Running head: LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 1

Language Anxiety: Examining Its Correlation to Oral Performances and Sources

TESOL Project for the M.A. degree

Joy Dong

February 3, 2017
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 2

Language Anxiety: Examining Its Correlation to Oral Performances and Sources

Introduction

Research on affect in language learning has received increasing attention since the

1970s. Various aspects of affect, including emotion, feeling and attitude, may either facilitate or

impede learners language learning process (Park & Lee, 2005). Therefore, an enhanced

understanding of affect would benefit both language learning, for second language (L2) learners,

and language teaching for L2 instructors. Among all the affective factors, anxiety is generally

considered to be one of the most influential, where both L2 learners and instructors are well

aware of the potential anxiety that learning and using L2 can provoke (Tth, 2012). Teachers, for

instance, often find their students feeling nervous about learning a second language in the

classroom, students usually perform more poorly than they typically would (Hewitt &

Stephenson, 2012). Students, on the other hand, generally express a willingness to develop and

practice their ability to communicate verbally in the second language, but the anxiety they

experience may not necessarily be a positive influence (Lindenau,1987, as cited in Phillips,

1992). Moreover, speaking is generally considered to be the most anxiety-provoking activity in

language learning (Subasi, 2010). Anxiety is an individual variable that could potentially lend

itself to intervention or remedy (Hewitt & Stephonson, 2012). Hence, the sources of learners

language anxiety must also be examined in order to advance learners language learning

experiences.

The debate over the influence of language anxiety on oral performance, as well as the

sources of language anxiety, in regards to oral performance has yielded an enhanced body of

theoretical inquiries and empirical investigations, emphasizing the importance of individual

learner differences as well as affectivity in language learning. This paper reviews this line of
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 3

research to provide an enriched understanding of the effect of language anxiety on oral

performance, as well as the sources of the anxiety, to better L2 speaking instructions. An account

of the theoretical background is provided, followed by a systematic review of associated

empirical studies, which are then synthesized and critiqued. Finally, the paper concludes with

pedagogical implications and recommendations for future research.

Theoretical Background

Anxiety generally consists of three different types; trait anxiety, state anxiety, and

situation-specific anxiety (Spielberger, Anton & Bedell,1976). Trait anxiety refers to ones

constant anxious mental state in diverse situations. State anxiety refers to a temporary condition

that individuals experience at a particular moment in time. Situation-specific anxiety is

experienced in specific situations and is typically recurring. Research findings have revealed that

anxiety related to language learning generally falls under the situation-specific type, which

recurs in certain situations (Horwitz, 2001; Hewitt & Stephonson, 2012).

Language anxiety has been defined as a state of apprehension arising from the use of a

foreign language due to the learners inexperience in communicating in that language, and it

emerges uniquely from language learning processes (Horwitz et al., 1991, as cited in Zhang,

2004). Richards and Schmidt (2002) also defined language anxiety as subjective feelings of

apprehension and fear associated with language learning and use (p.285). Similarly, Oh (1990,

as cited in Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012) described foreign language anxiety as a situation-

specific anxiety students experience in the classroom which is characterized by self-centered

thoughts, feelings of inadequacy, fear of failure and emotional reactions in the language

classroom (p.56). According to McCroskey (1997, as cited in Zhang, 2004), language anxiety,

in general, combines three performance anxieties, including communication apprehension, test

LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 4

anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. Communication apprehension refers to an individuals

anxiety related to communication with other people; test anxiety is associated with academic

evaluation; and fear of negative evaluation refers to ones fear of being negatively evaluated in

common social situations.

In addition to performance anxieties, the reactions of language anxiety have been studied

as well. Anxiety reactions are typically classified into two categories including emotionality and

reflecting worry (Leibert & Morries, 1967, as cited in Woodrow, 2006). Emotionality eludes to

physiological and behavioral reactions, such as stammering and blushing. Reflecting worry is

associated with cognitive reactions, such as having trouble in concentrating on the tasks or

having self-deprecating thoughts, which is considered very detrimental for language learning,

especially the learning of second language speaking.

Anxiety related to second language learning refers to the feeling of tension and

apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts, including speaking,

listening and learning (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p.284). Wilson (2006) claims that the

literature suggests that the speaking skill is extremely anxiety provoking in many students and it

is often seen to arouse more anxiety than the other languages skills. Indeed, despite of the

research indicating that other aspects of language learning (e.g., reading and writing) can also be

anxiety-provoking for learners, research findings on sources of L2 anxiety have revealed that

speaking is the most anxiety-provoking aspect, even among higher level learners (Tth, 2012).

