T BING 1201663 Chapter3

(1)

Asep Dadang, 2014

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter elaborates methodology of the study. The description includes: the research

questions, then followed by the research design. It also describes the pilot study, research setting,

and the participant of the research, data collection technique, data analysis, and conclusion of the

methodology. Each of them will be explained below

3.1 Research Questions

The study is aim at investigating the elementary school students‘ anxiety in one of the

private school. This study is formulated in the following questions:

1. Are there any differences in English learning anxiety among young learners in anxiety

levels of communication anxiety, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation?

2. What are the causes of young learners‘ language anxiety?

3. How do young learners cope with their language anxiety?

3.2 Research Design

Research is the way or means to gather the data (Dawson, 2009). Cresswell (2008) in

more detail defines research as a series of action or steps used to collect and analyze information

to enhance our understanding of a topic or issue. In short, research is simply defined as a

systematic approach to finding answers to questions (Hatch & Farhady, 1982). Therefore, it can

be concluded that research method is the way or means we use to collect the data in our research

in order to find the answer of the research problems.

There are three recognized methods for conducting research: quantitative, qualitative and

mixed methods (Creswell, 2008). According to Hancock (1998) qualitative research is concerned

with the opinions, experiences and feelings of individuals producing subjective data and it is

concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena as they occur naturally and no

(2)

described as empirical, using quantifiable data. Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger (2005) state

that quantitative research involves studies that make use of statistical analysis to obtain their

finding. The last one is mixed method. This method involves both collecting and analyzing

quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Clarck, 2006).

According to Creswell (2008), there are three types of mixed method: first is

triangulation mixed method (equal priority to both quantitative and qualitative data). Second is

embedded mixed method (priority to the major form of data collection). Third is explanatory

mixed method (a priority on quantitative data collection and analysis followed by small

qualitative data collection and analysis in the second phase of the research or conversely). In

order to cope with the purposes of this study, this study used triangulation mixed method as there

is equal priority to the treatment of quantitative and qualitative data.

Researchers of anxiety have used different approaches to study language anxiety. Most of

them have occupied quantitative measures in an attempt to isolate and evaluate variables through

scales and questionnaires (Wilson, 2006). Some other researchers have used qualitative

techniques such as journal investigations and interview. However, some studies have combined

quantitative and qualitative means of data collection.

Considering the different techniques in researching language anxiety and the goal of this

research, quantitative and qualitative approaches were used in this research. Quantitative data

analysis was used to find out the answer of the first question which required statistical analysis as

it investigated for possible differences in anxiety among elementary students through the analysis

of variance involving score on a scale of FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986).

The second and third questions were investigated qualitatively through taking transcripts

of classroom observation and interview to find elementary students‘ language anxiety in EFL classroom. The interview was in form of open–ended interview, which allowed respondents to

talk about their feelings and thoughts during the English class.

The two approaches, quantitative and qualitative, provide a suitable balance throughout

the research. Qualitative research design allows researchers to study individual performance

closely, but it may or may not represent the behavior of other learners and is therefore of

questionable value for generalization to language acquisition by others. To offset this drawback,

(3)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu and Shohamy, 1989 cited in Wilson, 2006).

3.3 Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted prior to the implementation of formal research to ascertain

the validity and reliability of the research questionnaire. It was conducted during 24th February to

25th February 2014 using the same procedures designed for the formal investigation. The

participants (N = 4) were six grade students studying at a private school in Kab. Bandung Barat.

This instrument was written in Indonesian to facilitate the students‘ understanding of the

questionnaire items. Before the survey, the researcher gave a clear explanation of the

questionnaire to the participants in Indonesian. To ensure the validity and reliability of this study,

those who participated in the pilot study were not chosen as the participants in the formal study.

After the pilot study was ﬁnished, the data were collected by the researcher immediately

and analyzed by SPSS (statistical package for the social science) 16.0. The consistency estimates

of reliability for the three subscales of the ﬁnal questionnaires; the coefﬁcient alpha of .77, .80,

and .73 suggested that the ﬁnal version of the 33-item questionnaires was reasonably reliable for

the formal ﬁnal study. The overall results of the pilot study indicated that the instruments and

procedures selected for the experiment were suitable to carry out in the main study (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1

Cronbach‘s alpha values for the questionnaire reliability

Category Cronbach’s alpha values

Communication anxiety .77

Test anxiety .80

Fear of negative evaluation .73

Overall language anxiety .77

3.4 Research Setting and Participants

This study was undertaken in an EFL classroom at a private elementary school in Kab.

(4)

choice of the place of the participant was determined as considering the accessibility of the

researcher to carry out the research. Alwasilah (2009) mentioned that convenience factor should

be taken into consideration to support the researcher to carry out the research.

