An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learners' Unwillingness to Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety 2008 LIU

An Exploration of Chinese EFLLearners’ Unwillingnessto Communicate and ForeignLanguage AnxietyMEIHUA LIUTsinghua UniversityDepartment of Foreign LanguagesBeijing 100084, ChinaEmail: [email protected]

JANE JACKSONThe Chinese University of Hong KongDepartment of EnglishShatin, Hong KongEmail: [email protected]

This article reports the results of a study of the unwillingness to communicate, and anxiety ofChinese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in English language classrooms. A70-item survey of 547 first-year undergraduate non-English majors revealed that (a) Most ofthe students were willing to participate in interpersonal conversations, but many of them didnot like to risk using/speaking English in class; (b) more than one third of the students feltanxious in their English language classrooms, and they feared being negatively evaluated andwere apprehensive about public speaking and tests; (c) their unwillingness to communicateand their foreign language anxiety correlated significantly with each other and with their self-rated English proficiency and access to English; and (d) many of the variables of interest weregood predictors of the students’ unwillingness to communicate and of their foreign languageanxiety, which were also powerful predictors for each other.

BURGOON (1976) STATED THAT “individualswith communication reticence exhibit the pre-disposition of unwillingness to communicate” (p.62), which stems from a variety of causes, suchas apprehension, low self-esteem, lack of commu-nicative competence, anomie, alienation, and in-troversion. McCroskey (1977) proposed as a sub-set of reticence the concept of communicationapprehension, or “an individual’s level of fear oranxiety associated with either real or anticipatedcommunication with another person or persons”(p. 78). According to McCroskey, people who ex-perience a high level of communication appre-hension “withdraw from and seek to avoid com-munication when possible” (p. 79). Introvertedand reserved people tend to be quieter and lesswilling to communicate (McCroskey, 1991).

The Personal Report of Communication Ap-prehension (McCroskey, 1997), the Unwillingness

The Modern Language Journal, 92, i, (2008)0026-7902/08/71–86 $1.50/0C©2008 The Modern Language Journal

to Communicate Scale (UCS; Burgoon, 1976),and the Willingness to Communicate scale (WTC;McCroskey & Richmond, 1987) all relate to thelarger construct of reticence. Participants withhigh levels of communication apprehension havea marked tendency to avoid public speaking,whereas people with low levels of communica-tion apprehension demonstrate the opposite ten-dency (Burgoon, 1976; McCroskey, 1991; Mc-Croskey & Richmond, 1987). Furthermore, ret-icent people are sometimes seen as less trust-worthy, less competent, less dynamic, less so-cially and physically attractive, tenser, less com-posed, and less dominant than people who arenot reticent (Burgoon, Pfau, Birk, & Manusov,1987). After administering the WTC scale to threeundergraduate classes in a U.S. university, Mc-Croskey (1987) reported that the students whoranked high on the WTC scale participated morein classroom interaction and more in the totalparticipation in the classroom than did the stu-dents who ranked low on the WTC scale. TheWTC scale proved to be a predictor of classroomparticipation, a finding that was supported

72 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

in subsequent research (McCroskey, 1991;McCroskey & Richmond, 1987).

Foreign language (FL) anxiety is a complex,multidimensional phenomenon referring to “thefeeling of tension and apprehension specificallyassociated with second language [L2] contexts,including speaking, listening, and learning” (Mac-Intyre & Gardner, 1994, p. 284). Horwitz, Horwitz,and Cope (1986) identified three componentsof FL anxiety: communication apprehension, testanxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Commu-nication apprehension is “a type of shyness charac-terized by fear of or anxiety about communicatingwith people” (p. 127). People who typically havetrouble speaking in groups are likely to experi-ence even greater difficulty speaking in an FL classwhere they have little control over the commu-nicative situation and where their performanceis constantly monitored. Test anxiety refers to “atype of performance anxiety stemming from a fearof failure” (p. 127). Students with test anxiety of-ten demand more of themselves than they are ca-pable of achieving and worry about their perfor-mance. Fear of negative evaluation involves “ap-prehension about others’ evaluations, avoidanceof evaluative situations, and the expectation thatothers would evaluate oneself negatively” (Watson& Friend, 1969, as cited in Horwitz et al., 1986,p. 128). Like individuals with communication ap-prehension, people who fear negative evaluationrarely initiate conversation and interact minimally(Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002). Language studentswho experience this anxiety “tend to sit passivelyin the classroom, withdraw from activities thatcould increase their language skills, and may evenavoid class entirely” (pp. 562–563).

Because complex and nonspontaneous men-tal operations are required to communicate, “anyperformance in the L2 is likely to challenge anindividual’s self-concept as a competent commu-nicator and lead to reticence, self-consciousness,fear, or even panic” (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 128).To identify anxious university students and mea-sure their anxiety, Horwitz et al. (1986) developedthe Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale(FLCAS), which has gained widespread popularityin later research studies on language learning sit-uations (Aida, 1994; Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert,1999; Kitano, 2001; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, & Daley,1999; Phillips, 1992; Saito & Samimy, 1996; Wang& Ding, 2001; Yan & Wang, 2001). The studiesrevealed that anxiety exists in almost every aspectof L2/FL learning and that much of the anxi-ety is associated with understanding and speakingthe target language. Speaking publicly in the tar-get language is particularly anxiety provoking for

many students, even those who feel little stressin other aspects of language learning (Horwitz,1995). Anxious students are less likely to volun-teer answers or to participate in oral classroomactivities (Ely, 1986). They also engage in suchbehavior as skipping classes and postponing theirhomework (Argaman & Abu-Rabia, 2002).

FL anxiety negatively affects FL achievement(Proulx, 1991; Young, 1991). It also relates tosuch variables associated with language learningas confidence and self-esteem (Clement, Dornyei,& Noels, 1994; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994; Mak &White, 1997), attitudes toward errors and mistakes(Mak & White, 1997), classroom behavior (Hille-son, 1996; Jackson, 2002; Tsui, 1996), attitudeand motivation (Clement et al., 1994; Ehrman &Oxford, 1995), and personality (Ehrman & Ox-ford, 1995). After administering the FLCAS andother measures to 210 students in a U.S. univer-sity, Onwuegbuzie et al. (1999) determined thatFL anxiety correlated positively with age, but cor-related negatively with the following variables:prior history of visiting foreign countries, priorhigh school experience with FLs, expected fi-nal foreign language course average, perceivedcreativity, perceived intellectual ability, perceivedscholastic competence, perceived self-worth, co-operativeness, and value placed on competitivelearning.

Qualitative studies have suggested that unwill-ingness to communicate and anxiety affect eachother in L2/FL learning. As a result of anxiety,English as a foreign language (EFL) and Englishas a Second Language learners often choose toremain silent and are unwilling or less willingthan other students to participate in speech com-munication in class; then, because of their si-lence and unwillingness to speak the languagein class, they become (more) anxious (Hilleson,1996; Jackson, 2002; Liu, 2006; Tsui, 1996). Fewstudies to date have intentionally tried to exam-ine these two factors in the same situation, eitherqualitatively or quantitatively (Liu, 2006). Thematter merits further exploration in that speak-ing is an increasingly important part of L2/FLlearning. The present research focused on theunwillingness to communicate and FL anxietyof Chinese EFL learners at a tertiary level. Thefollowing research questions were of particularinterest:

1. To what extent are students unwilling tocommunicate in English language classrooms?

2. To what extent do students experience anx-iety in English language classrooms?

Meihua Liu and Jane Jackson 73

3. What is the relationship between the stu-dents’ unwillingness to communicate and theirFL anxiety?

4. What are the relationships among students’unwillingness to communicate, their FL anxiety,and their self-rated English proficiency and accessto English?

