The Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication on Foreign ...

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong> on Foreign 

Language Anxiety in Heritage and Non-Heritage Students <strong>of</strong> 

Spanish: A Preliminary Investigation 

MICHAEL TALLON 

University <strong>of</strong> the Incarnate Word 

F 

<strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this study was to examine if heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish experience 

foreign language anxiety in a second-semester Spanish class and, if so, compare that with 

the levels <strong>of</strong> foreign language anxiety found in non-heritage students. <strong>The</strong> study also 

examined whether computer-mediated communication had an effect on anxiety levels, 

both for heritage students and non-heritage students. A questionnaire assessing foreign 

language anxiety was administered as a pretest and posttest. <strong>The</strong>re were three groups <strong>of</strong> 

students: traditional class/face-to-face conversations (control group), small groups <strong>of</strong> 

asynchronous computer-mediated communication (experimental group A), and one large 

group <strong>of</strong> asynchronous computer-mediated communication (experimental group B. <strong>The</strong> 

control group had regular face-to-face discussions in the classroom. Experimental groups 

A and B had electronic, asynchronous discussions using BlackBoard. <strong>The</strong> findings show 

that heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish experienced less foreign language anxiety than nonheritage 

students. Furthermore, the use <strong>of</strong> computer-mediated communication can reduce 

learners‟ anxiety levels. <strong>The</strong> size <strong>of</strong> the asynchronous computer-mediated 

communication group did not seem to affect the overall anxiety scores, although the large 

group did cause heritage students to experience higher levels <strong>of</strong> anxiety than non-heritage 

students. 

oreign language teachers have long sought new and better ways to help their students 

learn the foreign/second language. One area that has provided much excitement is the use <strong>of</strong> 

computers and, specifically, computer-mediated communication (CMC). Research has shown 

that CMC can provide many benefits to the second language learner. One area that has not been 

investigated much yet is the ability <strong>of</strong> CMC to reduce anxiety, although there are a few studies 

available (see Arnold, 2002; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Beauvois, 

1995, 1999). 

<strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this study is tw<strong>of</strong>old: to determine if heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish 

experience foreign language anxiety, and to determine the effects <strong>of</strong> asynchronous computermediated 

communication (ACMC) on the anxiety levels <strong>of</strong> heritage and non-heritage students <strong>of</strong> 

Spanish. This study is significant because <strong>of</strong> the increasing number <strong>of</strong> heritage students 

enrolling in first-year Spanish courses. Because they are different from the traditional foreign 

language student – and thus have different needs – it is important to investigate how teachers can 

attend to their affective needs as well. <strong>The</strong> Review <strong>of</strong> the Literature section will discuss 

computer-mediated communication, asynchronous computer-mediated communication, foreign 

language anxiety and computer-mediated communication, and definitions <strong>of</strong> heritage students <strong>of</strong> 

TPFLE Vol.13, No.1, Fall/Winter 2009 39

Spanish. This will be followed by a description <strong>of</strong> the research methodology and a presentation 

<strong>of</strong> the results and their implications. 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 

<strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong> 

<strong>Computer</strong>-mediated communication has been heralded as providing several potential 

benefits to the foreign language classroom. It has been suggested that CMC encourages learners 

to engage in meaningful interactions and authentic exchanges in the target language (Chun, 

1994; Warschauer, 1996; Warschauer & Meskill, 2000; Blake, 2000; van Lier, 2000; Stockwell 

& Harrington, 2003; Pica, 1987; Ellis, 1999). Warschauer (1997) concludes that “the textmediational 

view links the concepts <strong>of</strong> expression, interaction, reflection, problem-solving, 

critical thinking, and literacy with the various uses <strong>of</strong> talk, text, inquiry and collaboration in the 

classroom” (p. 472). Blake (2000) adds: “Providing students with increased opportunities to 

engage in negotiations…could direct language teachers to accord CMC a more expanded role in 

the L2 curriculum” (p. 132). 

A second benefit <strong>of</strong> CMC is more equal participation by students. Warschauer (1996) 

compared face-to-face discussions and electronic discussions and found a tendency toward more 

equal participation in the computer mode, with “the overall participation rate twice as equal in 

electronic discussion as in face-to-face discussion” (p. 20). Bump (1990), Beauvois (1998, 

1999), Kelm (1992) and Kim (1998) also report more student participation using CMC. Sullivan 

& Pratt (1996) report a 100% participation rate for a CMC class versus 50% for an oral class. 

Warschauer (1997), in his review <strong>of</strong> the CMC literature, states that a greater amount <strong>of</strong> student 

participation using CMC has been found according to three measures: (1) percentage <strong>of</strong> student 

talk versus teacher talk, (2) directional focus <strong>of</strong> student talk (toward other students or toward the 

teacher), and (3) equality <strong>of</strong> student participation. Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts (1996) 

concluded that computer learning networks have the potential to empower students by promoting 

student autonomy, increasing classroom equality, and helping students develop a critical learning 

perspective. 

Some studies have shown that students who <strong>of</strong>ten feel marginalized, or students who 

might be shier, in traditional classroom discussions become more active in a networked 

classroom. Sullivan (1998) illustrated how computer exchanges can promote the self-esteem <strong>of</strong> 

minority students and build a discourse community within their composition class. Sullivan 

found more participation by minorities and concluded that they were able to define themselves 

by their communicative skills. Warschauer (1996) also reported increased participation via 

CMC for certain nationality groups (Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese). Markley (1998) 

reports that cultural backgrounds have an effect on participation in the classroom and that CMC 

can help equalize the participation; in his study, Asians and women participated more via CMC 

than in the traditional classroom. 

Another benefit is the use <strong>of</strong> more sophisticated language in CMC. Chun (1994) found 

that learners who participated in computer-assisted classroom discussions (CACD) performed a 

number <strong>of</strong> different interactional speech acts (including initiating and responding to simple 

statements, asking and answering questions, and using greetings/farewells) and took the initiative 

more than they did in the normal classroom. Chun suggests that the written competence gained 

from CACD can gradually be transferred to the students‟ spoken discourse competence. Other 

2 40 

TPFLE

studies have also found a greater level <strong>of</strong> sophistication among students who used networked 

computers for class discussions (Kern 1995, Beauvois 1998). Warschauer (1996) concludes that 

the results <strong>of</strong> his study “suggest that electronic discussion can be a good environment for 

fostering use <strong>of</strong> more formal and complex language, both lexically and syntactically” (p.22). 

Beauvois (1998) concludes that electronic discussions show favorable results in the areas <strong>of</strong> 

quantity, quality, and greater student participation and, therefore, that “the slowing down <strong>of</strong> the 

communicative process seems to bridge the gap between oral and written communication for a 

number <strong>of</strong> students, allowing them to benefit more fully from the language learning process” 

(213). 

Asynchronous computer-mediate communication (ACMC) refers to communication that 

does not take place in real time (as opposed to synchronous computer-mediated communication - 

SCMC). Examples <strong>of</strong> ACMC include e-mail and posting messages to an electronic discussion 

board. Stockwell & Harrington (2003) note several advantages <strong>of</strong> e-mail interaction: (1) 

learners have more time to focus on the linguistic cues; (2) learners have more time to 

comprehend and then respond; and (3) learners may feel less anxiety than is common in face-t<strong>of</strong>ace 

settings “where considerations <strong>of</strong> saving face can heighten learner anxiety” (p. 351). 

