Teamwork Equals Dreamwork : A Survey-based Study of Second-language Students’ Speaking Anxiety in Upper Secondary School

(1)

Examensarbete

Teacher Education (Upper Secondary School) 300hp

Teamwork Equals Dreamwork

A Survey-based Study of Second-language Students’

Speaking Anxiety in Upper Secondary School

English for Students in Teacher

Education 15 hp

Halmstad 2020-08-23

(2)

(3)

attending English 5 and 6 courses. The survey participants were asked to complete two online-surveys. The first survey dealt with measuring if the participants felt anxious while speaking English in class and what they considered was the most conducive way to alleviate anxiety when working with communicative exercises. After compiling the data from the first survey, it was found that the survey participants thought that working in groups would

alleviate speaking anxiety the most. Following this, lessons were created where the classroom furniture was rearranged in order to promote group discussions. Subsequently, the survey participants completed the second survey, the purpose of which was to measure how they felt the group discussions went, and if they thought it helped them reduce their speaking anxiety. The results showed that the majority of the survey participants felt that group discussions made them less apprehensive about how their peers would perceive their speaking abilities. Interestingly, the results also showed that even though most of the survey participants felt that they had good English skills, they were still concerned about not being able to perform communicative tasks without inhibition. The results demonstrated that when the furniture was rearranged to suit classroom group-work, students were less worried about how they were being perceived as English speakers, leading them to feel more secure. Additionally, they became more motivated to speak English.

Key words: Speaking anxiety, Group-work, Group discussions, Classroom furniture,

Inhibition

(6)

1. Introduction

Presenting work in front of classmates can be very tough for students. Doing so while speaking in a second-language is even more challenging. Knowing that one’s peers are listening, watching, and possibly judging you can be nerve-wracking for many students. Axelsson (2011) describes speaking anxiety as the nervousness one experiences when giving a presentation. In the Swedish context, we have noticed that speaking anxiety can lead

students to become afraid of speaking English in front of others. Lundberg (2011) claims that younger students do not care about how their peers perceive their English skills. However, during grades 3-4, students develop a broader consciousness of how other people perceive them and, as a result, become more self-critical. Axelsson (2011) states that it is important to be able to speak in front of others, as in today’s society most professions include

communicative tasks.

The Swedish national curriculum promotes a communicative approach where students are assessed on all four skills, which includes speaking. With regards to speaking, the Swedish national curriculum (Skolverket, 2011), states that for the English 5 and 6 courses the

productive parts of the curriculum should include oral production and interaction of different kinds, where students instruct, summarize, explain, comment, judge, discuss, argue, and motivate their opinions. The national curriculum also mentions that students should develop strategies when speaking in order to contribute and actively partake in discussions concerning societal and work issues (Skolverket, 2011). With regards to the assessment of speaking, the students at English 5 and 6 have to be able to produce oral presentations where the students have variations in their speech, clarity, and coherence. Thus, they are expected to be able to speak in informal and formal contexts and adapt their language appropriately (Skolverket, 2011). Students also have to be able to orally interact in various contexts, where the student can express him or herself in a clear way with a flow which is adapted to the purpose, interpreter, and situation. They should also be able to choose and use strategies which solve problems in order to improve the interaction (Skolverket, 2011).

During our most recent teaching practice, where we worked with students who were studying English 5 and 6 courses in upper secondary school, we noticed that a considerable number of students had problems performing orally during English class. The students’ issues with this led to some not wanting to give presentations or answer questions during class. When the students were giving presentations, some had problems with sticking too much to their script,

(7)

making eye contact with the crowd, and becoming apprehensive when they mispronounced words. As a result, we wanted to find a way to reduce the anxiety that the students

experienced and find out how the comfort levels can be increased, so that the students felt both comfortable and encouraged to speak English in the classroom. We also wanted to see what pedagogical theories could be applied to help the students become more independent and confident second-language learners. To find out how to reduce speaking anxiety, we gave our students options to elaborate their thoughts on what they thought was challenging about using the English language, and how to ease the speaking process.

1.2 Purpose & Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to find out what a group of second-language students feel is the best way to reduce speaking anxiety and create a learning environment in which they are not only comfortable speaking English, but also less worried about failing, and more focused on what they are contributing in class, which can help them move towards coping more

effectively with formal speaking tasks, such as giving presentations. The students who took part in the study were asked to complete two surveys; the first survey included questions on what they felt was the best way to work with speaking English in class. It also worked as a way to measure if and why they felt anxious when speaking English in class. The second survey was handed out after the students had performed their suggestions on how to reduce speaking anxiety and worked as a way to measure how they felt the lesson went. Guided by the studies of Gustafsson and Josefsson (2019), Harmer (2007), Richards (2015), Wright (2005), and the results from our first survey, we rearranged the classroom furniture to create “islands” where the students sat 3-5 students per island. As the study is based on two surveys, the first question will be related to the first survey, and the second question will be based on the second survey.

Research Questions:

• What did second-language students who were studying English 5 and English 6 think was the greatest contributing factor to speaking anxiety when speaking English in class and why?

• How did the students feel about speaking in smaller groups of 3-5 in a setting where the classroom furniture was rearranged

(8)

2. Theoretical background & Literature Review

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, as travel became more common throughout the world, there was a growing recognition in Europe of the need for people to have a spoken command of other languages. Consequently, there became a need for teaching methods that focused more on speaking. The methodologies of the direct method, audiolingualism, and situational language teaching were widely adopted throughout, but became discredited in the 1970s because of new paradigms in both language theory and language-learning theory (Richards, 2015). The previous methods of learning language were based on the behaviourist model of learning, where imitation and repetition was key. These methods were later

challenged by cognitive and interactive views of language and language learning. The main thought was no longer that language was a set of fixed patterns and rules to be learned by exposure and imitation. It was instead seen to draw on cognitive processing that enabled learners to build up their linguistic competence by exposing them to language and encouraging them to interact (Richards, 2015). In order for language to be used

communicatively, researchers felt that learners needed to have a communicative competence, which determines a person’s knowledge of how to use language appropriately as a

communicative resource. Communicative competence includes the ability to use language for different communicative purposes (e.g. description, narration, exposition, complaints,

apologies, suggestions) and the ability to use language that is appropriate to the context of its use, for example, the setting, the participants, and the activity(Richards, 2015). This resulted in the creation of communicative language teaching or CLT. According to Richards (2015), it was argued that learners acquire a language through the process of communicating, and that communication that is meaningful to the learner provides a better opportunity for learning than a grammar-based approach, such as grammar translation. However, Richards (2015) also mentions that communicative language teaching may have limitations in some cases, such as, learners communicating without having a purpose or a goal to accomplish. That is why Richards (2015) mentions that the essence of communicative language teaching is the

assumption that learners learn a language through using it for authentic communication. As a result, the development of classroom techniques and activities that required learners to communicate and engage in negotiation of meaning started to appear. Activities, such as: information-gap activities, jigsaw activities, and task-completion activities were used as collaborative learning activities in order to add authenticity and purpose to the learner communication.