RESEARCH METHOD

Participants

For the present study, there were 547 partici-pants (430 male and 117 female) who were first-year non-English majors at Tsinghua University,which is renowned for its science and technol-ogy and which generally has more males than fe-males in its student population. All participantswere enrolled in the English listening and speak-ing course, which was credit-bearing and compul-sory for all first-year non-English majors. Rangingin age from 14 to 21 years and with an average ageof 18.4 years, the greatest percentage of the par-ticipants (27.2%) began to study English at age12 (i.e., in junior high school); 22.5% of thembegan to learn spoken English at age 12, 15.7%at age 13, and 11.9% at age 10. Of the students,417 (76.2%) had no contact with any English-speaking people other than their English teachersand schoolmates; only a few regularly communi-cated in English either via writing or speaking withEnglish-speaking friends.

Instrumentation

For this study, the participants completed theUCS developed by Burgoon (1976), and the Lan-guage Class Risk-Taking (LCR) and LanguageClass Sociability (LCS) scales designed by Ely(1986) to rate unwillingness to communicate.They also completed the FLCAS developed byHorwitz et al. (1986). There were a total of 70items, all of which, except the ones related toEnglish-learning background, were accompaniedby a 5-point response scale ranging from stronglydisagree to strongly agree (see Appendix).

Unwillingness to Communicate Scale. The UCSwas chosen because unwillingness to communi-cate was a “much more fully developed concep-tualization of an overall orientation towards com-munication” (McCroskey, 1992, p. 16) than otherreticence constructs, and the two dimensions ofthe UCS (approach–avoidance and reward) “un-derlie a more general reticence construct” (Miller,

1987, p. 230). Because unwillingness to commu-nicate encompasses both reticence and commu-nication apprehension (Burgoon, 1976), in orderto avoid redundancy, the short form of the UCSwas selected (see Appendix, 47–66).

Language Class Risk-Taking Scale. The LCRscale, a 6-item measure developed by Ely (1986),indexes the extent to which learners risk usingthe target language in class. Learners who risk us-ing the target language more often are reportedlymore willing to communicate with others in class.To fit the English classrooms in Mainland China,the word Spanish in Ely’s original LCR scale waschanged to English in the instrument used for thepresent study (see Appendix, 37–42).

Language Class Sociability Scale. The originalLCS measure, a 5-item scale designed by Ely(1986), gauges the extent to which learners enjoyinteracting with others in class in the target lan-guage. Like the LCR scale, the LCS was adapted tofit the present research: The word Spanish in theoriginal LCS items was replaced by the word En-glish. In addition, the original LCS item “I’d likemore class activities where the students use Span-ish to get to know each other better” was omit-ted because various activities (e.g., telling stories,debates, questions and answers in forms of pre-sentation, pair work, and group discussion) wererequired in English lessons when the present re-search was conducted (see Appendix, 43–46).

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale. Forthe present study, several modifications weremade to the FLCAS developed by Horwitzet al. (1986). The words language and foreign lan-guage appearing in the original FLCAS were con-sistently replaced with the word English. Threeitems were added to reflect the situation in Chi-nese English classrooms better: “I get tense andnervous when talking to a person whose sex is op-posite to mine,” “I get tense and nervous whenI have to discuss things unfamiliar to me in En-glish,” and “I feel overwhelmed by the numberof words I have to learn to speak English.” The36-item FLCAS served to measure the degree ofanxiety in Chinese EFL classrooms (see Appendix,1–36).

Preliminary statistical analyses revealed highinternal consistency for the measures (seeTable 1).

English-Learning Background. An English-learning background questionnaire obtained data


TABLE 1Characteristics of Instruments (N = 547)

MeanNumber Item–Total

of CorrelationInstrument Items Reliability (p = .01)

Unwillingness toCommunicateScale

20 .84 .503

Language ClassRisk-Taking Scale

6 .60 .577

Language ClassSociability Scale

4 .76 .762

Foreign LanguageClassroomAnxiety Scale

36 .92 .515

on how long the participants had studied English;how much contact they had with English-speakingfriends; and how they perceived their speaking,reading, writing, listening, and overall proficiencyin English (see Appendix, 67–70).

Procedures

The battery of questionnaires was administeredto 17 intact classes of first-year undergraduatenon-English majors toward the end of the firstterm of the 2003–2004 academic year. The stu-dents completed the survey in 15 minutes at thebeginning of a normal teaching lesson. Of 562collected questionnaires, only 547 could be used.The others were discarded because they were in-complete.

Data Analysis

The UCS and the FLCAS were subjected to afactor analysis with varimax rotation to determinethe component structure that most adequatelyrepresented the constructs underlying each of themeasures. Correlation coefficients revealed the as-sociations among the overall measures and theirsubcomponents, such that highly correlated di-mensions of the constructs could be identified.For each measure, the mean, standard deviation,median, mode, maximum, and minimum werecalculated to determine the extent to which thestudents remained unwilling to communicate oranxious in English classrooms. Then, the rela-tionships between these scales and the students’self-rated English proficiency and access to En-glish were investigated. Finally, multiple regres-sion analyses served to reveal potential predictors

for the students’ unwillingness to communicateand their FL anxiety.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Unwillingness to Communicate

A factor analysis with varimax rotation for theUCS yielded two factors, Avoidance and Reward(Table 2), a finding that is consistent with the viewheld by Burgoon and Koper (1984). According tothem, the UCS captures two dimensions of com-munication reticence: approach–avoidance andreward.

The AA [Approach–Avoidance] dimension repre-sents an individual’s tendency to avoid or participatein interpersonal and small group interactions. TheR [Reward] dimension, by contrast, reflects attitudestoward communication—whether one considers it avaluable, honest, and personally rewarding enterpriseor feels socially isolated and regards communicationas a deceptive, manipulative, or unprofitable activity.(pp. 608–609)

In the current study, 10 items (47–56) indexedthe first UCS component, Approach–Avoidance(UCS1), and accounted for 76.78% of the totalvariance. The other 10 items (57–66) pertainedto the second UCS component, Reward (UCS2),which accounted for 13.22% of the total variance(see Table 2).

The loadings in Table 2 indicate that each itemwithin a subcomponent of the UCS was highly cor-related with that subcomponent: Items 47 to 56positively related to the UCS1, with coefficientsranging from .352 to .737; items 57 to 66 posi-tively correlated with the UCS2, with a range incoefficient of .469 to .685. This finding suggeststhat Approach–Avoidance and Reward are impor-tant subcomponents of the UCS, which is furtherreinforced by the significant coefficients betweenthe UCS and its two components: the UCS1 (r =.850, p < .01) and the UCS2 (r = .791, p < .01),as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 shows a significantly positive coeffi-cient between the UCS1 and the UCS2 (r = .350,p < .01), suggesting that the students who avoidedor were less willing to participate in class tendedto value interpersonal conversations less and re-garded communication as a deceptive and mean-ingless activity and that those who approached orwere more willing to be involved in interpersonalinteractions held more positive attitudes towardcommunication and considered it more valuableand profitable.


