Language Learning 49:3, September 1999, pp.

417–446

Language Anxiety: Differentiating Writing and

Speaking Components

Yuh-show Cheng
National Taiwan Normal University

Elaine K. Horwitz and Diane L. Schallert

University of Texas at Austin

This study investigated the links between second lan-

guage classroom anxiety and second language writing
anxiety as well as their associations with second language
speaking and writing achievement. The results indicate
that second language classroom anxiety, operationalized
by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s Foreign Language Class-
room Anxiety Scale, and second language writing anxiety,
measured by a modified second language version of Daly
and Miller’s Writing Apprehension Test, are two related
but independent constructs. The findings suggest that sec-
ond language classroom anxiety is a more general type of
anxiety about learning a second language with a strong
speaking anxiety element, whereas second language writing
anxiety is a language-skill-specific anxiety. Nevertheless,
low self-confidence seems to be an important component of
both anxiety constructs.

Yuh-show Cheng, Department of English; Elaine K. Horwitz, Curriculum and

Instruction; Diane L. Schallert, Department of Educational Psychology.
This article was written based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation
cosupervised by the second and third authors. The authors would like to
thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on
an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Yuh-show Cheng,
Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University, 162 East Hop-
ing Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan 10610, Republic of China. Internet:
[email protected]

417
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
418 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Recognition of the existence and significance of writing ap-

prehension1 has been a notable result of the considerable research
on interpersonal communication. Since the 1970s, research on the
relationship between writing apprehension and personality char-
acteristics has provided justification for regarding writing appre-
hension as a distinct form of anxiety, unique to written
communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1983a, 1983b; Daly & Wilson,
1983; Stafford & Daly, 1984). The development of an empirically
based, standardized, Likert-type writing apprehension test by
Daly and Miller (1975a) has proved important in understanding
the depth and breadth of the influence of writing anxiety. The vast
majority of investigations have indicated that writing anxiety is
negatively associated with the quality of the message encoded
(Burgoon & Hale, 1983b; Daly, 1977; Fleming, 1985; Garcia, 1977)
and with individuals’ actual writing behavior (Bannister, 1992;
Bloom, 1980; Selfe, 1981), their writing performance (Dickson,
1978; Faigley, Daly, & Witte, 1981; Fowler & Ross, 1982), and their
willingness to write or to take advanced writing courses (Daly &
Miller, 1975b). Writing apprehension has also been found to influ-
ence individuals’ career choices and academic decisions (Daly &
Miller, 1975a; Daly & Shamo, 1976, 1978; Daly, Vangelisti, & Witte,
1988).
However, most studies on writing anxiety have been con-
ducted with first language learners, particularly native speakers
of English in the United States. In the second language literature,
there have been only a few studies focussed on writing anxiety,
and they have reported mixed and confusing results regarding the
effects of second language writing anxiety on second language
writing performance (Hadaway, 1987; Masny & Foxall, 1992; Wu,
1992), on interest in taking more advanced L2 writing courses
(Gungle & Taylor, 1989; Masny & Foxall, 1992; Taylor, Johnson, &
Gungle, 1987, cited in Gungle & Taylor, 1989), and on perceived
L2 writing demands in the students’ majors (Gungle & Taylor,
1989; Taylor et al., 1987, cited in Gungle & Taylor, 1989). Like the
L1 studies, the majority of these studies have been restricted to
the United States, adopting the second language version of the
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 419

Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test (SLWAT) as their primary

research tool. Moreover, these studies usually involved heteroge-
neous groups of English as a second language (ESL) students. The
paucity of research on writing anxiety in the context of second
language learning and the lack of cross-cultural studies leave us
an incomplete picture of the nature of writing anxiety. The selec-
tion of ethnolinguistically heterogeneous samples and the use of
an English language version of the SLWAT in most of the second
language writing anxiety studies combine to cloud issues concern-
ing the applicability of the SLWAT, making it difficult to determine
the reasons for the mixed results. For example, we cannot tell
whether the low reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α = .44) ob-
tained for Hadaway’s (1987) sample can be attributed to the
subjects’ difficulties in fully understanding the English version of
the SLWAT or to the heterogeneity of the sample.2
Over the past two decades, an upsurge of research on L1
writing apprehension has advanced in parallel with an increasing
interest in the role of anxiety in second language learning (see,
e.g., Horwitz & Young, 1991). Although a review of earlier studies
also demonstrates conflicting and perplexing results with regard
to how anxiety relates to second language learning (Scovel, 1978),
in the past decade advances in measurement and theory have
brought about more revealing results on this topic. Teachers’
common beliefs that second language anxiety prevails among
second language learners in many educational contexts have been
supported in a number of studies (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986;
MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Proulx, 1991; Truitt, 1995). Gardner’s
(1985) and Horwitz et al.’s (1986) conceptualization of second
language anxiety as a type of situation-specific anxiety unique to
second language learning has been generally upheld by studies
incorporating a scale especially designed for assessing second
language anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner,
1991b; Phillips, 1992). Moreover, in cases where a distinct second
language anxiety was operationalized, a more consistent, negative
association between anxiety and second language performance
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
420 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

was established (e.g., Aida, 1994; Cheng, 1994; Horwitz, 1986;

MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991a), although the directions of causation
between them have been far from clear (MacIntyre, 1995a, 1995b;
Sparks & Ganschow, 1995).
Even though the present situation-specific approach prom-
ises fruitful research on second language anxiety, some important
theoretical questions remain. One of these questions has to do
with the generality of scales developed to measure second-
language-learning-specific anxiety. Based on the assumption that
speaking is the most anxiety-provoking aspect in a second lan-
guage learning situation (Ellis, 1994; Horwitz et al., 1986; Young,
1991), instruments designed to measure second language anxiety
tend to be dominated by items addressing anxiety about speaking
a second language, chiefly in a classroom situation. The dominance
of speaking-related items raises doubts about whether these sec-
ond language anxiety instruments are capable of identifying stu-
dents particularly anxious about performing language skills other
than speaking. There is also some question about the adequacy of
using these anxiety instruments to explore the relationship be-
tween anxiety and overall (four skills) language achievement or
performance not related to in-class speaking activities. In fact, the
dominance of speaking-related items has led researchers like Aida
(1994) to assume that language anxiety measurements such as
the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz et al.,
1986; FLCAS) are primarily measures of anxiety related to speak-
ing situations. She further attributed her finding of a moderate
correlation (r = –.38) between anxiety and second language perfor-
mance to the attenuating effect of using a performance measure
(i.e., subjects’ final course grades for Japanese classes) that did
not specifically assess oral skills. Likewise, Phillips (1992) claimed
that, among others, the moderate correlation (r = –.40) between
her subjects’ scores on the FLCAS and an oral exam could be
“because the FLCAS did not measure students’ anxiety related to
the specific oral exam” (p. 20). Although previous literature has
clearly suggested problems of using second language (classroom)
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 421

anxiety scales with questionable instrument specificity, few, if any,

attempts have been made to explore these problems.
The trends in anxiety research (described above) lead to
another interesting theoretical question regarding a possible, yet
unexplored, conceptual link between second language writing
anxiety and second language classroom anxiety. On the one hand,
research on communication reticence indicates that apprehension
of communication varies according to the mode of communication
(Burgoon & Hale, 1983b). This finding implies that anxiety may
vary among second language students. Some students may be
prone to suffer from anxiety in any second language class, whereas
some may be particularly susceptible to anxiety in a situation in
which a certain language skill is emphasized. It follows that
second language classroom anxiety and second language writing
anxiety may be two relatively independent constructs. On the
other hand, although second language classroom anxiety and
writing apprehension each claim to possess their own unique
defining characteristics, they seem to share several assumptions,
such as negative affect toward certain aspects of communication,
avoidance of certain kinds of social exchanges, and fear of being
evaluated. These commonalities suggest an interlocking relation-
ship between the two anxiety constructs. An investigation of this
relationship may provide important insights into the components
of second language anxiety. Despite its importance, there has been
no research directed to examining how second language classroom
anxiety and second language writing anxiety are related to each
other.
In response to the research problems posed above, this study
attempted to examine empirically and systematically the con-
structs of second language classroom anxiety and second language
writing anxiety as well as their conceptual links, situating both of
them in the same second language learning context—English as
a foreign language (EFL) in Taiwan. Second language classroom
anxiety was operationalized by the FLCAS, and second language
writing anxiety was operationalized by the SLWAT. To bring
additional light to the nature of the FLCAS and the SLWAT, this
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
422 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

study also investigated the associations of these two anxiety

constructs with second language speaking and writing achieve-
ment.

Method

Participants

English majors at four universities in Taiwan who were

simultaneously taking both English speaking and English writing
classes were recruited as participants for this study during the
spring semester of 1997. English majors were chosen because
achievement and emotional experiences in English speaking and
writing were the chief concerns of this study. In Taiwan, with few
exceptions, only English majors and minors have the opportunity
to take English composition and speaking courses. The final sam-
ple consisted of 433 Taiwanese English majors. As is typical in
Taiwan, the majority of these English majors were women, with a
male-female ratio of 71:361 (1 not recorded). Of the 433 partici-
pants, 226 (52.2%) were freshmen, 153 (35.3%) were sophomores,
and 54 (12.5%) were seniors. They ranged in age from 17 to 30,
with an average age of 20.

Instruments

A questionnaire was constructed that consisted of a modified

FLCAS, an adapted SLWAT, and a background questionnaire. The
background questionnaire was designed to obtain not only demo-
graphic data about the participants but also information relevant
to their English learning, such as self-perceived proficiency in
English speaking and writing. Both the FLCAS and the SLWAT
were translated into Chinese. The Chinese-language question-
naire was checked through back-translation, and it was pilot
tested prior to the formal study.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 423

To suit the second language learning situation (EFL) in

Taiwan, several modifications were made on the SLWAT and the
FLCAS. With regard to the SLWAT, “English” or “in English” was
added to items of the original Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension
Test to specify the language referred to and to ensure that the
participants would report their feelings toward second language
writing instead of first language writing. Based on a preliminary
survey of 17 Taiwanese English majors’ descriptions of their most
nervous English writing experience in the spring of 1996, two
additional items were included in the modified SLWAT. One of the
items related to one’s worry about making grammatical mistakes
while writing in the second language, and the other related to one’s
anxiety about lack of ideas. In addition, according to the comments
of those participating in the pilot study, the item “I have no fear
of my English writing being evaluated” was further split into two
more specific items: “I have no fear of my English writing being
evaluated by the teacher,” and “I have no fear of my English
writing being evaluated by people other than the teacher.” In a
like manner, the FLCAS was first adapted to the Taiwanese
context and further modified for the current study based on the
comments collected in the pilot study. The words “language” and
“foreign language” used in the original FLCAS were consistently
replaced with “English.” The language spoken in class was speci-
fied as “English.” For example, the original FLCAS item “It fright-
ens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying” was
modified to “It frightens me when I don’t understand what the
teacher is saying in English.”
The participants’ final course grades for their English speak-
ing and writing classes were used as achievement measurements.
In Taiwan, students’ final course grades are generally assigned
based on their performance in homework, projects, and quizzes,
and, most importantly, in midterm and final exams.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
424 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Procedures

The questionnaire was administered to each target class of

students either by the class instructor or one of the experimenters’
colleagues at the four universities. The participants’ final course
grades for their speaking and writing classes were obtained either
through the class instructors or through the registrar’s office at
the end of the semester.
A Likert-type scale with five possible responses to each of the
questions was used in scoring both the FLCAS and the SLWAT.
The scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
All of the positively worded statements, such as “I would not be
nervous speaking English with native speakers” and “I enjoy
writing in English,” were reverse scored.

