The Influences of the English Article Knowledge, Writing Self-Efficacy, and

General English Ability upon Foreign Language Writing Anxiety

英文冠詞知識與寫作自我效能和一般英語能力
對以英語為外語學習之寫作焦慮的影響

Hung-Tsung Hsu (Graduate Student)

Curriculum and Instruction Department
Barry University

Hsin-Yi Huang (Corresponding Author)

Applied English Department
I-Shou University

Ruth Ban, Samuel S. Perkins

Curriculum and Instruction Department
Barry University

ABSTRACT

Grammar acquisition is to help students understand the meanings of utterances or written

paragraphs in second or foreign languages. After students understand the utterances or written
paragraphs, correct grammar competence or grammatical knowledge may enable students to
produce meaningful and understandable oral or written responses in second or foreign languages.
The debate between explicit and implicit grammar teaching is a debate of type of instruction in
foreign language education. The purpose of this research study is to discuss the influences of
the knowledge of the English article system, writing self-efficacy, and general English ability
upon foreign language writing anxiety. The review of the literature on foreign language
anxiety and foreign language writing anxiety shows that the need to expand the understanding of
foreign language writing anxiety is indeed in existence. About the issue on the comparison
between explicit and implicit grammar teaching and the taxonomy of educational objectives, it
presents to foreign language practitioners an urgent need to introduce the perspectives on
affective aspects of foreign language education into the effort of exploring efficient pedagogies.
In addition, concerning the relationship between general English ability and foreign language
anxiety and foreign language writing anxiety, it indicates the contradictory results of previous
studies.

Keywords: Foreign Language Writing Anxiety, English Article Knowledge, Writing Self-Efficacy

231
INTRODUCTION

Krashen’s five hypotheses (1981) are the natural order hypothesis, the acquisition vs.
learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter
hypothesis. One of the five hypotheses is that there are differences between second language
acquisition and learning. Second language learners acquire language through a subconscious
process during which they are unaware of grammatical rules. On the other hand, language
learning is the result of direct instruction in the rules of language. In language learning,
students have conscious knowledge of a new language and can talk about the language rules.
Since Krashen proposes this hypothesis, researchers debate various issues relating to formal
instruction of and informal exposure to second languages. One of the arguments is whether
explicit grammar teaching is helpful to second language acquisition. Many research articles
relevant to this topic have been published (e.g., Radwan, 2005; Robinson, 1997; Rosa & O’Neil,
1999). However, no relevant research articles have considered influences of explicit grammar
teaching on affective aspects of second language acquisition.
In the case of English as a foreign language education, even if students learn much
knowledge of the English language and acquire ability to perform well, the learned results and
acquired ability cannot last long, unless students continue to pursue further developments, based
upon the learned results and acquired ability. This continuous effort needs the affective drive.
The application of the acquired knowledge and competence of the English language skills will
make the knowledge and competence more practical in the future development of the language.
This application needs motivation to initiate varieties of acquisition activities beyond the scope
of the regular curriculum and instruction within the classroom settings. Language acquirers
have to deal with language anxiety that affects acquisition. Thus, this research study inquires
into three issues relevant to foreign language writing anxiety-- the knowledge of the English
article system, writing self-efficacy, and foreign language proficiency.

Statement of the Problem

Benjamin Bloom (1956) and Krathwohl et al. (1964) formulates taxonomy of educational
objectives, which includes cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects of educational
objectives. From the taxonomy students can grasp the objectives related to affective aspects of
foreign language education, so their curriculum and instruction can contribute to both cognitive
and affective gains advancing students’ acquisition. Taxonomy is a framework that helps
teachers to organize and categorize the extensive and comprehensive educational objectives and
narrow them down to specific daily guidelines for instruction (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997).
Many of the type-of-instruction research studies focus on cognitive achievement, which
cannot guarantee the acquisition of the target language features over a long period of time.
Educators need to focus their attention and efforts upon a more comprehensive range that
includes both cognitive and affective domains.
When Bloom (1956) and Krathwohl et al. (1964) propose their taxonomies, the connection
between the taxonomy of the educational objectives in the affective domain is not clear, until
Freudenstein (1992) stresses the importance of Howard Gardner’s interpersonal intelligence
(1983) as a vital role in the language classroom. The interpersonal intelligence is an example of
affective ability. The affective aspects of foreign language education include not only personal
preference or dislike, but also the cultivation of knowledge and skills related to self-motivation,

232
self-encouragement, confidence, attitude, and the treatment against anxiety.

