T. C.

BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ
SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ
YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI
İNGİLİZ DİLİ EĞİTİMİ BİLİM DALI

THE EFFECT OF SECOND LIFE AS A VIRTUAL LANGUAGE

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ON SPEAKING ANXIETY

YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ

Serhat GÜZEL

Balıkesir, 2016
 T. C.
BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ
SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ
YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI
İNGİLİZ DİLİ EĞİTİMİ BİLİM DALI

THE EFFECT OF SECOND LIFE AS A VIRTUAL LANGUAGE

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ON SPEAKING ANXIETY

YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ

Serhat GÜZEL

Tez Danışmanı
Doç. Dr. Selami AYDIN

Balıkesir, 2016
 ÖZET
SANAL BİR DİL ÖĞRENME ORTAMI OLARAK SECOND LIFE’IN
KONUŞMA KAYGISI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

GÜZEL, Serhat
Yüksek Lisans, Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, İngiliz Dili
Eğitimi Bilim Dalı
Tez Danışmanı: Doç. Dr. Selami AYDIN
2016, 87 Sayfa

Sanal bir dil öğrenme ortamı olarak Second Life’ın İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak
öğrenenlerin yabancı dil konuşma kaygısı ve konuşma becerileri üzerindeki etkilerini anlatan
çalışmaların sayısı oldukça azdır. Ayrıca, ilgili alanyazın, Türkiye’deki yabancı dil olarak
İngilizce öğretimine ışık tutması bağlamında yetersizdir. Bu sebeple, bu deneysel çalışma
Second Life’ın yabancı dil konuşma kaygısı ve konuşma başarısı üzerindeki etkilerini
incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, 40 öğrenciye birer arka plan anketi ve kaygı
ölçekleri uygulanmıştır. Katılımcılar deney grubu ve control grubu olarak ikiye ayrılmışlardır.
Ek olarak, ön test ve son test şeklinde iki adımdan oluşmak üzere her öğrenci konuşma
düzeylerini ölçmek amaçlı olarak mülakatlara çağrılmıştır. Bulgulara göre, konuşma kaygısı
ve konuşma becerisi ile ilişkili olarak Second Life üzerinde gerçekleştirilen konuşma dersleri
ve geleneksel konuşma aktivitelerinin etkileri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmadığı tespit
edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bu sonuçlara dayanarak Second Life’ın konuşma dersinde kullanımının
belli bir oranı geçmemesi gerektiği önerilmektedir. Bunun nedeni, Second Life’ın konuşma
kaygısı için kusursuz bir çözüm sağlamadığı bulgusuna erişilmiş olmasıdır. Buna ek olarak,
öğretmenlerin konuşma derslerinde Second Life’ı geleneksel yöntemlere yardımcı olacak ek
kaynak şeklinde kullanmaları önerilmektedir.

Anahtar kelimeler: Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce; Second Life; konuşma kaygısı; konuşma;
başarı
 ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF SECOND LIFE AS A VIRTUAL LANGUAGE
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ON SPEAKING ANXIETY

GÜZEL, Serhat
Master's Thesis, Department of Foreign Language Teaching,
English Language Teaching Programme
Adviser: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selami AYDIN
2016, 87 pages

There is a lack of research on the effects of SL as a virtual language learning

environment on speaking anxiety and speaking achievement among EFL learners. In
addition, related literature is quite insufficient in terms of providing insight about Turkish EFL
context. Therefore, this experimental study aims to examine the effects of the use of SL on
speaking anxiety and achievement. In the study, a background questionnaire and an anxiety
scale were administered to 44 EFL learners. Moreover, participants were called on for
interviews to measure their speaking achievement levels in two steps as pre-test and post-
test, and participants were divided into two groups as control group and experimental group.
As a result, findings suggest that there is no significant correlation between speaking
activities that take place in traditional settings and SL environment concerning speaking
anxiety levels and speaking achievement. It is recommended that the extent to use SL
should be moderated during speaking practice because SL does not offer a flawless solution
to speaking anxiety, and teachers should be aware that the use of alternative environments
as SL should be adjusted appropriately in a way that it can serve as an additional
contribution to traditional speaking activities.

Key words: English as a foreign language; Second Life; speaking anxiety; speaking;
achievement
 DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my dearest B. who has made me a better person
with her irreplaceable presence.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ÖZET iv
ABSTRACT v
DEDICATION vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the study 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 1
1.2.1. Problems in Turkish EFL Context 2
1.2.2. Problems in Relation to Speaking in Turkish EFL Context 2
1.2.3. Problems Caused by Anxiety 3
1.3. Purpose of the Study 3
1.4. Significance of the Study 4
1.5. Research Questions 4
1.6. Limitations of the study 4
1.7. Definitions 5
2. RELATED LITERATURE 7
2.1. Theoretical Framework 7
2.1.1. Introduction 7
2.1.2. The Role of Speaking in Communication 7
2.1.2.1. Types of Oral Interaction 9
2.1.2.2. The Role of Speaking in Communication 10
2.1.2.3. The Importance of Comprehensible Input 11
2.1.2.4. The Need Hypothesis 12
2.1.2.5. Affective Filter Hypothesis 13
2.1.3. Foreign Language Anxiety 13
2.1.3.1. Types of Foreign Language Anxiety 14
2.1.3.1.1. Communication Apprehension 14
 2.1.3.1.2. Fear of Negative Evaluation 14
2.1.3.1.3. Test Anxiety 15
2.1.3.2. Speaking Anxiety 16
2.1.3.3. Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety 16
2.1.3.4. Speaking Anxiety and Learning Environment 17
2.1.4. Second Life 18
2.1.4.1. The Use of SL in the Foreign Language Context 18
2.1.4.2. SL and EFL Speaking 19
2.1.5. Theoretical Background for the use of SL 20
2.1.5.1. Self-regulation 20
2.1.5.2. Learner-centeredness 21
2.1.5.3. Collaborative Learning 22
2.1.5.4. Autonomous Learning 22
2.1.5.5. Constructivism 23
2.1.5.6. Scaffolded Learning 23
2.1.6. Conclusion 24
2.2. Literature Review 25
2.2.1. Introduction 25
2.2.2. The Role of Speaking in Communication 26
2.2.3. Research on Comprehensible Input 28
2.2.4. Types of Oral Interactions 31
2.2.5. Research on Speaking Anxiety 33
2.2.6. Research on SL in EFL Context 35
2.2.7. Research on the Effect of SL on Speaking Anxiety 37
2.2.8. Conclusion 38
3. METHODOLOGY 40
3.1. Research Design 40
3.2. Participants 40
3.3. Tools 41
3.4. Procedure 42
3.4.1. Pre-test Administration 42
3.4.2. Practice Stage 43
3.4.2.1. Week 1 45
3.4.2.2. Week 2 45
3.4.2.3. Week 3 46
3.4.2.4. Week 4 46
3.4.3. Post-test Administration 47
 3.5. Data Analysis 47
4. FINDINGS 49
4.1. Research Question 1 49
4.1.1. The Effect of Practice on Speaking Achievement in Control Group 49
4.1.2. The Effect of Practice on Speaking Achievement in Exp. Group 51
4.1.3. Comparison of Traditional and SL Speaking Activities 53
4.2. Research Question 2 55
4.2.1. Instruction Effect on Speaking Anxiety in Control Group 55
4.2.2. The Effect of SL Speaking Activities on SA in Exp. Group 62
4.2.3. Comparison of Groups in terms of Speaking Anxiety 67
5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 69
5.1. Conclusions 69
5.2. Implications 70
5.3. Practical Recommendations 71
5.4. Recommendations for Further Research 72
5.5. Limitations of the Study 73
6. REFERENCES 74
7. APPENDIX 79
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Age, Gender, Academic Achievement Score 41

Table 2. Speaking Grading Scale Points 42
Table 3. Weekly Activities 44
Table 4. Inter-rater and Intra-rater Reliability of Pre and Post Tests 48
Table 5. SLLS Reliability of the Pre and Post Tests 48
Table 6. Speaking Achievement for the Control Group 50
Table 7. Paired Samples Test for the Control Group 51
Table 8. Speaking Achievement for the Experimental Group 52
Table 9. Paired Samples Test for the Experimental Group 53
Table 10. Pre-test Scores for Control & Experimental Groups 54
Table 11. Post-test Scores for Control & Experimental Groups 55
Table 12. The Paired Sample Test Results for Control Group 61
Table 13. The Paired Sample Test Results for Experimental Group 66
Table 14. Pre-test Scores (Control & Exp. Groups, Independent Samples Test) 67
Table 15. Post-test Scores (Control & Exp. Groups, Independent Samples Test) 68
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASR : Automated Speech Recognition

CALL : Computer Assisted Language Learning
CLT : Communicative Language Teaching
EFL : English as a Foreign Language
ELT : English Language Teaching
ESL : English as Second Language
FL : Foreign Language
FLA : Foreign Language Anxiety
FLCAS : Foreign Language Anxiety Scale
FNE : Fear of Negative Evaluation
L1 : First Language
LCRTS : Language Class Risk-Taking Scale
LCSS : Language Class Sociability Scale
MUVE : Multi-User Virtual Environment
SA : Speaking Anxiety
SGS : Speaking Grading Scale
SL : Second Life
SLLS : Survey on Language Learning Scale
SPSS : Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SR-CDS : Self-Rating Can-Do Scale
SR-CL : Self-Rating for the Current Level of Study
SR-EPE : Self-Rating Perception by the English
TOEFL : Test of English as a Foreign Language
UCS : Unwillingness to Communicate Scale
ZPD : Zone of Proximal Development
 1

1.

INTRODUCTION

This section aims to provide the rationale behind the study in an orderly way.
First, background of the study is presented in a way that problems related to the
study are listed from a general to specific perspective. Second, purpose and
significance of the study are discussed. Third, research questions and experimental
procedures of the study such as participants, tools, data collections, and data
analysis are introduced. Last, organization of the study, limitations, and some
definitions are presented.

1.1. Background of the Study

This section presents the background for the study. The study is motivated by
three main problems as follows: Problems in Turkish EFL context, problems in
relation to speaking in Turkish EFL context and problems related to anxiety.
Sections below discuss these problems in details, and provide information on how
these problems form a background for the study.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Speaking as a productive language skill is regarded as an important element in

learning a foreign language. However, in spite of the respect paid to speaking, it is
mostly neglected during language learning process due to its challenging nature
(Nazara, 2011). In addition, speaking skill is generally not preferred as the other
skills since it is hard for teachers to assess learners while they are speaking (Egan,
1999). Instead of dealing with challenging features of speaking skill, teachers simply
prefer to focus more on structural aspects of language while teaching English
(Bahrani & Solatani, 2012).

As for the problems concerning speaking, Baleghizadeh and Shahri (2014)

sugget that speaking is a sustenance for other language skills, and it must be
equally scattered in language learning process. In addition, language learning is
 2

regarded as the ability to communicate in target language; therefore, communicative

objectives should be signified more effectively (Richard, 1983). Furthermore, Hu
(2010) suggests that communicative competence is the main element in language
learning, and grammatical and / or lexical competence that teachers focus more on
can be achieved through speaking practice. However, both teachers and learners
seem to be avoiding speaking during language learning by using only brief spoken
patterns (Nazari, 2007). The reason for the avoidance to speak English can stem
from some factors as follows: inability to appreciate the importance of
communicative language learning / teaching, challenging nature of speaking,
hardships faced during assessing speaking performance, lack of exact definitions
concerning CLT, and foreign language speaking anxiety (Aydin, 2013a; Aydin &
Guzel, 2014; Egan, 1999; Hu, 2010; Lochland, 2013; Nazari, 2007).

1.2.1. Problems in Turkish EFL Context

Context of Turkish EFL shows many similarities to global context in terms of

problems faced by EFL teachers and learners. These problems can basically be
listed as motivational problems, pedagogical problems, negative attitudes towards
language learning processes and anxiety-related problems. These problems are
merely reflections of crowded classrooms, insufficient materials in EFL classrooms,
lack of appropriate counselling concerning the role of English language in students’
lives and the excessive use of native language in EFL classrooms. On the other
hand, in the Turkish EFL settings, learners’ performances are mostly impaired by
the lack of confidence and motivation in language learning; that is, lack of
confidence and motivation basically triggers anxiety-related issues. According to
Aydin (2013b), anxiety is a very common problem among Turkish EFL learners
when it comes to language performance such as writing and speaking. For this
reason, instead of pushing the boundaries, both teachers and learners avoid using
productive skills during language learning.

1.2.2. Problems in Relation to Speaking in the Turkish EFL Learning

Context

In Turkish EFL context, the most common problems encountered during

language learning are the issues that stem from the use of productive skills such as
writing and speaking. Since speaking as a productive skill is mostly regarded as a
challenging skill, EFL learners face many challenges when they are expected to
perform orally in EFL classrooms (Subası, 2010). For teachers, speaking is
 3

considered as a skill which is hard to assess and control, and it is quite time-
consuming in terms of preparing content for lessons. For learners, on the other
hand, speaking is not desirable because it is challenging to express oneself in
spoken form, and it is hard to grasp structural components during speaking. Aydin
and Guzel (2014) suggest that on the verge of oral performance, learners hesitate
and feel anxious about speaking. Accordingly, as Subasi (2010) suggested, anxiety
problem faced during oral performance is triggered by factors such as fear of
negative evaluation, communication apprehension, and anxiety towards grading,
namely test anxiety. Therefore, it can be claimed that speaking is one of the most
problematic areas in language learning, and it causes anxiety-related problems for
learners, which negatively affects the flow of language learning process.

1.2.3. Problems Caused by Anxiety

As mentioned above, both international and Turkish EFL learners suffer from
problems caused by speaking as a productive skill. One of the most common
problem triggered by speaking skill is regarded as anxiety (Aydin, 2008; Aydin &
Guzel, 2014; Dalkilic, 2001; Subasi, 2010). As Subasi (2010) suggests, learners
endure many hardships during oral performance such as sweatiness, shaking-
knees, nervousness and loss of memory. Due to anxiety-related reasons, learners’
speaking performances decrease and negatively affected. In other words, language
anxiety is a significant variable in language learning, and language achievement is
correlated with anxiety (Batumlu & Erden, 2007; Dalkilic, 2001). Anxiety-related
problems such as nervousness, sweating, shaking-knees, and cognitive failures
during oral performance can be related to factors such as lack of preparation,
communication apprehension, test anxiety, teacher corrections, fear of negative
evaluation, and teacher questions (Aydin, 2008). Therefore, in the light of
aforementioned insight, it can be deduced that anxiety is a quite serious problem
that needs to be eliminated form language learning context in a moderate way.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

This study has two purposes to achieve in accordance with the issues given
above. First, it aims to investigate the level of speaking achievement in Turkish EFL
learning context, and it attempts to determine if SL has an effect on EFL learners’
speaking achievements. Second, the study aims at measuring the anxiety levels of
Turkish EFL learners in speaking and have an insight on the circumstance by
 4

attempting to determine the correlation between traditional speaking activities and

SL speaking activities in relation to speaking anxiety.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This sections provides reasons to support the significance of the study. The
study can be considered as significant due to several reasons. First, the study
makes a considerable contribution to related literature since it provides data on the
effects of the use of SL as a virtual language learning environment on speaking
anxiety. Second, the study provides additional data to related literature concerning
Turkish EFL context, since there is a lack of research on the effect of SL on
speaking anxiety in related area. Third, in addition to speaking anxiety, the study
contributes to the literature in terms of the effect of SL on speaking achievement.
Finally, the study can be regarded as significant due to its contributions to literature
in terms of practical recommendations for teachers, learners, curriculum developers,
material writers, and policy makers.

1.5. Research Questions

In the light of issues discussed above, language learning context has many
problems concerning learners, teachers, methodologies, and learning environments.
In addition to these problems, speaking skill is regarded as a significant problematic
area in language learning due to its challenging nature. In other words, speaking
causes many problems for both learners and teachers in language learning process
in relation to anxiety, which negatively affects the quality of language learning
process and learners’ speaking achievements. Therefore, it is evident that impact of
anxiety as a problematic factor in language learning needs to be eliminated as much
as possible. Considering these problems, this study is based on two research
questions:

a. Does SL as a virtual language learning environment affect speaking

achievement?
b. Does SL as a virtual language learning environment have any effect on
speaking anxiety?

1.6. Limitations of the Study

This study is limited to 44 EFL learners in the ELT Department of Education

Faculty of Balikesir University. Second, the study is limited to an experimental
 5

research design which consists of pre-tests, post-tests, an experimental group and a

control group. Additionally, assignments to both groups are strictly in random. Third,
the focus of the research is confined to the dependent variables, EFL speaking
achievement and speaking anxiety. Furthermore, the interviews used for measuring
speaking achievement are limited to the speaking topics designed for TOEFL, and
for the measurement tool is limited to the Speaking Grading Scale (SGS) developed
by Kanatlar (2005). Moreover, the data collection procedure concerning EFL
speaking anxiety is limited to Survey on Language Learning Scale (SLLS)
developed by Liu and Jackson (2013).

1.7. Definitions

Academic Achievement: The overall level of a student’s scores based on

examination or assessment of sorts.
Autonomous learning: Type of learning process in which learners take charge of
their own learning.
Collaborative learning: A type of learning process in which two or more individuals
work in harmony in a way that they benefit from one another in terms of knowledge
and experience.
Comprehensible input: A hypothesis claiming that learners acquire language best
when they are given sufficient amount of language items providing that they are
appropriate.
Communicative Language Teaching: An approach which claims
that communication and interaction are main priorities in language teaching.
Constructivism: Theory in which learners establish the meaning based on the
relationship between their prior knowledge and new information.
English as a Foreign Language: The use or study of English in countries where
English is not among one of the official languages.
English Language Teaching: The practice and theory of teaching English.
Foreign language anxiety: A state of anxiety when facing performance
assessment in language learning process.
Multi-user virtual environment: A computer-based simulated environment with a
population of online users who use avatars that can interact with each other.
Productive skills: Skills that require learners to produce language items such as
speaking and writing.
 6

Receptive skills: Skills that do not require learners to produce language items but
successfully receive and process them, such as listening and reading.
Self-efficacy: A person's belief about his / her own capacity to learn.
Speaking Anxiety: The combination of feelings such as uneasiness, nervousness,
and shakiness one experiences when they are required to speak in front of other
people.
Statistical Package for Social Sciences: Computer software used for statistical
analysis.
Student Selection and Placement Center: The official institution responsible for
administering examinations for attending universities in Turkey.
Task-based learning: An approach which highlights the importance of meaningful
tasks given by using the target language.

Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL): Examination for measuring

proficiency levels of non-native English learners who aim to attend to the U.S.
universities.
Virtual world: A computerized and digitally designed environment in which online
users can interact and exist virtually.
 7

2.

RELATED LITERATURE

In this section, related literature is presented to form a basis for the study at
hand. First, a theoretical framework is set to base the study on by providing
pedagogical theories used in learning context. Then, related literature is presented
from a broad perspective to subject-specific view to provide insight to the study.

2.1. Theoretical Framework

2.1.1. Introduction
This section briefly presents the theoretical background of the study. For this
purpose, it basically attempts to put what is presented into ground in educational
and EFL context, carefully categorizing issues related to the effect of Second Life as
a virtual language learning environment on speaking anxiety. First, the role of
speaking in EFL context is discussed in connection with learning theories. Second,
various types speaking manifests itself is presented in the light of some studies.
Third, communication and the role of speaking as a language skill in communication
are basically examined, the importance of comprehensible input, the place of The
Need Hypothesis, Affective Filter Hypothesis are mentioned. Fourth, anxiety as an
entity is analyzed in various segments as foreign language anxiety, speaking
anxiety, foreign language anxiety. Fifth, speaking anxiety is redefined in connection
with learning environment, thus Second Life as a new language learning
environment in EFL context is introduced by grounding it with current learning
theories.

2.1.2. The Role of Speaking in EFL Learning

Speaking skill is directly related to the language learners' language

competence and performance. Thus, in order to emphasize the place of speaking in
an EFL context, it is necessary to bring light onto the terms of competence and
performance, relating to with input and output. To begin with, Chomsky (1965)
focuses on the concept of an ideal speaker-listener which is associated with the
 8

individual in a completely homogeneous speech-community. The speaker-listener

mentioned by Chomsky (1965) is completely well-aware of the language, and has a
deep knowledge about it. In addition, the individual referred to as speaker-listener is
completely independent from any external influence in terms of putting the
knowledge of the language in performance. Therefore, it is possible to differentiate
between the two terms competence and performance. Briefly, competence is
referred to as the speaker-listener's capacity of the language, and performance, on
the other hand, is the extent to which the speaker-listener puts the linguistic
performance into practice. According to Chomsky (1965) and Nazari (2007),
competence of the individual is shaped by language input which is, in this case,
what the speaker-listener hears. Input is simply the spoken or written language
items received by the individual, which is an indispensable source of language
structures (Yule, 2006). Output is, on the other hand, the language items produced
by the individual verbally or non-verbally (Ellis, 2012). Since input and output are
both basically vital components for the understanding of the dynamics of language
performance of the individual, it is also necessary to comprehend their roles in target
language speaking.
In order to discuss the terms input and output in regard to speaking in the
target language, it is necessary to understand what they stand for in the language
learning context. Initially, it is acknowledged that the use of spoken language has
been validated as the source of language input in language classrooms (Cook,
2001; Swain, 2000). Yule (2006) suggests that language production of the language
learner develops through the use of negotiated input which is simply the input-output
flow that takes place between at least two speakers. In other words, language
learners are more likely to elevate their language skills by being the part of both
producing output and receiving input. Therefore, speaking as an interactional aspect
plays an important role in forming the language competence level. Speaking in the
target language formed with the combination of input-output takes on different
characteristics depending on whether the language is acquired or learned.
The nature of language development in EFL speaking, ESL speaking and
speaking in L1 have undoubtedly different characteristics. These different
characteristics stem mainly from the linguistic background of the EFL, ESL, and L1
speakers. Since ESL and L1 speaking are based on an acquired language, it is
acknowledged that EFL speakers are very unlikely to reach the language
competence of a language acquirer. In other words, speaking performances of those
who are L1 and / or ESL speakers and those who speak English as a foreign
language are not equal in quality (Ellis, 2012; Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2014;
 9

Lightbrown & Spada, 2011; Yule, 2006). According to Yule (2006), one of the main
reasons for this performance gap is that EFL speakers share an institutionalized
language learning background. However, speakers who acquired the target
language in an appropriate environment starting from a convenient age tend to
approach speaking the language more intuitively. Therefore, it can be inferred that
for those who acquired the language, the gap between competence and
performance is not as great as for those who are EFL speakers. Thus, it is possible
to reveal that EFL learners are required to put more effort on language production in
order to overcome the gap between their language competence and performance
since their language production is not based on intuitive responses as in language
acquisition. That is why, based on the aforementioned reasons, speaking practice
necessitates one to pay more attention.
Based on the information noted above, it is possible to list several reasons
for why speaking is important in EFL learning. First, as Kurudayioglu (2011)
suggests, speaking has an essential place in language learners' performance both
individually and socially since it is an indispensable tool for human communication
on a daily basis. Second, it is claimed that language competence challenges the
learners in productive skills. Thus, language mastery requires a communicative
competence rather than sole language literacy (Diyyab et al., 2013). Third, as Ellis
(2012) asserts, interaction is the key element in a language classroom, and learning
takes place when the meanings and unclear points are discussed by using a
collective interaction in the classroom. Fourth, speaking the language is much more
valuable in terms of communication since it is pointed out that gaining grammatical
and structural competence can be achieved by mastering the speaking skill (Ellis,
2012). In this context, Wardhaugh (2006) claims that speakers of one language tend
to possess grammatical structure of the language automatically. Therefore, it can be
concluded that communication established with oral interaction skills in the target
language greatly contributes to the development of other language skills.

2.1.2.1. Types of Oral Interactions

Oral interactions take place in various ways in a language speaker's life. One
of the most well-coordinated classifications about the types of oral interactions is
demonstrated in Bygate's (1987) model of oral interactions. Bygate (1987) divides
oral interactions into two categories according to their functions as information
routines and interaction routines, which suggests that oral production is centered
around acquiring and sharing information, and interacting with people around on a
daily basis. Bygate’s model is presented as follows:
 10

Oral Interactions

Information Routines Interaction Routines

Expository Evaluative Service Social

-Description -Explanation -Job interview -Dinner party

-Comparison -Justification -Making -Coffee break
-Decision -Prediction reservations -Standing in
-Decision -Enrolling in line
school -Chatting over
the internet

Figure 1. Bygate’s Oral Interaction Strategies

Learner interaction is an issue which has been argued by many researchers

for many years since it is referred to as a beneficial action to take for learning
(Chavez, 2009). In the EFL context, learning a foreign language with the help of
interaction is emphasized as a response for some problematic areas in foreign
language learning. As Diyyab et al. (2013) suggest that one of the most noteworthy
defects of traditional language teaching is instructors’ tendency to put an emphasis
on grammatical aspects of the target language, eliminating interactive skills as
speaking and listening. Therefore, in time, the nature of language teaching has
started to evolve into a character which takes language as an interactional tool,
which suggests that speaking skill constitutes a tremendous part in communicating
in the target language.

2.1.2.2. The Role of Speaking in Communication

Communication is possible in many ways for the individuals for there are
various actions that can lead to a mutual understanding and exchange of messages
between two or more parties. Given that a wide range of actions conveyed by the
individuals in a social context can be interpreted as messages, it is reasonable to
deduce that speaking is the most common means to communicate. Cook (2001)
suggests that speaking a language, other than forming the center of human life, is a
way to express feelings, and to achieve many goals in life. As Wardhaugh (2006)
asserts, the communication process that takes place between two individuals create
the existence of the code which is referred to as the language. The use of verbal
messages in the exchange of information is the most common way in an individual's
 11

daily routine. Hence, the process of informational exchange takes place in

association with listening and perceiving the message, and consequently giving the
contextual, anticipated response which is frequently verbal. Inseparable in nature,
verbal and non-verbal acts form the very dynamics of a communication, and it is
evident that neither one is expected to function solely on its own (Wigham &
Chanier, 2013). Nevertheless, it is suggested that speaking as a verbal activity
differs from non-verbal activities due to its being conscious, voluntary and
purposeful (Melser, 2009). Unlike speaking, non-verbal actions for communicating,
in many cases, are parts of mechanical behaviors that go along with the individual's
speaking sequences subconsciously. It can be concluded that speaking is a vital
component of communication, therefore, a necessity for learning a language.
However, in order to achieve mastery in the target language, spoken form of the
language is introduced as a language input for the language learners to grasp the
linguistic structure of the language, which signifies the role of comprehensible input.

2.1.2.3. The Importance of Comprehensible Input

It is acknowledged that learning a language whether or not it is the first

language is more than imitating the sample language, and it is pointed that acquiring
or learning a language requires several complex phases to go through. For this
reason, scholars have been constantly attempting to schematize these complex-in-
nature processes in an intelligible way. As aforementioned above, language contact
starting with first language acquisition emerges as somewhat predictable language
acquisition or language learning patterns to take into consideration. Chomsky
(1965), as aforementioned above, regards the individual who is subjected to a
language as speaker-listener. Therefore, it can be induced that language input plays
an important role in forming a competence in language, and competence and
performance are deeply interrelated with input and output. In addition, it can be
pointed out that a period of receiving language input is necessary in order to
commence language production stage. According to Krashen (1985) and Long
(1983), experiencing the language production is not possible to rush unless the
individual goes through certain stages of language input reception.
It is also widely acknowledged that a certain time period for listening which is
often referred as silent period is inevitable for the language production to take place.
As Krashen (1985) suggests a silent period during which the learners are only
present in order to accumulate authentic items from the target language is
experienced. During this unproductive and highly passive phase, the language
learner does not show any sign for the instructors to assume whether there is a
 12

progress of any type at all. Krashen (as cited in Ellis, 2012) suggests in his Input
Hypothesis that learners are ready for language production only when they receive a
sufficient amount of input from the speaker of the target language. That is, the
natural use of a language provides an unlimited source of grammatical knowledge
for the listener. In the critical phase referred as silent period, language learner who
is claimed to be passive and undesirable at the moment is in fact busy with
decoding language presented to her. This decoding process gives the learners an
indispensable chance for internalizing grammar rules of the target language. In
addition, Long (1983) states that it is necessary to create a flow of exposure-induced
language input in order for the language learner to internalize target language rules.
However, providing input does not necessarily prove helpful unless it is
comprehensible and serves a purpose. The reason for this is that it is crucial to
determine in what ways the learner language is to be shaped so that learners can
maximize their understanding of the target language. Considering that
comprehensible input serves as a model for the language learners to benefit from in
their future use of target language performance. This modeling behavior towards
target language bears resemblances with Vygotskian approach to learning since
Vygotsky (1978) suggested that learning takes place thanks to social help. Thus, it
is suggested that language production is inevitable on condition that a sufficient
amount of comprehensible input presented thanks to social help is provided, which
proves the importance and dominance of comprehensible input.

2.1.2.4. The Need Hypothesis

The Need Hypothesis claims that the production stage only starts when the
need to communicate in the target language arises. However, Krashen (1998)
suggests that it is not always necessarily required that the acquirers start language
production solely based on the need to communicate. The need for communication
only serves as an aid in the process of language production, and the main element
required is comprehensible input. Notwithstanding Krashen's (1985) solid language
acquisition hypotheses, it is claimed that, in most cases, it is challenging to transfer
these hypotheses from language acquisition context into a language learning
environment. Payne (2011) complains that i+1 in Krashen's input hypothesis creates
confusion in terms of its application in language teaching. Thus, according to Payne
(2011), it is hard to differentiate learners' received input quality and their contribution
to their input reception processes. Moreover, in the light of learners' relationship with
comprehensible input, it can be implied that it is quite difficult to determine a stable
course of action for language teaching/learning process. Knowing that Krashen
 13

(1985) and Long (1983) only emphasize the language acquisition process rather
than language learning underlines that the acquisition hypotheses are only partially
compatible with the needs of a language teaching/learning environment; that is,
instructors and language learners cannot be taken into consideration by taking
acquisition process as reference.

2.1.2.5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

Emotional and mental elements play a key role in language acquisition

process, and these elements stemming from feelings are referred to as affective
states. Krashen (1982) claims that certain types of affective variables are connected
with the success rate in second language acquisition. They are grouped in three
categories as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Krashen (1982) suggests
that an optimal environment where negative affective elements are eliminated must
be provided since those who attempt to acquire a second language will not be able
to receive sufficient amounts of language input no matter how comprehensible it is.
Thus, when motivation, self-confidence and anxiety are not at a desired level,
language acquisition is not expected to take place ideally. Although it seems that
Krashen (1982) presents Affective Filter Hypothesis as interrelated with second
language acquisition process, Lin (2008) posits that affective states play a similar
role in a language learning classroom, and suggests that affective barriers set by
language learners, just as Krashen (1982) underlines, can be avoided by omitting
the anxiety-mongering elements in the foreign language learning classroom. In brief,
Affective Filter Hypothesis explains the role of the psychological aspects of
language acquisition environment, and the steps to be taken in the way of
increasing the quality of language acquisition. As a final note, it is crucial to state
that Affective Filter Hypothesis is associated with the process of second language
acquisition rather that foreign language learning process. Thus, affective filter does
not necessarily function similarly in foreign language learning context, and foreign
language anxiety which will be explained in the next section has rather different
characteristics.

2.1.3. Foreign Language Anxiety

Scovel (1978) defines anxiety as an affective state that is associated with a

feeling of distress, uneasiness, loss of control, and negative anticipations caused by
an incoming tense situation. Basically, it emerges as a performance-hindering
mental and emotional state for the individuals that attempt to achieve a certain task.
While Scovel (1978) mentions the distinction of two types of anxiety as trait and
 14

state anxiety, Horwitz (2010) presents that anxiety as an affective state is classified
into three types as follows: trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific anxiety.
Scovel (1978) explains trait anxiety as the personal tendency to feel anxious in
various stress-evoking situations. Spielberger (1983, as cited in Aydin, 2009) state
anxiety is the type of tension felt towards certain situation in a certain time period. In
addition, Ellis (cited in Aydin, 2009) defines situation-specific anxiety as the feeling
of uneasiness, distress and anxiety emerging only in specific circumstances.
Foreign Language Anxiety (FLA) is a type of anxiety specifically generated in
the environment of language learning classrooms due to language learning
environments' unique anxiety-provoking nature. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994)
suggest that FLA is associated with unique and specific elements that take place in
foreign language classrooms as poor performance, negative peer responses, and
anxiety related to evaluation. Therefore, FLA, as Horwitz (2010) deduces, is
classified as a situation-specific anxiety, and has the same characteristics of the
anxiety that stems from test anxiety or anxiety of public speech.

2.1.3.1. Types of Foreign Language Anxiety

Horwitz et al. (1986) simplify learners’ complex anxious states based on their
behaviors, and present them in a way that they categorize the anxious experiences
faced by learners. The categorization brings forth three types of anxiety emerging in
foreign language classrooms as follows: communication apprehension, test anxiety,
and fear of negative evaluation.

2.1.3.1.1. Communication Apprehension

Horwitz et al. (1986) explain communication apprehension as the anxious

mental state caused by the concern that communication in the target language will
abruptly cease due to anxiety reasons. Similarly, Aydin (2008) pinpoints that
communication apprehension occurs in foreign language learning environments
frequently, since it is observed that learners as individuals have a wide range of
topics and plenty of thoughts to reflect. However, the incapacity in communicating in
the target language limits the learners, which unavoidably causes communication
apprehension. In this sense, Mak (2011) proposes that inappropriateness of wait
time in speaking practices in a language learning classroom is a potential reason for
communication apprehension. In short, communication apprehension is generally
triggered by the fear that communication in the target language will not be in desired
 15

quality or the thought that the true potential cannot be reflected through the
conversation.

2.1.3.1.2. Fear of Negative Evaluation

Among the ways foreign language anxiety manifests itself, foreign language
learners’ fear of negative evaluation is one of the most significant issues in EFL
learning context (Aydin, 2008). According to Horwitz et al. (1986), fear of negative
evaluation is basically the feeling of uneasiness that stems from other people’s
comments on language learners’ language performance. As Matsuda and Gobel
(2004) claim, the fear that is caused by the possibility of negative criticism from
others is one of the most common types of anxiety. Moreover, Gkonou (2011)
claims that one of the reasons why language learners develop a fear of negative
evaluation is that they compare their own performances to their peers’ performances
in the competitive nature of the classroom. Thus, this evokes the feeling of
insufficiency in language performance. In addition, learners’ desire to leave a good
social impression on their peers is yet another reason for developing a fear of
negative evaluation. In brief, it can be acknowledged that fear of negative evaluation
is quite a common occurrence in language learning classrooms, mainly caused by
the feeling of insufficiency in performance, concern for others' opinion, and grading.

2.1.3.1.3. Test Anxiety

Test anxiety is referred to as the anxious state of mind in fear of poor foreign
language performance when language skills are scored by an authority figure
(Horwitz et al., 1986). In the broadest perspective, as Zeidner (1998) states, tests
are valuable tools for gathering reliable and objective data in order to detect any
kind of progress or regression in performance, which consequently provides
opportunity to counsel, organize and classify the components of learning progress.
However, as Zeidner (1998) pinpoints, the importance given to tests by instructors
inevitably leads to anxious state of mind for the individuals whose performances are
measured. In the EFL context, tests are commonly used as a means of measuring
language skills of the learners such as grammar, reading comprehension and
listening. Therefore, language learners develop tendency to overrate the impact of
the tests on their lives. As Subasi (2010) highlights, test anxiety mainly stems from
 16

learners’ fear of failure in academic settings. In other words, scoring the target
language performance of learners forms an environment in which individual actions
are compared, and the images of success and failure emerge. Inevitably, for the
foreign language learners, getting relatively lower scores and failing is meaningfully
equal to failing in learning the foreign language. Conclusively, tests are regarded as
an indispensable tool for measuring success levels of language learners and for the
evaluation of the learning process; however, it is acknowledged that tests also put
considerable amounts of pressure on learners in a way that they fail to reflect their
potential language performance.

