we had to do part 3 of the listening

test which is the most difficult part.

SOURCE

SOURCE

SOURCE

ANX PROVOKING

ACTIVITY

WRITING

LIMITED TIME

MARKS –

FIXATED ON

ACCURACY

TESTING

LISTENING (but the

specific part of this

specific exam)

320

Though I thought I hadn’t done that

well it turned out to be exactly the

opposite and had only two mistakes

out of fifteen. After that everything

was relaxing. We had a talk about

guns in America and in Greece

which was the topic of the writing

we have for homework. Though we

didn’t get much homework the

writing makes me a bit anxious. We

also did a small reading exercise in

the book which was easier than it

seemed at first. However there was

some time pressure from our teacher.

Other than that the lesson was very

pleasant. The positive atmosphere

and the interaction we all had, and

generally have, with each other

made the lesson enjoyable.

3/2/2011

Today the English lesson was a little

stressful due to the reading paper we

had to do. Generally the whole week

has been loaded with tests for the

MSU exam because it’s new and we

all believe that it’s actually a good

choice for us. The reading paper

seemed very easy but I got a bit

stressed about the time without a

reason since I had plenty to finish

the test. I have to say that the last

parts were a bit more difficult and

I’m expecting to have some mistakes

there. We also got back our writing

results which were lower than the

rest of the test but still good. I have

to admit I hadn’t done a good job on

the writing because I didn’t have

time to finish it properly. Anyway

we finished the test and then

watched a documentary about guns

in America. At the end we were told

by our teacher that on Monday we

will write an essay on the same topic

which freaked me out a little. At

least I now know that I will have to

prepare for this writing.

10/2/2011

WEAK SELF-

CONCEPT

WRITING ANXIETY

SOURCE

SOURCE

SELF-

EVALUATIONS

SOURCE

LOW SELF-

EFFICACY

FIXATED ON

ACCURACY

LIMITED TIME

LIMITED TIME

SOURCE: LIMITED

TIME

WRITING

PREPARATION

321

Today’s lesson was quite stressful.

We worked on grammar and

vocabulary exercises in class. I have

to say that the exercises were too

difficult. I felt that I wasn’t going to

have much time but it turned out to

be exactly the opposite. Because I

finished a bit earlier my teacher

actually checked my exercises and

she said I did very well. That was a

small relief.

After this we put on the rest of the

documentary about guns in America.

We didn’t have much time to watch

it but it was a good way to relax a

bit.

I find all these exercises too stressful

and I feel pressured by my teacher. I

would like us to work on something

more creative. For example, I like

the documentaries that we watch and

then discuss. I know the teacher is

doing this because she wants to

finish the book, but I really feel

stressed and I just can’t wait for this

period to be over.

Anna’s diary

09/02/2011

Today the English lesson made me

feel nervous. We did a writing about

how teachers should be in the

classroom. It was a nice topic. I

wrote what I wanted although I think

I wrote too many words. We also got

our vocabulary exercises back. I

took a good mark. I’m so happy

about that. I’ve studied so hard for

this and this mark really means a lot

to me. I hope it will make me feel

better. I don’t know why but this

period of time I feel a little bit sad

about English. I think that this is

caused because I feel anxious when I

speak in the class. I love speaking

but I can’t speak in front of all these

people. I forget what I want to say

and I make mistakes. I hope this will

change.

SOURCE

SOURCE

SOURCE

SOURCE OF

SPEAKING

ANXIETY

DIFFICULT INPUT

LIMITED TIME

FIXATED ON

ACCURACY

TYPE OF

ACTIVITIES

FIXATED ON

ACCURACY

SPEAKING

PEER PRESSURE

FEAR OF MAKING

A MISTAKE

322

16/02/2011

Today the lesson was great. We did

some exercises and a listening too.

We also spoke about wild animals,

zoos and the Megafona extinction. I

enjoyed very much this lesson. Not

to forget we also saw some images

about a bird, geneornis, which

existed in Megafona.

I’m happy! I like English! I really

want to try and study hard. I don’t

care about exams and the certificates

but I really care about the

preparation. My teacher told me I

am good and she gave me more

homework and a book to read.

22/2/2011

Well I’m happy! Today the lesson

was great. I got my reading and I

had 68%. I also got my use of

English in which I had 88%. I know

I must study hard. I know that I have

to review the lessons and that’s what

I plan to do.

As for the lesson, I think we had a

great time reading about pandas. We

practised on summary writing. I like

practising although I sometimes

complain about it. We also did a

listening which was quite difficult I

have to admit. My teacher pause the

CD to help us find the answer. I

guess this made it easier and I found

six answers out of nine.

