Review of literature

2.1. Anxiety and speaking in L2

McCroskey (1978, p.192) introduced anxiety when speaking a second language as ‘communication apprehension’ and defined it as ‘an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated (oral) communication with another person or persons’. Present studies have identified somewhat conflicting and indecisive outcomes considering the relationship between anxiety and L2 performance, with some suggesting debilitating effects of anxiety on L2 learning (e.g., Elkhafaifi, 2005; Ganschow & Sparks 1996; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002) and some introducing facilitating effects of anxiety on L2 learning (e.g., Frantzen & Magnan, 2005). Dornyei’s (2005), however, contended that anxiety has fairly inhibitory effects on L2 performance when it is operationalized as a specific construct of L2 contexts rather than as a general personality feature. Yet, Sparks and Ganschow (1991, 1995, 2007) maintained that anxiety is not a source or a consequence of differences in learners’ L2 performance but language-related variables (e.g., L1 skills) as intrusive factors account for L2 performance or proficiency. In their seminal work, Sparks and Ganschow (2007) managed to show that students with low anxiety achieved significantly higher scores than students with high anxiety on all measures of L1 skills, foreign language course grades, and foreign language proficiency. Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers examining different forms of anxiety tests such as test anxiety, reading anxiety, and L2 listening anxiety have concluded that situations demanding oral production in L2 have provoked significant anxiety (Horwitz, Tallon, & Luo, 2010). A highly apprehensive learner communicating in the target language will likely behave passively and produce less output in the classroom. L2 learners with speaking anxiety hesitate to risk expressing themselves, fear committing errors and being incompetent than their peers; all consequently impede the progress of their oral proficiency (Kitano, 2001).

Recent researches on L2 anxiety indicated that complicated and dynamic character of L2 anxiety is affected by a number of sources such as L2 proficiency levels, classroom context, and the methodology employed. Marcos-Llinas and Garau (2009) who studied differences of L2 anxiety across language proficiency levels found that advanced learners showed higher anxiety than beginners and intermediate learners because they felt more pressure to perform well; meanwhile, their high anxiety did not result in poor linguistic outcome. Kim's (2009) investigation on the effects of different classroom contexts on student anxiety reported that learner anxiety levels in the speaking course is higher than the reading course. Nicolson and Adams (2010) reported that some speaking practices (e.g., the use of personal information in tasks, L2 as class language, physical movement) employed as the methodology can bring discomfort and nervousness for learners. While Dornyei (2005) found L2 anxiety to be a rather independent variable, it can be thought of as having correlations with self-confidence or motivation. For

Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204

Vol. 7, Issue 11, November2017

Page 113

instance, Gardner, Day, & MacIntyre (1992) found anxiety to have a negative correlation with L2 learning motivation. Still others (Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1994; Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997) showed that anxiety can bear a potentially huge impact on learners’ self-confidence.

2.2. Risk-taking in L2 classroom

Ely (1986) defined risk-taking in the L2 classroom contexts as a learner's tendency to take risks in using the second language. To operationalize the concept, Ely proposed four composing dimensions: 1) lack of hesitancy about using a newly encountered linguistic element; 2) willingness to use linguistic elements perceived to be complex or difficult; 3) tolerance of possible incorrectness or inexactitude in using the language; and 4) inclination to rehearse a new element silently before attempting to use it aloud’ (1986, p.8). A significant trait of successful L2 learning is risk-taking because it helps the learner experiment in the L2, exert fruitful guesses, build on and learn from previous mistakes, outfight the fear of using a foreign language, create linguistic self-confidence, and move more rapidly to the next level of proficiency (Beebe, 1983; Gass & Selinker, 2001). Where individual differences concern, risk-taking has been largely engaged in SLA studies, but relatively little research has investigated its effect on L2/L3 performance. Ely’s (1986) empirical study in L2 Spanish revealed that risk-taking considerably predicted classroom participation as measured by the frequency of the learner self-initiated linguistic performance such as spontaneous responses to a question or sharing information. Samimy and Tabuse (1992), examining the influence of affective factors, found that risk-taking significantly correlated with the learners' final grades for beginner learners. Luft’s (2007) investigation revealed a remarkable link between learners' risk-taking behaviors and their ability to perform successfully in an L2 context.