TABLE 2Varimax Rotated Loadings for Factor Analysis of the Unwillingness to Communicate Scale (N = 547)

Item Number Factor 1 Factor 2

47. I’m afraid to speak up in conversations. .723 .10848. I talk less because I’m shy. .732 .06849. I talk a lot because I am not shy. .687 −.05750. I like to get involved in group discussions. .471 .27451. I feel nervous when I have to speak to others. .598 .13652. I have no fears about expressing myself in a group. .698 .23253. I am afraid to express myself in a group. .737 .28154. I avoid group discussions. .547 .33455. During a conversation, I prefer to talk rather than listen. .352 −.03756. I find it easy to make conversation with strangers. .492 −.02957. I don’t think my friends . . . communication with me. .010 .48658. My friends and family don’t listen to my ideas and suggestions. .092 .67659. I think my friends are truthful with me. .072 .61160. I don’t ask for . . . when I have to make decisions. .036 .50761. I believe my friends and family understand my feelings. .066 .58262. My family doesn’t . . . interests and activities with me. .144 .66263. My friends and family listen to my ideas and suggestions. .046 .68564. My friends seek my opinions and advice. .152 .58565. Other people are . . . want something out of me. .093 .63266. Talking to other people is just a waste of time. .253 .469

Note. Factor 1 (UCS1) = Approach–Avoidance; Factor 2 (UCS2) = Reward.

General Tendency of the UCS, LCR, and LCS

To reveal the general tendency of students’ un-willingness to communicate required the determi-nation of the mean, standard deviation, median,mode, maximum, and minimum of the UCS, theLCR scale, and the LCS scale. When determiningthese statistics, the researchers adjusted the valuesassigned to different alternatives for some itemsfrom strongly disagree to strongly agree . Because theUCS primarily was designed to measure individu-als’ unwillingness to speak in conversations, itemsthat expressed willingness to participate and con-fidence in speech conversations had the values as-signed to their alternatives reversed. Namely, forthese items, the response strongly disagree receiveda score of 5 instead of 1, the response strongly agreewas given a value of 1 instead of 5, and so on. Thiswas also the case for items that implied positiveattitudes toward interpersonal communications.

TABLE 3Correlations Between the Unwillingness to Communicate Scale and Its Subscales

Unwillingness Unwillingness Unwillingnessto Communicate to Communicate to Communicate

Measure Scale Scale 1 Scale 2

UCS1 .850∗∗ 1UCS2 .791∗∗ .350∗∗ 1∗∗p < .01.

Thus, the total score of the UCS revealed a re-spondent’s general tendency not to communicatein speech conversations. The higher the score, theless willing the respondent.

Given that the UCS comprised 20 items, with 10for each of its two subcomponents, a total scoreof more than 80 implied strong unwillingness tocommunicate, a total score of 60 to 80 representedmoderate unwillingness, and a score of less than60 signified (strong) willingness to be engagedin interpersonal conversations. Likewise, a totalscore of more than 40 for the UCS1 or the UCS2implied strong unwillingness to participate in orstrongly negative attitudes toward speech commu-nications, a total score of 30 to 40 implied mod-erate unwillingness or moderately negative atti-tudes, and a total score of less than 30 signifiedstrong/moderate willingness to be involved in orstrongly/moderately positive attitudes toward in-terpersonal interactions.


As in the computation of scores for the UCS,LCR items expressing unwillingness to risk us-ing English in language classrooms had valuesinversely assigned to their alternatives. Thus, thetotal score for the LCR revealed a respondent’sgeneral tendency to risk using English in class.The higher the score, the more risk-taking therespondent reportedly was in English classrooms.The LCR consisted of 6 items, and a total scoreof more than 24 signified high risk-taking in En-glish classrooms, a total score of 18 to 24 indicatedmoderate risk-taking, and a total score of less than18 reflected strongly/moderately low risk-taking.

With four items, a total score of more than 16for the LCS measure suggested high sociabilityin English classrooms, a total score of 12 to 16implied moderate sociability, and a total score ofbelow 12 indicated low sociability. The total scoreof the LCS scale revealed a respondent’s sociabil-ity in English class; the higher the score, the moresociable the respondent reportedly was in Englishclass. The results are presented in Table 4.

With a possible range of scores from 20 to 100,analysis of the UCS data shown in Table 4 re-vealed that the actual range in this study was 24to 90 and that the mean score for the 547 partici-pants was 49.31 (SD = 8.83). These findings, alongwith the UCS median (49) and mode (46), whichwere all far below the average score of 60, suggestthat more than half the respondents were willingto participate in interpersonal interactions. Thisfinding was further supported by the statistical re-sults of the LCS measure. With a possible scorerange of 4 to 20, the actual range of the LCS scalein the present study was also 4 to 20, as Table 4reveals. Meanwhile, a mean of 13.76, as well asa median and a mode of 17, all far above theaverage of 12, indicate that more than half the re-spondents were moderately or highly sociable inEnglish class.

TABLE 4Statistical Analyses of the Unwillingness to Communicate, Language Class Risk-Taking, and Language ClassSociability Scales (N = 547)

Measure M SD Mdn Mode Minimum Maximum

UCS 49.31 8.83 49 46 24 90UCS1 27.05 5.77 27 25 10 46UCS2 22.26 4.97 22 20 10 48LCR 17 3.51 17 16 6 27LCS 13.76 2.90 14 14 4 20

Note. LCR = Language Class Risk-Taking scale; LCS = Language Class Sociability scale; UCS = Unwillingness toCommunicate Scale; UCS1 = Unwillingness to Communicate Scale 1; UCS2 = Unwillingness to CommunicateScale 2.

Nevertheless, despite their scores on the UCSand the LCS measures, these participants mightnot actually engage in interpersonal communica-tion in class, as supported by the results of LCRdata reported in Table 4. With a possible scorerange of 6 to 30, the actual range of the LCRscores in the present study was 6 to 27. Meanwhile,a mean of 17, a median of 17, and a mode of 16,all below the average score of 18, were implicativeof low risk-taking in English class.

Table 4 shows that the UCS1 had a score rangeof 10 to 46 (the possible range was 10 to 50), amean of 27.05, a median of 27, and a mode of 25,and that the UCS2 had an actual score range of10 to 48 (the possible range was 10 to 50), a meanof 22.26, a median of 22, and a mode of 20. Allthe scores were far below the average of 30. Thisfinding implies that over half the participants were(strongly) willing to communicate with others inEnglish class and held (strongly) positive attitudestoward speaking with others.

Foreign Language Anxiety

As was the case for the UCS, a factor analysiswith varimax rotation for the FLCAS served toreveal its underlying components. A three-factorsolution emerged.

As previously discussed, the FLCAS measuredthree dimensions of FL anxiety: fear of negativeevaluation, communication apprehension, andtest anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986). There were12 items (2, 3, 10, 13, 19, 20, 25, 30, 31, 33,35, and 36) that indexed the first FLCAS com-ponent (FLCAS1), fear of negative evaluation. Allthe FLCAS1 items made reference to the fear ofmaking mistakes, or of being negatively evaluatedin English classrooms, or both, and accountedfor 24.37% of the total variance. Seven items (1,9, 14, 18, 24, 27, and 32) reflected the second


FLCAS component (FLCAS2), communicationapprehension, or fear of speaking English in class,and accounted for 37.93% of the total variance.Two items (8 and 21) comprised the third FLCAScomponent (FLCAS3), test anxiety, which en-tailed feelings about English tests and accountedfor 4.47% of the total variance. The results aresummarized in Table 5.