Theoretical Framework

Collins and Bissell’s (2004) finding about the significantly positive correlation between
grammar performance and language self-efficacy is the theoretical framework of this study.
Collins and Bissell’s article explores the relationship between the components of the linguistic
and affective aspects of language acquisition. The linguistic aspect of language acquisition
consists of pronunciation, sentence patterns, and meaning, which are relevant to phonology,
syntax, and semantics. The affective aspect of language acquisition includes motivation,
anxiety, attitude, confidence, self-efficacy, self-concept, and self-esteem.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Formal Instruction and Informal Exposure to Second/Foreign Languages

One of the most asked questions in the field of language teaching is whether grammar
should be taught explicitly. Formal instruction refers to the pedagogy that instructors teach
grammar explicitly. Informal exposure is equal to implicit grammar teaching, both of which are
in consistence with content-based instruction and task-based instruction. In the literature,
formal instruction aligns with form-focused instruction and explicit grammar teaching.
Schwartz (1993) takes against explicit grammar teaching is that both corrective feedback on
errors and explicit grammar instruction are essentially ineffectual in grammar building, because
corrective feedback and explicit grammatical knowledge are learned consciously but not
acquired unconsciously. He believes that the learned language knowledge and acquired
linguistic competence are stored in different locations in humans’ brains. Thus, the learned
language knowledge and the acquired linguistic competence separate from each other and cannot
interact with each other. This matches what Krashen maintains as the non-interface claim,
which implies that only comprehensible input, but not consciously learned knowledge, can lead
to acquisition (Krashen, 1985). The position of Krashen corresponds with that of Schwartz and
Sprouse (1996) in their full transfer full access model of second language acquisition. The full
transfer means that second language learners’ initial cognitive status about the second language is
the same as the status about their first languages. In other words, the second language learners’
comprehension of the linguistic features of their first languages could be transferred completely
and fully to their understanding of the second language. The full access means that the
application of universal grammar applicable to the second language learners’ first language is
completely available in their second languages. The task that the second language learners need
to do is resetting the parameterized universal principles. For instance, in English, the
prepositions are always in front of their objects; in contrast, the prepositions in Japanese are
always behind their objects. Because the conducive tasks involved in second language
acquisition is only resetting the parameters, corrective feedback to errors of second language
learners are not important, even harmful to the acquisition of the second language.
On the contrary, Felix (1981) opposes communicative language teaching. Felix indicates
that the possibility of manipulating and controlling classroom conditions to simulate the process
of acquiring a target language is quite limited. In search for approaches to address pragmatic

233
problems, which mainly concern the difficulty connecting target forms and meanings in a foreign
language, Oller (2005) adopts a neutral position emphasizing both forms and contents in a
foreign language, by highlighting the importance of the referential relations between target forms
and particular persons, things, events, and relations in the world of experience. Marriage
customs could be an example. Adults are usually more familiar with the marriage customs in
their own cultures than in remote cultures, so they usually read faster, understand and remember
more than the adults from other cultures do, when they read articles concerning the marriage
customs of their own culture, even in a foreign language. This viewpoint is similar to the
concepts of content and formal schemata. In brief, content schemata refer to the background
knowledge related to life experience and cultures of foreign language learners; whereas, formal
schemata are the rhetorical features and organization of oral or written utterances (Carrell, 1987;
Chu, Swaffar, & Charney, 2002).
Furthermore, Cross (2002) emphasizes the importance of awareness of learning processes,
in contrast with Krashen’s hypothesis that implicit linguistic competence is acquired
unconsciously. According to Cross, noticing is the necessary step for second or foreign
language input to be transformed into intake, no matter whether the noticing is intentional or
unintentional. Awareness is equivalent to consciousness, which enables the intake to be saved in
short-term memory and to be further processed to be stored in long-term memory. Once the
input is stored in long-term memory, the learned input becomes acquired linguistic competence.
In the discussion of the optimal linguistic environment for second language learners,
Krashen (1976) advances his argument about the difference between acquired competence and
learned knowledge. According to Krashen, informal linguistic environments, which involve
active regular language use, affect acquired competence; in contrast, formal linguistic
environments, which usually including presentation of phonological, syntactic, semantic rules,
and error correction, only affect learned knowledge. In Krashen’s conclusion, the informal
environments help learners obtain more successful achievements than the formal environments
do. The successful achievements mean the extent to which the learners of a second or foreign
language can communicate efficiently.
Cognitive linguists maintain a different viewpoint about second language acquisition
against Krashen’s acquisition/learning and monitor hypotheses. Bialystok (1978) acknowledges
the existence of implicit linguistic competence and explicit linguistic knowledge, which are
consistent with the terms of acquired language competence and learned language knowledge;
however, she argues that formal practicing, such as verbal drills found in a second language
class, contributes to explicit and implicit linguistic ability. Therefore, these strategies can
enhance students’ acquired language competence in comprehending and producing spontaneous
utterances or writings in a target language. O’Malley et al. (1987) contrast Bialystok’s
statement with Krashen’s hypotheses and indicate Krashen’s monitor model does not
acknowledge the contributions of explicit linguistic knowledge and learning to lead to
acquisition because the function of learning is to act as a monitor of the learner’s output.
Bialystok believes that conscious learning from formal practicing helps transform explicit
linguistic knowledge into implicit linguistic competence. Bialystok also believes that learning
strategies are the principal influence on second language acquisition.
Dekeyser (2003) states that explicit grammar teaching can help second language learners
focus their attentions to the taught target forms, but not acquire the target forms. On the
contrary, Spada and Lightbown (2008) and Ellis (2006) confirm the effectiveness of explicit
grammar teaching.

