Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

107

STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES: INTERVENTIONS FOR ALLEVIATING

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SPEAKING ANXIETY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM

Sophia Fui-Ni Tsen stsenfn@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Many students were suspected to be experiencing English language speaking anxiety which has prevented them from articulating their thoughts well in the language classroom. This debilitating anxiety may greatly affect students‟ achievement during school-based oral assessment and hamper future educational and career prospects. The purpose of this study is to understand and discover the perspectives of students facing speaking anxiety on how to alleviate this problem. Using the mixed methods participation selection model, this study was conducted in two phases. Adopting the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), 44.24% of the 217 respondents were found to experience severe to moderate levels of speaking anxiety. Through purposive sampling, ten respondents were approached to participate in two focus group interviews. The findings revealed that the students suffering from speaking anxiety may benefit when teachers improve on: 1) lesson activities by using other resources beyond textbooks, providing opportunities for learners to speak the language, and teaching the basics of the language; and 2) teacher classroom practices. By recognizing and identifying the needs of students, it may prove helpful in creating the awareness among teachers in order to adopt and adapt the right classroom pedagogies to help reduce this phenomenon and prepare students for tertiary education where the English language is used extensively in and beyond the classroom. Keywords: Speaking Anxiety; Second Language Anxiety; Foreign Language Anxiety; FLCAS; ELCAS

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, many Malaysian graduates are unable to find jobs because they have performed poorly in job interviews in various local and multi-national companies. News report highlighted the fact that there was general dissatisfaction by employers on the communication skills of job candidates, especially among fresh graduates. The poor communication skills are often attributed to the poor command of spoken English. As many interviews are conducted in English, a candidate lacking this language skill is already in disadvantage (NST, July 10).

Therefore, the question that comes to mind is that what has gone wrong with these graduates who have performed so poorly during job interviews? A Malaysian student would have attended 11 years of formal primary and secondary education where the English Language is a compulsory subject. Furthermore, the English Language is considered as a second language (L2) after Bahasa Malaysia, our national language. As learners of the English

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

108

Language, oral ability and speaking skills are important because speaking is the key to communication (Florez, 1999). Purpose of the Study As a former English teacher in an urban Malaysian secondary school, I have also come across my fair share of reticent students or those who are fearful of speaking or voicing out their thoughts either voluntarily or when asked during lessons. The fear is more noticeable when they are required to take their school-based SPM Oral English Test (O. E. T.) or also known as ULBS (Ujian Lisan Berlandaskan Sekolah). In the course of assessing students for the oral tests based on a tight schedule, I have noticed much nervousness, stammering and stuttering and students‟ inability to respond to the questions posed by the assessors (Gregersen, 2005). This has indeed caused much frustration, both to the teacher and students. There is, however, a high probability that this could be attributed to general test anxiety commonly exhibited by test-takers.

Most teachers may not always identify anxious students although foreign language speaking anxiety is a common phenomenon in the teaching of English language as a foreign language (Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2009, p. 40). Instead, teachers will most often attribute students‟ unwillingness to participate in speaking tasks to various factors such as „lack of motivation and poor attitude‟ (Gregersen, 2003, p. 30). Therefore, it is my intent as an educator to discover more about speaking anxiety among students of the English Language in Malaysia since it has been suggested that speaking is the most „anxiety-provoking aspect in a second language learning situation‟ (Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert, 1999, p. 420). Research Questions

The research questions that this study aims to find out are as follow: 1. Do learners experience English Language speaking anxiety in the ELS

classroom? 2. How can ESL teachers help students alleviate their English Language

speaking anxiety in the ELS classroom? Significance of the Study The result of this is study is significant to the teachers, who are both teaching the English Language speaking skills and assessing students‟ oral presentation. It is vital for teachers to alleviate students‟ speaking anxiety in the classroom and subsequently reconcile the implementation of the English Language speaking syllabus and pedagogy. By identifying the students‟ responses and reactions towards speaking anxiety, teachers may devise and change their teaching methods to help the students. Besides identifying the areas for improvement, it also important for teachers to maintain and keep up with its strengths.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

109

LITERATURE REVIEW Foreign Language Anxiety In the body of literature, there are generally two views of the identification of foreign language anxiety. Horwitz and Young (1991b, p. 1) cited in MacIntyre (1999) posited that:

“(1) language anxiety is simply a transfer of anxiety from another domain (for example, test anxiety) or (2) something about language learning makes language anxiety a unique experience. These two approaches are not necessarily opposing positions but represent different perspectives from which to define language anxiety.”

Research has been carried out to learn more about foreign language anxiety and it has been found to be a rather alarming phenomenon (Cohen & Norst, 1989; Schumann, 1975). It has also been established to have a negative correlation on performance or achievement in the foreign language classroom (Aida, 1994; Horwitz, 2001; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991 in Osboe, Fujimura & Hirschel, 2007). Highly anxious learners are less willing to participate in learning activities and have lower performance than non-anxious students (Aida, 1994; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991).

The study on foreign language anxiety has continued to flourish and evolve. Besides focusing on the relationship between speaking skill in foreign language and anxiety (Lucas, 1984; Phillips, 1992; Young, 1990), research has also explored other language skills. For example, listening (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Vogely, 1998 &1999), reading (Saito, Horwitz and Garza, 1999) and writing (Cheng, Horwitz and Schallert, 1999). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) One of the most valuable contributions in the study of foreign language anxiety is the development of a measuring scale known as the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale or FLCAS. The FLCAS was developed by Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope in 1986.

