Journal Pre-proof

Technological impact on language anxiety dynamic

Li Xiangming, Meihua Liu, Chengping Zhang

PII: S0360-1315(20)30039-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103839
Reference: CAE 103839

To appear in: Computers & Education

Received Date: 25 March 2019

Revised Date: 25 September 2019
Accepted Date: 3 February 2020

Please cite this article as: Xiangming L., Liu M. & Zhang C., Technological impact on language anxiety
dynamic, Computers & Education (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103839.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Technological Impact on Language Anxiety Dynamic

Li Xiangming1, Meihua Liu2*, Chengping Zhang3

1 & 3 Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University, P.R. China

2* (corresponding author) Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Tsinghua University,

P.R. China

Mailing Address:
Li Xiangming: Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, 518055, P.R. China
Meihua Liu: Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
100084, P.R. China
Chengping Zhang: Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, 518055, P.R.
China

Biodata

Li Xiangming is an Associate Professor in Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University,

P. R. China. Her research interests include mobile learning and instructional design in higher
educational settings, and EFL teaching. Email: lixm@sz.tsinghua.edu.cn, contact phone No.: +86
13510197176 (mobile), +86 755 2603 6405 (office)
Dr. Meihua Liu is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Department of Foreign
Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, P.R.China. Her research interests mainly include
EFL teaching and learning in the Chinese context, reticence and anxiety, EFL writing, and
International education. Her email: ellenlmh@yahoo.com.
Dr. Chengping Zhang is an Assistant Professor in Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua
University, P.R. China. Her research interests include EFL teaching and critic of English literature.
Her email: kittyzcp@sz.tsinghua.edu.cn.

1
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Technological impact on language anxiety dynamic

Abstract: Insufficient information was generated from the existing literature of

cross-sectional studies about the changes of language learning anxiety, especially in

technology-assisted language settings. This paper filled the gap by designing a

longitudinal study of 10 weeks in which the mobile learning apps of Rain Classroom

was administered to 158 postgraduate students in language class. Quantitative results

were generated, using paired samples T-test and one-way repeated measures ANOVA,

from the 5-point Likert scale of English Language Class Anxiety Scale, 7-point scale

recall of anxiety changes across 4 weeks, pre- and post-test language performance,

combined with the qualitative interview transcripts administered before and after the

learning process. In consistency with prior findings, the study results produced a

significant decrease in anxiety in general, corroborating the interview and the

self-recalling measure results. Further, the self-recalled scale revealed a more

complex pattern of anxiety with the general decreasing tendency mixed with the

increasing trend between the last two weeks. This study implied that the binary

approach of anxiety reduction was not sufficient for the big picture of fluctuations and

variations of language anxiety. The combination of language outcome data reinforced

the explanatory forces than a single-dimensional dataset.

Keywords: Interactive learning environments; Improving classroom teaching;

Teaching/learning strategies; Post-secondary education

1
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

1. Introduction

Scholarly works back in 1970s documented the attempts in examining anxiety in

computer-assisted instructional delivery (Sieber, O'Neil & Tobias, 1977; Tobias 1979).

Their findings were twofold: technology-embedded instruction held great potential for

monitoring anxiety changes and learning process; part of the anxiety aroused in the

learning process responded to familiarity level with the technological tool.

Anxiety in the above studies referred to the psychological construct in a general

sense. As anxiety manifested itself in language learning, there was a considerable

body of research on foreign language anxiety (FLA), among which research on

technology and FLA newly emerged. This line of research explores how technology

affects FLA or language skill-specific related anxiety across various

technology-assisted settings of distance learning, computer-assisted test environments,

gamifications and mobile learning (Kim, 2009; Melchor-Couto, 2017; Merc, 2015;

Rahimi & Soleymani, 2015; Wehner et al., 2011; Yanxia, 2017).

Yet the flaws of the current research of technology and FLA are yet to overcome.

The research of this stream is far outgrown by the major line of the association

between FLA and other learner or affective variables. The limited amount of research

fails to yield conclusive findings about technology and FLA (Aydın, 2018). Further,

despite the existing descriptive accounts of language anxiety in cross-sectional studies,

2
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

there is a call for more longitudinal studies to document the changes of anxiety and

learning performance before and after the learning process (Piniel & Csizer, 2015).

Therefore, this study attempted to examine learners’ affective state of anxiety

over a 10-week long period within a large-sample group of 158 participants in

technology-assisted settings with mobile learning technology. The technological tool

employed in this study referred to the mobile learning tool named Rain Classroom.

Developed by Tsinghua University in 2016, Rain Classroom was designed as a

built-in application into WeChat, the most popular instant messenger for free in China.

The easy access to Rain Classroom fostered the widespread application up to “6.8

million users and 800 thousand registered virtual classes, as recorded by November

30, 2018” (MOOC-CN, 2018).

The rationale of using Rain Classroom in language learning in this study lied in

the increasing popularity among learners and the availability of this mobile learning

tool developed by the prestigious university in China. The instructor’s previous

experiences of using this tool in class was another cause. Rain Classroom covered

feeding preview materials before class, comprehension check exercises or quizzes

during class, and take-home assignments after class. The students’ test scores were fed

immediately to both teachers’ and students’ ends. The lecture PPT was downloaded to

the student’s end immediately after the class session was over. The in-class

application was the focus of the study in this paper.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Measurement of Foreign Language Anxiety

3
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Foreign language anxiety was conceptualized as “a distinct complex of

self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language

learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (Horwitz,

Horwitz & Cope, 1986, p. 128). Several implications could be drawn from this

definition. First, the construct of anxiety entails the state of emotions, self-reported

assessment and the resulting learning performance. Second, anxiety aroused from

language learning distinguishes itself from the concept of anxiety in a general sense.

Third, anxiety identifies itself as the situation-specific type rather than the state or trait

type since it relates itself to the concrete context of language learning in class.

Broadly speaking, a variety of technological and non-technological strategies

have been employed to measure emotions including anxiety (Graesser, D'Mello &

Strain 2014; Loderer, Pekrun & Lester, 2018). For example, Woolf et al. (2009) used

the self-reported ratings in recording the emotional state. D'Mello, Lehman and

Person (2011) and Graesser and D’Mello (2012) proposed the recalls of affective

states experienced during the learning process. The onsite unobtrusive observation of

learners by the well-trained professionals was recommended by Baker, D'Mello,

Rodrigo and Graesser (2010) or the onsite talk-aloud strategies of emotion

experienced by leaners were explored by Craig, D’Mello, Witherspoon and Graesser

(2008). Picard (2010) attached the technology-advanced sensors to learners in

detecting the physiological state including brain activities, heart rate, blood pressure

4
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

or eye movement, or non-attached sensors in reading learners’ facial expressions,

body movement or language interactions (D’Mello & Graesser, 2010).

