the effect of language learning experience on motivation

Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2020-12-09

The Effect of Language Learning Experience on Motivation and The Effect of Language Learning Experience on Motivation and

Anxiety of Foreign Language Learning Students Anxiety of Foreign Language Learning Students

Josie Eileen Thacker Brigham Young University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Thacker, Josie Eileen, "The Effect of Language Learning Experience on Motivation and Anxiety of Foreign Language Learning Students" (2020). Theses and Dissertations. 8759. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8759

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://home.byu.edu/home/

http://home.byu.edu/home/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F8759&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/438?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F8759&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8759?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F8759&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

The Effect of Language Learning Experience on Motivation

and Anxiety of Foreign Language Learning Students

Josie Eileen Thacker

A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Wendy Baker-Smemoe, Chair Dan P. Dewey Jennifer Bown

Department of Linguistics

Brigham Young University

Copyright © 2020 Josie Eileen Thacker

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

The Effect of Language Learning Experience on Motivation and Anxiety of Foreign Language Learning Students

Josie Eileen Thacker

Department of Linguistics, BYU Master of Arts

The purpose of this study was to examine how motivation and anxiety within learners

studying a foreign language are affected by a participant’s language requirement (whether a participant has a language requirement as part of their education), language class level, and language learning environment (those with traditional classroom verses significant in-country experience). The current study surveyed and analyzed the responses of 124 students currently enrolled in a language class at Brigham Young University. Self-reported survey results demonstrate the relationship between motivation and anxiety with relation to language class level, language learning experience, and language requirement fulfillment. Further analyses were done in order to explore the interaction of different types of motivation (instrumental, integrative, intrinsic and resultative) and different types of anxiety (classroom, text anxiety and fear of negative evaluation) on the three factors examined in this study.

Results indicated that there was a significant difference in motivation for participants whose major required taking foreign language courses and those whose major did not require a foreign language. Specifically, the results of the sub types of motivation (integrative, intrinsic, instrumental, and resultative) indicated that those that were required to take the language as a requirement had higher instrumental motivation than those that were not required to take a foreign language. The second significant finding of this study is that there was no effect on motivation and anxiety levels of participants with regard to language class level with one exception. Students at the 200 level had greater language class anxiety and lower resultative motivation than the other levels did. The third significant finding was that significant in-country experience did not affect motivation or anxiety. These results demonstrate that several factors may influence students’ motivation and anxiety levels when learning a foreign language. Keywords: second language acquisition, motivation, anxiety

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Effect of Language Learning Experience on Motivation ......................................................... i and Anxiety of Foreign Language Learning Students ..................................................................... i ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 Socio-Educational Model............................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Motivation types ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Anxiety .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.1 Second Language Research ......................................................................................... 10

2.3 Language class level, language learning experience, and language requirement fulfillment

.................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.1 Language Class Level .................................................................................................. 12

2.3.2 Language Context ........................................................................................................ 13

2.3.3 Language Requirement ................................................................................................ 16

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Instrument ........................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 20

3.4 Data Analyses ..................................................................................................................... 20

4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 22

4.1 Question 1: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety vary depending on

whether it is a requirement for one’s major or not? .................................................................. 22

4.2 Question 2: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ depending on

language class level? ................................................................................................................. 24

iv

4.3 Question 3: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ for those who

have learned in a traditional classroom environment verses those with significant in-country

experience? ............................................................................................................................... 26

4.5 Results of proficiency level, language requirement, and significant in-country experience

on different sub types of motivation and anxiety ..................................................................... 28

4.5 Results of proficiency on different types of motivation and anxiety .................................. 28

4.5.1 Results of Significant in-Country Experience on different types of motivation and anxiety ................................................................................................................................... 29

4.5.2 Results of Language Requirement on different types of motivation and anxiety ........ 30

5. DISCUSSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Question 1: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety vary depending on

whether it is a requirement for one’s major or not? .................................................................. 32

5.2 Question 2: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ depending

on language proficiency? .......................................................................................................... 34

5.3 Question 3: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ for those who

have learned in a traditional classroom environment verses those with significant in-country

experience? ............................................................................................................................... 35

6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 37

6.1 Implications and Further Research ..................................................................................... 38

7. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 40

7.1 Appendix A: Background Questionnaire ............................................................................ 40

7.2 Appendix B: Foreign Language Learning Motivation Questionnaire ................................ 40

7.3 Appendix C: Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Questionnaire .................................. 40

8. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 42

v

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Motivation Scores on Language Requirement .............................................................. 23

Figure 2: Anxiety Scores of Language Requirement. ................................................................... 24

Figure 3: Motivation Scores for Language Class Level ............................................................... 25

Figure 4: Anxiety scores on Language Proficiency ...................................................................... 26

Figure 5: Motivation for Significant In- Country Experience ...................................................... 27

Figure 6: Anxiety for Significant In- Country Experience. .......................................................... 28

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Results of proficiency on different types of motivation and anxiety .............................. 29

Table 2: Results of Significant in- Country Experience on different types of motivation and

anxiety ........................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 3: Results of Language Requirement on different types of motivation and anxiety .......... 30

1

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been a steady increase of research focusing on the impact of several

psychological factors on second language (L2) acquisition over time. In particular several studies

in the past thirty years have examined the effect of motivation (Clement et al. 1994; Dornyei,

2001; Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993; Mehrpour and Vojdani, 2012; Tuan, 2012) and anxiety

(Horwitz et al. 1986; Liu, 2006; Liu and Jackson, 2008; MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989) on

learning a foreign language.

Motivation has been used to explain learners’ language learning differences (Pintrich and

Schunk, 2002) and is a significant factor in rate and success (proficiency gains) of language

learning (Dornyei, 1998). Anxiety has generally been viewed as detrimental to attention span and

deliberate focused learning tasks, such as vocabulary memorization and foreign language

communication role-play (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) defined

anxiety as a “subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry” (p.125).

Anxiety is negatively linked to foreign language learning and may prevent learners from

achieving a higher language proficiency (Aida, 1994). Although many have studied the effects

of motivation and anxiety in language learning (e.g., Brown, Robson, and Rosenkjar, 2001;

Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, and Mihic, 2004; Hao, Liu, and Hao, 2004) few studies have been

conducted to specifically define the relationship between the two although they both have been

significantly correlated with second language acquisition achievement (Liu and Huang, 2011).

The current study replicates Tsai & Chang (2013) who found that English learning anxiety

and English learning motivation were impacted by several factors such as gender, major, and

other factors. In their study, there was a total of 857 participants (452 male and 404 female),

who were enrolled in a university freshman English course. Participants were asked to complete

2

a survey, consisting of a 16-item Foreign Language Learning Motivation Scale (See Appendix

A), a 24-item Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (See Appendix B), and demographic

questions. All the items except the background questions were answered on a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Most learners experienced greater

instrumental motivation than integrative motivation while learning English but their classroom

levels of anxiety in learning English were higher than levels of English use test anxiety. In

addition, some of the factors influenced their levels of anxiety and motivation. For example,

male students had greater English class anxiety than English use and test anxiety. By contrast,

female students experienced greater English use and test anxiety than English class anxiety.

(They had two different majors: English-majoring students and non-English Majoring students).

The Tsai & Chang (2013) study also focused specifically on students learning English in a

school located in Taiwan. None of the students had significant in-country experience and all had

progressed through the school’s language program from novice level to higher levels.

The current study differs from Tsai & Chang (2013) because it examines extrinsic factors

such as significant in-country experience, various proficiency rates when beginning traditional

classroom learning, and analyzes multiple foreign language being taught. Brigham Young

University has become known as a language learning hub and teaches 62 different languages,

and 30 with sufficient interest, in the traditional classroom setting and nearly 65% of students

speaking a foreign language and 128 languages spoken on campus (Hollingshead, 2019). Many

students having begun their foreign language learning endeavors through significant in-country

experience. Proficiency levels were analyzed in relationship to anxiety and motivation in this

study in order to see whether extrinsic factors such as in-country experience and language

graduation requirements.

3

It will answer these three questions.

1. How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety vary depending on whether

taking a foreign language is a requirement for one’s major or not?

2. How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ depending on language

class level?