I’m looking forward to the next

lesson in which we learn about

writing an essay.

Kiki’s diary

3/2/2011

This week we are having a look at

different types of writing. I can’t

decide which one is the easiest for

me as they all have advantages and

disadvantages. One of these looks

more easy than the others but... it has

its tricks! The grammar and syntax

looked very simple but suspicious

too, which meant that I had to be

METACOGNITION,

POSITIVE

ATTITUDES

HIGH PERFORMER

HIGH PERFORMER

FIXATED ON

ACCURACY

METACOGNITION

(reviewing)

INPUT

DIFFICULTY

323

very careful! And I made many

mistakes on sentences which were so

stupid! The answers were so obvious

that I believed they had traps. But

they didn’t and I was disappointed...

again!

Yet, we still have enough time to

practise and to learn more things and

there is no reason to be anxious.

Anxiety is the worst enemy for the

students and I know it very, very

well...

10/2/2011

I think we are all afraid in the class

of grammar and vocabulary. And it’s

true that the English language is very

complicated! One word can mean

many things! For example “minutes”

means the minutes of the hour but

also the records of a meeting.

Couldn’t English people find another

word? Another example is the very

“give”. There are so many uses of it,

how could we remember all of

them? I think that what we should

do, besides our efforts to learn, is to

trust our instinct and our luck and to

remain as calm as we can...

My teacher says that I’m good in

reading comprehension. Vocabulary

needs studying, listening needs

attention, writing needs

concentration, speaking needs

courage, grammar needs practise... I

need the certificate, so everyone is

happy!

I’m not complaining, I don’t mind

studying, it’s just this feeling of

anxiety that I’ve felt many times in

my life, and I’m going to feel it

again... On the other hand, trying

and learning is more creative than

being anxious. So, I must relax and

concentrate on my duty.

17/2/2011

Yesterday we were talking in class

about theatre and when it was my

turn to tell my opinion, I was

EMOTIONS

ANX COPING

STRATEGY

SOURCE

AGENCY

TRAIT ANXIETY

SELF-TALK

SPEAKING

DISAPPOINTMENT

POSITIVE

THINKING

INPUT

DIFFICULTY

(polysemy)

SPONTANEITY

324

blocked. I have a problem in saying

something. I feel that I should have

plenty of time so as to think and to

organise my thoughts, to choose the

correct words, and, finally, to

express my opinion. In contrast, I

don’t find difficulties in writing.

Although our teacher is talking to us

in English, I almost always answer

in Greek. What I need, obviously, is

to try harder. How much better

things would be without the

speaking!

Another problem is grammar,

because I realised that I must

remember all the rules I have

learned. For example, the

conditionals and the inversions. And

in grammar exercises, multiple

choice, the answers that we’ll have

to choose will be very similar

sometimes. A few seconds is all the

time we have in class to choose the

correct one. And this is so stressful!

Nevertheless, I know that I have

made progress and that I’m able to

read, to listen and to understand the

English language and I’m very glad!

ANXIETY

METACOGNITION

SOURCE

SOURCE

STRONG SELF-

CONCEPT

AND SPEED

PRACTICE

INPUT

DIFFICULTY

(grammar)

TRICKY

QUESTIONS

LIMITED TIME

325

APPENDIX I: CODING SCHEME

FOR TEACHER INTERVIEWS

326

Teacher interviews – Coding scheme

1. Anxiety causes 1. Fear of negative evaluation

1.1 By the teacher

1.2 By the peers

2. The teacher

2.1 Teacher expectations

2.2 Teaching practice

2.2.1 Choosing a book that is not appropriate

3. Individual learner characteristics

3.1 Competitiveness

3.2 Perfectionism

4. Self-concept

4.1 Self-confidence

4.2 Self-perceptions of ability

4.3 Negative self-image

5. The education system

6. Learner agency

6.1 Job opportunities

7. The input

7.1 Verb tenses

7.2 Input difficulty (activities that are too hard for

the students)

2. Writing anxiety 1. L1 writing deficiencies

2. Lack of ideas

3. Less experience with foreign language writing

strategies

4. Concern over errors

5. Limited time to work on an activity

3. Speaking anxiety 1. School policy not to use the L1 in class

2. Nature of speaking as a skill

3. Fear of negative evaluation

4. L1 interference

5. Classroom dynamics

6. Self-concepts

4. Coping strategies 1. Praise

1.1 Students’ confidence

1.2 Students’ strengths

2. Error correction

2.1 Mistakes, part of language learning process

2.2 Sensitivity to student feelings

2.3 Selective error correction (depending on the

focus of each task)