Results

Reliability of the FLCAS and the SLWAT

An internal consistency reliability check was computed on

each of the Chinese versions of the FLCAS and the SLWAT.
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the FLCAS computed on 423
participants was .95, while Cronbach’s alpha for the SLWAT
measured on 428 participants was .94. These results indicate that
the Chinese versions of the FLCAS and the SLWAT are satisfac-
torily reliable in terms of their internal consistency.

Relationships Between the FLCAS and the SLWAT

Two analytical approaches were adopted to investigate the

links between the FLCAS and the SLWAT. The first approach
examined the interconstruct associations between the FLCAS and
the SLWAT, specifically the correlations among the FLCAS, the
SLWAT, and their subcomponents. The second approach investi-
gated the internal relationships among the entire pool of items
from the FLCAS and the SLWAT.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 425

Analysis 1: Interconstruct Relationships

We began our analysis by subjecting the FLCAS and the

SLWAT respectively to an exploratory principal components analy-
sis with varimax rotation to explore the component structure that
most adequately represented the constructs underlying each of
the two anxiety measures. Subsequently, Pearson product–moment
correlation coefficients were computed to determine the associations
among the overall FLCAS, the overall SLWAT, and their subcom-
ponents. Correlations among the subcomponents of the two anxi-
ety measures were examined so that highly correlated dimensions
of the two anxiety constructs, if any—which would suggest the
formation a new dimension—could be identified.
Selection of the best rotated solution was based on several
considerations. Cattell’s scree test (Cattell, 1966) was used as an
initial guideline for the selection of the number of components to
be extracted. Extraction of components that were one above and
one below the solution suggested by the scree test was also
examined to identify the solution that came closest to achieving
the goals of accounting for as much total variance as possible while
retaining a conceptually interpretable component structure. In
interpreting a component, an additional criterion was applied: An
item had to have a primary loading of .50 or better and have no
secondary loadings within .20 of the primary loading to be in-
cluded in a component for interpretation purposes.
Principal components analysis of the FLCAS. Based on the
considerations mentioned above, a two-component solution was
selected for the FLCAS. The two selected components accounted
for 43.5% of the total variance.3 Ten FLCAS items were included
in interpreting the first FLCAS component (FLCA1), which ac-
counted for 38.1% of the total variance. Most of these items appear
to have in common a sense of low self-confidence, especially with
respect to speaking English. In particular, the two items (Items 1
and 18) with the highest loadings on this component address one’s
lack of confidence in speaking English (loadings = .77 and .75
respectively), and Items 7 and 23 relate to low personal estimates
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
426 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

of English competence in comparison with others. The remaining

items reflect worry about possibilities of flawed performance
(Items 2, 13, and 31) and anxiety reactions to speaking English
(Items 14, 24, and 27) that might arise from one’s perceptions
of diminished ability. This component was labelled Low Self-
Confidence in Speaking English.
The second FLCAS component (FLCA2), explaining another
5.4% of the total variance, also consisted of 10 items that met the
predetermined criteria. This component seems to characterize
one’s negative thoughts and emotional responses in stressful and
formal English-learning situations. One feature that distin-
guishes FLCA2 from FLCA1 is that FLCA2 is not specifically
related to speaking English. Items 10, 21, 25, and 30 express
concern about potential academic failure in English classes,
whereas Items 4, 15, and 29 depict dread of failing to understand
target language input, which may in turn pose a problem for future
performance and improvement in English. On the other hand,
Items 19, 20, and 33 describe negative affect such as fear of being
asked to respond and being corrected in English classes, and they
reflect students’ anxiety about inadequate classroom perfor-
mance. Therefore, this component was named General English
Classroom Performance Anxiety.
Principal components analysis of the SLWAT. A three-com-
ponent solution, which accounted for 50.9% of the total variance,
was selected for the SLWAT. The first SLWAT component (SLWA1)
contained 12 items that primarily address students’ self-derogation
in relation to English writing. For example, the three items with
the highest loadings on this component (Items 58, 62, and 60) and
Items 54, 59, and 52 relate to negative self-evaluation and reflect
low confidence in writing English. By describing an individual’s
perceived difficulty with and anxiety about the writing process,
the remaining items (Items 41, 43, 49, 57, 63, and 64) largely
suggest the influence of low confidence in one’s experience of
writing in English. This component was assigned the label of Low
Self-Confidence in Writing English.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 427

The second component (SLWA2) comprised seven SLWAT

items (Items 36, 39, 44, 46, 51, 53, and 55) that seem to measure
the degree to which individuals do or do not enjoy writing in
English. Because all of the positive-toned items were reverse
scored at the outset, this component was labelled Aversiveness of
Writing in English to manifest its negative nature.
Lastly, six SLWAT items (Items 37, 38, 40, 48, 56, and 61)
were used to define the third component (SLWA3). After reverse
scoring of positively worded statements, all of the items defining
this component, at heart, reflect individuals’ fear of actual or
potential evaluation of their English writing. This component
appears to constitute an evaluation apprehension dimension.
Correlations among the FLCAS, the SLWAT, and their sub-
components. Based on the results of the above two principal
components analyses, Pearson correlations were computed among
the overall FLCAS, the overall SLWAT, the two FLCAS subcom-
ponents, and the three SLWAT subcomponents. Where the FLCAS
and SLWAT subcomponents were concerned, component scores
(i.e., so-called factor scores) derived from the principal components
analyses of the FLCAS and the SLWAT were used for further
analyses. Table 1 presents the correlation matrix. It should be kept
in mind that because varimax rotation, an orthogonal rotation,
was involved in the extraction of components in this study, the
rotated components within each of the two anxiety scales were
uncorrelated by design.
As displayed in Table 1, the FLCAS (second language class-
room anxiety) had a significant and moderately high correlation
(r = .65) with the SLWAT (second language writing anxiety). In
addition, all of the FLCAS subcomponents had significant corre-
lations with the overall SLWAT, and so did the SLWAT subcompo-
nents with the overall FLCAS. However, the two FLCAS
subcomponents were moderately correlated with the overall
SLWAT, but were highly correlated with the overall FLCAS. Like-
wise, the three SLWAT subcomponents respectively had a higher
correlation with the overall SLWAT than with the overall FLCAS,
although the correlation between SLWA1 and the overall FLCAS
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
428 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Table 1

