Investigating English majors’ affective and meta-affective strategy use and test anxiety

1. Investigating English majors’ affective and meta-affective strategy use and test anxiety Jakub Bielak Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań/Kalisz, Poland State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland SituatingStrategyUse: TheInterplay of Language Learning Strategies and IndividualLearnerDifferences 16-17 October 2015 Alpen-AdriaUniversität Klagenfurt, Austria

2. Overview • Language anxiety and test anxiety: definitions and literature overview • Therelationbetweenstrategyuse and anxiety • Research project • design • preliminaryresults • discussion, conclusions and recommendations

3. Language and test anxiety • “[A] distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviours related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 128). • Research on language anxiety indicates: • A relationshipbetweenhigherlevels of languageanxiety and lowerlanguageachievement (e.g., Dewaele, 2007; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Woodrow, 2006) • Anxietyinterferes with cognitiveprocessingat the input, processing and output stages (MacIntyre& Gardner, 1994; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2000). • The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz et al. 1986) takes test anxiety to be one of the correlates of foreign language anxiety (in addition to communicationapprehension and fear of negativeevaluation). • Only 2 items out of over 30 make reference to test anxiety: Item 8: I amusuallyateaseduringtests in my languageclass. Item 21: Themore I study for a language test, themoreconfused I get. • Test anxietyis a performance anxietyrelated to thefear of failure (Gordon & Sarason 1955) and can be investigatedboth as a trait and state phenomenon. • Itsmanifestationsareexcessiveworry, tension, irrelevant and chaoticthinking and suchphysiologicalreactions as fastheartbeatorexcessiveperspiration (Spielberger et al. 1976; Spielberger & Vagg 1995).

4. Affect, anxiety and strategies • Motivation and strategy use are related (Oxford and Nyikos 1989; Wharton 2000). • Language anxiety correlates negatively with the use of social, cognitive and metacognitive strategies (MacIntyre and Noels 1996). • Language anxiety correlates negatively with communication strategies and positively with socioaffective strategies (Mihaljević Djigunović 2000). • Affective strategies (aimed at anxiety reduction) are not related to language anxiety (Kondo and Ying-Ling 2004). • Language anxiety is weakly negatively related to cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies (Pawlak 2011).

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • The pilot studyaimed to address this neglected area; itinvestigatedtheinterplay of strategyuse and test anxiety. Bothquantitative and qualitativeanalysis was used. • Researchquestions: • Is there a relationship between general strategy use as well as the use of different types of strategies and test anxiety (TA; both trait and state)? • Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction result in greater strategy use? • Are high- and low-TA learners equally responsive to affective and meta-affective strategy instruction in terms of strategyuse? • Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction reduce TA (state)?

6. PARTICIPANTS / THE TEST • 41year-2Polish college students of English • 6 males, 39 females • 11.6 years of instruction in English, ranging from 4 to 19 years • Self-assessedproficiency (2-5): general 3.78, speaking 3.57 • Attheend of everyyearthestudentstakethefinalEFLexam, whichhas a veryimportantspeakingcomponent: • General oralproficiencyexam • A 10-minute interview with 2 or 3 examinersduringwhichtopicscoveredthroughouttheyeararediscussed • Analyticscoringusedwithfocus on pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and communicativeefficiency/fluency

7. DATA COLLECTION • StrategyInventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford 1990) • Itfocuses on memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and socialstrategies • Used in original form (English) • Cronbach’salpha (whole SILL) = .91 (first administration) and .93 (secondadministration) • Cronbach’salpha (affectivestrategies; 6 items) = .43 (first administration) and .67 (secondadministration) • In addition to theaffectivestrategiesmentioned in SILL, theparticipantslisted (in Polish) otherstrategiestheyused to „get rid of stress/anxietyrelated to speakingEnglish and to fosterpositiveemotions.”

8. DATA COLLECTION (2) • An additional affective and meta-affective strategy survey created by the present authors for measuring the use of strategies in relation to an actual oral exam • 4-point Likert scale, 7 items • Example items (they all concerned strategy use in relation to the EFL exam, immediately before and some time before the exam, as well as during and immediately after it): • “I tried to notice the emotions (such as stress, anxiety, self-confidence, etc.) I experienced.” • “I tried to somehow plan my emotions.” • “I gained access to resources (e.g. relaxing music, Internet sites about relaxation) which favorably influence emotions.” • Cronbach’s alpha = .68 • There was one open-ended question requesting the listing of additional strategies employed before, during and after the EFL exam “in order to experience favorable emotions (low level of stress/anxiety, self-confidence, self-efficacy, etc.).”