The 33-item 5-point Likert scale for measuring foreign language classroom anxiety was developed after deriving and analyzing qualitative data from 78 students from beginning language classes who participated in a “Support Group for Foreign Language Learning” at the University of Texas, Austin, during the summer of 1983 (Horwitz et al, 1986, p.128). Pilot testing of the scale was conducted among 75 university students from four introductory Spanish classes and the results showed that “significant foreign language anxiety is experienced by many students” (p. 130).

Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986) posit that the foreign language anxiety consists of “self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” and have identified three components of foreign language anxiety: (1) communication apprehension, (2) fear of negative evaluation and (3) test anxiety. These components are reflected in the scale:

(1) communication apprehension / speech anxiety (Items 4, 9, 24, 33),

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

110

(2) fear of negative evaluation (Items 3, 7, 13, 20, 23, 31), and (3) test anxiety (Items 2, 6, 19).

(Aida, 1994, p. 160 – 161). In Aida‟s examination (1994, p. 160 - 161) of Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope‟s

construct of foreign language anxiety using factor analysis by excluding six items (Items 2, 6, 15, 19, 28, 30), however, found that there are four components: (1) speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation (Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12,

13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31), (2) fear of failing in class (Items 10, 25, 26, 27), (3) comfortableness in speaking with native speakers (Items 11, 14, 32), and (4) negative attitudes toward foreign language class (5, 17).

The reliability and validity of the scale has also been determined by Aida (1994) and Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert (1999).

Horwitz (2001) reported that this scale has been used in a large number of research studies. It has been widely used or adapted in various studies of language anxiety (Aida, 1994; Cebreros, 2004, Che Ya, 2007; Gregersen, 2003; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Sila, 2010; Tóth, 2008; Yan & Horwitz, 2009). In conlusion, this current study will be using and adapting this 33-item 5-point Likert scale by Horwitz et al (1986) for the quantitative phase of the study. The rationale for its use is because the FLCAS has been established to be a reliable and valid instrument and has been widely used by many researchers worldwide in the study of foreign and second language anxiety. Language Classroom Activities and Interventions In the studies of foreign language learning anxiety, there are various studies to identify the most suitable techniques, classroom interventions and activities to address the issue of anxiety among learners, be it through experimental research or review of literature (Nimocks et al., 2001; Oumano, 2005; Sato, 2003; Tsipakides and Keramida, 2009; Young, 1990; Young, 1991).

Young‟s quantitative study (1991) on speaking anxiety from the perspective of learners sought to identify student reactions to 24 in-class activities, their rating of anxiety level in the face of these activities, and students‟ specification of teacher behaviours and characteristics that may reduce anxiety in class. Based on her findings, she suggested teachers to:

“provide interesting discussion topics, have students work in small groups or in pairs, and maintain a relaxed attitude over error correction”,

let “students practice reading in a script orally before an audience only after they have practiced it extensively in a group”,

use the modelling approach for error correction and feedback,

suggest other forms of “supplemental instructions or support group” for highly anxious students such as working with a tutor, joining a language club, doing relaxation exercises or practising positive self-talk.

In experimental research such those carried out by Oumano (2005), Sato (2003) and Nimocks et al. (2001), the researchers tested various treatments to participants who experience high levels of communication apprehension. Oumano‟s treatment of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Model,

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

111

Sato‟s Selective Error Correction and Group Work and Nimocks et al‟s Covert Modeling Technique were found to be effective in reducing levels of communication apprehension among students.

Using visualization, Oumano (2005) encouraged students to practice positive thoughts before speaking. Sato (2003) selectively chose to correct student errors in order to encourage students to voluntarily speak out in class. Meanwhile, Nimocks et al. (2001) showed students a video recording of public speaking so that participants could covertly model after the recordings.

Tsipakides and Keramida (2009, p. 41 – 42) implemented some classroom interventions such as „project work‟ and „establishing a learning community‟ to help students overcome speaking anxiety. An evaluation of the effectiveness of these inventions was carried out at the end of the school term and the analysis of the classroom diary found that there was a significant improvement in these anxious students‟ willingness to participate in speaking activities, besides not avoiding eye contact.

Although the above few previous studies have already provided interventions and recommended solutions to cases of speaking anxiety, much research need to be carried out in the Malaysian school settings before these techniques could be adopted. Therefore, this study will adopt the mixed-method approach in order to discover and understand the sources of this phenomenon and uncover how teachers can help alleviate this problem from the students‟ perspectives before suitable treatment can be identified and recommended.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design The research design used in this study is the mixed methods design in the order of the quantitative-qualitative sequence. Otherwise, known as the Explanatory Design or the Explanatory Sequential Design, this is a two-phase mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).

“The overall purpose of this design is that qualitative data helps explain or build upon initial quantitative results”. An example is that this design can be used when the researcher needs “to use quantitative participant characteristics to guide purposeful sampling for a qualitative phase” (Creswell, Plano Clark, et al., 2003 cited in Creswell & Plano, 2007). This particular design begins with the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by or “connects to” the qualitative phase of the research (Creswell & Plano, 2007). There are two variants of this design: 1) the follow-up explanations model, and 2) the participant selection model. For this study, the second variant or the participant selection model was used as it is the more suitable model befitting the objectives of this research. The participant selection model is used when “a researcher needs quantitative information to identify and purposefully select participants for a follow-up, in-depth, qualitative study” with an emphasis on “the second, qualitative phase” (Creswell & Plano, 2007). Yan and Horwitz‟s (2008) study on learners‟ perception of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English is an example that uses this variant.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

112

Sampling During the quantitative phase, every Form 4 student in the school was involved in order to identify the exact pool of students who exhibited English language speaking anxiety. At the same time, all Form 4 students were also asked to select teacher characteristics that would better help them reduce anxiety related to learning the English language. This large quantitative data served as a point of reference and discussion among selected respondents for the second phase of the study which was qualitative in nature.