(9)

2.1 Zone of Proximal Development

In Sociocultural theory and second-language learning, James Lantolf (2000), explores Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective and looks into the implications of using the

sociocultural perspective in second-language learning and teaching. Of particular importance is Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, or “ZPD”. According to Lantolf (2000), Vygotsky states that the ZPD is the difference between what a person can achieve when acting alone and what the same person can accomplish when acting with support from someone else. Lantolf (2000) explains that researchers assume that the ZPD involves

interaction between an expert and a novice in which the expert eventually transmits an ability to the novice through social interaction. However, Lantolf (2000) argues that even in cases where experts and novices come together in a teaching situation, novices do not simply copy the experts’ capabilities; instead they transform what the experts offer them as they

appropriate knowledge. The key to transformation, according to Lantolf (2000), resides in imitation, which along with collaboration in the ZPD “is the source of all specifically human characteristics of development” (p. 18). The following figure represents how learners are placed within ZPD:

(Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development)

Another author who has interpreted Vygotsky's ZPD is Roger Säljö. Säljö (2015) explains that the learner moves through the zones as illustrated in the picture above. He writes that three developmental psychologists, Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976), coined the expression

(10)

“scaffolding”, which means support. The support can come from either the teacher or the student’s peers, depending on what they are working with. Richards (2015) explains that scaffolding refers to the process of mediation, where the learner depends on others with more experience than themselves and gradually takes on more responsibility. Scaffolding in the classroom is the process of interaction between two or more people as they carry out a classroom activity, where one person, for example, the teacher or another student, has more advanced knowledge than the other student.

According to Richards (2015), scaffolding is not only the support that the teacher gives the student, but also the support that students can give each other. Scaffolding means that a more competent learner gives physical or intellectual support to a less competent learner about a particular subject. Richards (2015) presents an example, where the teacher assists the learners in completing learning activities by observing what the learners a capable of and providing a series of guided stages through the task. The teacher, having a collaborative dialogue with the learner, “scaffolds” the learning process by initially providing support, which is then

gradually removed as the learning the develops. The idea of scaffolding is for the student to move inwards from the outer circle to reach the ZPD. Second-language learners are usually uncomfortable speaking English, which is why they start from the outside of the circle. The scaffolding works to aid them in becoming more comfortable, which eventually leads to the second-language learners reaching the middle of the circle. In this scenario reaching the middle of the circle means that the students are able to speak to each other in English without aid.

2.2 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Similar to the ZPD, Stephen Krashen writes about the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis in his book Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Krashen (1982) explores the relationship between second-language teaching and second-language acquisition. Krashen (1982) explains the five hypotheses about second-language acquisition, one of which is the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis which will be applied to this study. Krashen (1982) tries to answer the question of how we acquire language. He asks that if a learner is at “stage 4” of their language acquisition journey, how can he or she progress to “stage 5”? Krashen (1982) explains that if “i”, which means input, represents current competence, how do we move from i to i + 1, which is the next level of competence? The input hypothesis makes the following claim: To move from stage i to stage i + 1, the acquirer must understand the input

(11)

that contains i + 1. Krashen (1982) claims that we reach stage i + 1 when we understand language that contains structures that are a bit beyond where we are now. How can we understand language that contains structures that we have not yet acquired? Krashen (1982) clarifies this by saying that we use more than our linguistic competence to help us

understand. We also use context, our knowledge of the world, and extra-linguistic information to help us understand language that is directed towards us. Through group discussions, students are subconsciously encouraged to use their linguistic competence as they are put in scenarios where they have to interact with each other.

2.3 Strategies to facilitate comprehension?

According to Richards (2015), the theory of language learning as an interactive process is the view that communication can be achieved between a second language learner and a more experienced language user, such as a native speaker, only if the more experienced user modifies the difficulty of the language that is used. If the language from the native speaker is too difficult or too complex, it may lead to a breakdown in communication. As a result, when communicating with a learner with limited English proficiency, to make the language more comprehensible, speakers tend to modify their input by using various strategies, such as, using known vocabulary, speaking slower, using stress on key words, paraphrasing, and elaborating. Thus, according to Richards (2015), the input can better facilitate both

understanding as well as learning. However, how can one make sure that the input provided is comprehensible? Richards (2015) indicates that the following strategies can be used to facilitate comprehension:

The negotiation of meaning refers to the meaning that is arrived at through the collaboration of both people involved. Richards (2015) mentions several ways in which this negotiation may take form, such as: one speaker may expand on what the other person has said, one speaker may provide words or expressions that the other needs, or a person may ask questions to clarify what the other person has said.

Repairing misunderstanding is an important way for a learner to succeed in communicating

with others. Despite having limitations in their language proficiency, learners need to be able to manage the process of communicating in a way that deals with communication difficulties. Some of the communication strategies a learner can use in order to deal with communication difficulties are according to Richards (2015): a learner indicating that they have

(12)

misunderstood something, repeating something the other person has said in order to confirm understanding, asking the other person to repeat themselves, asking the other person for clarification. Richards (2015) adds that, in interactional theory, the learners’ ability to pay attention and request feedback is considered an essential feature of successful second language learning.

Clarifying input is a communication strategy that is used in interactions between advanced

language users and second language learners, where the advanced language user modifies their language in order to facilitate comprehension. When people communicate with learners who have a limited level of proficiency in a second language, they often use strategies such as: foreigner talk, teacher talk, or caretaker talk. When a learner interacts with an advanced language user, the input the advanced user provides often helps the learner expand their language resources. Richards (2015) shows an example of how a teacher reformulates a learner’s utterance in order to draw attention to, or help the learner notice, features of the language:

Student: Last week, I go away.

