3. the sample was similar in character to the target population, as ensured by the selection criteria.
Furthermore, in accordance with the inductive purposes of the dissertation research and the robust data analysis procedures (including Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)) that were to be employed, the criteria of the minimum number of participants being around 200 was also met. (It must be noted here that scholars are not in full agreement as to the minimum sample size necessary for SEM, but around 150 participants or 5 subjects per variable seem to be the minimum. For a discussion on the issue see Schumacker and Lomax (2004)).
The 214 participants included 130 girls and 84 boys. As specified above, most students (63.8 %) studied English as a Foreign Language at the time of the data collection in three lessons a week and an additional 19.2% four hours a week.
Interestingly, 15.4% also attended extracurricular (non-obligatory) English classes once a week and 1.4% twice a week organized by their school.
Out of 214, 125 learners claimed to have been in a country where they communicated using English. 89 of those who have been abroad spent between one and two weeks in the foreign country. Overall, the time students spent abroad ranged from one day to eight years. There were three learners whose stay was over a year long.
language classroom anxiety, trait anxiety, and that tap into the possible discrepancies between learners’ and teachers’ beliefs; learning and teaching styles differences;
discrepancies between the individual’s actual, ought-to and ideal selves; and identify coping strategies learners resort to when encountering anxiety in the foreign language classroom. A brief overview of each instrument follows.
4.3.1 Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)
The first surveys instrument was the Hungarian version of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Tóth, 2003, 2008). With its help, the aim was to determine the level of anxiety students experience in the EFL classrooms (see Appendix 1). The FLCAS was developed by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1991) to assess the degree to which a respondent feels anxious in a foreign language classroom. The scale is a 33-item five-point Likert scale which includes 24 positively worded and nine negatively worded items. Its construct views foreign language classroom anxiety as a composite of the following factors:
• communication apprehension: defined as “anxiety about communicating with people” (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1991, p.30) (e.g. item 4 “It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language.”),
• fear of negative evaluation: seen as inhibition caused by fear of others’
evaluations (Watson & Friend, 1969) (e.g. item 23: “I always feel that other students speak the foreign language better than I do”.),
• test anxiety: "performance anxiety stemming from a fear of failure" (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1991, p. 30) (e.g. Item 21. ”The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get.”).
In literature, it has been common practice to assign a value to each response on the Likert scale. Reversing the answers of the negatively worded items, the theoretical range of the scores on the FLCAS span from 33 to 165. It must be noted here that cutoff scores have not been established as to who can be considered as an anxious language learners. What FLCAS scores can imply is the relative high or low levels of anxiety students experience in the foreign language classroom.
The original FLCAS was translated to Hungarian and validated by Tóth (2003, 2008) for its use in the university level EFL classroom (α = 93, M = 84.36 and SD = 19.26). Minor adjustments were made in wording for the purposes of the present study where the target population consisted of secondary school students (e.g. in item 8. ‘ZH’, i.e. tests at universities, were altered to ‘dolgozat’, i.e. tests at secondary schools). Reliability after such minor changes was additionally ensured by way of conducting a think-aloud with three potential respondents.
4.3.2 State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Trait)
Similarly to the exploratory pilot studies, alongside the FLCAS, the second part of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (namely the Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Trait) was used to collect data about individuals’ levels of trait anxiety (see Appendix 2). The STAI was developed by Spielberger, translated into Hungarian, and validated, standardized and published by Sipos, Sipos, and Spielberger (1994). It is an
instrument widely used by psychologists for treatment planning (Groth-Marnat, 2003). As such it has been established to have adequate content and construct validity, with acceptable test-retest reliability results (Groth-Marnat, 2003).
The STAI-Trait is a 20-item 4-point Likert scale, consisting of sentences referring to participants’ general emotional state. Out of the 20 items, thirteen are worded positively and seven negatively. Sample items include the following:
item 8: “Úgy érzem annyi megoldatlan problémám van, hogy nem tudok úrrá lenni rajtuk.” - “I feel I cannot overcome the number of unresolved problems I have.”
item 11: “Hajlamos vagyok túlságosan komolyan venni a dolgokat.” – “I tend to take things too seriously.”