Kroonenberg (1994/1995) states that e-mail “encourages students to use computers in realistic 

situations so that they can develop communicative and thinking skills. Even the technologically 

phobic language teacher can become adept at engaging students to use e-mail in skill 

development” (p. 24). 

Some researchers have found that the size <strong>of</strong> the group can have an effect on CMC, 

possibly leading to anxiety. For example, Beauvois (1995) found that students expressed 

frustration at trying to keep up with discussion with a large number <strong>of</strong> students and preferred to 

form their own small discussion groups on the network. Other researchers (e.g., Bump, 1990; 

Colomb & Simutis, 1996; Kelm, 1992) noted that one disadvantage <strong>of</strong> CMC is that with large 

groups the conversation can produce a large body <strong>of</strong> text, thus making it difficult to keep up with 

the conversation. Warschauer (1997) refers to this as “information overload,” as participants 

become overwhelmed with the number <strong>of</strong> messages. One student in Bump‟s (1990) study stated 

that “it gets frustrating sometimes when a [chat room conversation] gets really busy and you 

would have no time to type anything in if you worried about reading absolutely everything” (p. 

61). To overcome such problems, Beauvois (1992) recommends having many small 

conversations and Bump (1990) recommends limiting the size <strong>of</strong> each group to no more than 

four or five people. 

Foreign Language Anxiety 

Several researchers have suggested that the use <strong>of</strong> CMC has the potential to reduce 

anxiety associated with learning a foreign/second language. Anxiety can be defined as “the 

subjective feeling <strong>of</strong> tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal <strong>of</strong> 

the autonomic nervous system” (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, p. 125; from Spielberger 

1983). “Foreign Language Anxiety,” first proposed by Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986), can be 

defined as “a distinct complex <strong>of</strong> self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to 

classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the language learning process” (p. 

128) and is made up <strong>of</strong> communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear <strong>of</strong> negative 

evaluation (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986). 

Most researchers accept the idea that foreign language anxiety is a situation-specific 

anxiety related to the language learning context and that it can play a significant causal role in 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND CMC 41

creating individual differences in language learning. Horwitz (2001) notes that several studies 

have found foreign language anxiety to be largely independent <strong>of</strong> other types <strong>of</strong> anxiety. 

Some researchers believe that CMC can create an environment in which foreign language 

anxiety is reduced. Kroonenberg (1994/1995) states that “the most timid language students can 

come alive while creating meaningful communication via the keyboard and screen” (p. 24). 

Kern (1995) reported that most students enjoyed CMC, with some evidence <strong>of</strong> reduced anxiety. 

Warschauer (1996) states that students reported “that they did not feel stress during electronic 

discussion” (p. 16). Sullivan & Pratt (1996) state: “Hypothetically, the networked classroom 

would <strong>of</strong>fer the less pr<strong>of</strong>icient speaker more time to think about what to „say,‟ thus reducing 

anxiety and the probability <strong>of</strong> error” (p. 492). 

In a descriptive study on students‟ attitudes and motivation on E-talk, Beauvois (1995) 

reports that over 70% <strong>of</strong> the students felt that the computer lab was much less anxiety-provoking 

than the regular classroom and 73% indicated that they would like to spend more time working 

in the lab. Based on 76 student interviews from all levels <strong>of</strong> classes over a three-year period, 

Beauvois (1999) reports that student responses to CMC were unanimously positive on the 

question <strong>of</strong> stress/anxiety; students also commented on the social aspects <strong>of</strong> CMC and how it 

creates a sense <strong>of</strong> community and a socially supported environment. Beauvois concludes: 

“What we do know now is that…we can use networked computers in our classrooms without 

activating anxiety in our students and without inhibiting their participation” (p. 162). 

González-Bueno & Pérez (2001) explored the significance <strong>of</strong> the overall effect <strong>of</strong> using 

e-mail in the quantity and accuracy <strong>of</strong> Spanish written language generated by the electronic 

media through dialogue journals compared to the paper-and-pencil version <strong>of</strong> the technique. 

Qualitative analysis revealed that a majority (86%) <strong>of</strong> the experimental students believed the 

assignment had improved their attitude towards the language, and half <strong>of</strong> them felt that the email 

journal had some advantages over its paper-and-pencil counterpart (including learning to 

communicate, self-monitoring, using technology appropriately, finding the assignment fun); on 

the other hand, only one third <strong>of</strong> the control subjects claimed that this practice was 

communicative, creative, meaningful and one that produced low anxiety. 

Arnold (2002) investigated the relationship between CMC and foreign language anxiety 

in five sections <strong>of</strong> third-semester German classes (N=56) with SCMC, ACMC, and a traditional 

face-to-face class. She found that students‟ self-ratings <strong>of</strong> their anxiety and self-confidence 

levels during each discussion did not change significantly between the three treatment groups 

(although 29% <strong>of</strong> the students experienced moderate levels <strong>of</strong> anxiety and 19% experienced high 

levels <strong>of</strong> anxiety); all groups generally enjoyed the group discussions, although the e-mail group 

(ACMC) provided some negative feedback (due to the lag time); in all three treatment groups, 

students displayed significantly lower levels <strong>of</strong> anxiety after the study (although modality did not 

have any effect on these changes). Arnold suggests using e-mail exchanges for writing practice 

instead <strong>of</strong> electronic discussions. 

In a later study, Arnold (2007) investigated the relationship between CMC and 

communication apprehension (one aspect <strong>of</strong> the foreign language anxiety construct proposed by 

Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986). Data from pretest and posttest questionnaires showed no 

significant differences in a reduction <strong>of</strong> communication apprehension between the control and 

experimental groups. 

Perez (2003) found that students who used ACMC (e-mail in this study) “had more time 

to think and elaborate while writing their weekly email message; consequently, average students 

2 42 

TPFLE

felt more relaxed during this activity” (p. 94). She concluded that both modes <strong>of</strong> CMC (i.e., 

ACMC and SCMC) created a nonthreatening atmosphere and lowered the affective filter. 

<strong>The</strong> Spanish students in Lee‟s (2004) study <strong>of</strong> online discussions experienced anxiety 

when communicating with native speakers at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the semester, as they felt that their 

limited Spanish did not allow them to fully express their ideas. <strong>The</strong>y were also afraid to make 

mistakes. 

Heritage Students <strong>of</strong> Spanish 

A heritage student refers to “a language student who is raised in a home where a non- 

English language is spoken, who speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to some 

degree bilingual in that language and in English” (Valdés 2001). <strong>The</strong>re are several reasons to 

focus on heritage students, especially heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish. According to Campbell & 

Peyton (1997), “Interest in this student population has been triggered by major demographic 

changes in this country…Most heritage language speakers (43 percent) are Hispanic 

Americans…This group is now the fastest growing and most diverse population group in the 

United States” (p. 38). Consequently, their enrollments in universities are picking up all over the 

country. Fishman (1966) argues that heritage languages are a national resource that should be 

preserved and encouraged. Van Deusen-Scholl (2003) states: “<strong>The</strong> events <strong>of</strong> September 11, 

2001, underscored the critical need for language competence in strategic languages…Given the 

nation‟s expressed need for strategic linguistic competence, rethinking the role that heritage 

learners can play is advisable” (p. 215). 