234
 Moreover, Ellis (2006) addresses the problem whether foreign language instructors should
teach grammar explicitly or simply create the conditions by which learners learn naturally. It
confirms the overall effectiveness of explicit grammar teaching, although some minor suspicion
still remains about the measure of acquired grammar knowledge.
The main issue of the debates between explicit and implicit grammar teaching have been
based upon the effect on the improvements of students’ grammar knowledge (Cramer, 2004;
Tompkins, 2002). The advocates of explicit grammar teaching posit that students receiving
explicit grammar teaching obtain higher scores on grammar tests than students receiving implicit
grammar teaching do. The advocates of implicit grammar teaching argue for the existence of
implicit grammar knowledge, which students receiving implicit grammar teaching acquire, but
cannot demonstrate on standardized grammar tests. Han and Ellis (1998) explore ways of
measuring implicit and explicit grammar knowledge. Lund and Light (2003) measure the effect
of an instructional program on the acquisition and maintenance of the skills acquired. They
detect the differences between the explicit and implicit grammar knowledge, but they do not
consider the affective aspects of grammar acquisition. Despite the fact that there are many
researchers concentrating upon grammar performance and grammar pedagogy, but very few
mention the influences that explicit grammar teaching could have upon affective aspects of
second language acquisition.
Affective aspects in language acquisition include emotions, feelings, moods, or attitudes.
The other aspect of language acquisition is cognitive. When both aspects are heeded, the
acquisition process could be constructed on a firmer foundation. In contrast, in the case of the
presence of negative emotions such as anxiety, fear, stress, anger, or depression, foreign
language learners’ optimal acquisition potentials may be compromised (Arnald & Brown, 1999).

The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Krathwohl et al. (1964) propose the taxonomy that pertains to affective aspects of
educational objectives. It has five main items: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and
characterization by value or value complex. Hauenstein (1998) replaces the fourth and fifth
item with believing and behaving. Believing is the action by students to trust and commit
themselves to individual values, formed in the previous step valuing to an extent to form a
principle and adhere to that principle. Behaving is the application of the principle or a set of the
principles to language courses. Receiving is the case that students control their attention to a
selected event, selected by students themselves, related to curriculum and instruction, which
triggers the production of students’ feeling, value, or beliefs. Furthermore, responding refers to
the situation that students are willing to respond to the previously selected event and assess their
feelings about what is received and their responses to it. Concerning responding, Brown (2006)
states two features that lead to success in language learning. Students who believe that the
outcomes in their language learning depend on their actions and choices are more likely to obtain
successful experiences in language learning. Students who understand how to utilize the skills
of self-motivation and self-encouragement to reduce anxieties and persevere with unceasing
effort are more likely to achieve significant success.
In addition, valuing is the students’ mental activity with which they accept, prefer, and
confirm their experiences relevant to the selected events in the first step receiving and the second
step responding and form a rule for reference in the future. Strictly speaking, valuing contains

235
the elements of the affective and cognitive aspects in foreign language learning. Students need
to have the cognitive ability to comprehend and receive the relevant information and knowledge
from the learning process and be aware of the experience. Another possible situation is that
students are not equipped with the comprehending ability to receive knowledge or information
relevant in classes; therefore, they do not respond to, and neither do they value the knowledge or
information.
Moreover, organization is the process in which students contrast and compare different
values, resolving conflicts between them, and beginning the building of an internally consistent
broader value system, substituting for the originally separate values. Priorities appear in the
broader integrated value system, other than the originally separate values, in the stage of
organization. Characterization by a value or value system means the level in which students
have established value systems. These value systems can control their behaviors for a
sufficiently long time for students to develop characteristic “life-styles.”

