In this chapter, the literatures about English language proficiency, language anxiety, and employability were introduced. Moreover, the relationships among English language proficiency, language anxiety, and employability were discussed as follows.
Language Anxiety
Anxiety was defined as an awakening of automatic nervous mechanism that the uneasiness, fear, tension, and worry one perceives (Spielberger, 1983). Anxiety was consist of trait anxiety and situation specific anxiety. Trait anxiety was a relatively stable personality that the tendency of individual’s nervousness and tension instead of the anxiety occurring in any occasions (Spielberger, 1983). Situation anxiety, on the other hand, reflected the anxiety occurring in some specific occasions (Spielberger, Anton, & Bedell, 1976). According to Liebert and Morris (1967), the reactions from individuals who perceived the anxiety reflected emotionality or worry. Emotionality referred to both physical reactions (reddening or intensive heart beating) and behavioral reactions (speech impediment or restlessness). Worry, the other one, demonstrated that individual’s cognition such as self-denying and task-unfitted toward himself or herself (Naveh-Benjamin, 1991; Zeidner, 1998). Compared to emotionality, worry was sighted to have more debilitating effects between two reactions of anxiety since it reflected individual’s cognition as undertaking the tasks such as speaking English (Tobias, 1985).
To carry on the theory into language issues, language anxiety was referred to a situation anxiety arousing when individuals had problem expressing their own opinions in the target language, and it led to debilitating impacts on one’s self-esteem and achievement in second language learning (Horwitiz, Horwitz, and Cope, 1986;
Scovel, 1978; Woodrow, 2006). In general, language anxiety took place on non-native language speakers in the incidents such as foreign language classroom, testing situation, oral practice, and communication by using the second language. (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Woodrow, 2006).
Language anxiety was indicated as a negative factor possible to hinder one’s second language learning, performance and adjustment to the target environment (Horwitz, 2001; Kondo, 2010; Woodrow, 2006). Recent studies discussed the anxiety in language skills, including speaking (Woodrow, 2006), writing (Cheng, Horwitz, &
Schallert 1999), reading (Saito, Horwitz and Garza, 1999), listening (Kim, 2000), and the anxiety in achievement of second language learning (Horwitz, 2001). In the study conducted by Woodrow (2006), she pointed out that the language anxiety in using English during the communication both inside and outside the language learning classroom instead of solely highlighting inside of the classroom.
Language anxiety was also categorized situation anxiety, and this study will also focus on the situation-specific study because public speaking anxiety was discussed in the research conducted by MacIntyre and Gardner (1991a) and Horwitz (2001).
Numerous studies on language anxiety of individual who spoke English as a foreign language (EFL) showed that the anxiety obstructed their performance and achievement in using English. (Horwitz, 2001; Andrade & Williams, 2009).
Previous studies demonstrated that language learning anxiety was classed as situation anxiety since the anxiety happening in language learning occasions (MacIntyre and Gardner 1991b; Horwitz 2001). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986), language anxiety was caused from low self-confidence or incapability in second language communication.
English Language Proficiency
Kachru (1985) provided an idea that dividing countries into inner circle country, outer circle country, and expanding circle country based on the background of using English. Inner circle countries was referred to the residents in the countries using English as their mother tongue, such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and so forth. Compared with Inner circle countries, outer circle countries were defined as those countries where English is not the mother tongue but essential for historic and governmental reasons. The last one is expanding circle, which was stated that those countries where English does not have historic or governmental meaning for the countries, but using it as a foreign language or lingua franca. Therefore, Taiwan is defined as the expending circle among countries using English.
The adjective of the proficiency, proficient was defined as being able to do something well because of training and practice (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2013). Among literature of applied linguistics, proficient was correlated to the similar terms such as good, fluent, knowledgeable, bilingual, competent, and so forth (Galloway, 1987; McNamara, 1996).
English language proficiency was defined by performance on commercial tests, such as TOEFL, TOEIC, and IELTS. However, the definition of proficiency was somewhat different in studies using difference tests as criteria (Graham, 1987). In TOEIC test, English language proficiency was defined by Educational Testing Service (ETS, 2013) as the English language skills are essential for communication, meetings, podcasts and telephone conversations, e-mail writing, written reports, newsletters and other forms of business correspondence. Therefore, attained score of TOEIC test from participants represented English language proficiency.
Employability
Connected with strategies and policies by important multinational corporations, employability was considered a vital role at national, regional, and local levels of labor market (OECD, 1998; CEC, 1999; ILO, 2000; UN, 2001). In recent years, corporations did not promise lifetime employment owing to the generality of boundaryless careers, causing there were temporary employments for the workers nowadays. Since the jobs were no longer permanent, the security of employment must be emphasized. In other words, workers should maintain career flexibility and competitiveness at firm level to succeed career success at individual level (Bloch and Bates, 1995; Capelli, 1999; DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994; Forrier & Sels, 2003b; Van Der Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006).
