Significance of the Study

The study might shed some light on the following aspects. First, this study might show a theoretical contribution to research by providing potential positive and

negative effects that FTAs bring to EFL learners’ learning. Specifically, the results of this study could benefit relevant researchers from understanding how the FTA-led co-teaching context like the current study impact the three factors (i.e., English learning motivation, English listening anxiety, and English listening performance). Secondly, this study might suggest some possible pedagogical implications for English teachers in Taiwan to help learners sustain motive force in the learning process and relieve from anxiety toward listening as well as the potential apprehension from the listening section in CAP. Thirdly, this study might help policy-makers, educational

administrators, and language educators become aware of the implementation impact of FTAs on Taiwanese junior high students in the future.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews literature related to the stated research questions of this study. The first section offers the historical background of co-teaching programs and present implementation in Taiwan. The second section introduces the theoretical approaches regarding the complexity of L2 motivation and discusses the effect of teacher’s role on motivation toward language learning. In the last section, the

concepts of anxiety in general and language anxiety are covered and followed by the specific focus on listening anxiety and its relationship to listening performance.

2.1 Co-Teaching

In contemporary English language teaching (ELT), the policy of importing native-speaking English teachers (NESTs) to co-teach with non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) is prevalent in Asian countries in the 1990’s. The governments launched a variety of co-teaching programs for enhancing learners’

English competence and promoting cultural exchange, such as the English Program in Korea (EPIK), the Primary Native-Speaking English Teacher Scheme (PNET) in Hong Kong, and Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program. Following the trend in these countries, a co-teaching program in Taiwan has also been established by the MOE since 2001, aiming to solve the problem of insufficient qualified teachers at the primary school level in rural and remote areas due to the education reform in 2005 (the shift of English policy from Grade 5 to Grade 3). Since 2005, county or city governments have been permitted to introduce native-speaking English teachers by themselves (MOE Website, 2016) with various language learning objectives. For example, a city government in the southern Taiwan, employing FTAs from the United States to co-teach English with LETs, aims to provide opportunities for learners to use

English and to promote LETs’ teaching instruction.

According to all kinds of co-teaching program objectives, co-teachers and

learners seem to benefit from the co-teaching (Liao, 2017). With regard to co-teachers in the Taiwan context, the evidence has proved that co-teaching could help foster both teachers’ professional development (Chen & Cheng, 2014; Chen, 2008). Investigating teachers’ professional growth in teaching context, Tsai (2007) found that co-teachers benefit from six aspects: linguistic knowledge and skills, cultural knowledge, teaching skills, understanding of students and schools, development of partnerships, and development of professional identity. Huang (2011) has expressed a similar view that co-teachers share both teaching experiences and resources, overcome the teaching challenges, fulfill the teaching content, and enhance both teaching skills. As for learners, much research has discussed the influences of co-teaching on learners’

English learning (Chiang, 2014; Huang, 2011; Pai, 2008; Wu, 2015). In Chiang’s study (2014), for example, the findings show that the combination of both FTAs and LETs increases students’ English learning attitude and motivation after one semester.

Chuang (2011) finds that co-teaching results in learners’ improved perceptions of their English ability in listening and speaking, the decreased perceptions of speaking

anxiety, and the increased understanding of foreign cultures after six

months. Examining the effect of co-teaching on learners’ language learning, Herbert’s (2010) study reveals that learners display a positive attitude and motivation toward English learning and that their reading and listening proficiency are also improved after a year.

The above general findings suggest that the policy of having native-speaking English teachers co-teach with local teachers in the language classroom may promote co-teachers’ profession and students’ English learning, while the literature on the specific impact that native-speaking teachers have on learners in the co-teaching

context is still scarce. The role of native-speaking teachers in language classes cannot be ignored since researchers in the past have found EFL learners felt native-speaking teachers’ classes were much more interactive (e.g., Chai, 2007; Sidrys & JakStaite, 1994). One implication of these studies is that learners seemed to be benefited from native-speakers’ teachings. However, none of studies in co-teaching have been particularly investigated how native-speaking English teachers affect EFL learners’

motivation and the change of anxiety level together in a longitude study since they are considered two of the most important factors of learning achievement (Bernaus &

Gardner, 2008; Cheng et al., 1999; MacIntyre, 2002).

