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 Situating Strategy Use: The Interplay of Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner Differences October 2015 Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt, Austria

Overview Language anxiety and test anxiety: definitions and literature overview The relation between strategy use and anxiety Research project design preliminary results discussion, conclusions and recommendations

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 relationship between higher levels of language anxiety and lower language achievement (e.g., Dewaele, 2007; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Woodrow, 2006) Anxiety interferes with cognitive processing at 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 communication apprehension and fear of negative evaluation). Only 2 items out of over 30 make reference to test anxiety: Item 8: I am usually at ease during tests in my language class. Item 21: The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get. Test anxiety is a performance anxiety related to the fear of failure (Gordon & Sarason 1955) and can be investigated both as a trait and state phenomenon. Its manifestations are excessive worry, tension, irrelevant and chaotic thinking and such physiological reactions as fast heartbeat or excessive perspiration (Spielberger et al. 1976; Spielberger & Vagg 1995).

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).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS The pilot study aimed to address this neglected area; it investigated the interplay of strategy use and test anxiety. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis was used. Research questions: 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 strategy use? Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction reduce TA (state)?

PARTICIPANTS / THE TEST 41 year-2 Polish college students of English 6 males, 39 females 11.6 years of instruction in English, ranging from 4 to 19 years Self-assessed proficiency (2-5): general 3.78, speaking 3.57 At the end of every year the students take the final EFL exam, which has a very important speaking component: General oral proficiency exam A 10-minute interview with 2 or 3 examiners during which topics covered throughout the year are discussed Analytic scoring used with focus on pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and communicative efficiency/fluency

DATA COLLECTION Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford 1990) It focuses on memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategies Used in original form (English) Cronbach’s alpha (whole SILL) =.91 (first administration) and.93 (second administration) Cronbach’s alpha (affective strategies; 6 items) =.43 (first administration) and.67 (second administration) In addition to the affective strategies mentioned in SILL, the participants listed (in Polish) other strategies they used to „get rid of stress/anxiety related to speaking English and to foster positive emotions.”

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.).”

DATA COLLECTION (3) Reactions to Tests (RTT; Sarason 1984) – one of the standard TA scales currently used in psychology (Zeidner 1989) It views TA as being composed of tension, worry, test- irrelevant thinking and bodily reactions. 4-point Likert scale, 40 items, 10 for each component Example items corresponding to the four components of TA:  “I feel distressed and uneasy before oral tests/exams.”  “During a difficult oral test/exam, I worry whether I will pass it.”  “Irrelevant bits of information pop into my head during an oral test/exam.”  “My heart beats faster when the oral test/exam begins.” Translated into Polish and slightly modified to focus on oral language tests Cronbach’s alpha =.95

DATA COLLECTION (4) Anxometers (adapted from MacIntyre & Gardner 1991) for measuring state anxiety A think-aloud instrument called the thought-listing technique, which is often used in TA research (Bruch 1978). Instruction adapted from Blankstein et al. (1989, p. 273), translated into Polish.

PROCEDURE Elicited imitation Training / instructions TimeProcedure Time 1 (7 weeks before the EFL exam) SILL (first administration), RTT Weeks between Time 1 and Time 2 Affective and meta-affective strategy instruction Time 2 (the day of the EFL exam) EFL exam (interview) SILL (second administration), anxometers, thought-listing, affective and meta-affective survey EFL exam (announcement of grade and scores)

AFFECTIVE AND META-AFFECTIVE STRATEGY INSTRUCTION Done during several regularly scheduled university lectures (all sessions except one; all participants together) and classes (one session; participants divided into 3 groups) Done by the present researchers Based mostly on Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) and on a TED talk (online video) by Cuddy (2012) Emotion-focused and cognition-focused (Zeidner 1998) including elements of behavioral and cognitive therapy/ interventions Systematic desensitization (Wolpe 1958) (“unlearning” anxiety) Relaxation  Autogenic relaxation  Progressive muscle relaxation training Cognitive restructuring