The loadings in Table 5 reveal that most ofthe items within a subcomponent of the FLCASwere significantly correlated with that subcompo-nent. The 12 items included in the FLCAS1 wererelated to the FLCAS1, with coefficients rangingfrom .351 to .572; the 7 items in the FLCAS2 re-lated to the FLCAS2, with a range of coefficientsfrom .094 to .611; and the 2 items in the FLCAS3related to the FLCAS3, with a range of −.126 to.304. Further support is suggested by the signifi-cant coefficients between the FLCAS and its threecomponents: the FLCAS1 (r = .919, p < .01);the FLCAS2 (r = .852, p < .01); and the FLCAS3(r = .608, p < .01), as shown in Table 6.

The FLCAS1 significantly correlated positivelywith the other two subscales, the FLCAS2 (r =.712, p < .01) and the FLCAS3 (r = .511, p < .01),as did the FLCAS2 and the FLCAS3 (r = .427, p <

.01). Students with higher scores on one FLCASsubscale tended to score higher on other FLCAS

TABLE 5Varimax Rotated Loadings for Factor Analysis of the Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale (N = 547)

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

1. I never feel quite sure . . . speaking English in my class. .340 .249 .5532. I don’t worry about making mistakes in the English class. .260 .107 .4583. I tremble when I . . . English class. .502 .143 .2558. I am usually at ease during English tests in my class. .038 .530 .3049. I start to panic when I have . . . in the English class. .536 .060 .434

10. I worry about the consequences of failing my English class. .234 .511 .08213. It embarrasses me to . . . in my English class. .441 .194 .27014. I would not . . . with native speakers. .170 .026 .61118. I feel confident when I speak English in class. .259 .273 .62419. I am afraid that . . . every mistake I make. .547 .082 .00720. I can feel my heart . . . called on in the English class. .501 .216 .38421. The more I . . . English test, the more confused I get .351 .549 −.12624. I feel very self-conscious . . . of other students. .510 .216 .38425. The English class moves . . . getting left behind. .252 .490 .04627. I get nervous and confused . . . English in class. .503 .321 .35730. I feel overwhelmed . . . learn to speak English. .215 .636 .05131. I am afraid that the . . . when I speak English. .572 .135 .22432. I would probably feel . . . of English. .013 .094 .62333. I get nervous when . . . I haven’t prepared in advance. .545 .045 .30435. I get tense and nervous . . . unfamiliar to me in English. .572 .122 .23036. I feel overwhelmed . . . learn to speak English. .213 .563 .007

Note. Factor 1 (FLCAS1) = Fear of Negative Evaluation; Factor 2 (FLCAS2) = Communication Apprehension;Factor 3 (FLCAS3) = Test Anxiety.

TABLE 6Correlations Among the Foreign Language ClassAnxiety Scale and Its Subscales (N = 547)

Measure FLCAS FLCAS1 FLCAS2 FLCAS3

FLCAS1 .919∗∗ 1FLCAS2 .852∗∗ .712∗∗ 1FLCAS3 .608∗∗ .511∗∗ .427∗∗ 1

Note. FLCAS = Foreign Language Class AnxietyScale; FLCAS1 = Foreign Language Class AnxietyScale 1; FLCAS2 = Foreign Language Class AnxietyScale 2; FLCAS3 = Foreign Language Class AnxietyScale 3.∗∗p < .01.

subscales. Students who were more afraid of beingnegatively evaluated were also more apprehensiveof and less confident in speaking English in frontof others and were more anxious about Englishtests and classroom performance.

General Tendency of the FLCAS and Its Subscales

Assessing the general tendency of the students’FL classroom anxiety required the determinationof the mean, standard deviation, median, mode,maximum, and minimum of the FLCAS and itssubscales. The researchers adjusted the values


TABLE 7Statistical Analyses of the Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale and Its Subscales (N = 547)

Measure M SD Mdn Mode Minimum Maximum

FLCAS 101 18.86 101 107 39 162FLCAS1 33.65 6.79 34 37 12 52FLCAS2 19.98 4.59 20 22 7 35FLCAS3 5.99 1.56 6 6 2 10

Note. FLCAS = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale; FLCAS1 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 1;FLCAS2 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 2; FLCAS3 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 3.

assigned to different alternatives in a way similarto that used for the UCS. Items expressing con-fidence in speaking English had values inverselyassigned to their alternatives. Consequently, thetotal score of the FLCAS revealed a respondent’sanxiety in English classrooms; the higher thescore, the more anxious the respondent report-edly felt.

There were 36 items on the FLCAS. A total scoreof more than 144 for the scale implied high anx-iety in English classrooms, a total score of 108 to144 signified moderate anxiety, and a total scoreof less than 108 indicated little or no anxiety.Likewise, a total score of more than 68 for the12-item FLCAS1 suggested a strong fear of beingnegatively evaluated, a total score of 36–68 in-dicated moderate fear, and a total score of lessthan 36 reflected little or no fear of being nega-tively evaluated. For the seven-item FLCAS2, thescore ranges for being strongly, moderately ap-prehensive, and strongly/moderately not appre-hensive of speech communication, respectively,were more than 28, 21–28, and less than 21. Thescore ranges for a student to be strongly, mod-erately, and not anxious about English tests, re-spectively, were above 8, 6–8, and below 6 for thetwo-item FLCAS3. The results are summarized inTable 7.

Within a possible range of 36 to 180, the actualrange for the FLCAS for the present study was39 to 162, with a mean of 101 (SD = 18.86). Thisresult, coupled with the FLCAS median (101) andmode (107), which all fell below the average scoreof 108, indicates that approximately one third ofthe students experienced anxiety in their Englishclassrooms.

As Table 7 shows, the FLCAS1 had a score rangeof 12 to 52 (the possible range was 12 to 60), amean of 33.65, a median of 34, and a mode of 37;the FLCAS2 had a range of 7 to 35 (the same asthe possible range), a mean of 19.98, a median of20, and a mode of 22; the FLCAS3 ranged from2 to 10 (the same as the possible range), with amean of 5.99, a median and a mode of 6. Generallyspeaking, all the subscale scores barely exceeded

their means (36, 21, and 6 for the FLCAS1, theFLCAS2, and the FLCAS3, respectively). This find-ing further confirms the result of the FLCAS datathat approximately one third of the participantsfelt anxious in English class, feared being neg-atively evaluated, and were apprehensive aboutboth speaking and tests.

Correlations Between Students’ Unwillingness toCommunicate and Foreign Language Anxiety

Correlational analyses revealed the relationshipbetween the students’ unwillingness to communi-cate and their FL anxiety (see Table 8).

Table 8 shows that the UCS and its two sub-scales, the UCS1 and the UCS2, were not only sig-nificantly but positively correlated with the FLCAS(r = .535, .563, and .298, respectively, p < .01)and its three subscales, the FLCAS1 (r = .502,.535, and .272, respectively, p < .01), the FLCAS2(r = .525, .582, and .257, respectively, p < .01),and the FLCAS3 (r = .253, .257, and .152, re-spectively, p < .01), as was found in earlier stud-ies (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre, Baker,Clement, & Donovan, 2003). Students who scoredhigh on the UCS, the UCS1, and the UCS2 tendedto score high on the FLCAS and its three sub-scales. Alternatively, students who were less willingto participate in group discussions (UCS1) andhad a low opinion of the utility of speech/oralcommunication (UCS2) were also more fearfulof being negatively evaluated (FLCAS1), more ap-prehensive about public speaking (FLCAS2), andmore anxious about tests (FLCAS3).