3. How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ for those who have

learned in a traditional classroom environment verses those with significant in-country

experience?

These three questions were investigated by asking current foreign language students

questions based on the Foreign Language Learning Questionnaire, Foreign Language Classroom

Anxiety Questionnaire (FLACS) (Gardner and Lambert, 1972) and a 24-item foreign language

anxiety level scale (Horowitz, 1986).

4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This study examines several important factors that can affect a learner’s motivation and

anxiety while learning a foreign language. This chapter will first discuss previous research on

motivation and anxiety. It will then address past research on the three factors pertinent to this

study: language class level, language context, and language requirement.

2.1 Motivation

Motivation is the start of a student’s entire language learning experience because it is

“what brought them there in the first place” or what propels the students through their language

learning struggles and “[I]n fact, neither ability nor good teaching without motivation is

sufficient to ensure success in foreign language learning” (Oliveira, 2011, pp. 20). A meta-

analysis of 75 different samples from studies totaling 10,489 learners found that higher

motivation leads to higher language class level achievement (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003).

Motivation is primary in initial second language learning and “later the driving force to sustain

the long and often tedious learning process; indeed, all the other factors involved in L2

acquisition presuppose motivation to some extent” (Dörnyei, 1998, p. 117). Without motivation

language acquisition would not be acquired. Terrell (1989, p. 208) explains that language

acquisition isn’t likely if the learner “is not open to the target language and culture” and that for

the learner lacking motivation to learn the language and lacking “empathy or identification with

speakers of the target language, acquisition will be difficult.” (Terrell, 1989).

It has been found that motivation is not constant through the lengthy process of mastering

certain subjects but is associated with a dynamically changing and evolving mental process,

characterized by constant (re)appraisal and balancing of the various internal and external

influences that the individual is exposed to (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003). Unlike personality and

5

aptitude, motivation is not viewed as a static attribute but instead something that changes from

day to day and even lesson to lesson (Dörnyei, 2006). This creates a complex dynamic that

makes motivation difficult to capture.

Gardner and Lambert (1972) conducted a twelve-year study including motivation as a

key variable in an attempt to understand the varying success rates of language learners. Their

approach was created from the study of social psychology causing the focus to be centered on

social and cultural aspects of language learning. They concluded that along with aptitude,

motivation is an integral part in the language learning process and that attitude affects one’s

motivation. Gardner (1985) states that motivation is in reference to the “combination of effort

plus desire to achieve the goal plus favourable attitudes towards learning the language” (p. 10).

2.1.1 Socio-Educational Model The original socio-educational model (1979) proposed that the dominate two factors in L2

learning were aptitude and motivation, with more emphasis on motivation. The model explored

motivation occurring in two separate learning environments: formal (class room) and informal

settings (cultural context). Gardner argued that formal (class room) and informal settings

(cultural context) played “distinct roles in boosting” a learner’s performance. “[T]he educational

context became a place where explicit instruction and correction occurs, whereas the cultural

context was an area allowing the learners to become immersed in the other culture without

placing any specific rules or instructions” (Gardner, 2011). In both learning environments

language learners become “increasingly knowledgeable and more confident” in various social

and cultural settings which in turn motivates them to gain further advancement and proficiency

in L2 (Sajid-us-Salam, 2008). This tends to have varying linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes.

Linguistic outcomes are that the learners are likely to develop L2 proficiency and fluency, where

non-linguistic outcomes can involve attitude changes toward the L2’s culture (Sajid-us-Salam,

6

M. 2008). Revisions to the socio-educational model in order to better explain motivation have

included the addition of three sub-measures: intensity, desire to learn, and attitude (Dörnyei,

1998). Many researchers claim that a learner’s attitude towards L2 learning has a high influence

on motivation because of its strong correlation with direct behavior such as learning (Dörnyei,

1998).

Linguistic self-confidence has arguably played “the most important role” in language

learning motivation (Dörnyei, 2005). “Linguistic self-confidence refers to a person's perceptions

of their own competence and ability to accomplish tasks successfully” (Clement, R 1980). It is

established through the interactions between the learner and language community members and

becomes increasingly strengthened through the quality and quantity of the interactions.

2.1.2 Motivation types Motivation has commonly been broken down into two types (Gardner and Lambert, 1972).

Integrative motivation refers to learning through a holistic effect (a focus on all parts of foreign

language learning instead of on one aspect at a time) with focus on language development and

culture, as well as the development of positive attitudes toward the target culture and a personal

desire and willingness to identify with the people and culture. Instrumental motivation refers to

learning by immediate and practical goals. It is also a reflection of practical advancement such as

career advancement (Bakker, 2007). In order for motivation to exist desire, effort, and positive

attitudes toward learning a foreign language are necessary (Gardner, 1985).

It was discovered in Gardner and Lambert’s study (1972) that integrative motivation,

mentioned above, was a stronger predicator in L2 achievements than instrumental motivation

and its effects continue to be explored today (Dörnyei, 2003; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Noels,

2001).

7

Dörnyei (2005) divides motivation differently using self-determination theory discussing

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation, similar to integrative motivation, refers to

learning a language for pleasure while extrinsic motivation relates to instrumental motivation in

reference to learning a foreign language because of punishment or reward from a social

environment (Noels et al., 2001). Noels (2001) also explored the self-determination theory and

developed the Language Learning Orientation Scale which “categorizes a person's motivational

orientation as either intrinsic, extrinsic, or amotivated based on a continuum of self-

determination.” Dörnyei (2005) found that in the language learning classroom teachers who were

“autonomy supportive and non-controlling” promoted intrinsic motivation learning in students.

Two other types of motivation have also been explored and will be examined in this

study. Intrinsic motivation occurs when students are motivated to learn a language for its access

to a group or culture. For example, proficiency in French gives access to original works of

French literature and can assist in gaining social status of being educated or the advantage of “the

usefulness of Spanish” in the United States occurs because of the high concentration of Hispanic

immigrants in the United States (Oliveira, 2011). Resultative motivation refers to the relationship

between motivation and achievement (UKEssays, 2018). Ellis (1994) explained resultative

motivation as “interactive” and that a learner’s motivation is “affected by their achievement”.

Gardner, Smythe and Clement (1979); suggested that “while greater motivation and attitudes

lead to better learning, the converse is not true” (Cited from Ellis, 1994).

In the current study, the relationship between motivation and language learning is

analyzed through two lenses: (1) looking at motivation wholistically (2) examining the effect of

instrumental, integrative, intrinsic and resultative motivation in particular. The current study

8

examines all of these types of motivation and how they may differ for students depending on

their language requirement, in-country experience, and language class level

2.2 Anxiety

Anxiety in foreign language learning was studied early in a psychological context as a single

broad construct (Guiora, Brannon, & Dull, 1972; Pimsleur, Mosberg, & Morrison, 1962; Smith,

1971). Its development was through studies in the field of psychology and was mainly measured

using psychological instruments (e.g., Alpert & Haber, 1960; Spielberger, 1983; Spielberger,

Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1968; Taylor, 1953). Distinctions were brought to aspects of anxiety

including facilitating (beneficial) and debilitating (inhibiting) as well as trait and state anxiety.

While anxiety is often viewed as negative there can be some positive aspects. Scovel (1991)

explains that facilitating anxiety “motivates the learner to ‘fight’ the new learning task; it gears

the learner emotionally for approach behavior” (p. 22). On the other hand, debilitating anxiety

“motivates the learner to ‘flee’ the new learning task; it stimulates the individual emotionally to

adopt avoidance behavior” (Scovel, 1991, p. 22). State anxiety refers to an emotional state of a

person consciously perceiving feelings of tension and apprehension as well as heightened

automatic nervous system activity to a present stressful situation (Coco, 1971) and trait anxiety

refers to a person’s tendency to experience anxiety traits in response to perceived threating

situations which increase elevations of their personal perceptions of stress (Spielberger, 1969).

These aspects broadened the depth of the construct of anxiety and spurred research into new

measures of anxiety as well as encouraging theoretical and methodological sophistication

(Scovel, 1978). Anxiety “is most typically seen as a debilitating factor (i.e., a factor negatively

affecting L2 acquisition)” (Dewey, Belnap, Steffen, 2018).