Since the intent of the study was to understand and discover the sources of speaking anxiety from the perspectives of these students, it is only realistic that the answers to these puzzles lie in students who exhibit the characteristics of speaking anxiety.

Furthermore, the emphasis is more on the qualitative investigation which focused on one research question which is: How can ESL teachers help the students alleviate their speaking anxiety in the English Language classroom?

This study was conducted in School X. The school is situated in the city of Kota Kinabalu. There are about 1380 students in this school with an average of 46 students per class from Form 1 to Form 6. This is a single site study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Research Instruments Two research instruments were used in this study: questionnaire for Phase 1 and focus group interview for Phase 2.

The first phase utilized questionnaire in order to gather data from a large number of respondents, from which the selection of the right pool of interviewees could be made. The questionnaire for this study consists of the English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS). The instrument in the questionnaire is originally the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), developed by Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986). This scale for assessing general foreign language anxiety has been most widely used by researchers (Aida, 1994; Cebreros, 2004; Che Ya, 2007; Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert, 1999; Elkhafaifi, 2005; Gregersen, 2003; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999; Sila, 2010; Tóth, 2008; Yan & Horwitz, 2008; Spangler, 2009; Huang, Eslami & Hu, 2010).

The FLCAS consists of 33-item, “about 20 of which focus on listening and speaking skills and the remaining items are related to general language anxiety” (Pichette, 2009). The FLCAS adopts a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (Appendix B).

The FLCAS has been tested and is found valid and reliable. Reliability values in the order of 0.80 or above have been reported (Aida, 1994: r = .94; Cheng et al., 1999: r = .95; Elkhafaifi, 2005: r = .94; Horwitz et al., 1986: r = .93; Huang, Eslami & Hu, 2010: r = .82, Saito et al., 1999: r = .94).

The FLCAS is adopted an instrument in this study on the grounds that it has been established to be a reliable and valid instrument and is widely used by many researchers worldwide in the study of foreign and second language anxiety as evidenced above.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

113

Consequently, the phrase „foreign language‟ in the FLCAS was replaced with „English language‟. This modified version is referred to as the English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS) throughout this study from here on for the ease of discussion. The ELCAS was translated into the Bahasa Malaysia for participants who prefer to and / or feel more comfortable to answer the questionnaire in the language.

The second instrument used in this study is a series of three open-ended questions designed by the researcher for use in the focus group interview. The rationale of using focus group interview as a means to gather data is based largely and specifically on the topic of this study. Since the interviewees involved were those who exhibit speaking anxiety, a focus group is “small enough to be „conversational,‟ so even those who are rather shy about speaking before a group are not threatened by the situation” (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Gay et al., 2009). At the same time, focus group interview is more dynamic and spontaneous in nature and less time-consuming compared to a one-on-one interview. The findings are richly textured with detail as the opinions and comments expressed by the interviewees could be further probed and delved into (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Data Collection Procedure In the first phase of this mixed methods design, all the six classes of Form 4 students were involved during the administration of the questionnaires. The six classes consisted of 41, 53, 43, 46, 51 and 39 students respectively. Therefore, the total number of Form 4 students registered with the school is 273. 300 sets of questionnaires were distributed to the students, out of which 234 participants responded. The return rate is 85.7%. Since the sample was large (200 or more), the non-respondent rate of 14.3% was unlikely to “affect the results in an appreciable way” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 236).

Then, in the second phase for the qualitative approach, purposive (typical) sampling was used to select students for the focus group interview (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).

Only students who had achieved low scores between 6 – 18, on Items 1, 9, 14, 18, 24 and 27, were considered as those who face speaking anxiety and served as possible participants for the focus group interview.

Subsequently, convenience sampling was also used to select participants for the focus group interview. They were approached on a class by class basis. The rationale for using this type of sampling is because the possible participants in different classes had different schedules for their English lessons throughout the week. Forming a group of interviewees from different classes was not plausible as it would have disturbed the daily activity of these students and interfered with other on-going subjects in school.

Due to the constraints mentioned above, ten students from two classes were involved in two separate focus group interviews. Six students (2 males and 4 females) were from Class 1 while the remaining 4 participants (1 male and 3 females) were from Class 2. A minimum of two groups were formed as

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

114

this is sufficient to provide the necessary data for a study as suggested by Morgan (1988) cited in Mertens (1998), and by McMillan & Schumacher (2006). Data Analysis The data analysis procedures consisted of two phases. The questionnaire was analysed first in order to select the participants for the interview. The questionnaires were analysed on a class by class basis. There were 234 sets of completed questionnaires (37, 43, 43, 41, 35, and 35 respectively). Then, each completed questionnaire was labeled with an alpha-numeric tag.

The ELCAS data was subjected to a reliability test on the SPSS Version 17. A Cronbach‟s Co-efficient Alpha value of 0.940 was derived from the ELCAS. From a total of 234 returned questionnaires, 217 cases (92.7%) were valid while 17 cases were excluded.