There were three classes (class A, class B, and class C). Class A was consisted of sixth

graders. Class B and C were consisted of five graders. Class B consisted of high achiever

students and class C consisted of low achiever students. The researcher distributed 54

questionnaires to the three classes. Some missing data were occurred in collecting the

questionnaire back. Some students refused to return the questionnaire because of their mates'

mocks or their feeling of unconfident. The occurrence happened in every group of participants

but the highest unreturned questionnaires were on Class A with 3 missing data out of 20

distributed questionnaires. Class B returned 20 questionnaires and one missed. Class C returned

12 out of 13 questionnaires, but one questionnaire was not completed. (Table 3.2)

Table 3.2

Questionnaire Distribution by Group of Class

Group N Missing Data Completed Data Percentage

Class A 20 3 17 31.5%

Class B 21 1 20 37.0%

Class C 13 1 12 22.2%

Total 54 5 49 90.7%

Of the 49 returned questionnaires with the returned rate of 90.7%, only one was discarded

as invalid; therefore, a total of 48 valid questionnaires (equal to 88.9% of distributed ones) was

used in the formal investigation. Of all the student population, females accounted for 51% and

46.9% were males. (Table 3.3)

Table 3.3

The Distribution of Gender among Participants

Gender N Invalid Data Completed Data

Percentage

(5)

Female 25 0 25 51.0%

Total 49 1 48 97.9%

Therefore, there were forty-eight students participate in this research. A purposive

sampling technique was occupied to choose four students who showed the different level of

anxiety based on their answers on the questionnaire. One student was categorized as

high-anxious student, two were moderate-high-anxious students, and one was a low-high-anxious student. The

four students were interviewed to dig more information about their anxiety.

3.5 Data Collection

This section describes the time table of collecting data and the techniques used to collect

the data.

3.5.1 Schedule of Data Collection

Data collection for the present study was conducted in five weeks. The following table

was the schedule of data collection for this study:

Table 3.4

The schedule of data collection

Day, Date Duration Data collection

Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 45 minutes Taking questionnaire data from class A

Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 45 minutes Taking questionnaire data from class B and 3

Monday, March 17th, 2014 70 minutes Taking observation data from a high anxious student, field notes

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 @70 minutes Taking observation data from one moderate anxious participant and one low-anxious participant, field note

Friday, March 21st, 2014 35 minutes Taking observation data from a moderate anxious student, field notes

(6)

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 20 minutes Taking interview data from a moderate-anxious student and transcribing the result

Friday, March 28th, 2014 20 minutes Taking interview data from a low-anxious student and transcribing the result

Monday, April 1st, 2014 15 minutes Taking interview data from a moderate-anxious student and transcribing the result

Due to the participants were young learners at the age of eleven and twelve, the process

of filling the questionnaires was guided by the researcher to make sure that participants

understand the item to fill. Some items of questions were clarified by the researcher through

short explanations.

The four participants, who were chosen to be sample of each group, were observed in the

classroom setting. Each of them was observed for a meeting for 70 minutes duration.

Video-recording was used in first observation, but the observation did not work well. The students were

quieter than their daily behavior and they did not display normal conversation as they used to be.

Following days, the researcher observed using a field with no video recording. Since then, the

researcher decided to count on the field note to record participants‘ anxiety in the classroom

setting. Field notes here, are as the detailed notes observers take in the educational setting

(classroom or school) about what is going on, what they hear, see, experience, and think in the

collecting and reflecting on their data (Frankle & Wallen, 2007).

The interview took more time than it allocation time. The interview lasted approximately

15-20 minutes. All the interviews were conducted in Indonesian and were tape-recorded with the

subject‘s permission. Initially, the subjects were asked open-ended questions to establish a rapport with the subjects Later, a semi-structured question format was used as a guideline

to ask questions and to encourage the interviewees to talk in their own way. Some changes were

made to facilitate the interviews such as the place of the interview was conducted in the

(7)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.5.2 Data Collection Techniques

There were three techniques of collecting data used in this study. Those are

questionnaires, classroom observation and semi structure interview.

3.5.2.1 Questionnaires

Students‘ anxiety level was gained through the employment of a questionnaire. The

rationale was that it allows respondents to report information about themselves that is important

to the research (Mackey & Gass, 2005). For this reason and the good of this research, this study

employed Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scales (FLCAS). This questionnaire was

originally developed by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986). This scale has been used in a large

number of research projects (Horwitz, 2001). According to Horwitz (1986), this scale has been

found to have an internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient, of .93, and

test-retest reliability over eight weeks of r =.83, p =. 001. It was developed based on the

construction of factor of anxiety includes speech anxiety, afraid to make mistakes in English

class, feeling unable to deal with the task of English learning, communication apprehension, test

anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. (Table 3.5)