2.1.3.2. Speaking Anxiety

Speaking anxiety (SA) can be described as the situation driven by worry,

uneasiness, and panic when it comes to expressing oneself orally. However,
Horwitz et al. (1986) rename speaking anxiety as communication apprehension
since the origin of anxiety stems from the situation in which the individuals fear they
might not be fully understood, or might not be able to reflect their true potential.
Therefore, it can be assumed that SA stems from the feeling of uncertainty in the
face of oral communication. In the foreign language learning context, however, SA is
defined as a series of worry developed toward communicating in target language,
generally in the presence of an audience. In the light of these concerns, Mak (2011)
reveals that oral performance is regarded as the main reason behind anxiety in
language classrooms. Liu and Jackson (2008) state that SA is caused by problems
in one’s self-esteem, communicative competence and social involvement. In short,
SA is referred to as one of the main obstacles in the way of communicating in target
language since it drastically deteriorates the quality of oral performance of language
learners.

2.1.3.3. Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety

Although it is underlined that foreign language learning is an anxiety-

mongering process which mostly results with unwanted outcomes for both teachers
and learners, speaking has its own specific characteristics that make foreign
language learners feel uneasy, stressed-out and anxious (Gkonou, 2013; Horwitz et
al., 1986; Subasi, 2010). Since speaking requires a physical involvement, unlike
other skills, it can cause negative physical outcomes such as nausea, sweating,
weak knees, and dry mouth (Boyce et al., 2007). As Gkonou (2013) claims, both
communication apprehension and fear of negative evaluation are the outcomes of
 17

difficulties faced by language learners when speaking in foreign language

classrooms. Horwitz et al. (1986) deduct that speaking, along with listening, is a
stressful skill for language learners since it is completely dependent on one’s
individual cognitive process. That is why, speaking in a foreign language is different
than other skills on the basis that the individual cannot, in any way, resort to
anything other than her cognitive organization in mind. Therefore, prepared or not,
there is always the risk of drifting apart from the focus, which would lead the
individual to fear and anxiety, as Subasi (2010) infers that learners’ control on
cognitive performance declines in the process of speaking in a foreign language. In
conclusion, speaking as an anxiety-provoking language skill is considered to cause
a critical decrease in language performance of learners, consuming the
concentration level, cognitive vigilance during the speech.

2.1.3.4. Speaking Anxiety and Learning Environment

As mentioned before, it is acknowledged that SA is deeply associated with

learning environment since anxiety for oral communication is driven by specific
elements in foreign language classrooms such as poor performance, fear of
negative evaluation, peers’ opinions, communication apprehension and learners’
concern for social impression (Liu & Jackson, 2008; Mak, 2011). That is why, certain
improvements are to be made regarding the quality of language learning
environment, and teachers are expected to tread carefully when it comes to initiating
language learning process. Mercer (2011) suggests that language learners push
teachers to discover different language learning environments. In other words, as
Bell (2009) mentions, new learning environments are quite necessary for the
learning process since they bring forth new and more desirable behaviors to the
learners. Moreover, Mercer (2011) points out that these behaviors help learners to
adjust themselves to new experiences that come along with learning experiences
outside the traditional context. Therefore, as a conclusion, it can be stated that new
language learning environments can be introduced to language learning practices
since it is essential to draw the learners out of the conventional surroundings and to
rid the problem caused by foreign language speaking anxiety.
Virtual environments stand out as valuable tools as they provide new horizons
for language learning. For instance, Bell (2009) asserts that the notion that the use
of three dimensional virtual spaces is quite common in modern world inevitably
merges educational activities with the computerized systems. Therefore, it can be
 18

assumed that the use of computers and virtual realities that come with them have
gradually been integrated with educational activities. Moreover, Couto (2010)
signifies that using virtual environments that are the extensions of computer
supported language learning increases learners’ features such as self-regulation,
autonomy, collaboration and self-efficacy. Among the most significant virtual
language learning environments, virtual realities such as Second Life and Ragnarok,
Everquest II where learners can get free of physical existence are considered as
quite noteworthy (Aydin, 2013b; Balcikanli, 2012; Bell, 2009; Couto, 2010; Johnson,
2006). In addition, it can be noted that introduction of virtual worlds as new learning
environments is a promising means of decreasing SA among language learners
(Aydin, 2013b; Balcikanli, 2012; Couto, 2010; Guzel & Aydin, 2014), because
learners are offered an experience beyond physical boundaries of the real world
(Johnson, 2006). In conclusion, it can be stated that although SA poses a great
threat to language learning process, it is possible to diminish the level of anxiety
faced by learners with the introduction of new language learning environments, and
the idea of using virtual worlds as learning environments is considered as one of the
most intriguing attempts to improve language learning.

2.1.4. Second Life

SL is a 3D virtual world which was developed by Linden Labs in 2003. SL

offers users to exist in a virtual world by creating avatars to represent them, and it is
possible to perform many actions that are common in real life. It basically functions
as social network software which enables sharing multimedia items in addition to its
MUVE characteristics. Users are able to experience life-like situations such as
travelling, chatting, playing games, learning and attending academic activities in a
three dimensional, well-designed virtual environment. Moreover, it is possible to hide
identities, alter appearances and voices in order to stay anonymous. Last but not
least, SL is an environment which allows users to be completely free to do almost
anything on its virtual terrain. Thus, it is widely recognized as a place where worries
of real life are left behind, and it is designed for the comfort of its users enabling
them to own possessions, and personal spaces. That is the reason why SL has
been gradually becoming popular as an alternative platform for real-life situations
such as training, education and orienteering due to its relaxing and risk-free
features. In brief, SL is an appealing virtual environment that enables its residents to
achieve many endeavors that are present in real life, which makes SL quite open to
integration with various fields as education, foreign language learning.
 19

2.1.4.1. The Use of Second Life in the FL Context

SL is regarded as an intriguing platform for EFL learning for the reason that it
is quite promising considering its availability for educational contexts and that it
offers a great potential for EFL learners' language practice (Aydin, 2013b; Balcikanli,
2012; Bradshaw, 2006; Couto, 2010; Inman, Wright & Hartman, 2010; Johnson,
2006; Macedo & Morgado, 2009). In a narrower scope, SL stands out as the most
popular virtual world that is integrated with language learning events as a language
learning tool and environment. It is also claimed that SL is useful language learning
tool for it has a great educational potential lowering the stressful nature of language
performance (Aydin, 2013b; Balcikanli 2012; Couto, 2010). Moreover, it is evident
that SL addresses all the basic language skills; that is, learners can engage with
listening and reading activities, whereas it is possible to exploit SL in terms of
productive skills, namely writing and speaking. In an additional note, it is possible to
assert that SL can be effective, both overtly and covertly, in flourishing grammar and
vocabulary limits of the learners. To exemplify the effect of SL on aforementioned
language skills, it can be highlighted that SL provides learners with real-time
conversation on its voice chat feature, which enables them to hear the language and
produce voiced reactions to other users. Moreover, written chat and surroundings on
SL urges users to read and write, which at the same time requires them to involve
their grammar and vocabulary competence in the process. Considering SL's
thought-provoking nature and great potential in EFL learning context, it is quite
befitting to claim that it needs clarification on what functions SL has as a language
learning and speaking practice tool in EFL speaking classes.

2.1.4.2. Second Life and EFL Speaking

SL makes numerous contributions to EFL speaking, offering a valuable

source of information for the sake of promoting EFL speaking skills of the language
learners. Most importantly, it serves as a brand new language learning environment
where language learners are offered a chance to avoid the psychological challenges
faced in conventional language learning classrooms. As Couto (2010) and Aydin
(2013) suggest, SL is a promising language practice tool that obliterates negative
affective states such as fear of negative evaluation and anxiety of the learners while
performing in English. Furthermore, Balcikanli (2012) maintains that, in addition to
its anxiety-lowering nature, SL actually promotes interaction among language
learners. Johnson (2006) rationalizes that SL’s positive contributions to learner
interactions are possible thanks to its nature that does not require any type of
 20

dominant authority figure whatsoever. In other words, learners are autonomous and
self-regulated in SL. Speaking more specifically, anonymity provided in SL serves as
an important agent that diminishes the fear of being judged by the others and offers
learners a feeling of freedom in expressing themselves (Aydin, 2013; Balcikanli,
2012; Couto, 2010; Guzel & Aydin, 2014; Johnson, 2006). In connection, SL is a
language learning environment that promotes a self-regulated learning process
during which learners are urged to employ their academic expectations. In short, SL
manifests itself as a practical tool for foreign language learning in various
dimensions; however, before its usage in the FL context, it is necessary to present
the theoretical background of the use of SL in the foreign language context.

2.1.5. Theoretical Background of the Use of Second Life

SL as a language learning environment is regarded as an alternative

language practice environment which is potentially associated with some learning
theories. In this sense, it is necessary to discuss the applicability of learning theories
in SL in the way they are implemented in traditional classrooms in order to
determine learners' behavioral changes during language practice. Therefore,
language instructors are encouraged to implement various learning theories such as
self-regulation in learning, autonomous learning, collaborative learning,
constructivism and scaffolded learning into language learning process that takes
place in SL. In order to clarify the possible interrelation with SL, learning theories
self-regulation, learner-centeredness, collaborative learning, autonomous learning,
constructivism and scaffolded learning is detailed below. Subsequently, the learning
theories and their functions are discussed in connection with SL as a language
learning platform.

2.1.5.1. Self-regulation

Self-regulation is defined as a process of mental organization which requires

the learners to transform their cognitive abilities into academic skills. It is basically
the ability to adjust mental conditions with the ongoing learning process which is
comprised of tasks and activities. Whereas Zimmerman (2002) regards learning as
an action that learners do for themselves, learning is stimulated by the individuals'
determination to achieve intellectual goals to improve mental capacity. Therefore, it
is not plausible to consider learning as ability or as a special skill which simply
depends upon a dormant source of knowledge; rather, it requires the mental
involvement of the learners. In this sense, Xiao (2014) claims that contemporary
language learning environments require language learners to take responsibility of
 21

their own learning process instead of anticipating passively to be instructed with

language materials. According to Johnson (2006), when the individuals take part in
their own learning processes and make necessary adjustments realizing what item
is indispensable to the expected leaning outcomes, chances for a better result
inevitably increase. In this context, SL is regarded as a language learning tool which
promotes a self-regulated learning environment for language learners by enabling
them to take charge in organizing and shaping their own learning environments
(Guzel & Aydin, 2014; Johnson, 2006). Therefore, as Zimmerman (2002) suggests,
SL enables learners to follow their own intellectual goals as well as the path set for
them by the instructors. In conclusion, as Johnson (2006) claims, with the help of
SL, a self-regulated learning takes place for the learning which omits the traditional
ways of learning and diminishes the impact of affective states of the learners.

2.1.5.2. Learner-centeredness

Learner-centered teaching is the process in which the learners are more

aware of the learning situations in a way that they get more involved in learning
activities that take place in the classroom. Dang (2006) interprets that learners of
any sort are able to internalize what the tasks offer to them only when the actions
taken in the leaning process are meaningful and personal to them. In connection, it
is indicated that the more the learners are involved, the more they can interpret
meaning from the content (Dang, 2006; Kanavoz, 2006; Magno & Sembrano, 2009;
Xiao, 2014). Warburton (2009) highlights that language learning classrooms are
special and delicate environments in which learning must certainly provide engaging
activities which promote learner involvement. It is also acknowledged that learner
involvement in the learning process is desirable for certain outcomes mentioned
above; however, depending solely on learner’s actions might prove problematic
unless the steps to be taken are calculated beforehand. In addition, Dang (2006)
asserts that on the condition that methodology, strategies and outcomes of the
lesson are planned meticulously enough, performance and confidence of the
learners increase dramatically enabling them to actively participate in classroom
activities and to make a great deal of contributions to learning process. Therefore,
SL is regarded as a useful language learning tool which offers more free space for
the language learners unlike the traditional language learning environments (Couto,
2010). In addition, it can be inferred that language learning activities that take place
on SL encourages instructors to distribute equal amounts of responsibility among
language learners, because one of the major characteristics of a learner-centered
 22

learning environment is that instructors are expected to adjust the learning

atmosphere accordingly so that learners with poor performances are taken into
account (Brown, 2003). Thus, it is ensured in SL that learners will improve each
other's performances as well as their own success rates. Moreover, language
learners are not able to isolate themselves from learning activities organized by the
instructor since SL tasks require a collective effort which urges learners to take
incentive in their own learning.

2.1.5.3. Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning is the type of learning which is performed with the help
of peers that share the same learning environment and requires a series of actions
that incessantly changes hands throughout the process. One of the earliest theories
claiming that learning is greatly dependent on social interactions is Vygotsky's
(1978) social learning theory. Vygotsky (1978) indicates that an effective learning
takes place with the help of social environment of the individual. Therefore,
individuals complete missing parts of their learning process by observing the
behaviors of the others, and the way certain tasks are achieved. Peterson (2012)
depicts the collaborative learning environment as a platform on which learners form
a shared-knowledge among them with the help of negotiation of meaning. In this
scope, SL is considered as a good representative of real life since many actions that
are performed in real life can be performed in SL (Johnson, 2006). In addition, SL
requires the individuals to form behaviors for situations that take place in the virtual
reality (Bell, 2009). Johnson (2006) also claims that SL, as an interaction-based
social environment, is comprised of tasks and communicative activities that
encourage learners to act in collaboration. Thus, it can be concluded that SL is a
useful learning tool for integrating learners into an environment that promotes
collaboration.

2.1.5.4. Autonomous Learning

Autonomous learning is based on the notion that learners are able to achieve
learning task better when they take control of their learning process in a way that
they are aware of the dynamic relationship between learning incomes and learning
outcomes. It is suggested that the focus on the concept of autonomous learner in
educational context has led to the existence of the expert language learner as a
term (Mercer, 2011). Mercer (2011) defines expert learners as the learners who are
able to adjust their learning strategies with a complete realization of their beliefs and
 23

personal needs on the way of reaching the academic goals. According to Xiao
(2014), these autonomous learning attitudes are the product of learner agency
which enables the learners to intentionally personalize what they encounter within
the process learning. To add, Xiao (2014) claims that self-awareness is one of the
most important factors that directly affect achievement in language learning. It is
suggested that when learners take control of their own learning in a language
learning process, as in SL as a virtual learning environment, they are observed to
perform more as active individuals taking responsibilities than passive listeners who
are simply submissive (Couto, 2010; Johnson, 2006). In this perspective, SL as an
autonomous learning environment urges learners to take initiative and act more as
individuals rather than a small part of a large functioning group. In conclusion, it is
crucial to realize that when SL is introduced to the learning process, it is indeed the
individual productivity that runs the mechanism, not the will of the authority figure.

2.1.5.5. Constructivism

Constructivist approach to learning was first introduced by Piaget (1959) who

pinpoints that learning is a process which takes certain steps in order to be moved
into further directions. In other words, an item that has been learned serves as a
basis for future items to be learned. Wood et al (1976) integrate the constructivist
theory with contemporary learning contexts by furthering what it represents and
propose that learning starts with establishing basic components in order to merge
them together, resulting with various combinations of learning outcomes. In a
constructivist perspective, as Jonassen et al. (1995) define learning not as taking in
what is present in the environment and reflecting on the item that has been learned
as it is, but rather as participating in the learning and processing the items as
products of personal point of view. Therefore, it is suggested that learning follows a
simplistic order where learners expand basic items into much more complex clusters
by merging them together so long as they actually participate in the process,
interpreting the surrounding environment. Johnson (2006), in this sense, argues that
SL offers learners a chance for characteristic transformation, since it urges the
individuals to be responsible for their own actions during learning activities, and it
promotes learners' perspectives to be altered on their own account. What is more,
learners simply face an environment which enables them to alter the surrounding
according to their own personal needs; that is, they expand the world they reside in
depending on their experiences, towards the direction they desire. In conclusion,
constructivist approach to learning requires involvement of learners to produce their
 24

own realities based on the items introduced to them, and SL is an appropriate tool
for learners to create their own realities while learning.

2.1.5.6. Scaffolded Learning

Scaffolded learning is the learning process in which learning activities are

presented as tasks with the consideration of learners' intellectual readiness.
Vygotsky (1978) presents the theory that learning is a social and dependent process
that starts at very early ages. The child internalizes correct form of behaviors
observing the actions presented by the parents and peers at later stages. In
connection with Vygotsky's (1978) ZPD, scaffolded way of learning has been
implemented in many educational contexts. Hammond and Gibbons (2001) define
scaffolding applied in contemporary learning and teaching framework as the
necessary help and support provided by the instructors for the learners according to
their needs and capabilities. However, the amount of support is required to be
fluctuant since the learners do not need the guidance when they advance in the
learning progress. In other words, the point of scaffolding is that help is only
compulsory at the points where the learners are desperate to determine what
direction to take during the learning process (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001). To clarify
what scaffolding in learning stands for, Wood et al. (1976) offer some necessary
steps for an efficient instruction to take place. They suggest that learners' interest for
the task must be retained and the simplicity of the tasks must be adjusted in
accordance with the objectives and the learning content. In addition, vital points of
the learning content must be highlighted with the help of visual aids and
demonstrations, and the frustration caused by the challenging nature of the task
must be eliminated. That is why, SL is considered as a suitable platform for
implementing a scaffolded learning due to its task-driven characteristic (Couto,
2010; Johnson, 2006). SL functions as a learning tool with the help of a careful
design of the learning incomes and outcomes by the instructors; otherwise, learning
discipline among learners cannot be maintained. Therefore, it is suggested that
learning process is only efficient when the process is divided into several pieces,
preferably tasks on SL.