Teacher: Oh, you went away last week? Student: Yes, I went away.

2.4 Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis describes the learner’s emotional state or attitudes as an adjustable filter that freely passes, impedes, or blocks input necessary to the acquisition of language. A low affective filter is desirable, since it slows down or blocks less of the necessary input (Richards, 2015). Krashen (1982) states that those who have a stronger or higher affective filter tend to seek less input, even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition. Krashen (1982) also states that a variety of affective variables relate to the success in language acquisition and that most of these variables can be placed in these three categories:

● Motivation - Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition.

● Self-confidence - Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition.

(13)

● Anxiety - Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition (Krashen, 1982).

2.5 Speaking Anxiety

The authors Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986), explain that students can experience a “mental block” when they are trying to learn a new language, even though they are highly motivated and have a genuine interest in the second-language. Even though this article is rather old, the problem that they are discussing remains the same today. One cause of the mental block is anxiety, which affects the students’ results (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986). Students experience anxiety in different ways and places. Some students might feel anxious during math class and others during biology. However, most students experience anxiety in second-language classes (Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope, 1986). They also claim that some students experience such strong anxious feelings in second-language classes that they put off work before class so that they do not have to present their work during class. In some cases, they might even want to drop out of the course due to their anxiety. The students’ anxiety can also lead to them procrastinating or ignoring work, avoid speaking in class, and trying to hide themselves in class so that they do not have to speak.

In Speaking Difficulties Encountered by Young EFL Learners, Samira Al Hosni (2014) raises some issues that young EFL learners might struggle with when they are speaking English in class. Al Hosni (2014) refers to Zhang (2009), who argues that speaking remains the most challenging skill to master for the majority of English learners. According to Al Hosni (2014), four different factors cause difficulty in speaking. The first factor is inhibition, which means that a student is worried about making mistakes, fearful of criticism, or that they are merely shy. The second factor is that the students have nothing to say. When students have nothing to say, it might be due to the students not having motivation enough to express their thoughts and opinions. The third factor is low or uneven participation, which means that because of large classes, only one student can speak at a time. This tends to make some students more dominant, while others speak very little or not at all. The fourth factor which Al Hosni (2014) mentions, is mother-tongue use. Learners who share the same mother tongue tend to use it more than English during class. The reason the mother tongue is used more than English is because the students feel more comfortable and less exposed. Al Hosni (2014) refers to Rababa’h (2005), who says that many learners lack the necessary vocabulary to get their meaning across, and because of this, they have a hard time keeping the interaction

(14)

going. Other factors for not being able to keep the interaction going are, according to Rababa’h (2005), that students might have inadequate strategic competence and

communication competence. Al Hosni (2014) citing Kumaravadivelu (2003), writes that “language is best learned when the learners’ attention is focused on understanding, saying, and doing something with language, and not when their attention is focused explicitly on linguistic features” (p.24). Kumaravadivelu (2003) argues that small groups are active when they are focused on speaking, ignoring pronunciation, grammar, and criticism.

2.6 Communication in the Second-language Classroom

Group-work is an integral part of communication in the second-language classroom. Tony Lynch discusses the implications of in-classroom training in his book Communication in the

Language Classroom (1996). He provides methods for how to use the physical classroom for

students who are learning a new language. In this specific chapter, Lynch discusses the importance of group-work and grouping as a whole (1996). He also writes about the

disadvantages of working in groups. One example he brings up is that it is harder to maintain order in class as there are many distractions that may occur when students work in groups. When students work with their friends, it becomes more distracting for them as they might veer off and start talking about something that is not related to their assignment. However, Lynch (1996) believes that the positive aspects of group-work outweigh the negative in terms of learning. According to him, there are many positive aspects with group-work. Lynch (1996) has created a list of such advantages, which include:

● Learners rarely pick up each other's errors, even in the short term. ● Learners express a wider range of language functions in group-work.

● In group-work during reading and listening comprehensions, learners give more detailed answers than in whole-class work with a teacher.

● Group-work is more likely to lead to the negotiation of meaning than interaction with the teacher.

As well as strengthening students’ speaking abilities, group-work also improves their writing, reading and listening skills. The tasks the students are given must include interaction tasks,

(15)

for which learners can take the communicative initiative, meaning that they are exposed to a broader and richer experience of speaking. Lynch (1996) emphasizes the fact that students need to be assigned exercises that lead to the negotiation of meaning, as these are strategies that they will need for sorting out real-life interactions. Lynch (1996) also claims that when the teacher creates assignments that lead to negotiation of meaning, the students are subjected to how real-life encounters will look like. Having exercises like this is fundamental for second-language learners, as they need to be ready for real-life encounters.

Tricia Hedge (2000) also writes about communication in the classroom; however, she brings forward a term called “contextual appropriacy”. Contextual appropriacy involves adapting the language chosen for a specific message depending on the setting, the status of the participants, and the relationship between different people. This leads to the language being adapted depending on whom one is speaking with. In school, as some students feel

uncomfortable with speaking a second-language, a lack of awareness of, or avoidance of contextual appropriacy can lead to their performance being affected when asked to speak. For example, when students are talking to their classmates, they adapt the language to a level at which they are comfortable. When students are communicating with their teacher, they might adapt the language depending on what kind of relationship they have. If they have a relaxed relationship, they adapt the language differently compared to if they have a strict relationship, in that case the student might try to speak with more caution.

Hedge (2000) writes about communicative language ability as well. She claims that there are five key components necessary for these abilities to develop. The first one is linguistic

competence, meaning that speakers need to have some sort of knowledge about the language,

its form, and its meaning. Linguistic competence includes knowledge of spelling,

pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical structure, and sentence structure (Hedge, 2000). The second component is pragmatic competence. Pragmatic competence means that speakers know how to use the language to be able to achieve the communicative goal. Besides

knowing how to achieve the communicative goal, speakers need to have a social competence, which includes working with specific and appropriate speech acts, such as formal/informal greetings (Hedge, 2000). The third component is discourse competence, which means that speakers need to be socially aware in different situations, such as taking turns in

conversations. Discourse competence is crucial for keeping conversations going (Hedge, 2000). The fourth component is strategic competence. By having strategic competence,

(16)

speakers know how to use communicative strategies to create an authentic communicative situation where the dialogue is open and progressive (Hedge, 2000). The final component is

fluency, according to Hedge (2000). By having fluency in a language, one is able to link

together units of speech without exerting oneself so that the speech does not become choppy. These competencies are essential for second-language students as they are critical

components for learning and communicating in any language.