9

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) defined anxiety as a “subjective feeling of tension,

apprehension, nervousness, and worry” (p.125) – a feeling negatively linked to foreign language

learning that prevents learners from achieving a higher language proficiency (Aida, 1994).

“Anxiety can affect any individual, and it impacts most if not all language learners to some

extent, especially in a classroom setting” (Gaillard, 2017). Anxiety has also been described as

worrying about an event in the past, present, or future without regard towards if it might actually

occur or not (Anisman, 2015). Stress and anxiety have also been discussed as being nearly

synonymous. Stress can be described as an “emotional strain or tension” and is usually

accompanied by responses such as higher heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, indigestion (for

descriptions, see Irving, Dobkin & Park, 2009). “One might think of stress as a response to

stressors (demands exceeding current resources) and think of anxiety (worry over stressors) as an

additional stressor” (Dewey, Belnap, Steffen, 2018).

Horowitz et al. (1986) is well known for reconceptualizing second language acquisition

(SLA) research through the anxiety that occurs within foreign language classroom instruction

context and is credited with the development of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale

(FLCAS). FLCAS has become the standard for measuring foreign language classroom anxiety

(FLCA). The current study will use FLCAS to measure anxiety in participants. Other researchers

have studied other aspects of FLCA such as negative evaluation, fear of failing, and speech

anxiety, typically using items from the FLACS. Horowitz (2017) argues that many items from

the FLCAS scale have been related to test anxiety, speech anxiety, and communicative anxiety

and so forth, but that these were subcomponents of FLCA based on the results of the FLCAS,

and that FLCA is still its own distinct construct.

10

Horwitz, and Cope (1986) state that there are three main performance anxieties attributed to

language learning in a formal classroom setting, meaning the “formal learning of a language”

setting with peers. They are communication apprehension (example: I get nervous and confused

when I am speaking in my foreign language class), social evaluation (I am afraid the other

students will laugh at me when I speak my foreign language), and test anxiety (I am usually at

ease during tests in my foreign language class) because of the complexities of anxiety, it

manifests differently in different learners and may appear as a combination of these types.

2.2.1 Second Language Research In SLA research there has been a large focus on negative affective factors with anxiety being

the most commonly researched. Anxiety has been negatively linked to learners’ self-assessment

of their foreign language proficiency (Liu & Jackson, 2008), performance on sub-listening skills

of comprehension (Elkhafaifi, 2005), reading and writing (Argaman & Abu-Rabia, 2002) as well

as pronunciation (Szyszka, 2017)

Many applied linguist researchers have proposed methods in order to lessen the effects of

anxiety on individuals and to make strides to increase acquisition, including “The Natural

Approach” (see Krashen & Terrell 1983; Terrell 1977), “The Silent Way” (see Gattegno, 1972),

“Suggestopedia” (see Ostrander & Schroeder, 1970), and “Counseling Learning” (see Curran,

1976), all of which demonstrate a greater awareness of the negative effects of anxiety on

language learning.

SLA researchers have examined the cause of anxiety. Young (1991) identified six

interrelated sources of language learning anxiety. They are (1) fear of a real or anticipated act of

speaking, (2) learner beliefs toward language learning, (3) teacher beliefs about language

instruction, (4) interaction between instructor and learners, (5) classroom procedures, and (6)

language exams. Each of these six are related to one of two categories: personal and

11

interpersonal anxieties. Phillips (1991) collected data that suggests that students bring their own

misconceptions and expectations to class and this likely heightens anxiety. His research

concludes that those with anxiety will likely have a negative experience with language learning

and consequently have a negative attitude. Anxiety has been said to have the greatest impact on a

learner’s foreign language speaking abilities (Frantzen and Magnan, 2005; Horwitz et al., 1986).

Anxiety is also related to foreign language performance constructs including: attitude and

motivation (Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1994; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995), willingness to

communicate (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément & Noels, 1998), confidence and self-esteem

(Clément et al. 1994; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994), attitudes toward errors and mistakes (Mak &

White, 1997), and personality (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995).

Anxiety is typically divided into two types (Jackson, 2002). The first, situational anxiety is

anxiety that comes because of course contents, level, activities, and social interactions with peer

groups in class (Jackson, 2002). The second type is learning variables such as cultures, selfbelief,

and ability, for example, that may also affect anxiety (Brown, Robson, & Rosenkjar,2001;

Campbell, 1999; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002). These factors generally combine in different ways

to create different anxiety forms depending on each individual. For example, a common form of

anxiety appearing in language learners is in a classroom setting which usually consists of

nervousness during language activities, avoiding complex sentence structures, and a reticence

towards willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, 1995; MacIntyre, et. Al., 1997). It has also

been found that those with characteristic anxiety are more often people that are perfectionistic

(Price, 1991) or suffer from low self-esteem when comparing themselves to others (Cheng,

2002).

12

“Anxiety can affect any individual, and it impacts most if not all language learners to some

extent, especially in a classroom setting” (Gaillard, 2013, pp.22). The affective filter was

proposed when Krashen recognized the presence of anxiety in all language learners. Krashen’s

theory (1982) as explained in Omaggio Hadley (2001) states that the affective filter is low “when

the affective conditions are optimal: (1) the acquirer is motivated; (2) he has self-confidence and

a good self-image; and (3) his level of anxiety is low. When learners are ‘put on the defensive’

[...], the affective filter is high, and comprehensible input cannot ‘get in’” (p. 62). Krashen states

that all learners have an affective filter therefore it is necessary for teachers to reduce the

affective filter in order to enable students to progress in language acquisition (1982, as cited in

Omaggio Hadley, 2001). Suggestopedia and the Natural Approach were created in order to

reduce the learner’s anxiety and teachers were encouraged to give less error correction and allow

the students to experience a natural “silent stage” (Omaggio-Hadley, 2001). Further research has

shown that “anxiety can render the language learning experience so unpleasant that learners

often stop language study even when they are doing well” (Bichon, 2000). This current study

will also analyze the three different sub-types of anxiety. They are classroom, text anxiety and

fear of negative evaluation.

2.3 Language class level, language learning experience, and language requirement

fulfillment

The following section outlines previous research on the relationship between motivation and

anxiety and the three factors examined in this study (language class level, language learning

experience, and language requirement).

2.3.1 Language Class Level The correlation between anxiety and motivation has spurred many studies with various

results. In relation to language class levels, Liu (2006) found that English proficiency was

13

positively correlated with the student’s motivation to learn. In Hessel’s study on German

Learners it was found that anxiety, with other variables, predicated foreign language proficiency

gains on German learners (Hessel, 2016). It was found in a study of Saudi students learning

English in Ireland that proficiency in English was the best predictor on classroom anxiety

experienced abroad (Alhammad, 2017). There have also been results showing that those with

less anxiety exceeded their peers because they accelerate faster at language learning proficiency

(Aida, 1994). Brown, Robson, and Rosenkjar, (2001), stated that learners’ motivation and

anxiety were negatively correlated, and a lack of motivation could be the cause of anxious

behaviors. In short, this current study will evaluate the relationship between anxiety and

motivation in language class level to further explore the effect of proficiency level (defined in

the study as a class level) and levels of motivation and anxiety.

2.3.2 Language Context Language context has also been of wide interest. Gardner (1985) explains that “languages

are unlike any other subject taught in a classroom in that they involve the acquisition of skills

and behaviour patterns, which are characteristics of another community” (p.146). He attributes

the nature of such complexity to the social adaptations and changes that learning a foreign

language entails. Woodrow (2006) makes an important statement when saying that “[a]

distinction is made...between learning English as a foreign language and learning English as a

second language. It is argued that living in an environment where the target language is also the

language of everyday communication may influence anxiety” (p. 309). Woodrow’s (2006)

participants stated that their anxiety “became heightened” most often when speaking with native

speakers. This statement implies that the environment in which a language is learned is a

contributing factor to anxiety level. It seems reasonable to assume that a student learning

English in the United States would experience more anxiety because of the necessity to use

14

English outside of the classroom (e.g. at the grocery store). That could mean that there are

language learners who begin experience less anxiety in a formal classroom setting after having

experienced a significant in-country language learning opportunity but more research would be

required. Effiong (2016) also adds that “[w]ith different results emerging from different FLA

studies, it is clear that anxiety is not stable across instructional contexts” (p. 137). These

“instructional contexts” include English as a second language, English foreign language, and

university students studying second or additional languages. Both Woodrow (2006) and Effiong

(2016) agree that more research exploring ESL anxiety is needed.

