Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SYSTEM
System 35 (2007) 469–486
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Reducing foreign language communication
apprehension with computer-mediated
communication: A preliminary study
Nike Arnold
*
Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures, 701 McClung Tower,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0470, USA
Received 3 October 2005; received in revised form 13 June 2007; accepted 8 July 2007
Abstract
Many studies (e.g., [Beauvois, M.H., 1998. E-talk: Computer-assisted classroom discussion – attitudes and motivation. In: Swaffar, J., Romano, S., Markley, P., Arens, K. (Eds.), Language learning
online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom. Labyrinth Publications, Austin,
TX, pp. 99–120; Bump, J., 1990. Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers.
Computers and the Humanities 24, 49–65; Kern, R.G., 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction
with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern
Language Journal 79 (4), 457–476; Lee, L., 2002. Enhancing learners’ communication skills through
synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals 35 (1),
16–23; Pérez, L.C., 2003. Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal 21 (1), 89–104; Roed, J., 2003. Language learner
behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16 (2–3), 155–172;
Warschauer, M., 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language
classroom. CALICO Journal 13 (2), 7–26]) indicate that computer-mediated communication
(CMC) can lower foreign language learners’ anxiety levels. This study investigates the relationship
between CMC and communication apprehension by using the established definitions and
instruments of foreign language anxiety research. During one semester, 56 students enrolled in third
semester German participated in six group discussions. The control group (n = 12) completed the
discussions face-to-face while the two experimental groups used synchronous (n = 21) or asynchro-
Tel.: +1 865 974 0664; fax: +1 865 974 7096.
E-mail address: [email protected].
0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.07.002
470
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
nous CMC (n = 23). Data from pretest and posttest questionnaires show no significant difference in
reduction of communication apprehension between the control and experimental groups.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Language learning; Computer-mediated communication; Anxiety; Communication apprehension
1. Introduction
Foreign language (FL) learners often experience problems with spontaneous oral communication. Difficulties understanding others and making oneself understood in a FL can
result in or be signs of communication apprehension, which is defined as a ‘‘type of shyness characterized by a fear of or anxiety about communicating with people’’ (Horwitz
et al., 1986, p. 127).
In recent years, studies (Beauvois, 1998; Freiermuth, 1998; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995;
Warschauer, 1996) have indicated that computer-mediated communication (CMC) might
reduce FL communication apprehension because it provides an unusual social and communicative space, where many FL learners feel less inhibited. The present article reports
the findings of a study designed to examine long-term effects of CMC on FL learners’
communication apprehension, a research issue that to date has not been addressed
directly.
2. Review of the literature
2.1. Communication apprehension and foreign language anxiety
In the field of communication, communication apprehension is conceptualized in terms
of oral communication in a person’s native language as the fear or anxiety triggered by
real or anticipated communication with other people (Beatty and Andriate, 1985; Daly,
1991; Jung and McCroskey, 2004). But the concept of communication apprehension has
also been applied specifically to FL learning – a context believed to have the potential
to create or amplify communication apprehension (Jung and McCroskey, 2004; Lucas,
1984).
In the field of applied linguistics, the concept of communication apprehension is closely
related to that of language anxiety. In fact, communication apprehension and language
anxiety are sometimes considered conceptually similar or even synonymous (MacIntyre
et al., 2002; MacIntyre and Charos, 1996). This study, however, follows a different conceptualization, one which is based on Horwitz et al.’s work (1986), where communication
apprehension is viewed as one component of FL anxiety.
Horwitz et al. (1986) propose to discriminate the anxiety associated with FL learning
from general trait anxiety as a phenomenon unique to this learning context: it is ‘‘a distinct
complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom language
learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process’’ (p. 128). According
to their definition, which has been used in many studies (e.g., Frantzen and Magnan, 2005;
Gregersen and Horwitz, 2002; Matsuda and Gobel, 2004; Phillips, 1992; Saito et al., 1999),
FL anxiety is a form of situation-specific anxiety: it is stable over time but limited to only
this particular situation. Horwitz et al. identified three components of FL anxiety: (1) test
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
471
anxiety, (2) fear of negative evaluation, and (3) communication apprehension. Within this
framework, communication apprehension refers only to oral communication and manifests itself in difficulties speaking and listening to the FL. Horwitz et al. (1986) mention
the following examples for communication apprehension: difficulties speaking with a partner or in groups, stage fright and receiver anxiety (i.e., difficulties comprehending an oral
message). Communication apprehension has been shown to be an important component
of FL anxiety (Aida, 1994) because speaking in particular makes learners anxious (Horwitz et al., 1986; Levine, 2003; Young, 1990). In fact, speaking seems to be ‘‘the single
most important source of language anxiety’’ (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 33).
FL anxiety and communication apprehension play an important role in FL learning
because of their potentially debilitating effects. Many studies have reported disruptive
effects of FL anxiety on achievement and performance (Aida, 1994; Ehrman and Oxford,
1995; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2000a; Phillips, 1992; Saito, 1996), which can be attributed to its
impact on the learning process itself. Interfering with cognitive performance at the input,
processing and output stages, FL anxiety can prevent information from reaching the processing system, slow down or even hinder processing and disrupt the retrieval of information (MacIntyre, 1999; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2000b).