The 33-item Likert scale data from the six classes were keyed in one by one into six separate files to minimize data loss in the event of computer failure or errors. All positively worded statements were scored 1 to 5 from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Meanwhile, the 9 negatively worded items (Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, and 32) were reverse scored 1 to 5 from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. This means the lower the score, the higher the anxiety level, similar to the group labels used by Ganschow and Sparks (1996).

Since the FLCAS does not have a standard scoring procedure (Ganschow & Sparks, 1996), a method for determining “group membership” was devised for this study. Participants‟ scores were grouped according to five levels, with the lower levels indicating higher levels of anxiety based on the lower scores. Meanwhile, the scores for speaking anxiety involved items 1, 9, 14, 18, 24 and 27 only. The scores for speaking anxiety were grouped with the lower levels indicating higher levels of anxiety.

Then, the data were filtered and sorted from the lowest to the highest score. Students with low scores from 6 to 19, which indicate speaking anxiety, were identified on a class by class basis. In order to range the total population, the raw data from the separate files were combined

Upon the completion of the focus group interviews, the two audio recordings were transferred from the digital recorder to the computer. The recordings then were transcribed verbatim - as a whole from the beginning to the end, without any selective lifting from the conversation.

The transcripts were read, reread and colour-coded in general according to the patterns and similar idea at word, line, sentence and whole paragraph levels. The data were “broken down into manageable chucks and were examined closely.” “If a chunk of new data is conceptually the same as data from the previous interview, then it will be coded using the same conceptual name” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Therefore, similar chunks of interviewees‟ comments were grouped together under the same major theme while dissimilar chunks were assigned into different major themes accordingly. Subsequently, after repeated reading, reviews, arrangement and organization of the major themes, finer sub-themes emerged. The data were then grouped together or separately under the sub-themes. Consequently, these themes were refined and reorganized to capture the essence of the interviewees‟ comments.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

115

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Speaking Anxiety in the ESL Classroom The result indicates that 44.24% of students experienced English language speaking anxiety. Ten students experienced severe speaking anxiety, 37 of them experienced moderate anxiety while 49 students were mildly anxious. Therefore, to the question as to whether Form 4 students experience speaking anxiety in the English language classroom, the results clearly shows that, 96 out of 217 students (44.24%) face this problem.

This first research question sought to find out whether Form 4 students experience English language speaking anxiety. This first question which also served as the basis for selecting participants with the right characteristics for the interview phase had yielded a positive result.

From a total of 217 valid data, 44.24% or 96 respondents were found to experience moderate to severe levels of speaking anxiety. This number is slightly less than 50.23 % of the 217 respondents who experienced moderate to severe levels of the general English language classroom anxiety.

The 50.23% of Form 4 students in School X who experienced English language anxiety exceeded Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope‟s findings (1986) and Horwitz‟s argument (2000) that approximately one third of “American college learners have been found consistently to have moderate to severe levels of foreign language anxiety.” In this study, more than half of the Form 4 students reported foreign language anxiety and this is a great cause for concern.

When the same pool of 217 respondents were analysed solely for speaking anxiety based on the six specific speaking items from the ELCAS, the data yielded a lesser percentile of respondents who experienced speaking anxiety. However, 44.24% is clearly more than one third of the population in this study and deservedly merit an investigation into this phenomenon.

It is difficult to conclude why there is such a great disparity between the current findings compared to Horwitz‟s. There is, however, one major point to be raised in discussing this issue. The main point is that the difference could be cultural in nature, which is the Western versus the Eastern context or in this case, the American versus the Malaysian context. According to Truitt (1995) cited in Kim (2009), when compared to American foreign language learners, Korean EFL learners (Eastern) were found to display “relatively higher levels of anxiety, whereas “Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot learners (Western) were found to experience somewhat lower levels (Kunt, 1997 in Kim, 2009).

While this study‟s finding may have greatly exceeded the one-third approximation in Horwitz‟s many research and extensive studies among American college students since 1985, the administration and application of the FLCAS as an instrument to gauge foreign language anxiety may need to be refined, adapted and tested and further re-tested for reliability and validity for use in the Malaysian schools context.

This particularly holds true when this instrument is applied to the Malaysian secondary school whereby the schooling system is such that the language teachers go into the classroom for lessons rather than having the students walk to an English lab or class and where there is a dearth of native speakers of English where the students could be „around with‟. The FLCAS by

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

116

Horwitz et al. contains statements that are specific to the American education system and also statements of “native speakers”.

Besides translating the instrument into the national language, the context and choice of words in some of the statements in FLCAS may need to be revised in order to fit into the local Malaysian school setting, following the examples of other researchers who had adapted and expanded the FLCAS for their respective studies (Aida, 1994; Tóth, 2008; Woodrow, 2006; Yan & Horwitz, 2008).

More specifically, the instrument may need to take into account of the cultural differences as posited by Kim (2009) because “they involve different types of instructional methods that are tailored for each cultural context”.

Since this is a novice study on speaking anxiety based on the FLCAS, the scale was adapted with minimal changes. The full rigours of a major adaptation, translation and the testing and re-resting for reliability and validity item-by-item as could be seen in Toth‟s adaptation and design (2008) of a foreign language anxiety scale for Hungarian learners of English is beyond the scope of this study. Interventions for Alleviating Speaking Anxiety Based on the students‟ perspectives and the direct lifting of students‟ responses, the way in which a teacher can help alleviate students‟ speaking anxiety can be divided into two sub-categories: (1) Lesson Activities, and (2) Classroom Practices.