Therefore, in order to identity the sources of language anxiety, conduct research, and

facilitate second language learners learning process, a proper instrument is required. One

frequently used anxiety measurethe Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS),

designed by Horwitz (1986)is used in most of the studies related to language anxiety. In this
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 5

scale, participants are required to answer 33 statements with Likert-type options that assess

communication apprehension, test-anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation perceived by

participants when using a foreign language in the classroom setting. The studies reviewed by this

paper either used the FLCAS as an instrument to measure language anxiety, or adapted the

FLCAS by adding more items, or translating the items into the participants native languages.

As is discussed above, oral performance tests, or interviews, are likely to provoke both

test anxiety and communication apprehension simultaneously among language learners (Zhang,

2004). Therefore, oral performance interviews or tests can be appropriate tools to investigate

language anxiety. Before reviewing the empirical studies, the measurements of oral performance

should be addressed. In three studies (i.e. Philips, 1992; Zhang, 2004; Hewitt & Stephenson,

2012), communication units (CUs) and mazes were used to measure the quality of learners oral

performance. The CU is referred to as an independent clause with all its modifiers (Phillips,

1992, p.16). Mazes are all the other language forms which are not included in communication

units, and do not contribute to successful communication (Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012). Another

criterion of assessing oral performance used in the studies reviewed in this paper is adapted from

the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL), which

provides criteria for assessing grammar, vocabulary, fluency as well as other speaking-related

aspects (Park & Lee, 2005).

Review of Empirical Studies on Language Anxiety and Oral Performance

Language Anxiety and Its Correlation to Oral Performance

In an investigation of language anxiety and its effect on oral performance, Young (1986)

conducted a study to investigate how anxiety may influence scores on the Oral Proficiency

Interview (OPI). The OPI was designed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 6

Languages (ACTFL) to evaluate oral proficiency in a foreign language in the form of face-to-

face organized conversations. Sixty college-level students who were majoring in, or were

prospective teachers of French, German, or Spanish at an American University were recruited for

this study. Before taking the OPI, participants were asked to take the State Anxiety Inventory

that measured their anxiety status prior to the test and the Self-Appraisal of Speaking Proficiency

(SASP) that measured the participants self-evaluation of foreign language proficiency. Then,

participants took the OPI individually in the interviewers offices. When they finished, they were

asked to complete the rest of the anxiety measures, including the Cognitive Interference

Questionnaire, the Self-Report of Anxiety, and the FLCAS. Two months after the OPI was

given, participants were asked to take a dictation test, which served as another proficiency

measure and all the anxiety tests were given in the same order as in the OPI situation. The results

of this study showed that there were significant negative correlations between the OPI and all

four language anxiety scores respectively. In other words, oral performance decreased as anxiety

increased. It is also worth noting that when the effects of proficiency or the ability factor (i.e.

SASP) were involved, no significant correlations between the OPI and language anxiety were

discovered.

As can be seen from Youngs (1986) study, there were three groups of people who

respectively spoke French, German and Spanish as second languages. The study did not mention

whether all the participants shared a common native, therefore, neither the native language

variable nor second language variable were controlled in Youngs study. Park and Lee (2005)

designed a study in which these two variables were controlled. 132 college students in South

Korea were recruited for the study. They were all native Korean speakers who were taking

college-level English courses. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires (adapted from
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 7

FLCAS) that measured their L2-related anxiety, and their oral performance was assessed

according to the IATEFL standards. The data collected was analyzed quantitatively. Similar to

what had been found by Young (1986), language anxiety had a significant effect on learners oral

performance among Korean students. Namely, the more anxious participants were about

speaking English, the lower the scores they received on their oral performance. The findings also

revealed that the L2-related anxiety of Korean participants mainly consisted of three

components; communication anxiety, criticism anxiety, and examination anxiety. In addition, it

was also found that participants with higher anxiety levels tended to produce utterances with

lower quality, especially in terms of vocabulary and grammar.

Therefore, language anxiety seems to not only influence learners overall oral

performance, but also the quality of learners utterances. Other studies show similar results.

Phillips (1992) led a study involving forty-four students ranging from seventeen to twenty-one

years old, attending a private university in the U.S. Participants had already learned French for

an average of three years and were taking intermediate-level French courses at their university.