Draper & Hicks (2000) note that “heritage language learners are different from the 

traditional foreign language student” (p. 20), and, therefore, “the instructional goals <strong>of</strong> the 

heritage learner may clash with those <strong>of</strong> the program in which they seek instruction” (Van 

Deusen-Scholl, 2003, p. 223). This has led researchers to try to develop a theoretical foundation 

for heritage language instruction (Valdés, 2001). 

Webb and Miller (2000) point out that heritage language students are pr<strong>of</strong>icient in their 

language in ways that foreign language learners, and sometimes even their foreign language 

teachers, are not and may never be. At the same time, they may have gaps in their knowledge <strong>of</strong> 

their heritage languages that foreign language learners do not have, and these gaps prevent them 

from performing certain kinds <strong>of</strong> communicative tasks, reading and writing in particular. As a 

result, when teachers attempt to apply a standard foreign language curriculum and foreign 

language teaching strategies to the teaching <strong>of</strong> a heritage language, it can lead to discomfort, if 

not frustration and failure, for both students and teachers alike. Foreign language learners and 

heritage language learners are two different groups <strong>of</strong> students, each with their own needs. 

Campbell and Rosenthal (2000) provide several characteristics <strong>of</strong> a “typical” heritage 

language learner: (1) they have acquired nearly 90% <strong>of</strong> the phonological system <strong>of</strong> their 

ancestral language; (2) they have acquired 80% to 90% <strong>of</strong> the grammatical rules; (3) they have 

acquired extensive vocabularies, although the semantic range is limited to a few sociocultural 

domains; (4) they have typically acquired appropriate sociolinguistic rules; (5) they have learned 

and adopted many <strong>of</strong> the customs, values, and traditions (i.e., the culture) <strong>of</strong> their community; (6) 

they rarely have opportunities to gain literacy skills in their ancestral languages; and (7) they 

present a wide range <strong>of</strong> reasons for wanting to study their ancestral languages. It should be noted 

that their proposed hypotheses need to be validated by empirical evidence collected from both 

heritage students and non-heritage students in future research. 

Peyton, Ranard and McGinnis (2001) make the point that heritage language learners also 

differ from traditional foreign language learners in that many heritage language learners are 


dealing with deeply felt issues <strong>of</strong> identity. Krashen (2000) adds: “Heritage language [HL] 

speakers are in a no-win situation in foreign language classes. If they do well, it is expected. If 

HL speakers do not do well in foreign language classes, the experience is especially painful” (p. 

441). This can result in a lack <strong>of</strong> motivation, low academic achievement, high absenteeism, and 

a high percentage <strong>of</strong> dropouts. 

Roca (2000) points out that many heritage students use Spanish at home and with peers, 

but lack formal training in the language and have a limited bilingual range. As a result, their 

literacy skills in Spanish (most obviously, their non-standard spelling), their registers, 

vocabulary, and general ease and fluency with the language, need attention and expansion. 

Gutiérrez (1997) states: “<strong>The</strong> foreign language teaching pr<strong>of</strong>ession should clearly understand 

that these students need an approach that builds on what they bring to the classroom rather than 

one that begins at ground zero” (p. 34). 

Heritage Students and Foreign Language Anxiety 

Although many studies have been conducted on the effects <strong>of</strong> foreign language anxiety 

on second language learners, most <strong>of</strong> this research has been done with the more “traditional” 

foreign language learners. To date little research has been conducted on its effects on heritage 

students. However, there is some anecdotal evidence. For example, Levine (2003) looked at 

student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and 

anxiety. He states that the findings in his study suggest that “students who come from bi- or 

multilingual backgrounds may tend to feel less anxious about TL [target language] use than 

students from monolingual backgrounds” (p. 354). Mejías, Applbaum, Applbaum and Trotter 

(1991) found that some <strong>of</strong> the Hispanic students in their study experienced anxiety when 

speaking Spanish, especially in more formal, less personal contexts. 

Tallon (2003) found that the mean anxiety score on the Foreign Language Classroom 

Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope, 1986) was significantly higher for nonheritage 

students (cf. 104.6) than for heritage students (cf. 87.1) in first-semester Spanish classes. 

It was noted in that study that the anxiety score for the heritage students was somewhat high 

(considering that no anxiety is represented by a score <strong>of</strong> thirty three). In a later study, Tallon 

(2004) found that the mean anxiety score on the FLCAS for heritage students in a secondsemester 

Spanish class was 97.0, considered “mildly anxious.” In addition, this study showed 

that heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish can also experience other types <strong>of</strong> anxiety, including listening 

anxiety, reading anxiety, and writing anxiety. Finally, it was suggested that the anxiety could 

lead to less language output, both orally and in writing, and both in terms <strong>of</strong> quantity <strong>of</strong> language 

and quality in language, for the heritage students. 

In a qualitative study <strong>of</strong> self-assessed anxious heritage and non-heritage learners, Coryell 

& Clark (2009) examined how and why some adult learners experienced anxiety while studying 

Spanish online. <strong>The</strong>ir participants experienced anxiety because their previous language learning 

experiences enforced the concept <strong>of</strong> language as performance, with a focus on grammatical 

correctness and precision. <strong>The</strong>y concluded that “the findings <strong>of</strong> this study suggest that 

traditional instructional practices online and a lack <strong>of</strong> social language interaction will likely 

underserve anxious, interculturally minded learners” (p. 499), advocating instead for personal 

and sociocultural connections and intercultural communications as the focus <strong>of</strong> online language 

courses. 

2 44 

TPFLE

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

<strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this study is to determine if “foreign language anxiety” (Horwitz, Horwitz 

& Cope 1986) exists for heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish, and, if so, compare that with the levels <strong>of</strong> 

foreign language anxiety found in non-heritage students. <strong>The</strong> study will also examine if CMC – 

specifically, asynchronous CMC – has an effect on foreign language anxiety. <strong>The</strong> following 

research questions will be addressed: 

1. Do heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish experience foreign language anxiety in a 

second-semester language classroom? If so, how does their level <strong>of</strong> foreign 

language anxiety compare to the level <strong>of</strong> foreign language anxiety found in 

non-heritage students? 

2. Do students (both heritage students and non-heritage students) experience a 

reduction in foreign language anxiety by using asynchronous CMC (ACMC)? 

3. If so, does the size <strong>of</strong> the ACMC group (i.e., small or large) have an effect on 

the level <strong>of</strong> anxiety? 

METHODOLOGY 

Participants 

Participants came from two sections <strong>of</strong> second-semester Spanish (Elementary Spanish II) 

at a private American university in the southwest. Both classes were taught by the same teacher, 

who had been teaching Spanish for approximately ten years. One class had 22 students and the 

second class had 9 students. Because <strong>of</strong> absences, the final numbers were 19 students in the first 

class and 7 students in the second class (N=26). All subjects were 18 years or older (13 males 

and 13 females; average age = 22.5 years). Based on self-assessments, 15 students identified 

themselves as heritage students and 11 identified themselves as non-heritage students. 

Procedure 

<strong>The</strong>re were three groups <strong>of</strong> subjects: traditional class/face-to-face conversations (control 

group; n=7), small groups <strong>of</strong> ACMC (experimental group A; two groups <strong>of</strong> three students each 

and two groups <strong>of</strong> two students each; n=10), and one large group <strong>of</strong> ACMC (experimental group 

B; n=9) (see Table 1 for a breakdown <strong>of</strong> subjects). Students were randomly assigned to each 

group. <strong>The</strong> control group participated in regular face-to-face discussions in the classroom during 

the scheduled class period. 