In addition, the UCS and its two subscales weresignificantly negatively correlated with the LCRscale (r = −.368, −.425, and −.161, respectively,p < .01) and the LCS scale (r = −.439, −.429,and −.283, respectively, p < .01). Students whowere less willing to participate in group discus-sions (UCS1) and had a low opinion of the utilityof speech/oral communication (UCS2) tendedto be less risk-taking (LCS) and less sociable(LCR) in English class, as Ely (1986) previouslyhad noted. Furthermore, the FLCAS and its three


TABLE 8Correlations Between Students’ Unwillingness to Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety (N = 547)

Variable UCS UCS1 UCS2 FLCAS FLCAS1 FLCAS2 FLCAS3 LCR

FLCAS .535∗∗ .563∗∗ .298∗∗ 1FLCAS1 .502∗∗ .535∗∗ .272∗∗ .919∗∗ 1FLCAS2 .525∗∗ .582∗∗ .257∗∗ .852∗∗ .712∗∗ 1FLCAS3 .253∗∗ .257∗∗ .152∗∗ .608∗∗ .511∗∗ .427∗∗ 1LCR −.368∗∗ −.425∗∗ −.161∗∗ −.459∗∗ −.444∗∗ −.457∗∗ −.210∗∗ 1LCS −.439∗∗ −.429∗∗ −.283∗∗ −.353∗∗ −.312∗∗ −.368∗∗ −.120∗∗ .265∗∗

Note. FLCAS = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale; FLCAS1 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 1;FLCAS2 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 2; FLCAS3 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 3;LCR = Language Class Risk-Taking scale; LCS = Language Class Sociability scale; UCS = Unwillingness toCommunicate Scale; UCS1 = Unwillingness to Communicate Scale 1; UCS2 = Unwillingness to CommunicateScale 2.∗∗p < .01.

subscales were all significantly negatively corre-lated with the LCR scale (r = −.459, −.444, −.457,and −.210, respectively, p < .01) and the LCS scale(r = −.353, −.312, −.368, and −.120, respectively,p < .01). Respondents who were more afraid ofbeing negatively evaluated (FLCAS1), more ap-prehensive about public speaking (FLCAS2), andmore anxious about tests (FLCAS3) tended to beless risk-taking (LCS) and less sociable (LCR) inEnglish class, a finding that is consistent with thoseof Saito and Samimy’s (1996) study. Furthermore,the LCR and the LCS scales were significantly pos-itively correlated with each other (r = .265, p <

.01). The more risk-taking students tended to bemore sociable in English language class.

The analyses so far clearly support the con-clusion that the students’ unwillingness to com-municate and their FL anxiety are closelyrelated.

Correlations Among Students’ Unwillingnessto Communicate, FL Anxiety, and Their Self-RatedEnglish Proficiency and Access to English

Correlational analyses again served to iden-tify the relationships among students’ unwilling-ness to communicate, their FL anxiety, and theirself-rated English proficiency. Table 9 shows theresults.

The UCS and its subcomponents were not onlysignificantly but also negatively correlated withthe students’ self-rated English proficiency. Thehigher the scores for the UCS, the UCS1, andthe UCS2, the lower the students rated their pro-ficiency in English reading (r = −.204, −.176,and −.159, respectively, p < .01), listening (r =−.263, −.271, and −.153, respectively, p < .01),writing (r = −.212, −.205, and −.139, respec-tively, p < .01), and speaking (r = −.294, −.349,

and −.116, respectively, p < .01). Among the fourskills, speaking ability showed the strongest neg-ative correlations with the UCS and its subscales.The cumulative effect of reading, listening, writ-ing, and speaking might have contributed to thehigh negative coefficients between students’ self-rated overall English proficiency and the UCS,the UCS1, and the UCS2 (r = −.309, −.300, and−.201, respectively, p < .01). By contrast, both theLCR and the LCS scales significantly and positivelycorrelated with the students’ self-rated proficiencyin English reading (r = .087 and .081, respectively,p < .05), listening (r = .171 and .120, respectively,p < .01), writing (r = .115 and .130, respectively,p < .01), speaking (r = .243 and .178, respec-tively, p < .01), and overall English proficiency(r = .151 and .150, respectively, p < .01). Themore risk-taking or sociable a student was, thehigher the self-reported ratings of proficiency inEnglish reading, listening, writing, and speaking,with speaking ability being the most positively re-lated to the LCR and the LCS scales.

The FLCAS and its subcomponents were alsosignificantly and negatively correlated with thestudents’ self-rated English proficiency, as shownin previous studies (MacIntyre, Noels, & Clement,1997; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999). The higher thescores for the FLCAS, the FLCAS1, the FLCAS2,and the FLCAS3, the lower the students ratedtheir proficiency in English reading (r = −.249,−.236, −.210, and −.232, respectively, p < .01),listening (r = −.287, −.232, −.306, and −.169,respectively, p < .01), writing (r = −.263, −.227,−.259, and −.216, respectively, p < .01), andspeaking (r = −.362, −.277, −.458, and −.137, re-spectively, p < .01). Speaking ability was especiallystrongly negatively correlated with the FLCAS, theFLCAS1, and the FLCAS2. The cumulative effectof reading, listening, writing, and speaking again


TABLE 9Correlations Among Students’ Unwillingness to Communicate, Foreign Language Anxiety, and TheirSelf-Ratings and Access to English (N = 547)

Variable RA LA WA SA OE Q67 Q68 Q69b Q69c

UCS −.204∗∗ −.263∗∗ −.212∗∗ −.294∗∗ −.309∗∗ .234∗∗ .205∗∗ −.229∗∗ −.212∗∗

UCS1 −.176∗∗ −.271∗∗ −.205∗∗ −.349∗∗ −.300∗∗ .218∗∗ .198∗∗ −.257∗∗ −.225∗∗

UCS2 −.159∗∗ −.153∗∗ −.139∗∗ −.116∗∗ −.201∗∗ .163∗∗ .134∗∗ −.109∗∗ −.115∗∗

LCR .087∗ .171∗∗ .115∗∗ .243∗∗ .151∗∗ −.105∗ −.107∗ .077 .110∗

LCS .081 .120∗∗ .130∗∗ .178∗∗ .150∗∗ .005 −.020 .132∗ .156∗

FLCAS −.249∗∗ −.287∗∗ −.263∗∗ −.362∗∗ −.374∗∗ .207∗∗ .259∗∗ −.205∗∗ −.237∗∗

FLCAS1 −.236∗∗ −.232∗∗ −.227∗∗ −.277∗∗ −.319∗∗ .182∗∗ .224∗∗ −.182∗∗ −.216∗∗

FLCAS2 −.210∗∗ −.306∗∗ −.259∗∗ −.458∗∗ −.344∗∗ .262∗∗ .298∗∗ −.218∗∗ −.238∗∗

FLCAS3 −.232∗∗ −.169∗∗ −.216∗∗ −.137∗∗ −.290∗∗ .090∗ .110∗∗ −.067 −.099∗

Note. FLCAS = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale; FLCAS1 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 1;FLCAS2 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 2; FLCAS3 = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale 3; LA= Self-rated listening ability in English; LCR = Language Class Risk-Taking scale; LCS = Language ClassSociability scale; OE = Self-rated overall English proficiency; RA = Self-rated reading ability in English; SA= Self-rated speaking ability in English; UCS = Unwillingness to Communicate Scale; UCS1 = Unwillingnessto Communicate Scale 1; UCS2 = Unwillingness to Communicate Scale 2; WA = Self-rated writing ability inEnglish.Q67: When did you start to learn English?Q68: When did you start to learn spoken English?Q69b: How often do you contact your English-speaking friends by writing?Q69c: How often do you contact your English-speaking friends by speaking?∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

might have contributed to the high negative co-efficients between the students’ self-rated overallEnglish proficiency and the FLCAS, the FLCAS 1,the FLCAS2, and the FLCAS3 (r = −.374, −.319,−.344, and −.290, respectively, p < .01).