Avoidance behavior is typical of anxious students and FL learners suffering from
communication apprehension usually have a lower willingness to communicate in the
FL (MacIntyre and Charos, 1996). This represents quite a dilemma as output has been
recognized to play an important role in the FL learning process (Swain, 1985). Anxious
students often create little output, which might in turn negatively affect their progress
in FL learning (Cheng et al., 1999). Therefore, helping students reduce or overcome FL
anxiety has been an important concern for language teachers and educators have proposed different approaches to creating a low anxiety classroom atmosphere (e.g., Krashen and Terrell, 1983; Lozanov and Gateva, 1988; Young, 1990, 1999). While these
approaches are designed to make learners more comfortable when speaking the FL,
CMC has also shown promise in reducing FL anxiety and communication apprehension by providing an entirely different modality of interaction that seems to lower
inhibition.
2.2. Computer-mediated communication (CMC)
In recent years, the fields of FL pedagogy and applied linguistics have seen a wealth of
research studies documenting a wide variety of uses and benefits of text-based CMC.
Teachers have implemented asynchronous CMC such as email exchanges and online discussion boards in a variety of ways to promote cultural learning (e.g., Dubreil, 2006; Itakura, 2004; Lomicka, 2006; O’Dowd, 2003), increase language productivity (e.g., Pérez,
2003; González-Bueno and Pérez, 2000) and to improve students’ written expression
(e.g., Murray and Hourigan, 2006; Sullivan and Pratt, 1996; Van Handle and Corl,
1998; Warschauer, 2002; Wright, 2003).
Different formats of text-based synchronous CMC have been used for the same language development goals as asynchronous CMC (e.g., Abrams, 2006; Kern, 1995; Smith,
1990). Moreover, its applications include the promotion of communicative abilities (e.g.,
Lee, 2002; Smith, 2003) and reading skills (e.g., Smith, 1990) and to encourage learners to
produce linguistically more complex output (e.g., Chun, 1994; Coniam and Wong, 2004;
Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). In fact, the increased quality and quantity of synchronous
472
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
CMC output can transfer to other forms of communication such as writing (Coniam and
Wong, 2004) and speaking (Abrams, 2003; Payne and Whitney, 2002).
Researchers have speculated about possible psychological explanations for the linguistic benefits of CMC described above. They believe that asynchronous as well as synchronous CMC create a low stress, low anxiety setting, which enables all learners to be a part
of the discussion (Bump, 1990; Roed, 2003; Warschauer, 1996) – a notion strongly supported by student feedback (Beauvois, 1998; Freiermuth, 1998; González-Bueno and
Pérez, 2000; Kern, 1995; Lee, 2002; Pérez, 2003). In her comprehensive study on personality and motivational factors in CMC, for example, Meunier (1998) found that 87% of
students experienced only low levels of language-related anxiety during online discussions.
Beauvois (1998) and Warschauer (1996) also reported that CMC sessions caused little to
no stress and anxiety. As a result, even reticent students who tend not to participate in oral
classroom discourse often become active contributors in the electronic setting (Kelm,
1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996).
This raises an important question: What makes CMC a low anxiety environment? First,
CMC creates a rather anonymous environment (Roed, 2003), where the computer serves
‘‘as a shield from being on-stage’’ (Bradley and Lomicka, 2000, p. 362). This is due partly
to the reduction or elimination of paralinguistic (e.g., frowning, raised eyebrows) and
social clues (e.g., age, gender, race) in CMC (Warschauer et al., 1996). Therefore, learners
might feel less conspicuous, which can ease anxiety (Daly, 1991). Second, CMC allows students to participate at their own pace, especially asynchronous CMC. As a result, participants have more time to plan and monitor their own messages as well as process input,
thereby compensating for the cognitive interference of anxiety at the input, processing
and output stages described above. For synchronous CMC, however, this is less the case
as it provides only a slight time lag and is often perceived as creating some sense of
urgency (Smith, 2003). Therefore, CMC – especially synchronous CMC – can function
as ‘‘scaffolding’’ (Roed, 2003, p. 170) or as a ‘‘conversation simulator’’ (Payne and Whitney, 2002, p. 25).
Although several researchers (Kern, 1995; Meunier, 1998; Warschauer, 1996) have
investigated acute anxiety levels during synchronous CMC, no study has specifically investigated if it has any permanent effects on students’ communication apprehension. Instead,
these studies have focused on students’ temporary feelings during synchronous CMC sessions without investigating any effects on their general predisposition to get anxious in
communicative situations (i.e., communication apprehension). So far, it has been established that learners feel less anxiety with CMC but it remains unclear if there is a carryover effect that would cause them to become less anxious about communicating in the
FL in general. Moreover, to date no study has investigated if there are any differences
between asynchronous CMC, synchronous CMC and face-to-face interactions in terms
of their effect on learners’ FL communication apprehension levels.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research questions and design
To address the gap in CMC research described above, the present study was designed to
investigate if CMC reduces FL communication apprehension. More specifically, the following research questions were formulated for this study:
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
473
(1) Do regular oral, asynchronous CMC and synchronous CMC discussions lower students’ FL communication apprehension?
(2) Are there any significant differences in communication apprehension changes based
on the three communicative formats?
Based on a repeated-measures pretest posttest design, this study sought to compare the
communication apprehension scores of students engaging in face-to-face conversations
(control group), synchronous CMC and asynchronous CMC (experimental groups) as
well as any permanent affective benefits of these communicative environments.
3.2. Participants
The present study was conducted with 56 students enrolled in five sections of third
semester German courses at a US university1 – they had either completed first and second
semester German at this or another university or were placed into this level based on their
high school coursework in German. Thirty-nine percent2 of them were female students and
61% were males. As is typical of most third semester language courses, the vast majority of
participants (80%) was between 18 and 20 years old. Almost half of them (46%) had previously learned another foreign language besides German and 21% had any significant
contact with native speakers of German.