1. Lesson Activities Lesson activities refer to the classroom activities carried out by the teacher which the participants thought could alleviate their speaking anxiety. These activities were categorized into: a) resources beyond textbooks; b) group work; and c) back to basic.

a) Use resources beyond textbooks The respondents commented that they would like their English lessons not to be confined to using textbooks only.

Nana: Dia punya resources untuk ajar kamikan, tidak hanya satulah. Not only from textbook… movie-kah, like dari overseas-kah, dari pengalaman diakah, macam… Isu luar negara… Tidak tertakluk kepada Malaysia. We want to learn English, not only English but mau belajar benda lain juga. Macam pakai buku saja, boring-bah [laughter]… Buku latihan saja, boring. Mana tau, boleh buat game-kah? Spelling bee.

Translation: The teacher‟s resources to teach us shouldn‟t be confined to one. Not only from the textbook… movies, from overseas, from her experiences. Issues from ohr countries… not limited to Malaysia. We want to learn English, not only English but want to learn other things.it‟s

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

117

boring if it‟s confined to books only [laughter] If it‟s exercise books only, boring. Maybe there should be games? Spelling bee.

Watching movies seemed to be most popular choice as evidenced

below: Viana: Maybe teachers should bring some videos or movies. I think it‟s

more interesting. English movies. I think it can help a lot with our language, how we talk.

Fran: They spoke too fast and too deep. The English is too deep until you cannot hear what they say. Even though if it‟s like English movie, sometimes I need the English subtitles because they talk very fast and very „dalam‟.

Sim: Or maybe the movie they can put English subtitle. I always watch cartoons and there is always subtitle. That really helps.

Nana: Watching movie. Drama. Nia: Drama. Fuad: Kasih peruntukan masa sikit untuk tengok wayang, movies. Any

type as long as it‟s English movie. Translation: Allocate some time to watch movie. Any type as long as it‟s English movie.

Some other resources the students thought would alleviate their speaking anxiety included learning the English language through songs, the internet, newspaper, games, spelling bee, and quizzes.

Fuad: Kasih, kasih buat suratkhabar… Bagi suratkhabar English

bersama macam, nama English, lepas tu, bagi hari-harilah… (student can learn) vocabulary… sukan (read the sports section)... Ada crossword (do the crossword puzzle found in the newspaper). Or the internet.

Translation: Give us English newspapers, daily. (Students can learn) vocabulary… sports (read the sports section)... There are crossword (do the crossword puzzle found in the newspaper). Or the internet. Nana: Not only from textbook. Mana tau ada lagi yang, newspaper-kah? Translation: Not only from textbook. Maybe (the teacher could use) newspaper? Nia: And then jangan just focus on one thing. Teacher boleh bawa

macam a lot of other things supaya dia punya pengajaran lagi menarik and we‟re interested to learn more. Like jangan like, English, just English, and then pandai masuk cerita, and then, make it a story, quiz, and then ada sound effect. Something like that. So macam, student doesn‟t feel bored. But actually it‟s formal but doesn‟t look like formal.

Translation: And then don‟t just focus on one thing. The teacher could bring in a lot of other things so that the lesson will be more interesting

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

118

and we‟re interested to learn more. It‟s not only just English. Bring in stories, make it a story, quiz, and then there‟s sound effect. Something like that. So student doesn‟t feel bored. But actually it‟s formal but doesn‟t look like formal.

b) Provide opportunity for learners to speak the language in class By incorporating more activities which give the students more opportunity to use the language in class, it may help learners improve their speaking skill and build their confidence. These activities may be individual oral delivery or in group work.

Greg: I think the teacher should let the students talk more. Like oral. Talk in English, so that the teacher can correct our grammar, (pronunciation). We can increase our confidence. I think the teacher should let us read our answers to her. If (there are mistakes), (the) teacher can tell us.

Viana: I want her to do more activities like presentation, maybe group work. Then we present because I think it helps a lot - our confidence and our language. Simple presentation. I think if (it‟s) the first time, it‟s a bit not comfortable. So if a lot of times already, I think it will improve more and more and you can build your confidence also.

The number of students in a group should be small and the interviewees prefer to work with friends whom they are comfortable with.

Sim: But of course in one group, (it‟s) better (not to have) so many people because (the smart students discuss) all the points. (It seems) like they (have taken) over the whole thing already. It‟s like we [students who are less proficient in English] don‟t have to do anything about it. So, it‟s better like two person in one group, or three person in one group. It‟s a small group.

Sim: Because I don‟t really talk with them [students who are good in English] because their interest is different. (I wouldn‟t want to group with them) because their friend network (is) already connected so long ago. If I interrupt, I also feel left out.

c) Go back to basics Some participants preferred that their language teachers would teach the basics again and not assume that they have learned and know everything. When asked to elaborate more on what are the „basic things‟, students‟ interpretation of „basics‟ ranged from „prepositions‟, „simple present / past tenses‟, „be‟-verb to teaching vocabulary and idiomatic expressions.