A widely cited study regarding foreign language anxiety and study abroad used mixed

methods to analyze anxiety of the 25 participants learning French as a foreign language who

spent 6 weeks abroad in Paris. The Foreign Language Anxiety Scale was used to measure

classroom anxiety, the French Use Anxiety Scale to measure anxiety during every day, out-of-

class communicative interactions (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995), and their own State Anxiety

Scale to measure participants opinions on their own anxiety when engaging in the language

assessments administered for the research project. Open ended surveys and interviews followed

the study abroad in order to understand sources and manifestations of anxiety during the study

abroad. It was found that anxiety, over all three anxiety scales, decreased over the 6-week study

abroad. Participants also expressed insecurities about linguistic incompetence and cultural

familiarity early on and later were described as having a sense of “confidence, calm, and poise”.

The change occurred because of linguistic “victories”, wants and needs, and common

communications with native speakers (Allen & Herron, 2003, p. 378). It is believed that levels of

communicative anxiety decreased as learners become more capable of daily communicative

situations and being able to meet their own personal needs.

15

Further supporting the idea that time abroad can further reduce anxiety, Hessel (2016)

found that anxiety decreased (as measured by items assessing anxiety interacting out of the class)

over a three-month period of a year-long study abroad by 143 Germans studying in the United

Kingdom. Thompson and Lee (2014) found that good predictors of the Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety Scale results were the amount of time spent abroad and the self-reported

foreign language class level based off of a study for Korean learners of English which spent

various amounts of time abroad. After a year of living in an English-speaking country it was

found that their anxiety levels were lower overall on the FLCAS than those with less experience.

They also stated that “initial experience abroad can actually cause more anxiety”. MacIntyre and

Gardner (1994) found, “as time passes, this anxiety is lessened to the point of being less than

before the experience abroad” (Thompson & Lee, 2014, p. 271). In their study, they had learners

who had been only a few weeks abroad, a time period that others (e.g., Roitblat, Cleminson,

Kavin, Schonberger, & Shterenshis, 2017) have believed is when anxiety peaks during study

abroad.

Addressing the notion of anxiety changes in the first few weeks abroad, Wang (2016)

using qualitative methods (interviews, observations, diaries) to analyze anxiety during a 3-week

study abroad period, found no reduction in anxiety or increase in anxiety. She notes a complex

relationship between anxiety, identity, social interaction, and language development. Wang says

that there was “minimal impact on students’ English language learning in general and on

reducing their anxiety in particular” (p. iii).

Another way researchers’ have sought to understand anxiety in the language learning

context is to study the difference between foreign language anxiety and second language anxiety.

These two contexts differ in that second language anxiety occurs in a situation where the

16

language being learned is spoken in the environment outside of the classroom, such as those

language learners studying English in an English language setting such as the United States,

Canada, or Australia. In foreign language anxiety, however, the language is not widely spoken

outside of the classroom environment (Chakrabarti & Sengupta, 2012, p. 58) as in situations

where English is being learned as a foreign language (such as in China, Japan, or Korea). This

distinction in contexts is important to make because the nature of the environment might have an

effect on the level and type of anxiety the learner experiences (Woodrow, 2006, p. 309).

Empirical data found that those with anxiety in foreign language learning were less

willing to be involved in learning activities, which negatively impacted their performance results

than those who were less anxious (Aida, 1994). It has also been found that learners’ motivation

and anxiety were negatively correlated, and a lack of motivation could be the cause of anxious

behaviors (Brown, Robson, and Rosenkjar, 2001).

2.3.3 Language Requirement Another area of interest has been extrinsic factors in language learning, for example,

requirements for graduation. To reiterate, extrinsically motivated participants are those

motivation to learning a language by punishment or reward by a social environment (Dörnyei &

Csizér, 2005). Extrinsic factors can refer to the effect of significant others (spouses, parents,

teachers), the nature of interaction with others, the learning environment, cultural norms, wider

family networks, and local education system (requirement to graduate) (M. Williams, R. Burden,

1997). For example, “both the student learning a language because it’s a requirement of a degree

program and the student learning a language because she feels it will help her develop her talents

in her chosen career are learning the language because it is instrumental to achieving an end

other than enjoyment of the activity…” (Dörnyei, Schmidt, 2001, p. 361-398). They are learning

because “of some possibility of attaining a reward” which could be achieving coursework in

17

order to graduate (Dörnyei, Schmidt, 2001, p. 361-398). Gardner and MacIntyre (1991)

conducted a study based on whether participants would perform better on a vocabulary activity

with a reward at the end. They found that the participants who were offered rewards at the end of

the vocabulary task outperformed than the other comparable groups but as soon as the reward

ended the positive increase ceased. The current study will also explore an effect extrinsic factors

such as requirement to graduate to determine how they might affect the participants' anxiety and

motivation during the language learning process.

While many conclusions have been drawn no definite answer on the correlation between

anxiety and motivation has been concluded. However, based on existing literature, the complex

relationships and correlations between motivation, anxiety, and language-learning outcomes is

clear (Liu and Huang, 2012). A negative correlation between second and foreign language

learning anxiety and achievement has been addressed in these studies mentioned earlier

(Horwitz, 2001; Aida, 1994).


studying a foreign language are affected by a participant’s language requirement (whether a

participant has a language requirement as part of their education), language class level, and

language learning environment (those with traditional classroom verses in-country experience).

The current study is needed in order to better analyze the relationship between motivation and

anxiety and the factors mentioned above.

18

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Participants

124 participants from a traditional classroom setting currently taking a foreign language

class at Brigham Young University completed a survey sent in an email, with another 9

participants starting the survey but not finishing it. Participants had the option to take the survey,

if they were 18 years of age or older. The participants most likely varied from novice to

advanced high levels, based off of the ACTFL scale rating of each course although for this study

language class level was used to determine proficiency. There were 37 participants in 100 level

courses, 10 in 200 level courses, 54 in 300 level courses, and 10 who were in 400+ classes.

Sixteen participants whose language class level was unknown were not included in the analysis.

Students’ L2 class levels were determined by the classroom level they were currently enrolled in.

Thirty-five participants were required to take the class for graduation requirements, 79 were

taking the class for other reasons, and 10 were unknown and were not included in the analysis.

Sixty participants had significant in- country experience and 65 did not. Within the group that

had significant in-country experience, 44 participants received in-country experience through

year and a half to two-year missionary service abroad, four participants completed an internship

or a study abroad, one learned through military training, and two participants through visiting

family, and ten participants lived in the target language country for an extended period for other

reasons.

The survey was sent by email to the Center of Language Studies at Brigham Young

University which was then sent to all Brigham Young University foreign language teachers

currently teaching a foreign language class, who then forwarded the survey to their students of

19

every foreign language level. Participants were than notified that they could take the survey if

they would like and that taking the survey would not their grades.

3.2 Instrument

The survey consisted of three parts. There was a background section (questions included

asking the participants about their age, foreign language, reason for taking the language class,

any outside foreign language learning, current college major, etc. (see Appendix A), a 16 item

Foreign Language Scale, (Gardner and Lambert, 1972) (see Appendix B), and a 24-item Foreign

Language Anxiety Level Scale (Horowitz, 1986), (see Appendix C). The 16-item Foreign

language scale (Gardner and Lambert, 1972) and a 24-item foreign language anxiety level scale

(Horowitz, 1986) had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “Strongly

agree”. The 24-item foreign language anxiety level scale had a high score of 120 and a low score

of 24.

The 16-item Foreign Language Scale (Gardner and Lambert, 1972) was designed to

measure four sub types of motivation. The four dimensions are integrative orientation (questions

1 to 4), instrumental orientation (questions 5 to 10), resultative orientation (questions 11 to 13),

and intrinsic orientation (questions 14 to 16). For this section, there is possible a high score of 80

and a low score of 16.