Questions on a pre-study questionnaire pertaining to computer use indicated that
almost all students (95%) felt comfortable using computers for various purposes. Moreover, all participants had the skills required for this study: using a keyboard to type as well
as logging into and navigating websites.
All German classes at the university where this study was conducted are based on a
communicative curriculum, which reserves most class time for oral activities such as
role plays and partner interviews. The curriculum does not prescribe a specific role
for computer technology but instructors are free to integrate it into their teaching,
which several of them had done in the past (especially synchronous and asynchronous
CMC).
3.3. Procedure
At the beginning of the semester, each section was assigned to one of three modes of
communication: face-to-face, synchronous CMC or asynchronous CMC. Due to limited
availability of the computer lab, random assignment to the different treatment options
was not possible. However, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that initial communication apprehension levels of the face-to-face (M = 42.54), synchronous CMC
(M = 55.14) and asynchronous CMC (M = 47.04) groups did not differ significantly:
f(2, 53) = 2.178, p = .123. This indicates that the control and treatments groups displayed
comparable degrees of communication apprehension.
Over the course of the semester, students participated in six group discussions, for
which they discussed open-ended personal topics (see Appendix A for an example).
1
While all students completed the treatment discussions, data were collected only from those who agreed to
participate in the study.
2
Percentages have been rounded to the nearest number and might not add up to 100%.
474
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
For all six discussions, students worked in the same groups of three to four
students.3
To ensure comparability among the control and experimental groups, the same format
and guidelines were followed for all six discussions: (1) all groups were given the same
topic at the same time, (2) there were no pre-discussion activities that might prepare students for the discussion, (3) the instructors and their assistants did not monitor their students’ performance or participate in the discussions, and (4) students did not receive any
help with the language.
The face-to-face discussions lasted about 20 min, in the synchronous CMC setting
25 min were allotted for each discussion and the asynchronous CMC discussions lasted
around 30 min. Since chats and e-mail exchanges require typing and reading (which provides a time lag compared with the oral mode), the experimental groups were given more
time to control for time on task. In addition, the asynchronous CMC group was allotted
more time because participants did not complete the discussion in one sitting and had to
go through the logging in procedure several times during a discussion.
3.3.1. Face-to-face treatments
One section (n = 12) functioned as the control group and completed six oral
discussions, the traditional format used in most FL classrooms which also dominated
the curriculum of this program. During regular class time, the students were divided into
their sub-groups and discussed orally the assigned topic for about 20 min.
3.3.2. Synchronous treatments
One experimental group consisted of two sections (n = 21), for which six chat discussions were scheduled over the course of the semester. They met in the computer lab during
regularly scheduled class time. The course manager software Blackboard was used as a
platform for the discussions because most students were familiar with it from previous
German courses or other classes. After all participants had successfully logged on to
Blackboard, they met their groups in specifically designed forums. The students were given
about 25 min for each discussion.
3.3.3. Asynchronous treatments
Twenty-three students from two sections of third semester German were in the second
experimental group and discussed the same topics using asynchronous CMC. Unlike the
synchronous CMC and face-to-face groups, this group completed the six discussions outside of class. The students were given seven days to complete each discussion and were
required to spend ca. 30 min on this assignment. For this group, six class meetings were
partially or completely replaced with the six out-of-class treatments.4 Working from a
3
The instructors assigned students to their groups based on a variety of factors (i.e., age, gender, nationality,
personality and proficiency level) to form heterogeneous groups. This was supposed to make discussions more
balanced and interesting. Instructors used their impressions of students from class as a basis for the group
assignments.
4
This was done to ensure that this group did not receive more instruction and therefore a potential benefit over
the other two groups. Class was only canceled for the asynchronous group if the whole class period had been
reserved for the discussion. The last two times, pre-reading activities for upcoming reading assignments were
planned in addition to the discussion. In those cases, class met only to complete those activities and finished early.
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
475
computer with Internet access, students logged on to Blackboard at their convenience to
join their groups in specific forums.
3.4. Instruments and data collection
In putting together the pretest and posttest questionnaires, the researcher relied on Horwitz et al.’s Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (1986) for the following
reasons: (1) communication apprehension has been defined as one component of FL anxiety, which this instrument was designed to measure, (2) several studies (Aida, 1994; Horwitz et al., 1986) support the reliability of this instrument, (3) this survey has become the
most frequently used instrument to measure FL anxiety (MacIntyre, 1999), and (4) the
FLCAS reliably measures a learner’s anxiety levels at different times instead of tapping
only temporary states of anxiety (Aida, 1994). McCroskey’s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (1982), an established instrument in the field of communication
research (Daly, 1991), was deemed inappropriate for this research study as several of its
items do not pertain to common practices in FL classrooms (e.g., giving a speech). In addition, it does not include any questions about listening, a common source of anxiety in the
context of FL learning (Vogely, 1999), which is included in the definition of communication apprehension used for this study.
Due to the nature of the research questions of this study, it was not necessary to administer the FLCAS in its entirety. Since this study was designed to investigate only the effect of
electronic and oral discussions on a specific component of FL anxiety, namely communication apprehension, items not relating to the research questions (e.g., test anxiety) were not
included.5 Items relevant to communication apprehension, the anxiety associated with listening and speaking a FL, were used in their original 5-point Likert-scale format (refer to
Appendix B for the questionnaire items used to measure FL communication apprehension).