2.7 Classroom Arrangement

There are many arrangements that can be established in the classrooms, Wright (2005) provides different examples of classroom arrangements. According to Wright (2005), the most common classroom arrangement in higher education is the “horseshoe”. A horseshoe layout is a way of organizing the seats in a class in the form of a horseshoe in order for the learners to see each other, the teacher, and the board. Another example of how one can arrange the classroom is by creating islands, which means that the tables are arranged so that they face each other, leading the students having eye contact with each other. The most common way of arranging the classroom is by having the tables and chairs facing the front of the classroom with the students sitting in pairs. Wright (2005) refers to Doyle 1986;

Hitchcock and Hughes 1989; Lambert 1994, who point out that different types of

arrangements imply different learnings. Doyle 1986; Hitchcock and Hughes 1989; Lambert 1994 also mention that when students are placed in classrooms arranged with more space, e.g. islands, they were more disruptive and distracted, however, when they were sitting in rows, they felt that their working space was too small. Wright (2005) writes:

“Classroom space is utilised in a multitude of different ways, which entail different groupings of students, different uses of wall space, different patterns of movement and different ‘densities of population’. The ‘geography’ of classrooms has significant psychological and social effects on teachers and learners.”

This means that teachers have a great responsibility when arranging the classroom furniture, as it affects students more than one might think.

Based on our experiences from schools in Sweden, the vast majority of the classrooms that we have been in have had a traditional setup, where benches of two or more students fixed in rows are facing the front of the classroom. Wright (2005) refers to Doyle 1986; Hitchcock and Hughes 1989; Lambert 1994, who say that when students are seated in traditional rows,

(17)

an action zone in front of the teacher and at the center of the room emerges. According to Doyle 1986; Hitchcock and Hughes 1989; Lambert 1994, interaction is more personalized, conversational, and semi-private in the action zone, whereas students in the public zone, who are seated in the middle and the back of the classroom, received more lecturing and one-way communication. They also mention that if students were provided with a choice of where to sit, they would most likely choose a seat where they can most easily participate.

According to Richards (2015), in order to create a community of learners, seating

arrangements should allow for students to make eye contact with others and to interact with others. Richards (2015) writes that group based learning can help promote self-esteem; it increases student talking-time; and it can increase student motivation by providing a risk-free environment. However, setting up group activities can pose a number of challenges. Here are some of the challenges Richards (2015) lists:

● Time: Putting students into group can be time consuming.

● Cliques: Students often seat themselves in cliques by age, language group, and friendship.

● Limited language proficiency: Low-level students may have difficulties following instructions and can be intimidated if working in a group with stronger students, leading them to remain silent.

● Control: Some teachers may feel that they are no longer in control of the class. Richards (2015) also points out that when using grouping arrangements, it is important to make the purpose of the grouping arrangement clear to the students. Having students work in pairs or groups does not serve any useful purpose if the teacher continues to teach to whole class, despite the fact that students are in pairs or groups.

Jeremy Harmer (2007), the author of The Practice of English Language Teaching, suggests different ways to work with grouping in classrooms. Harmer (2007) has created a list containing the advantages of whole-class grouping. With whole-class grouping, students in the classroom are seated at tables of 4-5 people. First of all, he suggests that whole-class grouping reinforces a sense of belonging amongst the group members, which is important for teachers to foster. The sense of belonging is created since everyone is included in the same activity, which in turn creates a “we are all in it together” feeling. That feeling leads to bonding, and if handled correctly, might create a great environment in the classroom. Harmer

(18)

(2007) also claims that giving instructions becomes more efficient in whole-class grouping when students are seated in groups of 4-5 in class. By working in this way, students can help each other with instructions as they are working together. However, the teacher must work as a controller so that the groups do not become distracted. Another advantage is that grouping students in class allows teachers to oversee the mood of the students as groups, which is easier than overseeing individuals. The final advantage that Harmer (2007) mentions is that whole-class grouping is usually the work style most preferred by students. This is due to the sense of security that the students feel when working in groups. Harmer (2007) mentions some disadvantages as well, such as whole-class grouping favors groups rather than

individuals. Individual students do not have much of a chance to elaborate on their thoughts, which in turn might prevent some students from taking responsibility for their learning. Therefore, the teacher must create exercises that are relevant and cohesive in order for the groups to feel a sense of meaning. The size of the groups also plays a role in how efficiently the work is performed (Harmer, 2007). For group-work to become efficient, the groups should consist of 4-5 people, as the personal relationships between the students becomes less of a problem in this size. There is also a higher chance of all students sharing their thoughts and ideas when working with that size (Harmer, 2007).

In connection with the ideas and observations presented above, Gustafsson and Josefsson (2019) conducted a study called Didaktiska avvägningar i klassrummet, in which they

researched how the setting in the classrooms affect the work done by students and teachers in Swedish schools. They investigated what possibilities teachers have with rearranging the furniture in classrooms to create a better learning atmosphere, and how they place students in relation to their performance in class. Gustafsson and Josefsson (2019) noticed that the most common way of organizing the classrooms is by lining benches next to each other facing the teacher (35,1%). The second most common way is by creating group constellations (30%). The authors add that the advantages of working in groups include facilitation of discussions amongst the students, and that students can motivate each other when already placed in groups (Gustafsson & Josefsson, 2019). The disadvantage is the fact that students might distract each other. In order to prevent these distractions from occurring, teachers should not create group constellations until the students and the teachers are familiar with each other (Gustafsson & Josefsson, 2019).