Foreign Language Anxiety

Anxiety is commonly described by psychologists as a state of apprehension, a fear that is

indirectly associated with an object. General anxiety can be divided into two categories: state
anxiety and trait anxiety. General anxiety is an emotional reaction resulting from perception of
a particular situation as threatening under ambiguous and symbolic conditions. The construct
of general anxiety are usually negative and debilitating. Occasionally, anxiety could function as
a motivator (Meyers & Martin, 1974). State anxiety is a transitory phenomenon which a
particular task in certain contexts causes to produce in the mind of an individual. Generally
speaking, state anxiety is not stable and should diminish after the responsible task in the contexts
is finished. Trait anxiety is relatively stable and it does not involve a particular object or
situation (Cambre & Cook, 1985). Although state anxiety should diminish after the causes
disappear, this is not always the case for an individual with state anxiety. Sometimes, the state
anxiety stays and changes into trait anxiety, and the trait anxiety exhibits chronic symptoms.
Language anxiety is a situation-specific anxiety, which happens in second or foreign
language learning (Gardner, 1985; Horwitz et al., 1986). The unwillingness to communicate
and language anxiety of foreign language learners are significantly negatively correlated. That
is, anxiety influences foreign language learners’ willingness to communicate (Liu & Jackson,
2008). Foreign language anxiety includes the features such as fear of evaluation, negative
affection toward certain aspects of communication, and avoidance of certain kinds of social
exchange. According to Cheng (2004), foreign language writing anxiety and foreign language
classroom anxiety are related but independent constructs. Language anxiety or foreign
language anxiety is a more general type of anxiety, whereas foreign language writing anxiety is a
language-skill-specific anxiety (Cheng, 1999).

Assessment of Anxiety

Assessment of anxiety is through the use of instruments. The instruments for foreign
language anxiety assessment are Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope’s (1986) Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) and Daly and Miller’s (1975) Revised Writing Apprehension
Scale for Second/Foreign Language Learning. Daly and Miller (1975) advance the term

236
“writing apprehension” to profile the malfunction of learners’ writing processes in first
languages. Their writing apprehension scale for second or foreign language acquisition is the
instrument that addresses foreign language writing anxiety. Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert
(1999) explore the details of the components of second/foreign language writing anxiety, in
contrast with the components of general second/foreign language anxiety. Furthermore, Cheng
(2002) aims to enrich the knowledge about second/foreign language writing anxiety by
investigating the association between second/foreign language writing anxiety and the aspects of
learners’ individual characteristics, such as self-confidence, self-perceptions of competence,
genders, and grade levels. Cheng discovers that characteristics such as self-confidence and
self-perceptions of competence are significantly negatively correlated to second/foreign language
writing anxiety.

Relationship between Grammar Performance, Grammar Self-Efficacy, and Anxiety

Collins and Bissell (2004) claim that grammar performance could be related to foreign
language writing anxiety through grammar self-efficacy. They try to determine how confident
the participants in their study are with their grammar skills and whether self-efficacy in their
grammar abilities is a predictor of performance. The results indicate that there is a positive
correlation (r = 0.29, p < 0.01) between performance and self-efficacy.
Besides, Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2006) inquire into the relationship between
self-efficacy, anxiety, and language proficiency in reading and listening. The result shows that
efficacy beliefs play a central role in regulating anxiety arousal (Bendura, 1997).