The combination of both technological and non-technological tools is also

employed in the specific scholarship of foreign language anxiety. Self-ratings on

established instruments prevail in the current literature. Researchers have fully

embraced the 33-item Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

developed by Horwitz (1986) and generated a great abundance of empirical research

findings within various language learning contexts (Aida, 1994; Cheng, Horwitz &

Schallert, 1999; Huang, 2018; Liu & Jackson, 2008). Later on, more studies further

probe into finer grains as the anxiety scale measures listening, speaking, reading and

writing respectively (Cheng, 2004; Elkhafaifi, 2005; He, 2013; Huang, 2012;

Jafarigohar, 2012; Saito et al., 1999; Serraj & Nordin, 2013; Tsai & Li, 2012).

Following the quantitative approach via self-report instrument, the qualitative studies

obtain much attention as well based on the interview transcripts gathered before or

after learning activities, or journals and reflections by learners during the learning

process (Gabarre, Gabarre, Din, Shah & Karim, 2016; Liu, 2014; Yan & Horwitz,

2008; Tóth, 2011). Further, researchers become insatiate with the single-approach

paradigm and attempt to integrate the quantitative and qualitative measures to better

explore and delineate the picture of language anxiety (Gregersen, 2003; Frantzen &

Magnan, 2005). Advanced technological tools of monitoring or wearing devices are

employed to detect the anxiety level indicated by physiological or nonverbal cues

being experienced during the learning process (Gregersen, Macintyre & Meza, 2014;

5
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011). Nevertheless, studies of this kind remain scarce and

need further validation.

2.2. Tackling Foreign Language Anxiety with Technology

In addition to measuring FLA, researchers commit themselves to coping

strategies. There is a tendency of consensus in treating FLA as debilitating rather than

facilitating in that the negative correlation has been consistently established between

FLA and learning outcomes of test scores or course grades in numerous studies

(Horwitz, 2016; MacIntye, 2017). Thus, the issue of dealing with anxiety has been

addressed as how to alleviate or mitigate language anxiety or as anxiety reduction

tactics.

The agents exercising the strategies could vary from teachers (Arnold, 1999;

Hashemi & Abbasi 2013; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey & Daley, 1999; Young, 1999),

students (Chow, Chiu & Wong, 2017; Guo, Xu & Liu, 2018; Hauck & Hurd, 2005; Lu

& Liu, 2011; Oxford, 1990) or professional psychological clinicians or therapists

(Kralova, Skorvagova, Tirpakova & Markechova, 2017; Tobias, 1979). Teachers’ aids

and contributions to alleviating learning anxiety are most commonly documented in

literature. A variety of strategies in reducing FLA have been employed along

cognitive (e.g., cooperative learning), affective (e.g., confidence-building in the

friendly learning atmosphere) and behavioral dimensions (e.g., listening skill drillings)

(Alrabai, 2015; Dowey et al., 2018; Gregersen et al., 2014; Liu & Huang, 2011).

In addition to non-technology tactics, the new era of information technology

facilitates the technology tools used by teachers embedded in instructional strategies

6
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

and tactics along behavioral, cognitive and affective dimensions in mitigating the

learner’s FLA. Shams (2005) introduced the computer-aided drills on the specific

language skill of oral pronunciation (behavioral dimension) and concluded that the

participants eased the anxious feeling by setting the learning pace for themselves and

taking the learning activities under control (cognitive dimension). Besides

computer-embedded drilling software, another type of software for voice recording

proves to pose both potentials and threats to students’ linguistic competence of speech

or pronunciation (cognitive and behavioral dimensions) (Ataiefar & Sadighi, 2017).

The overwhelming curiosity and enjoyment to the software engage learners in

learning activities deeply (affective dimension). In the virtual environment,

gamifications and chatting prove to relieve FLA and aid learners to be more engaged

in learning activities under anonymous identities (affective dimension) (Grant, Huang

& Pasfield-Neofitou, 2018) as well as enhance their linguistic competence (cognitive

dimension) (Hwang, Hsu, Lai, & Hsueh, 2017). Corrective feedback via online

learning environments is also viewed as effective in terms of metalinguistic feedback

(cognitive dimension) and active learning and interaction (affective dimension) (Lee,

2016; Martin & Valdivia, 2017).

2.3. Technology Affordance in Learning Settings

Technology affordance refers to what learning technologies afford and their

interactions with the surroundings including the environment and users (Hutchby,

2001). It helps fully explore the potentials and limits of the learning technologies, as

well as the synergies between learning technologies and learners per se during

7
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

learning activities. The nature of technology affordance starts with the study of

objective and “external” features (material part) and moves on to the conception “of

complex configurations of external objects” (the emotional statement of mind) (Vera

et al.,1993, p.41). In response to learners’ emotional state of anxiety, teachers are

expected to leverage the full power of instructional design and delivery in class by

tailoring and exploring technology functions and potentials.

Yet, prior works are still limited even though Rahimi and Soleymani (2015)

explored the mobile learning device of podcasts in practicing listening skills and

found reduced listening anxiety and enhanced listening capacity. The limited amount

of literature indicates that learning results including learners’ feelings in the

technology-, especially mobile technology-assisted learning contexts, are yet to be

explored in the future.

To answer this call, this study adopted a 10-week longitudinal study to investigate

the changes in FLA in language class employing the mobile learning technology. The

10-week long teaching sessions involved 158 participants exposed to the blended

learning mode with mobile learning tools in class. This study integrated the

self-reported scales of anxiety, learning performance, interview transcripts before and

after the 10-week long learning period, and 7-scale self-recall of anxiety changes in

weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10 respectively. In addition, retrospective data and reflections were

drawn from the interviews conducted before and after the learning process. The

combined attempts aimed to fully account for the changes in language anxiety in the

context of mobile technology-embedded learning activities.

8
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Situated in mobile-technology assisted blended learning settings, this research

attempted to address the following research questions:

Q1: Is there any significant difference in FLA before and after mobile-learning

assisted learning activities?

Q2: What is the sequential variation or changing pattern of FLA?