Table 3.5

The categories of English learning anxiety in FLCAS

Factors Total Item no

Speech anxiety 10 1, 3, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24, 27,

and 32

Afraid to make mistakes in English

class

2 2 and 19

Feeling unable to deal with the task of

English learning

9 5, 6, 11, 16, 17, 22, 26, 28,

and 30

Communication apprehension 4 4, 15, 29, and 33

Test anxiety 3 8, 10, and 21

(8)

The FLCAS consists of 33 statements. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (agree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (disagree) to 5

(strongly disagree). The total scores of the scale range from 33 to 165 with high scores indicate

high levels of anxiety. The higher the total points, the more anxious the students are. Item 1, 3, 4,

6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 33 represent high anxiety

(positively worded). Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, and 32 represent lack of anxiety (negatively

worded) (Table 3.6). The ﬁrst part of the questionnaire was a personal English learning

background questionnaire. It was intended to investigate students‘ general English learning experience, especially those experiences related to learners‘ English learning anxiety.

Table 3.6

Statements in FLCAS

Category Total Item no

Positively worded 24 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17,

19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30,

31, and 33

Negatively worded 9 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, and 32

Total items 33

In order to facilitate the participants‘ understanding of the questionnaire items, this instrument was conducted in the participants‘ native language, Indonesian, to avoid unnecessary

misreading and miscomprehension. Two linguists helped to verify the appropriateness and

adequacy of the wording and lexical expressions in the questionnaires (both English and

Indonesian editions; appendices A and B). For the Indonesian version, the words ―foreign language‖ in each item was replaced by the word ―Bahasa Inggris‖ to be consistent with the

participants of EFL learners. (See Appendices A and B)

3.5.2.2 Observation

Observation may be employed in the stages of a research project to explore an area which

(9)

observational strategies open to this study: participant and non-participant observation (Patton,

1980). The participant observation involves when the researcher takes part in the situation being

studied, rather than simply acting as a neutral and unobtrusive observer. In participant

observation, the researcher is fully engaged in experiencing the situation under study (Wilson,

2006), and may be required to work with the members of the group or community under study

for an extended period of time. On the other hand, the non-participant observation occurs when

the researcher does not take part in the situation being studied, but may well be present in the

environment (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007). In non-participant observation, the researcher attempts

to observe people without interacting with them and often without their knowledge that they are

being observed.

There is a main reason for the choice of the observation strategy in this study. First, as

Patton (1980) points out, the extent to which a researcher can be a participant observer depends

on the nature of the study under investigation. In the case of education field that serve children,

for an obvious reason, it is difficult for the researcher to become a student and experience the

program as a child. Thus, this study employed an observational strategy much closer to

non-participant observation than non-participant observation.

There are a number of approaches to observational research. Gall and Borg (1993 in

Al-Jadidi, 2009) explain the difference between more structured or (systematic) observation and less

structured or observation. These two approaches originate in different academic traditions, and

have different aims, purposes and procedures. Less-structured observation was chosen as the

research aimed at exploring the social meanings that underpin behavior in natural social settings.

Specifically, it tried to capture the students‘ source of anxiety and how they cope with the

anxiety provoking situation. However, some guidance to the observation were adapted from

Cha‘s study (2006). The observation included the physical setting, the participants, activities and

interaction, conversation, subtle factors, and researcher behavior (Appendix D).

3.5.2.3 Interview

Given that the one of the goals of this study was to explore the causes of language

anxiety, interviews seemed appropriate as a means to understand the experiences of the subjects

about language anxiety because they allow for given points to be clarified and elaborated upon

(10)

anxiety among students, this study also used a qualitative semi-structured interview format to

investigate the factors that cause language anxiety from students‘ perspectives. It was that semi

-structured can provide access to things that cannot be directly observed, such as feelings,

thoughts, intentions, or beliefs (Merriam, 1998 cited in Ohata, 2005). It also provides

participants with opportunities to select, reconstruct, and reflect upon details of their experience

within the specific context of their lives.

A semi-structured face-to-face interview technique was preferred as it was essential to

ensure that the researcher was ―in a position of being able to access the degree of the

interviewee‘s interest and involvement‖ (Tanveer, 2007). Specifically, it tried to explore the students‘ source of anxiety and how they cope with the anxiety provoking situation. The

interviews contained a balance of open and closed questions, the latter asserting the control of

the interviewer, the former offering the interviewees a wide range of choice within a question.

(See Appendix E)

3.6 Data Analysis

To answer the questions of this research, data analysis in this study was conducted over

the course of the study. Ongoing data analysis and interpretation were done based on the data

from questionnaires, classroom observation, and interviews. Each step of the analysis of the three

sources of data is given in the following section.

3.6.1 Questionnaires

The researcher utilized Statistic Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 for

windows to analyze data from the questionnaire and to explore the relationship between

independent variables and dependent variables of the differences in English learning anxiety

among young learners. First, each participant‘s FLCAS score was calculated to find the mean of

each participant. Then, the mean was categorized into five categories; extreme-anxious level,

high-anxious level, moderate-anxious level, low-anxious level, very low-anxious student (Table

3.7).