Correlations Among Overall FLCAS, Overall SLWAT,

and Their Subcomponents

FLCAS SLWAT FLCA1 FLCA2 SLWA1 SLWA2 SLWA3

FLCAS 1.00
SLWAT 0.65*** 1.00
FLCA1 0.72*** 0.51*** 1.00
FLCA2 0.69*** 0.40*** 0.00 1.00
SLWA1 0.55*** 0.68*** 0.31*** 0.47*** 1.00
SLWA2 0.28*** 0.52*** 0.36*** 0.04 0.00 1.00
SLWA3 0.24*** 0.52*** 0.22*** 0.11* 0.00 0.00 1.00
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

was a little higher at .55 than the correlation of SLWA2 and

SLWA3 with the overall SLWAT at .52.
On the other hand, there were nonsignificant or low to
moderate significant correlations between the set of FLCAS sub-
components and that of SLWAT subcomponents. The strongest
correlation was between FLCA2 (General English Classroom
Performance Anxiety) and SLWA1 (Low Self-Confidence in Writ-
ing English), r = .47, probably signalling an element of concern
about personal inadequacy. Overall, the above results suggest that
although the FLCAS and the SLWAT overlap to a noticeable
degree, they are by no means identical to each other. Especially,
with about 22% at the most, the small or moderate amount of
variance shared among the FLCAS and the SLWAT subcompo-
nents indicates that they may represent related but distinguish-
able facets of a larger second language anxiety construct.

Analysis 2: Intraconstruct Relationships

The second analysis pooled all of the FLCAS and SLWAT

items together and subjected them to a single principal compo-
nents analysis followed by varimax rotation. We had dual aims in
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 429

our selection of this analysis approach. One was to explore the

dimensionality of the seemingly more global construct consisting
of both second language classroom anxiety and second language
writing anxiety. The other was to uncover interrelationships
among elements within each measure, thereby clarifying the
relative independence or interdependence between the two anxi-
ety constructs.
The results for the pooled items suggested an interpretable
three-component, four-component, or five-component solution.
The most interpretable solution that met the a priori criteria was
a five-component solution, which closely parallels the results from
analyses of the separate anxiety measures. This solution, reported
in the Appendix, accounted for 48.6% of the total variance. The
first and third components concern second language classroom
anxiety and appear to represent the same dimensions as FLCA1
(Low Self-Confidence in Speaking English) and FLCA2 (General
English Classroom Performance Anxiety). The remaining three
components relate to second language writing anxiety and closely
correspond to SLWA1 (Low Self-Confidence in Writing English),
SLWA2 (Aversiveness of Writing in English), and SLWA3 (English
Writing Evaluation Apprehension).
As a whole, the principal components analysis of the pooled
FLCAS and SLWAT items produced the same picture of the
various subcomponents as the individual FLCAS and SLWAT
analyses. In spite of slight differences in items defining the com-
ponents, the two dimensions underlying the FLCAS and the three
underlying the SLWAT remained intact no matter which approach
was used to analyze them. Together, the two factor analytic ap-
proaches adopted in this study to explore the underlying dimen-
sions of the FLCAS and the SLWAT provide validation for
conceptually disinct underpinnings of second language classroom
anxiety and second language writing anxiety.
What is more, the pattern of results obtained by selecting
other solutions consistently points to the relative distinctness of
the two anxiety constructs. Even in the three- or four-component
solution, no items from the FLCAS and the SLWAT ever loaded
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
430 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

on the same component. In the three-component solution, the

whole FLCAS remained intact as an independent component, the
low-self-confidence dimension of the SLWAT formed a separate
component, and the aversiveness and evaluation apprehension
dimensions of the SLWAT collapsed to form a third component. In
the four-component solution, the FLCAS items separated into the
same two dimensions as in the five-component solution: those
that formed the low-self-confidence component and those that
represented anxiety about classroom performance. Again, the
low-self-confidence component of the SLWAT remained a distinctive
component, whereas aversiveness and evaluation apprehension
dimensions of the SLWAT combined to form another component.

Relationships Between Anxiety and Achievement Measures

For the purpose of further understanding the unique proper-

ties of the FLCAS and the SLWAT, Pearson product–moment
correlations and multiple regression procedures were employed to
examine the comparative associations of second language class-
room anxiety and second language writing anxiety with second
language speaking and writing achievement. The Pearson corre-
lation procedure was first used to assess the associations of the
various second language anxiety variables—including the overall
FLCAS, the overall SLWAT, and their subcomponents—with two
English achievement measures, that is, English speaking course
grades and English writing course grades.
As reported in Table 2, although the magnitude of the corre-
lations was small, all of the second language classroom anxiety
variables were significantly and negatively correlated with both
English speaking and writing achievement. However, except for
FLCA2 (General English Classroom Performance Anxiety), which
does not necessarily tap anxiety about speaking English, the
classroom anxiety variables tended to have higher correlations
with the speaking course grades than with the writing course
grades. As to the writing anxiety variables, SLWA1 (Low Self-
Confidence in Writing English) and the overall SLWAT had
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 431