The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale originally had 33 questions items

(Horwitz et, 1986). Nine of the original 33 question items were deemed ‘inappropriate’ by a

review panel in Tsai & Chang (2013) therefore they were removed. The replication of this study

also eliminated those 9 questions. The remaining 24 items were used in the survey. These 24

items are divided into three broad categories (1) communication anxiety, (2) test anxiety, and (3)

fear of negative evaluation. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale was also used to

20

measure two dimensions of foreign language classroom anxiety. They are foreign language use/

test anxiety (questions 1 to 9), and Foreign Language Class Anxiety (questions 10 to 24). The

24-item foreign language anxiety level scale had a high score of 120 and a low score of 24.

All questions were listed in English in order to avoid confusion. The complete surveys

are given in Appendix A, B, and C.

3.3 Data Collection

Data collection was collected using an online Qualtrics survey. The data was collected

through an online survey. Participants were than notified that they could take the survey if they

would like and that taking the survey would not their grades. Participants were not paid for their

participation.

3.4 Data Analyses

The survey consisted of three parts. They are a background section (see Appendix A), a

16 item Foreign Language Scale, (Gardner and Lambert, 1972), and a 24-item Foreign Language

Anxiety Level Scale (Horowitz, 1986). Each were answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from “strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. A higher score indicates a higher level of foreign

language anxiety or motivation, with an average score per section and two separate composites

for anxiety and motivation.

For each of the study’s three questions two one-way ANOVAs were run, one examining

motivation scores and another examining anxiety scores. These analyses were in order to

understand the relationship between foreign language motivation and anxiety in correlation to

language requirement, language class level, and significant in-country experience. Further

analyses of language requirement, language class level, and significant in-country experience

21

(spent a substantial amount of time in country learning the foreign language) was examined

using two one-way ANOVAs to analyze the sub types of motivation and anxiety.

22

4. RESULTS

4.1 Question 1: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety vary depending

on whether it is a requirement for one’s major or not?

To answer this first question, two one-way ANOVAs were run, one examining the

motivation scores and one examining the anxiety scores for the participants with motivation

scores as the dependent variables and requirement (yes or no) as the independent variable. Those

participants who were required to take a foreign language for their major scored 58.11 on

average (N = 36, SD = 9.76) while those who were not required to take a foreign language

scored 53.17 (N = 79, SD = 9.78) on the motivation scale.

It was found that there was a significant difference in motivation for those whose majors

required taking foreign language courses F(1,114) = 6.297, p = .014, ήp2 = .053. As such

participants whose majors required a foreign language course (58.11) scored significantly higher

than those whose majors did not (53.17). See Figure 1 below.

23

Figure 1: Motivation Scores on Language Requirement

Those participants who were required to take a foreign language for their major scored

58.44 on average (N = 36, SD = 9.76) while those who were not required to take a foreign

language scored 53.17 (N = 79, SD = 9.78) on the anxiety scale. While See Figure 2 below.

However, there was no significant difference between the two types on the anxiety test (F(1,114)

= .728, p = .395, ήp2= .395).

58.111153.1772

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Motivation Scores on Language Requirement

Mean

24

Figure 2: Anxiety Scores of Language Requirement

4.2 Question 2: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ depending

on language class level?

In order to answer question 2, again, two one-way ANOVAs were run, one with

motivation and one with anxiety scores for the 4 class levels. Neither anxiety nor motivation

scores differed depending on class level (motivation: F(3,112) = 1.73, p = .164, ήp2= .046;

anxiety F(3,112) = 2.099, p = .105, ήp2= .055). Therefore, it was found that there were no

significant differences between the various class levels.

58.444453.1772

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Anixiety Scores on Language Requirement

Mean

25

Figure 3: Motivation Scores for Language Class Level

The participants scored 54.38 on average (N (100 level) = 38, N (200 level) =11, N (300

level) = 54, N (400 level) = 10; SD (100 level) = 9.70, SD (200 level) = 9.01, SD (300 level) =

10.49, SD (400 level) = 4.03) on the motivation scale. See in Figure 3 above.

On the anxiety scale averagely, participants who were in the 100 level class scored

56.63, 200 level class participants scored 63.36, 300 level class participants scored 56,17, and

400 level students participants scored 50.7. On average all the participants scored 56.54 (N (100

level) = 38, N (200 level) =11, N (300 level) = 54, N (400 level) = 10; SD (100 level) = 11.76,

SD (200 level) = 17.02, SD (300 level) = 10.90, SD (400 level) = 7.61). See in Figure 4 below.

56.4474

4954.2037 53.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

100 Level 200 Level 300 Level 400 Level

Motivaiton Scores for Language Class Level

Mean

26

Figure 4: Anxiety scores on Language Proficiency

4.3 Question 3: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ for those

who have learned in a traditional classroom environment verses those with significant in-

country experience?

Finally, a similar analysis was run to answer question 3. In this analysis, participants with

significant in-country experience were compared to participants with no in-country experience

using two one-way ANOVAs, one for motivation and one for anxiety scores.

Participants with significant in- country experience were compared to participants with

no in-country experience. Participants with no in-country experience scored 54.59 on average (N

= 61, SD = 9.98) while those who did not have a foreign language requirement scored 54.71 (N =

56, SD = 9.76) on the motivation scale. As shown visually in Figure 5 below. There was no

significant difference between the two groups on the motivation test F(1,116) = 1.66; p = .283,

ήp2= .010 It was found that significant in- country experience did not affect motivation.

56.6316

63.3636

56.166750.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

100 Level 200 Level 300 Level 400 Level

Anxiety scores for Language Proficiency

Mean

27

Figure 5: Motivation for Significant In- Country Experience

The anxiety scale of participants with significant in-country experience were compared to

participants with no in-country experience. Participants with no in-country experience scored

55.57 on average (N = 61, SD = 13.00) while those who were not required to take a foreign

language scored 58.16 (N = 56, SD = 12.87) on the motivation scale. However, there was no

significant difference between the two groups on the anxiety test F(1, 116) = .005, p = .946, ήp2=

.000 It was found that significant in- country experience did not affect anxiety. See Figure 6

below.

54.5902 54.7143

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Motivation for Significant In- Country Experience

Mean

28

Figure 6: Anxiety for Significant In-Country Experience

4.5 Results of proficiency level, language requirement, and significant in-country

experience on different sub types of motivation and anxiety

Analyses of the sub types of motivation and anxiety in relation to proficiency level,

language requirement, and significant in-country experience wasn’t originally planned but later

became of interest in better understanding the relationship between motivation and anxiety in

language learning. Statistics were also run on the varying types of motivation and anxiety levels

in order to better examine their relation to proficiency level, language requirement, and

significant in-country experience. The varying types of motivation examined were integrative

orientation, instrumental orientation, resultative orientation, and intrinsic orientation and anxiety

types being communication anxiety and test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. The results

are organized by relation to proficiency level, language requirement, and significant in-country

experience.

4.5 Results of proficiency on different types of motivation and anxiety

55.573858.1607

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Anxiety for Significant In- Country Experience

Mean

29

A series of two, one for motivation and for anxiety, one- way ANOVAs were run on data

for the 4 proficiency levels, similar to the analyses described above. Only one of these analyses

reached significance. It was found that 200 level students had greater Language Class Anxiety

and lower resultative motivation than the other groups did. These findings are summarized in

Table 1.

Table 1: Results of proficiency on different types of motivation and anxiety

Score F statistic Significance ήp2 Integrative Orientation (motivation)

.807 .493 .022

Language Class Anxiety

3.5 .01 .088 (group 2 scored lower than the other groups)

Intrinsic Orientation (motivation)

.761 .519 .021

Instrumental Orientation (motivation)

.911 .438 .024

Resultative orientation (motivation)

3.047 .032 .077 (group 2 scored lower than the other groups)

Language Use and Test Anxiety

.219 .883 .006

4.5.1 Results of Significant in-Country Experience on different types of motivation and anxiety

In order to answer question 2, again, two one-way ANOVAs were run, for the

participants motivation and anxiety sub types scores. There was no significant difference

between the motivational and anxiety types in those with no significant in-country experience

and those with significant in-country experience with regards to the five additional analyses.