2.3. Perceived L2 self-confidence

L2 self-confidence has been long introduced as a major affective variable that underlies second language acquisition and extremely influences learner's attitude and effort toward L2 learning and thus strongly determines L2 achievement (Clement, 1986; Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1994; Clement & Kruidenier, 1985). Clement's model of second language acquisition has proposed two key elements to compose linguistic self-confidence: 1) self-perceptions of communicative competence and 2) lower levels of anxiety. There is a direct link between learner's perception of self-confidence and their willingness to communicate in the target language (MacIntyre, Dornyei, Clement, & Noels, 1998). In other words, learners who perceive themselves as being linguistically competent, regardless of their actual communicative performance, noticeably exert a higher amount of effort to communicate in the L2. On the other hand, learners who perceived themselves to be less-competent, even though their actual proficiency was high, would engage fewer attempts to communicate in the target language. Considering level of anxiety as one of the components of linguistic self-confidence, Clement et al. (1994) found that learners with high anxiety perceive themselves as less competent for communication in the L2. In line with these findings stands that of Kitano (2001) who reported that students who perceived themselves less competent in L2 communication suffered from higher levels of anxiety, and accordingly concluded that learner’s perception of L2 competence to be a source of anxiety.

2.4. Motivation in L2 learning

As a pushing power, motivation sets in motion L2 learning and maintains self-regulation effort of learners to achieve their goals (Dornyei, 2005). Gardner’s socio-educational model of second language acquisition postulates that motivation is closely related with amounts of achievement and strongly

Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204

Vol. 7, Issue 11, November2017

Page 114

determines L2 successfulness Gardner (2001) proposed that motivation factor is based on three constructional parts: motivational intensity which means that a motivated L2 learner tends to use great effort to learn the language; strong desire to learn the language and be successful; attitudes toward learning the language and find it an enjoyable process. These three components are closely related to the learner's motivational orientation, i.e. goals the learner tries to achieve using the L2. According to Gardner & Lambert (1972), learners' motivational orientation can be generally classified into two types: integrative motivation (i.e., learning the L2 due to an honest affinity for the target language, culture, and people) and instrumental motivation (i.e., learning the L2 for a practical, beneficial reason) Several studies have found that language learners who are integratively motivated are higher achieved in L2 learning than those who are instrumentally motivated (Dornyei, 2001; Dornyei, 2009; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Since the 1990s, scholars have made greater effort to identify and incorporate other potential kinds of motivating factors into the parameters of motivation theory. In an attempt, Oxford and Shearin (1994) discussed the need for an extensive model of motivation that integrates theories and principles from various areas of psychology (e.g., educational, general, industrial, etc). In another similar attempt, Dornyei (1994) sketched out a more classroom-based but an exhaustive model of L2 motivation which consists of three different levels: (1) the Language Level (integrative and instrumental motivations); (2) the Learner Level (need for achievement, self-confidence); and (3) the Learning Situation Level (course specific, teacher-specific, and group-specific motivational components). Dornyei (2005, 2009) further suggested another model of motivation, namely the L2 motivational self-system, comprised of three main components: the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self, and the L2 learning experience. He argues that motivational behaviors of learner are mediated and justified by a personal understanding of possible selves, such as the ideal self that the learner desires to be similar to and the ought-to self that the learner is obligated to possess in order to stay away from negative consequences. He supports the idea that individual's learning is strongly influenced by his/her environment and experience (e.g., teacher, peers, and curriculum). Some studies (e.g., Ryan 2009) affirmed the explanation of L2 motivation from a self point of view through employing Dornyei's concept of the ideal L2 self, showing the significant relationship between ideal self and learners’ motivated behavior. However, they generally noted that although such selves approach would potentially provide new insights into the notion of motivation theory, we should be cautious about the evaluation of the self and take some precautions such as maintaining veracity and impartiality.

The researchers in this study, attempted to approach motivation from the point of view of the amount and intensity of the learners’ desire to involve in the process of learning a new language, namely English. For this to obtain, researchers adopted Gardner's (1985, 2001) model of motivation which is defined here as having three facets: 1) learners’ motivational intensity, 2) learners’ desire to learn English, and 3) their attitudes toward learning English.