2.1.6. Conclusion

Several conclusions can be drawn from the information presented in this

section. First, it can be concluded that speaking skills are directly associated with
learners' language competence and performance. It is also acknowledged that
 25

learning a language requires complex phases to experience and language

acquisition is immensely dependent on the sufficient amount of comprehensible
input. Second, although receiving language input helps language development to
some extent, there are some types of affective variables that jeopardize language
acquisition process as motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. In this sense, anxiety
is described as a feeling of distress, uneasiness, loss of control and negative
anticipations caused by an incoming tense situation. It has three types in foreign
language learning: Communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation. In connection, speaking is widely accepted as the most anxiety-
provoking skill for EFL learners, as the acknowledgement of foreign language
anxiety and speaking anxiety in foreign language learning drives the teachers to
discover new language learning environments, bringing virtual worlds into the
forefront. Third, SL is regarded as an intriguing platform for EFL learning since it is
quite promising due to its availability for educational and EFL contexts. In addition to
its role as a social network that connects users in an alternate reality, SL is regarded
as a foreign language learning tool which offers lucrative language practice
opportunities for language learners. Moreover, SL as a learning tool is related to
some learning theories which are actively in correlation with traditional learning
environments. For instance, self-regulation is a mental organization process to turn
learner needs into academic success. In addition, learner-centeredness can be
defined as a learning process in which learners are share responsibility in their
learning. Autonomous learning is type of learning process in which learners take
control of their own learning. Furthermore, constructivism and scaffolded learning as
social learning models are entwined with SL in principle, since SL bears
resemblances to real life situations in various ways. In brief, SL can be claimed to
provide language learners with an environment where the learning theories
described above are profoundly applicable. As a final note, it is necessary to present
the literature on the aforementioned sections to make connections with preceding
research and to build upon studies that are related to the key issues.

2.2. Literature Review

2.2.1. Introduction

This section presents a review of research on a spectrum of studies starting

from the place of speaking in communication to be concluded with the effect of SL
on speaking anxiety of EFL learners. First, the collection of research on the role of
speaking in communication is presented. Second, comprehensible input is reflected
 26

through the lenses of related studies. Third, the studies describing SA and
examining the ways SA manifests itself are reviewed. Fourth, the compilation of
related research on SL in EFL context is summarized in brief. Last, narrowing down
the scope, the effects of SL as a virtual world on SA are demonstrated by reviewing
the related studies.

2.2.2. The Role of Speaking in Communication

There is a wide range of studies focusing on the unique role of speaking

skills in the EFL context which suggest that speaking is a very unique skill when
compared to other language skills since it constitutes an enormous part of
communicating in the target language. The research results reviewed on speaking
skills can be classified into two groups considering the focus of the studies. First
group of the studies mainly focuses on speaking as a physical entity in daily life
communication, while the second group includes studies that deal with the place of
speaking in the context of EFL teaching.

Research showed that speaking is a physical process as well as being a

mental production. In this context, Kurudayioglu (2011) stated that speaking was an
action to be used in order to deliver an intended message to the addressees, and
that is a product of very complicated mental and physical labor. According to
Kurudayioglu (2011) speaking was to be thoroughly analyzed so as to comprehend
what it stands for in communication. That is why, the study attempted at revealing
both physical and abstract components of speaking by presenting its structural
features such as phonations and sounds. It was revealed that speaking comprises
of quite complicated phases, and it affected success and failure of the individual
directly. Furthermore, Egan (1999) claimed that despite being regarded as the
center of second language learning, speaking was surprisingly ignored by many of
the instructors due to the hardships in the assessment. Therefore, the study aimed
to provide data that the use of speech-recognition supported CALL tools could
regain the central role of speaking skills. For this purpose Egan (1999) presented
that ASR feature can be used as a way to transform speaking into easily assessable
skill, thus encouraging instructors to value speaking in practice. Consequently, the
study revealed that speaking was regarded as the most vital part of language
proficiency, and it was possible to involve speaking as frequent as the other
language skills with the help of CALL tools. From another point of view, Nazara
(2011) discovered that although speaking was regarded as an important skill, it was
somehow ignored in language learning process. The study aimed at unveiling what
 27

language learners feel about speaking and its use in EFL learning. In order to gather
data on the perceptions of the learners, Nazara (2011) administered a 16-item
questionnaire to 40 students from fifth to seventh semester students. Findings
indicated that learners valued speaking for its central role in language learning, and
they were willing to put considerable effort to reach mastery in it. Moreover, Bahrani
and Soltani (2012) stated that speaking was regarded the most important skill in the
way of reaching language proficiency; however, language classes mainly focused
on structural aspects of language. Thus, the aim of the study was to underline the
ways to integrate speaking skill with structural language teaching activities such as
grammar and vocabulary teaching. Bahrani and Soltani (2012) presented types of
activities to enhance the central role of speaking in language learning. The study
concluded that language proficiency was possible with intensive use of
communicative activities that were based on speaking skill, and the reason why
speaking was ignored in language teaching was the low interest shown to speaking
activities due to its necessity of active engagement.

Research demonstrates a consensus that speaking should be considered as

the central skill in language teaching, since language proficiency requires a fluent
communication skill in the target language and the research contributes by
suggesting that language teaching is more likely to enable learners to achieve
language proficiency on condition that it is based on communicative language
teaching activities (Baleghizadeh & Shahri, 2014; Cane, 1998; Celce-Murcia,
Dornyei & Thurrell, 1995; Hu, 2010; Lochland, 2013; McCarthy & O'Keeffe, 2004;
Nazari, 2007). For instance, Baleghizadeh and Shahri (2014) claimed that speaking
was a skill that was regarded as quite important in the eyes of both teachers and
learners; however, it was dominated by other skills in practice. Therefore, the study
attempted to discover the reason why speaking must be dominant in language
teaching by taking teacher perceptions into account. The method of the study was
based on the data collected by interviewing two expert teachers and one novice
teacher. The results indicated that primary skill that could be nourished during
language teaching was speaking and speaking activities should be conducted
alongside the structural features of language.
Richards (1983), in addition, discussed that communicative objectives were
the main constituents of the language. Thus, the research attempted to signify that
communicative competence was much more valuable than structural knowledge in
terms of communicating in a foreign language. In this sense, Richards (1983)
presented how language learners adapted what they already knew in interactional
 28

contexts and how they gradually made the target language conventional by
providing explanation on speech acts. The study concluded that language learning
should focus on communicative aspects of the language since lexical and
grammatical competence could be fixed during the conventionalization of the
language. Furthermore, Hu (2010) asserted that Chinese EFL teaching adopted
communicative competence as the primary goal in language classrooms since
speaking skill was regarded as the ultimate motive for language learning. Thus, Hu
(2010) aimed at exploring effective methods to flourish Chinese EFL learners’
communicative competence. In order to develop methods to be employed in
language teaching, the study examined the positive contributions of communicative
language teaching. It was concluded that language teaching was more than
theoretical knowledge of the rules; instead, it was greatly dependent on practice.
Celce-Murcia et al (1995) also argued that communicative competence described by
Canale and Swain (1980) did not provide elaborate and pedagogical insight to
language teaching. Therefore, they attempted to develop more pedagogically-driven
constituents for communicative language teaching. The study classified
communicative competence in five groups as follows: discourse, linguistic, actional,
sociocultural and strategic competence. The study concluded that understanding
communicative competence in terms of language teaching context with the help of
elaborate classification would improve the quality of language teaching activities. In
addition, Nazari (2007) suggested that how teachers comprehended communicative
competence affected how they taught the language. Thus, the study tried to
discover how high school teachers conceived communicative competence as a
term. For collecting data, teachers were interviewed and observed. The data
indicated that speaking was not used as an active communication tool in language
teaching process; rather, teachers and learners preferred speaking briefly in order to
give examples and produce simple utterances.
Cane (1998) claimed that course books were not sufficient for improving
language learners’ communicative competence. The study, thereby, aimed to
determine the efficiency of course books and the alternative methods for teaching
communicative skills. Cane (1998) concluded that more direct teaching activities
would take place instead of indirect ones triggered by excessive use of course
books. Furthermore, Lochland (2013) asserted that CLT did not have a universally
accepted definition, thus the paper aimed to determine whether CLT was an
appropriate approach for Japanese EFL teaching. In order to discover CLT’s role,
Lochland (2013) discussed it within situated pedagogy context. In conclusion, it was
 29

asserted that a standard teaching method could not be designed, and teachers
should be flexible and responsive to the learner needs.

2.2.3. Research on Comprehensible Input

There is an abundance of research concerning the role and place of

comprehensible input in language learning led by the studies that regard it as an
indispensable element in language acquisition. Although comprehensible input as a
term is mostly associated with language acquisition process, the research on EFL
teaching attempted to integrate it with language learning itself. To analyze
comprehensible input within the practice of language teaching and learning, the
research can be divided into two categories. The studies in the first group are
reviewed in terms of what comprehensible input is and why it is considered
important, whereas the second group presents the research on the interpretation of
comprehensible input in EFL teaching under various circumstances.
Research shows that the supply of comprehensible input is considered as a
vital step for teaching EFL and determining what items are to be regarded as
authentic materials is often problematic. In this sense, Guariento and Morley (2001)
stated that the use of authentic teaching tools is valued in language classrooms due
to their positive contributions to language learning. Nevertheless, it was quite
complicated when it came to the frequency of the use of authentic materials in
language classrooms since instructors mostly preferred text-based authentic
materials rather than communicative tools. Thus, they aimed to determine how
communicative tasks could be used as an authentic language learning materials by
using systematic explanations. The study argued that the communicative tasks that
were used in language classrooms did not necessarily need to be derived from
authentic/real-life materials for low proficiency learners; on the contrary, simplified
texts that were regarded as artificial input could be exploited as valuable teaching
materials as long as the learners were aware that simplified text at hand was only a
preparatory stage for the authentic tasks to come in later stages of language
learning. In addition, Payne (2011) claimed that comprehensible input was quite
attractive for language teachers considering its practical use in language acquisition.
Except, in language learning which has unique characteristics compared to
language acquisition the role of comprehensible input was confusing. For this
reason, Payne (2011) attempted to discover how comprehensible input functioned in
 30

language learning, and in what ways the same type of comprehensible input
provided the equal amount of benefit for language learners. The study concluded
that even though comprehensible input proved useful in many circumstances of
language learning, it did not function in language learning classrooms as stable as it
did in language acquisition process. Furthermore, Shintani (2011) reported that the
effectiveness of input-based and output-based language teaching was a matter of
discussion in terms of EFL teaching. Therefore, the study aimed at comparing input-
based and output-based methods in language teaching. To gather data, students
were divided into three groups; input-based group, production-based group, and
control-group. Results indicated that the group which employed an input-based
learning was provided better interactional opportunities during language tasks, and
they performed better in terms of language production.
In addition to the studies that question what comprehensible input as a term
that is mostly used in language acquisition stands for in language learning, some
studies regarding EFL learning and teaching have attempted to integrate
comprehensible input into language teaching procedures in practice. For instance,
Rodrigo et al (2004) stated that providing comprehensible input during language
learning was a promising way to improve language performance of the learners. In
this sense, the study set a goal to determine whether language teaching activities
based on the use of comprehensible input made a difference. So as to gather data,
learners receiving a language instruction under the influence of comprehensible
input were compared to the ones who participated in traditional language learning.
Findings suggested that the group which was exposed to a language learning
heavily dependent on comprehensible input performed better than the traditional
group in grammar and vocabulary tests. In another study, Crossley et al (2012)
discussed that it was very common to detect that texts that were used as
comprehensible input were simplified for better comprehension in language
classrooms. Claiming that it might bring about some problematic outcomes, the
study focused on exploring the potential effects of text simplification in language
teaching. The data were gathered by using the computational tool Coh-Metrix in a
way that 300 news articles were simplified for three proficiency levels as beginner,
intermediate and advanced to explain linguistic differences of the texts. Results
showed that texts that were simplified for beginner level provided a richer linguistic
input for the learners than the texts simplified for advanced level.
In addition, Oh (2001) stated that input plays the major role in second and
foreign language learning; the simplicity and complexity of the materials provided for
learners affect reaching language mastery effectively. Thus, Oh (2001) attempted to
 31

discover which of the methods led to the desirable outcome in terms of language
learning. The data were collected by presenting learners six reading passages that
were simplified and elaborated and their comprehension levels were measured by
administering an 18-item multiple choice test. The findings were in a direction that
elaborated input served more useful for reaching language mastery, and the study
suggested that elaborated inputs accelerated learning process by enabling learners
to comprehend baseline texts more easily. Furthermore, Carlo (1994) stated that
conventional language classrooms mainly focused on written texts as
comprehensible input; however, they did not provide opportunities for
communicative competence. Therefore, the study aimed to explore the use of video-
texts as a means of comprehensible input. In the study, learners were provided with
video enhanced learning opportunities for their language learning. In conclusion,
Carlo (1994) suggested that language learning environments must be supported
with comprehensible input which was based on both linguistic and communicative
competence, since it was indicated that learners easily engage with learning
procedure when communicative tools were involved. Finally, Neuman and Koskinen
(1994) suggested that acquisition was a subconscious process; therefore, just as it
took place in language acquisition, it was possible to deduct that learners grasp the
structure of target language by focusing on the meaning rather than focusing on the
form and the structure of the language. That is why, their study aimed to determine
the effect of captioned television as a comprehensible input for the language
learning of minority students. Consequently, it was found out that input hypothesis
was in correlation with incidental learning of the language, and it was deduced that
captioned television as a comprehensible input provided better incidental language
learning.

2.2.4. Types of Oral Interactions

Oral interaction is acknowledged as a stepping stone for language mastery

due to the importance given to communicative teaching methods in EFL teaching.
The research, in general, suggests that learning the target language requires
communicative competence; therefore, it urges language learners to develop
interactional strategies for the communication in target language. In connection,
some studies focus on the notion that communicative competence can be reached
through following a pattern of interactional strategies in the target language. On the
other hand, the research also examines oral interactions as integrated with
language learning tools and other language skills.
 32

Research that focuses on oral interactions as a strategy development

process deals with determining what types of interactional patterns are to be used
during language instruction and in what circumstances the learners decide the type
of oral interaction strategies. As an example, Bygate (1988) claimed that small
groups that learned a language developed certain strategies to commence oral
interactions. Thus, the study aimed at examining the strategies for oral interaction
employed by small groups, and determining in what ways small working groups
approached oral interactions in target language. To gather data, a comparison
between previous studies on L2 learning and the perception of language knowledge
were made. Subsequently, satellite units that played role in oral language production
in language learning were described. Data showed that oral tasks were
indispensable sources for language learning procedures.
Moreover, Naughton (2006) noted that oral interaction patterns in small
groups that learned a second language was regarded as practical for language
learning process. The paper focused on discovering the effect of collaborative tasks
that unified small groups around a discussion topic. Data were collected through
administrations of pretest and posttest based on the initiation of a strategy training
program. Data indicated that small groups were more active in oral interaction when
tasks that required interactional strategies and discussion were introduced in the
learning process. According to Nakatani (2006), communicative competence could
be achieved with the use of appropriate communication strategies. Thus, Nakatani
(2006) attempted to determine a way to reveal EFL learners' communication
strategies towards oral interaction in the second language, thus to develop a
questionnaire for analysis. To finalize the questionnaire the procedure proceeded as
follows: administration of an open ended questionnaire to learn perceptions of oral
interaction, a pilot factor analysis, and a final factor analysis. The result indicated
that learners with high oral interaction proficiency were the ones that had followed
interaction strategies for their communication in target language. In a subsequent
study, Nakatani (2010) pinpointed that developing learning strategies to achieve
communicative competence was widely recognized as a beneficial factor for oral
interaction proficiency. Therefore, the study aimed to determine certain types of
communication strategies developed by language learners to validate their
practicality in gaining communicative competence. To collect data, a 12-week long
learning program during which communicative tasks were introduced took place,
and learners' proficiency levels were tested in terms of being able to use presented
inventory of oral interaction strategies such as negotiation of meaning and tactics for
maintaining discourse. The study concluded that the introduction of the inventory of
 33

interactional strategies could prove useful for flourishing learners' communicative

skills.
In addition to the studies that analyze oral interaction within the context of
learning strategies, some studies take oral interaction as a part of language learning
process which is an entwined system of various types of language learning tools
and language skills. For instance, Murphy (1991) stated that oral communication
had roots not only in speaking skill but also listening and pronunciation. Thus, the
study attempted to reveal how ESL teachers treated language teaching in regards to
speaking, listening and pronunciation skills. To explore the necessity of all skills,
Murphy (1991) systematically defined each skill by basing them on a theoretical
basis emphasizing how they were incomplete solely. The paper suggested that
communicative competence and language mastery could not be completely
achieved if the skills were used separately. To add, Tuan and Nhu (2010) asserted
that learning a language required the ability to commence interaction in both spoken
and written channels and gaining communicative competence depended on oral
interaction that took place in language classrooms. The study aimed to compare two
methods used in language instruction to develop learners' oral interaction; teacher-
learner interaction and learner-learner interaction, and reviewed the research on two
methods in association with input hypothesis, interaction hypothesis and output
hypothesis. Moreover, Jeon-Ellis et al (2005) discussed that language learning
environment must include authentic communication. The paper attempted to
validate computer mediated oral interaction represented the physical attributions of
oral interaction that takes place in real life. To collect data, Jeon-Ellis et al. (2005)
language learners were presented with web-based projects, collaboration and
autonomous learning opportunities with the help of computers. The results showed
that computerized oral interactions could help learners to improve their
communicative competence by taking part in collaborative and autonomous tasks.
Furthermore, Homano-Bunce (2011) conducted a study on computers as
language learning mediums which were known to facilitate collaborative language
learning. The study attempted to compare interaction led in chat rooms and face-to-
face to in terms of their potential for facilitating language learning. Data were
collected through computer use during oral interaction, and an analysis of the
process was made through observation, interviews, and a questionnaire. Findings
showed that computers were not necessarily equivalent of a face-to-face oral
interaction and could actually hinder the flow of communication.
 34