To investigate any changes in communication apprehension, the first section of the
posttest questionnaire included the same items from the FLCAS as the pretest. Two items
pertaining to the group discussions were added to the posttest to evaluate participants’
responses to the treatments, which were also based on a 5-point Likert-scale: (1) the regular discussions lowered my feelings of nervousness about speaking German, and (2) the
regular discussions did not improve my self-confidence about speaking German. To gain a
better understanding of participants’ attitudes and reactions, the posttreatment questionnaire also included an open-ended question about students’ experience and any affective
changes to collect qualitative data (see Appendix C for these three additional items on
the posttest questionnaire).
3.5. Analysis
The Likert-scale questions on the pretest and posttest questionnaires were used to
calculate an overall communication apprehension score. First, each possible answer on
the 5-point Likert-scale was assigned a numeric value for the degree of communication
apprehension it represents and the answers of all 19 items were then added up. Possible
5
For this study, the following items from the FLCAS were used for the pretest questionnaire: 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14,
16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 31.
476
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
communication apprehension scores ranged from 19 (indicating no communication apprehension) to a maximum of 95 (representing extremely high levels of communication apprehension). To classify participants according to their initial communication apprehension
levels, the range of possible communication apprehension scores was divided into three
categories of roughly the same range: scores between 19 and 48: low levels; scores ranging
from 49 to 65: medium levels; and scores from 66 to 95: high levels.
The communication apprehension scores from both the pretest and posttest questionnaires were then used to calculate gain scores to measure if a participant’s communication
apprehension had increased or decreased over the course of the study and by how much.
For the quantitative analysis, a repeated-measures ANOVA was used for within and
between group comparisons of FL communication apprehension scores to investigate
any effects for time or group. The qualitative data from the open-ended question was analyzed inductively to allow themes to emerge from the data (Hatch, 2002).
4. Findings and discussion
Research Question 1: Do regular oral, asynchronous CMC and synchronous CMC discussions lower students’ foreign language communication apprehension?
Multiple data sources were used to investigate any changes in participants’ communication apprehension: (1) two Likert-scale items on the posttest questionnaire asking students if they felt their nervousness and self-confidence about oral communication in the
FL had changed, and (2) the FLCAS items to calculate communication apprehension
scores. Findings from data source 1 will be discussed first.
Overall, many students felt that the affective benefits of regular group discussions transferred to oral communication. Forty-five percent6 reported an increase in self-confidence
in speaking German as a result of the discussions and 55% experienced less nervousness
about oral communication in the foreign language (see Tables 1 and 2).
This self-report data was supported by the second data source, which was used for a
pretest posttest comparison of students’ communication apprehension scores before and
after the treatment discussions. Before the treatments, participants’ communication apprehension scores lay between 20 and 88 with an average score of M = 49.12, which indicates
moderate levels of FL communication apprehension. While the majority of students (52%)
experienced only low levels of communication apprehension (=scores between 19 and 48),
29% were classified as medium (=scores 49–65) and 19% fell into the category high communication apprehension (=scores 66–95). These numbers indicate that a considerable
number of students was affected by high communication apprehension, almost one in five
students.
After completion of the six treatment discussions, communication apprehension scores
displayed a larger range of 22–90 with a lower mean score of M = 46.71. On the posttest,
more participants displayed low levels of communication apprehension: low = 59%, medium = 29%, high = 12%.
A comparison of pretest and posttest scores for communication apprehension revealed
a wide range of gain scores. Overall, gain scores ranged from 26 to +20, with a mean
6
To facilitate the reporting of the study’s results, the answers ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were combined and
are represented by ‘agree’. The same was done for ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’.
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
477
Table 1
Student responses to the posttest item ‘‘The regular discussions improved my self-confidence about speaking
German’’
Overall
Face-to-face
Synchronous
CMC
Asynchronous
CMC
a
Strongly agree
(%)
Agree somewhat
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Disagree
somewhat (%)
Strongly disagree
(%)
18a
25
19
27
25
33
30
42
33
18
8
14
7
0
0
13
22
22
26
17
Percentages have been rounded to the nearest number and might not add up to 100%.
Table 2
Student responses to the posttest item ‘‘The regular discussions lowered my feelings of nervousness about
speaking German’’
Overall
Face-to-face
Synchronous
CMC
Asynchronous
CMC
a
Strongly agree
(%)
Agree somewhat
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Disagree
somewhat (%)
Strongly disagree
(%)
9a
8
14
46
58
33
25
25
33
18
8
14
2
0
5
4
52
17
26
0
Percentages have been rounded to the nearest number and might not add up to 100%.
gain score of M = 2.40. While 53% of all participants had a lower communication apprehension score on the posttest, 45% scored higher. For a within-group comparison, a
repeated-measures ANOVA based on the pretest and posttest scores was used to investigate if the changes in communication apprehension scores were significant. For all three
groups, results show a significant difference between pretest and posttest communication
apprehension scores (f(1) = 4.998, p < .05), indicating that participants’ communication
apprehension did change significantly over the course of the study.
It is interesting that a considerable group of students experienced increased communication apprehension levels after the study. On the one hand, the treatments might have
shown some students that their anxiety feelings are unfounded while intensifying such feelings in other students by making them aware of how anxiety producing communicative
situations can be. Beatty and Andriate (1985) also found that positive communication
experiences can reduce communication apprehension while anxiety laden experiences
can have a reinforcing or even strengthening effect on communication apprehension.