9. DATA COLLECTION (3) • Reactions to Tests (RTT; Sarason 1984) – one of the standard TA scalescurrentlyused in psychology (Zeidner 1989) • Itviews TA as beingcomposed of tension, worry, test-irrelevantthinking and bodilyreactions. • 4-point Likert scale, 40 items, 10 for eachcomponent • Exampleitemscorresponding to thefourcomponents of TA: • “I feeldistressed and uneasybeforeoraltests/exams.” • “During a difficultoral test/exam, I worrywhether I will pass it.” • “Irrelevantbits of information pop into my headduring an oral test/exam.” • “My heartbeatsfasterwhentheoral test/exambegins.” • TranslatedintoPolish and slightlymodified to focus on orallanguagetests • Cronbach’salpha = .95

10. DATA COLLECTION (4) • Anxometers (adaptedfromMacIntyre & Gardner 1991) for measuring state anxiety • A think-aloud instrument calledthe thought-listing technique, whichisoftenused in TA research(Bruch 1978). InstructionadaptedfromBlankstein et al. (1989, p. 273), translatedintoPolish.

11. PROCEDURE • Elicitedimitation • Training / instructions

12. AFFECTIVE AND META-AFFECTIVESTRATEGYINSTRUCTION • Doneduringseveralregularlyscheduleduniversitylectures(all sessionsexcept one; allparticipantstogether) and classes (one session; participantsdividedinto 3 groups) • Done by thepresentresearchers • Basedmostly on Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) and on a TED talk (online video) by Cuddy (2012) • Emotion-focused and cognition-focused (Zeidner 1998) includingelements of behavioral and cognitivetherapy/ interventions • Systematicdesensitization(Wolpe 1958) (“unlearning” anxiety) • Relaxation • Autogenicrelaxation • Progressive muscle relaxation training • Cognitiverestructuring

13. RESULTS: Test anxiety and strategy use • TA (RTT)(n = 41):M = 2.37 • The TA scores are very similar to those obtained in earlier studies (Bielak, Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Pawlak 2013) • Strategyuse (SILL) (wholesample, n = 41)

14. Correlations (Pearson) between trait TA and strategy use

15. Correlations (Pearson) between state TA and strategy use

16. Strategy use before and after the intervention • Dependent-samplesttests (n = 41)

17. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants • Thelowest and thehighesttertilesaccording to trait TA (RTT)

18. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (2) • All strategies

19. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (3) • All strategiesused by low-TAparticipants

20. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (4) • All strategiesused by high-TA participants

21. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (5) • Memorystrategies

22. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (6) • Cognitivestrategies

23. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (7) • Socialstrategies

24. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (8) • Affectivestrategies

25. Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (9) • A series of one-way and RM ANOVAsrevealed: • No significantdifferencesbetweengroupsat Time 1 • For allstrategiestogether and almostallstrategytypes (except for affectivestrategies): no significanteffects for either Group orinteractionbetween Time and Group • For theabove: significanteffects for Time only • For affectivestrategies: significanteffects for Time (F(1) = 14.20, p < .05) and interaction of Time and Group (F(2) = 4.77, p < .05), and no significanteffect for Group (F(2) = 3.21, p = .052) • RM ANOVAs for groupsshowedsignificanteffects for Time for the medium-TA grouponly • One-wayANOVAat Time 2 showedsignificantdifferencesbetweenthethreegroups (F(2) = 5.50, p < .05), with post-hoc test showingthefollowingsignificantdifferences: Low-TA < High-TA Low-TA < Medium-TA • For allthesignificantdifferences, effectsizeswerelargeorverylarge

26. DISCUSSION • Is there a relationship between general strategy use as well as the use of different types of strategies and TA (both trait and state)? • No, whenitcomes to general strategyuse(all strategies) and trait and state TA • Yes, whenitcomes to memory and affectivestrategies: The more anxious one is, the more often affective (and meta-affective) and memorystrategies are used, althoughit was not captured by theadditionalsurveyconcerningtheuse of affective and meta-affectivestrategiesduringtheEFLexam. • Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction result in greater strategy use? • Preliminary answer: perhapsyes, both in terms of all strategies and affective strategies • However, there was no control group (must be included in the research proper) and there were significant improvements in the use of all strategy types except for compensation strategies.

27. DISCUSSION (2) • Are high- and low-TA learners equally responsive to affective and meta-affective strategy instruction in terms of strategyuse? • No, high-anxietylearnersaremorelikelythanlow-anxietyones to increasetheuse of affective and meta-affectivestrategies in response to affective and meta-affectivestrategyinstruction. • Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction reduce TA (state)? • State anxiety was not reallyinvestigated in the pilot; itwill be investigated more thoroughly in the research proper (2 administrations of anxometers and thought-listing).

28. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS • Investigate state anxiety accompanying the EFL test at both Time 2 and Time 1. • Use an additional tool (e.g. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory[STAI]; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) to measure state anxiety. • In addition to RTT, use FLCAS. • Include a control group in the study design. • Offer more extensive treatment (strategy instruction).

29. Thankyou for yourattention! Questions, comments? Pleasereachusat kubabogu@amu.edu.pl amystkows@amu.edu.pl