They were asked to answer the FLCAS first and then take the oral exam, which required them to

speak to their professor, who was also the researcher of this study, individually in French. The

teacher graded all their oral tests according to their performances. Six participants who were

considered highly anxious were asked to reflect and evaluate their performances right after the

oral exam. In addition, students written exam averages and teacher-ranked language proficiency

levels were also collected, and served as ability or proficiency controls. All the conversations

between the teacher and participants were recorded and transcribed, and eight performance

variables, which served as oral performance criteriaincluding average length of CUs, percent

of total words in CUs, percentage of error-free CUs, percentage of total words in error-free CUs,
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 8

average length of maze, percentage of total words in mazes, number of dependent clauses, and

number of target structureswere also calculated. The results showed, first, similar to the results

of Youngs (1986), Park and Lees (2005) and Phillips (1992) studies, statistically, there was a

moderate inverse relationship between language anxiety and participants scores on the oral

exam. However, when proficiency or ability factors, including written exam averages and

teacher ranking, were taken into consideration, the correlation between oral performance and

language anxiety ceased to be significant, which also echoes Youngs (1986) findings. Second,

in terms of the quality of the participants utterances, higher anxiety participants were more

likely to say less, to produce shorter CUs, and to use fewer dependent clauses and target

structures than low anxiety students (p.18). Third, highly anxious participants, with both high

and low ability, reported a negative attitude towards the oral exam.

Hewitt and Stephenson (2012) replicated Phillips study and also obtained similar results.

Forty participants, ranging from eighteen to twenty-six years-old were involved in their study.

They were all native Spanish speakers in the U.S., and had been learning English for an average

of ten years. All the participants were in the same university-level English course. Similar to

Phillipss study, all participants were asked to first answer the FLCAS. They then took the oral

exam by talking in English for ten to fifteen minutes with their professor, who was also one of

the researchers of this study, using the given prompts. Six highly anxious participants were

selected to evaluate and reflect on their performances after the oral exam. All the other methods

of data analysis were similar to those of Phillips study. The results showed that first, there was a

moderate negative relationship between participants language anxiety and their grades on the

oral exam. However, when proficiency or ability factors, which were the same as of Phillipss

study, were taken into consideration, the correlation between oral performance and language
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 9

anxiety became less significant. Second, the highly anxious student group obtained significantly

lower grades on the oral exam, compared to both the moderate-anxiety group and the low-

anxiety group. Third, regarding the correlation between the quality of oral performance and

language anxiety, there was no significant negative correlation between the eight oral

performance criteria variables and the FLCAS. Forth, participants of higher levels of anxiety

showed poorer quality of oral performance regarding correctness of utterances and complexity of

grammatical features. All participants with high anxiety reported the experience of the oral exam

as unpleasant.

Phillips (1992) and Hewitt and Stephenson (2012) both implemented their research in the

U.S. and the results of these studies showed that there was a negative influence of language

anxiety on both the overall oral performance and on the quality of the output. Similarly, studies

conducted outside of the U.S. also revealed similar findings regarding the effect of language

anxiety on learners oral performance. Zhang (2004) conducted a study in China, involving

ninety-seven non-English major Chinese students in an ordinary university. Participants were all

at an intermediate level of English proficiency and were also taking basic English courses in

college. They were asked to answer the FLCAS first. Then, four participants with higher anxiety

scores and four with lower anxiety scores were chosen out of ninety-seven participants to attend

the oral interview, which was conducted in a classroom context. The teacher was giving a lecture

in the class where the eight students were present, among other students, but only these the eight

students were asked to answer questions in English (e.g. Where are you from? What are you

going to do in the future?) within five to eight minutes. Their oral performances in class were all

videotaped and graded respectively by three raters, with the mean scores being the final scores.

After the class, they were immediately asked to watch their videotaped interviews and to reflect
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 10

on their performances. Their oral conversations were transcribed by the researcher and were

assessed in the form of CUs. Specifically, numbers of CUs, average length of CUs, and numbers

of error-free CUs were analyzed using the data given.

The findings of Zhangs (2004) showed that, first, the mean oral performance score of the

student group with low anxiety was higher than that of the student-group with high anxiety, but a

statistically linear correlation between the anxiety score and the oral performance score was not

observed. Second, qualitatively, there was a reverse relationship between participants language

anxiety and the quality of their oral performance. In other words, the more anxious students

were, the fewer and the shorter and the more error-ridden their CUs were. Third, highly anxious

participants showed a delay in answering questions, fear of evaluation, and over-concern for

their errors. More anxious participants also reported having negative feelings towards their oral

performance, while less anxious students reported that they enjoyed the interviewing experience.