2.2 Motivation in Language Learning

Motivation is thought of as one of the main influential variables associated with an individual’s success in SL/FL acquisition. According to Dörnyei (1998, p.117),

“motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process”. Since motivation plays an important role in the learning process, many scholars have discussed the nature of motivation and its relationship to language learning from manifold

perspectives for the last decades (e.g., MacIntyre, 2002; Dornyei, 2010). For example, the social–psychological constructs in the work of Gardner and Lambert (1972), integrative and instrumental motivational orientations, have been used widely to explain why people learn languages. They propose that learners who possess

integrative motivation will have a strong desire to communicate with a L2 group and learn about their culture and language. As for learners with an instrumental

motivation, language becomes a tool that allows them to achieve some practical goals, such as passing language exams or getting a job promotion. In addition to the social-psychological concept of L2 motivation, Deci and Ryan (1985, 2002), from the cognitive-situated aspect, views on motivation as a more dynamic factor, more

cognitive in nature, and more situated-specific in language classrooms where most L2 learning happens. They propose the self-determination theory, focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and their relevance for classroom applications. Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivation coming from inside and deriving from individuals’

desire to accomplish something for their own pleasure. Learners with extrinsic motivation are motivated to learn a language by external factors, such as reward and penalty. Furthermore, interested in fluctuating motivational change over time during a L2 class, Dörnyei and Otto (1998) develops a process-orientated model. The model describes a predominant continuum of motivational features, from learners’ initial wishes and desires to final goal accomplishment. As a whole, taken by the proponents of the socio-psychological, cognitive-situated or process-orientated approach of L2 motivation, a key tenet of these analyses has demonstrated that motivation is a

complex construct with several perspectives that boosts SL/FL learning and maintains learners’ efforts to learn the language.

In addition to capturing the multifaceted construct of motivation, a large amount of research has been conducted to explore the influence of motivation on L2 learners’

mastery in learning language and to focus on the factors affecting L2 learners’

learning motivation, such as age, second language proficiency, and language tasks (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei & Otto, 1998). The role of teacher, has been viewed as one of the influential factors of L2 learners’ motivation (Dörnyei, 1994;

Tanaka, 2005). Since the teacher plays a vital role in influencing the learners’

motivational quality and promoting learners’ motivation in language classrooms (Dornyei, 2010, p.115), some studies on L2 motivation have set out to investigate how teacher-related components affect learners’ motivational change, including the

teacher’s personality, behavior, teaching styles, teaching materials and methodology, feedback, reward/punishment, teacher-learner interaction (Al Kaboody, 2013;

Dörnyei, 1994;, Dornyei & Csizer, 1998; Ranjbar & Narafshan, 2016). The

implication from these studies suggests that teachers are a complex and prime figure who affect L2 learners’ motivation.

As for the role of FTAs in the EFL context, in Taiwan Yen (2016) has shed some light on the impact of FTAs on Taiwanese learners’ motivational change toward English learning in the context of co-teaching. Involving 4056 young learners from six areas in Taiwan, ranging from elementary school and junior high school level, Yen (2016) finds that scores on the measure of English-learning motivation tend to

increase after students are taught by FTAs for one year. Meanwhile, according to the data from classroom observation and interview, she points out that the FTAs

significantly raise the learners’ motivation by creating interactive and participative classroom climate, exchanging cultural knowledge, and broadening the world view.

Nevertheless, her study fails to particularly examine the impact of FTAs on the relationship between junior high students’ learning motivation and language achievement although motivation is viewed as a contributing factor to the students’

English learning achievement gap (Chen, 2006). In addition, her study does not investigate the combined effect of motivation and listening anxiety since

comprehension-related anxiety could weaken learning motivation and inhibit the listening comprehension skill (Gardner et al, 1987).

2.3 Anxiety and Listening

2.3.1 Definitions and Manifestations of Language Anxiety

Generally speaking, the nature of anxiety is intricate and multifaceted. From a psychological point of view, Hilgard, Atkinson, and Atkinson (1971 as cited in Scovel 1978, p.134) defines anxiety as “a state of apprehension, a vague fear that is only directly associated with an object”. Spielberger (1983 as cited in Horwitz, Horwitz &

Cope, 1991, p.27) describes anxiety from a neurobiological perspective, defining

anxiety as “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of autonomic nervous system” (p. 15). When experiencing anxiety, a person may generate psycho-physiological characteristics. In the work of Onwuegbuzie, Bailey and Daley (1999), participants were found to display

“perspiration, dry mouth, wet hands, general tension, muscle contraction and increased heartbeat” under stress.