These findings are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Results of Significant in-Country Experience on different types of motivation and

anxiety


1.042 .309 .009

30


2.49 .117 .022


2.49 .117 .022


.851 .358 .008

Resultative Orientation (motivation)

.001 .979 .000


.482 .489 .004

4.5.2 Results of Language Requirement on different types of motivation and anxiety

Finally, a similar analysis was run to assess the effect of integrative orientation,

instrumental orientation, resultative orientation, and intrinsic orientation and anxiety types being

communication anxiety and test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation on language

requirement. The results indicate that there was a significant difference in those that were

required to take the language as a requirement though it only affected their instrumental

motivation (see Table 3).

Table 3: Results of Language Requirement on different types of motivation and anxiety


1.37 .258 .025


.006 .994 .000


.298 .743 .005


8.301 .000 .132

Resultative Orientation (motivation)

1.11 .33 .02


.808 .448 .015

The significant findings involving language requirement were that there was a significant

difference in motivation for those whose majors required taking foreign language courses and

through further analyses of the motivation sub types it was found it only affected their

31

instrumental motivation. It was also found that 200 level students had greater Language Class

Anxiety and lower resultative motivation than the other groups did.

32

5. DISCUSSIONS


studying a foreign language are affected by a participant’s language requirement (whether a

participant has a language requirement as part of their education), language level

(operationalized as their class level), and language learning environment (those with traditional

classroom or in-country experience). This section will discuss the results of these three research

questions:

1. How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety vary depending on whether

taking a foreign language is a requirement for one’s major or not?

2. How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ depending on language

proficiency?

3. How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ for those who have

learned in a traditional classroom environment verses those with significant in-country

experience?

Along with discussing the findings for each of these questions this section will also discuss

this study’s limitations, future research ideas, and implications.

5.1 Question 1: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety vary depending

on whether it is a requirement for one’s major or not?

It was found that there was a significant difference in motivation for those whose majors

required taking foreign language courses. More statistical analyses were also run on the sub

types of anxiety and motivation. The results indicate that there was a significant difference

between those that were required to take the language as a requirement and those who did not. It

was found that language requirement only affected instrumental motivation (referencing to

33

learning by immediate and practical goals. However, there was no significant difference between

the two groups on the anxiety test.

These results were to be expected because of previous research done with previous

findings that have extrinsic factors (language requirement) significantly altered motivation

(Dörnyei and Schmidt, 2001, p. 361-398) and increase performance levels (MacIntyre, 1991).

The results of motivation in participants learning a foreign language were similar to the results in

the Tsai & Chang (2013) study. They found that “[i]n general, instrumental motivation plays an

important role in English learning motivation to English-majoring students, whereas, integrative

motivation plays a significant part in English learning motivation to non-English-majoring

students.”

The results of anxiety testing were surprising because Tsai & Change (2013) found that

there was a significant increase on participant’s anxiety who had a language requirement but in

the current study anxiety was not altered because of a participant’s language requirement. This is

interesting because it was originally thought that anxiety would be higher in those who had

extrinsic factors. Tsai & Change (2013) had 857 participants and divided them into two groups:

English-majoring students and non-English-majoring students. This current study divided the

participants into two different groups: Majors with a foreign language requirement and majors

without a foreign language requirement. This division was made because there was a lower

number of participants with a foreign language as their major.

These results advance our knowledge of the relationship between motivation and

extrinsic factors in language learning in that those who are instrumentally motivated have higher

motivation levels than those who aren’t instrumentally motivated, and that anxiety wasn’t

affected based on language requirement in this study.

34

5.2 Question 2: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ

depending on language proficiency?

It was found that neither general anxiety nor general motivation scores differed

depending on proficiency level. The different types of motivation and anxiety sub types were

also analyzed using statistical analyses. It was discovered that 200 level students had greater

language class anxiety and lower resultative motivation (relationship to achievement) than the

other groups did.

The proficiency levels results were as expected because in Tsai & Chang (2013) found that

varied English language proficiency groups had only a “slight effect on English learning

motivation of the intermediate group.” They also found that higher-intermediate, intermediate or

lower-intermediate levels “identified that their English class anxieties were more extreme than

those regarding English use and test anxiety.” This was also found in the current study. In the

current study it was discovered that the 200 level students had greater language class anxiety but

also found a varied result from Tsai & Change (2013) that 200 level participants had lower

resultative motivation.

Proficiency levels were analyzed in this study to see the relevance on whether extrinsic

factors such as in- country experience and language graduation requirements had an effect on the

anxiety and motivation of participants learning a language in a traditional classroom setting.

Previous research indicates that those with high proficiency rates may still experience high levels

of anxiety when using their foreign language furthermore anxiety has been negatively linked to

obtaining higher proficiency rates (Aida, 1994). Liu (2006) found that English proficiency was

positively correlated with the student’s motivation to learn.

35

Since there was no change in motivation and anxiety from participants in lower proficiency

rates to those in higher proficiency rates it is reasonable to conclude that proficiency rate had a

consistent effect on their motivation or anxiety on learning a language through the many

proficiency levels. However, in further analyses of motivation and anxieties sub types the results

in that 200 level students had greater language class anxiety and lower resultative motivation

than the other groups which adds to what is unique to this study. This could because of the

anticipation of having the following class be with students who may have experienced 1-2 years

learning a foreign language out of the class.

5.3 Question 3: How do foreign language learning motivation and anxiety differ for those

who have learned in a traditional classroom environment verses those with significant in-

country experience?

It was found that significant in-country experience did not affect overall motivation or

anxiety. Further analyses into the sub types of motivation and anxiety also indicated that there

was no significant difference between the motivational and anxiety types of those with no

significant in-country experience and those with significant in-country experience.

In-country experiences and traditional classroom settings have been known to alter the

motivation and anxiety levels in participants. In both learning environments language learners

become “increasingly knowledgeable and more confident” in various social and cultural settings

which in turn motivates them to gain further advancement and proficiency in L2 (Sajid-us-

Salam, M. 2008).

In one study involving anxiety and residence abroad, Woodrow (2006) found that

“…living in an environment where the target language is also the language of everyday

communication may influence anxiety” (p. 309). Allen & Herron (2003) conducted a study with

36

participants studying French in France for a 6-week study abroad. They found that over all three

anxiety scales that participant’s anxiety levels became less over the 6-week study abroad and

later the participants described themselves as becoming “confident, calm, and poised.” Contrary

to this sort of previous research the current study indicates that there was no significant anxiety

difference between those with in-country experience and those without.

The results tell us that anxiety and motivation, including anxiety and motivation sub types,

were not altered when a participant had a significant in-country experience verses those who

have only learned in a traditional classroom setting at the particular time the questionnaire was

completed. The results of this current study are interesting because even with a strong

relationship with culture, native speakers, and living in the country these experiences have not

affected participant’s motivation on learning the language or their anxiety on using the foreign

language more than those without in country experience.

37

6. CONCLUSION

Although this research was planned out with thoughtful care there are limitations to

consider. This study is limited in that it only measured anxiety and motivation at one specific

moment in time (the moment when the questionnaire was answered) verses either various

moments throughout the semester or when they were experiencing a significant in-country

experience verses the present moment of learning in a classroom setting. With regard to

significant in-country experience not all participants listed the length of time they spent abroad.

Specifically, examining exact length of time spent in significant in-country experience may have

altered the results.

Secondly, another limitation is that participants pursuing more than just a major in their

current program of study, such as university minors or a language certificate, were not

recognized when analyzing whether a language was required to graduate. Considering a program

minor is not required but are decided upon by the participant participating in school although

there are certain minors that require a language requirement in order to obtain them. This current

study did not ask if the participants were enrolled in a university minor or language certificate

alongside their major, they were only their college major was.

Another limitation of the study was in how the statistics were conducted. Each factor

(language requirement, language proficiency and language experience) were analyzed separately.

It is likely that a mixed effects analysis that included all factors in the analysis would have

produced more accurate results of the influence of these three factors on anxiety and motivation.

