Anxiety No More: The EFL Students Voice On the Use FTF VS SCMC toward Their Speaking Anxiety

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v6i2.6290

Keywords:

EFL student’s voice, Face to face, Synchronous computer mediated communication, Speaking anxiety

Abstract

In this era, many researchers already conduct research on using CMC in the education field. Several researchers have explored using SCMC (audio and text) and ACMC to know the benefits for students' skills in a foreign language. However, this study explores using SCMC (audio and video) to know the students' perception of their speaking anxiety. The present qualitative study examines the students' voices using FTF or SCMC toward their speaking anxiety. This study aims to know the students' voices related to their speaking anxiety in English under two conditions: Face to face and Synchronous computer-mediated communication. These voices were presented by five students of English language education who were interviewed about using FTF and SCMC. The result shows that the participants prefer to use SCMC to reduce anxiety while they speak English. An analysis of data from the interview explicates that two themes were related to EFL students' speaking anxiety, including (1) fear of making mistakes and (2) feeling under pressure. The interview results also stated the advantages and disadvantages of both environments (FTF and SCMC). This study implies that SCMC can increase students' confidence in speaking English. Therefore, this paper suggests that teachers should provide a supportive environment and support their students in practicing speaking in English using SCMC.

References

Abuseileek, A. F., & Qatawneh, K. (2013). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) oral conversations on English language learners’ discourse functions. Computers and Education, 62, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.013

Adnan, M. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 1(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.2020261309

Alla, L., Tamila, D., Neonila, K., & Tamara, G. (2020). Foreign Language Anxiety: Classroom VS Distance Learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12), 6684–6691. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081233

Alqarni, N. (2021). Language learners’ willingness to communicate and speaking anxiety in online versus face-to-face learning contexts. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(11), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.26803/IJLTER.20.11.4

Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. Technology-enhanced language learning, 165-184.Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X

Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 74–93.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.

Côté, S., & Gaffney, C. (2021). The effect of synchronous computer-mediated communication on beginner L2 learners’ foreign language anxiety and participation. Language Learning Journal, 49(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1484935

Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Individual differences in Second Language Acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, Dewaele and Dewaele: Learner-internal and learner-external predictors of Willingness to Communicate in the FL Classroom T. K. (Eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 623–646. Bingley (UK): Emerald.

Gherheș, V., Stoian, C. E., Fărcașiu, M. A., & Stanici, M. (2021). E-learning vs. Face-to-face learning: Analyzing students’ preferences and behaviors. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084381

Haidara, Y. (2016). Psychological Factor Affecting English Speaking Performance for the English Learners in Indonesia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1501–1505. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040701

Handayani, S. T. D., Setyarini, S., & Yusuf, F. N. (2021). Synchronous Computer-Mediated Interactions in English. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020), 546(Conaplin 2020), 546–555. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.083

Hung, Y. W., & Higgins, S. (2016). Learners’ use of communication strategies in text-based and video-based synchronous computer-mediated communication environments: opportunities for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 901–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1074589

Lee, J. S., & Chen Hsieh, J. (2019). Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts. System, 82(300), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.002

Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2015). Videoconferencing as a tool for developing speaking skills. Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14(December 2015), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38339-7_12

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage publications.

Mukminin, A., Masbirorotni, M., Noprival, N., Sutarno, S., Arif, N., & Maimunah, M. (2015). Journal of Education and Learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217–225. http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/EduLearn/article/view/1828/pdf_93

Mulyono, H., & Saskia, R. (2021). Affective variables contributing to Indonesian EFL students’ willingness to communicate within face-to-face and digital environments. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1911282

Nasution, A. K. P., Surbakti, A. H., Zakaria, R., Wahyuningsih, S. K., & Daulay, L. A. (2021). Face to Face Learning vs Blended Learning vs Online Learning (Student Perception of Learning). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1783(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1783/1/012112

Neuhauser, C. (2002). American Journal of Distance Learning Style and Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction. American Journal of Distance Learning, 16(2), 99–113.

O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company

Poza, M. I. C. (2011). The Effects of Asynchronous Computer Voice Conferencing on L2 Learners’ Speaking Anxiety. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 41(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.17161/iallt.v41i1.8486

Pulungan, R. (2014). Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Linguistik Terapan, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.24114/lt.v4i2.1159

Rajitha, K., & Alamelu, C. (2020). A study of factors affecting and causing speaking anxiety. Procedia Computer Science, 172(2019), 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.154

Sho, K. (2020). Comparison of a videoconferencing intervention’s effects on students’ english-speaking anxiety. Proceedings of 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, TALE 2020, 19, 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48869.2020.9368401

Spring, R., Kato, F., & Mori, C. (2019). Factors associated with improvement in oral fluency when using video-synchronous mediated communication with native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 52(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12381

Suleimenova, Z. (2013). Speaking Anxiety in a Foreign Language Classroom in Kazakhstan. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1860–1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.131

Tahriri, A., Hassaskhah, J., & Mozafarian Pour, A. (2015). The impact of synchronous computer-mediated communication on EFL learners’ motivation. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(2), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2015.1053

Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2–3), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v13i2-3.7-26

Wright, B. M. (2017). Blended learnings student perception of face-to-face and online EFL lessons. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.6859

Yaniafari, R. P., & Rihardini, A. A. (2021). Face-to-face or online speaking practice: A comparison of students’ foreign language classroom anxiety level. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 8(1), 49-67.

Young, D. J. (1990). An Investigation of Students’ Perspectives on Anxiety and Speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539–553.

Yukie Aida. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s Construct of Foreign Language Anxiety: The Case of Students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 155–168.

Zeinali Nejad, M., Golshan, M., & Naeimi, A. (2021). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on learners’ pronunciation achievement. Cogent Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2021.1872908

Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication and Interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2022-10-31

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2022): VELES Voices of English Language Education Society

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with the VELES Journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Creative Commons License

VELES Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.