Employability made employees and workers able to be faced with and deal with immediately changeable policies and prerequisites from labor markets. It also loosened organizational commitment in traditional way but approached the way of surviving fluctuating and competitive working environment because job contents, skills, and prerequisites are required (Baerveldt & Hobbs, 1988; London and Greller, 1991; Van Der Heijde et al., 2006). Therefore, employability leaded the transition of individuals’ career from stable one in the bureaucratic structures in the past to the new era of boundaryless career especially for individuals who were white-collar workers.
(Collin and Young, 2000).
Former literature pointed out the problem that employees could not catch up with the fast paces from changeable environment; their development and competitiveness lost gradually with increasing age. Hence, the development of their career path significantly depended on their aggressiveness, initiatives, and investments (Van Der Heijde et al., 2006; Boerlijst, 1994; Hall, 1976; Thijssen, 1996).
There were two concepts leading the recent emphasis on theory of employability,
(2) employability related to job insecurity (Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2003; de Vries, Grundemann, & Van Vuuren, 2001). Employability firstly emerged around 1955, when employability was utilized to comprehend the employment of minorities who had problem finding jobs. Yet, the empirical researches of employability were conducted until the late 1990s (Forrier & Sels, 2003a; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005).
The original notion of employability referred to individuals’ perceived the opportunities in either internal or external labor market (March & Simon, 1958; De Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel, Berntson, De Witte, & Alarco, 2008). Afterwards, other researchers described employability by following the original definition as individuals’
perceived the opportunities and possibilities of getting a new job (Berntson &
Marklund, 2007; Berntson, Sverke, & Marklund, 2006). Furthermore, employability relied on attaining prerequisites of any job; furthermore, it also depended on the relative relationships among all the job seekers (Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2003;
Hirsch, 1977). For instance, if bachelor degree is the basic requirement for workers in the entry level, individuals ought to attain the advanced level in education such as master degree or degree of Ph.D. to get the advantage of employability.
Employability was defined in this study as the capability or the skill individuals possess to maintain the job or to obtain the new job (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). As Hillage and Pollard’s (1998) definition, employability was individual’s ability to work and survive by themselves within the labor market to realize their potential through constant employment. However, Hillage and Pollard neglected the notion that employability was regulated by labor market (Brown et al., 2003). Moreover, the perspective of employability included individuals’ future success and ability to retain their positions and jobs (Bloch & Bates, 1995; Van der Heijden, 2002; Iles, 1997;
Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). There were two sub-dimensions in the notion of employability, including internal employability and external employability. Internal employability was defined as individuals’ abilities job opportunity or promotion
within the same organization. External employability was described as individuals’
abilities to obtain job opportunity outside the original organization (Rothwell &
Arnold, 2007).
It was generally thought to be a key goal that individuals handle their careers;
developing and training employees from organizations’ perspective. It was considered to bring wide effects on career path, business, skill building, labor markets, and so on.
Also, employability not only concerned individual attributes (individuals’
effectiveness of movement in labor markets) but also associated with internal and external labor market (Forrier & Sels, 2003a; Fugate et al., 2004; Rothwell & Arnold, 2007; Rothwell, Herbert, & Rothwell, 2008). In this study, employability was observed from individuals’ point of view. To be specific, it was what individuals believe where their chances are on desired job, and what kind of factors will affect their perception on it (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007).
There are several definitions of employability on previous literatures. For example, Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004,) considered that employability was the adaptability in workplace enabling individuals to recognize career opportunities and gain possibility of employment. The notion included three dimensions, which are career identity, personal adaptability, and social and human capital. The concept from Fugate and his colleagues (2004) and Rothwell and Arnold (2007) differentiated from each other. However, both groups of researchers agreed that employability was beneficial for individuals coping with changes and challenges proactively in a fluctuated and changeable labor market.
Besides, employability was also explored from several points of view, levels (individual, organizational, and industrial), and academic fields (management, human resource management, human resource development, psychology, educational science, career development) (Thijssen & Van der Heijden, 2003).
Language Anxiety and Employability
Previous studies showed that language anxiety had something to do with employability. Specifically, if individual thought English language proficiency was not competent enough, had low confidence on English language proficiency, or felt nervous and anxious when using English in some situations, language anxiety occurred in the communication that debilitated individual’s confidence, self-esteem, and then eventually affected individual’s performance and achievement (Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope, 1986; Howitz, 2001; Woodrow, 2006). The apprehension of speaking English might be related to factors such as communication apprehension, self-esteem, and social anxiety. Consequently, language anxiety affected individual’s communication or the will of communication (Young, 1990). Besides, MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) also found out the negative correlation between individual’s language anxiety and their performance on doing tasks which required utilizing the language.