Other Variables Relevant with EFL Writing Anxiety

It is generally believed that females and males display different social behavior, cognitive
ability, and verbal ability (Bacon & Finnemann, 1992). According to Reynolds (1998), the
female outscores the male on the assessment scales of various types of anxiety in the past
research studies. The recent research relevant to gender and language learning includes
Williams and Andrade’s (2008), and Rezazadeh and Tavakoli’s (2009) reports. Williams and
Andrade (2008) discover that the effect and response to anxiety are associated with gender.
Williams and Andrade confirm that males more than females feel they could exert positive
influence on the situation causing their anxiety. Rezazadeh and Tavakoli (2009) investigate the
relationship among test anxiety, gender, academic achievement, and years of study. The result
shows that the female students have a higher level of test anxiety in contrast to the male students.
There are a few studies discussing the differences between females and males in foreign
language writing anxiety. Aida (1994) and Chang (1996) report that gender do not play a role
in the development of foreign language anxiety. Both Aida and Chang investigate the
relationship between foreign language anxiety and gender difference, but they do not find any
significant differences in anxiety levels between males and females. The recent research by
Dewaele (2007) also indicates that gender had no effect on the production of foreign language
anxiety.
However, Campbell (1999) detects that the male foreign language learners, rather than the
female learners, demonstrate higher level of language anxiety after two weeks of intensive
instruction. In contrast, Cheng (2002) has the contrary result that her female research

237
participants show higher level of foreign language writing anxiety. Salim’s (2004) study of the
relationship between foreign language anxiety and the achievement of the target language shows
that gender is a significant predictor of foreign language anxiety. Ravinder et al. (2009) claim
that their subjects are significantly more academic oriented in their attitude toward learning
English as a foreign language, and demonstrates higher level of language anxiety.
As for the effects of foreign language proficiency upon foreign language anxiety and
foreign language writing anxiety, there exists concrete and significant correlation between them
(Horwitz, 2000; Sparks & Ganschow; 2007). Onwuegbuzie et al. indicate (2000) that foreign
language anxiety is the second best predictor (R2=10.5%), next to academic achievement
(represented by GPA, R2=11.5%), of foreign language achievement. Abu-Rabia (2004) also
obtains a significantly negative correlation between anxiety and foreign language achievement.
In addition, Bernaus and Gardner (2008) advocate that language anxiety is a negative predictor
of foreign language achievement. Though Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2007) believe that
self-efficacy is a better predictor than foreign language anxiety; the correlation between foreign
language anxiety and the foreign language achievement is still significant. Marcos-Llinás and
Garau (2009) claim that the most advanced foreign language learners show the highest levels of
anxiety. In other words, students with higher level of anxiety do not necessarily exhibit lower
academic achievement in comparison with students with lower level of language anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The articles and books regarding foreign language anxiety and foreign language writing
anxiety have been reviewed. The researcher has also reviewed the literature related to the
comparison between explicit grammar teaching and implicit grammar teaching, the taxonomy of
educational objectives, the relationship between general English ability and foreign language
writing anxiety, and the relationship between gender and foreign language writing anxiety. The
review of the literature on foreign language anxiety and foreign language writing anxiety shows
that the need to expand the understanding of foreign language writing anxiety is in existence.
The review of the literature on the comparison between explicit and implicit grammar teaching
and of the taxonomy of educational objectives presents to foreign language practitioners an
urgent need to introduce the perspectives on affective aspects of foreign language education into
the effort of exploring efficient pedagogies. In addition, the review of the literature on the
relationship between general English ability and foreign language writing anxiety indicates the
contradictory results of previous studies. Therefore, the investigation aiming to discover the
relationship between general English ability and foreign language writing anxiety in specific
contexts is necessary. The review of the relationship between gender and foreign language
writing anxiety also suggests that more studies are needed in order to find further truth about this
relationship.

238
References
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Honvitz, Honvitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language
anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modem Language Journal, 78, 155-68.
Abu-Rabia, S. (2004). Teachers' role, learners' gender differences, and FL anxiety among
seventh-grade students studying English as a FL. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 711-721.
Bacon, S. M. C., & Finnemann, M.D. (1992), Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about
language learning and authentic oral and written input. Language Learning, 42(4), 471-495.
Bendura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. C. (2008). Teacher motivation strategies, student perceptions,
student motivation, and English achievement. The Modern Language Journal, 92(3),
387-392.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28,
69-84.
Bloom, B. S. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I cognitive domain. New
York: Mckay.
Brown, J. (2006). Locus of learning and affective strategy use: Two factors affecting success in
self-instructed language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 640-659.
Cambre, M. A., & Cook, D. l. (1985). Computer anxiety: Definition, measurement, and
correlates. Educational Computing Research,1(1), 37-54.
Campbell, C. M. (1999). Language anxiety in men and women: Dealing with gender difference
in the language classroom. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second
language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere
(pp.191-215). Boston: McGraw-Hill College.
Carrell, P.L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3),
461-481.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chang, G. B. Y. (1996). A study of anxiety in Chinese EFL learners. Teaching & Research, 18,
67-90.
Cheng, Y. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and
preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 313-335.
Chu, H. C. J., Swaffar, J., & Charney, D. H. (2002). Cultural representation of rhetorical
conventions: the effects on reading recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 511-541.
Collins, S. J., & Bissell K. L. (2004). Confidence and competence among community college
students: Self-efficacy and performance in grammar. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 28, 663-675.
Cramer, R. (2004). Language arts: A balanced approach to teaching reading, writing, listening,
talking and thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cross, J. (2002). Noticing in SLA: Is it a valid concept? Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language-Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 6(3), A-2. Retrieved from
http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej23/a2.html.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing

239
 apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249.
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 247-297.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughy & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook
of second language learning (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2007) Predicting Language Learners' Grades in the L1, L2, L3 and L4: The
Effect of Some Psychological and Sociocognitive Variable. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 4(3), 169-197.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Felix, S. W. (1981). On the (in)applicability of Piagetian thought in language learning studies.
Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 179-192.
Freudenstein, R. (1992). Communicative peace. English Today, 31, 3-8.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language
proficiency. Language Teaching Research , 2(1), 1-23.
Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A conceptual framework for educational objectives: A holistic
approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Horwitz, E. K. (1982). The relationship of conceptual level to communicative competence in
French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 65–73.
Horwitz, E. K. (2000). It ain’t over ’til it’s over: On foreign language anxiety, first language
deficit, and the confounding of variables. The Modern Language Journal 84, Readers’
forum, 256-259.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to
classroom implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Jackman, M. R. (1978). General and applied tolerances: Does education increase commitment to
racial integration. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 302-324.
Krashen, S. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and
language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10, 157-68.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Retrieved
December 05, 2006, from Web
site: http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issue and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the
classification of educational goals: Handbook II affective domain. New York: Mckay.
Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to

240
 communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 71–86.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition (pp.
15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2003). The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who
use augmentative and alternative communication systems. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 46, 1110-1123.
Marcos-Llinás, M., & Garau, M. J. (2009). Effects of Language Anxiety on Three
Proficiency-Level Courses of Spanish as a Foreign Language. Foreign Language Annals,
39, 94-111.
Meyers, J., & Martin, R. (1974). Relationship of state and trait anxiety to concept learning
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 33-39.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy,
anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals,
39(2), 276-295.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C.(2007). Self-efficacy of College Intermediate French
Students: Relation to Achievement and Motivation. Language Learning 57(3), 417–442.
Oller, J. W. (2005). Common ground between form and content: The pragmatic solution to the
bootstrapping problem. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 92–114.
O’Malley, J., Chamot, A., & Walker, C. (1987). Some applications of cognitive theory to Second
Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(3), 287-306.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Cognitive, affective, personality, and
demographic predictors of foreign-language achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 94(1), 3-15.
Radwan, A. A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning.
System, 33, 69-87.
Ravinder, K., Laura, R., Sittichai, K., & Suthee, P. (2009). Multiple goal orientations and foreign
language anxiety. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied
Linguistics, 37(4), 676-688.
Reynolds, C. R. (1998). Need we measure anxiety differently for males and females? Journal of
Personality Assessment, 70(2), 212-221.
Rezazadeh, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2009). Investigating the relationship among test anxiety, gender,
academic achievement and years of study: A case of Iranian EFL university students.
English Language Teaching, 2(4), 68-74.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and
explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45–99.
Salim, A.-R. (2004). Teachers' role, learners' gender differences, and FL anxiety among
seventh-grade students studying English as a FL. Educational Psychology, 24 (5),
711-721.
Scher, A., & Sharabany, R. (2005). Parenting anxiety and stress: Does gender play a part at 3
months of age? Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166 (2)203-213.
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and
affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,
147-163.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Acess

241
 model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40-72.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety
research. Language Learning, 28, 129–142.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M.(2008). Form-focused instruction isolated or integrated. TESOL
Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the foreign language classroom anxiety scale
measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 260-288.
Tompkins, G. (2002). Language arts: Patterns of practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Williams, K. E., & Andrade, M. R. (2008). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese EFL
university classes: Causes, coping, and locus of control. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 5(2), 181–191.

242