The case of one student in particular illustrates possible reasons for an increase in communication apprehension. His extreme gain score (+20) merited further investigation and
the student’s instructor was contacted for some background information. Considering the
fact that 83% of students in his treatment group (face-to-face) experienced a reduction in
communication apprehension and only one other student showed a minimal gain (+1), he
was considered an outlier. The instructor attributed his extreme reaction to two factors: (1)
said student missed several discussions and his group had developed its group dynamic
478
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
without him, and (2) one of the other students in his group had taken on a very dominant
role. These factors probably created an atmosphere, where that particular student became
less confident about his oral proficiency and more afraid of making mistakes, which raised
his FL communication apprehension. This example also underscores the important role
social dynamics can play for communication apprehension.
Research Question 2: Are there any significant differences in communication apprehension
changes based on the three communicative formats?
As illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, responses to the two items on the posttest questionnaire
indicate that synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC and face-to-face interactions
affected students differently in terms of communication apprehension. In the synchronous
CMC and face-to-face groups, the majority of participants (52% and 50%, respectively)
believed that the group discussions raised their self-confidence (14% and 8%, respectively
disagreed). The distribution was opposite for the asynchronous CMC group, where more
students (43%) did not experience this benefit, while only 35% did.
Participants’ comments on the posttest questionnaire provided some important insights
into why the discussions did or did not boost students’ self-confidence. Below are representative student quotations:
It gave me more confidence and it made me feel it was okay to make mistakes. [student
in face-to-face group]
At first, they were a little difficult because I never knew how to say what I wanted to,
but then I got used to rephrasing and finding different ways to say what I wanted to.
[student in synchronous CMC group]
I think they helped me with reading, writing and thinking on the fly but that delicate
connection between brain and mouth didn’t get any exercise at all so I don’t think
the chats helped with my oral proficiency. [student in synchronous CMC group]
I feel more confident in my ability to speak German now than at the beginning of the
semester because I have had more practice. [student in asynchronous CMC group]
I can speak better ‘off the top of my head’ in German. [student in asynchronous CMC
group]
These comments illustrate, that irrespective of the mode of communication, the discussions might have promoted a focus on communication and the exchange of information,
easing students’ preoccupation with accuracy. In addition, some students developed communication strategies such as rephrasing, as articulated in the second student quotation,
which can facilitate communication. In all three treatment groups, the discussions also
provided a lot of student-centered practice, which allowed learners to improve their processing speed in the FL to ‘‘think on the fly’’ and ‘‘speak off the top of their head’’. All
these factors can result in a positive attitude and raise confidence about speaking. But
in the synchronous and asynchronous CMC settings, the skill transfer from the written
to the oral mode might have prevented such an affective benefit, as mentioned in the third
comment.
The finding that synchronous CMC can enhance personal confidence corresponds with
statements by other researchers (Beauvois, 1998; Kern, 1995; Skinner and Austin, 1999)
who have described their participants as being more confident of their performance in this
setting. The present study adds to this that such benefits can permanently affect learners
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
479
and that face-to-face discussions have a similar effect. Asynchronous CMC, however, did
not have as strong an effect on learners’ confidence levels as synchronous CMC and faceto-face exchanges.
The different effects of asynchronous and synchronous CMC on learners’ self-confidence levels might be due to their different degrees of similarity with the oral mode. While
both are conducted in a different mode than oral communication, only synchronous CMC
shares its sense of urgency. Therefore, synchronous CMC and face-to-face communication
can be considered more similar than asynchronous CMC and face-to-face, which might
facilitate the transfer of affective benefits from synchronous CMC to the oral mode.
But as the following student comments illustrate, the time lag of asynchronous CMC
was also viewed as a negative feature. While it can provide a more relaxed environment
than face-to-face communication (which is similar in synchronous CMC), the lag time
can, on the other hand, also act as a barrier.
I thought the time lag took the edge off. [student in asynchronous CMC group]
The lag, sometimes days, makes the chats seem boring, fake and un-involved. [student
in asynchronous CMC group]
They are too far removed from class activity . . . I think discussions of any sort should
be more personal and involved. [student in asynchronous CMC group]
This is not to say that the time lag, which was sometimes made worse by technical problems, did not create any problems in the synchronous CMC group. Students often commented that it interfered with the flow of the conversation.
I liked the lag sometimes when you had to form complex sentences/ideas but I didn’t
like it sometimes when I really knew what I wanted to say and have the conversation
flow. [student in synchronous CMC group]
The lag time was sometimes inconvenient because [by] the time you wrote something,
the subject would have changed. [student in synchronous CMC group]
However, this obviously did not create the same emotional distance for the learners as
asynchronous CMC did.
Surprisingly, these group differences did not appear in the responses to the item ‘‘The
regular discussions lowered my feelings of nervousness about speaking German’’. In all
settings, most participants (synchronous CMC: 47%; asynchronous CMC: 56%; face-toface: 66%) believed that the discussions helped them be more relaxed about speaking German. But more students in the control group experienced such an affective benefit than in
the CMC groups. This belief expressed by the participants of the present study corresponds with the findings of previous research, which either relied on student perceptions
or informal observations to report that synchronous CMC can reduce anxiety (Beauvois,
1998; Kern, 1995; Meunier, 1998; Warschauer, 1996). However, the possibility of anxiety
reduction was often assumed to be unique to synchronous CMC.