Further research is needed to verify the statistical analyses in this thesis.

The final limitation was that proficiency rate was measured by which class level the

participant was enrolled in at the time of the study and not by the objective test. There often are

38

participants who enroll in classes not appropriate for their levels (typically lower than they can

handle) for reasons such as the time the course is offered being convenient or the need for an

easier class to complement harder ones in a given term. Therefore, there may be participants

classified as lower level even though they qualify at higher proficiency levels.

Despite its limitations, this study does include important implications to better the

understanding of how foreign languages are learned. First it was found that language requirement

had a significant effect on motivation specifically participants instrumental motivation.

Secondly, it was also found that 200 level participants experienced greater language class anxiety

and lower resultative motivation than the other groups. This adds to research that there is a

difference between proficiency levels on certain anxiety and motivation types and that language

requirement do have an effect on participants’ motivation.

6.1 Implications and Further Research

The implications of this study open some avenues for future research. Some of the

limitations listed in the previous section could be addressed in further research and improve the

findings. More research can be done using the current data collected, such as analyzing the

relationship between the participant’s specific languages in relation to anxiety and motivation as

well as research based on why each participant has chosen their specific language to learn. The

sub types of motivation and anxiety type could also be analyzed in future research in relation to

why the participant chose a specific language.

Future research could be done on a participant’s current language context in relation to

long- term effects (after the significant in-country experience) on anxiety and motivation. For

example, researchers could compare motivation and anxiety before, during and after in-country

39

experiences and also see how those responses compare with anxiety levels at-home in a

classroom before or after residence abroad.

There also can be further analysis of why only 200 level students experienced greater

language class anxiety and lower resultative motivation than the other groups. A further analysis

into the differences between the proficiency levels could yield interesting results. Such as

examining the differences of proficiency level by further analyses of the sub types of anxiety and

motivation.

In conclusion, though this study has its limitations it does adds to the body of knowledge

already existing in the field. First that it was found that there was a significant difference in

motivation for those whose majors required taking foreign language courses. Specifically, the

results of the sub types of motivation indicate that there was a significant difference in those that

were required to take the language as a requirement though it only affected their instrumental

motivation. The second significant finding of this study is that there was no effect on motivation

and anxiety levels of participants with regard to proficiency level aside from the fact that 200-

level students had greater Language Class Anxiety and lower resultative motivation than the

other groups did. The third significant finding was that significant in-country experience did not

affect motivation or anxiety.

40

7. APPENDIX

7.1 Appendix A: Background Questionnaire

1. What is your current major? 2. What foreign language class are you currently enrolled in? (please include course code) 3. Have you studied this foreign language before taking a class? If so, where? 4. Why are you taking a foreign language class? 5. Why have you chosen to learn this specific foreign language? 6. Are you over the age of 18?

7.2 Appendix B: Foreign Language Learning Motivation Questionnaire

1. My foreign language will help me acquire new ideas and broaden my outlook. 2. My foreign language will enable me to better understand and appreciate my foreign

language’s culture. 3. I am interested in my foreign language’s music. 4. I can learn more about the world through learning my foreign language. 5. My foreign language is necessary to get a good job. 6. My foreign language is essential to be active in society. 7. My foreign language will help me if I should ever travel abroad. 8. My foreign language is essential for personal development. 9. My foreign language will be helpful for my future career. 10. My foreign language will help me to pass my exams and graduate from college. 11. I like to discuss something in my foreign language but not in first language. 12. I enjoy discussions in my foreign language class. 13. It is important to use a course book in class. 14. I feel freer expressing myself in my foreign language than I do in first language. 15. I try to use my foreign language as much as possible in class time. 16. I always enjoy learning my foreign language.

7.3 Appendix C: Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Questionnaire

1. I am usually at ease during tests in my foreign language class. 2. I worry about the consequences of failing in my foreign language. 3. I get nervous when my foreign language teacher asks questions when I have not prepared

in advance. 4. The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get. 5. When called up on to use my foreign language, I feel very much at ease. 6. I feel anxious if someone asks me something in my foreign language. 7. I would feel uncomfortable speaking my foreign language under any circumstances. 8. I would feel quite relaxed if I had to ask street directions in my foreign language. 9. It would bother me if I had to speak my foreign language on the phone. 10. I don’t usually get a clear idea when I have to respond to a question in my foreign

language class.

41

11. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my foreign language class. 12. I always feel that the other students speak my foreign language better than I do. 13. I feel confident when asked to participate in my foreign language class. 14. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my foreign language class. 15. I am afraid the other students will laugh at me when I speak my foreign language. 16. I don’t worry about making mistakes in my foreign language class. 17. During my foreign language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing

to do with the course. 18. I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying. 19. Even if I am well prepared for my foreign language class, I feel anxious about it. 20. I often feel like not going to my foreign language class. 21. I am afraid that my foreign language teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make. 22. My foreign language class moves so quickly, I worry about getting left behind. 23. I feel more tense and nervous in my foreign language class than in other classes. 24. When I am on my way to my foreign language class, I feel very sure and relaxed.

42

8. REFERENCES

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language

anxiety: The case of student of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155-168.

Al-Saraj, T.M. (2014). Revisiting the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS): The

anxiety of female English language learners in Saudi Arabia. L2 Journal, 6(1), 50-76.

Alhammad, M. (2017). Motivation, anxiety and gender: How they influence the acquisition of

English as a second language for Saudi students studying in Ireland. PEOPLE:

International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 93–104.

Allen, H. W., & Herron, C. (2003). A mixed-methodology investigation of the linguistic and

affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 370–385.

Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 207–215.

Anisman, H. (2015). Stress and your health: From vulnerability to resilience. West Sussex, UK:

Wiley.

Argaman, O., & Abu-Rabia, S. (2002). The influence of language anxiety on English reading and

writing tasks among native Hebrew speakers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15,

143–160.

Bakker, S. C., "BYU Students' Beliefs About Language Learning and Communicative Language

Teaching Activities" (2007). Theses and Dissertations. 1230.

Bichon, L. M., "The Effects of Use of A Metacognitive Strategy on the Language Anxiety of

Missionaries at the Missionary Training Center" (2000). Theses and Dissertations. 4528.

Brown, J., Robson, G., & Rosenkjar, P. R. (2001). Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies,

and language proficiency of Japanese students.

43

Campbell, C. M. (1999). Language anxiety in men and women: Dealing with gender difference

in the language classroom. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second

language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere.

(pp. 191-215). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Chakrabarti, A., Sengupta, M. (2012). Second language learning anxiety and its effect on

achievement in the language. Language in India, 12(8), 50-78

Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language

Annals, 35, 647-656.

Chu, M. (2003). English teacher education program: Taiwanese novice teachers’ and classroom

teachers’ view on their perception. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont

Graduate University, Claremont, CA)

Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group

cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.

Chu, M. (2003). English teacher education program: Taiwanese novice teachers’ and classroom

teachers’ view on their perception. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont

Graduate University, Claremont, CA)

Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group

cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.

Coco, H. B., "The Relationship Between Trait and State Anxiety and a Projective Personality

Test." (1971). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2040

Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold

Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language

Teaching, 31, 117-135.

44

Dewey, D. P., Clifford. R. T., & Cox, T. (2014). L1, L2, and cognitive development: Exploring

relationships. In N. A. Brown & J. Bown (Eds.), To advanced proficiency and beyond:

Theory and methods for developing superior second language ability. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31,

117-135.

Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 361-398).

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman: New York.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in

Theory, Research, and Applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), 3– 32.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second

language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Multilingual

Matters, 37(4), 741–743.

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology

Effiong, O. (2016). Getting them speaking: Classroom social factors and foreign language

anxiety. TESOL Journal 7, 132-161.

Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success.

45

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

Modern Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H.

Giles, W.

Frantzen, D., & Magnan, S. (2005). Anxiety and the true-false beginner dynamic in beginning

French and Spanish classes. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 171-186.

Gaillard, Celine, "The Effects of Pre-Speaking Planning on Students' Performance during

Speaking Tasks" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 4067.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes

and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2011). "The socio-educational model of second language acquisition". Canadian

Issues: 24–27.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contribution to second language learning.

Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.