Similarly, Tth (2012) conducted a study in Hungary with English-major Hungarian

college students. All the participants were asked to complete the FLCAS. Sixteen out of 117

participants were selected based on the scores of the FLCAS, among them were eight

participants who were considered highly anxious, and eight who were of low anxiety. Of the 16

participants, 13 were female and three were male, and they had all learned English for an average

of 9.5 years. Participants were asked to be interviewed by a native-speaker teacher to measure

their ability of spontaneous communication, argumentative and interpretive skills. All the

interviews were recorded, and were rated by two raters independently. The average scores that

the participants received from the two raters were used as a measurement for their oral

performance. A questionnaire, containing both open-ended questions and rating-scale questions,

was also conducted for the native-speaking interlocutor to comment on the participants
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 11

performance. The findings were similar to the results of all the studies discussed above (Young,

1986; Park & Lee, 2005; Phillips, 1992; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012), high-anxiety participants

generally received lower scores than their low-anxiety peers in terms of overall performance.

Moreover, regarding the quality of the output, compared to low-anxiety scores, Tth (2012)

found that high-anxiety participants generally had a poorer spontaneous communication and

lower argumentative and interpretative skills. Interestingly, in the interview of the interlocutor

(i.e., the native English speaker who did the interviews with all the student participants), Tth

revealed that the participants with low-anxiety were generally considered less proficient in

regarding linguistic performance (i.e., overall impression, vocabulary, grammar and

comprehension) and non-linguistic performance (i.e., depth of answers and interaction skills).

Based on the above findings, it can be seen that language anxiety would not only affect

learners over oral performance, but also the quality of their utterances, such as the correctness

and complexity of their grammar, vocabulary, skills of argumentation and interpretation,

comprehension skills and so forth (Zhang, 2004; Phillips, 1992; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012;

Tth, 2012; Young, 1986; Park & Lee, 2005). Moreover, learners of high language anxiety level

are more likely to have negative comments toward the oral exam experience. One might wonder;

what is it that causes learners to have anxiety while speaking in their second language? The

studies in the following section are reviewed in an exploration of the causes of learners

language anxiety, especially regarding second language speaking.

Sources of Language Anxiety

Attempting to assess the relationship between anxiety and second language performance,

as well as the causes of language anxiety, Woodrow (2006) conducted a study with ESL learners

(N=275) in Australia. A majority of the participants were from Asian countries (e.g., China,
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 12

South Korea and Japan). They were learning English for academic purposes and their proficiency

levels were all advanced. Participants were asked to complete the Second Language Speaking

Anxiety Scale (SLSAS) designed by Woodrow (2003). The scale consists of twelve items,

reflecting the degree of learners anxiety in communicative situations both in and out of class. In

addition, a IELTS type oral assessment was implemented as a measurement for participants oral

performance. Forty-seven participants were selected to do interviews with the researcher,

regarding their experiences with second language speaking anxiety. All the interviews were

recorded and transcribed. Woodrow found that, similar to previous studies, there was a moderate

negative correlation between second language speaking anxiety and oral performance both in-

class and out-of-class. Second, although it is found that in-class anxiety and out-of-class anxiety

were highly correlated, it is worth nothing that there was a distinction between these two

constructs based on the qualitative data obtained from interviewing the participants. Based on the

reports of participants interviews, giving oral presentations and performing in front of the class

were rated as the most anxiety provoking stressors, whereas communicating with native speakers

was considered the largest out-of-class stressor.

Although out-of-class stressors are as important as in-class stressors, and deserve some

attention in the language research field, for the purpose of improving learners language learning

experiences, it is more important and necessary to focus on in-class stressors, since language

classrooms are the where second language learning takes place (Woodrow, 2006). In an attempt

to examine anxiety and second language speaking in classroom from learners perspective,

Young (1990) designed a questionnaire to categorize the sources of anxiety over speaking, which

was administered to 135 college students and 109 high school students who were Spanish

learners in the United States. The questionnaire consisted of three parts that respectively
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 13

measured students language anxiety in general, anxiety regarding in-class activities, and

characteristics of instructors related to in-class activities. It is worth noting that the proficiency

levels of the participants varied in this study. All the teachers were also involved in the study.

The statistics revealed first, that speaking a foreign language, was not the factor that

caused the learners anxiety, rather it was speaking in front of others. Learners levels of anxiety

decreased when they were involved in pair work or small-group work. Second, learners fear of

being evaluated negatively by either peers or teachers was also one of the major contributing

factors. Additionally, learners individual differences were also considered to contribute to their

anxiety. The findings also revealed that self-esteem was related to language anxiety, which is

similar to Youngs (1990) study findings, claiming that students with high-anxiety levels tend to

have low self-esteem.