To depict respondents’ level of trait anxiety a score is assigned to each respondent based on their answers to all of the items on the questionnaire. The theoretical range of this instrument is from 20 to 80. Again, the scores cannot be the basis of diagnosing a respondent as anxious or non-anxious, but rather they can be used as points of reference for comparison between participants. In the present dissertation research, with the help of this survey, the students’ levels of foreign language classroom anxiety and trait anxiety could be contrasted with the hope of demonstrating that foreign language classroom anxiety can develop irrespective of high levels of trait anxiety.
4.3.3 Motivation Questionnaire
The next instrument utilized for collecting data was Kormos and Csizér’s (2008) motivation questionnaire (see Appendix 3) which had been compiled in a way
that all the psychological constructs relevant to and stemming from research results on foreign language learners’ motivation. As already summarized in the literature review, from a psychological point of view motivation is closely related to anxiety. Hence, some of the scales included in the questionnaire that measure learners’ ideal-self, ought-to self, motivated behavior, language classroom anxiety, language use anxiety and motivated behavior were thought to be fruitful in identifying discrepancies between learners’ different self-concepts and to measure them against learners’ levels of anxiety as well as to see to what extent this anxiety affects motivated language learning behavior.
The questionnaire is a 69 item five-point Likert scale available in Hungarian (learners’ L1). As in the case of the previous instruments, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with each statement in the questionnaire. Items 1-20 were formulated as questions (e.g. item 1 “Mennyire tetszenek az USA-ban készült TV műsorok?” - “How much do you like American TV programs?”).
According to previous empirical evidence and the theoretical construct of the survey, the items were centered around measuring the following fourteen variables (Kormos
& Csizér, 2008, 2009):
• Integrativeness :the attitudes language learners hold towards L2 and L2 speakers (e.g. item 5 “Mennyire tetszik neked az angol nyelv?” –“How much do you like English?”)
• Instrumentality: tangible advantages learners may obtain with the help of their language knowledge (e.g. item 8 “Szerinted az angol nyelvnek a tudása mennyire lenne segítségedre, ha külföldre utaznál?” – “How much do you think knowing English would it help you if you travelled abroad in the future?”)
• Cultural interest: how learners receive cultural artifacts of English speaking countries (Great Britain and the United States in particular) (e.g. item 1
“Mennyire tetszenek az USA-ban készült TV műsorok?” - “How much do you like the TV programs made in the United States?”)
• Vitality of the L2 community: learners’ opinion on the importance of the United States and Great Britain (e.g. item 19 “Szerinted milyen fontos szerepet játszik az Amerikai Egyesült Államok a világban?” – “How important a role do you think the United States plays in the world?”)
• Linguistic self-confidence: students’ sense of being able to learn English as a foreign language (e.g. item 21 “Biztos vagyok benne, hogy jól meg tudok tanulni egy idegen nyelvet.” – “I’m sure I will be able to learn a foreign language well.”)
• Language use anxiety: apprehension experienced when using English as a foreign language (e.g. item 42 “Ha találkoznék egy anyanyelvűvel, ideges lenék.” – “If there was an opportunity to meet an English speaker, I would feel nervous.”)
• Classroom anxiety: apprehension experienced in the EFL classroom (e.g. item 44 “Ideges vagyok, amikor az angolórán beszélek.” – “I get nervous when I am speaking in my English class.”)
• Milieu: how important do people around the learner perceive language learning (e.g. item 43 “A szüleim szerint az idegen nyelvek fontos iskolai tantárgyak.” – “My parents consider foreign languages important school subjects”.)
• Parental encouragement: how supportive learners’ parents are in their child’s language learning (e.g. item 35 “A szüleim bíztatnak, hogy minél többet
gyakoroljam az angolt.” – “My parents encourage me to practice my English as much as possible.”)
• Language learning attitudes: how much students enjoy learning English (e.g.
item 26 “Angolt tanulni nagyon jó.” – “Learning English is really great.”)
• International posture: learners’ views on English as an international language (e.g. item 30 “Ha jól beszélnék angolul, több embert meg tudnék ismerni más (nemcsak angol nyelvű) országokból.” – “If I could speak English well, I could get to know from other countries. (Not just English-speaking countries.)”)
