Affective Filter Hypothesis Krashen posits, as part of his Monitor Theory, that the affective filter acts against the acquisition of language by blocking the deep processing of input. Though much of the Monitor Theory has been thoroughly criticized (Gregg, 1984), the concept of an affective filter in learning has received little. The metaphor of a filter is quite apt. This theorized construct does not stop input from getting through, but instead regulates how much or the quality of the input going through to the language acquisition device (LAD) (Laine, 1988). Therefore, it behooves language educators to help learners open up this filter as much as possible for optimal input processing. While this filter has other aspects, the primary constituent is anxiety. Trait Anxiety Trait anxiety is as, “stable differences in the tendency to respond with state anxiety in the anticipation of threatening situations” (Koballa & Glynn, 2007). As the name indicates, it is much more of a personality trait than a reaction to immediate stimulus. Much of the work on anxiety’s role in language learning and performance has focused on trait anxieties such as test anxiety*. State Anxiety State anxiety, on the other hand, is just that, a reaction to a context (Spielberger, 1983). State anxiety changes depending on the situation and variables present. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)(Horwitz, 2001). Specific anxieties negatively affect performance on: vocabulary recall (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989), final grades (Aida, 1994; Saito & Samimy, 1996; Kim, 1998 [Korean context]; Coulombe, 2000), student and teacher perceptions of performance (Trylong, 1987; MacIntyre, Noels, & Clement, 1997), recall of text (Oh, 1990 [Korean context]), and listening (Kim, 2000 [Korean context]). As noted in the previous list, a number of these studies were carried out with Korean learners of a foreign language. This is of special concern given that this current study was conducted in Korea. Korean learners have been found to have higher foreign language anxiety as measured with the FLCAS (Truitt, 1995) FLCAS was administered as the measure of foreign language anxiety in this study and evaluated for influence in test performance. Specific Test Anxiety Neither measures of test anxiety or foreign language anxiety address anxiety at the time of each test. Both instruments refer to general feelings and beliefs, which would be the same regardless of the mode utilized. A brief survey was developed and administered which measured perceived anxiety before, during, and after interviews. Could also talk about distance education theories on distance and the effect it has on interaction. From this point of view, video would reduce
1. Participants Forty (32f/8m) Korean college students participated in the study. Korean was their first language for all but one native speaker of Chinese. 24 freshmen; 10 sophomores; 3 juniors; and 3 seniors. Age 19-38, mean=21.85 Majors: 35 English related majors, 3 tourism, 1 music, and 1 childhood ed. TOEIC scores all of which were less than 700. Two interviewers participated in the study. The interviewers both had MA degrees in the field of TESOL and each had been teaching English for over ten years. They were well trained in interviewing test takers in oral tests. 2. Procedure and Materials 1) Test Development Two forms of oral interview: f2f & online videoconferenced. 2) Test Administration and Anxiety Survey Two interviewers were trained before the test administration for one hour. In the training session, they became familiar with the test, rating benchmarks, and the test takers’ characteristics. They were given the information on the test forms, topics, and procedures, test takers’ ages, genders, grades, English language proficiency, and majors. The participants were randomly divided into two groups. Each group participated in a face-to-face oral interview and an online videconferenced oral interview a month apart. Two native speakers of English interviewed them for about five to ten minutes and rated their performance. The face-to-face interview was video-taped and the online videoconference was recorded by means of Adobe Connect virtual classroom software. The one-to-one online interview was simultaneously carried out between the interviewer and the participants via webcams and microphones. After each interview, all the participants were asked to fill out two anxiety surveys. One survey was about test anxiety and the other foreign language learning anxiety (Revised from Maeng, 2007). Additionally, a series of questions were included to assess state anxiety before, during, and after the interview. The rating scale was from 1 the lowest to 6 the highest. For questions 1 and 2, scale 1 was the most comfortable while scale 6 the most nervous. For questions 3, 4, 5, and 6, the anxiety levels were opposite: scale 1 the most nervous, scale 6 the most comfortable. State Anxiety Survey questions were; 1. How nervous did you feel before the test began? 2. How nervous did you feel after the test was completed? 3. How comfortable did the interviewer make you? 4. How comfortable was the testing environment? 5. How comfortable are you with this kind of speaking test? 6. How comfortable are you with the interviewer’s pronunciation? 3) Rating Rating was done after the interview was finished. Two raters analytically graded each speech sample and the average score between them was taken as a holistic score for each participant. The scoring constructs were fluency, functional competence, accuracy, coherence, and interactiveness. The rating scale was from 2 the lowest to 6 the highest. 4) Data Collection and Analysis Procedure All the data were collected, including test scores for both interview forms and the results of the participants’ anxiety surveys. The test and survey results were analyzed using SPSS 15.0, a statistical analysis tool, to produce descriptive statistics and mean differences of their performances between the test modes and anxiety levels between the modes. Additionally, the relationship between the anxiety level differences and their performances according to the different test forms was analyzed.
Test forms were equivalent with Cronbach’s α=.83 overall, .73 for the face-to-face form, and .77 for the online form. Means and Standard Deviation for the 3 forms were 3.23(.62), 3.26(.70), and 3.20(.66) respectively. The correlation coefficient between face-to-face and online interview was .66 ( p =.000 < .01). Additionally, there was a high reliability between interviewers overall (α=.84), while the correlation between the two interviewers was .69 ( p =.000 < .01). There was high reliability between raters (α=.83) and the correlation coefficient between rater 1 and rater 2 was .68 ( p =.000 < .01).
There was no significant difference in participants’ performance between the modes (face-to-face & online). A Paired Sample t-test revealed no significant relationship between performance and mode ( t (39)=.64 ( p =.53 > .05).