2.2.5. Research on Speaking Anxiety

Speaking anxiety is considered as one of the most problematic issues faced

in language learning classrooms in EFL context. The research on speaking anxiety
indicates that there are various reasons for EFL learners to develop anxiety towards
oral production in English. Furthermore, the research presents insight for how to
minimize the negative effect of speaking anxiety in language learning.
The research basically focuses on how speaking anxiety is a crucial factor to
consider in language learning and in what ways it is triggered during oral production
in English. Initially, Kocak (2010) claimed that language anxiety constituted a
serious obstacle for EFL learners' oral performances. Based on this notion, the
study aimed to reveal the reasons for EFL learners' speaking anxiety and
determined how speaking anxiety could be eliminated. In the way of obtaining data,
Kocak (2010) presented an open ended questionnaire to the learners; consequently,
eight language learners were interviewed depending on the information they
provided in the questionnaire. As a result, the interviewees stated that their speaking
anxiety mostly stemmed from the fear of failure. In addition, Liu and Jackson (2008)
stated that unwillingness to communicate was caused by situations such as
communication apprehension, self-esteem problems, communicative incompetence
and social involvement problems. Therefore, the study attempted to provide insight
for the reasons behind Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness to communicate in
English. To gather data, a survey consisting of 70 items was administered to 547
freshmen who did not major in English. The result indicated that majority of the
learners did not prefer putting their language skills into practice, and they were
concerned about negative evaluation on their performances. Furthermore, Mak
(2011) asserted that speaking anxiety was the most common concern among EFL
learners regarding foreign language anxiety. The article aimed at presenting the
elements that played a role in speaking anxiety of a group of Chinese ESL students
consisting of 313 students. To determine what factors were in motion, Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) was used as reference for factor
analysis. The results demonstrated that five factors causing speaking-in-class
anxiety were detected: speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation; uneasiness
when speaking with native speakers; negative attitudes toward English classrooms;
negative self-evaluation; and academic concerns. Moreover, Matsuda and Gobel
(2003) stated that anxiety is the main source for poor performance in target
language among EFL learners. Thus, the study aimed to determine whether there
was a relationship between foreign language classroom anxiety, foreign language
 35

reading anxiety, gender, extended overseas experience, and classroom

performance. To obtain data, Matsuda and Gobel (2003) administered FLCAS and
FLRAS to three groups of Japanese EFL learners consisting of 252 students. The
data showed that confidence, gender and proficiency levels of the learners were the
key elements in speaking performance of the students. In addition, Liu (2006)
suggested in a study that anxiety was the key element in EFL learners' speaking
performances since anxiety was a very unique obstacle in the way of speaking in
target language. The study attempted to report anxiety situations of Chinese non-
English majors. In the study, Liu (2006) administered observation procedures,
reflective journals and interviews to the learners. The study concluded that almost
every student suffered from anxiety when practicing English, students with high
proficiency levels proved less anxious, the most anxiety-provoking situation in
language learning was when a response was expected by the instructor, and the
more the exposure to language production increased, the less the learners were
anxious. Additionally, Yalcin and Incecay (2014) proposed that the number of
studies dealing with how to overcome speaking anxiety was quite limited. Therefore,
the study attempted to determine if integrated spontaneous speaking activities could
help EFL learners overcome their speaking anxiety. For this, twelve freshmen
learners were administered FLCAS developed by Horwitz et al. and Unwillingness to
Communicate Scale (UCS) before and after a 14-week long period during which
various speaking activities were introduced. The result pointed out that intensifying
speaking practice consequently helped learners to overcome their speaking anxiety.
Last but not least, Subasi (2010) stated that speaking anxiety is a very common
problem for EFL learners. Although there were a number of reasons for speaking
anxiety, the study aimed at exploring two potential sources of the anxiety faced by
EFL learners: fear of negative evaluation, and self-perceived speaking ability. To
gather data, a 55-item survey consisting of Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety
Scale (FLCAS), Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE), Self-Rating Can-Do Scale (SR-
CDS), Self-Rating for the Current Level of Study (SR-CL), Self-Rating Perception by
the English (SR-EPE) was administered to 55 students. The research concluded
that there was a positive correlation between speaking anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation. Moreover, the results showed that issues such as personal reasons,
teacher's manners, teaching procedures and previous experiences emerged as
alternative reasons behind speaking anxiety of EFL learners.
 36

2.2.6. Research on Second Life in EFL Context

The research on SL’s role and place in EFL context is mainly related to how
SL is integrated in the EFL learning process and what type of activities can be
developed in SL-based language learning. However, the number of the studies
carried out on SL's place in EFL is quite limited. To begin with, Wang et al. (2009)
suggested that MUVEs such as SL gained considerable attraction among educators
due to their appealing nature as constructivist educational tools. Nevertheless, it
was also noted that the understanding of how MUVEs, especially SL, functioned in
the way of promoting EFL learners’ language skills. Thus, the study aimed to create
an SL-based EFL learning program among Chinese and American students. The
participants took place in speaking activities in a way that Chinese learners were
paired with American participants to interact. The study concluded that MUVEs and
SL in particular provided possibilities for learners from different countries in terms of
collaboration, cultural sharing and peer-learning. Furthermore, Couto (2010) stated
that there has been an inclination among educators towards using virtual worlds in
language learning. She attempted to find out whether there was a correlation
between anxiety and the use of virtual worlds. For this purpose, she designed an
experiment for future use, including learners who studied Spanish and English as
foreign languages. Students were asked for their opinions after the speaking
practice sessions on SL. In the study, learners aimed to practice English and
Spanish language both face-to-face and in virtual environments. The results
indicated that virtual worlds might have a promising potential for reducing anxiety in
their language performance. In another study, Mayrath et al. (2011) suggested that
the interest in the functionality of virtual worlds in instructional purposes grew
dramatically. Nonetheless, research on the quality of virtual world activities that
might be used in instruction did not provide sufficient empirical data. Therefore,
Mayrath et al. (2011) carried out a case study to determine what type of activities
could be designed in language instruction by using SL. To gather data, they
designed courses to last for two semesters, highlighting social interaction and
clearly connected activities. In the study, three surveys were administered to
understand students’ experiences in SL learning. Students were asked to write
comments about their experiences. The results indicated that student focused on
technical features rather than the course content frustrating and distracting.
Nonetheless, they enjoyed the limitless world of SL, when they did activities directly
related to the course content. Peterson (2012) stated that the introduction of
computer technologies to language education led to the use of text-based two-
 37

dimensional virtual worlds; subsequently progressing to the direction of employing

three-dimensional MUVEs as SL. Based on the evolution in CALL, he attempted to
discover the role of MUVEs in the context of SL based text chat among Japanese
EFL learners. The data suggested that SL provided learners with a supportive
collaborative learning opportunity with which they could control their own learning
process with the support of their peers in a rich and authentic environment. The
study resulted that SL was a useful environment where learners could practice their
language skills, develop autonomy and interact with other users on their own wills.
Moreover, Wang and Shao (2012) acknowledged in their study that SL as a virtual
language learning environment acquired a popularity among language teachers
owing to its appealing nature. However, as they noted, the limited number of
research on SL’s functionality in language learning processes failed to provide a
clear basis. Thus, they conducted an experimental research in which SL was placed
in EFL curricula for Chinese and American university students. In the process,
students from both countries were paired to interact with each other. The study
concluded that SL was considered as an effective way of improving their EFL
learning process by Chinese learners. Similarly, Balcikanli (2012) pinpointed that the
processes of knowledge sharing and language instruction changed in many ways
with the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies. Balcikanli (2012), therefore, focused
on the use of SL in speaking. Data were collected by surveying Turkish EFL
learners’ and American TFL learners’ opinions after the interaction of pairs from the
two groups practicing language with each other. The study concluded that the use
of SL SL dramatically reduced the risk of being threatened. It also provided a
learner-centered and autonomous learning environment in which they were able to
improve their language skills. In addition, Aydin (2013b) reviewed the literature on
SL as a language learning tool, stating that according to the research, SL possesses
a great potential to be introduced to language learning. He also noted that, based on
the findings in the studies, SL positively influenced learners’ affective states and
promoted interaction and communication among learners. Furthermore, the issues
such as pricing, technical difficulties and age posed as notable limitations of using
SL in its full potential in language learning.

2.2.7. Research on the Effect of Second Life on Speaking Anxiety

Studies that focus on SL's effect on speaking anxiety basically prevail that
SL is a language learning environment that directly has an impact on learners'
affective states. However, the number of studies on the feasibility of SL as a virtual
language learning environment in EFL teaching context is quite low; what is more,
 38

there are merely a few studies concerning the effect of SL on speaking anxiety in
EFL learning process. Even though prior research brings forth the potential of SL as
a virtual language learning environment that positively affects speaking anxiety in
EFL learning; incidentally, it is challenging to gather a wide range of empirical data
on the issue. In one study, Balcikanli (2012) regarded SL as a practical tool for
language practice and aimed to use it to determine how it would affect EFL learners’
oral interactions. The result was quite promising in a way that the learners found the
experience less anxiety-provoking than regular, face-to-face interactions. Similarly,
Aydin (2013b) sought to understand how recent research reflected SL as a virtual
language learning platform, and reviewed the studies related to SL in the context of
EFL learning. The study concluded that SL was regarded as a relaxing language
practice environment which decreased speaking anxiety stemming from oral
interaction. Lastly, Guzel and Aydin (2014) stated that SL which received as an
alternative language learning environment took place in several studies; however,
the number of the studies on the effect of SL on speaking anxiety levels of EFL
learners was quite limited. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to reveal how
related studies approached SL as an anxiety-lowering tool in oral interaction of EFL
learners. The study concluded that SL was frequently highlighted as a promising
language learning environment which reduces anxiety levels.

2.2.8. Conclusion

From this literature review, several conclusions can be reached. Initially,

there is a wide range of research focusing on the role of speaking skills in EFL
context, and the findings of related studies suggest that speaking is a very unique
skill when compared to other language skills since it constitutes a vast part of
communication in target language. In connection, there is an abundance of studies
concerning comprehensible input. Even though the studies suggest that
comprehensible input is mainly associated with language acquisition, it is also
concluded that comprehensible input should be considered as a key factor in EFL
learning process. Furthermore, the research deduce that the practice of oral
interaction is a stepping stone for language mastery based on the findings of the
studies that focus on communicative teaching methods in EFL learning. In addition,
speaking anxiety as an outcome of oral interactions in target language is a common
issue on which many researchers direct their focus. According to the related
research, speaking anxiety is triggered by factors such as fear of negative
evaluation, interaction with native speakers, negative attitudes toward English
classrooms, attitudes toward teachers, negative self-evaluation, and academic
 39

concerns. Moreover, the research on SL's role in EFL context primarily focus on the
ways SL is integrated in EFL learning / teaching processes and the types of
teaching activities used to teach English with the help of SL. However, the findings
indicate that the integration of SL as a language learning tool into syllabuses lacks
an organized touch in terms of using language teaching methodologies properly.
Finally, studies which focus on the effect of SL on speaking anxiety suggest that SL
has direct impacts on EFL learners’ affective states. Finding of the studies, though
limited, indicate that SL positively affects learners' anxiety levels in language
practice. Nevertheless, the studies fails to meet the need to provide specific data for
the effect of SL on EFL learners' speaking anxiety levels.

To sum, studies were reviewed to shed light onto the possible effects of SL
on EFL learners' speaking anxiety levels by starting with a broader perspective to
the issue at hand into the direction of providing more specific studies. The studies
reviewed above offers a great insight about the nature of speaking anxiety and SL's
potential role in reducing speaking anxiety in EFL teaching. However, the literature
brought about some important points to consider, as they suggested that the
research on the effect of SL on EFL speaking anxiety was not supported by
sufficient empirical data. In addition, research did not specifically focus on SL's
effect on speaking anxiety of EFL learners; rather, the related literature emphasized
SL's role in decreasing the speaking anxiety levels as mere details in the studies.
Therefore, it can be concluded that studies that specifically focus on the effect of SL
on EFL speaking anxiety are required to provide solid data on the issue. In this
sense, this study will serve as a beneficial tool to discover in what ways the use of
SL can affect anxiety levels of EFL learners when speaking in target language.
 40

3.

METHODOLOGY

This section presents the methodological procedure followed on the way of

obtaining data on the effect of SL as a virtual language learning environment on
speaking anxiety. First, the design process of the research is described. Next,
participants of the research and how they are assigned to groups are discussed.
Then, the tools that were used to gather data are introduced. Last, after the
research procedure is introduced, the statistical procedure is given.

3.1. Research Design

The study that aimed to gather data on the effect of SL as a virtual language
learning environment on speak anxiety was designed to be an experimental
research. The study comprised of three steps: (1) the administration of a
background questionnaire, speaking achievement pre-test and a 65-item SLLS pre-
test, (2) practice based on speaking activities, (3) speaking achievement post-test
and administration of SLLS. The first phase of the research took place in second
week of the fall semester in 2015. The second phase which was practice took a 4-
week-long time period. Prior to practice based on speaking activities, third grade
EFL learners were randomly divided into two groups as control and experimental
groups. Last, speaking achievement post-test and scales were administered to the
participants in the groups to compare their performance and anxiety levels.

3.2. Participants

The study included 44 second and third year students who actively took place in
the activities. They were English Language Teaching (ELT) Department students at
Balikesir University and were advanced-level EFL learners. Eight (18.2 %) of the
participants were male students, while 36 (81.8 %) of them were females. The gap
between the gender numbers was not deliberate, and it was a mere indicator of the
demographics in ELT departments in general. Participants’ mean age was 20.91,
ranging from 19 to 35. All of the participants took classes on basic language skills
and knowledge areas such as Contextual Grammar, Oral Communication Skills,
Advanced Reading and Writing, Listening and Pronunciation in their first two
semesters. Academic achievement of the participants were based on their 4.0 scale
GPA scores. The mean score for the academic achievement of the participants was
 41

2.78, ranging from 1.36 to 3.73. Their language levels were considered as advanced
due to their intensive language learning experiences in high school and two years of
skill-based and theoretically-enriched education in the ELT Department. Table 1
shows the distribution of means, numbers and percentages shaped by age, gender
and academic achievement score variables of the participants in the study.

Table 1. Age, Gender, Academic Achievement Score

Experimental
Variables Control Group Both
Group
Mean 20.41 21.50 20.90
Age Minimum 20.00 19.00 19
Maximum 21.00 35.00 35
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Number
21 3 15 5 36 8
Gender
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Percent
87.5% 12.5% 75.0% 25.0% 81.8% 18.2%
Mean 2.91 2.63 2.78
Academic St. Dev. .47 .56 .53
Achievement Score Minimum 1.36 1.52 1.36
Maximum 3.73 3.64 3.73

3.3. Tools

In the research process, three tools were used to collect data from the groups:
(1) A background questionnaire, (2) grading scale for speaking proficiency
developed by Kanatlar (2005) and (3) Survey on Language Learning adapted by Liu
and Jackson (2013). First, the background questionnaire interrogated basic
information such as age, gender, grade and academic achievement scores. Second,
as the tool for scoring speaking proficiency levels, Grading Scale developed by
Kanatlar (2005) included five different sections to score such as grammar,
vocabulary, fluency, intelligibility and task achievement (See Appendix 1).
Participants can get 100 points maximum in Speaking Grading Scale. Flawless
performance on grammar and vocabulary sections is worth 30 points each, fluency
section provides 20 points, and finally, intelligibility and task achievement sections
are worth 10 points each, as shown in Table 2. Third, Survey on Language Learning
included 36-item Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale developed by Horwitz
et al. (1986), a reduced form of Unwillingness to Communicate Scale developed by
 42

Burgoon (1976), 6-item Language Class Risk-Taking Scale developed by Ely

(1986), and 5-item Language Class Sociability Scale developed by Ely (1986).
Survey on Language Learning consisted of 70 items and 5-point Likert Scale
ranging from one to five (1-Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, 5- Always).

Table 2. Speaking Grading Scale Points

Sections Max Score

Grammar 30

Vocabulary 30

Intelligibility 20

Fluency 10

Task Achievement 10

Total score 100

3.4. Procedure

Prior to research procedure, participants were fully informed about the

mechanics of the study, the expectations, steps to take and their roles in the
process. For ethical concerns, subjects were ensured that their personal information
would be protected and all personal details would be kept confidential. Then,
subjects were asked to sign a consent form stating that their participation in the
study was voluntary and under no circumstances would it cause them to be involved
in any political, social and ethical conflicts. Following the reassurance that each
subjects’ personal information would be kept confidential and signing the forms
stating that participation is voluntary, the research process was initiated.
 43

3.4.1. Pre-test Administration

At the beginning of the research, the background questionnaire were

administered to the participants, interrogating them about their ages, grades (GPA),
and genders. Then, subjects were called for an oral interview to talk about a topic
chosen from a collection of TOEFL questions. Each participant randomly picked a
speaking topic from an envelope and spoke for three or four minutes. Two scorers
who are research assistants in the department and advanced-level speakers graded
subjects’ oral performances based on SGS developed by Kanatlar (2005). Then,
participants were administered Survey on Language Learning developed by Liu and
Jackson (2013) to determine participants’ levels of speaking anxiety, willingness to
communicate in target language. Following the completion of pre-tests, the practice
stage in which subjects experienced four sessions of 45-minute-long speaking
activities.

3.4.2. Practice Stage

During the practice stage, subjects were randomly divided into two groups as
control and experimental groups. With both groups, same lesson plans were
devised and lesson topics were chosen from Q-Skills Advance Your Listening and
Speaking by Oxford Press (Caplan & Douglas, 2011) which is an advanced-level
speaking course book. While control group subjects participated in traditional
speaking lesson environment, subjects in the experimental group joined the same
speaking lessons on the virtual world of SL, as shown in Table 2. The practice
process took a four-week-long time period, each session taking place once a week
for a 45-minute-long lessons.
 44

Table 3. Weekly Activities

Process
Weeks Tasks Topic Vocabulary

a. How do people get the

news today?
Vocabulary on
b. Which means of journalism
journalism,
a. Group are outdated?
Week 1 devices we get
discussion c. If you were to give
b. Pair Work news from
presentation, how would
you prepare?

a. What difficulties might an

English speaker visiting
your home country have
Vocabulary on
while trying to
communication,
communicate?
Week 2 a. Group communication
discussion b. What can cause
problems,
b. Pair work communication difficulties?
linguistic issues
c. How do you overcome Warm-up activities
frustration and violence
caused by failure in Opening discussion
communication?
Paired discussion
and brainstorming on
a problem
Vocabulary on
a. What are the factors that uncommon Reflection and
you consider when professions such solution
planning a vacation? as “tech
nomads”. Group discussion
b. Can you describe a time
a. Group Vocabulary on
when work or school was Listing the outcomes
Week 3 discussion travelling and
fun? and vocabulary
b. Pair work
c. Is it possible to have fun business
planning Closing regards and
while working?
conclusion

a. Do you have any places

that you consider
“completely yours”? How
do you personalize a
space or a place?
b. What are some Vocabulary on
differences in the way accommodation
a. Group
Week 4 discussion different groups and space
b. Pair work (males/females/children/ styling,
adults) personalize their psychological
spaces? issues
c. What do you think your
organizational style say
about your personality?
 45

3.4.2.1. Week 1

As the first week’s activity, the means of getting the news and the effects of
news were chosen. In the warm-up activity, participants divided to pairs and
discussed what kind of tools they used and did not use to learn what was going on
around them. After discussion, they made lists of devices to get news and
information about the world. The lists that were formed by participants were
discussed as a whole, and in the light of the outcomes, how people get the news in
recent years was analyzed. As a common response, social media and web-based
tools were selected as the most popular ways of learning the news and following the
events in the world. In the second phase, outdated ways of getting the news and the
reason behind their being out-of-date were discussed. As the next step, the ways of
determining what type of indicators one could take into consideration when deciding
the news they received would be regarded as reliable. As the final activity,
participants were asked to state what steps they would take to make something they
presented more reliable.