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) Strategy use (SILL) (whole sample, n = 41) Strategy type Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) All types3.20 (0.49)3.42 (0.53) Memory2.85 (0.61)3.18 (0.64) Cognitive3.35 (0.57)3.53 (0.54) Compensation3.38 (0.55)3.50 (0.73) Metacognitive3.43 (0.72)3.62 (0.69) Affective2.70 (0.54)2.98 (0.71) Social3.32 (0.82)3.56 (0.73)

Correlations (Pearson) between trait TA and strategy use 14 All strategies MemoryCognitCompenMetacogAffectiveSocial Trait TA.29.31* *.14 * p <.05

Correlations (Pearson) between state TA and strategy use 15 All strategies MemoryCognitCompenMetacogAffectiveSocial State TA (oral exam).18.35* *.06 * p <.05 Affective and meta-affective.12

Strategy use before and after the intervention Dependent-samples t tests (n = 41) Strategy type Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) tp All types3.20 (0.49)3.42 (0.53) Memory2.85 (0.61)3.18 (0.64) Cognitive3.35 (0.57)3.53 (0.54) Compensation3.38 (0.55)3.50 (0.73) Metacognitive3.43 (0.72)3.62 (0.69) Affective2.70 (0.54)2.98 (0.71) Social3.32 (0.82)3.56 (0.73)

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants The lowest and the highest tertiles according to trait TA (RTT) Strategy type Low-anxiety (n = 14)High-anxiety (n = 14) Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) All types 3.15 (0.65)3.31 (0.61)3.32 (0.33)3.57 (0.44) Memory 2.64 (0.75)2.87 (0.70)2.91 (0.48)3.39 (0.54) Cognitive 3.42 (0.78)3.56 (0.67)3.44 (0.35)3.57 (0.46) Compensation 3.34 (0.57)3.48 (0.70)3.57 (0.61)3.58 (0.84) Metacognitive 3.35 (0.86)3.54 (0.78)3.61 (0.58)3.86 (0.54) Affective 2.55 (0.65)2.55 (0.79)2.92 (0.49)3.21 (0.44) Social 3.36 (0.95)3.59 (0.88)3.40 (0.69)3.73 (0.60)

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

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (3) All strategies used by low-TA participants

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (4) All strategies used by high-TA participants

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (5) Memory strategies

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (6) Cognitive strategies

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (7) Social strategies

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (8) Affective strategies

Strategy use before and after the intervention by low-TA and high-TA participants (9) A series of one-way and RM ANOVAs revealed: No significant differences between groups at Time 1 For all strategies together and almost all strategy types (except for affective strategies): no significant effects for either Group or interaction between Time and Group For the above: significant effects for Time only For affective strategies: significant effects for Time (F(1) = 14.20, p <.05) and interaction of Time and Group (F(2) = 4.77, p <.05), and no significant effect for Group (F(2) = 3.21, p =.052)  RM ANOVAs for groups showed significant effects for Time for the medium-TA group only  One-way ANOVA at Time 2 showed significant differences between the three groups (F(2) = 5.50, p <.05), with post-hoc test showing the following significant differences: Low-TA < High-TA Low-TA < Medium-TA For all the significant differences, effect sizes were large or very large

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, when it comes to general strategy use (all strategies) and trait and state TA Yes, when it comes to memory and affective strategies: The more anxious one is, the more often affective (and meta- affective) and memory strategies are used, although it was not captured by the additional survey concerning the use of affective and meta-affective strategies during the EFL exam. Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction result in greater strategy use? Preliminary answer: perhaps yes, 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. 26

DISCUSSION (2) Are high- and low-TA learners equally responsive to affective and meta-affective strategy instruction in terms of strategy use? No, high-anxiety learners are more likely than low-anxiety ones to increase the use of affective and meta-affective strategies in response to affective and meta-affective strategy instruction. Does affective and meta-affective strategy instruction reduce TA (state)? State anxiety was not really investigated in the pilot; it will be investigated more thoroughly in the research proper (2 administrations of anxometers and thought-listing). 27

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). 28

Thank you for your attention! Questions, comments? Please reach us at