Moving away from Woodrows (2006) and Youngs (1990) studies, Lius (2006)

exploration of the causes of learners anxiety from second language speaking was more robust

and rigid with regards to the experimental design. The study involved 547 first-year students

with different English proficiency levels in a university in China. The students were placed into

three different groups (from the least proficient to the most proficient), depending on the scores

they received on the English placement test before entering the university. All the participants

were first asked to complete a 36-item questionnaire, adapted from FLCAS and a background

questionnaire. Both questionnaires were in Chinese, the participants first language. Participants

were required to write a weekly reflection journal, for six weeks, regarding their language

learning experience. Interviews between the students and the teachers were conducted in

Chinese, focusing on students personal feelings and experiences related to language anxiety.

Teachers were also asked to do classroom observations, paying special attention to the students
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 14

language anxiety. The data collected was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Liu

(2006) found that first, regardless of proficiency level, the majority of the students felt nervous

when speaking in class. It was found that the higher the students proficiency levels were, the

less anxious they were about English oral performance. Moreover, based on the analyses of

students journals, teacher observations and interviews, Liu revealed that the levels of anxiety

were different depending on the characteristics of the activities in class. Specifically, answering

teachers questions or being called on to speak English in class were considered the most

stressful activities, whereas pair work or group work were referred to as the lest stressful

activities. In addition, the findings revealed that students felt less anxious speaking English if

they were exposed to English-speaking environment more.

Similar to Lius (2006), Mak (2011) also recruited Chinese students for his research, a

group of 313 Chinese ESL first-year college students from Hong Kong. Participants were also

asked to complete a questionnaire, adapted from FLCAS. Factor analysis was applied to analyze

all the data collected. Mak (2011) found that the most influential factor that contributes to ESL

speaking-in-class anxiety was speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation (20.4% of

variance). Other main factors, uncomfortableness when speaking with native speakers (11.3 % of

variance), negative attitudes towards the English class (9.9% of variance), negative self-

evaluation (6.7% of variance), fear of failing the class/consequences of personal failure (6.2% of

variance), were also identified as contributers to speaking-in-class anxiety. Additionally,

speaking with exposure to others and short wait-time were also among the most anxiety-

provoking factors.

As shown in the previous findings, it can be inferred that learners fear of negative

evaluation and self-perceptions were among the main stressors that caused learners anxiety in
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 15

second language speaking (Young, 1990; Liu, 2006; Mak, 2011). In an investigation of the

relationships among L2 learners speaking anxiety, learners fear of negative evaluation and self-

perceived oral performance, Gkonou (2014) devised a study involving 128 Greek ESL learners

of various proficiency levels from two private schools in Greece. Participants were first asked to

complete an adapted the FLCAS that measured their levels of anxiety. Items in the FLCAS

associated with test anxiety, as well as items related to interactions with native speakers, were

removed as the focus of the study was the language anxiety in the classroom setting. Factor

analysis and statistic correlations were applied to analyze the quantitative data collected from the

FLCAS. A background questionnaire was also administered. Thirteen out of 128 participants

were selected for a semi-structured interview on their personal experiences and feelings towards

language anxiety. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Gkonou found that speaking

anxiety was a significant component of language anxiety. Moreover, learners fear of negative

evaluation was also significantly correlated with their anxiety in EFL classroom. Namely, the

more the fear of negative evaluation, the more the anxiety in the EFL classroom. The peers and

the teacher were, in fact, the main cause of learners fear of negative evaluation. It was found

that learners were afraid of derision and exclusion from group membership by their peers due to

language mistakes, and they were also worried about not being able to meet their teachers

expectations due to poor L2 communication skills and teachers error correction. In addition,

self-perceived L2 oral proficiency also contributed to language anxiety. The lower the learners

self-perceived oral proficiency, the higher their language anxiety.