Low Levels of Anxiety for both Modes Survey results indicated little anxiety both pre-interview and post-interview (table 2) test conditions were rated as generally comfortable (table 2 and 3). Test Factors mean scores for anxiety before and after the tests were higher for face-to-face interviews than online interviews (questions 1 and 2 in tables 2). Only for question 1, there was significant mean difference between the modes ( t (39) = 2.48, p =.02 < .05). Test Conditions participants expressed that they were more comfortable for face-to-face interviews than online interviews (questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 in table 3). Only for question 3, there was significant mean difference between the modes ( t (39) = 2.66, p =.01 < .05).
Test Modes Correlate Significant (p=.000) moderate, positive correlation (.539) between scores on face-to-face and online interviews. Additionally, there were significant relationships between some, though not all, of the anxiety measures and interview performance. Anxiety Survey after F2F Interviews Significant (p=.014) low, negative correlation (-.384) between the measure of pre-test anxiety and face-to-face interview performance, as well as a significant (p=.000) high, negative correlation (-.603) between the measure of pre-test anxiety and online interview performance. The relationship between post-test anxiety and both face-to-face and online interview performance was significant (p=.017, p=.044), with a low, negative correlation (-.377, -.320). Anxiety Survey after Online Interviews Significant (p=.040) low, negative correlation (-.327) between participants’ post-test anxiety and their performance in the online interviews.
Discussion: Mode & Anxiety Pre-test anxiety higher on face-to-face interview than online interview. No significant difference between post-test anxiety and mode nor a These results suggest that anticipation of online interactions could be less anxiety provoking, but also that it somewhat equalizes through the interview process. One reason for this equalization could be because interviewers made participants significantly more comfortable in face-to-face interviews than in online interviews. Therefore, while the online mode is initially less anxiety provoking, it seems that face-to-face interviewers may mitigate this difference by making participants more comfortable.
Discussion: Mode, Anxiety, & Performance Negative relationship between anxiety and performance. Online interview survey group showed no significant correlation between pre-test anxiety and performance in either mode, nor was there a significant correlation between post-test anxiety and performance on the face-to-face interview. Only between post-test anxiety and online interview performance was there a significant, though low, negative correlation. Anxiety seems to be a good indicator of performance across modes when measured after a face-to-face interview, but a poor overall indicator when measured after an online interview. This discrepancy could suggest that performance in online interviews is less influenced by anxiety than other performance-related factors.
2009 KAMALL - Relationship between anxiety and speaking performance in online and face-to-face interviews
The Relationship between Anxiety and Speaking Performance in Online and Face-to-face Interviews Jungtae Kim (Pai Chai University) jungtaekim@ pcu .ac.kr Daniel Craig (Sangmyung University) [email_address]
Introduction <ul><li>Needs of testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>more valid measures of communicative competency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why videoconferencing? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>access to interviewers & cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Videoconferencing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>improved quality, ubiquity, & social acceptance. </li></ul></ul>
Theoretical Framework <ul><li>Affective Filter </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced AF through CMC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Anxiety </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trait </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(General )Test Anxiety* </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Foreign Language Anxiety (Horwitz, 2001) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Specific) Test Anxiety </li></ul></ul></ul>* Test anxiety can be seen as trait or state. It is a trait if seen as a general response that invokes state anxiety; however, it is state if you measure anxiety for a particular instance. In our context, we used both.
Research Questions <ul><li>How does mode affect participants’ anxiety levels? </li></ul><ul><li>How do mode and anxiety interact with performance? </li></ul>
Results: Forms, Interviewers, & Raters <ul><li>Test forms were equivalent ( α =.83) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean (3.23) & SD (.62) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interviewers were equivalent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interview Correlation coefficient .66 (p=.000<.01) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High, positive correlation between interviewers ( α =.84) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Raters were equivalent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High rater reliability ( α =.83) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rater correlation coefficient .69 (p=.000<.01) </li></ul></ul>
Results: Performance Between Modes <ul><li>No significant difference on performance between modes. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Paired sample t-test t(39)=.64 (p=.53>.05) </li></ul></ul>
Results: Anxiety & Mode <ul><li>Low levels of anxiety on both modes </li></ul><ul><li>Higher anxiety for face-to-face (f2f) interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant pre-test anxiety (t(39)=2.48, p=.02<.05) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher, but not significant post-test </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More comfortable in f2f testing interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only significantly different for “how comfortable did the interviewer make you?” (t(39)=2.66, p=.01<.05) </li></ul></ul>
Results: Anxiety, Mode, & Performance <ul><li>a significant (p=.000) moderate, positive correlation (.539) between scores on f2f and online interviews. </li></ul><ul><li>Anxiety survey after f2f interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant, negative correlations between pre- & post-test anxiety and performance on both modes. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Anxiety survey after online interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant, low, negative correlation between post-test anxiety and online interview performance. </li></ul></ul>
Discussion: Mode & Anxiety <ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Higher anxiety before f2f interview than online interview. </li></ul><ul><li>No significant difference between post-test anxiety and mode </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretation </li></ul><ul><li>Face-to-face interviews are more anxiety provoking than online interviews </li></ul><ul><li>The process of interviewing mitigates this difference. </li></ul>
Discussion: Mode, Anxiety, & Performance <ul><li>Anxiety is a good indicator of performance when assessed after a f2f interview </li></ul><ul><li>Poor overall indicator assessed after an online interview. </li></ul><ul><li>Suggests performance in online interviews is less influenced by anxiety than other performance-related factors. </li></ul>
THE END <ul><li>Thank you very much </li></ul><ul><li>Any Questions? </li></ul>Dan Craig Sangmyung University [email_address] http://www.danielcraig.com Jungtae Kim Pai Chai University jungtaekim@ pcu .ac.kr