Q3: What are the learners’ perceptions towards technology and technology-assisted

learning class?
3. Methodology

3.1. Context

The quasi-experiment was conducted for 10 weeks with the total number of 158

learners from 5 intact classes. All the learners enjoyed the exposure to the mobile

learning technology of Rain Classroom since it was designed as a built-in application

to the free instant messenger of WeChat in cellphones. The campus-wide Wi-Fi or 4G

service enabled the smooth instructional delivery with no interruptions in natural

educational settings of language class.

3.2. Participants

Altogether 177 first-year postgraduate students of a research university in China

participated in the present study. Data complete for final analyses showed that 158

(106 male and 52 female) students with an average age of 22.47 (SD = 1.12) came

from various disciplines such as Chemistry, Automation, Electrical Engineering,

Computer Science and Material Science. A total number of 43 participants (27.2%)

had never used Rain Classroom (No experience), 103 participants (65.2%) lacked the

familiarity with Rain Classroom despite the access experience (Brief experience), and

12 participants (7.6%) were skilled at Rain Classroom (Skillful experience).

9
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Meanwhile, 17 students participated in informal semi-structured interviews before and

after the learning.

3.3. Instruments

The present study employed a mixed method to collect data, as detailed below.

Background Information Questionnaire The 6-item background information

questionnaire was designed to collect the participants’ biographic information,

including name, gender, discipline and age.

Informal Semi-structured Interview To better understand the effects of Rain

Classroom on participants’ anxiety in language class, some survey respondents were

invited for informal semi-structured interviews. The interview guide in phase 1

covered such questions as feelings of anxiety in class, reasons for anxiety, use of Rain

Classroom and the effects of Rain Classroom. The interview guide in phase 2 focused

on the issues of changes in anxiety and causes for the changes, effects of anxiety, and

effects of Rain Classroom for both groups.

Effects of Rain Classroom-Assisted Language Class (ERCC) Toward the end of the

10-week period, a 12-item survey was developed to measure the effects of Rain

Classroom in Class (ERCC) on the participants. The survey was modified from the

5-point scale of Rain Classroom User Satisfaction originally proposed in Xiangming

and Song (2018). Placed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to

5 (Strongly Agree), the items covered such issues as interest and confidence in

English, anxiety of using English, and participation in and satisfaction with the

language class, basically along cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions.

English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS) The 36-item used in the

present study (Liu, 2009) was modified from the 33-item Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety Scale originally developed by Horwitz et al. (1986). Also placed
10
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree),

the English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS) was designed to report the

spectrum of students’ anxiety in English learning class.

Self-Recalled Anxiety Changes (SRAC) To complement ELCAS, the participants

were asked to recall and rate their anxiety levels on a scale of 1 (very low anxiety) to

7 (very high anxiety) in weeks 1, 4, 7 and 10 respectively during the 10-week period.

The scale was composed of one single item repetitively used for four times stating

“Please recall and record your learning anxiety level in week 1 (or week 4 or week 7

or week 10)”. SRAC intended to explore the anxiety variations and the changing

patterns in the participants.

Placed on a 5-point Likert scale, each item of ELCAS and ERCC scales had five

alternatives, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’ with values of 1-5

assigned to the descriptors respectively. Thus, a higher ELCAS score and ERCC score

indicated higher anxiety and greater effect, respectively. The basic characteristics of

the measures are presented in Table 1, which revealed fairly high reliability and good

mean item-total correlation for each measure in each phase.

Table 1: Characteristics of Instruments

No. of Mean item-total

Measures Stages Reliability
items correlation (p = .01)
Pre-test 36 0.96 0.61
ELCAS
Post-test 36 0.86 0.36

ERCC Post-test 12 0.92 0.68

Notes: ELCAS = English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale; ERCC=Effects of Rain

Classroom-Assisted Language Class

The Language Test Both the pre- and post-tests were administered to participants

with 100 points in total. The tests consisted of 4 parts in terms of specific language
11
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

learning skills: listening, reading, writing and speaking. And each part scored 25

points on average.

3.4. The Treatment of Rain Classroom in Class

Execution of Rain Classroom by the teachers during course delivery included

feeding the 10-item or the single-item pop-up multiple-choice quizzes about idiomatic

English expressions to the students’ end, obtaining the students’ test scores instantly in

the teacher’s end, turning on the function of “screen bullets”, allowing students to

send comments or queries from the students’ end, and projecting the comments to the

lecture slideshow automatically during lecturing. The quizzes aimed to examine the

students’ knowledge and mastery about the language expressions on a regular basis.

The “screen bullets” explored new approaches of student-teacher interactions via

mobile learning apps, which was effective for students, especially those who were shy

and timid in class.

The complete learning data were automatically generated upon the completion of

the tasks and stored in smartphone from both teachers’ and students’ ends. The

students knew their own test scores and correct answers immediately. The teacher

obtained such information as test scores of the whole class, score ranges, and time

spent on each task.

Also, the screen bullets were sent from the participants’ end to the screen for

everybody to see. When the instruction proceeded, the teacher paused and gave an

answer or explanations to the whole class. When the course delivery finished, the PPT

was automatically downloaded to the students’ end. As shown in Figure 1, the teacher

published the weekly quiz and accessed the test completion status, the score

distribution and the accuracy rate of each test item for the whole class. Yet from the

students’ end, the students could only access their own individual test scores.

12
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Figure 1. Screenshots from Teacher’s End of In-Class Quiz Publishing and Student
Performance Using Rain Classroom

Figure

3.5. Procedure

The present study employed an experimental design and collected data over a

10-week period in a semester. At the beginning of the term, a form of consent was

distributed to 5 natural intact classes of first-year postgraduate students and 177

participants agreed to participate. In the first week of the semester (phase 1), the

participants took the language pre-test and filled in ELCAS as well as the background

questionnaire, 17 of whom were interviewed in the following few days. They were

also encouraged to follow the public WeChat account of Rain Classroom and joined

the virtual class by scanning a QR code provided by teachers.

Ten weeks later (phase 2), the participants took the language post-test and filled

in ELCAS and the survey of Effects of Rain Classroom-assisted Language Class. The

same 17 participants were interviewed again in the following few days.

During the 10-week period, all the survey participants were asked to recall and

self-rate their anxiety levels in week 1, week 4, week 7 and week 10 respectively.

After all the data were collected, incomplete questionnaires were deleted, which

13
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

resulted in 158 sets of data valid for both pre- and post-tests.