(19)

3. Material & Methodology

This study was based on both a qualitative and quantitative research method. Our data was collected by distributing two different surveys to five different classes of year 1 and 2 upper secondary school students who were taking either English 5 or 6 classes in two different upper secondary schools in Halmstad, Sweden. The participants were given survey-questions designed to generate answers of a quantitative and/or qualitative nature. We made sure that the survey participants were given the option to express in some detail what they felt when speaking English in the classroom. This meant that they were not only given “yes” or “no” questions, but also questions with alternatives and open-ended questions. The reason for choosing to conduct online surveys was to reach as many students as we could in the shortest amount of time possible, as well as getting the students to answer the same questions. The participants were handed the surveys during class but answered them online. As previously mentioned, this was a way to save time. The advantage of conducting online surveys is that they will generate both quantitative and qualitative answers, compared to only conducting qualitative interviews, is that more data can be collected from more people in less time. Bryman (2018) writes in his book Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder that the advantage of sending out questionnaires is that it is possible to reach a larger amount of people much faster compared to doing qualitative interviews, and that questionnaires are less influenced by the interviewer, where they can affect the survey participants answers.

The first survey that the participants answered focused on how they felt about speaking English in class. They were also asked to rate their English skills. We wanted the survey participants to have the option to present their ideas on how they would like to work during class, when working with English speaking activities. The purpose of the first survey was for us to see how the students felt about speaking English during class, and which methods they felt made them most comfortable when working with tasks that involved speaking English in class. The second survey was constructed after we had read through the answers from the first survey. We noticed that the survey participants were unanimous in how they wanted to

practice speaking English in class. Then, we constructed exercises based on the results from the first survey. The discussion exercises were based on topics taken from a website called

ESL Discussions, which provides second-language learners with 709 discussion topics that

vary from controversial to everyday topics. An example of a topic used is included in the appendices (see Appendix 3). The discussions that the survey participants performed were

(20)

based on the subject that they were currently doing. For example, one class worked with English realia; therefore, they were given questions about English-speaking countries to discuss. The second survey (see Appendix 2), was handed out to the students after the exercises were completed to see if they still felt the same about speaking English in class. When creating the groups for the discussions, we randomly drew their names from a box that had their names printed on a piece of paper. We created five groups consisting of three to five students each. After this, we asked the students to help us rearrange the classroom furniture to fit the groups, which in hindsight was time-consuming. The reason why the rearranging of furniture was time-consuming, was due to the students’ unwillingness to cooperate. The unwillingness to cooperate might have been due to them being unfamiliar with this type of exercise.

3.1 The Participants

The majority of the answers were from year 1 students who were doing English 5 courses. However, the study also included year 2 students who were doing an English 6 course. We excluded students who were doing English 7, as the majority of them were doing that course because they wanted to, and, therefore, they were presumably more comfortable than the students who were doing their required English courses. In total, we received 92 answers for the first survey. The survey participants were anonymous and were not asked to give their identity as we wanted them to be as comfortable as possible when partaking in the surveys. A side effect of this might be that some participants did not take the survey as seriously as they might have had they not been anonymous. We did ask for their gender as we wanted to have the option to include a gender-based analysis. However, as this has already been done, we excluded the gender-based questions as it was not relevant for our current research questions. Moreover, for the second survey, we only received 53 answers. This was due to the Covid-19 outbreak, which led to us not being able to return to the schools to perform the lessons

required to obtain more answers for the second survey.

3.2 Selection of Questions & Method for Analysis

The selection of questions is partly based on the students’ perceived view of their knowledge and how their comfort levels in speaking English in the classroom can be improved. Hagevi and Viscovi (2016) state that survey questions can be divided into four categories. They can either be about attributes, habits/behavior, opinions/values, or knowledge. In the first survey,

(21)

the participants were asked to rate their own attributes and knowledge. In the second survey the participants were asked to elaborate on their habits/behavior during English class. They were also asked about how to improve the comfort level when speaking English in class. Hagevi and Viscovi (2016) claim that opinions and values can be difficult to measure in a survey because of the challenge of creating suitable reply options where the survey

participants’ opinions and values apply to the study. Therefore, we chose to give them open-ended questions. The second survey focused solely on how they felt the ideas that they suggested went when taken into consideration and performed. The most important of which was that working in groups is the optimal way of working and improving comfort when speaking English in class. Thus, we requested that the students elaborate on their answers. It was important to us that both surveys had quantitative and qualitative answer selections, as the purpose of this study was to find out how the survey participants felt was the best way to increase the level of comfort. As previously discussed, we wanted the participants to control the outcome of the survey results, which we felt they did. This was due to the fact that we adapted the lessons after their suggestions. The questions included in the survey were written to be as unbiased as possible, which is why almost all questions had an open-ended

alternative, so that the survey participants had the alternative to expand their thoughts or ideas in each question.

A thematic analysis method has been implemented in order to analyze the survey

participants’ answers on open-ended questions. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), the main focus of using a thematic analysis method is for identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes. We have been guided by Braun and Clarke’s six phases of analysis in order to break down the survey participants’ answers into themes. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), the six-phase analysis consists of: familiarizing yourself with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming the themes, and

producing the report. When analyzing the results from the open-ended questions, each of the survey participants’ answers were interpreted before they were divided into separate codes. Subsequently, the codes were put into themes in order to make it easier for us and the reader to understand the results and the analysis. The themes chosen vary depending on the question that the survey participants answered. As previously mentioned, the themes will be applied to the open-ended questions. One example of the themes used in the results, is the last question on survey 1, here we applied the method in order to categorize the most common answers. For example, after reviewing and interpreting the survey participants answers on that

(22)

question, the themes that stood out were “afraid to mispronouncing something”, “uncomfortable with attention”, “general insecurity”, and “completely comfortable”.

(23)

4. Results

4.1 Survey 1

When sending out the first survey, one of the questions we wanted to know was how the survey participants rated their own English language skills.

4.1.1 How would you rate your own English skills?

The pie chart shows that 22 of 92 survey participants who were asked to rate their own English-speaking skills thought that their skills were “Very good”. 30 of the 92 survey participants thought that they had “Good” English skills. 35 of the 92 survey participants, which also was the majority, thought that their English skills were “Decent”. A minority, only 5 of the 92 survey participants, thought that they had “Poor” English skills.