Table 3.7

(11)

Level Mean Range

general situation of students' anxiety. Third, test of variances was conducted to measure whether

the group had the same variances. This is important since the analysis of variance (ANOVA)

requires the variances in each experimental condition need to be fairly similar (Field, 2009).

Fourth, one-way ANOVA was conducted to compute significant differences in English learning

anxiety among the three means, specifically the communication apprehension, test anxiety, and

fear of negative evaluation.

Post-hoc analysis was conducted since researcher did not have specific hypotheses (Field,

2009). It revealed which anxiety groups, if any, were significantly different from one another in

their components of language anxiety. Since numbers of members in each group were different,

Gabriel Post-Hoc was the appropriate test used in post-hoc analysis. The same procedures were

conducted to investigate the differences the categories of FLCAS, which were communication

apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation.

In reporting statistical significance for difference researcher used exact probabilities (p

values) as provided by the SPSS package. These exact p values are given using an ‗=‘ sign. On

several occasions, however, when the SPSS program has rendered extremely low probabilities as

.000 without supplying the exact value, researcher has expressed these values as .001, and used a

‗<‘ sign. A single asterisk (*) specifies results achieving a statistical significance level of < .05,

and a double asterisk (**) indicates those reaching a statistical significance of < .01.

3.6.2 Observation

Language anxiety components—communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of

(12)

they are not mutually exclusive. One component might have the same dimension to other

components. Communication apprehension may also be interpreted in fear of negative evaluation

context. Thus, it is hardly possible to make a distinction on which of the three components of

language anxiety being studied.

Considering the difficulty shown above, this study employed Ehrman‘s (1996) defense

mechanism against experiencing language anxiety. Ehrman (1996) uses qualitative method using

observation and informal interviews to collect her data, and she provides a rich array of

observable characteristics of language anxiety, and differentiates them into four areas (Table 3.8)

This category was not only used to code the result of classroom observation, but also the

result of the interview; specifically this is helpful in making categorization on participants‘

coping strategies. Later the categories, were divided into common coping strategies and specific

categories. The coping strategies covered some coping strategies which used by all

representatives of participant. On the other sides, specific categories revealed specific categories

of coping strategies which were used by one or two groups of anxious level. This categorization

enabled us to see clearly that there were differences among participants in coping with their

1. Avoidance or withdrawal: Pulling away

2. Reaction formation: Doing something for others in expectation

to be given a similar treatment from them

3. Fantasy: Mental escaping from reality such as daydreaming

4. Boredom: Hiding incompetence such as trying to avoid being

called upon by intentionally showing indifference in activities

5. Rationalization: Attempting to justify maladaptive behaviors,

such as lateness or nonparticipation, by substituting good reasons for real ones

6. Generalization: Stretching out his particular behaviors as if it is

(13)

Aggressive Behaviors

1. Competition: Trying to demonstrate superiority in one particular

area to avoid a negative evaluation of overall incompetence

2. Displacement: Redirecting anxious feelings in a form of anger

toward a person whom he feels less strong than himself

3. Cynicism or negativity: belittling ESOL or other mainstream

classes, assignments or even teachers

4. Interrogation: Keeping others under defensive by giving a

barrage of questions

5. Acting out: Express anxious feeling straightforwardly and in an

Group

others can feel competent (as compared to him or her) Compromise

not expect to receive similar help in return

Adapted from Ehrman‘s defense mechanism (1996 cited in Cha, 2006)

3.6.3 Interview

Interview was the last stage in collecting data of this study. The interview was very useful

in confirming the result of questionnaires and classroom observation. The interview analysis

involved the questionnaire, observation and the transcription of the interview itself. The results

of this interview were then transcribed and analyzed qualitatively through a coding system.

Because the interviewer tried to reveal the result of the questionnaire and observation, the coding

involving two categories, Ehrman‘s categories and Horwitz‘s component of language anxiety. The Ehrman‘s categories were used to reveal the participants‘ coping strategies with anxiety.

Meanwhile, Horwitz‘s category was used to find the causes of participant anxiety.

Considering the guidelines for interview data, in categorizing this result, the researcher

used Horwitz categories for language anxiety sources (communication apprehension, test anxiety

and fear of negative evaluation) in order to answer the second research question. Besides,

Ehrman‘s (1996) defense mechanism categories for students‘ coping strategies of language

anxiety (flight behavior, aggressive behavior, group manipulation behavior, and compromise

(14)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.7 Conclusion

This chapter has described the methodology of the study. It discussed how the study was

undertaken in order to answer the research questions. This includes the research questions,

setting and the participants, method of collecting data and its data analysis. The results and