Table 1 

Subjects 

Total Heritage Non-Heritage 

Students Students Students 

Control Group 7 4 3 

Experimental Group A 10 6 4 

Experimental Group B 9 5 4 

TOTAL 26 15 11 


Experimental groups A and B participated in electronic, asynchronous discussions (i.e., 

an e-mail bulletin board) using Blackboard outside <strong>of</strong> class. <strong>The</strong> topic for all groups was 

activities done in childhood, focusing on the Imperfect (past tense) in Spanish. <strong>The</strong> assignment 

for the ACMC groups consisted <strong>of</strong> three parts: on the first day (Monday), students entered the 

forum in Blackboard for their particular group and posted answers to questions regarding 

activities they used to do in their childhood (the questions came from an activity in their 

textbook); on the second day (Wednesday), students responded to answers posted by their group 

members (e.g., stating why they liked a particular answer, asking for more details, replying with 

a similar story <strong>of</strong> their own); and on the third day (Friday), students voted for their favorite 

response and stated why. All posts were required to be in the target language (Spanish). <strong>The</strong> 

following Monday a discussion was held in class about the responses (letting everyone know 

what the most popular answers were for each group and why). <strong>The</strong> control group did the same 

assignments in the classroom, spending about 10-15 minutes each class period to complete the 

assignment. 

A questionnaire assessing foreign language anxiety was administered to both groups as a 

pre-test and post-test (from Arnold 2002; see Appendix A for the pre-test questionnaire and 

Appendices B and C for additional items on the post-test questionnaires, one for the 

experimental groups and one for the control group) 1 . <strong>The</strong> pre-test questionnaire was designed to 

establish an individual‟s level <strong>of</strong> foreign language anxiety and is an adapted form <strong>of</strong> the “Foreign 

Language Classroom Anxiety Scale” (FLCAS) from Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986) (items 

relating to test anxiety were deleted from the original scale for the adapted scale). <strong>The</strong> post-test 

questionnaire was designed to assess anxiety levels after the treatment, as well as collect 

information about students‟ reactions to the treatments (for the experimental groups) and to the 

classroom group discussions (for the control group). <strong>The</strong> post-test section based on the FLCAS 

was identical with the pre-test questionnaire. Additional items pertaining to the group 

discussions were added to the post-test questionnaire to evaluate students‟ responses to the 

treatments (see questions 20 to 32 on the post-test questionnaires). <strong>The</strong> theoretical range for the 

adapted anxiety scale was 33 to 95; the higher the number, the higher the level <strong>of</strong> foreign 

language anxiety. <strong>The</strong> questionnaires were designed to collect both quantitative data (using 

likert-scale questions) as well as qualitative data (using open-ended questions). Participants also 

provided some background information on the questionnaires. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Research Question #1: Do heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish experience foreign language anxiety in 

a second-semester language classroom? If so, how does their level <strong>of</strong> foreign language anxiety 

compare to the level <strong>of</strong> foreign language anxiety found in non-heritage students? 

Based on the pre-test questionnaire, the heritage students experienced little foreign 

language anxiety, with a mean anxiety score <strong>of</strong> 42.988 (out <strong>of</strong> a range <strong>of</strong> 33 to 95) (see Table 2 

for anxiety scores). <strong>The</strong> non-heritage students experienced a higher level <strong>of</strong> anxiety, with a 

mean score <strong>of</strong> 52.833. Because <strong>of</strong> the small sample size, tests for statistical significance were 

not appropriate. However, these results confirm the findings <strong>of</strong> another study (Tallon, 2003) in 

which the mean anxiety score on the FLCAS was significantly higher for non-heritage students 

(cf. 104.6) than for heritage students (cf. 87.1) (see Table 3, which compares the results <strong>of</strong> that 

study with the results <strong>of</strong> two other studies on foreign language anxiety – Horwitz, Horwitz & 

2 46 

TPFLE

Cope, 1986 and Aida, 1994). It was suggested in that study that perhaps the non-heritage 

students are more anxious in the foreign language classroom due to the presence <strong>of</strong> students who 

already know some Spanish. 

Table 2 

Pre-Test Anxiety Scores 

(Heritage vs. Non-Heritage) 

95% Confidence Interval 

HERITAGE Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 

1 heritage 42.988 4.192 34.294 51.681 

2 non-heritage 52.833 4.724 43.037 62.630 

Table 3 

Comparison <strong>of</strong> Anxiety Studies 

Horwitz, Horwitz 

& Cope (1986) Aida (1994) Tallon (2003) 

Sample Size 108 96 101 

Heritage = 44 (43.6%) 

Non-Heritage = 57 (56.4%) 

Language Level First year First year First semester 

Language Spanish Japanese Spanish 

Cronbach‟s Alpha .93 .94 .96 

Mean 94.5 96.7 96.3 

Heritage = 87.1 

Non-Heritage = 104.6 

Standard Deviation 21.4 22.1 26.8 

<strong>The</strong>se results suggest that heritage students do not seem to suffer much general foreign 

language anxiety in the foreign language classroom. This is not surprising, as many <strong>of</strong> them 

come from a background in which they hear and/or speak the language in the home. On the 

other hand, non-heritage students in this study experienced a higher level <strong>of</strong> anxiety, which is 

also not surprising. <strong>The</strong> difference in anxiety scores between the two groups is about 10 points. 

Because <strong>of</strong> the small sample size, tests for statistical significance were not done. However, these 

results confirm the findings in Tallon (2003), which – based on a much larger group <strong>of</strong> subjects – 

found a statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish and 

non-heritage students. 

Research Question #2: Do students (both heritage students and non-heritage students) 

experience a reduction in foreign language anxiety by using asynchronous CMC (ACMC)? 

As Table 4 and Figure 1 illustrate, there was not much change in the anxiety scores in the 

control group from the pre-test to the post-test (cf. 47.833 to 46.125). However, there was a drop 


<strong>of</strong> about 5 points in the anxiety score <strong>of</strong> the experimental group from pre-test to post-test (cf. 

51.406 to 46.278). 

Table 4 

Pre- and Post-test Anxiety Scores for Control Group and Experimental Groups 

recoded 


group TIME Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 

1.00 Control 1 Pre 47.833 5.807 35.790 59.877 

2.00 

Experimental 

2 Post 46.125 5.442 34.840 57.410 

1 Pre 51.406 3.494 44.160 58.651 

2 Post 46.278 3.274 39.489 53.067 

Figure 1 


Estimated Marginal Means 

52 

51 

50 

49 

48 

47 

46 

45 

Estimated Marginal Means <strong>of</strong> MEASURE_1 

1 

TIME 

2 48 

TPFLE 

2 

recoded group 

Control 

Experimental 

Is there a reduction in foreign language anxiety for heritage students vs. non-heritage 

students? Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrate that neither heritage students nor non-heritage 

students in the control group experienced any change in their anxiety scores from pre-test to 

post-test. Scores for heritage students went from 40.00 to 38.25, while scores for non-heritage 

students went from 55.67 to 54.00. 

However, as shown in Table 5 and Figure 3, there was a difference between heritage 

students and non-heritage students in the experimental groups. While heritage students in the 

experimental groups did not experience much change in anxiety scores from pre-test to post-test 

(cf. 47.70 to 46.00), the non-heritage students did experience a change (cf. 55.11 to 46.56). Once 

again, the small sample size did not allow for tests <strong>of</strong> significant differences.