Table 9 also shows that both the UCS and theFLCAS and their subscales were significantly pos-itively correlated with the ages at which the stu-dents started to learn English (Q67) and spokenEnglish (Q68). The older a student was when heor she started to study English and learn spokenEnglish, the less willing the student was to com-municate (UCS; r = .234 and .205, respectively,p < .01) and the more anxious he or she felt inEnglish classrooms (FLCAS; r = .207 and .259,respectively, p < .01). Nevertheless, the LCR scalewas significantly and negatively related to Q67 andQ68 (r = −.105 and −.107, respectively, p < .05).The older a learner was when beginning to studyEnglish, the less risk-taking the student was in En-glish class. However, no significant correlationsbetween the LCS scale and the ages at which theparticipants began to learn English and spokenEnglish were in evidence.

The UCS, the FLCAS, and their subscales weresignificantly and negatively correlated with thestudents’ contact with English-speaking friendsvia writing (Q69b) and speaking (Q69c), asTable 9 shows. The more frequently students con-tacted their English-speaking friends by writing

or speaking, or both, the more willing they wereto communicate (UCS; r = −.229 and −.212, re-spectively, p < .01) and the less anxious they felt inEnglish classrooms (FLCAS; r = −.205 and −.237,respectively, p < .01). However, the LCS scale wassignificantly positively correlated with Q69b andQ69c (r = .132 and .156, respectively, p < .05).The more frequently a student contacted English-speaking friends by writing or speaking, the moresociable he or she was in English language class.The LCR scale was also significantly and positivelyrelated to Q69c (r = .110, p < .05), but its corre-lation with Q69b, though positive (r = .077), wasnot significant.

From the analyses presented, it is clear thatclose relationships existed among the students’unwillingness to communicate, their FL anxiety,and their self-rated English proficiency and accessto English.

The Regression Model

The results of the correlational analyses dis-cussed previously show numerous bivariate rela-tionships. However, it is worth noting that exceptfor the correlations between the UCS and theFLCAS, other correlations were not so strong, withcoefficients rarely exceeding .30. Furthermore,bivariate analyses could not indicate the influ-ence of one variable on another. Better clues were


TABLE 10Regression Coefficients and Significance

Unwillingness to Communicate Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety

Measure β t p β t p

FLCAS .30 7.22 .000LCS −.28 −7.70 .000 −.11 −3.08 .002Q67 .13 3.76 .000LCR −.12 −3.22 .001 −.24 −6.87 .000OE −.11 −3.12 .002 −.20 −5.95 .000Q69b −.07 −2.11 .035UCS1 .31 7.89 .000Q68 .14 4.31 .000Q69c −.07 −2.07 .039

Note. FLCAS = Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale; LCR = Language Class Risk-Taking scale; LCS =Language Class Sociability scale; OE = Overall English proficiency; UCS1 = Unwillingness to CommunicateScale 1.

provided by multiple regression analyses. A step-wise method was used in forming regression mod-els. The results appear in Table 10, which reportscoefficients from the regression models, as well astheir levels of significance. As can be seen, all thecoefficients were statistically significant.

As shown in Table 10, among the measuredvariables, six were included in the models thatrelated to unwillingness to communicate: FL class-room anxiety (FLCAS), language class sociability(LCS), ages at which the participants began tolearn English (Q67), self-rated overall proficiencyin English (OE), language class risk-taking (LCR),and frequency of contact with English-speakingfriends by writing (Q69b). Among these six vari-ables, the FLCAS was the most powerful predic-tor of the students’ unwillingness to communi-cate (β = .30, t = 7.22, p = .000); followed bythe LCS scale (β = −.28, t = −7.70, p = .000);Q67 (β = .13, t = 3.76, p = .000); the LCRscale (β = −.12, t = −3.22, p = .001); the OE(β = −.11, t = −3.12, p = .002); and Q69b (β =−.07, t = −2.11, p = .035). The FLCAS and Q67were positive predictors, whereas the other vari-ables were negative predictors. In other words,the more anxious a learner reported to be inEnglish class, or the older he or she was whenstarting to learn English, the less willing he orshe was to be involved in speech communication.The more sociable or risk-taking a learner wasin English class, the higher a learner self-ratedhis or her overall proficiency in English, or themore frequently a learner contacted his or herEnglish-speaking friends by writing, the more will-ing he or she was to participate in interpersonalconversations.

Table 10 also shows that there were also sixvariables included in the models that relatedto FL classroom anxiety: language class sociabil-ity (LCS), self-rated overall proficiency in En-glish (OE), language class risk-taking (LCR),approach–avoidance (UCS1), ages at which learn-ers began to study spoken English (Q68), and fre-quency of contact with English-speaking friendsby speaking (Q69c). Among these six variables,the UCS1 was the most powerful predictor of thestudents’ FL classroom anxiety (β = .31, t = 7.89,p = .000); followed by the LCR scale (β = −.24,t = −6.87, p = .000); the OE (β = −.20, t =−5.95, p = .000); Q68 (β = .14, t = 4.31, p =.000); the LCS scale (β = −.11, t = −3.08, p =.002); and Q69c (β = −.07, t = −2.07, p = .039).As indicated by their β and t values, the UCS1 andQ68 were positive predictors. The other variableswere negative predictors. That is, the less willing alearner was to communicate orally, or the older heor she was when starting to learn spoken English,the more anxious the student was in English class;the more risk-taking or sociable a learner was inEnglish class, the higher that learner self-rated hisor her overall proficiency in English, or, the morefrequently a learner contacted his or her English-speaking friends by speaking, the less anxious thelearner was in English class.

Thus, a conclusion can be drawn that the stu-dents’ unwillingness to communicate and theirFL anxiety were closely interwoven. Their unwill-ingness to communicate in the target languagemight have made them (even more) anxiouswhen speaking the language in class, or their FLanxiety made them remain (even more) unwillingto speak the target language in class, or both.


CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Several conclusions about the students’ unwill-ingness to communicate and their FL anxiety inthe Chinese EFL context are warranted from theresults of this study.

First, the significantly high coefficients indi-cate that the subscales of the UCS (UCS1 andUCS2) and the FLCAS (FLCAS1, FLCAS2, andFLCAS3) yielded by factor analyses were impor-tant subcomponents. These subscales also sig-nificantly positively related to each other. Forexample, a learner who feared being negativelyevaluated more (FLCAS1) tended to be more ap-prehensive about speaking (FLCAS2) and moreanxious about tests (FLCAS3).