Table 2

Correlations Between Anxiety Variables and English

Achievement Measures

English achievement

Anxiety variable Speaking course grade Writing course grade

FLCA1 –.19*** –.12*

FLCA2 –.21*** –.23***
Overall FLCAS –.28*** –.25***
SLWA1 –.18*** –.25***
SLWA2 –.05 –.06
SLWA3 .004 –.13**
Overall SLWAT –.14** –.27***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

significant and negative associations with both English speaking

and writing course grades. In sharp contrast, SLWA2 (Aversive-
ness of Writing in English) was not significantly associated with
either English speaking course grades or English writing course
grades. SLWA3 (English Writing Evaluation Apprehension) had
no significant correlation with English speaking course grades,
but it was significantly correlated with writing course grades. More
importantly, although the magnitude of the correlations was also
quite small, the writing anxiety variables were more highly associ-
ated with English writing achievement than English speaking
achievement.
On the other hand, due caution is needed in interpreting the
low correlations found between anxiety and achievement mea-
sures in this study because of the restricted variability of the
participants’ speaking and writing course grades. In both courses,
about 30% of the participants scored between 70 and 79 (letter
grade B according to the grading system in Taiwan) and around
60% scored above 80 (letter grade A). More interesting is the
finding of a higher correlation between the participants’ anxiety
levels and self-perceived proficiency than their actual achievement.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
432 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

The overall FLCAS was significantly correlated with the partici-

pants’ self-rating of speaking proficiency at –.53 and with writing
proficiency at –.31. The overall SLWAT had a significant correla-
tion of –.55 and –.26 with self-perceived writing and speaking
proficiency respectively.
The above correlation results reveal that the FLCAS and the
SLWAT variables had different strengths of associations with the
two aspects of English performance under study. The FLCAS
variables had stronger associations with speaking performance
than with writing performance. In contrast, the SLWAT variables
were more related to second language writing performance than
to second language speaking performance.
Due to the exploratory nature of this study, a stepwise mul-
tiple regression procedure was used to further investigate which
anxiety measures would more strongly predict the two aspects of
English achievement. For each achievement measure, two sepa-
rate regression analyses were conducted, one using the subcom-
ponents of the FLCAS and the SLWAT as predictors and the other
using only the overall FLCAS and the overall SLWAT as predic-
tors. The former analysis was used to detect which dimensions of
the FLCAS and the SLWAT are more associated with differing
achievement in English speaking and writing. The latter analysis
was intended to provide comparable data to other studies that
treat the FLCAS and the SLWAT as two unidimensional anxiety
measures.
As illustrated in Table 3, the first stepwise multiple regres-
sion analysis regressing English speaking course grades on the
five FLCAS and SLWAT subcomponents yielded two significant
predictors: FLCA2 and FLCA1. FLCA2 (General English Class-
room Performance Anxiety) was the best predictor of English
speaking course grades and accounted for 4.84% of the variance.
FLCA1 (Low Self-Confidence in Speaking English) was the second
significant predictor, explaining an additional 3.97% of the vari-
ance. None of the three SLWAT subcomponents contributed sig-
nificantly to the prediction of the English speaking course grades.
The second stepwise multiple regression analysis of English writing
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 433

Table 3

Summary of the Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of English

Achievement on the FLCAS and SLWAT Subcomponents

F p R Adjusted R2

English speaking course grade

1. FLCA2 20.99 <.0001 .22 .05
2. FLCA1 19.89 <.0001 .30 .08
English writing course grade
1. SLWA1 27.28 <.0001 .25 .06
2. SLWA3 18.00 <.0001 .28 .08
3. FLCA2 14.24 <.0001 .31 .09

course grades on the same five predictors produced three signifi-

cant predictors: SLWA1, SLWA3, and FLCA2. SLWA1 (Low Self-
Confidence in Writing English), being entered as the first
significant predictor, accounted for 6.17% of the variance in En-
glish writing course grades; the second significant predictor,
SLWA3 (English Writing Evaluation Apprehension), accounted for
1.83% of additional variance. Surprisingly, SLWA2 (Aversiveness
of Writing in English), the remaining SLWAT subcomponent, did
not add significantly to the prediction of English writing course
grades. Instead, FLCA2 was the third significant predictor en-
tered in this multiple regression analysis, explaining an addi-
tional 1.38% of the variance.
Table 4 shows that when the overall FLCAS and the overall
SLWAT were used as candidate predictors in the multiple regres-
sion analysis of English speaking course grades, only the overall
FLCAS was entered as a significant predictor, and it accounted for
8.38% of the variance. However, in the stepwise multiple regres-
sion of English writing course grades on the same two predictors,
both the overall SLWAT and the overall FLCAS emerged as
significant predictors, although the overall SLWAT was identified
as the best predictor, with 7.43% of the variance explained. Iden-
tified as another significant predictor, the overall FLCAS slightly
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
434 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Table 4

Summary of the Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses of English

Achievement on the Overall FLCAS and Overall SLWAT

F p R Adjusted R2

English speaking course grade

1. Overall FLCAS 37.75 <.0001 .29 .08
English writing course grade
1. Overall SLWAT 33.30 <.0001 .27 .07
2. Overall FLCAS 18.95 <.0001 .29 .08

improved upon the prediction of English writing course grades by

explaining an additional 0.96% of the variance.
The regression analyses suggest that the overall FLCAS and
FLCA2, the FLCAS dimension that taps general performance
anxiety in second language classes, have a broader relationship
with second language achievement than the overall SLWAT and
its subcomponents, whose associations with second language
achievement tend to be restricted to the writing aspect. However,
it is noteworthy that, in general, the FLCAS and its subcompo-
nents had greater predictive ability in second language speaking
achievement than in writing achievement.