3.4.2.2. Week 2

In the second week, the themes were the impact of languages in our daily
lives, the advantages and disadvantages of speaking more than one language. For
the warm-up activity, participants were given a chance to pick one superpower out
of two options: time-travelling or mind reading. Then they were asked which power
could prove more useful in changing or preventing making mistakes. After the warm-
up, as the first step of the activity, participants were asked some general questions
about the possible contributions of knowing a foreign language and in what ways
foreign languages increase one’s intellectual quality. After discussing the effects of
languages in one’s life, participants were asked to determine what can cause
difficulties in communication in groups of four or five. As a result, with combined
effort, it was concluded that communication difficulties or communication
apprehension can be caused by physical problems, emotional issues, environmental
interferences, and educational and parental background. Following the problem
deduction process, participants were asked to imagine what mistakes could mean
for something if they could be changed. As the final discussion topic, they were
asked to devise ways to improve communication skills and to overcome frustration
and violence stemming from failure in communication.
 46

3.4.2.3. Week 3

In the third week, the themes were the possibility of having fun while working
and the thinking process before choosing a career. As the warm-up activity,
participants were presented an imaginary situation in which they were given a
chance to travel anywhere to experience their dream holidays for a year without any
obligations. The common idea after imagination and fantasizing was that it was
impossible to have this type of easy-going life with the obligations and
responsibilities life forced on them. Based on this, a discussion was initiated on the
question: “Would it be possible to have fun and work at the same time?” Then,
participants were asked to share their opinions with their peers and list the type of
professions that would be fun for average person. The general idea was that for a
career to be enjoyable it would have to involve travelling, meeting with different
cultures, flexible working hours, nice colleagues, and lastly, a high income. Then,
participants were asked what their dream jobs had been when they had been kids.
With this discussion topic, the obstacles and reasons that could get one to change
their choice of profession were listed. Related to this, they were asked to discuss
how they, as future teachers, would encourage their own students to follow their
dreams and choose professions they would enjoy in the future.

3.4.2.4. Week 4

In the last week of the activities, the theme was the importance of personal
spaces and its effect on personality. As the warm-up activity, participants were
asked to describe their dream houses to their assigned pairs and make a note of
their most characteristic features. Most pictured their dream houses as isolated
places that were far away from humanity and possible in the middle of unspoiled
nature. After warm-up activity, participants were asked to pair up and discuss what
would it take to make some place one’s own space, and how they preferred to
organize the place they lived in. Following the pair discussion, participants were
individually asked to describe the places they felt the most comfortable. The next
related discussion point was the indications of personality that could be seen in
one’s own special spaces or places they lived in. Based on this, participants were
asked to describe their best friends’ personality taking their homes / rooms /
dressing into consideration and make connections between personality and
organizational behaviors.
 47

3.4.3. Post-test Administration

Once the practice sessions were completed, the final step was to commence
administration of post-tests. Participants, in both control and experimental groups,
were scheduled for a final interview for scoring their speaking achievement levels.
The same two scorers that had administered the first interview took place for the
final interview. Participants were asked to pick TOEFL discussion questions from
inside an envelope and speak for three or four minutes. Their oral performances
were scored based on Speaking Grading Scale (SGS) developed by Kanatlar
(2005). After the completion of interviews, each participant was asked to fill out
Survey on Language Learning Scale developed by Liu and Jackson (2013) once
again. This way, participants’ speaking achievement scores and speaking anxiety
levels before and after the speaking lessons could be measured and compared with
one another.

3.5. Data Analysis

In data analysis process of the study, Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) was used to analyze data. First step of the data processing was the
calculation of the mean scores, minimum and maximum values for the ages of
participants. In the second step, number and percentage values of the participants’
gender were processed. As the final step, mean scores, minimum and maximum
values and standard deviation for GPA of the participants were calculated.

To gather data on participants’ speaking achievement levels, their speaking

performances in interviews were graded by two ELT Department research
assistants experienced in EFL teaching. In this regard, mean scores, standard
deviations, minimum and maximum scores and standard error of means related to
their scores in grammar, vocabulary, intelligibility, fluency, task achievement
sections and total scores for both pre-tests and post-tests were processed. As the
following step, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability coefficients, pre-test and post-test
reliability and overall reliability coefficients were calculated in accordance with
Cronbach’s Alpha. In Table 2, reliability values of the tests in terms of scorers, total
values and overall values are presented. Data on Table 3 suggests that reliability
levels of both pre-tests and post-tests were acceptable. For instance, reliability
coefficient presented for Scorer 1 indicated that reliability level of the pre-test was
calculated as 0.86, and post-test reliability level was 0.80. As for Scorer 2, pre-test
reliability level was 0.83, while post-test reliability was 0.85. Following the data
analysis for the reliability levels of pre-tests and post-test for both Scorer 1 and
 48

Scorer 2, a paired-sample t-tests were used as a means of processing whether

there was any significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of each
group. Moreover, independent sample t-tests were used to make a comparison
between the value differences of two groups.

Table 4. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the pre- and post-tests

Scorers Pre-test Post-test Overall

Scorer 1 0.86 0.80

0.88 0.86 0.88
Scorer 2 0.83 0.85

As the final step, as shown in Table 5, reliability coefficients for SLLS in

accordance with Cronbach’s Alpha and variance percentages were calculated for
pre-tests and post-tests. Pre-test coefficients value for the pre-test was 0.86, and
the percentage of the variance was 87.37. In addition, for post-tests, reliability
coefficient value was 0.85, and the variance percentage was 85.15. The values
showed that validity and reliability of the data were obtained.

Table 5. Survey on Language Learning Scale (SLLS) Reliability of the Pre- and
Post-tests

Reliability coefficients % of the

(Cronbach’s Alpha) Variance

Pre-test 0.86 87.37

Post-test 0.85 85.15

 49

4.

FINDINGS

This section presents the data collected from participants who took place in
instruction process of the study in the light of research questions devised during
research. First question deals with the effect of the use of SL as a virtual language
learning environment on speaking achievement. Second question is based on the
effect of SL as a virtual language learning environment on speaking anxiety.

4.1. Research Question 1: Does SL as a Virtual Language Learning

Environment Affect Speaking Achievement?

In this section, participants’ speaking achievement scores will be statistically

analyzed in terms of significance and difference in performance taking pre-test and
post-test scores into account. In the analysis, statistics for control group and
experimental group will be presented separately; subsequently, they will be
compared regarding statistical values.

4.1.1. The Effect of Practice on Speaking Achievement in Control

Group

Data on Table 6 presented below gives information about the differences in

participants’ speaking achievement scores, and it can be suggested that there was
an increase in speaking achievement levels of participants. . According to values in
the table, total mean score for pre-test was 58.91 while post-test mean score was
72.83. When it comes to specific values, in grammar section pre-test mean score
was 17.12, and post-test mean was 21.00; vocabulary pre-test mean score was
calculated as 17.12, and post-test mean was 19.50; intelligibility pre-test mean score
was 13.08, and post test score was 16.83; fluency pre-test mean score was
computed as 5.50 while post-test mean score was 6.75. Lastly, task achievement
mean scores also showed an increase from pre-test to post-test. Task achievement
pre-test mean score was calculated as 6.08 while post-test mean score was found
to be 8.75. In short, it is obvious that speaking performance of the participants in
control group changed for better after speaking practice sessions, considering the
increase in speaking achievement mean scores.
 50

Table 6. Speaking Achievement for the Control Group (Paired Samples t-test
Statistics)

Std. Std. Error

Mean Deviation Mean
Pre-test 17.12 5.55 1.13
Grammar Post-test
21.00 5.00 1.02
Pre-test 17.12 5.48 1.12
Vocabulary
Post-test 19.50 5.15 1.05
Pre-test 13.08 2.88 .59
Intelligibility
Post-test 16.83 2.94 .60
Pre-test 5.50 1.84 .37
Fluency
Post-test 6.75 1.70 .35
Task Pre-test 6.08 1.69 .34
Achievement Post-test 8.75 1.19 .24
Pre-test 58.91 16.36 3.34
Total score
Post-test 72.83 14.70 3.00

Based on data presented in Table 7 shown below, it can be suggested that

there was a considerable increase in participants’ speaking achievement scores. In
addition it must be noted that all areas except for vocabulary section, the
significance values were calculated as .00. Significance values for grammar,
intelligibility, fluency, and task achievement were computed as .00 in value.
However, significance value for vocabulary was found .05. In addition, significance
value for total scores in pre-test and post-test was calculated as .00. Therefore, it
can be concluded that comparison of pre-test and post-test scores provided a
statistically significant correlation except for vocabulary section.
 51

Table 7. Paired Samples t-test for the Control Group

Paired Differences

Std. 95% Confidence Interval of

Std. Error the Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper tailed)
Grammar 3.87
5.96 1.21 1.35 6.39 .00

Vocabulary 2.37
5.86 1.19 -0.10 4.85 .05

Intelligibility 3.75 3.50 0.71 2.27 5.22 .00

Fluency 1.25 1.77 0.36 0.50 1.99 .00
Task
2.66 1.57 0.32 1.99 3.33 .00
Achievement
Total score 13.91 16.75 3.41 6.84 20.99 .00

4.1.2. The Effect of Practice on Speaking Achievement in Experimental

Group

As evidenced in Table 8 shown below, there was a considerable difference

between speaking achievement scores of participants gained in pre-test and post-
test. Statistical data in Table 6 indicates that total score means increased to 81.65
from the score of 63.65. When each section separately examined, it can be seen
that mean scores in grammar section changed from 19.65 to 24.00; in vocabulary
section, pre-test mean score was 18.15 while post-test mean score was 22.50; in
intelligibility section, pre-test score was calculated as 13.20, but it was found to be
18.70 in post-test; in fluency section, mean score shifted from 6.10 to 7.50; and
finally in task achievement section, pre-test mean score was 6.55 while post-test
mean score was computed as 8.95.
 52

Table 8. Speaking Achievement for the Experimental Group

Std. Std. Error

Mean Deviation Mean
Pre-test 19.65 5.28 1.18
Grammar Post-test
24.00 4.46 .99
Pre-test 18.15 5.88 1.31
Vocabulary Post-test
22.50 5.20 1.16
Pre-test 13.20 3.58 .80
Intelligibility Post-test
18.70 1.75 .39
Pre-test 6.10 1.77 .40
Fluency Post-test
7.50 1.76 .39
Task Pre-test 6.55 1.67 .37
Achievement Post-test
8.95 1.47 .33
Pre-test 63.65 16.55 3.70
Total score Post-test
81.65 12.97 2.90

Table 9 below presents statistical data on significance values of pre-test and

post-test administered to participants in experimental group. According to data
presented in the table, it was suggested that all sections indicated significant
correlation. Regarding the total score means and its significance value of .00, it can
be stated that there was a significant correlation between pre-test and post-test
scores of participants in experimental group. Generating .00 significance value,
sections of grammar, intelligibility, fluency, and task achievement scores can be
thought to have a significant correlation between pre-test and post-test scores.
Lastly, vocabulary section had significance value of .01, which also suggested that
there was a significance correlation.
 53

Table 9. Paired Samples Test for the Experimental Group

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
Difference
Std. Error Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper tailed)
Grammar 4.35 5.01 1.12 2.01 6.69 .00
Vocabulary 4.35 6.19 1.38 1.45 7.25 .01
Intelligibility 5.50 2.89 .65 4.15 6.85 .00

Fluency 1.40 1.85 .41 .53 2.26 .00

Task 2.40 1.35 .30 1.77 3.03 .00
Achievement

Total score 18.00 14.49 3.24 11.22 24.78 .00

4.1.3. Comparison of Traditional Speaking Activities and SL Speaking

Activities

According to data presented in Table 10, no significant correlation between

pre-test scores of control and experimental groups was found when scores of both
groups were compared. However, mean scores of total pre-test scores compared,
and total mean score for the control group was found to be 58.92, while mean score
for the experimental score was calculated as 63.65. In spite of difference in total
mean scores, no significant correlation was detected between two groups
considering the .95 significance value. For grammar, mean score for control group
was 17.12, while it was 19.65 for the experimental group, which showed no
significant correlation with significance value of .99. Regarding vocabulary, control
group mean score was 17.12, and experimental group mean score was 18.15.
However, no significant difference was computed in the analysis which generated
significance value of .82. In addition, considering intelligibility, mean score for the
control group was 13.08, and 13.20 for the experimental group, showing no
significant difference with the score of .39. When it comes to fluency, no significant
difference was detected considering the significance value of .59. However, control
group’s mean score was 5.50, whereas experimental group’s mean score was 6.10.
Finally, as for task achievement, mean score for control group was 6.08, while it was
6.55 for experimental group. Yet, there was no significant difference between pre-
test scores regarding fluency since significance value was found to be .95.
 54

Table 10. Pre-test Scores for Control & Experimental Groups

Std. Std. Error

Group Mean Deviation Mean F Sig.
Grammar Control Group 17.12 5.56 1.13 .00 .99
Experimental 19.65 5.28 1.18
Group
Vocabulary Control Group 17.12 5.49 1.12 .05 .82
Experimental 18.15 5.88 1.31
Group
Intelligibility Control Group 13.08 2.89 .59 .74 .39
Experimental 13.20 3.58 .80
Group
Fluency Control Group 5.50 1.84 .37 .29 .59
Experimental 6.10 1.77 .40
Group
Task Achievement Control Group 6.08 1.69 .34 .00 .97
Experimental 6.55 1.67 .37
Group
Pretest total score Control Group 58.92 16.36 3.34 .00 .95
Experimental 63.65 16.55 3.70
Group

In a similar way, post-test scores for both groups are presented in Table 11,
and it showed that there was no meaningful correlation between post-test scores of
control and experimental groups. However, it can be deduced that participants in
experimental group scored higher compared to control group scores. Considering
total mean scores, significance value was found to be .93, suggesting there was no
significant difference between two groups. Total mean score for control group was
72.83, while it was 81.65 for experimental group. Mean scores for grammar was
calculated as follows: 21.00 for control group, and 24.00 for experimental group.
Considering the significance value of .96, it was suggested that there was no
significant difference between two groups. Moreover, regarding vocabulary, mean
score for control group was 19.50, and 22.50 for experimental group. However,
there was no meaningful correlation between two groups, taking value of .65 into
consideration. For intelligibility, control group mean score was 16.83, and
experimental group mean score was 18.70. According to the analysis, significance
value was .18, and there was no significant difference between post-test scores.
Furthermore, considering fluency, control group’s mean score was 6.75, while
experimental group’s mean score was 7.50, and there was no significant difference
 55

between two groups, because significance value was calculated as .96. Lastly, task
achievement mean score for control group was 8.75, and 8.95 for experimental
group. Significance value for task achievement scores for two groups was .93, which
suggested that there was no significant difference between post-test scores of two
groups.

Table 11. Post-test Scores for Control & Experimental Groups

Std. Std. Error

Group Mean Deviation Mean F Sig.
Grammar Control Group 21.00 5.00 1.02 .00 .96
Experimental 24.00 4.46 .99
Group
Vocabulary Control Group 19.50 5.16 1.05 .21 .65
Experimental 22.50 5.20 1.16
Group
Intelligibility Control Group 16.83 2.94 .60 1.83 .18
Experimental 18.70 1.75 .39
Group
Fluency Control Group 6.75 1.70 .35 .00 .96
Experimental 7.50 1.76 .39
Group
Task Control Group 8.75 1.19 .24 .47 .49
Achievement
Experimental 8.95 1.47 .33
Group
Posttest total Control Group 72.83 14.70 3.00 .00 .93
score
Experimental 81.65 12.97 2.90
Group

4.2. Research Question 2: Does SL as a Virtual Language Learning

Environment Have any Effect on Speaking Anxiety?

This section presents data analysis on the effect of instructional process on

speaking anxiety levels of control group, and the effect of SL on SA in experimental
group. Subsequently, speaking anxiety levels of control and experimental groups
are compared in the light of data gathered based on pre-test and post-test
correlations.

4.2.1. Instruction Effect on Speaking Anxiety in Control Group

In this section, results gathered from SLLS concerning scores of participants

in control group are presented. Since the scale employed 5-point Likert Scale
 56

Model, scores on 2.5 or above were considered as high in the sense of response,
whereas scores below 2.5 were regarded as low. To shed light on control group
participants’ foreign language and speaking anxiety levels, pre-test scores were
given below for each item in the scale. In addition, the scale was divided into four
categories in terms of specific areas as follows: FLA, language class sociability,
language class risk-taking, and unwillingness to communicate.

