English Language Anxiety: A Case Study on Undergraduate ESL Students in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The level of foreign language anxiety and the factors leading to the English anxiety level among English students were explored using a sequential mixed method with semi-structured interviews and survey. The interview was the main research tool to learn about students’ coping strategies in dealing with English language anxiety, while the survey was aimed to provide additional information to support the qualitative data. The questionnaire and the interview questions were adapted from Horwitz et al.’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). The participants of the study (11 interviewees and 33 questionnaire respondents) were selected purposively from the “Basic English” of a private university students in Malaysia. Analysis of the findings revealed that the students’ of Basic English were “slightly anxious” because of Fear of Negative Evaluation (m=3.16), “slightly anxious” about Communication Apprehension (m=3.07), “slightly anxious” about tests (Test Anxiety, m=3.02), and “not very anxious” about being in the Basic English class (m=2.9). Therefore, overall, the students were “slightly anxious”. The most common coping strategies used by Basic English students were “enquiring friends and lecturer”, “referring to sources such as Google and dictionaries”, “self-helping”, “self-motivation”, “positive thinking”, “shifting focus”, “doing revision”, “listening and understanding”, “self-reflect”, “trying to perform”, “calming down”, “acceptance, exercise”, “taking time to think”, “entertainment”, and “land laugh back to hide embarrassment”. Language educators are advised to prioritize their students’ social and emotional needs by removing or lessening the obstacles and challenges that the students go through when learning English by creating relaxed and non-threatening setting for the teaching and learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".