Discussion

Several limitations of this study need to be recognized in

interpreting the results. First of all, inferences drawn from the
results of this study are limited by the nature of the particular
sample used, which consisted solely of English majors in Taiwan.
Replication of the study with different groups of language learners
and in different learning contexts is necessary to understand how
well the results may generalize for non–English majors in Taiwan
or EFL students outside Taiwan. In addition, the results regarding
the underlying structures of the FLCAS and the SLWAT should
be seen as tentative due to the nature of exploratory principal
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 435

components analysis, whose results were essentially affected by

the choices made at every step of the analysis, such as determining
how many components to retain, whether or not to rotate the
components extracted, what kind of rotation should be carried out,
and what loadings should be used for interpreting the components.
To verify or refute the findings of this study, confirmatory factor
analysis is recommended for future research.
Most importantly, the relationship between anxiety and
achievement found in this study should be interpreted with cau-
tion for several reasons. First, the true correlations between the
anxiety and achievement variables were hard to establish because
of the seemingly restricted range of the final course grades as-
signed to the participants. Second, because there were no consis-
tent and explicit grading criteria across the 30 or so instructors
involved in this study, the reliability and validity of the final course
grades as achievement measures were pending. It is also difficult
to know how well the two final course grades reflected the partici-
pants’ actual proficiency in the two lanugage skills of interest.
Third, the use of correlational analyses in this study does not
permit any causal claims about the relationships between anxiety
and final course grades. The lack of controlling for the participants’
actual English proficiency and native language skills also cau-
tions against making simplistic causal inferences about the role
of anxiety in second language learning because of the potential
confounding effects of language aptitude (Sparks & Ganschow,
1995).
Despite its limitations, this study was successful in bringing
more clarity about the nature and relative independence of the
constructs of second language classroom anxiety and second lan-
guage writing anxiety. Although the overall FLCAS and the over-
all SLWAT were more than moderately correlated, items from the
FLCAS and the SLWAT loaded on different components, whether
the entire pool of the FLCAS and SLWAT items were reduced to
an interpretable three-, four-, or five-component solution. This
pattern of results, together with the low to moderate correlations
found among the dimensions of the two anxiety measures, argues
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
436 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

for treating second language classroom anxiety and second lan-

guage writing anxiety as two related yet relatively distinguishable
anxiety constructs. The component structures of the FLCAS and
the SLWAT emerging in this study further detail the distinctive
facets to second language classroom anxiety and second language
writing anxiety that may affect people differently. Some anxious
students in second language classes may be afflicted primarily by
low self-confidence in speaking the target language, whereas
others may be largely influenced by concern about possibilities of
failure, flawed performance, and negative evaluation. By the same
token, some anxious second language student writers may suffer
chiefly from low writing-related self-esteem, some from negative
affect toward the writing activity and some from fear of evalu-
ation.
These facets, in turn, highlight several of the factors that
have been proposed as contributing to the experience of second
language anxiety, such as fear of evaluation and low self-confidence.
More importantly, the emergence of a low-self-confidence dimen-
sion as the first component of both the FLCAS and the SLWAT
indicates that negative self-perception of language competence
plays an important role in these Taiwanese learners’ experience
of second language classroom anxiety and second language writ-
ing anxiety. In fact, these learners’ beliefs about their English
speaking and writing capabilities were found to be a better pre-
dictor of their anxiety levels than what they were actually capable
of accomplishing, for their self-rated proficiency levels in English
speaking and writing were correlated more highly with their
FLCAS and SLWAT scores than their actual grades in English
speaking and writing courses (r = –.53 and –.55 vs. r = –.28 and
–.27).
These findings offer additional endorsement to many other
quantitative (e.g., Clément, Gardner, & Smythe, 1977; Daly &
Wilson, 1983; MacIntyre, Noels, & Clément, 1997; Pajares &
Johnson, 1993; Truitt, 1995) and qualitative (e.g., Cheng, 1998;
Cohen & Norst, 1989; Price, 1991) studies that have identified an
association between low self-confidence in language ability and
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 437

language-related anxiety. However, it must be noted that self-

confidence is conceptualized differently in this study than in
Clément’s (1980) Social Context Model of second language learn-
ing. In Clément’s model, self-confidence is a higher-order construct
subsuming both second language use and classroom anxiety and
self-evaluations of second language proficiency. In this study,
self-confidence was subsumed as a subcomponent of the larger
second language classroom anxiety or second language writing
anxiety construct. Given the intertwined relationship between
self-identity and language (Cohen & Norst, 1989), further re-
search is clearly required for an unequivocal resolution of the
subsuming/subsumed issue, if there is any.
Regardless of whether low self-confidence is subsumed under
the construct of language anxiety or vice versa, the evidence of a
consistent association between low self-confidence and anxiety
encourages a serious consideration of the role low self-confidence
might play in students’ expectations about second language learn-
ing, especially their experience of second language anxiety. In
terms of Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory of emotional behav-
ior, those who believe they are capable of managing specific im-
pending dangers or threats have little reason to fear or avoid them;
those who doubt their ability will easily give up, feeling vulnerable
and anxious. In the context of second language learning, we could
hypothesize that students with low self-confidence might tend to
underestimate their ability to learn a second language and have
negative expectations about their performance, thereby feeling
insecurity or anxiety in the face of the language learning tasks
(MacIntyre, Noels, & Clément, 1997). They are likely to cope with
their anxiety less effectively and easily disengage from the anxiety-
producing tasks (Aida, 1994; Carver & Scheier, 1992), which would
probably in turn impair their progress in language learning,
further undermining their self-confidence. A vicious circle might
thus begin. Pedagogically, the identification of the link between
low self-confidence and anxiety underscores the importance of
providing a nonthreatening and supportive instructional environ-
ment where a boost to learners’ self-confidence is likely to occur.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
438 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Another noteworthy finding concerns the nature of the two

anxiety constructs under study. The apparently stronger associa-
tion of the FLCAS with second language speaking achievement,
consistent with Wu’s (1994) finding, appears to lend support to
Aida’s (1994) claim that the FLCAS is a measure of anxiety
“primarily” related to speaking situations. Nevertheless, the fact
that the FLCAS, as well as its General English Classroom Perfor-
mance Anxiety dimension, was also related to and had significant
predictive ability in second language writing achievement sug-
gests that the FLCAS is more than a measure of second language
speaking anxiety; it is probably a measure of learners’ broader
concerns about second language classes. Second language class-
room anxiety, as defined by the FLCAS in this study, thus seems
to represent a more general type of anxiety about learning a
second language in a formal education context, with a strong
speaking anxiety element. In contrast, second language writing
anxiety, as operationalized by the SLWAT, appears to be a language-
skill-specific anxiety because it not only had a higher correlation
with writing achievement, but also had significant predictive
ability in this aspect only.
The relative distinctness of the SLWAT from the FLCAS, as
discussed above, and in particular, the division of writing-related
and speaking-related low-self-confidence dimensions in the five-
component solution selected for the analysis of the pooled FLCAS
and SLWAT items suggest individual differences in language
skills that may elicit anxiety (speaking vs. writing in this case).
That is to say, some language learners may feel particularly
anxious about speaking in the second language, and some about
writing. It is also possible that reading and listening tasks may
provoke different levels of anxiety in second language learners.
Among others, the discrepancy between a learner’s first and second
language competence in different skill areas, a language learner’s
varied experiences in acquiring each of the four language skills,
and his or her history of success and failure in performing each
skill might lead to differentiated attitudes, emotions, and expecta-
tions about each of the language skills. Language-skill-specific
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 439