With regards to the presence of language anxiety, the pioneers, Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986), propose a situation-specific anxiety construct called foreign

language anxiety, and define it as “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). Based on their clinical data and anecdotal evidence, they argue that FL anxiety is distinct from general anxiety but a variable related to L2 only. Maclntyre (1999) has expressed a similar view, indicating that language anxiety involves the “the feeling of worry and negative emotional reaction aroused when learning or using a second language (p.27).” In this sense, language anxiety is seen as a complex and L2-specific construct in the situations of language learning.

In a FL learning context, there are a number of multidimensional phenomena manifested by learners that may have resulted from language anxiety. Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) propose three main components that cause learners’

language anxiety. Communication apprehension, the first component, is a type of shyness due to fear or anxiety in communication. Learners with communication apprehension have problems speaking in groups (oral communication anxiety), and in public (“stage fright”) as well as in listening to a spoken message (receiver anxiety).

In language classes, learners are usually asked to express their opinions on their own or through group discussion. If they feel nervous or stressed in that situation, it is

possible that the learners will face oral communication anxiety. In addition, when learners feel uneasy while presenting in public, they may be experiencing a stage fright. As for the reaction of receiver anxiety, it may take place when learners feel nervous about the new-gained or immediate aural information. The second type of language anxiety, test anxiety, stems from a fear of failure or underperforming in tests.

Learners suffering from test anxiety often set unrealistic goals and consider that getting a perfect grade is prioritized. The third component is fear of negative

evaluation, which is defined as “apprehension about others’ evaluation, avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself

negatively” (p.128). When experiencing fear of negative evaluation, learners may attempt to keep silent most of the time and refuse to participate in language classroom activities since they feel that teachers or peers may negatively evaluate their language ability,

Moreover, Radin (1993 as cited in Young, 1991, p.430) found learners might display physiological reactions associated with anxiety in their language classes, such as “sweating palms, nervous stomachs, accelerated heartbeat and pulse rates”, leading to “distortion of sounds, inability to reproduce the intonation and rhythm of the language, ‘freezing up’ when called on to perform, and forgetting words or phrases just learned or simply refusing to speak and remaining silent” (p.430). Furthermore, there are other symptoms manifesting learners’ anxiety. Anxious learners may “have nervous laughter, look the other ways, make jokes, try to turn into clowns, and get away with the shortest answer responses” (Young, 1992, p.164). Through examining the nonverbal behaviors of anxious and non-anxious foreign language learners from facial expressions, gazing behavior, body movement and gesture, Gregersen (2005) points out that anxious learners show more frequent blinking behavior and gazing down, less eye contact to the teacher, more rigid with their posture, and fewer positive

head nods, etc.

These anxiety-related behaviors and reactions suggest that language anxiety is a complex phenomenon evoked in a FL classroom setting and impacting learners

physiologically, psychologically, and behaviorally all at the same time. In this sense, it is critical to study the complexity, especially when the learners are required to interact with a native-speaking teacher for an entire year.

2.3.2 Foreign Language Listening Anxiety and Listening Performance

Ever since the presence of language anxiety was recognized, a growing body of researchers and theorists has been working on the impact of anxiety on language learning process in the FL learning context (Bailey et al, 2000;MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994b). According to Tobias (1977), anxiety can lead to interference at one or more stages of language learning process (i.e., input, processing, and output). At the input stage, anxiety may hinder the amount and quality of intake due to the attention deficits. Anxiety experienced at this stage may reduce the effectiveness of input presented by the instructor, which can in turn decrease the amount of registered input internally. Anxiety at the processing stage impairs students’ efficiency of message processing. At this stage, the more difficult the task is, the more anxious students will become. The rising anxiety can thus abate their ability to process information.

Likewise, anxiety, at the output stage, may impede the retrieval of existent

information. Anxious learners may fail to demonstrate what they have learned when required. Anxiety, as illustrated above, can play a key role of students’ process of language acquisition, retention, and production.

In the past few years, the potentially detrimental influence of language anxiety on FL learners’ language performance has drawn researchers’ attention (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Maclntyre & Gardner, 1991). As MacIntyre (1994b) and Cheng et al. (1999) emphasize the importance to understand the profound effect of

anxiety on foreign learners’ language performance, much of the research has been conducted to examine language anxiety across four language skills, including speaking (Phillips, 1992; Aida, 1994; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Cheng, 2005;

Woodrow, 2006; Liu, 2007; Subasi, 2010; Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012; Ekström, 2013; Ö ztürk & Gürbüz, 2014), listening (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Cheng, 2007; Golchi, 2012; Tsai, 2010; Chen, 2011; Yang, 2012, Zhang, 2013; Chou, 2017), reading (Saito et al, 1999; Brantmeir, 2005; Tsai & Li, 2012; Yao & Jingna, 2011; Cabansag, 2013) as well as writing (Cheng, 2004; Lin & Ho, 2009).