Similarly, Subasi (2010) also designed a study specifically to investigate the two

potential sources of anxiety in terms of speaking English; fear of negative evaluation and self-

perceived speaking ability. A 55-item multiple-choice survey was administered to a total of 55

LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 16

first-year college students in Turkey. The survey was composed of five parts; Fear of Negative

Evaluation (FNE), FLCAS, Self-Rating Can-Do Scale (SR-CDS), Self-Rating for the Current

Level of Study (SR-CL), and Self-Rating Perception by the English (SR-EPE). The data

collected was analyzed using Cronbachs Alpha. In addition, in order to collect qualitative data

regarding students sources of anxiety in speaking English, fifteen out of 55 participants were

randomly selected for an interview. Subasi found that an individuals fear of negative evaluation

is positively correlated to his/her anxiety level, meaning that the more the learner feared negative

evaluation, the more anxious they became when speaking English. Moreover, it was found that

anxiety is negatively correlated to SR-CDS, SR-CL and SR-EPE, indicating that, the lower their

self-perceived proficiency levels were, the more anxious learners would likely to be when

speaking English. According to the statistical results of the study, Mak also argued that the

combination of the factors including the FNE, SR-CDS, SR-CL and SR-EPE would be the best

predictor of a learners anxiety level.

As shown in the studies reviewed, the causes of learners second language speaking

anxieties differ depending on variables such as the group of the participants, the language

environment, the instruction methods, and so on. However, there still are similarities between the

causes of language anxiety that could be found across the studies, which will be discussed in the

following Discussion section.

Discussion

The relationship between language anxiety and oral performance, as well as the causes of

anxiety on second language speaking can be discussed, synthesized and critiqued as follows.

First, regarding the relationship between language anxiety and oral performance, a relatively

moderate reverse correlation was found, except for Park and Lees (2005) significant negative
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 17

correlation findings between learners anxiety level and their oral performance. In general, when

anxiety increases, the learners grades on oral performance decreases (Young, 1986; Phillips,

1992; Zhang, 2004; Park & Lee, 2005; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012; Woodrow, 2006). However,

when the ability or proficiency factor was taken into consideration, or counted as a part of the

partial correlation, the correlation between language anxiety and oral performance became

relatively less significant, or the reverse correlation no longer existed (Young, 1986; Phillips,

1992; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012). One possible interpretation could be that anxiety might not

be an important variable in oral performance.

However, although Phillips (1992), encountered no significant differences of average oral

exam scores among groups of high, moderate, and low-anxiety, in Zhangs (2004) and Hewitt

and Stephensons (2012) as well as Tths (2012) studies, the high-anxiety group received

significantly lower mean grades than either the moderate-anxiety group or the low-anxiety

group. Additionally, Phillips (1992) showed that when the second ability-measure variable (i.e.

written exam average) was controlled alone, the correlation between grades of oral exams and

the FLCAS would still remain negative. Hewitt and Stephenson (2012) also showed that even

though the statically significant correlation between language anxiety and scores on the oral

exam seemed to disappear, the correlation would remain significant when the third ability-

measure variable (i.e. the combination of teacher ranking and written exam average) was

controlled for.

In addition, even though Young (1986) concluded that the anxiety-oral performance

correlation was nonsignificant when ability or proficiency variable was controlled for, she

mentioned that participants in her study were aware of the fact that the OPI that they took did not

represent an official administration of the test, so they were not terribly anxious as they knew the
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 18

results of this OPI would not have a negative impact on their academic performance or career.

Therefore, Young suggests that if the OPI were officially administered, the correlation between

anxiety and oral performance would possibly be more significant. Therefore, it suggests that

language anxiety does have some negative influence on oral performance, and the findings of

these studies reveal persistent, modest negative correlations between foreign language anxiety

and [oral] performance (Phillips, 1992, p.20).

Second, there is a qualitatively inverse correlation between language anxiety and the

quality of learners oral performance (Phillips, 1992; Zhang, 2004; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012;

Tth; 2012; Park & Lee, 2005). In other words, the more anxious learners are, the more likely

they will produce poor quality oral performances. Specifically, learners with high anxiety are

more likely to produce less numbers of CUs, less dependent clauses, less target structures, less

error-free CUs, and the average length of CUs they produce is relative short and so forth. When

the ability or proficiency factors were counted as a part of the partial correlation between

language anxiety and the quality of oral performance, only some oral performance variables

including total words in CUs, number of structures, and number of dependent clausesremain

significantly correlated to language anxiety (Phillips, 1992; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012).

Namely, some oral performance variables are easily influenced by language anxiety, while some

may be more susceptible to learners proficiency levels in the languages they are learning.

Additionally, high-anxiety participants generally have a poorer performance in terms of

spontaneous communication, and argumentative and interpretative skills. Participants with low-

anxiety are generally considered less proficient in terms of linguistic performance (i.e., overall

impression, vocabulary, grammar and comprehension) and non-linguistic performance (i.e.,

depth of answers and interaction skills) (Park & Lee, 2005; Tth, 2012).
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 19

Third, learners with high anxiety also show procrastination in answering questions, fear

of being evaluated by teachers and peers, and over-concerns about errors (Zhang, 2004).