anxiety might well be one of the negative emotions and attitudes

formed during the process of second language learning.
Recent research on second language anxiety appears to sup-
port the existence of language-skill-specific anxiety. In addition to
a clear recognition of speaking anxiety and writing anxiety, docu-
mentation of second language listening comprehension anxiety
(Vogely, 1998) and reading anxiety (Saito, Horwitz, & Garza, 1999)
has begun to surface. This trend is encouraging because it fore-
shadows the development of more sensitive and appropriate mea-
surement instruments that can diagnose learners’ anxiety
problems more accurately, a prerequisite to more effective inter-
ventions. It further promises use of multiple measurements in
exploring the relationships among various facets of second lan-
guage anxiety and different aspects of second language achieve-
ment, which might be masked otherwise. More importantly,
scrutiny of different types of second language anxiety, either
quantitative or qualitative, might well contribute to further ad-
vancement in understanding the foundations of second language
anxiety. Specifically, a close examination of the differences and
commonalities of the underlying mechanisms that define each of
these anxieties and the situational characteristics that enhance
them might shed greater light on the nature and components of
an overarching second language anxiety construct, leading to a
more refined theoretical model. This study took a first step in this
direction. Further research on the nature and effects of other types
of second language anxiety is desirable to gain a better under-
standing of what second language anxiety is and how it functions
in second language learning.
Revised version accepted 05 February 1999

Notes
1
Because writing anxiety and writing apprehension are usually used inter-
changeably in the literature, no attempt is made to distinguish these two
terms in this study, although “writing apprehension” seems to have gained
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
440 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

popularity in more recent research due to the extensive studies conducted by

Daly and his colleagues, who coined the term.
2
The 35 participants in the study were international students coming from
11 countries (Korea, mainland China, Taiwan, Mali, Argentina, Brazil, Saudi
Arabia, etc.) with various native languages (Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Por-
tugese, Arabic, etc.).
3
Because separate analyses of the FLCAS and the SLWAT gave broadly the
pattern of loadings seen in a combined analysis of the FLCAS and the SLWAT,
only the rotated matrix for the combined analysis is reported in full in the
Appendix. Results of the separate principal components analysis are avail-
able from the first author on request.

References

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, 155–168.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavior
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bannister, L. (1992). Writing apprehension and anti-writing: A naturalistic
study of composing strategies used by college freshmen. San Francisco:
Mellen Research University Press.
Bloom, L. Z. (1980, March). The composing processes of anxious and non-
anxious writers: A naturalistic study. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication,
Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 559)
Burgoon, J., & Hale, J. L. (1983a). Dimensions of communication reticence
and their impact on verbal encoding. Communication Quarterly, 31,
302–311.
Burgoon, J., & Hale, J. L. (1983b). A research note on the dimensions of
communication reticence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 238–248.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1992). Confidence, doubt, and coping with
anxiety. In D. G. Forgays, T. Sosnowski, & K. Wrzesniewski (Eds.), Anxiety:
Recent developments in cognitive, psychophysiological, and health research
(pp. 13–22). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In R. B.
Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp.
174–243). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cheng, Y.-s. (1998). A qualitative inquiry of second language anxiety: Inter-
views with Taiwanese EFL students. In J. Katchen & Y. Liung (Eds.), The
Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching
(pp. 309–320). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 441

Cheng, Y-k. (1994). The effects of attitudinal, motivational, and anxiety factors
on the English language proficiency of Taiwanese senior high school
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Ath-
ens.
Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a
second language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language:
Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Clemént, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in
second language acquisition: A study of Francophones learning English.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 9, 123–133.
Cohen, Y., & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence, and loss of self-esteem:
Affective barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Jour-
nal, 20, 61–77.
Daly, J. A. (1977). The effects of writing apprehension on message encoding.
Journalism Quarterly, 54, 566–572.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instru-
ment of writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9,
242–249.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975b). Further studies in writing apprehension:
SAT scores, success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses,
and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 250–256.
Daly, J. A., & Shamo, W. G. (1976). Writing apprehension and occupational
choice. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 55–56.
Daly, J. A., & Shamo, W. G. (1978). Academic decisions as a function of writing
apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 119–126.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A., & Witte, S. P. (1988). Writing apprehension in the
classroom context. In B. A. Rafoth & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), The social
construction of written communication (pp. 147–171). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and
personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327–341.
Dickson, F. (1978). Writing apprehension and test anxiety as predictors of ACT
scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, West Virginia University, Morgan-
town.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witte, S. P. (1981). The role of writing apprehension
in writing performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research,
75, 16–21.
Fleming, N. K. (1985). What teachers of composition need to know about
writing apprehension. Unpublished master’s report, University of Texas,
Austin.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
442 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Fowler, B., & Ross, D. (1982). The comparative validities of differential

placement measures for college composing courses. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 42, 1107–1115.
Garcia, R. J. (1977). An investigation of relationships: Writing apprehension,
syntactic performance, and writing quality (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona
State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 77, 4211.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The
role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gungle, B. W., & Taylor, V. (1989). Writing apprehension and second language
writers. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:
Empowering ESL students. New York: Longman.
Hadaway, N. L. (1987). Writing apprehension among second language learn-
ers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, College
Station.
Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of
a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559–562.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (Eds.). (1991). Language anxiety: From theory
and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995a). How does anxiety affect second language learning?
A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79, 90–99.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995b). On seeing the forest and the trees: A rejoinder to
Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79, 245–248.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second language
learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39,
251–275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Language anxiety: Its relation to
other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Lan-
guage Learning, 41, 513–534.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Methods and results in the study
of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language
Learning, 41, 85–117.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of
second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language
Learning, 47, 265–287.
Masny, D., & Foxall, J. (1992). Writing apprehension in L2. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 020 882)
Pajares, M. F., & Johnson, M. J. (1993, April). Confidence and competence in
writing: The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 443