Although the majority of research mentioned above has focused on anxiety associated with L2 oral production, the discussion of listening anxiety is

indispensable. Krashen (interviewed by in Young 1992) acknowledged that listening was “highly anxiety-provoking if it [the discourse] is incomprehensible” (p.168). As a listener in L2, it is crucial to understand what the interlocutor says in the target

language to conduct successful communication. When listening to spoken language, a listener has to segment and analyze speech accurately and automatically into

appropriate morpheme and syntactic units (Samuels, 1984). To appropriately and effectively process the input, the listener needs to invest additional effort and attention to recall and decode the message. Due to the fact that information processing with auditory stimuli at any moment is usually too limited for learners to consciously control what they access to (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968), FL learners may be overloaded with unprocessed aural FL message, which can provoke frustration or anxious reactions. For example, FL learners may worry about misunderstanding and embarrassing outcomes when listening in the target language (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994a). The type of anxiety arising during the listening process is termed as a

negative “listening concept,” (Joiner, 1986), that is, learners’ low level of self-confidence regarding their ability in listening.

Recently, researchers have been interested in the anxiety associated with listening in FL learning context. Vogely (1999) highlights that listening anxiety, or listening comprehension anxiety, is a potentially debilitating type of anxiety accompanying listening comprehension. Learners who are anxious about listening may try to avoid engaging in the listening tasks that can lead to listening anxiety. On the basis of the foreign language reading anxiety scale (FFRAS) that Saito et al (1999) develop, Elkhafaifi (2005) pioneers and constructs the foreign language listening anxiety scale (FLLAS) to assess 233 postsecondary students learning Arabic as a FL in American universities. The FLLAS, consisted of 20-items, has an estimated

internal reliability of .96 (Crobach’s alpha). Elkhafaifi aims at finding out whether FL listening anxiety affects FL learners’ listening performance. The result shows that FL listening anxiety has an adverse effect on listening achievement, indicating that learners with higher FL listening anxiety perform more poorly than those with lower FL listening anxiety. Zhang’s (2013) study also focuses on FL listening anxiety level of 300 first year English majors in a university in China. All the participants filled in the modified version of FLLAS and took the IELTS listening test twice. The result shows a negative correlation between the participants’ FL listening anxiety level and their’ listening achievement. Specifically, his finding further demonstrates a causal relationship between FL listening anxiety and listening performance, showing that L2 listening comprehension was affected by FL listening anxiety but not vice versa.

Likewise, research in Taiwan’s context also demonstrates a similar result that FL listening anxiety was in a negative relationship with listening achievement. Tsai (2010), in order to examine how FL listening anxiety are related to English listening comprehension performance, administers the listening test and FLLAS to a total of 292 non-English major college students from two universities in northern Taiwan.

The results show that listening performance is significantly negatively correlated with

FL listening anxiety. Similarly, Yang (2012) conducts a study to investigate the relationship among FL listening anxiety, listening strategy employment, and listening performance of adolescent EFL learners in junior high schools in the Taipei area. The researcher recruits a total of 211 students and implements the FLLAS, a listening strategy questionnaire, and a listening comprehension test. The results show not only the existence of FL listening anxiety in the Taipei area but also a negative correlation between FL listening anxiety and listening performance. Therefore, based on these above findings, listening anxiety could thus be regarded as a predictor for his/her listening performance.

As indicated above, previous studies show that FL listening anxiety has a negative influence on FL learners’ listening comprehension. Another implication is that the learners would learn better in a low-anxiety classroom environment. As a result, ways of lowering learners’ affective filter and counteracting effects of listening anxiety are needed (Young, 1998). One possible solution suggested by Vogly’s (1998) study is to bring native speakers of the target language into the classroom. To identify

As indicated above, previous studies show that FL listening anxiety has a negative influence on FL learners’ listening comprehension. Another implication is that the learners would learn better in a low-anxiety classroom environment. As a result, ways of lowering learners’ affective filter and counteracting effects of listening anxiety are needed (Young, 1998). One possible solution suggested by Vogly’s (1998) study is to bring native speakers of the target language into the classroom. To identify