• Ideal L2 Self: the extent learners see themselves as ideally using English. (e.g.
item 27 “A jövőbeli terveim miatt kell, hogy angolul tanuljak.” – “The things I want to do in the future require me to speak English.”)
• Ought-to L2 Self: what learners perceive as what their environment’s expectations are in terms of their language learning (e.g. item 61 “Ha nem sikerül megtanulnom angolul, akkor csalódást fogok okozni másoknak.” – “If I fail to learn English, I’ll be letting other people down.”)
• Motivated learning behavior: learners’ efforts directed towards learning English (e.g. item 68 “Elszántam magam, hogy megtanulok angolul.” – “I am determined to push myself to learn English.”)
Several empirical studies have set out to examine the relationship of these variables including Kormos and Csizér (2008, 2009). The reliability of the questionnaire has been established through the reliability of a number of its subscales.
4.3.4 Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)
The final questionnaire utilized for data collection was the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory designed and published by Horwitz (1987). (See Appendix 4.) The purpose of the 34 item five-point Likert scale is to investigate beliefs learners hold about language learning. Based on preliminary research, the author developed the items of the questionnaire that cover learners’ beliefs about the following issues related to language learning (see also Horwitz, 1987):
• foreign language aptitude: beliefs about the necessity and existence of special language learning abilities that ease the language learning process (e.g. item 2
“Egyesek különös nyelvérzékkel rendelkeznek.” - “Some people have a special ability to learn a foreign language.”
• difficulty of language learning – items here relate to how difficult learners perceive language learning is and what their expectations are as to their own success (e.g. item 4 “English is a ….very difficult language/a difficult language/a language of medium difficulty/an easy language/a very easy language” – “Az angol…nagyon nehéz nyelv/nehéz nyelv/közepesen nehéz nyelv/könnyű nyelv/nagyon könnyű nyelv.”
• nature of language learning – these items focus on different aspects of language learning (e.g. the importance of cultural contact, the distinct nature of language learning as opposed to other types of learning) (e.g. item 12
“Angolul legjobban angol nyelvterületen lehet megtanulni.” – “It is best to learn English in an English-speaking country.”
• learning and communication strategies-these items refer to the language learning process and communicating in the language classroom (e.g.18
“Fontos sokat ismételni és gyakorolni, miközben az ember nyelvet tanul.” –
“It is important to repeat and practice a lot.”
• motivations-these statement deal with learners’ language learning goal (e.g.
item 24 “Azért szeretnék megtanulni angolul, hogy jobban megismerjem az angol anyanyelvűeket.” – “I would like to learn English so that I can get to know Americans better.”
The BALLI was translated into Hungarian and first used as a structured interview protocol by Albert (2004). In the Hungarian version of the inventory, due to the foreign language learning context in which English is taught in Hungary, the reference to “Americans” in items 13, 24 and 32 have been modified to “native speakers” (see Albert, 2004). Since then, Rieger (forthcoming) has applied further modifications to the inventory fine-tuning it for use with first-year English and German majors. For the purposes of the present research, Albert’s (2004) translation was used due to its availability at the time of data collection and due to the fact that the instrument had been piloted.
Scoring of the BALLI has not been clearly established. Besides assigning scores to the answers based on how far respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement (strongly disagree=5, agree=4, neither agree or disagree=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1), it has been common practice to evaluate participants’ responses item by item (Horwitz, 1987, 1988, 1999). Interestingly, reliability measures of this instrument have not been published, and validation studies conducted have not arrived at the same latent structure (Yang, as cited in Kuntz,1996; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006;
Rieger, forthcoming). In spite of this, to date this instrument is one of the mostly widely used questionnaires to investigate language learners’ beliefs on a large scale.