Specifically, learners with high anxiety would generally pause longer before they begin to speak

in the second language. They tend to repeat and restart several times in efforts to speak better. In

addition, learners who are considered highly anxious are more likely to have negative attitudes or

feelings towards their oral performances (Phillips, 1992; Zhang, 2004; Hewitt & Stephenson,

2012; Woodrow, 2006; Subasi, 2010; Gkonou, 2014; Liu, 2006). In Phillipss study, highly

anxious participants, including those who were in both high and low level of proficiency,

expressed feeling frustrated about not being able to perform to their true capability, and some

used words such as nervous and tense. Similarly, in Hewitt and Stephensons study,

participants reported having very nerve-racking experiences when they were doing the oral

exam. Participants in Zhangs study also expressed their fear of being criticized and were afraid

of being laughed at.

Anxiety is a complex construct that can be influenced by personality, emotional reaction

to a situation, or both (Gass, 2008). Therefore, anxiety is a result of multiple causes and sources.

The findings of the studies reviewed have shed some light on the possible causes of learners

second language speaking anxiety. First, speaking in front of others (e.g. giving oral

presentations or performing in front of the class) is considered the most anxiety-provoking

activity in class, whereas group discussion or pair work is considered the least stressful activity

(Woodrow, 2006; Young, 1990; Liu, 2006; Mak, 2011; Gkonou, 2014; Subasi, 2010). The

findings also have revealed that leaners fear of speaking in front of others (i.e., speech anxiety)

also reflects the fear of negative evaluation by their peers or their teacher. Learners who are

highly anxious about L2 speaking tend to fear derision from their peers due to language mistakes
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 20

and exclusion from group membership, and they also tend to worry about not being able to meet

teachers expectations due to poor L2 communication skills and teachers error correction

(Gkonou, 2014; Young, 1990).

Additionally, learners fear of negative evaluation was also found to be related to social

anxiety and learners self-esteem. As is pointed out by Young (1990), the less anxiety-provoking

activities (i.e., activities that will not put them under the spotlight, such as reading silently and

group work) are more popular among highly anxious L2 learners, which could be evidence of

learners low self-esteem. In addition to fear of negative evaluation, learners self-perceived

proficiency was also found to be a contributing factor of L2 speaking anxiety (Gkonou, 2014;

Subasi, 2010). It was found that the lower learners self-perceived proficiency levels were, the

more anxious they would likely to be in terms of speaking English.

Given that anxiety does influence learners L2 oral performance qualitatively and

quantitatively, and that findings have shown potential factors that might contribute to learners

anxiety, implications are summarized for both teachers and researchers. Since language anxiety

can have a negative influence on some learners, teachers and instructors must be aware that

learners attitudes and motivation towards second language learning might be adversely affected.

Thus, these emotional concerns should be addressed by teachers to maximize second language

learning (Phillips, 1992; Young, 1990; Liu, 2006; Mak, 2011; Gkonou, 2014; Subasi, 2010).

Another possible suggestion that is extended to teachers is to conduct one-on-one tutoring

sessions for students who appear to be highly anxious about L2 speaking. In addition to

providing language help, this session can serve as a platform where students can feel free to

express their negative emotions towards language learning, which could help teachers better

respond to students communication apprehension in class (Gkonou, 2014, p. 28). In addition,

LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 21

learners can keep writing journal on a regular basis, reflecting their language learning

experiences, which could also be useful to teachers in terms of getting to know their students

better, and be better geared to cater to their individual needs. Therefore, teachers need to not only

respond to students linguistic questions, but also their affective needs (Mak, 2011).

Moreover, building a low-stress and supportive language environment is another

suggested method to facilitate second language learning. This would allow students to focus

more on communication rather than being constantly weary of potential evaluations, and

distracted by their fear of failure and error (Zhang, 2004; Subasi, 2010; Gkonou, 2014; Young,

1990; Mak, 2011). In addition, it is also important for teachers to inform students that making

mistakes is a natural part in the path of language learning (Phillips, 1992;), and teachers should

present themselves as instructors whose main concern is promoting language learning rather than

performance evaluation (Brophy, 1999, cited in Zhang, 2004). Thus, it is of great importance for

teachers to balance fluency and accuracy in the speaking-focused language classroom (Mak,

2011). In other words, the degree to which a teacher focuses on the fluency or accuracy aspect of

learners output should receive more attention when designing a speaking-class lesson plan.