Table 5 



GROUP2 recoded 

group HERITAGE Mean Std. Deviation N 

SPRETOT 1.00 Control 1 heritage 40.0000 7.39369 4 

2 non-heritage 55.6667 8.08290 3 

Total 46.7143 10.91962 7 

2.00 Experimental 1 heritage 47.7000 16.89214 10 


Total 51.2105 16.75503 19 

Total 1 heritage 45.5000 14.93962 14 


Total 50.0000 15.32580 26 

SPOSTTOT 1.00 Control 1 heritage 38.2500 9.42956 4 


Total 45.0000 11.67619 7 


2.00 Experimental 1 heritage 46.0000 16.25491 10 


Total 46.2632 15.04749 19 

Total 1 heritage 43.7857 14.71879 14 


Total 45.9231 14.00264 26 

Figure 2 

Pre- and Post-test Anxiety Scores for Control Group 


60 

50 

40 

30 


At recoded group = Control 

1 

TIME 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND CMC 49 

2 

HERITAGE 

heritage 

non-heritage


Figure 3 

Pre- and Post-test Anxiety Scores for Experimental Groups 


56 

54 

52 

50 

48 

46 

44 


At recoded group = Experimental 

1 

TIME 

2 50 

TPFLE 

2 

HERITAGE 

heritage 

non-heritage 

<strong>The</strong>se results suggest that the use <strong>of</strong> ACMC did seem to reduce the level <strong>of</strong> anxiety for 

both heritage and non-heritage students in the experimental groups. Anxiety scores dropped 

overall from 51.4 to 46.3 after the treatment. In addition, the ACMC seemed to have more <strong>of</strong> an 

effect on non-heritage students than heritage students. Whereas the anxiety score for heritage 

students went from 47.7 to 46.0 after using ACMC, it dropped from 55.1 to 45.7 for non-heritage 

students. This is not surprising, as the traditional foreign language student who experiences 

foreign language anxiety in the classroom might experience less anxiety in an environment 

where face-to-face contact is avoided and where they are not “put on the spot” in front <strong>of</strong> the 

entire class. 

In the open-ended question at the end <strong>of</strong> the questionnaires, both heritage and nonheritage 

students left comments that noted some beneficial aspects <strong>of</strong> CMC, including enjoying 

the online assignment and feeling more comfortable. According to some non-heritage students: 

“I enjoyed it. Time lag allowed for better preparation and no nervousness <strong>of</strong> face 2 face. 

Was interesting. A good thing.” 

“It was easier to respond on the Blackboard assignment because I had enough time to 

formulate a correct response. I was able to enjoy the assignment due to the time 

allotted.” 

“I thought it was good. We got to know each other, had time to respond, and could do it 

on our own time.” 

“<strong>The</strong> Blackboard assignment helped me to visualize what I was trying to say to my 

group. I would not want to do it all semester but once or twice would be okay.” 

Some <strong>of</strong> the heritage students also left positive comments on the open-ended question: 

“I liked it b/c I had time to prepare a response and did not have to do [it] face to face.”

“Yes I enjoyed the work that I did. I found it a lot more comfortable and easier.” 

“I enjoyed the Blackboard assignment because I had time to think about my answers. 

It‟s good practice.” 

Research Question #3: Does the size <strong>of</strong> the ACMC group (i.e., small or large) have an effect on 

the level <strong>of</strong> anxiety? 

Table 6 shows the anxiety scores from pre-test to post-test for the control group and both 

experimental groups. <strong>The</strong> control group did not show any changes (cf. 47.83 to 46.13). 

However, both experimental groups – the small groups and the large group – experienced about a 

five-point reduction in their anxiety scores from pre-test to post-test. This is shown visually in 

Figure 4. 

Table 6 


recoded 


group TIME Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 

1.00 control 1 Pre 47.833 5.951 35.419 60.248 

2.00 small 

group 

3.00 large 

group 

2 Post 46.125 5.596 34.452 57.798 

1 Pre 51.167 5.030 40.675 61.659 

2 Post 46.208 4.729 36.343 56.073 

1 Pre 52.775 5.227 41.871 63.679 

2 Post 47.325 4.915 37.073 57.577 

Figure 4 



54 

52 

50 

48 

46 

44 


1 

TIME 


2 

recoded group 

control 

small group 

large group

Table 7 and Figures 5, 6, and 7 show this breakdown for heritage students and nonheritage 

students. Heritage students in all three groups experienced a minimal reduction in 

anxiety scores from pre-test to post-test (cf. 40.00 to38.25 for the control group, 44.33 to 43.17 

for the ACMC small groups, and 52.75 to 50.25 for the ACMC large group). Non-heritage 

students in the control group also experienced minimal reduction in anxiety scores from pre-test 

to post-test (cf. 55.67 to 54.00). However, non-heritage students in both experimental groups 

experienced an 8 to 9 point reduction in anxiety (cf. 58.00 to 49.25 for the ACMC small groups 

and 52.80 to 44.40 for the ACMC large group). 

Table 7 




HERITAGE recoded group TIME Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 

1 heritage 1.00 control 1 Pre 40.000 7.792 23.746 56.254 

2 nonheritage 


2.00 small 

group 

3.00 large 

group 

2 Post 38.250 7.327 22.967 53.533 

1 Pre 44.333 6.362 31.062 57.605 

2 Post 43.167 5.982 30.688 55.645 

1 Pre 52.750 7.792 36.496 69.004 

2 Post 50.250 7.327 34.967 65.533 

1.00 control 1 Pre 55.667 8.998 36.898 74.436 

2.00 small 

group 

3.00 large 

group 

2 Post 54.000 8.460 36.353 71.647 

1 Pre 58.000 7.792 41.746 74.254 

2 Post 49.250 7.327 33.967 64.533 

1 Pre 52.800 6.970 38.262 67.338 

2 Post 44.400 6.553 30.731 58.069 

Figure 5 

Pre- and Post-test Anxiety Scores for Control Group 


60 

50 

40 

30 


At recoded group = control 

1 

TIME 

2 52 

TPFLE 

2 

HERITAGE 

heritage 

non-heritage



Figure 6 

Pre- and Post-test Anxiety Scores for Experimental Small Groups 


60 

50 

40 


At recoded group = small group 

1 

TIME 


2 

HERITAGE 

heritage 


Figure 7 

Pre- and Post-test Anxiety Scores for Experimental Large Group 


54 

52 

50 

48 

46 

44 

42 


At recoded group = large group 

1 

TIME 

2 

HERITAGE 

heritage 


Overall the size <strong>of</strong> the ACMC group did not have an effect on anxiety. <strong>The</strong> anxiety 

scores for both the small ACMC groups and the large ACMC group dropped by about five points 

from pre-test to post-test. However, in both groups the anxiety scores dropped more for nonheritage 

students than it did for heritage students. In the small ACMC groups the anxiety score 

dropped by about nine points (whereas it only dropped one point for heritage students) and in the 

large group the anxiety score dropped about eight points (whereas it only dropped about three 

points for heritage students). 