Second, analyses of the data revealed that mostof the students were willing to participate in inter-personal conversations; however, perhaps due toanxiety, low English proficiency, or other reasons,many of them did not like to risk using/speakingEnglish in class. In addition, more than one thirdof the participants felt anxious in their Englishlanguage classrooms. They feared being nega-tively evaluated and were apprehensive of speechcommunication and tests.

The students’ unwillingness to communicatewas significantly positively correlated with theirFL anxiety. Moreover, their unwillingness to com-municate and their FL anxiety were significantlycorrelated to their self-rated English proficiencyand access to English.

Finally, regression analyses revealed that theFLCAS, the LCS scale, Q67, the OE, the LCRscale, and Q69b were good predictors of the stu-dents’ unwillingness to communicate. The UCS1,the LCR scale, the OE, Q68, the LCS scale, andQ69c were good predictors of the students’ FLclassroom anxiety.

Because unwillingness to communicate and FLanxiety shared common predictors, reducing stu-dents’ anxiety and enhancing their participationin English class to improve their learning of En-glish may be possible if teachers discuss with theirstudents in the very first lesson(s) the significanceof speech communication in class and share withthem the feeling of anxiety experienced by manypeople when they learn an FL. If aware of thesetwo issues, students may consciously take steps tobecome more active and confident in their En-glish class; they also may be more willing to riskusing the language more.

It also may be useful for EFL teachers to help in-crease students’ self-perceived competence in En-

glish to improve their learning of the language.Underestimated self-competence in English, ac-cording to MacIntyre et al. (1997), may make stu-dents believe they cannot learn or perform in thetarget language. This perception may lead to aself-fulfilling prophecy; with less effort and self-confidence, they will not make good progress.Consequently, at the beginning of a course, itbe may useful for EFL teachers to find out howstudents self-rate their own English proficiency.This information can provide useful data whencreating student profiles. Armed with this knowl-edge, teachers are positioned to help increasetheir students’ self-perceived competence in En-glish. To achieve this objective, the students mustbe prompted to set realistic, short-term goals inlearning (oral) English (Anderson, 2003), andthese goals should be revised as the studentsprogress through the term. Teachers can encour-age students and build up their self-confidence bypointing out their achievements. Throughout thecourse, teachers can try various means of increas-ing their students’ interest in and motivation tolearn and use the language, which, in turn, mayresult in more use of the language and may leadto increased self-ratings of English proficiency.

In order to promote their students’ willingnessto use/speak the target language and reduce theiranxiety in class, it may be necessary for EFL teach-ers to encourage the students to practice Englishand gain more exposure to the language. For Chi-nese EFL learners who have little contact withEnglish in their daily lives (for such reasons asstarting to learn the language late, large classes,and little contact with native speakers), practiceis essential. They need to practice using/speakingEnglish both in and outside the classroom, withdifferent people, and in a range of situations. Thispractice can help them become more confidentand at ease when using and talking in English withothers in various contexts.

It also may be advisable for EFL teachers togive even the most reticent students the opportu-nity to speak and build up their self-confidencein a positive, caring environment (e.g., by facil-itating interactive group activities or calling onstudents in a nonthreatening manner). Feelingthe concern of their teachers, the students shouldgradually become more willing to participate inand risk using English in speech communica-tion. Meanwhile, continuous practice can grad-ually build up or enhance their self-confidence,which, in turn, may result in more use of the targetlanguage.


LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The present research adopted a large-scale sur-vey to investigate Chinese EFL learners’ unwill-ingness to communicate and their FL anxiety inEnglish language classrooms. Owing to variousconstraints, however, there were some limitationsin the study. First, inferences drawn from the re-sults of this study are limited by the nature ofthe particular sample used, which consisted solelyof students at one university in Beijing. Replica-tion of the study with language learners of varyinglevels of proficiency and backgrounds in differ-ent learning contexts is necessary to determinehow well the results may be generalized to otherEFL learners and to explore whether relation-ships between the measured variables are strongeror weaker. In addition, because unwillingness tocommunicate and anxiety interfere with an indi-vidual’s learning of (spoken) English and lead topoor performance (MacIntyre et al., 1997; On-wuegbuzie et al., 1999), strategies for increasingwillingness to communicate and reducing anxietyare essential in language learning and communi-cation. Future research should be directed to thisarea to help students become more active andconfident in English language lessons.

Future research also should look into poten-tial interactions between unwillingness to com-municate and anxiety and other student charac-teristics, such as learners’ beliefs about languagelearning, learning styles, help-seeking behaviors,personality traits, and knowledge and use of lan-guage learning strategies, as also suggested in pre-vious studies (Aida, 1994; MacIntyre & Charos,1996; Phillips, 1992; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, &Shimizu, 2004). For example, it would be inter-esting to know which students are the most likelyto be reticent and the most susceptible to the ob-structive influence of anxiety. Research on theseissues would promote our understanding of lan-guage learning from the learners’ perspectivesand deepen our insight into this important is-sue.

REFERENCES

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, andCope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: Thecase of students of Japanese. Modern LanguageJournal, 78, 155–168.

Anderson, N. (2003, December). Narrowing the gapbetween perceived and actual performance throughlearner training in self assessment . Paper presentedat the First Conference of Asian TEFL, Busan,South Korea.

Argaman, O., & Abu-Rabia, S. (2002). The influence oflanguage anxiety on English reading and writingtasks among native Hebrew speakers. Language,Culture and Curriculum, 15, 143–160.

Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role ofgender and immersion in communication and sec-ond language orientations. Language Learning, 50,311–341.

Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation.Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69.

Burgoon, J. K., & Koper, R. J. (1984). Nonverbal and re-lational communication associated with reticence.Human Communication Research, 10, 601–626.

Burgoon, J. K., Pfau, M., Birk, T., & Manusov, V. (1987).Nonverbal communication performance and per-ceptions associated with reticence: Replicationsand implications. Communication Education, 36,119–130.

Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Lan-guage anxiety: Differentiating writing and speak-ing components. Language Learning, 49, 417–446.

Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motiva-tion, self-confidence, and group cohesion in theforeign language classroom. Language Learning,44, 417–448.

Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus:Correlates of language learning success. ModernLanguage Journal, 79, 67–89.

Ely, C. M. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risk-taking,sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom.Language Learning, 36, 1–25.

Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learn-ing and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxiouslanguage learners’ reactions to their own oral per-formance. Modern Language Journal, 86, 562–570.

Hilleson, M. (1996). “I want to talk with them, but I don’twant them to hear”: An introspective study of sec-ond langue anxiety in an English-medium school.In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices fromthe language classroom (pp. 248–282). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Horwitz, E. K. (1995). Student affective reactions andthe teaching and learning of foreign languages.Journal of Educational Research, 23, 569–652.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). For-eign language classroom anxiety. Modern LanguageJournal, 70, 125–132.

Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language casediscussions: Anxiety and aspirations. System, 30,65–84.

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese lan-guage classroom. Modern Language Journal, 85,549–566.

Liu, M. (2006). Reticence, anxiety and performance ofChinese university students in oral English lessonsand tests. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Information andLearning Company, University of Michigan.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Donovan,L. A. (2003). Sex and age effects on willingnessto communicate, anxiety, perceived competence,


and L2 motivation among junior high schoolFrench immersion students. Language Learning,53, 137–165.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, at-titudes, and affect as predictors of second lan-guage communication. Journal of Language andSocial Psychology, 15, 3–26.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtleeffects of language anxiety on cognitive processingin the second language. Language Learning, 44,283–305.

MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Bi-ases in self-ratings of second language proficiency:The role of language anxiety. Language Learning,47, 265–287.

Mak, B. S., & White, C. (1997). Communication appre-hension of Chinese ESL students. Hong Kong Jour-nal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 81–95.

McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication appre-hension: A summary of recent theory and re-search. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96.

McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The WTC as a predictor ofclassroom participation. Communication ResearchReports, 4, 47–50.

McCroskey, J. C. (1991). Willingness to communi-cate, communication apprehension, introversion,and self-reported communication competence:Finnish and American comparisons. Communica-tion Research Reports, 8, 55–64.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of thewillingness to communicate scale. CommunicationQuarterly, 40, 16–25.

McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Self-report measurement.In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T.Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communi-cation: Shyness, reticence, and communication ap-prehension (pp. 191–216). Cresskill, NJ: HamptonPress.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingnessto communicate and interpersonal communica-

tion. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Per-sonality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, M. D. (1987). The relationship of communica-tion reticence and negative expectations. Commu-nication Education, 36, 228–235.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999).Factors associated with foreign language anxiety.Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 217–239.

Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxietyon students’ oral test performance and attitudes.Modern Language Journal, 76, 14–26.

Proulx, P. (1991). Anxiety in language learning: Recog-nition and prevention. Canadian Journal of NativeEducation, 18, 53–64.

Saito, Y., & Samimy, K. K. (1996). Foreign language anx-iety and language performance: A study of learneranxiety in beginning, intermediate, and advanced-level college students of Japan. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 29, 239–251.

Tsui, A. B. M., (1996). Reticence and anxiety in secondlanguage learning. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan(Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, Q., & Ding, X. (2001). Language anxiety amongrural middle school students in west China. Journalof Northwest Normal University, 38, 68–73.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clini-cal Psychology, 33, 448–457.

Yan, X., & Wang, P. (2001). The impact of languageanxiety on students’ Mandarin learning in HongKong. Language Teaching and Research, 6, 1–7.

Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004).The influence of attitudes and affect on willing-ness to communicate and second language com-munication. Language Learning, 54, 119–152.

Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom en-vironment: What does language anxiety researchsuggest? Modern Language Journal, 75, 426–439.


APPENDIX

Survey on Language Learning

Directions: This survey aims to help better understand your language learning experiences. Please answerthe following items by circling the letter of the alternative which appears most applicable to you. We wouldurge you to be as accurate as possible since the success of this investigation depends upon it.

Name: Sex: Proficiency Level

M SD

1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking English in my class. 3.07 1.122. I don’t worry about making mistakes in the English class. 3.51 1.003. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in the English class. 2.24 0.974. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in

English.2.42 1.03

5. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more foreign language classes. 3.49 1.096. During my English class, I find myself thinking about things that have

nothing to do with the course.2.18 0.99

7. I keep thinking that the other students are better at English than I am. 3.00 1.078. I am usually at ease during English tests in my class. 3.43 1.009. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in the English

class.3.02 1.07

10. I worry about the consequences of failing my English class. 2.99 1.2311. I don’t understand why some people get so upset over English classes. 2.96 1.0712. In the English class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know. 2.36 1.0013. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English class. 2.65 1.0314. I would not be nervous speaking English with native speakers. 2.92 1.0815. I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting. 3.15 0.9716. Even if I am well prepared for the English class, I feel anxious about it. 2.29 0.9717. I often feel like not going to my English class. 2.24 1.0518. I feel confident when I speak English in class. 3.24 0.8719. I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I

make.2.32 0.90

20. I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called on in theEnglish class.

3.20 1.08

21. The more I study for an English test, the more confused I get. 2.56 1.0622. I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for the English class. 3.23 1.0023. I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do. 2.97 1.0724. I feel very self-conscious about speaking English in front of other students. 2.47 0.9625. The English class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind. 2.53 1.0126. I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other classes. 2.72 1.1427. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking English in class. 2.36 0.8828. When I’m on my way to the English class, I feel very sure and relaxed. 3.27 0.8429. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the English teacher says. 2.68 1.0630. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules I have to learn to speak English. 2.52 0.9631. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak English. 2.48 1.0232. I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of English. 2.90 0.9833. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions which I haven’t

prepared in advance.3.20 0.99

34. I get tense and nervous when talking to a person whose sex is opposite tomine.

2.42 0.95

35. I get tense and nervous when I have to discuss things unfamiliar to me inEnglish.

3.02 1.01

36. I feel overwhelmed by the number of words I have to learn to speak inEnglish.

2.98 1.15

37. I like to wait until I know exactly how to use an English word before usingit.

2.53 1.03

38. I don’t like trying out a difficult sentence in class. 2.86 1.0039. At this point, I don’t like trying to express complicated ideas in English in

class.2.71 0.96

40. I prefer to say what I want in English without worrying about the smalldetails of grammar.

3.14 1.05

(Continued)


41. In class, I prefer to say a sentence to myself before I speak it. 2.64 0.9942. I prefer to follow basic sentence models rather than risk misusing the

language.3.13 1.05

43. I think learning English in a group is more fun than learning on my own. 3.51 1.0444. I enjoy talking with the teacher and other students in English. 3.01 0.9645. I enjoy interacting with the other students in the English class. 3.39 0.9246. I think it’s important to have a strong group spirit in the English classroom. 3.84 0.8847. I’m afraid to speak up in conversations. 2.43 0.9748. I talk less because I’m shy. 2.65 1.0449. I talk a lot because I am not shy. 3.10 0.9650. I like to get involved in group discussions. 2.60 0.9251. I feel nervous when I have to speak to others. 2.72 1.0052. I have no fears about expressing myself in a group. 2.44 0.8653. I am afraid to express myself in a group. 2.36 0.8554. I avoid group discussions. 2.27 0.8455. During a conversation, I prefer to talk rather than listen. 3.31 0.8856. I find it easy to make conversation with strangers. 3.18 0.9957. I don’t think my friends are honest in their communication with me. 2.60 0.9058. My friends and family don’t listen to my ideas and suggestions. 2.05 0.7759. I think my friends are truthful with me. 2.27 0.7660. I don’t ask for advice from family or friends when I have to make decisions. 2.27 0.9361. I believe my friends and family understand my feelings. 2.34 0.8362. My family doesn’t enjoy discussing my interests and activities with me. 2.27 0.9563. My friends and family listen to my ideas and suggestions. 2.27 0.8064. My friends seek my opinions and advice. 2.33 0.7565. Other people are friendly only because they want something out of me. 2.03 0.8566. Talking to other people is just a waste of time. 1.82 0.7367. I started to learn English at the age of .68. I started to learn spoken English at the age of .69. I have English speaking friends (a. yes b. no) and we contact each other by

writing (e.g., letters and email) and/or by speaking (e.g., phoneand meetings) .

A. occasionally B. once a weekC. several times a week D. very often (every day)

70. I rate my reading ability in English as , listening ability in English as, writing ability in English as , speaking ability in English as, and my overall English proficiency as .

A. poor B. OK C. good D. very good

Documents

An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learners' Unwillingness to Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety 2008 LIU