3.6. Data analysis

The survey data were analyzed via SPSS 20. Both the Effects of Rain

Classroom-Assisted Language Class (ERCC) scale and English Language Classroom

Anxiety Scale (ELCAS) were subjected to rotated (varimax) principal components

analysis to identify the underlying dimensions of the scales. After that, means and

standard deviations of ERCC items were computed to explore effects of Rain

Classroom on the participants; paired samples t-tests were conducted to explore the

differences in anxiety between the two phases. Self-recall of anxiety changes in 4

different stages were reported in revealing more subtle changes and variations. The

interview recordings were first transcribed and then double-checked, which were then

subjected to thematic content analyses (Richards, 2009). The analysis resulted in such

themes as causes for anxiety in the English class, changes in anxiety and causes for

the changes in anxiety. The results, along with those of the survey data, were then

reported in this paper. To protect privacy, a number (No.1-No.17) was assigned to

each interviewee (altogether 17) in the study.

4. Results

4.1. Self-reported Effects of Rain Classroom-assisted Language Class

Principal factor analyses with varimax rotation on the self-reported effects of

Rain Classroom-assisted Language Class (ERCC) resulted in a KMO value of 0.91 (p

≤ 0.001), indicating that the scale was highly valid. The analysis also generated 2

principal factors for ERCC. With eigenvalue values of 1.17 to 6.65, the two factors

accounted for 9.72% and 55.38% of the total variance respectively. These 2 principal

factors included the 10-item ERCC1 (learning behaviors and emotions) and the 2-item

ERCC2 (awareness of learning progress). The former one indicated participation in

14
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

class activities as well as feelings of anxiety, interest and satisfaction the participants

experienced. The latter one suggested the participants’ awareness of their own and

peers’ learning progress. The results are reported in Table 2, which also presents the

mean and standard deviation of each ERCC item.

Table 2. Statistical Results of ERCC

Principal Components Items Mean SD

1. Increase classroom participation 4.30 0.69

2. Increase communication 3.63 0.92
3. Maintain enthusiasm in English class 3.89 0.81
4. Continue the learning mode 4.16 0.76

Learning Behavior 5. Inspire interest in English learning 3.84 0.81

and Emotions (ERCC1) 6. Decrease anxiety in using English 3.96 0.88

7. Help feel comfortable in English class 3.92 0.84
8. Enhance confidence in using English 3.74 0.88
9. Develop satisfaction with classroom learning 4.05 0.73

10. Increase confidence in English tests 3.37 0.97

Awareness of Learning 11. My own learning progress 4.06 0.78

Progress (ERCC2) 12. Others' learning progress 3.92 0.84

As reported in Table 2, Rain Classroom increased the participants’ classroom

participation (item 1) (M = 4.30), inspired their desire to continue with the same

learning mode (item 4) (M = 4.16), and helped maintain their enthusiasm in the

English class (item 3) (M = 3.89). The participants also involved themselves

increasingly in communicating with peer classmates (item 2) (M = 3.63). The other

six ERCC1 items revealed the effects of Rain Classroom on the participants’ emotions

of the English class: it increased their satisfaction with classroom learning (item 9) (M

= 4.05) and made them feel comfortable in class (item 7) (M = 3.92), decreased their

anxiety in using English (item 6) (M = 3.96), inspired their interest in English

learning (item 5) (M = 3.84), and enhanced their confidence in using English (item 8)

(M = 3.74) and in English tests (item 10) (M = 3.37).

15
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

The two ERCC2 items reflected the effects of Rain Classroom on the participants’

cognitive awareness of the learning progress of their own (item 11) (M = 4.06) and of

their peers (item 12) (M = 3.92).

Clearly, Rain Classroom had a positive effect on the students’ behavioral,

affective and cognitive experiences in English language class, increasing their

confidence in English learning and satisfaction with the English class while reducing

their anxiety in using English.

4.2. ECLAS in pre- and post-stages

Prior to further analyses, English Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (ELCAS)

was subjected to rotated (Varimax) principal components analyses, which resulted in 7

factors (see Appendix I). As shown in Appendix I, the eigenvalue of each factor for

each group exceeded 1 and explained more than 2.5% of the total variance. Based on

these results, coupled with a detailed examination of each ELCAS item and the

findings of reviewed literature, the present study adopted a 7-factor analysis of

ELCAS. Then a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the ELCAS in both

phases with this 7-factor solution (The loadings of the items within a factor were

reported in Appendix II, with loadings of lower than .30 suppressed).

The resultant 7 factors were: 11-item ELCAS1 (Fear of Speaking English)

indicative of fear of speech communication in English), 9-item ELCAS2 (Worry

about English Class) suggestive of worry about the English class, 5-item ELCAS3

(Worry about Classroom Performance) implicative of worry about performance in the

English class), 4-item ELCAS4 (Concern for Preparation) indicating the role of

preparation, 3-item ELCAS5 (Concern for Input) showing the role of input, 2-item

ECLAS6 (Worry about Tests) and 2-item ELCAS7 (Concern for Vocabulary and

Grammar). These 7 factors were then used in subsequent analyses in this paper. As

16
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

shown in Appendix III, the ELCAS factors were highly significantly correlated with

each other and with the overall ELCAS in both phases, with a large effect size for

most coefficients (To avoid Type I errors, Bonferroni correction was carried out in the

analyses, with the threshold of p lowered from .05 to be at .006 and from .01 to be

at .001.).

Table 3: Means and SDs of ELCAS Scales of Rain Group (N = 158)

Pre-test Post-test Paired samples test results (df=157)

Mean SD Mean SD t p
***
ELCAS1 3.24 0.76 2.91 0.47 7.01 0.000
***
ELCAS2 2.97 0.69 2.48 0.39 9.11 0.000
***
ELCAS3 3.25 0.77 2.92 0.57 6.79 0.000
***
ELCAS4 3.32 0.74 3.05 0.62 4.89 0.000
**
ELCAS5 3.10 0.84 2.89 0.87 3.18 0.002
***
ELCAS6 3.14 0.79 2.93 0.66 3.40 0.001

ELCAS7 2.67 0.93 2.73 0.92 -1.00 0.320

***
ELCAS 3.14 0.67 2.82 0.43 7.92 0.000

Notes *** = P 0.001; ** = P 0.01

As shown in Table 3, the participants scored above 3.00, the scale midpoint in

phase 1, on all ELCAS scales except ELCAS2 (M = 2.97) and ELCAS7 (M = 2.67).

This showed that the participants generally feared speaking English (ELCAS1),

worried about the English class (ELCAS2), their performance in class (ELCAS3),

class preparation (ELCAS4), input in class (ELCAS5) and tests (ELCAS6).