3. Team work

4. Teaching practices

4.1 Recasts

4.2 Pre-teaching vocabulary

327

4.3 Brainstorming

4.4 Big task – small, manageable tasks

328

APPENDIX J: CODING SCHEME

FOR DIARY STUDY

329

Learner diaries: Coding scheme

1. Anxiety cause

1.1. Input

1.1.1 Detailed / Complicated input

1.1.2 Unknown input

1.1.3 Insufficient input

1.1.4 Vocabulary

1.1.4.1 Polysemy

1.1.4.2 Word groupings

1.1.4.3 Difficult to memorise

1.2 Teaching practice

1.2.1 Setting time limits

1.3 Fear of making mistakes

1.4 Learner agency

1.4.1 Job reward

1.5 Fear of failure

2. Skill-specific LA 2.1 Speaking anxiety

2.1.1 Nature of the skill

2.1.2 Fear of negative evaluation

2.2 Writing anxiety

2.2.1 Task set unexpectedly

2.2.2 Error correction

2.2.3 Limited time

3. Coping strategies 3.1 Affective

3.1.1 Encouraging yourself

3.1.2 Making positive statements

3.2 Metacognitive

3.2.1 Setting objectives

3.2.2 Seeking practice opportunities

3.2.3 Self-evaluating / Self-monitoring

3.3 Extrinsic rewards

3.3.1 Teacher praise

3.3.2 Teacher support

3.3.3 Good marks

3.4 Teaching practices

3.4.1 Group work

3.4.2 Congruence between lesson’s content and

students’ likes

330

APPENDIX K: CODING SCHEME

FOR STUDENT INTERVIEWS

331

Student interviews – Coding scheme

1. Anxiety causes 1.1 Weak self-concepts

1.1.1 Low self-perceptions of ability

1.1.2 Low self-efficacy

1.1.3 Low self-confidence

1.2 Competitiveness

1.3 Fear of negative evaluation – peer pressure

1.4 Meeting teachers’ expectations

1.5 Fear of failure

1.6 Fixated on marks

1.6.1 Pass marks – border line

1.7 Being unprepared

1.8 Negative past experiences

1.8.1 Very anxious teachers

1.8.2 Teachers’ condescending manner

1.8.3 Success (if students succeed, the school is

good)

1.8.4 Failure

1.8.5 Pass marks – border line

1.8.6 Interpersonal interaction – derision by

peers

1.9 Personality

1.10 Agency

1.11 Goals set

1.12 Being told that a task is difficult

1.13 Anxious peers

1.14 Group work

1.15 Perfectionism

1.16 Input – Vocabulary

1.16.1 No equivalent in Greek

2. Speaking anxiety 2.1 Pronunciation sounding too foreign

2.2 Pronunciation may be inaccurate

2.3 Spontaneity

2.4 Fear of making mistakes

2.5 Accuracy

2.6 Not being understood

2.7 Low self-confidence

3. Writing anxiety 3.1 Time limit

3.2 Writing in class

3.3 Lack of ideas

3.4 Teachers not as tolerant with mistakes

3.5 L1 writing deficiencies

4. Coping strategies 4.1 Positive thinking – success scenarios

4.2 Praise from teacher

4.3 Realistic expectations

4.4 Metacognition

332

4.5 Preparation

4.6 Peer seeking

4.7 Relaxation

333

APPENDIX L:

CONSENT FORM

334

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX

FORM OF CONSENT TO TAKE PART IN A RESEARCH PROJECT

CONFIDENTIAL

Title of project / investigation: A mixed methods approach to researching language anxiety in Greek

EFL learners.

Brief outline of project, including an outline of the procedures to be used:

The project will investigate issues of the English language anxiety of Greek EFL learners. The research

methodology will involve a combination of questionnaires, interviews, and learner diaries. The

questionnaire includes items regarding causes of language anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, speaking

and writing anxiety, as well as anxiety-coping strategies. The interviews aim to function as a follow-up to

the diaries and to the students’ answers to the questionnaires, and as a means of exploring the teachers’

perspective on their learners’ anxiety. As for the diaries, they intend to examine in depth the students’

negative emotions and anxiety when learning English in class.

I, .................................................................................................................. *(participant’s full

name) agree to take part in the above named project / investigation, the details of which have been

fully explained to me and described in writing.

Signed .................................................................. Date .........................................................

(Participant)

I, GKONOU CHRISTINA ................................................................. *(Investigator’s full

name) certify that the details of this project / investigation have been fully explained and

described in writing to the subject named above and have been understood by him / her.

Signed .................................................................. Date ........................................................

(Investigator)

*Please type or print in block capitals

Research and Business Development Office (smp) 01/10/04