One very interesting finding was that the level <strong>of</strong> anxiety after the ACMC treatment was 

higher for heritage students (cf. 50.25) than for non-heritage students (cf. 44.40) in the large 

experimental group. This was the only instance in this study when the heritage students 

experienced a higher level <strong>of</strong> anxiety than the non-heritage students. One reason may be that 

some <strong>of</strong> the heritage students in this study lacked appropriate literacy skills in Spanish (which is

very common for heritage students, as they usually have not received any formal training in the 

heritage language; see Fishman, 2001; Valdés, 2001; Campbell & Rosenthal, 2000; Klee, 1998; 

Quintanar-Sarellana, Huebner & Jensen, 1993) and this may have caused their anxiety level to be 

higher than that found in the non-heritage students. That is, the heritage students may have been 

anxious because they were worried that their writing skills were not that good and perhaps they 

were being evaluated by their peers. 2 This would be the opposite <strong>of</strong> what they experience in the 

classroom, where they are using the two skills with which they usually have extensive practice: 

listening and speaking. 

CONCLUSION 

<strong>The</strong> present study confirms the notion that heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish experience less 

foreign language anxiety than non-heritage students. Furthermore, it suggests that the use <strong>of</strong> 

computer-mediated communication can reduce learners‟ anxiety levels. This reduction in 

anxiety seems to occur more for non-heritage students, which is what is expected. <strong>The</strong> size <strong>of</strong> 

the ACMC group did not seem to affect the overall anxiety scores, although the large ACMC 

group did cause heritage students to experience higher levels <strong>of</strong> anxiety than non-heritage 

students. 

It is important to note the limitations <strong>of</strong> this preliminary investigation. First <strong>of</strong> all, the 

sample size was small and therefore did not allow for tests <strong>of</strong> statistical significance. <strong>The</strong> results 

are suggestive, but a larger group size needs to be examined for statistical significance. Second, 

a convenience sample was used and thus the intent was not generalization. Third, this study only 

looked at one level <strong>of</strong> instruction (second semester). Finally, the treatment was fairly short (only 

lasting one week). 

This study provides several implications for teaching. First <strong>of</strong> all, as pointed out in 

Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986), teachers need to help students learn to cope with foreign 

language anxiety and also need to try to make the learning context less stressful. <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> 

this study suggest that the use <strong>of</strong> CMC can help with this task, especially for non-heritage 

students. It is also suggested that teachers work more on literacy skills with heritage students. 

Arnold (2002) recommends the use <strong>of</strong> e-mail for writing practice, which would be perfect for 

heritage students who need to focus on their literacy skills. 

This study also provides several areas for future research. First, it is necessary to 

replicate this study with a larger sample size and with a longer treatment period (e.g., using 

ACMC throughout an entire semester). Second, anxiety should be investigated in these groups 

<strong>of</strong> students at different levels <strong>of</strong> instruction (e.g., beginning students vs. intermediate students vs. 

advanced learners). It may be that the use <strong>of</strong> CMC is more appropriate for more advanced 

students. Third, other areas <strong>of</strong> anxiety should be examined (e.g., reading anxiety, writing 

anxiety), as well as how CMC can affect these areas. Finally, including a qualitative approach 

(e.g., informal interviews with students) would probably provide rich data input as to what 

students actually think about foreign language anxiety and the use <strong>of</strong> CMC in the foreign 

language classroom. 

2 54 

TPFLE

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Michael Tallon (Ph.D., University <strong>of</strong> Texas at Austin) is an Assistant Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> Spanish at the 

University <strong>of</strong> the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Texas. His research interests include foreign 

language anxiety, heritage students <strong>of</strong> Spanish, Spanish as a heritage language, and the Spanish 

<strong>of</strong> San Antonio. 

REFERENCES 

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination <strong>of</strong> Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope‟s Construct <strong>of</strong> Foreign Language 

Anxiety: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> Students <strong>of</strong> Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 78, 155-168. 

Arnold, M.N. (2002). <strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong>: Writing to Speak without Foreign 

Language Anxiety? Doctoral dissertation; University <strong>of</strong> Texas, Austin. 

Arnold, N. (2007). Reducing Foreign Language <strong>Communication</strong> Apprehension with <strong>Computer</strong>- 

<strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong>: A Preliminary Study. System, 35(4), 469-486. 

Beauvois, M.H. (1992). <strong>Computer</strong>-assisted Classroom Discussion in the Foreign Language 

Classroom: Conversation in Slow Motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464. 

Beauvois, M.H. (1995). E-Talk: Attitudes and Motivation in <strong>Computer</strong>-Assisted Classroom 

Discussion. <strong>Computer</strong>s and the Humanities, 28, 177-190. 

Beauvois, M.H. (1998). Conversations in Slow Motion: <strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong> in 

the Foreign Language Classroom. <strong>The</strong> Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198- 

217. 

Beauvois, M. (1999). <strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong>: Reducing Anxiety and Building 

Community. In D. Young (Ed.), Affect in Foreign Language and Second Language 

Learning: A Practical Guide to Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Atmosphere (pp. 

144-165). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College. 

Blake, R. (2000). <strong>Computer</strong> <strong>Mediated</strong> <strong>Communication</strong>: A Window on L2 Spanish 

Interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. 

Bump, J. (1990). Radical Changes in Class Discussion Using Networked <strong>Computer</strong>s. 

<strong>Computer</strong>s and the Humanities, 24(1), 49-65. 

Campbell, R., & Peyton, J.K. (1997). Heritage Language Students: A Valuable Language 

Resource. <strong>The</strong> ERIC Review, 5(3), 38. 

Campbell, R., & Rosenthal, J. (2000). Heritage Languages. In J.W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook 

<strong>of</strong> Undergraduate Second Language Acquisition (pp. 165-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Chun, D.M. (1994). Using <strong>Computer</strong> Networking to Facilitate the Acquisition <strong>of</strong> Interactive 

Competence. System, 22(1), 17-31. 

Colomb, G., & Simutis, J.A. (1996). Visible Conversation and Academic Inquiry: CMC in a 

Culturally Diverse Classroom. In S. Herring (Ed.), <strong>Computer</strong>-mediated <strong>Communication</strong>: 

Linguistic, Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 203-222). Amsterdam: 

Benjamins. 

Coryell, J.E., & Clark, M.C. (2009). One Right Way, Intercultural Participation, and Language 

Learning Anxiety: A Qualitative Analysis <strong>of</strong> Adult Online Heritage and Nonheritage 

Language Learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 483-504. 

Draper, J., & Hicks, J. (2000). Where We‟ve Been; What We‟ve Learned. In J. Webb & B. 


Miller (Eds.), Teaching Heritage Language Learners: Voices from the Classroom (pp. 

15-35). Yonkers, NY: ACTFL. 

Ellis, R. (1999). <strong>The</strong>oretical Perspectives on Interaction and Language Learning. In R. Ellis 

(Ed.), Learning a Language Through Interaction (pp. 3-31). Philadelphia, PA: J 

Benjamins. 

Fishman, J.A. (1966). Language Loyalty in the United States. <strong>The</strong> Hague, Netherlands: 

Mouton. 

Fishman, J.A. (2001). 300-Plus Years <strong>of</strong> Heritage Language Education in the United States. In 

J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage Languages in America: 

Preserving a National Resource (pp. 81-89). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied 

Linguistics. 

González-Bueno, M., & Pérez, L. (2001). Electronic Mail in Foreign Language Learning 

Revisited. Paper presented at the 2001 conference <strong>of</strong> Teachers <strong>of</strong> English to Speakers <strong>of</strong> 

Other Languages. ERIC Document #ED458817. 

Gutiérrez, J.R. (1997). Teaching Spanish as a heritage language: A case for language awareness. 

ADFL Bulletin, 29(1), 33-36. 