Sim: Then, in terms of studying, I hope that they will teach more, something more basic. My basic is not very good in English. Er… Like is, at, are, were, are, was, present tense, past tense, I‟m not really good at it. I am really not good at it. That‟s why every time, I also have to ask my friend, “What about it? What about it?” Then,

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

119

the teachers assume that, because we are from A class, right, they assume that we all know English. They assume that all of us are qualified in English. That‟s why I don‟t really like that because I‟m really weak in English. I really know I‟m weak. That‟s why teacher like already assume that it‟s us very good in English, she doesn‟t teach the basic anymore.

Fran: The basic part. Uhm… Like sometimes, it depends on the word. It‟s really hard to understand. I don‟t really understand all. Hard words. Because I have to ask my friends and they will try to explain to me. Sometimes they give a lot of explanation but I still don‟t get it. So I wish for some basic things.

Andy: Teach, teach a vocab a day… Teach one word a day… Like, ah, ah, word-of-the-day…. So everyone learn. You learn, understand, and you can use it.

Eka: New phrases also. Nia: „Raining cats and dogs‟. Fuad: „Pull up your socks‟.

2. Teacher Classroom Practices Classroom practices refer to the way teachers react and respond to the needs of students while carrying out teaching and learning in the class. It requires sensitivity, tact and alertness on teachers‟ part in carrying out the day-to-day lessons, activities and instructions. a) Do not compare students with each other The respondents commented that their anxiety could be lessened if teachers do not compare them with their peers.

Eka: Don‟t compare us… With my friends. I mean like, „Kau lagi bodoh dari dia‟ “Like, „Tengok dia, dia pandai bah. Kenapa itupun kau tidak pandai jawap. Macam tidak belajar.‟ Dia compare lah. I mean, kenapa kau tidak boleh jawap itu soalan? Dia boleh jawap itu soalan?”

Translation: Do not compare us with (our) friends. Do not say, “You are less brighter than him,” or “Look at him. He is good. Why didn‟t you know the answer? It‟s as is you didn‟t learn.” The teacher compares us. “Why couldn‟t you answer that question while (your classmate) could?”

Other than not discriminating students‟ abilities, they expect teachers to treat all students equally.

Viana: I think she knows that I‟m weak at English so maybe sometimes

she (speaks) with me in BM. I mean, she could talk to me in English so that I could improve. But… I hope she (speaks) to me normally. Uhm… I want her to speak English with me so that I could improve more, learn more. Sometimes she did, but sometimes she will like, mix also [Malay-English]. I want it to be, like, equally. Like, sometimes she will speak to (my) other friends

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

120

in full English, but to me it‟s half-half. Maybe she‟s scared that I don‟t understand. (She) just wants to help me… I don‟t feel awkward (about it) but then, (I don‟t feel) really good (either).

Comparing students maybe in the form of labelling and separating them

into the „good‟ and the „weak‟ which the respondents felt was something that the teachers should not do.

Vien: I think teacher should not label us. You guys are poor in English, these students are good in English. [Imitating their teacher] (The English teacher always says, „I can count smart students with my hand.‟

Eka: Jangan cakap yang ini tidak pandaikan, dia hopeless 100 percent, cannotlah. Sebab, kamikan kalau learning dari orang yang pandai, lagi okay bah. Macam exchange pendapat gitu. Jadi, macam kasi gabung semualah. Jangan kasih pisah yang baik and not good.

Translation: Do not say that a student is not good, 100% hopeless. It‟s not acceptable. It‟s better if we can learn from those who are good in English by exchanging opinion. Group us together. Do not separate us into the „good‟ and „not good‟.

b) Do not belittle students Teachers should not belittle students by name-calling or as this may create inferiority in them.

Nia: During English, like kalau wrong, say it‟s wrong, but then jangan lebih like, calls names or compare to other people like, macam erm, “Why am I so stupid?” Like I doesn‟t deserve to be in Bestari class. I‟m supposed to be in like, IKP [referring to the weaker classes], or Kualiti like that.

Translation: During English lessons, if the students make mistakes, inform them of their errors. Don‟t go over-the-top by name-calling or comparing us with other students. (I‟ll feel), “Why am I so stupid?” (as if) I do not deserve to be in Bestari class – I‟m supposed to be in I, K, P [referring to the weaker classes.]

Another interviewee shared a second-hand account of a friend‟s

experience. Fran: She (the English teacher) go to those smart people and maybe she

like, uhm, talk about the people who is not good. I heard that from my friend outside. Like, they like, „kasih buruk-buruk‟ (belittling) the people who are not good in English. Like talk about it. It happened to my friend.

c) Do not over-assume (overestimate) As much as the respondents did not like to be compared, labelled or belittled by their English teachers, some comments also showed that, at times, teachers may have over-estimated students‟ abilities. Teachers „assumed‟ that the students were „good‟ in English when in reality they were not as proficient.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

121

Sim: The teachers assume that, because we are from A class, they assume that we all know English. They assume that all of us are qualified in English. That‟s why I don‟t really like that because I‟m really weak in English. I really know I‟m weak. That‟s why teacher like already assume that we are very good in English so she doesn‟t teach us the basic anymore.

The same respondent also voiced her displeasure that while the teacher was „over-estimating‟ her class‟ ability, she may be „under-estimating‟ the capabilities of learners from other classes.

Sim: (The English) teacher came into our class, and said, “You guys are from Class A [good class]. You all supposed to know this easy stuff.” (The teacher) really assume you to know this kind of stuff when you really don‟t know it. They say, “You from Class A, you… this kind of easy stuff…” They like to compare with A and P, those class. I don‟t really like it, when they compare it. Yeah, because in P [weak] class, (there are) people who are good in their English also, right, so they shouldn‟t compare.

d) Practice discrete error correction The transcript also showed that respondents would want teachers to correct their mistakes discretely and not make them public.