4.3.5 Teachers’ BALLI
For the purposes of the present dissertation research, the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory was adapted to be used with practicing teachers (see Appendix 5). Here the principal aim was to be able to compare learners’ responses with their teachers’ and thus shed light on the discrepancies, if any exist, between what learners believe and what beliefs teachers hold about the nature and difficulty of language learning, language learning aptitude and motivation, and about learning strategies. Peacock (1999) also used a teachers’ version of BALLI in order to investigate discrepancies between the beliefs of teachers and learners. In the present case, the Hungarian version (Albert, 2004) of the learners’ BALLI was adapted to assess language teachers’ beliefs, using similar procedures for adaptation as in Peacock (1999).
The questionnaire consisted of 34 items on a five-point Likert scale as in the learners’ version. The items referring to learners’ beliefs explicitly were altered to the teachers’ more general perspective of learning English as a foreign language (see Table 1) (cf. Peacock, 1999). This meant that the impersonal structures characterizing the items that refer to the nature of language learning did not need to be altered (e.g.
item 8 “It is necessary to know about English-speaking cultures in order to speak English.” – “Fontos az angolszász kultúrák ismerete ahhoz, hogy megtanuljon az ember angolul beszélni.”)
Table 1
Sample Items of the Learners’ and the Teachers’ Version of BALLI Topics covered
in BALLI
item # Learners’ BALLI Teachers’ BALLI
Beliefs about language aptitude
16 Különleges érzékkel rendelkezem a nyelvtanuláshoz.
I have a special ability for learning foreign languages.
Különös adottságuk van a diákjaimnak a
nyelvekhez.
My students have a special ability for learning foreign languages.
Difficulty of language learning
5 Hiszek abban, hogy jól meg fogok tudni tanulni beszélni angolul
I believe I will learn to speak English well.
Szerintem, könnyen meg lehet tanulni angolul.
I think it is easy to learn English.
Learning and communication strategies
13 I enjoy practicing English with the native speakers I meet.
Élvezem, ha külföldiekkel találkozva módom nyílik az angol nyelv gyakorlására.
My students enjoy practicing English with the native speakers they meet.
Diákjaim élvezik, ha angol anyanyelvűekkel találkoznak és
gyakorolhatják a nyelvet.
Motivation 24 I would like to learn English so that I can get to know native speakers.
Azért szeretnék megtanulni angolul, hogy jobban megismerhessem az angol nyelvű kultúrák népeit.
I would like my students learn English so that they can get to know native speakers.
Azért szeretném, hogy a diákjaim megtanuljanak angolul, hogy jobban megismerjék az angol anyanyelvűeket.
As mentioned above, the assessment of the respondents to the BALLI is not straightforward. In the teachers’ version of the instruments generally the same guidelines to interpreting responses was followed as with the learners’ version. Scores were assigned according to each answer based on how far respondents agreed or disagreed with the statements (strongly disagree=5, agree=4, neither agree nor disagree=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1). These scores or answers were then contrasted with the learners’ answers. The instrument was piloted with the participation of two secondary school EFL teachers using think aloud protocols.
4.3.6 Learning Styles Questionnaire
In order to determine the relationship of students’ learning styles and foreign language classroom anxiety, a Hungarian learner styles questionnaire was used (Szitó, 2005; see Appendix 6). This questionnaire consists of 34 5-point Likert scale items and assesses students’ learning styles based on the following categories of preferences:
• auditory (e.g. item 8 “Gyakran előfordul, hogy szóban elismétlem,
‘felmondom’ magamnak a leckét.” – “I often recite the learning material to myself”) ,
• visual (e.g. item 4 “Nagyon hasznos számomra, ha a tanár ábrákat mutat be a táblán, vagy az írásvetítőn, amikor magyaráz” – “I find it very useful if the teacher uses drawings on the board or the OHP to explain the material.”)