Horwitz, E.K. (1986). Preliminary Evidence for the Reliability and Validity <strong>of</strong> a Foreign 

Language Anxiety Scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559-562. 

Horwitz, E.K. (2001). Language Anxiety and Achievement. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Applied 

Linguistics, 21, 112-126. 

Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. 

Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132. 

Kelm, O. (1992). <strong>The</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> Synchronous <strong>Computer</strong> Networks in Second Language Instruction: 

A Preliminary Report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-454. 

Kern, R.G. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked <strong>Computer</strong>s: 

Efects on Quantity and Characteristics <strong>of</strong> Language Production. Modern Language 

Journal, 79(4), 457-476. 

Kim, Y.S. (1998). <strong>The</strong> Effect <strong>of</strong> a Networked <strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> Discussion on Subsequent 

Oral Discussion in the ESL Classroom. Doctoral dissertation; University <strong>of</strong> Texas, 

Austin. 

Klee, C. (1998). <strong>Communication</strong> as an Organizing Principle in the National Standards: 

Sociolinguistic Aspects <strong>of</strong> Spanish Language Teaching. Hispania, 81, 339-351. 

Krashen, S. (2000). Bilingual education, the acquisition <strong>of</strong> English, and the retention and loss <strong>of</strong> 

Spanish. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the U.S. (pp. 432-444). Somerville, 

MA: Cascadilla Press. 

Kroonenberg, N. (1994/1995). Developing Communicative and Thinking Skills Via Electronic 

Mail. TESOL Journal, 4, 24-27. 

Lee, L. (2004). Learners‟ Perspectives on Networked Collaborative Interaction with Native 

Speakers <strong>of</strong> Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100. 

Levine, G. (2003). Student and Instructor Beliefs and Attitudes about Target Language Use, 

First Language Use, and Anxiety: Report <strong>of</strong> a Questionnaire Study. Modern Language 

Journal, 87, 343-364. 

Markley, P. (1998). Empowering Students: <strong>The</strong> Diverse Roles <strong>of</strong> Asians and Women in the 

ESL Classroom. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language 

Learning Online (pp. 81-96). Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publication. 

Mejias, H., Applbaum, R.L., Applbaum, S.J., & Trotter, R.T. (1991). Oral <strong>Communication</strong> 

2 56 

TPFLE

Apprehension and Hispanics: An Exploration <strong>of</strong> Oral <strong>Communication</strong> Apprehension 

among Mexican American Students in Texas. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), 

Language Anxiety: From <strong>The</strong>ory and Research to Classroom Implications (pp. 87-97). 

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 

Pica, T. (1987). Second-Language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom. Applied 

Linguistics, 8(1), 3-21. 

Perez, L.C. (2003). Foreign Language Productivity in Synchronous Versus Asynchronous 

<strong>Computer</strong>-mediated <strong>Communication</strong>. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 89-104. 

Peyton, J.K., Ranard, D.A., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Charting a new course: Heritage language 

education in the United States. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), 

Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 3-26). 

Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Quintanar-Sarellana, R., Huebner, T., & Jensen, A. (1993). Tapping a Natural Resource: 

Language Minority Students as Foreign Language Tutors. In B. Merino, H. Trueba, & 

F. Samaniego (Eds.), Language and Culture in Learning: Teaching Spanish to Native 

Speakers <strong>of</strong> Spanish (pp. 208-221). Washington, D.C.: <strong>The</strong> Falmer Press. 

Roca, A. (2000). Heritage learners <strong>of</strong> Spanish. In G. Guntermann (Ed.), Teaching Spanish with 

the five C’s: A blueprint for success (pp. 91-106). AATSP Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Development 

Series Handbook for Teachers K-16, Vol. 2. Mason, OH: Thomson-Heinle. 

Spielberger, C. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: 

Consulting Psychologists Press. 

Stockwell, G., & Harrington, M. (2003). <strong>The</strong> Incidental Development <strong>of</strong> L2 Pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in 

NS=NNS Email Interactions. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 337-359. 

Sullivan, N. (1998). Developing Critical Reading and Writing Skills: Empowering Minority 

Students in a Networked <strong>Computer</strong> Classroom. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, 

& K. Arens (Eds.), Language Learning Online (pp. 41-56). Austin, TX: Labyrinth 

Publication. 

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A Comparative Study <strong>of</strong> Two ESL Writing Environments: 

A <strong>Computer</strong>-Assisted Classroom and a Traditional Oral Classroom. System, 24(4), 

491-501. 

Tallon, M. (2003). Heritage Speakers <strong>of</strong> Spanish and Foreign Language Anxiety: A Pilot Study. 

Unpublished manuscript; University <strong>of</strong> Texas, Austin. 

Tallon, M. (2004). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> Foreign Language Anxiety on Heritage Students <strong>of</strong> Spanish: 

A Preliminary Investigation. Unpublished manuscript; University <strong>of</strong> Texas, Austin. 

Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage Language Students: Pr<strong>of</strong>iles and Possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, 

D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a 

NationalResource (pp. 37-77). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Toward a Definition <strong>of</strong> Heritage Language: Sociopolitical and 

Pedagogical Considerations. Journal <strong>of</strong> Language, Identity, and Education, 2(3), 211- 

230. 

van Lier, L. (2000). From Input to Affordance: Social-Interactive Learning from an Ecological 

Perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural <strong>The</strong>ory and Second Language Learning 

(pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic <strong>Communication</strong> in the Second 

Language Classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 17-26. 

Warschauer, M. (1997). <strong>Computer</strong>-<strong>Mediated</strong> Collaborative Learning: <strong>The</strong>ory and Practice. 


Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481. 

Warschauer, M, Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). <strong>Computer</strong> Learning Networks and Student 

Empowerment. System, 24(1), 1-14. 

Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and Second Language Teaching. In J.W. 

Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook <strong>of</strong> Undergraduate Second Language Education (pp. 303- 

318). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Webb, J.B., & Miller, B.L. (2000). Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the 

classroom. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL. 

2 58 

TPFLE

Appendix A 

Pre-Test Questionnaire 

(Adapted from Arnold, 2002, based on Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986) 

Group #: ____________ 

SECTION I: 

Please provide some demographic information about yourself. 

1. Gender: _____ Male _____ Female 

2. Age: _____ 

3. Major: _______________________________ 

4. What grade did you get in your previous Spanish class? 

___ A ___ B ___ C ___ D or F ___ N/A 

5. Have you ever learned any other foreign language(s) other than Spanish? 

_____ No _____ Yes 

If so, please specify which other language(s): _______________________ 

6. Have you ever spent a longer period <strong>of</strong> time around native speakers <strong>of</strong> Spanish where you 

spoke Spanish on a regular basis? 

_____ No _____ Yes 

If yes, please specify the length <strong>of</strong> that period: ______________________ 

7. Do you consider yourself a heritage speaker/learner <strong>of</strong> Spanish or a non-heritage 

speaker/learner? 

NOTE: For this study, a heritage speaker/learner is defined as someone who grew up in a home 

where the Spanish language was spoken; you may not even speak Spanish, but you might 

understand it. A non-heritage speaker/learner is defined as someone who did not grow up in a 

home where the Spanish language was spoken; you may have studied Spanish before in school, 

but you were not around the language while growing up. 

_____ Heritage speaker/learner _____ Non-Heritage Speaker/Learner 

8. _____ If Spanish is your native/first language please check here. 