Eka: Atau kita salah or what, and the teacher straight away call you: „Eka, why you pronounce “umbrella” like this?‟ Then, semua pun tau… Kalau kami salahkan, just… Say straight away to us, but jangan like… Don‟t open… Yeah, because people gonna laugh… And then they gonna remember and then ejeklah. And then kita berhenti untuk bercakap English-lah.

Translation: When I made a mistake, the teacher said, “Eka, why did you mispronounce „umbrella‟?” Then the whole class knew. If we make mistakes, inform us discretely, not openly. Others will laugh at us and they will remember and tease us. Then, we will cease to speak in English.

e) Force students to use English in class through punishment One way to encourage students to speak English in class is by forcing them by incorporating punishment.

Nana: Cannot speak any (other languages), in English class, only speak English. Like in my sister‟s school, „cikgu dia dulu, siapa yang tercakap satu‟ Malay word, or Chinese, pay 50 sen. So like, you have, „cakap‟ English „untuk kelas‟. Actually, it is helpful because they „paksa kau‟… Because „kalau student-kan‟, sometimes „kalau kau ndak paksakan, benda tu ndak akan jadi‟… Only in English class.

Andy: I think if, if it‟s forced (to speak in English), we can speak, so we can learn also.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

122

RECOMMENDATIONS Teacher development Firstly, teachers need to be aware that there is anxiety related to second / foreign language learning. Teacher development may focus on workshops on language learning anxiety to heighten their awareness that such anxiety exists. Teachers may be introduced to the FLCAS as a valid measurement to assess students‟ general foreign language anxiety and speaking, besides training and encouraging them to use the scale in their classes if the need arises. Secondly, teachers may also be trained to identify the physical manifestation of anxiety related to foreign language learning as anxious students exhibit certain characteristics such as stammering, stuttering, avoidance in making eye contact, unwillingness to communicate, etc (Gregersen, 2005 & 2007). Thirdly, teachers may also be trained to “sharpen their sensitivity to the nature of their own teaching behaviours and characteristics” (Brosh, 1996). A heightened sensitivity may allow teacher to assess and keep themselves in check while carrying out the day-to-day classroom teaching. This may help in preventing or reducing such incidences of teacher-generated anxiety as reported in this study and teachers may successfully create a better classroom atmosphere. Classroom pedagogy Teachers could have a short session with students where they could discuss the items in the FLCAS and / or answer the questionnaire. By introducing and openly discussing language learning anxiety in class, certain fears and doubts in students may be alleviated. It has been found that anxiety was reduced for many students merely by knowing that they were not alone in their fears or beliefs (Foss & Reitzel, 1988).

In dealing with speaking anxiety, students should be given permission to be “less than perfect speakers of the target language” (Horwitz, 1986). The knowledge that they do not have to fear speaking „wrongly or having to speak „accurately‟ at all times may serve to encourage more interactions with peers and teacher in the class. With more frequent use of the target language, students may gain the explicit knowledge and speak more confidently.

Teachers may also need to allocate more time for speaking practices and incorporate creative and fun activities that are beyond textbooks so that students may take an interest and be motivated to speak and use the language. Activities may be centred in pair or small group work where students could work comfortably and confidently with their peers.

CONCLUSION The present study has revealed, through the mixed method design, that speaking anxiety is alarmingly prevalent among a group of Form 4 students. The qualitative phase has confirmed previous direct or indirect findings and reports on sources of language anxiety (Aida, 1994; Bailey, 1983; Coryell & Clark, 2009; Dewaele et al., 2008; Dosaka, 2004; Dwyer & Heller-Murphy,

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

123

1997; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Hilleson, 1996, Horwitz et al., 1986; Kitano, 2001; Liu & Jackson, 2008; McDowell & Yotsuyanagi, 1995; Oxford, 1999, Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2009; von Wörde, 2003; Woodrow, 2006, Yan & Horwitz, 2008; and Young, 1990, 1991, 1992). In examining the sources of speaking anxiety, the findings revealed causes related to personal background, network of friends, peer-generated and teacher-generated anxieties. Suggestions were provided on how teachers may play a role in helping their students. While the interview data and findings had revealed some unsettling teacher „idiosyncrasies‟ which may have directly or indirectly contributed to students‟ anxiety, it was never the intention nor the purpose of this study at fault-finding. Although this preliminary attempt in studying the complex issue of speaking anxiety may be inadequate, it is hoped that some of the findings may be found relevant and applicable to the local setting.

REFERENCES Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope‟s construct of

foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155 – 168.

Alreck, P. L. & Settle, R. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill / Irwin. Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language

learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger and M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Langauge Acquisition (pp. 67 – 102). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Baker, S. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in

communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50 (2), 311 – 341.

Brosh, H. (1996). Perceived characteristics of the effective language teacher.

Foreign Language Annals, 125 – 138. Cebreros, A. M. O. (2004). Measuring language anxiety perceived by Spanish

university students of English. Universidad de Jaen. Che Ya, S. H. (2007). Speaking anxiety among Form Five students of Sekolah

Menengah Sultan Yahya Petra (2), Kuala Krai, Kelantan. Unpublished master‟s dissertation, International Islamic University Malaysia.

Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K. & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety:

Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, pp. 417 – 446.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

124

Cohen, Y. & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: Affirmative barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Journal, 20, 61 – 77.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Coryell, J. E. & Clark, M. C. (2009). One right way, intercultural participation,

and language learning anxiety: A qualitative analysis of adult online heritage and nonheritage language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 483 – 504.

Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed

mahods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dewaele, J., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional

intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58 (4), 911 – 960.

Dosaka, J. (2004). Students‟ voices on foreign language anxiety. Academic

Exchange Quarterly, Spring. Retrieved on July 5, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_1_8/ai_n29089797/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33

Dwyer, E. & Heller-Murphy, A. (1996). Japanese learners in speaking classes.

Edinburgh Working Paper in Applied Linguistics, 7, 46 – 55. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395511).

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

language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89 (ii), 206 – 219. Florez, M. C. (1999). Improving adult English language learners‟ speaking skills.

Center for Adult English Language Acquisition. Retrieved Nov 5, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl-resources/digests/Speaks.html

Foss, K. A. & Reitzel, A. C. (1988). A relational model for managing second

language anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 437 – 454. Ganschow, L. & Sparks, R. (1996). Foreign language anxiety among high

school women. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 199 – 212. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research:

Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). New Jersey:

Pearson Education. Gregersen, T. S. (2003). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language

anxious students. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 25 – 32.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

125

Gregersen, T. S. (2005). Nonverbal cues: Clues to the detection of foreign

language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 388 – 400. Gregersen, T. S. (2007). Breaking the code of silence: A study of teachers‟

nonverbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 11, 209 – 221.

Gregersen, T. S. & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism:

Anxious and non-anxious language learners‟ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (iv), 562 – 570.

Hilleson, M. (1996). “I want to talk with them, but I don‟t want them to hear”: An

introspective study of second-language anxiety in an English-medium school. In K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom. (pp. 145 – 167). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a

foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559 – 562. Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 21, 112 – 126. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125 – 132. Huang, S., Eslami, Z., & Hu, R. S. (2010). The Relationship between Teacher

and Peer Support and English-Language Learners‟ Anxiety. English Language Teaching, 3, 32 – 40.

Kim, S. Y. (2009). Questioning the stability of foreign classroom anxiety and

motivation across different classroom contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 138 – 157.

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the College Japanese Language Classroom. The

Modern Language Journal, 85, 549 – 566. Liu, M. & Jackson J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners‟

unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 71 – 86.

Lucas, J. (1984). Communication apprehension in the ESL classroom: Getting

our students to talk. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 593 – 598. MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Investigating language class anxiety

using the focused essay technique. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 296–304.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

126

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and second language. Language Learning, 41 (4), 513 – 534.

McDowell, E. E. & Yotsuyanagi, N. (1995). An Exploratory Study of

Communication Apprehension, Willingness to Communicate and Sense of Humour between College Students from United States and Japan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396349).

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-

based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Osboe, S., Fujimura, T. & Hirschel, R. (2007). Student confidence and anxiety

in L2 speaking activities. Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan: Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association, 2007, Japan Conference. Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across the disciplines. ISSN 2073-7513. http://www.independentlearning.org.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J.

Arnold (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 58 – 67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Philips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students‟ oral test

performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76 (i), 14 – 26.

Pichette, F. (2009). Second language anxiety and distance language learning.

Foreign Language Annals, 42 (1), 77 – 93. Ramachandran, S & Renganayar, C. D. (2009, July 10). Employers and job

agencies worried. New Straits Times. Retrieved on November 5, 2009 from Bernama Library and Infolink Service.

Randall, K. (2007). Words fail me. The University of Texas at Austin: Feature

Story. Retrieved Jul 5, 2010, from http://www.utexas.edu/features/2007/language/

Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83 (ii), 202 – 218. Sila, A. Y. (2010). Young adolescent students‟ foreign language anxiety in

relation to language skills at different levels. The Journal of International Social Research, 3, 83 – 90.

Jurnal Penyelidikan Kent Bil. 1/2016

127

Spangler, D. (2009). Effects of two foreign language methodologies, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and teaching proficiency through reading and storytelling (TPRS), on beginning-level students‟ achievement, fluency, and anxiety. Retrieved Jul 5, 2010, from http://panamatesol.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/SpanglerDoctoral_Study_Summary-2.40144704.doc.

Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish:

A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 112 – 137. Tóth, Z. (2008). A foreign language anxiety scale for Hungarian learners of

English. WoPaLP, 2, 55 – 73. Tsiplakides, I. & Keramida, A. (2009). Helping students overcome foreign

language speaking anxiety in the English classroom: Theoretical issues and practical recommendations. International Education Studies, 2, 39 – 44.

Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In D. J. Young

(Ed.) Affect in Foreign Language and Second Language Learning: A Practical Guide to Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Atmosphere (pp. 106 – 123). Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

von Wörde, R. (2003). Students‟ perspectives on foreign language anxiety.

Inquiry, 8. Retrieved Jul 5, 2010, from http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring2003/i-81-worde.html

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language.

RELC Journal, 37, 308 – 328. Yan, X. & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners‟ Perceptions of How Anxiety Interacts

With Personal and Instructional Factors to Influence Their Achievement in English: A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners in China. Language Learning, 58, 151 – 183.

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

speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539 – 553. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Environment: What

Does Language Anxiety Research Suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426 – 439.

Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the language specialist‟s

perspective: Interview with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 157 – 172.