Teachers can also adopt other types of task in L2 speaking classrooms, including group work,

and role-plays to reduce students apprehension of communicating in the second language

(Phillips, 1989, cited in Phillips, 1992; Liu, 2006; Young, 1990). Regarding teaching methods, as

indicated by the findings, giving students appropriate wait time before asking them to respond is

helpful in reducing students L2 speaking anxiety, as it gives students enough time to perfect the

language aspect of their answer, as well as the content before being asked to present hier answer

in front of their class (Liu, 2006).

LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 22

For researchers, on the other hand, there are several limitations in the studies reviewed

which should be improved on in future studies. Specifically, in the studies that investigated the

relationship between language anxiety and oral performance, the number of participants

interviewed in an aim to reflect performances after oral exams was too small (Zhang, 2004;

Phillips, 1992; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012; Tth, 2012). Furthermore, affective variables are

very limited in the studies reviewed. Some studies controlled participants proficiency level

variables while ignoring their first language (L1) background (Woodrow, 2006; Phillips, 1992),

while other studies controlled participants L1 background, but failed to control other potential

variables such as, gender, age, and other demographic variables (Zhang, 2004;Young, 1986; Park

& Lee, 2005). Therefore, in an aim to improve the quality of the research being produced, and in

order to better build on the results of these studies, and further the field, more participants should

be included in future studies and more variables, that emphasize the individual differences,

including gender, age, personality, motivation, learning strategies and so forth, should be

included. Lius (2006) research was more comprehensive than other studies with resect to its

methodology, as it included the FLCAS, background questionnaires, extensive interviews

between the teachers and their students, teachers observations of students anxiety situations in

classes, reflections, and students journal excerpts reflecting their learning experience. These

extensive measure taken make the study more reliable and valid than other research being

conducted in the field, and could potentially serve as a template for future studies to be modeled

after. More replications of Liu (2006) inlcudeing language learners backgrounds (e.g., L1 and

language learning context) are necessary in order to enhance the understanding of learners

anxiety on oral performance and its sources.

LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 23

Conclusion

The empirical research studies reviewed in this paper provide a relatively comprehensive

overview of the findings generated from both quantitative and qualitative investigations into

language anxiety, its relationship to oral performance, as well as the sources of language anxiety.

Research findings indicate that language anxiety not only would affect learners over oral

performance, but also affect the quality of their utterances, including the correctness and

complexity of their grammar, vocabulary, argumentative and interpretative skills, comprehension

skills, and so forth. The quantitative and qualitative methodological approach of the studies that

focus on the sources of language anxiety also elicited some enriched findings that language

anxiety, specifically L2 speaking anxiety, can be influenced by both the context learners are in

(e.g., teachers instruction method, educational policy and so on), and by learners individual

characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, self-perception and confidence), suggesting the importance of

incorporating both the external, as well as internal factors when considering learners language

speaking anxiety.
LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 24

References

Gkonou, C. (2014). The sociolinguistic parameters of L2 speaking anxiety. In Classroom-

oriented Research (pp. 15-32). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

Hewitt, E., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and oral exam performance: A

replication of Phillips's MLJ Study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 170-189.

Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21,

112-126.

Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System, 34(3),

301-316.

Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL

learners. System, 39(2), 202-214.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive

processing in the second language. Language learning, 44(2), 283-305.

Park, H., & Lee, A. R. (2005). L2 learners anxiety, self-confidence and oral performance.

Unpublished conference proceedings,10th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of

Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh University (pp. 197-208).

Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students' oral test performance and

attitudes. The modern language journal, 76(1), 14-26.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics and language

teaching. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Selinker, L., & Gass, S. M. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course.

London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ORAL PERFORMANCE 25

Subasi, G. (2010). What are the Main Sources of Turkish EFL Students' Anxiety in Oral

Practice? Online Submission, 1(2), 29-49.

Tth, Z. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and oral performance: Differences between high-vs.

low-anxious EFL students. US-China Foreign Language, 10(5), 1166-1178.

Wilson, J. T. S. (2006). Anxiety in Learning English as a Foreign Language: Its Associations

with Student Variables, with Overall Proficiency, and with Performance on an Oral Test:

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Granada, Spain.

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC journal, 37(3),

308-328.

Young, D. J. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency

ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 19(5), 439-445.

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

Language Annals, 23(6), 539-553.

Zhang, X. (2004). Language anxiety and its effect on oral performance in

classroom. Unpublished Masters thesis, Xiangfan University, China.