• kinesthetic (e.g. item 12 “Jobban kedvelem azokat a feladatokat, ahol kézzelfogható dolgokkal, tárgyakkal kell foglalkozni, mint ahol csak rajzok, ábrák, vagy szövegeket vannak.” – “I prefer tasks where we use concrete objects rather than just drawings, graphs or texts”),
• preference for silence (e.g. item 21 “Teljes csendben tudok csak tanulni” – “I can only study in complete silence”),
• preference for learning in a group (e.g. item 3 “Szívesebben tanulok az osztálytársammal, vagy barátommal” – “I prefer studying with a classmate or a friend”),
• impulsive learning style (e.g. item 17 “Amikor a tanár felszólít és kérdez tőlem valamit, gyakran előbb válaszolok, minthogy át tudnám gondolni, mit is mondok.” – “When the teacher calls on me, I often respond before I can think through what I am saying”),
• mechanic learning style (e.g. item 10 “Nem szeretem azokat a feladatokat, amelyeken törnöm kell a fejem” – “I don’t like tasks that need a lot of thinking”
Szitó (2005) provides guidelines as to calculating the scores for each learning style, based on which tendencies of preferred learning styles could be identified. As in the case of assigning scores to items on a Likert scale described above, here too it was suggested that an answer of strongly disagree be assigned a value of ‘1’, disagree a value of ‘2’, neither agree or disagree a valued of ‘3’, agree a value of ‘4’ and strongly agree a value of ‘5’. For the calculation of scores the assigned values of the key reversed items’ (items 6, 32, 7, 24, 11, 26, 1, 31) answers had to be reversed.
Then, Szitó (2005) suggests that the means of the items that were designed to tap into
one particular learning style be calculated and serve as the score depicting preferences for that learning style.
Specific information about the questionnaire’s validity and reliability has not yet been published. The greatest advantage of this questionnaire is that it was available in Hungarian and has been used in the Hungarian educational context.
4.3.7 Teaching Style Questionnaire
Peacock (2001) conducted a study investigating the discrepancies between learning and teacher styles. He defined teaching styles as the “natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of teaching new information and skills in the language classroom”
(Peacock, 2001, p 7). Following his study, the teaching style questionnaire was compiled based on the learning styles survey in order to be able to compare learners’
responses with those of the teachers. This was necessary because the primary aim of the teachers’ data was to detect inconsistencies between learners’ preferred style of learning and the teachers’ preferred way of presenting material in the language class.
Consequently, Szitó’s (2005) instrument, described above, formed the basis of the teaching style questionnaire (see Appendix 7). Likewise, the chief reason for choosing this instrument rather than that utilized by Peacock (2001) was its availability in Hungarian and its face validity supported by the fact that it is a published questionnaire.
Parallel to the adaptation of the BALLI for use with teachers, all questions of the learning style questionnaire were altered in a way that they refer to the instructors’
teaching practices in the given group. The teachers’ questionnaire, parallel the
learners’ survey, consisted of 34 items that referred to the same areas of learning styles. For a sample of the adapted items see Table 2.
Table 2
Sample Items of the Learners’ and Teachers’ Version of the Styles Questionnaire
Styles item # Learners’ style Teachers’ style
Auditory 23 I understand the material easier if someone explains it than if I have to read.
Ha valaki elmondja nekem a leckét, sokkal
könnyebben megértem, mintha egyszerűen csak elolvasom.
I explain the learning material, the students do not only have to rely on the book.
A tananyagot el is mondom, nem csak olvashatják a diákok.
Visual 4 I find it very useful if the teacher uses visuals with the help of the blackboard, or OHP when he/she is explaining the material.
Nagyon hasznos számomra, ha a tanár ábrákat mutat be a táblán vagy az írásvetítőn , amikor magyaráz.
When I explain the material, I use visuals with the help of the blackboard or OHP.
Amikor magyarázok, képeket mutatok be a táblán vagy az írásvetítőn.
Kinesthetic 12 I enjoy those tasks more where there is something tangible rather than just pictures, drawings or texts.
Jobban kedvelem azokat a feladatokat, ahol
kézzelfogható dolgokkal, tárgyakkal kell foglalkozni, mint ahol csak rajzok, ábrák vagy szövegek vannak.
There are tasks where students can work with tangible objects rather than just pictures, drawings or texts.
Az órán vannak olyan feladatok, ahol
kézzelfogható dolgokkal, tárgyakkal dolgoznak a tanulók, nem csak
rajzokkal, ábrákkal illetve szövegekkel.
Social 3 I’d rather study together with a classmate or a friend than alone.
Szívesebben tanulok az osztálytársammal vagy a barátommal, mint egyedül.
Students work in pairs or groups during the lessons.