Vocabulary and grammar (ELCAS7) caused anxiety in at least one third of the

students. In phase 2, they scored lower in almost all the anxiety scales, suggesting that

they became less anxious about foreign language speaking and less worried about the

language class and other issues related to the class. And the differences in all ELCAS

scales except ELCAS7 were statistically significant, with t values ranging from 3.18

to 9.11 (p ≤ .002).

17
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

4.3. Self-Rated Anxiety Changes in Weeks 1, 4, 7, 10 Respectively

Figure 2: One-way Repeated Measures of Self-Rated Anxiety Changes in Weeks 1, 4,

7, 10 Respectively (N = 158)

Self-Rated Anxiety Changes in Weeks 1,4,7,10 Respectively

4.5
M=4.35
SD=1.87
T=7.41
4
P≤0.001

3.5 M=3.44
SD=1.71
T=6.17 T=-5.44
M=3.28
SD=1.43 P≤0.001 P≤0.001
3

M=2.73
SD=1.19
2.5
WK1 WK4 WK7 WK10

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the anxiety

changes in weeks 1, 4, 7 and 10 sequentially. The adjusted Greenhouse- Geisser F

(2.48, 389.19) = 42.90, p < 0.001, ߟ௣ଶ = 0.25 . The partial eta-square usually

employed in comparison studies (Bakeman 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) showed

that there was a significant change of anxiety as the learning sessions proceeded with

a moderate effect size.

Bonferroni Post hoc was conducted for four of the paired samples comparison (p

= 0.0125/4). Significant anxiety reduction was found among three pairs: WK1 and

WK4; WK 4 and WK 7; WK 1 and WK 10. The significant anxiety increase was also

detected between WK 7 and WK 10, as shown in Figure 2. The first pair between WK

1 and WK4 indicated that there was a significant decrease in anxiety (M = 5.4, M =

3.28, t = 7.41, P ≤ 0.001). The second pair between week 4 and week 7 showed the

same pattern of anxiety reduction with the data (M = 3.28, M = 2.73; t = 6.17, P ≤

0.001). The third pair between week 7 and week 10 showed a significant increase of
18
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

anxiety (M = 2.73, M = 3.44; t = -5.44, P ≤ 0.001). The fourth pair (weeks 1 & 10)

revealed significant anxiety reduction (M = 5.4, M = 3.44; t = 5.57, P ≤ 0.001).

4.4. Test Performance in Pre- and post-Tests

Table 3: Paired Samples T-test of Pretest and Posttest Test Scores by Rain Group (N
= 158)
Pre-test Post-test Paired samples t-test results (df=157)

Mean SD Mean SD t p
Speaking 18.08 1.79 20.04 1.42 -15.14 0.000***
Listening 7.08 5.85 9.23 6.40 -3.30 0.001***
Reading 10.38 6.31 8.17 5.21 3.64 0.000***
Writing 17.63 1.62 18.42 2.46 -3.36 0.001***
Total 53.24 9.95 55.87 9.79 -2.74 0.007**
Notes: *** P 0.001; ** P 0.01

Before and after the 10-week long experiment, the participants took the pre-and

post-English tests, respectively. The paired samples t-test results produced a

significant increase of the test scores in total between the tests (t = -2.74, p ≤ 0.01).

Significant increase was also observed in the sub-skills of speaking (t = -15.14, P ≤

0.001), listening (t = -3.30, P ≤ 0.001) and writing (t = -3.36, P ≤ 0.001). Meanwhile,

the students’ reading test scores significantly decreased from 10.38 in week 1 to 8.17

in week 10 (t = 3.64, P ≤ 0.001). These findings showed that despite the decrease of

test performance in reading, the students displayed enhanced performance in speaking,

listening and writing tests as well as the overall test.

4.5. Interview Results

All the 17 interviewees had not used Rain Classroom in any class before but 3

experienced it in the orientation lectures in the week prior to the semester. They

except one believed that Rain Classroom was very visual, interesting and convenient.

Two interviewees reported no anxious feelings in English class at the beginning of the

term and did not feel any change in anxiety ten weeks later. The other 15 interviewees
19
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

reported that they were anxious at the beginning of the semester due to such reasons

as a) poor English, b) no preparation, c) no/lack of practice, d) limited vocabulary, e)

poor pronunciation, f) fear of making mistakes, and g) unfamiliarity with the new

environment.

As remarked by the interviewees, low English proficiency was often an obstacle

to their engagement in classroom learning activities. Having to speak English without

preparation also drove them anxious. If they were fully prepared, for instance, for the

specific topics in advance, they would feel more comfortable with discussions in the

language class. For example, “… If I’m asked to speak English without preparation, I

won’t be able to find the words to express myself, or what I speak out is

grammatically incorrect” (No.3). Meanwhile, having not practiced speaking English

for a (long) time, low competence in English such as lack of vocabulary, poor

pronunciation and poor listening kills always resulted in anxiety among the

participants. In addition, the possibility of negative evaluation from the teacher and

the peer classmates and unfamiliarity with the new environment (e.g., lack of

information about the teaching mode and unfamiliarity with peers, etc.) daunted the

participants in cases of making mistakes and losing face.

Analysis of the interview data also showed that 15 interviewees remarked that

their anxiety in English class reduced over the 10-week period. With the use of this

technology in class for 10 successive weeks, they listed several effects. As they

recalled, Rain Classroom was convenient for review, increased participation in class,

bettered the learning of the class content, helped students relax and reduced their

anxiety. For example, “Rain Classroom records the content of every class and so is

like a platform of review. This is much more convenient than asking for help to the

teacher or taking notes myself” (No.1). “Because it is anonymous, students are not too

20
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

shy to participate. Gradually, we participate more and more, which then forms a good

circle” (No.4). “I don’t need to worry about being called out by the teacher to answer

a question. We just work on the questions and send answers simultaneously yet

anonymously. Few students would feel anxious even if they don’t know answers”

(No.12). The disadvantage of Rain Classroom was that the time given for questions

and answers was too short and it was not much easy to operate the software.

As they became more familiar with and more used to the new environment (i.e.,

the new teaching and blended learning mode, classmates, and tasks, etc.) and had a

better understanding of their own and other students’ English proficiency, coupled

with the favorable classroom atmosphere, they became less anxious in English class

ten weeks later. As interviewee No.5 confided, “… Because we are all students, we

are tolerant of each other’s mistakes. And as we become more familiar with each other,

I’m not so afraid of speaking English”.