4.1.2 How do you feel about speaking English in front of your class?

(24)

The chart above shows how the survey participants felt about speaking English in front of their class. It shows that thirty-seven of the survey participants felt that it is “Hard”, and another thirty-seven felt that it is “Alright”. Eighteen of the survey participants felt that it is “Easy” to speak English in class.

4.1.3 Are you afraid of failing in the classroom? E.g mispronouncing a word or forgetting what to say etc.

This diagram tells us about how the survey participants felt about making mistakes in class, such as mispronouncing words or forgetting what to say. The majority of the survey

participants, 33 out of 92, claimed they were not afraid to make mistakes in the classroom. However, this is closely followed by the number of participants who were afraid of making mistakes in the classroom, 32 out of 92. In this diagram, the survey participants were given a chance to elaborate on their views if they were to say “Sometimes”, which 27 out of 92 did. Below are some of the answers that we received from the survey participants who elaborated on why they sometimes felt anxious when speaking English. The quotes are translated from Swedish to English. To see the original quote in Swedish, see appendix 4.

“[I never feel anxious] when I ask questions, but when I am going to present something, I get scared.”

“Most often, the nervousness takes over, and I perform worse than I should have.” “[I feel anxious] because the boys might make mean comments or laugh, sometimes they interrupt us girls. However, it is hard when you are trying to talk, and they cut you off,

(25)

comment, or laugh.”

4.1.4 What is the hardest part about speaking English in front of your class? Elaborate if you find it hard or not, and why.

The following question that the survey participants answered was open-ended. We received 84 answers to this question. Here are the most common themes amongst the answers:

1. 28 of the survey participants felt that they were insecure about mispronouncing a word, saying something wrong, or forgetting what to say.

2. Twenty-six of the answers were related to the participants not being comfortable with having all the attention on themselves.

3. Furthermore, 18 of the survey participants felt that they were generally insecure, and that had to do with both speaking in front of classmates and with English as a subject.

4. Seven of the survey participants felt that they were completely comfortable with speaking English in class.

There were five answers which could not be included due to their vagueness.

4.1.4 Check the box that describes what you feel is necessary for you to improve your English-speaking abilities.

(26)

The diagram above shows what the survey participants thought was the best way to increase their comfort in speaking English in the classroom. The majority, 49 of the 92 who answered said that working in smaller groups of 3-4 people was the best way for them to be more comfortable when speaking English during class. Twenty-four of the 92 survey participants thought that working in pairs was the best way to increase comfort. Fourteen out of the 92 survey participants answered that they would prefer to work alone to improve their English-speaking skills.

To summarize the results from this survey, we can determine that the majority of the survey participants believed that discussing in groups was the best way to increase their comfort in speaking English in class. The second most popular approach to increase comfort, according to the survey participants, was to discuss in pairs. Speaking alone in front of classmates was the least voted-for approach. When pointing out what made the survey participants nervous about speaking English in class, they pointed out that they did not enjoy the fact that they had all the attention, which led them to become anxious. There were some survey participants who felt that they were not comfortable with their English skills, which led them to be anxious about mispronouncing words or saying something wrong. Even though most student felt that they had at least “Decent” English skills. By creating groups, the survey participants believed that the anxiety they experienced would become less of an interfering factor with their English-speaking abilities.

(27)

4.2 Survey 2

The second survey was the survey that the participants did after we had performed their suggested ideas of how to increase the comfort when speaking English in class.

4.2.1 How do you feel the group-discussions went? (Elaborate your answers in the “other” category).

The diagram above shows us the results of how the survey participants felt that the group discussions went. Forty-three out of 53 survey participants felt that it went “Well”, 7 out of the 53 survey participants felt that it went “Poorly”, and 4 out of 53 felt that it went

“Moderately well”. The participants also had the option to elaborate on their answers. However, the survey participants who felt that the group discussions went “Well” did not elaborate on their answers. Only the ones who were less satisfied with the discussions did. Below are some of the survey participants answers, which are translated from Swedish to English, to see the original quote see appendix 5.

“It is hard to talk to others, as I am unsure if I say the correct things.”

“People do not put in any effort to improve and to have the conversation move forward.” “I believe that the discussions usually do not go too well as they are not taken seriously. I think that the others do not think that it matters as it is not being assessed in the same way.” “We could have talked a bit more.”

(28)

4.2.2 What are your thoughts about having group discussions in groups of 3-5 people?

This question in the survey was open-ended. The answers will be presented in the following categories: “Good”, “Moderately good”, and “Bad”.We will also include some of the answers that stood out. In total, 43 of the 53 survey participants felt that group discussions were “Good”. Six out of the 53 felt that they were “Moderately good”, and 4 of the 53 felt that they were “Bad”. Below are some of the survey participants’ answers. To see the original quotes in Swedish, see appendix 6.

“I feel that it is not taken seriously by the other students, which leads to the discussions being done in Swedish, or not at all.”

“It is easier to keep the conversation alive in groups of three or more compared to only being two people. However, the conversations in English tend to be short.”

“It often leads to some people talking more, and some people talking less. Otherwise, it is good.”

“Much more rewarding, as we are able to share our knowledge”

“Challenging, I would have been insecure, but the group made me more comfortable”

4.2.3 Do you think that it is better or worse to discuss in pairs, elaborate your answers?

The categories that will be used to present the results are: “Better”, “It depends”, and “Worse”. The results from the survey showed that 27 out of the 53 survey participants thought that it would be worse to have discussions in pairs. 13 of the 53 survey participants preferred to have discussions in pairs. Another 13 out of the 53 participants thought that it would depend on the circumstance, and that both options could be used at times. A common answer amongst those who thought that it would be “Worse” with pair discussions was that they felt that they would not get to share and hear other perspectives. Contrastingly, those who thought that pair discussion would be “Better”, said that they would become more secure if they were able to discuss with only one person, and that they would be able to have more time to speak in the discussions. Those who felt that it depended on the circumstance thought

(29)

that the relationship between the one they were discussing with determined whether they felt comfortable or not.

4.2.4 Do you feel more comfortable speaking English in groups of 3-5 people?

In this question the survey participants had the option to answer “Yes”, “No”, or

“Sometimes”, while also elaborating their answers. Out of the 53 participants, 43 of them deemed group discussions to make them feel more comfortable with speaking English. Five of the 53 participants answered “Sometimes”, and the last 5 answered “No”. A common perception amongst those who voted “Yes”, was that they felt that group discussions

alleviated the pressure that comes with speaking English in the classroom, whereas those who answered “Sometimes”, though that it depended on the group and the assignment. Lastly, the participants who answered “No” did not enjoy group discussions, as they would rather work with their personal friends in pairs.