A diákok csoportban vagy párban dolgoznak az órán.
Silence 25 It bothers me if people are talking around me when I am studying.
Tanulás közben nagyon zavaró, ha beszélgetnek körülöttem.
Students have to work in class while others around them are talking.
Van, hogy a diákok úgy dolgoznak az órán, hogy közben mások beszélnek körülöttük.
Impulsive 17 When I am called on, I often answer before I can think through what I am saying.
Amikor a tanár felszólít és kérdez tőlem valamit, gyakran előbb válaszolok, minthogy át tudnám gondolni, mit is mondok.
I often call on students spontaneously.
Gyakran spontán szólítok fel diákokat.
Mechanic 30 I often learn material I don’t understand.
Gyakran előfordul, hogy olyan dolgokat is
megtanulok, amiket nem nagyon értek.
Very often students have to learn the material without understanding it.
Gyakran előfordul, hogy értelmezés nélkül kell megtanulniuk a diákoknak valamit.
It must be noted that learning styles are assumed to persist and are unlikely to change from one lesson to the next or over a short period time (Dörnyei, 2005). For this reason, the learners’ questionnaire referred to students’ general learning style, whereas the teachers’ style questionnaire was particular to the students’ EFL lessons.
As with all the previously described Likert scales, the respondents’ answers were assigned numerical values. In the analysis, these values were compared with learners corresponding responses to identify possible discrepancies. The instrument was piloted with the participation of two secondary school EFL teachers.
4.3.8 Coping Preferences Questionnaire
Another point the hypothesized model proposes is that there are students whose coping strategies in dealing with foreign language anxiety result in ‘fleeing’
from the situation rather than ‘fighting’ it. To look at the strategies students employ in coping with foreign language anxiety, a tailored version of a Hungarian coping strategies questionnaire devised by Oláh (2005) to assess general coping strategies was used, which asked students to respond to the items with their EFL lessons in mind. (For a copy of the instrument see Appendix 8.)
The questionnaire exists both in a longer 80-item and in a shorter 51-item four-point Likert scale format. Because of the participants’ time constraints, the shorter version was selected to gather data for the present research. With the help of the chosen questionnaire learners’ coping strategy preferences can be identified along eight categories (see Oláh, 2005, p. 69):
• -problem-focused reaction: the aim is to alter the situation (e.g. item 49
“Igyekszem megváltoztatni a helyzetet.” – “I try to change the situation.”)
• -seeking social support: coping with the help of another person(s) (e.g. item 12
“Tanácsot kérek egy általam nagyra értékelt személytől.” – “I try to ask for a respected person’s advice”.)
• -tension control: focus on the self, does not rule out altering the situation as a possibility (e.g. item 4 “Igyekszem rugalmas lenni.” – “I try to be flexible.”)
• -diverting attention: defense maneuver (e.g. item 21 “Igyekszem a gondolataimat inkább más feladatokra koncentrálni” – “I try to concentrate on other tasks.”)
• -emotion-focused coping: primarily tries to avoid the negative feeling (e.g.
item 6 “Különböző dolgokkal megpróbálom elérni, hogy jobban érezzem magam.” - “I try to make myself feel better somehow.”)
• -letting out emotions: letting out emotions without any control (e.g. item 17
“Dühbe gurulok.” – I get angry.”)
• -self-punishment: negative emotions are interpreted as negative reactions towards something wrong the person had done (e.g. item 5 “Magamat okolom a történtekért.” - “I blame myself for what had happened.”)
• -resignation: the person feels that nothing can be done, he/she has to accept it (e.g. item 16 “Az időre bízom a megoldást.” - “I let time solve the problem.”
The reliability of these eight categories was insured by previous studies of standardization involving 3500 participants (see Oláh, 2005), where the reliability coefficient all proved to be psychometrically acceptable (Cronbach's alpha values ranging from .50 to .75).
Alongside the above instruments, respondents were asked to provide biographical data. Questions were asked about participants’ gender, their perceived level of proficiency and the number of English lessons they have a week. Also, biographical questions inquired about how long participant have been studying English as a foreign language and whether they have ever been to a foreign country where they used English for communication.