It is clear that the participants tended to feel less anxious over the 10-week period,

in correspondence with the results generated from ELCAS and the self-reported

anxiety levels.

5. Discussion

5.1. Anxiety changes in technology-assisted learning

In response to the first research question, the statistic results in this study

evidenced the significant reduction in anxiety in general between the beginning and

the end of the technology-embedded learning process. The results were also in

consistency with a variety of researches probing variations of anxiety, especially

under the context of technology-assisted instructional delivery

(Adair-Hauck, Willingham-McLain & Youngs, 2000; Ataiefar & Sadighi, 2017; Aydın,

2018; Sad, 2008; White, 2014). Assessing anxiety changes over a period of time

21
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

emerged in response to the criticism of prevalence in one-time studies. The prevailing

one-time studies imply information being retrieved from a frozen moment. The

quality of evidence is compromised within a single moment compared with the data

gathered from a reasonable time length. The time duration indicates potential changes

in FLA. Considering the fact that Chinese learners often think that vocabulary is a big

obstacle (Cortazzi & Jin, 1994) and grammar is challenging for English language

learning (Loewen, Li, Thompson, Nakatsukasa, Ahn & Chen, 2010), the learners’

worry about vocabulary and grammar in the present study remained steady, revealing

no significant difference.

To answer the second research question, this study further used the self-designed

recalling strategy in evaluating anxiety changes across four time slots in revealing

more intricate complexities and patterns. Previous attempts also explored different

strategies of the latent growth curve modelling or the longitudinal cluster analysis in

tracing the changing status of anxiety (Piniel & Csizer, 2015). First, the results

showed consistency with the traditional binary measurement comparing the anxiety

levels between week 1 and week 10. Second, the finer descriptions of the trajectories

of anxiety were highlighted with significant decrease from week 1 to week 4, and

from week 4 to week 7. Third, interesting enough in this study was the changes from

week 7 to week 10 with significant anxiety increase. The resurging anxiety rising

from week 7 to week 10 arose from the possible fear of the post-test. Test difficulty

and perceived test difficulty combined caused the spike in anxiety in week 10,

partially corresponding to the findings of significant impact on worry and anxiety

arousal as recalled immediately after the test (Hong, 1999).

5.2. Perceptions towards Technology-embedded Language Class in relation to FLA

22
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

The teacher adopted the mobile learning tool of Rain Classroom in language

learning in order to alleviate anxiety in the students. In response to the third research

question, the survey about the effects of Rain Classroom showed that the students

gained much inspiration and interest in the mobile technology-assisted learning class.

The students also felt more confident and less anxious in language use. In addition,

they exposed themselves to more opportunities in communicating with other peers

and participating in class activities. Further, the students became more assured of

themselves in the learning process as they stayed anonymous without being singled

out to report the answers in front of the whole class. The study results were consistent

with previous findings embracing the learners’ emotional state in perceiving the

technology-embedded learning activities as joyful or confidence-arousing (Beauvois,

1994; Ellis, 1994); increasing opportunities of getting involved in learning activities

(Blake, 2000) and maintaining the sense of security in the undisclosed identity as a

shield (Bradley & Lomicka, 2000).

Factor analyses of ERCC evidenced two factors of learning behavior and

emotions and the awareness of learning progress. The survey finding fitted the prior

work exploring anxiety reduction strategies falling into three categories of cognitive,

affective and behavioral interventions (Hembree, 1988; Kondo & Ying-Ling, 2004;

Kralova et al., 2017). We argued that in the technology-assisted learning settings,

three intervention approaches worked in combination in reducing the learners’ anxiety.

What the learning technology affords is also a multi-dimensional construct along the

material, affective and social dimensions (Mesgari & Faraj, 2012; Xiangming & Song,

23
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

2018). The technology-embedded instructional delivery features the specific skill- or

system-focused practicing and drilling, for example, of vocabulary building or of

idiomatic expressions acquisition. In the technology-based surroundings, students felt

more secure and relaxed when interacting with the technology tool or with other peers

via the technology tool. They also kept aware of their own learning progress

represented by the quiz scores and the time duration of test-taking displayed in both

teacher’s and students’ ends.

An interesting finding was the low embracement of confidence towards tests,

which corresponded to the rising level of anxiety evidenced in the self-rated anxiety

changes in this study. Both sets of data extended further discussion to the argument

proposed by Hashemi (2011) of potentials of formative assessment over the

summative assessment in reducing anxiety. In this study, the presence of

comprehension checks or quizzes during the learning process did not relieve the

student’s anxiety towards the final test. Two explanations might account for this

failure. One possibility relied on the lack of the follow-up individualized guidance

scaffolded by the technological tools despite the quantitative learning results delivered

to the students’ end. Another possible reason was that the formative drills and

practices were not directly related to the specific items to be tested in the final exam.

Hence the non-presence of the overlapping formative and final test items failed to

yield satisfactorily decreased anxiety in learners.

6. Conclusions

This research contributes to the current literature by exploring anxiety changes

over the 10-week period in the technology-assisted learning setting. It answers the call
24
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

for longitudinal studies, especially the data collection design over a period of time

with large samples strongly proposed for future research.

The quantitative results, triangulated with the qualitative approach of interview

transcripts, showed that students felt less anxious towards language learning, in

compliance with prior research findings. This study also explored the teacher’s coping

strategies in reducing anxiety with technological tools along with three dimensions of

affect, cognition and behavior. Thereby the students developed positive attitudes

towards learning technology, got more involved in class participation, became ready

for the same hybrid learning mode and more aware of their own learning progress.

Attempts to delineate the delicate pictures of anxiety fluctuation were also

presented in this study by self-recall of changes in anxiety. The self-recalled ratings

reported the fluctuating anxiety the participants experienced over the 10-week period.

It showed that the changing pattern of anxious feelings was not a simple linear

degrading process. Possible explanations were given for further verification.

The limitations of this study lie in two aspects. Rain Classroom employed in this

study was not designed exclusively for English language learning, for example,

English listening or speaking activities. Therefore, the measurement of FLA might be

compromised in technology-based language class. Another limitation was the possible

recall bias of anxiety collected after the 10-week period, although the self-recalled

data were triangulated with the other quantitative and interview results.
Future research could direct to firmer correlations or relationships of technology

and anxiety by relating the learners’ intention to use or familiarity with learning

technology tools. Also, learners with high and low levels of anxiety across different
25
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

learning stages could provide more intricate pictures of anxiety in finer grains.

