Télé Université Second Language Writing Anxiety, Computer Anxiety, Motivation and Performance in a Classroom versus a Web-based Environment Thesis submitted as partial requirement for the Master’s degree in Distance Education By Effie Dracopoulos June 2012 0 Acknowledgements I am eternally grateful to my supervisor, Dr. François Pichette, for his encouragement, guidance, and support throughout the various stages of my thesis. His expertise in the areas of writing anxiety, ESL, and distance learning has added considerably to the value of my thesis and studies. He has made himself available for consultation in a number of ways over the course of this project, and has done so with a reassuring attitude and a pleasant disposition. Dr. Pichette has not only enabled me to develop a deep understanding of my subject and of the process of conducting research, but has also instilled in me a sense of belonging to the scientific community. I thank him wholeheartedly for his expert counsel, for his significant contribution to my thesis, for his encouraging me to persist when I was overtaken by too many responsibilities, and for his understanding of the challenges of juggling work, school and family. I also wish to thank Professor Pierre Gagné, Chair of the Unit of Education and Research (UER) at TÉLUQ, for his supportive presence behind the scenes over the years. This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of those of my colleagues who helped conduct the study surveys in their classrooms at the School of Continuing Studies, McGill University. I thank them immensely for their participation, feedback, and collegiality. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and loving support over the years. I would not have been able to do it without their willingness to make sacrifices along with me. I am grateful to have them and to share this accomplishment with them. 1 Abstract This study examined the impact of writing anxiety, computer anxiety and motivation on language learning for 45 ESL adult learners enrolled in an English grammar and writing course. Two sections of the course were offered in a traditional classroom setting whereas two others were given in a hybrid form that involved distance learning. Contrary to previous research (Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 1996), writing anxiety showed no correlation with learning performance, whereas computer anxiety only yielded a positive correlation with performance in the case of classroom learners. There were no significant differences across learning environments on any measures. These results are explained in light of the role computer technologies now play in our society as well as the merging of socio- demographic profiles between classroom and distance learners. Our data suggest that comparisons of profiles between classroom and distance learners may not be an issue worth investigating anymore in language studies, at least in developed countries. 2 Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 2. Theoretical framework .............................................................................................. 8 2.1. Constructivist Influences on Learning ............................................................... 8 2.2 The Generative Learning Model ....................................................................... 15 2.3 Self-efficacy Theory (Social Cognitive Theory) ............................................... 19 2.4 The Input and Affective Filter Hypotheses ....................................................... 22 3. State of the question ................................................................................................ 25 3.1 Anxiety and Distance Learning ......................................................................... 25 3.2 Motivation and Distance Learning .................................................................... 29 3.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 32 3.4 Research hypotheses .......................................................................................... 33 4. Method ..................................................................................................................... 34 4.1 Participants ........................................................................................................ 34 4.2 Course formats .................................................................................................. 35 4.3 Materials ............................................................................................................ 37 Profile questionnaires .......................................................................................... 37 Measuring foreign language writing anxiety ....................................................... 37 Measuring computer anxiety ............................................................................... 38 Measuring Motivation for the Learning Environment ........................................ 38 Procedure ................................................................................................................. 40 4. Results ..................................................................................................................... 41 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 47 References ................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX A: Student Profile Questionnaires .......................................................... 64 APPENDIX B: Motivation questionnaire ................................................................... 66 APPENDIX C: Questionnaires ................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX D: Ethics approval .................................................................................. 70 3 1. Introduction It has been suggested by researchers that students in Distance Learning (DL) settings may have a somewhat different profile from students in traditional classroom settings, and possibly take distance language courses because of their reluctance to interact with their peers in the classroom (e.g., Pichette, 2009). Given that second language (L2) students may be particularly anxious about oral interaction in the target language, they may opt to take distance courses because DL courses presuppose interaction primarily in the written form. Therefore, it can be speculated that distance L2 learners know that written communication is required in distance courses, and opt for such courses because, although anxious people will tend to feel anxiety for any type of communication, they are less anxious about writing than they are about speaking. Furthermore, the DL environment may perhaps be more motivating because it provides an arena for interaction and collaboration with others without the anxiety that is related to oral interaction in the classroom setting. Although several factors, such as for example distance from an educational institution and time constraints, have been investigated as reasons for choosing DL over traditional classroom instruction, surprisingly, anxiety has only recently begun to be considered as one of them (Pichette, 2009; Hurd, 2007). In general, anxiety is triggered among some learners by 4 face-to-face interaction, and research shows that it becomes much more pronounced when that interaction takes place in a foreign language. A more specific form of anxiety, second/foreign language anxiety is defined as the arousal of worry and negative emotions when one is learning or is using another language (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993). Because self-identity is tied to language and communication (Horwitz, 1995), communicating in a new language can be frustrating and anxiety-producing. Learning a new language engages the identity of the learner because, in addition to the new linguistic system of signs ad symbols, a new language involves learning new complex social practices. The value and meaning of a word or phrase in a new language is determined in part by the value and meaning ascribed to it by the learner (Norton & Toohey, 2004) in reference to his own social practice. Consequently, the learner may feel anxious about his interpretation of utterances in the new language, and may feel threatened and/or frustrated by the limited expression that can be communicated in the target language. He may feel that his “true” self is not being presented, but a rather “limited” self because he is not very familiar with the social practices of the new language and not well versed in the target language itself. Fear of ridicule in any form of communication in L2, as suggested by Pichette (pers. comm. 17/08/08), may be a source of L2 anxiety as well, perhaps even more so than the notion of “limited” self. 5 More generally, research in L2 acquisition over the last three decades has pointed to three affective factors as likely to notably influence student performance in DL: writing anxiety, computer anxiety, and motivation. This study will examine whether relationships exist between these variables and ESL performance, and, whether these variables show different correlations in classroom and Web-based learning environments. Many universities are currently striving to diversify the