The texts in the charts are cut off, but the most relevant answers are presented below. The final question of the second survey was sent out after we had finished our final teaching practice. This meant that we were not able to meet up with the survey participants as the

(30)

schools were closed, which affected the number of participants, but we wanted to include the question anyway. The question was: “Do you speak English in your group discussions during English class?” The survey participants were once again given the option to answer “Yes” or “No”. They were also given the option to give open-ended answers. Out of the 19 answers, 10 answered “Yes”. One survey participant answered “No”, and the rest of the participants elaborated with open-ended answers. Below are some of the most common answers. To see the original Swedish quotes, see appendix 7.

“I always do it in the beginning, but sometimes I get dragged into speaking Swedish as the others do it. This does not happen to everyone, though.”

“When the teacher does not hear us, some Swedish words might be used. Other than that, I always try to stick to speaking English.”

“There are times when some students do not want to speak English, which makes the rest of the group apprehensive about speaking English as well.”

(31)

5. Discussion

From the results of the surveys, we can see that the participants were more comfortable with speaking English in groups when the classroom furniture was rearranged to fit the groups. Out of the 53 survey participants, 43 of them felt that the group discussions went well. In the first survey, 49 out of 92 participants answered that they would prefer to have group

discussions. When the survey participants were given the opportunity to elaborate their thoughts in the open-ended questions, they stated that having group discussions provides a better understanding of the topic. They also claimed that it is more interesting to have group discussions as it feels more meaningful than having the teacher asking questions to individual students. This correlates with what Harmer (2007) points out, which is that groups make the students feel secure and that work favors the group and not the individual. As group-work favors the group and not the individual, it is important to create functioning groups. With group-work, the responsibility of learning becomes more dependent on the students. According to Harmer (2007), group constellations might be problematic as some students may make less of an effort as they rely on their group members. This was a problem that some of the survey participants mentioned as well; however, there were only a few who did. In the results, we can see that some survey participants felt that their peers did not take the discussions seriously. The unwillingness to take the discussions seriously may depend on the group members, but it may also be due to the task that they were given. A way to minimize this risk could be if the teacher oversees the discussions more carefully and makes sure that the discussions are done properly. There are other exercises that may intrigue students more as well, such as jigsaw activities and other communicative tasks.

Group-work is a good way for teachers to build rapport amongst students. From the results, it is noticeable that the survey participants were less confident when speaking English alone in front of their peers, as they were apprehensive about what others would think about their English-speaking abilities. By organizing groups in which students work with different classmates, the teacher can create plenty of exercises in which the students discuss with each other. A possible benefit of working in groups with different classmates is that the students might appropriate their language, which Tricia Hedge (2000) claims is essential when learning a language. When working in groups, the survey participants felt more comfortable in their discussions, as the setting was more relaxed. They also pointed out that it was interesting to hear different perspectives from their peers. According to Lynch (1996), when

(32)

second-language students work in groups, they express a wider range of language functions. Additionally, Hedge (2000) emphasizes the importance of improving the language functions or communicative abilities, as it is vital for second-language students to develop. Lynch (1996) also states that students are more likely to have meaningful discussions when working in groups with their peers, as opposed to when they discuss alone with the teacher. The survey participants also felt that discussing in groups, rather than in pairs or with the teacher, gave them more meaningful discussions.

5.1 Speaking Anxiety Amongst the Survey Participants

In the first question of the first survey we asked the survey participants was how they rated their own English skills. Out of the 92 survey participants, merely 5 of them claimed that they had “Poor” English skills. The rest rated their English to be either “Very Good”, “Good”, or “Decent”. Contrastingly, in our first survey, we asked how the survey participants felt about speaking English in class. 40.2 % of the survey participants answered that they perceived speaking English in class as being tough. The survey participants were also asked if they were afraid of making mistakes, such as mispronouncing a word or not knowing what to say. 34.8 % of the survey participants stated that they were afraid of making mistakes during English class. The fear of making mistakes can be attributed to one of the four factors that Al Hosni (2014) mentions when she studies speaking anxiety amongst second-language

students. One of the factors is Inhibition, which can be noticed in the survey participants’ elaborated answers, where they got to explain why they were afraid of making mistakes when speaking English in the classroom. All of the survey participants’ answers about why they were afraid of making mistakes when speaking English in the classroom had to do with them being worried about how their peers perceive their English skills. This led them to be afraid of making mistakes, fearful of criticism, or scared of being teased by other students.

Interestingly, pie chart number 5 in the first survey shows that 55 of the 92 participants felt that speaking in front of their peers was either “Easy” or “Alright”. However, 37 of the 92 participants felt that it was “Hard”. Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) claim that anxiety among students can lead to them procrastinating or simply ignoring work. Students who experience anxiety also tend to avoid speaking in class. Some students might try to hide themselves in class in order for them to avoid speaking. In the results, we see that some survey participants mentioned that the group discussions were not taken seriously, mainly due to their peers speaking Swedish instead of English. The reason as to why the discussions

(33)

were not taken seriously by some could have been due to some students experiencing speaking anxiety. The anxiety might stem from them not wanting to subject themselves to making mistakes, which would lead to their peers looking down on them. Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) also point out that students who experience strong anxious feelings in the second-language classroom can put off work before class in order for them not to do any work during class. With this in mind, it is noticeable that some of the participants might have been avoiding speaking English as a way to deal with that anxiety.

When working in groups, the students’ communicative abilities are also challenged. In the results, we can see that the survey participants felt that by working in groups, their

discussions became more genuine and challenging. One survey participant wrote that it was much more rewarding to work in groups, as they were able to share their knowledge. Another participant wrote that group discussions were challenging, but that the group had a reassuring effect on him/her. For the communicative abilities to develop, students must be put in

situations where each ability is tested or employed. As previously mentioned, Hedge (2000) states that there are five communicative abilities, and in group-work, these communicative abilities are tested. For the communicative abilities to become involved in the classroom, it requires the students to speak English, and from the results, we can see that some students were not speaking English during class. Choosing not to speak English during class is detrimental as students’ communicative abilities are not being tested, which in turn, leads to the exercise becoming counterproductive.