Acknowledgement

The present study was funded by XXX Key Research Base of Humanities and Social

Sciences, XXX University.

26
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

References

Adair-Hauck, B., Willinghammclain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (2000). Evaluating the

integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2),

269-306.

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign

language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. Modern Language Journal,

78(2), 155-168.

Alrabai, F. (2015). The influence of teachers’ anxiety-reducing strategies on learners’

foreign language anxiety. Innovation in Language and Teaching, 9, 163–190.

Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Astleitner, H., & Leutner, D. (2000). Designing instructional technology from an

emotional perspective. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4),

497– 510.

Ataiefar, F., & Sadighi, F. (2017). Lowering foreign language anxiety through

technology: A Case of Iranian EFL sophomore students. English Literature and

Language Review, 3(4), 23-34.

Aydın, S. (2018). Technology and foreign language anxiety: Implications for practice

and future research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 193-211.

Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures

designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379-384.

Baker, R.S., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M.T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be

frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners'

cognitive-affective states during interactions with three different computer-based

27
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68,

223-241.

Beauvois, M. H. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted

classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish

interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

Bradley, T., & Lomicka, L. (2000). A case study of learner interaction in

technology-enhanced language learning environments. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 22, 347-368.

Calvo, R. A., & D’Mello, S. K. (2010). Affect detection: An interdisciplinary review

of models, methods, and their applications. IEEE Transactions on Affective

Computing, 1, 18-37.

Calvo, R., & D'Mello, S. K. (2011). New perspectives on affect and learning

technologies. New York, NY: Springer.

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

differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3),

417-446.

Chow, B. W. Y., Chiu, H. T., & Wong, S. W. L. (2017). Anxiety in reading and

listening English as a foreign language in Chinese undergraduate students.

Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 719-738.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1994). Ways with words-Chinese students learning of English

vocabulary. In Dai, D. (ed.), The Proceedings of the 2nd International

Symposium on ELT (pp. 15-29). Taipei: ETAROC & The Crane Publishers.
28
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Craig, S., D'Mello, S., Witherspoon, A., & Graesser, A. (2008). Emote aloud during

learning with AutoTutor: Applying the facial action coding system to

cognitive-affective states during learning. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 777-788.

Dewey, D. P., Belnap, R. K., & Steffen, P. (2018). Anxiety: Stress, foreign language

classroom anxiety, and enjoyment during study abroad in Amman, Jordan.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 140-161.

D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Multimodal semi-automated affect detection

from conversational cues, gross body language, and facial features. User

Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 20, 147-187.

D'Mello, S., Lehman, B., & Person, N. (2011). Monitoring affect states during

effortful problem solving activities. International Journal of Artificial

Intelligence in Education, 20(4), 361-389.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, United Kingdom:

Oxford University Press.

Frantzen, D., & Magnan, S. S. (2005). Anxiety and the true beginner false beginner

dynamic in beginning French and Spanish classes. The Modern Language

Journal, 38, 171-186.

Gabarre, S., Gabarre, C., Din, R., Shah, P., & Karim, A. A. (2016). Addressing

foreign language learning anxiety with facebook. Creative Education, 7(1),

93-104.

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014).

Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and

their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.

Graesser, A. C., & D’Mello, S. K. (2012). Moment-to-moment emotions during

reading. The Reading Teacher, 66, 238-242.

29
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Graesser, A. C., D'Mello, S. K., & Strain, A. C. (2014). Emotions in advanced

learning technologies. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.),

International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 473-493). New York, NY:

Taylor & Francis.

Grant S., Huang H., & Pasfield-Neofitou, S. (2018). Engagement in Second Life:

Language Anxiety and Motivation. In S. Gregory & D. Wood (Eds.),

Authentic Virtual World Education (pp. 95-115). Singapore: Springer.

Gregersen, T. (2003). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language-anxious

students. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 25-32.

Gregersen, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Meza, M. D. (2014). The motion of emotion:

Idiodynamic case studies of learners' foreign language anxiety. The Modern

Language Journal, 98(2), 574-588.

Guo, Y., Xu, J., & Liu, X. (2018). English language learners’ use of self-regulatory

strategies for foreign language anxiety in China. System, 76, 49-61.

Hashemi M., & Abbasi M. (2013). The role of the teacher in alleviating anxiety in

language classes. International Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4, 640–

646.

Hauck M., & Hurd S. (2005). Exploring the link between language anxiety and

learner self-management in open language learning contexts. European Journal

of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/

materials/contrib/2005/Mirjam_Hauck.htm.

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review

of Educational Research, 58, 47-77.

Hashemi, M. (2011). Language stress and anxiety among the English language

learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1811-1816.

30
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Hong, E. (1999). Test anxiety, perceived test difficulty, and test performance:

temporal patterns of their effects. Learning & Individual Differences, 11(4),

431-447.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern language journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Huang, H. T. D. (2018). Modeling the relationships between anxieties and

performance in second/foreign language speaking assessment. Learning and

Individual Differences, 63, 44-56.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441-456.

Hwang, G. J., Hsu, T. C., Lai, C. L., & Hsueh, C. J. (2017). Interaction of

problem-based gaming and learning anxiety in language students’ English

listening performance and progressive behavioral patterns. Computers &

Education, 106, 26-42.

Kim, N. S. (2009). Foreign language reading anxiety on computer-based TOEIC test.

Modern Studies in English Language and Literature, 53(1), 19-40.

Kondo, D. S., & Ying-Ling, Y. (2004). Strategies for coping with language anxiety:

The case of students of English in Japan. ELT Journal, 58, 258-265.

Kralova, Z., Skorvagova, E., Tirpakova, A., & Markechova, D. (2017). Reducing

student teachers' foreign language pronunciation anxiety through psycho-social

training. System, 65, 49-60.

Lee, E. J. (2016). Reducing international graduate students’ language anxiety through

oral pronunciation corrections. System, 56, 78-95.

LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2003). Second language acquisition and technology: A

review of the research. Eric Digest, 1-2.

Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An Exploration of Foreign Language Anxiety and

31
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

English Learning Motivation. Education Research International, 1-8.

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness

to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal

92(1), 71-86.

Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on

computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of the

literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

34(3), 250-273.

Liu, Y. H. (2014). Perspectives of international students in the USA: Qualitative

research in foreign language anxiety (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://uh-ir.tdl.org/handle/10657/1682.

Loewen, S., Li, S., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2010).

Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error

correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104.

Lu, Z., & Liu, M. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and strategy use: A study with

Chinese undergraduate EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and

Re-search, 2, 1298-1305.

Loderer, K., Pekrun, R., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Beyond cold technology: A systematic

review and meta-analysis on emotions in technology-based learning

environments. Learning and Instruction. in press

MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its

development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J. M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights

into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11-30).

Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness

32
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing

affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149-171.

Martin, S., & Valdivia, I. M. A. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in

online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational

Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 18-33.

Melchor-Couto, S. (2017). Foreign language anxiety levels in second life oral

interaction. ReCALL, 29(1), 99-119.

Merc, A. (2015). Microteaching experience in distance English language teacher

training: A case study. Journal of Educators Online, 12(2), 1-34.

Mesgari, M., & Faraj, S. (2012). Technology affordances: The case of Wikipedia. The

proceedings of the Americas’ Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS).

Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/Virtual

Communities/13.

MOOC-CN. (2018). The enterprise-and-education collaborative project of talents

shaping: A newly-designed smart teaching tool- the development and application

of Rain Classroom. Retrieved from

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/dB9KL_Myj_SCFw SAOqJMzw.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Factors associated with foreign

language anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 217-239.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

New York: New-bury House/Harper & Row.

Picard, R. (2010). Affective computing: From laughter to IEEE. IEEE Transactions

on Affective Computing 1, 11-17.

Piniel, K., & Csizer, K. (2015) Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy

during the course of an academic writing seminar. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D.,

33
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning

(pp.164-194). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Polat, N., Balog, R., & Mahalingappa, L. (2013). Anonymity and motivation in

asynchronous discussions and l2 vocabulary learning. Language, Learning and

Technology, 17(17), 57-74.

Rahimi, M., &|Soleymani, E. (2015). The impact of mobile learning on listening

anxiety and listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 8(10),

152-161.

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Sad, S. N. (2008). Using mobile phone technology in EFL classes. English Teaching

Forum, 46(4), 34-40.

Sieber, J. E., O'Neil, H. F., & Tobias, S. (1977). Anxiety, learning, and instruction.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Shams, A. N. (2005). The use of computerized pronunciation practice in the reduction

of foreign language classroom anxiety. Doctoral dissertation. Tallahassee: Florida

State University.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tobias, S. (1979). Anxiety research in educational psychology. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 47(5), 573.

Tóth, Z. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and advanced EFL learners: An interview

study. WoPaLP, 5, 39-57.

Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: a symbolic interpretation.

Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7-48.

Wehner, A., Gump, A., & Downey, S. (2011). The effects of Second Life on the

34
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 277-289.

White, J. (2014). The use of call as a means of reducing anxiety of students studying

abroad. Procedia Technology, 18, 113-119.

Woolf, B., Burleson, W., Arroyo, I., Dragon, T., Cooper, D., & Picard, R. (2009).

Affect-aware tutors: Recognizing and responding to student affect. International

Journal of Learning Technology, 4, 129-164.

Xiangming, L., & Song, S. (2018). Mobile technology affordance and its social

implications: A case of “Rain Classroom”. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 49(2), 276-291.

Yan, J. 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(1), 151-183.

Yanxia, Y. (2017). Test anxiety analysis of Chinese college students in

computer-based spoken English test. Journal of Educational Technology &

Society, 20(2), 63-73.

Young, D. J. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A

practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

35
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Appendix I: Eigenvalues and Explained Variances of ELCAS Factors (N=158)

Pre-test Post-test

Eigenvalue % Eigenvalue %

ELCAS1 15.21 42.26 14.94 41.49

ELCAS2 2.046 5.684 2.406 6.682

ELCAS3 1.637 4.548 1.532 4.254

ELCAS4 1.200 3.335 1.435 3.987

ELCAS5 1.172 3.255 1.214 3.373

ELCAS6 1.032 2.868 1.106 3.072

ELCAS7 1.008 2.801 1.016 2.821

Notes: % = % of total variance

36
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Appendix II: Loadings of Principal Components of ELCAS

(Pre- and Post-tests) (N = 158)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7

11 .678/.711
12 .311/.313
13 .697/.759
14 .449/.443
15 .489/.431
16 -/.368
17 .507/.319
18 .410/.360
19 -.316/-.321
20 .300/-
21 .384/-
12 .713/.301
13 .602/.712
14 .444/-.620
15 -.380/-.456
16 -.301/-.315
17 .501/.301
18 -.457/-.665
19 -.502/-.304
20 .578/.719
21 -.590/-.331
22 -/-
23 .383/-
24 .608/.839
25 .527/.359
26 .312/-
27 .511/.796
28 .429/.340
29 .331/-
30 .312/-
31 -/.333
32 -/-.527
33 .378/.354
34 .316/.640
35 .618/.752
36 .333/.332

37
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Appendix III: Correlations between ELCAS Scales (N = 158)

ELCAS2 ELCAS3 ELCAS4 ELCAS5 ELCAS6 ELCAS7 ELCAS

1 .506**/.651** .632**/.745** .727**/.739** .642**/.624** .373**/.471** .614**/.526** .906**/.914**

2 1 .360**/.601** .390**/.607** .431**/.525** .251**/.451** .372**/.410** .653**/.811**

3 1 .489**/.567** .590**/.565** .487**/.567** .682**/.587** .796**/.852**

4 1 .609**/.601** .202/.352** .462**/.435** .761**/.802**

5 1 .292**/.301** .528**/.414** .782**/.737**

6 1 .450**/.440** .532**/.616**

7 1 .752**/.651**

Notes: ** = P ≤.001; coefficient of determination: small = r ≤ 0.1; medium = r = 0.3; large = r ≥ 0.5 (Cohen,
1988)
1/ELCAS1 = Fear of Speaking English; 2/ELCAS2 = Worry about English Class
3/ELCAS3 = Worry about Classroom Performance; 4/ELCAS4 = Concern for Preparation 5/ELCAS5 = Concern
for Input; 6/ECLAS6 = Worry about Tests
7/ELCAS7 = Concern for Vocabulary and Grammar

38
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT AND LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Technological Impact on Language Anxiety Dynamic

Highlights:

1. Significant anxiety reduction throughout the technology-assisted learning

process

2. Anxiety variations of falling-and-rising patterns across 4 temporal learning

units

3. Combination of behavioral, affective, and cognitive dimensions in reducing

anxiety

4. Ten-week longitudinal study with 158 postgraduate students using Rain

Classroom