As for pre-test results for FLA, participants felt that they were almost sure of
themselves when they were speaking in English classes (x=2.79). In addition, they
were quite worried about making mistakes (x=3.50), and they found themselves
trembling when they were about to be called on (x=2.96). They also felt frightened
when they did not understand what the teacher said in English (x=3.08). Moreover,
participants did not feel bothered in English classes (x=2.29), while sometimes they
found themselves thinking about other things that had nothing to do with the class
(x=2.78). Furthermore, they strongly thought that other students were better in
speaking English (x=3.00). When it comes to language tests, they felt moderately at
ease (x=3.58), and they strongly felt panicked if they were required to speak without
preparation (x=3.92). Additionally, failing English classes was a significant concern
for the participants (x=3.25), and they understood why someone might get upset
over English classes (x=3.25). In addition, they greatly got nervous which caused
them to forget thing they knew (x=3.54). They also felt embarrassed to volunteer
answers (x=2.50), and the idea of speaking with a native speaker would stress them
out (x=2.67). Participants got upset when they could not understand what the
teacher was correcting (x=2.67), and even if they got prepared, they slightly felt
anxious in English classes (x=2.75). Moreover, they felt partially reluctant to go to
English classes (x=2.63), and they felt moderately confident when speaking in class
(x=2.92). Furthermore, they mostly did not think that teacher was always ready to
correct their mistakes (x=2.42). Participants of control group also felt quite stressed
when they were about to be called on to participate (x=3.04). Moreover, they felt no
confusion while studying for English exams (x=1.78), while they felt pressure
preparing for classes (x=3.21). Participants thought that other students spoke better
than they did in English (x=3.04), felt self-conscious when speaking in front of others
(x=2.74), and they kept track of the flow of classes (x=2.25). Furthermore,
participants felt more tense in English classes (x=2.92), got nervous while speaking
(x=3.17), and they moderately felt sure about themselves on their way to the classes
(x=2.75). They also got a little nervous when they could not understand what
teacher said (x=2.54), and they felt a bit overwhelmed about the rules they had to
 57

learn to speak English (x=2.62). What is more, participants were slightly afraid that
their friends would laugh at them while speaking (x=2.75), and they would feel
comfortable speaking with a native speaker (x=3.13). They significantly felt tension
when they were expected to answer questions unprepared (x=3.54), and they did
not care about the gender of people they speak to (x=2.04). Finally, they greatly felt
stressed when they had to discuss thing they were unfamiliar with (x=3.50), and
they did not care about the number of words they had to learn to speak English
(x=2.25).

When it comes to language class sociability, participants decided to wait and

learn the rule properly before they used it (x=3.00), and did not want to try difficult
sentences in class (x=2.88). In addition, they mostly did not want to express
complicated ideas in class (x=3.29), and they did not concern themselves about
small details in grammar while speaking (x=3.17).

As for language class risk-taking, participants showed inclination to try a

sentence to themselves before saying it in class (x=3.70), to prefer to follow basic
structures rather than using complicated expressions (x=3.83). They also thought
that learning English is more fun with a group effort (x=3.66), and they enjoyed
talking to teacher and other students in class (3.00). Moreover, they mostly enjoyed
interaction (x=3.29), and agreed on the importance of group spirit in English classes
(x=3.88).

Concerning unwillingness to communicate, participants were slightly afraid to

speak up in conversations (x=2.92), they talked less because they felt shy (x=3.13),
they did not prefer speaking a lot due to their shyness (x=2.08), and they slightly
wanted to get involved in group conversations (x=2.75). They felt moderately
nervous about speaking in groups (x=2.96), and they similarly felt anxious about
expressing themselves to others (x=2.88) and in a group (2.88). In addition, they
seldom preferred talking in group (x=2.66), and they found it easy to establish
communication with stranger (x=3.08). They did not think that their friends might be
dishonest in their communications (x=2.21), and believed that their families and
friends cared about their ideas and suggestions (x=1.29). They also trusted the
truthfulness of their friends (x=3.83), and they did not agree that they did not ask
their families and friends for help (x=2.25). They strongly believed that their families
and friends understood their feelings (x=4.00), and they declined the possibility that
their families would not enjoy listening to their interests (x=1.96). Similarly, they
strongly believed that their families and friends listened to their ideas (x=4.35) and
 58

advice (x=3.75). Finally, they partially agreed that their friends were kind to them
because they wanted something in return (x=2.83), and they did not agree that
talking to other people was a waste of time (x=1.46).

As for post-test results for FLA, participants thought that they were sure of
themselves when they were speaking in English (x=3.17). What is more, they were
less worried about making mistakes (x=3.25), they felt less nervous when they were
about to be called on (x=2.65). They felt less frightened when they did not
understand what the teacher said in English (x=2.54). Furthermore, participants
started to feel bothered taking English classes (x=2.50), and they found themselves
thinking about irrelevant things in class (x=2.57). In addition, they thought that other
students were better in speaking English (x=2.88), they felt moderately at ease for
language tests (x=3.37), and they strongly felt panicked if they were required to
speak without preparation (x=3.37). Additionally, failing English classes was a
significant concern for the participants (x=3.13), and they understood why someone
might get upset over English classes (x=3.50). In addition, they greatly got nervous
which caused them to forget things they knew (x=3.00). They also felt embarrassed
to volunteer answers (x=2.58), and the idea of speaking with a native speaker would
stress them out (x=2.54). Participants got upset when they could not understand
what the teacher was correcting (x=3.00), and even if they got prepared, they
slightly felt anxious in English classes (x=2.71). Moreover, they felt partially reluctant
to go to English classes (x=2.75), and they felt moderately confident when speaking
in class (x=3.08). Furthermore, they mostly did not think that teacher was always
ready to correct their mistakes (x=2.58). Participants of control group also felt quite
stressed when they were about to be called on to participate (x=3.13). Moreover,
they felt no confusion while studying for English exams (x=2.26), while they felt
pressure preparing for classes (x=3.17). They barely believed that other students
spoke better than they did in English (x=2.54), and they felt self-conscious when
speaking in front of others (x=2.96), and they felt that class moved so quickly they
could not follow it (x=2.50). In addition, participants felt more tense in English
classes (x=2.63), got nervous while speaking (x=3.04), and they mostly felt sure
about themselves before going to the classes (x=2.92). Furthermore, they got quite
nervous when they could not understand what the teacher said (x=2.83), and they
felt more overwhelmed about the rules they had to learn to speak English (x=2.75).
Moreover, participants in control group were not afraid that their friends would laugh
at them while speaking (x=2.21), and they believed they would strongly feel
comfortable speaking with a native speaker (x=3.42). They were mostly nervous
 59

when they were expected to answer questions unprepared (x=3.13), and they did
not concern themselves about the gender of people they speak to (x=2.25). Finally,
they moderately felt tensed when they had to discuss unfamiliar things (x=3.29), and
they were overwhelmed by the number of words they had to learn to speak English
(x=2.92).

For the post-test responses for language class sociability, participants

preferred to wait before trying an English word (x=3.25), did not like trying out a
difficult sentence in class (x=2.83). They were a little bothered for expressing
complicated ideas in English (x=2.54), and they strongly felt that they did not worry
about small details of grammar (x=2.46).

Concerning language class risk-taking, participants in control group preferred

to say a sentence to themselves before using it (x=3.63), and they believed using
basic sentence models and avoiding misusing language were more logical (x=3.54).
In addition, they thought that learning English in group was more fun (x=3.42),
talking with the teacher and others was enjoyable (x=3.04), interaction with other
students was likeable (x=3.38), and having a strong group spirit was important for
English classroom (x=3.75).

As for unwillingness to communicate, participants were afraid to speak up in

conversations (x=2.75), they talked less because they were shy (x=3.25), and they
did not considered themselves as talkative (x=2.25). Moreover, they liked to get
involved in group discussions (x=3.04), and they felt nervous when speaking to
others (x=2.88). They did not have devastating fears about group interactions
(x=2.83), however they were afraid to express themselves in a group (x=3.41), they
sometimes avoided group discussions (x=2.58), and they did not prefer to talk
instead of listening in group discussions (x=2.42). Furthermore, they found it easy to
make conversation with strangers (x=3.21), did not think their friends were dishonest
with them (x=2.21), and disagreed that their families and friends did not listen to
their ideas (x=1.67). They strongly believed their friends truthfulness (x=3.88), and
they disagreed that they do not ask their friends for help (x=2.00). What is more,
they believed that their families and friends understood their feelings (x=3.67), and
they did not think their families did not enjoy discussing their interests (x=2.17). In
addition, they thought that their families (x=3.96) and friends (x=3.63) listened to
their ideas and advice. They also considered the possibility that their friends were
nice because they might want something in return (x=2.71), and they did not believe
that talking to other people was a waste of time (x=1.92).
 60

According to Table 12, the paired sample test comparing control group’s pre-
test and post-test results in terms of correlation suggested that thirteen items were
significantly correlated. First, mean score difference indicated that confidence level
of participants when speaking in foreign language class increased (p=.02). Second,
fear levels of participants when they did not understand what teacher said showed a
decrease (p=.02). This suggested that they did not feel as frightened when they
were lost listening to their teacher as they used to do. Third, they felt less panicked
when they had to speak without any preparation in language class (p=.01). Fourth,
fear of being nervous when things were forgotten slightly decreased (p=.05). Fifth,
the confusion caused by test preparation seemed to have increased (p=.03); that is,
participants felt confused when they prepared for foreign language examinations.
Sixth, participants felt more secure about their speaking performances when
comparing themselves to their friends (p=.03). Seventh, after the sessions,
participants felt safer around their friends when they attempted to speak in English
(p=.03). Eighth, participants’ fear of being called out by the teacher when they were
unprepared relatively decreased (p=.02). Ninth, it appeared that participants felt
stressed out when they found out that they needed to expand their vocabulary
constantly to be able to speak English (p=.00). Tenth, participants’ unwillingness to
explain complicated ideas in English started to diminish after the sessions (p=.02).
Eleventh, participants’ worry that their families and friends weren’t interested in their
ideas increased (p=.03). Twelfth, participants consistently claimed in the item that
their families and friends weren’t interested in their suggestions and ideas (p=.05).
Last, participants were worried that talking to other people about anything might be
a waste of time (p=.04).
 61

Table 12. The paired sample test results for control group

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std. Interval of the Sig.
Std. Error Difference (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper T Df tailed)
I feel quite sure of myself
when I am speaking in my -.38 .71 .15 -.07 -.68 -2.58 23 .02
foreign language class.
It frightens me when I don’t
understand what the teacher
.54 1.02 .21 .97 .11 2.6 23 .02
is saying in the foreign
language.
I start to panic when I have
to speak without preparation .54 .98 .20 .95 .13 2.72 23 .01
in language class
In language class, I can get
so nervous I forget things I .54 1.28 .26 1.08 .00 2.07 23 .05
know
The more I study for a
language test, the more -.48 .99 .21 -.05 -.91 -2.30 22 .03
confused I get
I always feel that the others
students speak the foreign .50 1.02 .21 .93 .07 2.40 23 .03
language better than I do
I am afraid that the other
students will laugh at me .54 1.10 .23 1.00 .08 2.40 23 .03
when I speak the foreign
language
I get nervous when the .42 .78 .16 .74 .09 2.63 23
language teacher asks .02
questions which I haven't
prepared in advance
I feel overwhelmed by the -.67 .96 .20 -.26 -1.07 -3.39 23
number of words I have to .00
learn to speak in English
At this point, I don't like .75 1.39 .28 1.34 .16 2.64 23
trying to express .02
complicated ideas in English
class
My friends and family don't -.38 .77 .16 -.05 -.70 -2.39 23
listen to my ideas and .03
suggestions
My friends and family listen .39 .89 .19 .78 .00 2.10 22
to my ideas and suggestions .05

Talking to other people is -.46 1.02 .21 -.03 -.89 -2.20 23

just a waste of time .04
 62

4.2.2. The Effect of SL Speaking Activities on Speaking Anxiety in

Experimental Group

Similarly, responses for experimental group were analyzed in terms of pre-

test and post-test scores, and the same categorization was applied in this section to
divide SLSS into meaningful groups.

Concerning pre-test scores of experimental group participants, their

responses for FLA section were reported. Participants were sure of themselves
when speaking in English (x=3.05), they worried about making mistakes (x=3.10),
they moderately trembled when they were about to be called on (x=2.55), they were
afraid when they did not understand the teacher (x=2.60), they did not feel bothered
to take English classes (x=2.05), they did not feel distracted in English classes
(x=2.45), and they slightly thought that other students were better speakers in
English (x=2.65). In addition, they felt at ease during tests (x=3.25), they were
panicky when they spoke without preparation (x=3.15), they moderately worried
about failing English classes (x=2.85), and they understood why people might feel
upset over English classes (x=2.90). Moreover, participants got a little nervous, they
forgot things they knew (x=2.80), they felt slightly embarrassed to volunteer answers
(x=2.55), they thought they would be nervous to speak with a native speaker
(x=2.60), and they did not get upset when they did not understand what the teacher
was correcting (x=2.30). Furthermore, they did not feel anxious when they were
prepared for English classes (x=2.45), they felt reluctant to go to English classes
(x=3.15), they felt confident in speaking in English classes (x=3.25), they were a
little afraid that the teacher was ready to correct every mistake (x=2.55), they felt
their hearts pounding when they were about to be called on in English class
(x=3.05), and they did not feel confused preparing for exams (x=2.15). In addition,
they felt partially pressured to prepare very well for English classes (x=2.60), they
did not think that other students spoke better than them in English (x=2.45), and
they felt a little self-conscious about speaking in front of other students (x=2.53).
What is more, they did not think the flow of the class was so quick for them (x=2.20),
they did not feel more nervous in English classes (x=2.45), they felt a little nervous
when speaking in English classes (x=2.80), they also felt relaxed on their way to
English classes (x=3.30). In addition, they got a bit nervous when they did not
understand every word teacher said (x=2.50), they felt moderately overwhelmed by
the number of rules they had to learn to speak English (x=2.50), they were not afraid
that their friends would laugh at them when they were speaking in English (x=1.95),
they also believed that they would be comfortable around native speakers of English
 63

(x=3.70). Moreover, participants got nervous when they were asked questions they
were unprepared for (x=3.15), they did not get tense and nervous when speaking
with opposite sex (x=1.90), they got tense and nervous when discussing unfamiliar
subjects (x=2.95), and they were overwhelmed by the number of words they had to
learn to speak English (x=2.75).

When it comes to language class sociability, participants wanted to wait

before trying a new word (x=3.05), and they did not prefer to use difficult sentences
in class (x=2.75). In addition, they did not like to express complicated ideas in
English class (x=2.75), and they preferred to say what they wanted without worrying
about small details in grammar (x=3.45).

Considering language class risk-taking, participants decided to say a

sentence to themselves before using it in class (x=3.05), they mostly preferred to
use basic models rather than complicated ones in language (x=3.10), and they
strongly believed that learning English was more fun in group (x=3.60). Furthermore,
they enjoyed talking with teacher and friends in English class (x=3.55), they also
enjoyed interaction with other students in English class (x=3.35), and they thought
that having a strong group spirit in English class was important (x=3.90).

As for unwillingness to communicate, participants in experimental group

were a little afraid to speak up in conversations (x=2.50), they thought that they
talked less because they were shy (x=2.65), and they did not think they talked a lot
due to shyness (x=2.40). In addition, they liked to get involved in group discussions
(x=3.10), they felt a little nervous when they had to speak with others (x=2.75), they
had no fears about expressing their ideas in groups (x=3.05), and they were not
afraid to express themselves in group (x=2.30). Moreover, they did not avoid group
conversations (x=2.35), they talked rather than listen in groups (x=2.55), they
strongly found it easy to communicate with strangers (x=3.35), and they did not think
their friends were dishonest (x=2.20). Furthermore, they disagreed that their families
and friends listened to their ideas (x=1.65), and they believed that their friends were
truthful (x=3.65). In addition, they did not agree that they did not ask help from their
friends and families (x=2.15), they strongly believed that their families and friends
understood them (x=3.70). They did not believe that their families and friends did not
enjoy discussing their interests (x=1.80), and they strongly favored the statement
that their families and friends listened to their ideas (x=4.05). What is more, they
stated that their friends and families sought their advice (x=3.85), they did not think
that other people were friendly because they wanted something in return (x=2.47),
 64

and they mostly did not think that talking to other people was a waste of time
(x=1.60).

Concerning post-test responses of experimental group on FLA, participants

felt sure of themselves when speaking in English (x=3.40), felt worried about making
mistakes (x=2.80), trembled when they were about to be called on (x=2.60).
However, they were not frightened when they did not understand what the teacher
was saying (x=2.45), and it would not bother them to take English classes (x=2.15),
they also did not feel distracted during English classes (x=2.25), and they did not
keep thinking the other students were better than them (x=2.20). In addition, they
were generally at ease during English tests (x=3.45), and yet they started to panic
when they spoke without preparation (x=2.75). They also partially worried about the
consequences of failing English classes (x=2.85), and they mostly understood why
some people would be upset over English (x=3.05). Moreover, they sometimes got
so nervous they forgot what they knew (x=2.70), they felt embarrassed to volunteer
answers (x=2.75), they stated they would not be nervous speaking with native
speakers (x=2.10), and that they did not get upset when they could not understand
the teacher (x=2.45). Furthermore, they did not feel worried when they were
prepared for English class (x=2.35), and they were not reluctant to go to English
classes (x=2.35). On the other hand, they felt confident speaking in English
(x=3.30), and they were not afraid that teacher was ready to correct every mistake
they made (x=2.30). What is more, they could feel their hearts pounding when they
were going to be called on (x=2.75), they did not get confused while preparing for
tests (x=2.10), they did not feel pressure to prepare well for tests (x=2.20), and they
did not think that other students could speak better in English (x=2.20). In addition,
participants felt self-conscious about speaking English in front of others (x=3.21),
and they did not think that class moves so quickly they could not keep up (x=2.10).
Although they did not feel more tense in English classes than in any other class
(x=2.35), they were nervous and confused when speaking in English classes
(x=2.50). However, they felt sure and relaxed on their way to English class (x=3.30),
and they did not get nervous when they did not understand the teacher (x=2.25).
They also felt a little overwhelmed by the number of rules they had to learn to speak
English (x=2.75), yet they were not afraid that other students would laugh when they
spoke in English (x=1.80). Furthermore, they strongly believed that they would be
comfortable around native speakers of English (x=4.00), and they got nervous about
questions when they were unprepared (x=2.85). Finally, they did not care about
gender of the person they spoke to (x=1.75), they got tense when they discussed
 65

subjects that were unfamiliar (x=2.85), and they were slightly overwhelmed by the
number of words they had to learn to speak English (x=2.55).