Gardner, R. C., Day, J.B., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). Integrative motivation, induced anxiety,

and language learning in a controlled environment. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 14, 197-214.

Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L, (2004). Integrative motivation:

Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning, 54,

1-34.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080246963500272

46

Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-

anxious language learner’s reactions to their own oral performance. Modern Language

Journal, 86, 562-570.

Guiora, A. Z., Brannon, R. C., & Dull, C. Y. (1972). Empathy and second language learning.

Language

Hao, M., Liu, M., & Hao, R. P. (2004) An empirical study on anxiety and motivation in English

as a foreign language. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 14, 89–104.

Hessel, G. (2016). The impact of participation in ERASMUS study abroad in the UK on students’

overall English language proficiency, self-efficacy, English use anxiety and self-

motivation to continue learning English: A mixed methods investigation (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation) University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Horwitz, & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom

implications (pp. 101-108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Review, 6, 88-106.

Hogue, Joshua Alan, "The Effects of One-on-One Teaching on Chinese Speaking Ability,

Student Anxiety, and Student Preference" (2017). Theses and Dissertations. 6340.

Hollingshead, T. (2019, January 30). BYU one of nation’s highest producers of foreign-language

degrees. News. https://news.byu.edu/news/byu-top-producer-foreign-language-degrees-

nation

Hoopes, R. S., "Teaching Practice and Motivation Among Albanian and Japanese Missionaries"

(2015). Theses and Dissertations. 5500.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz , M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The

Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132

47

Huang, H. (2001). Current teaching approaches in Taiwanese English classrooms and

recommendations for the future. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate

University, Claremont, CA)

Irving, J. A., Dobkin, P. L., & Park, J. (2009). Cultivating mindfulness in health care

professionals: A review of empirical studies of mindfulness-based stress reduction

(MBSR). Complementary therapies in clinical practice, 15(2), 61–66.

Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussion: Anxiety and aspirations.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Liao, X. (1996). Chinese learners’ communicative incompetence: Causes and solution in China.

Republic of China pp.1-5). Retrieved September 15, 2005, from EDRS data base (FL

024164)

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

301–316.

Liu, M. (2006). Chinese students’ motivation to learn English at the tertiary level. Asian EFL

Journal, 9(1), 126-146.

Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English learning

motivation, Educational Research International, 1-8, doi:10.1155/2011/493167.

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness to

communicate and foreign language anxiety, The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 71–

86.

Lloyd, B. M., "Perspectives of Foreign Language Teachers on Influences, Challenges, and

Practices Affecting Language Choice" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 6004.

48

MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks

and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99.

MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D.

J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language teaching: A practical

guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 24–45). Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its

development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J. M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into

language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

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

pro- cessing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to

communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect.

Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Mercer, S. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in

Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 153–172.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on

willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among

junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537–564.

MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness

to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern

Language Journal, 82, 545–562.

49

MacIntyre, P. D., Noel, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language

proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265-287.

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

39, 202-214.

Mak, B. S., & White, C. (1997). Communication apprehension of Chinese ESL students. Hong

Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 81–95.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, Motivation, and Second Language

Learning: A Meta–Analysis of Studies Conducted by Gardner and Associates. Language

learning, 53(1), 123–163.

Mehrpour, S. & Vojdani, M. (2012). Globalization and EFL learning motivation: A new

perspective on integrative vs. instrumental motivation among Iranian learners of English.

Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 43-50, doi: 10.4236/ojml.2012.22006.

Noels, K. A. (2001). Learning Spanish as a Second Language: Learners‟ Orientations and

Perceptions of Their Teachers‟ Communication Style. Language Learning, 51(1), 107–

144.

Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perception of teachers’ communicative style

and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83, (1),

23-34

Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative

orientations of French- Canadian learners of English. The Canadian Language Review,

57, 424-442.

Oliveira, D., "Portuguese as a Foreign Language: Motivations and Perceptions" (2011). Theses

and Dissertations. 2874.

50

Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle. Rost,

M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson

Education.Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 43-50, doi: 10.4236/ojml.2012.22006.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and

application (2nd ed.) New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

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

highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz, & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety:

From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101-108). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall. Review, 6, 88-106.

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

highly anxious students. Review, 6, 88-106.

Tuan, L.T. (2012). An empirical research into EFL learners’ motivation. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 2(3), 430-439.

Robinson & P. M Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154).

Oxford: Pergamon

Roccas, S. & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 6, 88-106

Roitblat, Y., Cleminson, R., Kavin, A., Schonberger, E., & Shterenshis, M. (2017). Assessment

of anxiety in adolescents involved in a study abroad program: A prospective study.

International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2017-0101

Ruesch, A., "Student and Teacher Perceptions of Motivational Strategies in the Foreign

Language Classroom" (2009). Theses and Dissertations. 1853.

51

Sajid-us-Salam, M. (2008). "Gardner's Early Socio-Educational Model (Powerpoint Slides)".

Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety

research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129–142.

Scovel, T. (1991). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety

research. In E. K. Horwitz, & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and

research to classroom implications (pp. 15-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal

Sell, J. B., "Taking the "Foreign" Out of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale"

(2017). Theses and Dissertations. 6876.

Sorenson, B. D., "Motivation in Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language: An Analysis of

Profiles and Behaviors" (2009). Theses and Dissertations. 2264.

Spielberger, C. D. and Gorsuch, R. L. Mediating processes in verbal conditioning. Report to

National Institute of Mental Health, 1966.

Spielberger, C. D. (1969) Handbook of modern personality theory. R. B. Cattell, (ed.), Chicago:

Aldine, 1969.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L. and Lushene, R. E. (1968) Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety

Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida; Florida State University, 1968.

Suleimenova, Z. (2013). Speaking anxiety in a foreign language classroom in Kazakhstan.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1860-1868.

Svanes, B. (1987). Motivation and Cultural Distance in Second-Language Acquisition. Language

Learning, 37, 341-359. System, 30, 65-84.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

http://www.slideshare.net/cupidlucid/gardners-early-soci-educational-model-presentation?next_slideshow=1

52

Szyszka, M. (2017). Pronunciation learning strategies and language anxiety. New York, NY:

Springer International.

Tanner, J. D., "Factors Affecting the Acquisition of Pronunciation: Culture, Motivation, and

Level of Instruction" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 3242.

Terrell, T. D. (1989). Teaching Spanish Pronunciation in a Communicative Approach. American

Spanish Pronunciation, 196–214.

Thompson, A. S., & Lee, J. (2014). The impact of experience abroad and language proficiency

on language learning anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 252–274.

Toth, Z. (2008). Foreign language anxiety – for beginners only? In M. Nikolov & J. Horvath

(Eds.), UPRT: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 225-246). Lingua

Franca Csoport.

Trang, T. T. T. (2012, January 1). A Review of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope’s Theory of Foreign

Language Anxiety and the Challenges to the Theory | Thi Thu Trang | English Language

Teaching | CCSE. Ccsnet.Com.

Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language

learning. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505–518.

Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, I.-C. (2013, September 1). THE STUDY ON MOTIVATION AND

ANXIETY OF ENGLISH LEARNING OF STUDENTS AT A TAIWAN TECHNICAL

UNIVERSITY. International Journal of English Language Teaching.

http://eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Study-on-Motivation-and-Anxiety-of-

English-Learning-of-Students-at-a-Taiwan-Technical-University.pdf

Tuan, L.T. (2012). An empirical research into EFL learners’ motivation. Theory and Practice in

53

UKEssays. (November 2018). Motivation n Second Language Learning. Retrieved from

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/motivation-in-second-language-

learning-english-language-essay.php?vref=1

Wang, Y. C. (2009). Anxiety in English language learning: A case study of Taiwanese university

students on a study abroad programme (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

Leeds, Leeds, UK.

William M., Burden R. (1997) Motivation in Language Learning: a social constructivist

approach (pp. 19-27)

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

308-328.

Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language

anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75, 426-439. ed.). New Jersey:

Merrill Prentice Hall.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/motivation-in-second-language-learning-english-language-essay.php?vref=1

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/motivation-in-second-language-learning-english-language-essay.php?vref=1

the effect of language learning experience on motivation

Documents