Richards (2015) mentioned that most second language learners feel most insecure when they are misunderstood. This can be seen in the results of the first survey as well. A majority of the participants felt apprehensive when asked to perform orally due to them not being understood i.e. saying something wrong. When in groups, the students did not feel as

apprehensive when they were misunderstood, as they are not exposed to the entire class. Even though students must fail to move forward, Richards (2015) adds that by students asking their peers for feedback and by paying attention they are performing one of the most fundamental elements in order to grow as second language learners. Richards (2015) points out that it is important to create a community of learners. In order to do so, seating arrangements should be constructed in such a way so that the students are making eye contact with each other. This helps the students promote better self-esteem and increases the discussion lengths in a risk-free environment. As we noted in the results, the survey participants felt more comfortable in

(34)

groups as they had a higher degree of self-esteem due to them not being as exposed, as opposed to speaking alone to the class.

5.2 Rearranging the Furniture in the Classroom; is it Necessary?

From the results of the second survey, we can see that most students felt more comfortable when working in groups where the classroom furniture was rearranged. Out of the 53 survey participants, 43 of them felt more comfortable when having discussions in groups. 5 of the 53 survey participants did not feel as comfortable, which might be due to dysfunctional groups or personal dynamics.

Gustafsson and Josefsson (2019) claim that it is important that the teacher creates group constellations in which everyone is familiar with each other. Due to the limited amount of time during our final teaching practice, we were not able to get to know the students as well as we would have liked. This can be noticed through some of the survey participants’ answers, where they state that their peers had not taken the group discussion seriously. Had we had more time with the students, we might have been able to prevent dysfunctional groups. Alternatively, Hedge (2000) claims that group-work is an efficient way to build rapport. From the results of the second survey, we can see that the majority of the participants were positive about group-work and to the rearranging of the classroom furniture.

5.3 Group-work as a Basis to Become Independent Speakers

According to the results of our surveys, the participants were more comfortable with speaking English when divided into groups, as their speaking anxiety was reduced. They claim that they felt less exposed and less worried about mispronouncing words, which led to their discussions being more fluent. This could be interpreted as a lowering of the participants affective filter. As Richards (2015) mentioned, a low affective filter is desirable, since it slows down or blocks less of the necessary input, while a high or strong affective filter will impede language acquisition due to the high levels of anxiety, low self-confidence, and low motivation in students.

Krashen (1982) stated that learners should move forward from i to i + 1, which in this case is being able to speak independently in front of their peers without feeling anxious. To reach i + 1, students are required to be responsible for their learning, group-work, and discussions. By working in groups, students are also able to motivate and help each other. From the answers

(35)

in the open-ended questions, we can note that some survey participants felt that their peers either did not put in an effort to move the conversation forward, or that the discussions were not taken seriously enough. Teachers need to have a good rapport with their students, as Krashen’s hypothesis requires a person to be one level above the other in order for them to reach i +1. The ZPD, which is similar to Krashen’s comprehensible input hypothesis, also requires students who are at different levels to work with each other. For students to be able to develop as second-language learners, they need guidance. Students who are at a higher level should be placed in different groups with students who are at a lower level. By dividing them in this manner, the students who are at a higher level can help the students who are at a lower level. At the same time, the higher-level students are challenged, as they will act as leaders of the groups and make the conversations move forward. The aim of working like this is for the students to become more comfortable and less anxious when speaking English, which will help them grow as second-language learners. The idea is that the students are supposed to grow to become more independent speakers by working in their groups. This means that the groups will work as a basis for the students where they work together in order to become more comfortable and less anxious. As Axelsson (2011) claims, it is of the highest importance that the students are able to become independent speakers, as their futures might be dependent on them being able to communicate independently. When the students

eventually reach the goal of being independent speakers, they become more secure during tasks that require them to speak on their own, for example during presentations.

(36)

6. Conclusion

A high degree of the second-language students who have participated in this study,

experience speaking anxiety to some extent. The anxiety does not lie within their ability to speak English, as a majority felt that their English was good; it is instead the fear of being judged. In the results, we can see that the survey participants feared mispronouncing words, or that they would forget what to say. However, with group-work, encouraged by the rearranging of furniture to fit the groups, the survey participants felt more comfortable and less anxious when speaking to each other, as they experienced less pressure when speaking English. A problem that occurs when students are feeling anxious about speaking in a second-language is that they feel exposed due to insecurities, leading them to fall back on their mother tongue. In order to prevent this, the teacher, together with his or her students, has a responsibility to create an environment where they feel secure. A way of making students feel more secure is by making small groups where they speak in front of their group

members, instead of speaking in front of the entire class. As previously mentioned, we noticed that even though most of the survey participants felt that they had good English skills and felt “Alright” when speaking in front of their classmates, they still experienced a degree of anxiety. Subsequently, even though someone is “Alright” at performing a task, it does not mean that they feel less anxious. Gustafsson and Josefsson (2019), Hedge (2000) and Lynch (1996) argue that by creating groups and by working in groups, comfort levels can be

increased, and anxiety can be reduced. This also correlates with the results of our surveys, as most students felt that by group-work, the pressure of speaking is reduced. Krashen (1982) and Lantolf (2000) both argue that students need to be able to evolve and adapt as learners. Both theories that the authors present are adaptable and cohesive in relation to group-work as they require that students work with each other in order for them to develop as students and speakers.

The survey participants were overall positive about working in groups. However, we also noticed the importance of creating functioning groups. Harmer (2007) points out that the teacher's responsibility when creating groups is to oversee them and to make sure that the groups do not become distracted. The students' responsibility lies with themselves, as they are the ones who are supposed to make the groups work, which means that the students must be held accountable for their learning to a certain extent. The survey participants mentioned that by having group discussions when the classroom furniture was rearranged, made them feel more immersed in the discussions as the rearranging of furniture, combined with grouping

Teamwork Equals Dreamwork : A Survey-based Study of Second-language Students’ Speaking Anxiety in Upper Secondary School

Examensarbete

Teacher Education (Upper Secondary School) 300hp