9. How <strong>of</strong>ten do you use computers? 

_____ Daily _____ Several times a week _____ Several times a month 

_____ Rarely _____ Never 

10. For what purposes to you use computers? Check all that apply. 

_____ School _____ Work _____ Entertainment/Fun 


11. What do you do with computers on a regular basis? Check all that apply. 

_____ Word Processing _____ E-mail _____ Surfing the Web _____ Chat Rooms 

SECTION II: 

Directions: Below is a list <strong>of</strong> statements. Be sure to read them carefully and check the response 

that best describes your attitudes and feelings. For each statement, indicate whether you (1) 

strongly agree - SA, (2) agree - A, (3) neither agree nor disagree - N, (4) disagree - D, or (5) 

strongly disagree - SD by circling the appropriate number on the line following each statement. 

Please give your first reaction to each statement and mark an answer for every statement. 

Answer with “Neither” if you have no opinion or if a statement does not apply to your situation. 

SA A N D SD 

1 2 3 4 5 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

1. I never feel quite sure about myself when I am speaking Spanish in my Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

2. I don’t worry about making mistakes in my Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

3. I tremble when I know that I‟m going to be called on in Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

4. It frightens me when I don‟t understand what the teacher is saying in Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

5. I start to panic when I have to speak Spanish without preparation in my Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

6. It does not embarrass me to volunteer answers in Spanish in my Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

7. Even if I am well prepared for my Spanish class, I feel anxious about it. 

1 2 3 4 5 

8. I feel confident when I speak Spanish in my Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

9. I can feel my heart pounding when I‟m going to be called on in my Spanish class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

2 60 

TPFLE

SA A N D SD 

1 2 3 4 5 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

10. I always feel that the other students speak Spanish better than I do. 

1 2 3 4 5 

11. I feel very self-conscious about speaking Spanish in front <strong>of</strong> other students. 

1 2 3 4 5 

12. I feel more tense and nervous in my Spanish class than in my other classes. 

1 2 3 4 5 

13. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking Spanish in my language class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

14. I get nervous when I don‟t understand every word the language teacher says. 

1 2 3 4 5 

15. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

16. I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers <strong>of</strong> Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

17. I get nervous when the language teacher asks questions which I haven‟t prepared for in 

advance. 

1 2 3 4 5 

18. I feel that I can express myself easily when speaking Spanish in the classroom. 

1 2 3 4 5 

19. I feel intimidated when speaking Spanish in the classroom. 

1 2 3 4 5 

20. I feel comfortable working with computers. 

1 2 3 4 5 

21. I work with computers on a regular basis. 

1 2 3 4 5 


Other questions: 

22. How <strong>of</strong>ten do you speak Spanish in class (i.e., volunteer answers, contribute to group 

work)? Include your experience from previous/other classes to answer this question. Check 

the answer which is the closest. 

_____ 5+ times per class period _____ 2-4 times per class period 

_____ Once per class period _____ Hardly ever 

23. Which expression best describes the way you feel when the teacher calls on you in Spanish 

class? 

_____ I panic (e.g., get sweaty hands) _____ I get pretty nervous 

_____ I get just a little bit nervous _____ I don‟t mind it _____ I enjoy it 

24. Which expression best describes the way you feel when you are supposed to speak Spanish 

with your classmates (e.g., during group work)? 



25. Which expression best describes the way you feel during an oral exam? 



26. Describe in your own words how you feel about speaking Spanish (e.g., why do you feel 

that way? What do you worry about the most when speaking?). 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

2 62 

TPFLE

Appendix B 

Post-Test Questionnaire for Experimental Groups 

(Additional Items) 

Please tell us about your group electronic discussions. Possible answers range from 

“Strongly Agree” to “Strong Disagree.” Answer with “Neither” if you have no opinion or 

if a statement does not apply to your situation. 

SA A N D SD 

1 2 3 4 5 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

20. I enjoyed the regular computer discussions with my group. 

1 2 3 4 5 

21. <strong>The</strong> regular computer discussions helped improve my oral pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

22. <strong>The</strong> regular computer discussions did not improve my self-confidence about speaking 

Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

23. <strong>The</strong> regular computer discussions lowered my feelings <strong>of</strong> nervousness about speaking 

Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

24. I feel that I speak more Spanish in class now because <strong>of</strong> the regular computer discussions. 

1 2 3 4 5 

25. I do not think that computer discussions give me a similar learning opportunity as our 

regular Speaking activities in class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

26. Not seeing my discussion partners face-to-face was a negative aspect <strong>of</strong> the computer 

discussions. 

1 2 3 4 5 

SA A N D SD 

1 2 3 4 5 


____________________________________________________________________________ 

27. I found the time lag <strong>of</strong> the computer discussions beneficial because it allowed me to take 

more time to understand somebody‟s message than in face-to-face interaction. 

1 2 3 4 5 

28. I found the time lag <strong>of</strong> the computer discussions beneficial because it allowed me to take 

more time to compose a response than in face-to-face interaction. 

1 2 3 4 5 

29. I felt that the time lag hindered the conversation. 

1 2 3 4 5 

30. I was able to express myself easily on the computer. 

1 2 3 4 5 

31. I participated more during computer discussions than when we discussed in class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

32. I did not learn very much from working on the computer. 

Other questions: 

1 2 3 4 5 

38. Describe in your own words your reactions to this Blackboard assignment. Did you enjoy 

it? Why or why not? Do you think it helped you improve your literacy skills? Why or why not? 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

2 64 

TPFLE

Appendix C 

Post-Test Questionnaire for Control Group 

(Additional Items) 

Please tell us about your group discussions in class. Possible answers range from “Strongly 

Agree” to “Strong Disagree.” Answer with “Neither” if you have no opinion or if a 

statement does not apply to your situation. 

SA A N D SD 

1 2 3 4 5 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

20. I enjoyed the regular discussions with my group. 

1 2 3 4 5 

21. <strong>The</strong> regular discussions helped improve my oral pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

22. <strong>The</strong> regular discussions did not improve my self-confidence about speaking Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

23. <strong>The</strong> regular discussions lowered my feelings <strong>of</strong> nervousness about speaking Spanish. 

1 2 3 4 5 

24. I feel that I speak more Spanish in class now because <strong>of</strong> the regular discussions. 

1 2 3 4 5 

25. I do not think that the discussions give me a similar learning opportunity as our regular 

speaking activities in class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

26. Seeing my discussion partners face-to-face was a good aspect <strong>of</strong> the group discussions. 

1 2 3 4 5 

27. At times, I would have liked to have more time to understand the other students‟ utterances. 

1 2 3 4 5 

28. At times, I would have liked to have more time to compose a message. 

1 2 3 4 5 

SA A N D SD 

1 2 3 4 5 


____________________________________________________________________________ 

29. I do not think that the pace <strong>of</strong> the discussion hindered the conversation. 

1 2 3 4 5 

30. I was able to express myself easily during the group discussions. 

1 2 3 4 5 

31. I participated more during group discussions than when we discussed in class. 

1 2 3 4 5 

32. I did not learn very much from the group discussions. 

NOTES 

1 2 3 4 5 

1 <strong>The</strong>se anxiety scales were taken from Arnold (2002). Permission to use them in this study was granted by Dr. 

Nike Arnold. Since these scales were based on the original “Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale” from 

Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986), permission was also requested – and granted – from Dr. Elaine K. Horwitz. 

2 I would like to thank Dr. Zsuzsanna I. Abrams for this observation. 

2 66 

TPFLE

The Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication on Foreign ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?