The different effects of the three discussion modes on self-confidence on the one hand
and nervousness on the other is somewhat surprising and seem to indicate that the two
are not related. While student reports show that asynchronous CMC had the weakest
effect on learners’ self-confidence, it seems to have had a stronger influence on their
nervousness. Just because a learner has become more confident in using a FL does not
480
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
necessarily mean that his/her nervousness decreased at the same time. The following comment illustrates this: ‘‘I am much more confident about speaking, especially with my partners. I still get nervous about speaking but it’s enjoyable.’’ [student in synchronous CMC
group]
In addition to the two items on the posttest questionnaire, whose results were discussed
above, a comparison of participants’ pretest and posttest communication apprehension
levels was used to further investigate if one communicative environment is more effective
in reducing communication apprehension. While the majority of students in the face-toface group (83%) experienced a reduction in communication apprehension (see Fig. 1),
there was not such a clear trend towards a reduction in the two experimental groups. In
the asynchronous CMC group, the communication apprehension of 39% of participants
decreased while 56% showed an increase (see Fig. 2). A similar ambiguous trend was
observed for the synchronous CMC group, where 53% of participants experienced a
decrease in communication apprehension and 48% an increase (see Fig. 3).
This informal comparison of the communication apprehension gain scores seems to
suggest that the students in the face-to-face group experienced more affective benefits than
their counterparts in the CMC groups. As shown in Fig. 4, the biggest mean reduction
occurred in the face-to-face group (M = 5.12). The synchronous CMC group showed
a similar reduction (M = 4.18) but the asynchronous CMC group had a noticeably lower
mean gain score (M = 2.62). However, a between-group comparison using a repeated-
Fig. 1. Gain scores for face-to-face group (each bar represents one case).
Fig. 2. Gain scores for asynchronous CMC group (each bar represents one case).
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
481
Communication Apprehension Score
Fig. 3. Gain scores for synchronous CMC group (each bar represents one case).
synchronous CMC
89
asynchronous CMC
face-to-face
79
69
59
55.14
49
47.04
39
42.54
52.29
46.04
38.25
29
19
Pretest
Posttest
Fig. 4. Communication apprehension pretest and posttest scores.
measures ANOVA revealed that there was no main effect for modality (f(2, 53) = 2.70,
p = 0.07). In other words, the changes in communication apprehension of the control
and experimental groups were not significantly different from each other.
Furthermore, an ANOVA was used to compare the mean gain scores of students with
low (M = .00), medium (M = 2.59) and high initial levels (M = 8.45) of communication apprehension, which showed that they differed significantly: f(2) = 4.251; p < .05.
Unfortunately, the face-to-face group did not include any students with high levels of initial communication apprehension, which experienced the strongest affective benefits. Since
this might have affected the results of the ANOVA reported above, a second analysis was
run. To create more comparable groups, 12 cases were selected each from the asynchronous and synchronous CMC groups who had the same or similar pretest communication
apprehension scores as the 12 students in the face-to-face group. As a result, this limited
analysis included only the data from 36 students (12 each from the control and two experimental groups) who scored in the low to medium range on the communication apprehension pretest. However, this second repeated-measures ANOVA did not yield any
significant results either: f(2, 33) = 0.157; p = 0.855.
482
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
This indicates that the treatment type did not have any effects on students with moderate or low levels of communication apprehension, which made up the vast majority (81%)
in this study. Instead, the reduction for students with low or moderate initial communication apprehension levels can probably be attributed to the practice that the group discussions provided. Koch and Terrell (1991) also observed that regular exposure to certain
activities can lower the anxiety students associate with them. However, this study was
unable to provide insights into any potentially different effects the mode of discussion
might have on students who suffer from severe communication apprehension.
5. Conclusion
This study has provided some preliminary direction in addressing the affective carryover effect of asynchronous and synchronous CMC and face-to-face discussion on FL
communication apprehension. The three different sources of data used in this study provided multiple perspectives on students’ feelings regarding oral communication in the
foreign language. Both, student self-reports as well as pretest and posttest communication apprehension scores, suggest that regular student-centered discussions can trigger a
permanent reduction in communication apprehension. It appears that the CMC and oral
discussions alike provided enough practice and positive communication experiences for
many students to become generally more comfortable in FL speaking situations. Just
as the linguistic benefits of CMC have been shown to transfer to other modes of communication (Abrams, 2003; Coniam and Wong, 2004; Payne and Whitney, 2002), CMC
can have lasting positive effects on communication apprehension associated with oral
interaction in the FL. Findings of the present study suggest that CMC can function
as a practice mode for oral communication not only in terms of linguistic abilities (Payne and Whitney, 2002; Roed, 2003) but also with regard to learners’ affect. Investigating
learners’ transient emotional state during CMC, previous research reported that many
learners temporarily experience low levels of anxiety during CMC sessions. In contrast,
this study has taken a broader perspective and shown that CMC can also have a carryover effect by influencing students’ general predisposition to anxiety in oral communication situations.
However, for the majority of participants, who experienced only low to moderate levels
of communication apprehension, the communicative environment did not make a difference. Thus this study did not show asynchronous CMC or synchronous CMC to be more
effective – a finding, which contradicts the assumption that the unusual social space of
CMC promotes a long-term reduction in communication apprehension more successfully
than oral communication. While there were no statistically significant differences between
the control and experimental groups in terms of communication apprehension reduction,
there are indications in the gain scores distribution that oral communication might be
more effective than synchronous and asynchronous CMC. However, the present study
was unable to address how learners with severe FL communication apprehension react
to the electronic and oral discussion modes.