Former researchers stressed that language anxiety was considered as a situational anxiety that occurred when individuals utilized English in some certain situation such as meeting, presenting, and communicating with others in the workplace. Eventually, language anxiety caused some negative impacts on individuals’ work performance that lead to damage anticipation and image from their supervisors or employers (Andrade & Williams, 2009; Horwitiz, Horwitz, and Cope, 1986; Scovel, 1978;
Woodrow, 2006). Sanders and de Grip (2004) mentioned that employability depended on labor market occasions and policies from authorities of organization at the time.
Nowadays, employers needed their employees to be competent to discuss the enhancement product or procedure with their supervisors, colleagues, business partners, or clients from different nations. Furthermore, employees developed English skills was essential on the process to be promoted on the career path (US Department of Education, 2006).
Employability focused that individual extended their possessed skills and
attributes to find or say in a work they desired. In contrast, if language anxiety occurred to damage the individuals’ job performance, the employability they obtained might be debilitated as well. Therefore, the Hypothesis 1, 1a, and 1b were drawn as follows.
Hypothesis 1:
Language anxiety negatively relates to employability. Specifically, individuals with high language anxiety will have lower employability.
Hypothesis 1a:
Language anxiety negatively relates to internal employability.
Hypothesis 1b:
Language anxiety negatively relates to external employability.
The Moderating Effect of English Language Proficiency on the Relationship Between Language Anxiety and Employability
MacIntyre and Gardner (1991b) stressed that individuals’ language anxiety in English was decreased when their English proficiency was better and more sophisticated.
Based on the report from CILT, The National Center for Languages (2006), English did have some great impacts on European economy and played a vital role on European commercial activities and business because English was widely considered as the common language in European markets. Therefore, the more European organizations developed and strengthened employees’ English abilities, the better it benefited national and international commercial activities and business (Pinon &
Haydon, 2010). Take companies in Switzerland as example. Employees with fluent English speaking were paid higher from twelve percent to thirty percent and get hired easier than those without fluent English speaking (Grin, 2010).
Several researchers described that English was important and considered as part of daily communication among either multinational or domestic organizations in the in the 21st century (Akar, 2002; Bilbow, 2002; Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002).
Individual who wished to be easily employed and to avoid being constrained in low-payment works needed to strengthen their English language skills for workers (TIRF, 2012). Several former researchers also emphasized different English language skills which were commonly used in business such as English speaking and writing skills in communication (Nickerson, 2005). To be specific, English speaking skills included negotiation (Planken, van Hooft, & Korzilus, 2004), meeting (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005; Chew, 2005), and e-mailing for writing skill (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005).
Kassim and Ali (2010) described the strong relationship between English language proficiency and work in engineering industries in Malaysia. Aside from possessing appropriate social and communication skills, being able to speak English in the workplace was an urgent demand for engineers in Malaysia since the communicative occasion in English was necessary in the industry. Therefore, Malaysian engineers who desired to be prominent in the industry must be equipped with good oral skill in English since they believed that the more excellence in English language proficiency, the more opportunity to be developed and advanced on their aptitude and profession as global engineers (Kassim & Ali, 2010; Fugate et al., 2004).
On the other hand, in the study which conducted by Briguglio (2003) showed that multinational corporations in Hong Kong and Malaysia highlighted English language proficiency in speaking and writing in order to have employees performed their tasks and work effectively. Conversely, employability will helped individual proactively prepare and engage in the prerequisites of work environment (Ashforth &
Saks, 1996). Therefore, Individuals with high employability engaged in which influenced their expected and desired occupational path (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007).
The report from European Union (2007) reported a project which was conducted by EU, “European Union’s Lifelong Learning Programme”. The program listed eight key competences for lifelong learning, which aimed to define the skills which must be equipped by individual for gaining (1) social gathering, (2) dynamic citizenship, and (3) employability. The ability to communicate in foreign languages such as English was listed in one of the eight competencies.
Based on former literatures listed above, employees who possess good English language proficiency will be beneficial for employees to have better chance to be employed, get promoted, or keep up with the trend of the workforce in the 21st century to keep the job they desire, which is similar with the definition by Rothwell and Arnold (2007).
English proficiency was one of the positive and essential factors for individuals’
career success in their own countries which mother tongues were not English.
Furthermore, the fluency in English helped these individuals increase employment probabilities and income (Berman, Lang, & Sriniver, 2000; Chiswick, 1991; Chiswick
& Miller, 1995; Chiswick, Cohen, & Zach, 1997; Dustmann, 1994; Rivera-Batiz, 1990; Shields & Wheatley Price, 2001). Therefore, Hypothesis 2, 2a, and 2b were drawn as follows.
Hypothesis 2:
English language proficiency positively moderates the relationship between language anxiety and employability.
Hypothesis 2a:
English language proficiency positively moderates the relationship between language anxiety and internal employability.
Hypothesis 2b:
English language proficiency positively moderates the relationship between language