Research Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-

vice No. ED 358 474)
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test
performance and attitudes. Modern Language Journal, 76, 14–26.
Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experiences of foreign language anxiety:
Interviews with anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.),
Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp.
101–108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Proulx, P. (1991). Anxiety in language learning: Recognition and prevention.
Canadian Journal of Native Education, 18, 53–64.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading
anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review
of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129–142.
Selfe, C. L. (1981). The composing processes of four high and four low writing
apprehensives: A modified case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Texas, Austin.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal
factors in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern
Language Journal, 79, 235–244.
Stafford, L., & Daly, J. A. (1984). Conversational memory: The effects of
instructional set and recall mode on memory for natural conversations.
Human Communication Research, 10, 379–902.
Truitt, S. N. (1995). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of
Korean university students learning English. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Texas, Austin.
Vogely, A. J. (1998). Listening comprehension anxiety: Students’ reported
sources and solutions. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 67–80.
Wu, C. (1994). Communication apprehension, anxiety, and achievement: A
study of university students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Wu, Y. (1992). First and second language writing relationship: Chinese and
English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University,
College Station.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does
language anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75,
426–439.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
444 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

Appendix

Varimax Rotated Loadings for Five-Factor Solution for the Pooled

FLCAS and SLWAT

Components
I II III IV V

Component I: Low Self-Confidence in

Speaking English
1a I never feel quite sure of myself .72 .30 .13 .19 .04
when I am speaking English in my
English classes.
18a I feel confident when I speak .70 .18 .18 .26 .09
English in English classes.
27a I get nervous and confused when .69 .18 .38 .16 .13
I am speaking English in my
English classes.
a
24 I feel very self-conscious about .67 .18 .21 .20 –.00
speaking English in front of
other students.
9a I start to panic when I have to .64 .11 .34 .02 .11
speak English without preparation
in English classes.
13a It embarrasses me to volunteer .59 .10 .32 .15 .14
answers in my English classes.
31a I am afraid that the other students .59 .18 .34 .15 .15
will laugh at me when I
speak English.
14a I would not be nervous speaking .58 .05 .06 .14 .23
English with native speakers.
2a I don’t worry about making .51 .08 .18 .08 .15
mistakes in English classes.

Component II: Low Self-Confidence in

Writing English
62b I’m not good at writing in English. .21 .73 .12 .24 .19
60b I don’t think I write in English as
well as most other people. .19 .71 .22 .09 .10
58b When I hand in an English .15 .69 .29 .07 .19
composition, I know I’m going to
do poorly.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert 445

59b It’s easy for me to write good .18 .65 .07 .12 .13
English compositions.
b
54 I expect to do poorly in English .09 .63 .20 .11 .14
composition classes even before I
enter them.
57b I have a terrible time organizing .12 .60 .33 .04 .12
my ideas in an English
composition course.
50b People seem to enjoy what I write .27 .53 –.00 .23 .15
in English.
52b I never seem to be able to clearly .22 .53 .09 .08 .10
write down my ideas in English.

Component III: General English

Classroom Performance Anxiety
25a English classes move so quickly I .26 .24 .59 .23 –.06
worry about getting left behind.
30a I feel overwhelmed by the number .18 .12 .59 .34 .09
of rules I have to learn in order
to speak English.
4a It frightens me when I don’t .28 .09 .58 .02 .13
understand what the teacher is
saying in English.
21a The more I study for an English .07 .19 .55 .11 –.01
test, the more confused I get.
29a I get nervous when I don’t .28 .19 .54 –.03 .11
understand every word the English
teacher says in English.
a
15 I get upset when I don’t understand .21 .18 .53 –.04 .05
what the English teacher is
correcting in English.
19a I am afraid that my English .24 .06 .50 .03 .28
teacher is ready to correct every
mistake I make.

Component IV: Aversiveness of Writing

in English
53b Writing in English is a lot of fun. .09 .36 .03 .66 .23
55b I like seeing my thoughts on paper .18 .14 .00 .66 .20
in English.
b
51 I enjoy writing in English. .20 .31 .05 .66 .25
39b I look forward to writing down my .10 –.04 –.03 .64 .28
ideas in English.
 14679922, 1999, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00095 by University College London UCL Library Services, Wiley Online Library on [24/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
446 Language Learning Vol. 49, No. 3

46b I like to write my ideas down .29 .18 –.01 .64 .15
in English.
44b Expressing ideas through writing .04 .15 .26 .60 .08
in English seems to be a waste
of time.

Component V: English Writing

Evaluation Apprehension
38b I have no fear of my English .09 .28 .18 .21 .72
writing being evaluated by people
other than the teacher.
61b I don’t like my English .19 .27 .19 .13 .64
compositions to be evaluated.
40b I am afraid of writing essays in .20 .25 .20 .26 .60
English when I know they will
be evaluated.
37b I have no fear of my English writing .03 .30 .23 .27 .59
being evaluated by the teacher.
56b Discussing my English writing with .16 .26 –.01 .35 .57
others is an enjoyable experience.
Note. Included in this table are the FLCAS and SLWAT items used for
interpreting the components.
aItems that come from the FLCAS. bItems that come from the SLWAT.