There are several important implications for classroom practice based on the results of
the current study. Using regular student-centered discussions, be they in an electronic or
the traditional oral setting, can have multiple benefits. First, they can promote a new communicative awareness with less focus on form. Second, such discussions provide the
opportunity for students to apply and practice the FL while experimenting with it and
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
483
even making adjustments. The findings of this research project also indicate that asynchronous CMC might not be a suitable environment for interactive, conversation-like
exchanges. Instead, it seems to lend itself more to writing tasks.
Due to the following limitations, the findings of this classroom-based study must be
considered preliminary. The small size of the face-to-face group and the fact that no students with high levels of communication apprehension were represented in this group (a
group of students who experienced the biggest decrease in communication apprehension
over the course of the study) might have contributed to the finding of no significant difference between the control and treatment groups.
Despite these limitations, the present study makes an important contribution to the
field of applied linguistics as it brings together communication apprehension and CMC
research. Its preliminary findings suggest that it might be necessary to rethink the relationship between asynchronous and synchronous CMC and communication apprehension.
Hopefully, this will generate more research to establish if face-to-face interactions are
more effective in reducing communication apprehension than CMC and how students with
high communication apprehension react to CMC and oral discussions. Additionally, it
would be interesting to know how a reduction in oral communication apprehension
through synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC and face-to-face discussions manifests
itself long-term with regard to quantity and quality of oral output. Thus, future research
should address the important issue of potential linguistic benefits resulting from a reduction in communication apprehension.
Appendix A. Sample discussion prompt (the original prompt was provided in the target
language)
For many college freshmen, college life is drastically different. For the first time, their
parents do not tell them what they should and should not do. How was that for you: Was
it difficult to adjust to your new life as a college student? Why (not)? Which aspects did
you find difficult/great/exciting? Do you think you handled the transition well?
Appendix B. Pretest/posttest items from the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) to measure FL
communication apprehension
For each statement below, use the following scale: strongly agree, agree somewhat, neutral, disagree somewhat, strongly disagree
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking German in my German class.
I do not worry about making mistakes in my German class.
I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in my German class.
It frightens me when I do not understand what the teacher is saying in German.
I start to panic when I have to speak German without preparation in my German
class.
It does not embarrass me to volunteer answers in German in my German class.
Even if I am well prepared for my German class, I feel anxious about it.
I feel confident when I speak German in my German class.
I can feel my heart beat pounding when I am going to be called on in my German
class.
484
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
I always feel that the other students speak German better than I do.
I feel very self-conscious about speaking German in front of other students.
I feel more tense and nervous in my German class than in my other classes.
I get nervous and confused when I am speaking German in my German class.
I get nervous when I do not understand every word the language teacher says.
I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak German.
I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of German.
I get nervous when the German teacher asks questions that I have not prepared for
in advance.
(18) I feel that I can express myself easily when speaking German in the classroom.
(19) I feel intimidated when speaking German in the classroom.
Appendix C. Additional items on the posttreatment questionnaire
Please respond to the following statements using the following scale: strongly agree,
agree somewhat, neural, disagree somewhat, strongly disagree
– The regular discussions did not improve my self-confidence about speaking German.
– The regular discussions lowered my feelings of nervousness about speaking German.
– Please comment on your experience with the regular discussions: What aspect did you
like/dislike? Do you think they helped your German and how? How do you feel about
speaking German now compared to the beginning of the semester? Have your feelings
about speaking German changed and how?
References
Abrams, Z.I., 2003. The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern
Language Journal 87 (2), 157–167.
Abrams, Z.I., 2006. From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC in the L2 classroom. In: Ducate, L., Arnold, N.
(Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. CALICO,
San Marcos, TX, pp. 181–210.
Aida, Y., 1994. Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of
students of Japanese. Modern Language Journal 78 (3), 155–168.
Beatty, M.J., Andriate, G.S., 1985. Communication apprehension and general anxiety in the prediction of public
speaking anxiety. Communication Quarterly 33 (3), 174–184.
Beauvois, M.H., 1998. E-talk: Computer-assisted classroom discussion – attitudes and motivation. In: Swaffar, J.,
Romano, S., Markley, P., Arens, K. (Eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2
computer classroom. Labyrinth Publications, Austin, TX, pp. 99–120.
Bradley, T., Lomicka, L., 2000. A case study of learner interaction in technology-enhanced language learning
environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research 22 (3), 347–368.
Bump, J., 1990. Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities
24, 49–65.
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E.K., Schallert, D.L., 1999. Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking
components. Language Learning 49 (3), 417–446.
Chun, D.M., 1994. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System 22
(1), 17–31.
Coniam, D., Wong, R., 2004. Internet relay chat as a tool in the autonomous development of ESL learners’
language ability: An exploratory study. System 32 (3), 321–335.
Daly, J., 1991. Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for language educators. In:
Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.Y. (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 3–13.
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
485
Dubreil, S., 2006. Gaining perspective on culture through CALL. In: Ducate, L., Arnold, N. (Eds.), Calling on
CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. CALICO Publications, San
Marcos, TX, pp. 237–268.
Ehrman, M.E., Oxford, R.L., 1995. Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language
Journal 79 (1), 67–89.
Frantzen, D., Magnan, S.S., 2005. Anxiety and the true beginner – false beginner dynamic in beginning French
and Spanish classes. Foreign Language Annals 38 (2), 171–190.
Freiermuth, M.R., 1998. Using a chat program to promote group equity. CAELL Journal 8 (2), 16–24.
González-Bueno, M., Pérez, L.C., 2000. Electronic mail in foreign language writing: A study of grammatical and
lexical accuracy, and quantity of language. Foreign Language Annals 33 (2), 189–198.
Gregersen, T., Horwitz, E.K., 2002. Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language
learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. Modern Language Journal 86 (4), 562–570.
Hatch, J.A., 2002. Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University Press of New York, Albany,
NY.
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., Cope, J., 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal
70 (2), 125–132.
Itakura, H., 2004. Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning. System 31 (1),
37–51.
Jung, H.Y., McCroskey, J.C., 2004. Communication apprehension in a first language and self-perceived
competence as predictors of communication apprehension in a second language: A study of speakers of
English as a second language. Communication Quarterly 52 (2), 170–181.
Kelm, O., 1992. The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report.
Foreign Language Annals 25 (5), 441–454.
Kern, R.G., 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and
characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal 79 (4), 457–476.
Koch, A.S., Terrell, T.D., 1991. Affective reactions of foreign language students to Natural Approach activities
and teaching techniques. In: Horwitz, E.K., Young, D.Y. (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research
to classroom implications. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 109–126.
Krashen, S., Terrell, T., 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Alemany Press,
Hayward, CA.
Lee, L., 2002. Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and taskbased instruction. Foreign Language Annals 35 (1), 16–23.
Levine, G.S., 2003. Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and
anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Journal 87 (3), 343–364.
Lomicka, L., 2006. Understanding the other: Intercultural exchange and CMC. In: Ducate, L., Arnold, N. (Eds.),
Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. CALICO, San
Marcos, TX, pp. 211–236.
Lozanov, G., Gateva, E., 1988. The foreign language teacher’s suggestopedic manual. Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, Copper Station, NY.
Lucas, J., 1984. Communication apprehension in the ESL classroom: Getting our students to talk. Foreign
Language Annals 17 (6), 593–598.
MacIntyre, P.D., 1999. Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In: Young, D.Y. (Ed.),
Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom
atmosphere. McGraw-Hill College, Boston, pp. 24–46.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., Donovan, L.A., 2002. Sex and age effects on willingness to
communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion
students. Language Learning 52 (3), 537–564.
MacIntyre, P.D., Charos, C., 1996. Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15 (1), 3–26.
Matsuda, S., Gobel, P., 2004. Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language classroom. System
32 (1), 21–36.
McCroskey, J.C., 1982. An introduction to rhetorical communication, 4th Ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Meunier, L.E., 1998. Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign language communication. In: Muyskens, J.A. (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and FL education.
Heinle & Heinle, Boston, pp. 145–197.
486
N. Arnold / System 35 (2007) 469–486
Murray, I., Hourigan, T., 2006. Using micropublishing to facilitate writing in the foreign language. In: Ducate,
L., Arnold, N. (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language
teaching. CALICO Publications, San Marcos, TX, pp. 149–180.
O’Dowd, R., 2003. Understanding the ‘‘other side’’: Intercultural learning in a Spanish–English e-mail exchange.
Language Learning & Technology 7 (2), 118–144.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Bailey, P., Daley, C.E., 2000a. Cognitive, affective, personality and demographic predictors
of foreign-language achievement. The Journal of Educational Research 94 (1), 3–15.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Bailey, P., Daley, C.E., 2000b. The validation of three scales measuring anxiety at different
stages of the foreign language learning process: The input anxiety scale, the processing anxiety scale, and the
output anxiety scale. Language Learning 50 (1), 87–117.
Payne, J.S., Whitney, P.J., 2002. Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working
memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal 20 (1), 7–32.
Pérez, L.C., 2003. Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated
communication. CALICO Journal 21 (1), 89–104.
Phillips, E.M., 1992. The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. Modern
Language Journal 76 (1), 14–25.
Roed, J., 2003. Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16
(2–3), 155–172.
Saito, Y., 1996. Foreign language anxiety and language performance: A study of learner anxiety in beginning,
intermediate, and advanced-level college students of Japanese. Foreign Language Annals 29 (2), 239–249.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E.K., Garza, T.J., 1999. Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal 83 (2),
202–218.
Skinner, B., Austin, R., 1999. Computer conferencing – does it motivate students? ELT Journal 53 (4), 270–279.
Smith, B., 2003. The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System 31 (1), 29–
53.
Smith, K.L., 1990. Collaborative and interactive writing for increasing communication skills. Hispania 73, 77–87.
Sullivan, N., Pratt, E., 1996. A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted
classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System 29 (4), 491–501.
Swain, M., 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in
its development. In: Gass, S., Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House,
Rowley, MA, pp. 235–253.
Van Handle, D.C., Corl, K.A., 1998. Extending the dialogue: Using electronic mail and the internet to promote
conversation and writing in intermediate level German language courses. CALICO Journal 15 (1–3), 129–143.
Vogely, A., 1999. Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In: Young, D.J. (Ed.), Affect in foreign language
and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. McGrawHill, Boston, pp. 106–123.
Warschauer, M., 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom.
CALICO Journal 13 (2), 7–26.
Warschauer, M., 2002. Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1 (1), 45–
58.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., Roberts, B., 1996. Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System
24 (1), 1–14.
Wright, D., 2003. Asynchronous negotiations: Introducing electronic portfolios to promote professional
development in foreign-language business classrooms. Global Business Languages 8, 88–107.
Young, D.J., 1990. An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals
23 (6), 539–553.
Young, D.J., 1999. Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a lowanxiety classroom atmosphere. McGraw-Hill, Boston.