As for language class sociability, participants in experimental group preferred

to wait before they knew how to use words properly (x=3.10), they did not like to try
difficult sentences (x=2.70), they did not like expressing complicated ideas in
English (x=2.60), and they generally did not worry about small details of grammar
when they were speaking (x=3.40).

When it comes to language class risk-taking, participants preferred to say a

sentence to themselves before trying it out (x=3.25), they preferred to follow basic
sentence models in conversations in English (x=3.50), and they thought that
learning English in a group was more fun (x=3.50). In addition, they enjoyed talking
to the teacher and other students in English class (x=3.60), they found it fun to
interact with other students (x=3.65), and they strongly believed that having a strong
group spirit was important in English classrooms (x=4.00).

Regarding unwillingness to communicate, participants were not afraid to

speak up in conversations (x=2.35), they talked less because they were shy
(x=2.50), and they believed they might talk a lot because they were not shy
(x=2.55). They also wanted to get involved in group discussions (x=3.45), and they
did not feel nervous when they had to speak with others (x=2.45). They mostly did
not have problems expressing themselves in group (x=3.25), and they stated that
they were not afraid to express their ideas in groups (x=2.35). In other statement,
they responded that they did not avoid group discussions (x=2.15), and they did not
agree that they talked rather than listened during conversations (x=2.35). In
addition, they found it easy to make conversation with strangers (x=3.55), and they
did not think that their friends were dishonest in their communication (x=2.10). They
also did not think that their friends and families did not listen to their ideas (x=1.60).
Furthermore, they strongly believed that their friends were truthful with them
(x=3.65), and they somewhat agreed that they did not ask for advice from family and
friends (x=2.60). Moreover, they argued that their families and friends understood
their feelings (x=3.90), and they did not think that their families would not enjoy
discussing their interests (x=1.85). They also strongly stated that their friends and
families listened to their ideas (x=4.15) and sought their advice (x=4.05). Finally,
they validated the possibility that their friends were only friendly because they
wanted something in return (x=2.53), and they disagreed that talking to other people
was a waste of time (x=1.75).
 66

In Table 13, comparison of mean scores and significance values for

experimental group’s pre-test and post-tests were presented, and only five items
appeared to have significant correlation. First, participants of experimental group
believed that their speaking proficiencies increased at the end of SL activities
(p=.05). Because in the pre-test they agreed that their peers’ speaking levels were
higher than their level, whereas, in the post-test they showed an inclination towards
being self-confident about their own performances. Second, participants felt more
relaxed about speaking in language classroom without preparation at the end of the
sessions (p=.04). Third, participants in experimental group seemed to have lost their
reluctance to attend to language classes after SL speaking sessions based on the
slight decrease in mean score (p=.02). Fourth, the increase in the mean score
indicated that participants felt more self-conscious about speaking English in front of
others; however, values in table evidenced that SL speaking sessions improved
their self-confidence when speaking in front of their classmates (p=.04). Last,
anxiety and nervousness levels of participants diminished according to the scores
they reflected on the post-test (p=.03). In other words, participants in experimental
group felt less nervous about speaking English in class after SL speaking sessions.

Table 13. The paired sample test results for experimental group

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std. Interval of the Sig.
Std. Error Difference (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper T Df tailed)
I keep thinking that the
other students are better at .45 .94 .21 .89 .01 2.13 19 .05
languages than I am
I start to panic when I have
to speak without .40 .82 .18 .78 .016 2.17 19 .04
preparation in language
class
I am reluctant to go to my
language class .80 1.40 .31 1.45 .14 2.56 19 .02

I feel very self-conscious

about speaking the foreign -.68 1.34 .31 -.04 -1.33 -2.23 18 .04
language in front of other
students
I get nervous and confused
when I am speaking in my .30 .57 .13 .57 .03 2.34 19 .03
language class
 67

4.2.3. Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups in terms of

Speaking Anxiety

To detect the difference between control and experimental groups, a

comparison between pre-test and post-test scores of both groups were made. As
presented in Table 14 below, four items in SLLS for pre-test scores were
significantly correlated. The first item “I understand why some people get so upset
over foreign language class”, the second item “I like to get involved in group
discussions”, and the third item “My friends and family don’t listen to my ideas and
suggestions” generated significance value of .02, which suggested a strong
correlation. In addition, the last item which was “I believe my friends and family
understand my feelings” generated significance value of .05.

Table 14. Pre-test Scores (Control & Experimental Groups, Independent

Samples Test)

Std.
Std. Error
Group Mean Deviation Mean F Sig.
I understand why some Control Group 3.25 .99 .20
people get so upset over Experimental 6.13 .02
foreign language class 2.90 1.33 .30
Group
I like to get involved in Control Group 2.75 .94 .19
group discussions Experimental 6.01 .02
3.10 1.25 .28
Group
My friends and family don’t Control Group 1.29 .62 .13
listen to my ideas and Experimental 5.56 .02
suggestions 1.65 1.09 .24
Group
I believe my friends and Control Group 4.00 .88 .18
family understand my Experimental 4.24 .05
feelings 3.70 1.08 .24
Group

As for the comparison between post-test scores of both groups, Table 15

shown below presented information on the correlation of items. It was evidenced
from the data that seven items were significantly correlated in the sense of
comparing two groups. The item questioning if they worry about the consequences
of failing English class gave .03 as the significance value. The second item which
was “It embarrasses me when I volunteer answers in my English class” generated
 68

.03 as significance value, which was quite significant in correlation. The third item “I
feel confident when I speak English in class” also had correlation, which generated
significance value of .04. Furthermore, the fourth item was “I feel more tense and
nervous in my English class than in my other classes”, and it had the significance
value of .03. The fifth item which interrogated the willingness to express complicated
ideas in English generated .04 as the significance value, and the sixth item which
was “I like to get involved in group discussions” was strongly significant with the
value of .02. Finally, the last item “I don’t ask for advice from family or friends when I
have to make decisions” was quite significant considering that it generated
significance value of .01.

Table 15. Post-test Scores (Control & Experimental Groups, Independent

Samples Test)

Std.
Std. Error
Group Mean Deviation Mean F Sig.
I worry about the Control Group 3.13 .99 .20 4.91 .03
consequences of failing my Experimental
English class 2.85 1.34 .30
Group
It embarrasses me to Control Group 2.58 .83 .17 4.94 .03
volunteer answers in my Experimental
English class 2.75 1.25 .28
Group
I feel confident when I Control Group 3.08 .83 .17
speak English in class Experimental 4.40 .04
3.30 1.13 .25
Group
I feel more tense and Control Group 2.63 .97 .20
nervous in my English class Experimental 5.07 .03
than in my other classes 2.35 1.35 .30
Group
At this point, I don’t like to Control Group 2.54 .93 .19
express complicated ideas Experimental 4.74 .04
in English class 2.60 1.31 .29
Group
I like to get involved in Control Group 3.04 .86 .18
group discussions Experimental 5.85 .02
3.45 1.15 .26
Group
I don’t ask for advice from Control Group 2.00 .72 .15
family or friends when I Experimental 6.76 .01
have to make decisions 2.60 1.14 .26
Group
 69

5.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Conclusions

Six conclusions can be reached in the study:

1. It can be concluded that the use of traditional speaking activities in speaking

classes increase speaking achievement. Speaking proficiency levels are
positively affected by the traditional speaking sessions in a way that
grammar and vocabulary capabilities are elevated, intelligibility and fluency
of oral responses are developed, and finally learners’ ability to find
appropriate responses to situations indicates improvement.
2. Similarly, it is be concluded that the use SL in speaking classes considerable
contributions to speaking achievement regarding the performance-related
increase in grammar, vocabulary, intelligibility, fluency, and task
achievement. In other words, grammar and vocabulary capabilities are
positively affected by SL speaking sessions. Furthermore, the use of SL in
speaking activities regarding sentences produced indicates a considerable
development in fluency, intelligibility, and ability to give appropriate
responses.
3. When a comparison between traditional and SL-oriented speaking sessions
is made, it can be concluded that both environments shows a positive
influence on speaking achievement levels. However, it can be stated that
SL’s contribution to speaking performance surpasses that which traditional
speaking sessions have accomplished. In other words, SL greatly improves
grammar and vocabulary capacities of learners. Additionally, SL speaking
sessions are useful for developing intelligibility, fluency and task
achievement levels.
4. Related to speaking anxiety, it can be concluded that the use of traditional
speaking activities has positive effects on FLA, unwillingness to
communicate, language class sociability and language class risk-taking
levels. Learners who are exposed to traditional speaking sessions turn out to
be less-anxious in speaking, more sociable, more willing to participate in
conversations. In addition, risk-taking in language class is greatly elevated. It
can be concluded that traditional speaking sessions has a positive impact on
foreign language speaking anxiety.
 70

5. Concerning SL-oriented environment, it can be concluded that the use of SL

in speaking classes does not bring a considerable change in terms of anxiety
levels among EFL learners. Yet, it can be seen that SL is also a useful tool to
establish sociability and risk-taking among language learners. In addition,
with the help of SL speaking sessions, FLA levels and unwillingness to
communicate slightly decrease. In other words, learners feel relaxed and
sociable when they are introduced to SL environment.
6. As the final conclusion, comparing traditional and SL-based speaking
sessions, it can be stated that there is not a significant difference between
the change rations for anxiety levels. Although it is possible to claim that both
speaking sessions cause the same change patterns after the speaking
sessions that take place in different learning environments, it can be
concluded that traditional speaking sessions are more successful to
decrease foreign language speaking anxiety among EFL learners. Finally, it
can be concluded that even though SL speaking sessions has positive
effects on speaking anxiety, they are not superior to the effects of traditional
speaking sessions. In addition, traditional speaking sessions is a better way
to eliminate unwillingness to communicate and more useful for raising
language class sociability and language class risk-taking levels.

5.2. Implications

In this sub-section, a comparison is made between the findings and conclusions

of the current study and the ones found in previous studies. First, language learning
practices made on SL as a virtual language learning environment are useful and
promising in parallel to the findings of similar studies (Aydin, 2013b; Aydin & Guzel,
2014). For instance, as Aydin (2013) and Aydin and Guzel (2014) reviews that SL
has a great potential to be an alternative language practice environment as opposed
to traditional language classrooms, it can be inferred that findings obtained from this
study reaches a consensus on SL’s potential as an alternative language learning
environment. In addition, in a social interaction perspective, the study concludes that
SL serves as a collaboration-based, socializing language learning environment as
suggested by similar research (Aydin, 2013b; Aydin & Guzel, 2014; Balcikanli, 2012;
Couto; 2010). Second, studies which focus on SL as a language learning
environment also conclude that SL can push the boundaries of traditional language
learning classrooms by making it more vivid, and collaboration-based in terms of
 71

interaction, thus making SL as an interesting alternative environment for language

learning ( Peterson, 2012; Wang et al., 2009; Wang & Shao, 2012). Therefore, it is
possible to claim that findings in this study matches the conclusions made in similar
research. Third, as Aydin (2013b), Balcikanli (2012), and Couto (2010) state, SL
improves speaking performance of EFL learners in a way that they feel more
relaxed and care-free when they are expected to interact with each other. Similarly,
findings of this study conclude that SL diminishes anxiety levels of EFL learners
when they speak English in language classrooms. Fifth, Mayrath et al. (2011)
pinpoint that EFL learners struggled to focus on language tasks during language
practice since it is distracting for them to spend time in a technological environment
of SL. In the same way, findings of this study conclude that speaking sessions on SL
do not considerably improve speaking proficiency of EFL learners as the traditional
practices do.

In conclusion, as SL can be used as an alternative environment for language

practice, it can be noted that EFL learners consider it as a useful and enjoyable
environment. However, it is also necessary to state that SL is not a superior
language practice tool when it is compared to traditional speaking activities.
Although previous research supports the notion that SL has a remarkable potential
to replace conventional methods in language practice, findings in the current study
claim it can be regarded as the opposite. In other words, despite its usefulness and
promising features, SL as an unconventional language practice tool is not
necessarily a learning environment that should replace language learning methods.
Yet, it is possible to assert that SL might be quite useful language practice tool as an
alternative tool that can be used as an aid in language activities. The contradiction
between the results of other studies and findings of this research can be interpreted
in connection with some factors such as learners’ unfamiliarity with SL environment,
lack of pedagogically-appropriate tasks specifically designed for SL, and distractive
nature of unconventional methods (Mayrath et al., 2011). Similarly, findings indicate
that these factors are also in motion in the experimental settings of this study.

5.3. Practical Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the study, some practical recommendations can be

made to shed light on the issue of speaking anxiety among EFL learners. First of all,
it can be asserted that speaking activities that take place in traditional settings
should be treated as a key element in language classrooms. In this sense, learners
should be given opportunities to practice their oral interaction skills in target
 72

language, because it is possible to claim that the amount of practice and frequency
of speaking sessions that enable them to polish their speaking directly affect their
speaking proficiency levels. Therefore, policy makers, curriculum developers should
be aware that the existence of speaking practice in traditional language classrooms
should be strengthened. Second, using SL as an alternative language practice
environment should be recognized as an additional source to language classrooms.
That is because, SL can be used as quite useful tool, when it comes to oral
interaction in target language, and it is an opportunity to change traditional
classroom environment. Therefore, teachers should use SL as a language practice
environment since it reduces anxiety levels of EFL learners, increases language
class sociability and encourages learners to take more risks in conversations. In
addition, policy makers, curriculum developers and teachers should focus on
designing suitable learning environments and tasks on SL to make language
practice more effective. Third, the time spent on using SL as a language learning
environment should not exceed the time spent for conventional speaking activities in
traditional classrooms. The reason is that SL might cause learners to get distracted
from actual tasks and classroom spirit. In addition, although SL is an alternative
language practice environment that reduces speaking anxiety to some extent, it is
not a better way to overcome anxiety-related issues faced in language classrooms
when compared to traditional classes. Therefore, it can be claimed that SL should
be used as an additional environment for traditional language classrooms, and
should not exceed conventional activities. Last but not least, SL’s positive effect on
willingness to communicate, language class sociability, and language class risk-
taking should be exploited in speaking practice by using SL in speaking activities.

5.4. Recommendations for Further Research

In the light of the findings of the study, some recommendations for further
research should be made. First, future research should focus on the effect of SL on
foreign language speaking anxiety in different contexts such as different age groups,
achievement levels and cultural settings. In other words, it is necessary to obtain a
wide range of data providing information for various contexts and circumstances.
Additionally, research should focus on designing suitable speaking activities and
speaking tasks specifically for SL environment, because it is explicit that SL is an
alternative language practice environment which has its own unique dynamics.
Furthermore, there is a need for more studies that seek alternative virtual language
 73

learning environments and the effects of those virtual environments similar to SL on

speaking anxiety among EFL learners should be investigated meticulously. Finally,
future studies should focus on variables such as age, gender, academic
achievement in the context of foreign language speaking anxiety. In addition to
speaking achievement and speaking anxiety; other cognitive, affective, and social
factors should be examined in relation with SL’s effect in further research.

5.5. Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations that should be noted. First, in the study, 42
participants take place, and 24 of them are in traditional group, while 20 students
participate in control group. In terms of demographics, gender dominance appears
to be on favor of female participants. Dominance of females is not deliberate, on the
contrary it is the demographic nature of ELT departments in Turkey. Second, for the
study, SL and traditional language practice environments are used as speaking
practice tools. In other words, the activities are limited to two different environments
as traditional language learning setting and SL as a virtual language learning
environment. Third, as for the activities, speaking sessions lasting for four weeks are
used in both traditional and SL environments. Each speaking session is designed to
take 45-minute-long time period. Fourth, speaking sessions are designed to
stimulate group interaction among EFL learners by using pair-work and group work.
Fifth, as data collection tools, interviews that consist of TOEFL speaking topics, and
SLLS which involves 65 items are used. Finally, the study is designed as an
experimental research, consisting of a control and an experimental group with
speaking achievement and speaking anxiety levels as variables.
 74

6. REFERENCES

Aydın, S. (2008). An investigation on the language anxiety and fear of negative

evaluation among Turkish EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512266.pdf.
Aydin, S. (2013a). Factors affecting the level of test anxiety among EFL learners at
elementary schools. E-international journal of educational research, 4(1), 63-
81.
Aydin, S. (2013b). Second life as a foreign language learning environment: A review
of research. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 53-63.
Balcikanli, C. (2012). Language learning in second life: American and Turkish
students' experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 13(2),
131-146.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Nasrollahi Shahri, M. N. (2014). EFL teachers’ conceptions of
speaking competence in English. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 738-754.
Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). How to teach speaking skill? Journal of education
and Practice, 3(2), 25-29.
Batumlu, D. Z., & Erden, M. (2007). The relationship between foreign
language anxiety and English achievement of Yıldız Technical University
School of foreign languages preparatory students. Journal of theory and
practice in education, 3(1), 24-38.
Bell, D. (2009). Learning from Second Life. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(3), 515-525.
Boyce, J. S., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Riley, J. G. (2007). Fearless public speaking:
oral presentation activities for the elementary classroom. Childhood
Education, 83(3), 142-150.
Bradshaw, D. (2006). New practices in flexible learning: Virtual worlds - real learning
pedagogical reflections. Australian Flexible Learning Framework:
Department of Education, Science and Training.
Brown, D. M. (2003). Learner-centered conditions that ensure students' success in
learning. Education, 124, 99-104.
Bygate, M. (1988). Units of oral expression and language learning in small group
interaction. Applied linguistics, 9(1), 59-82.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
 75

Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A

pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Chaves, C. A. (2009). On-line course curricula and interactional strategies: The
foundations and extensions to adult e-learning communities. European
Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. Oxford
University Press: New York.
Diyyab, E. A. Abdal-Haq, E. M., & Aly, M. A. S. (2013). Using a multimedia-based
program for developing student teachers' EFL speaking fluency skills. Online
Submission.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J.
P. & Appel, G. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research
(33-52). New Jersey: Ablex.
Egan, K. B. (1999). Speaking: A critical skill and challenge. Calico Journal, 16, 277-
294.
Ellis, R. (2012a). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012b). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-
Blackwell Publishing.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. (2014). An introduction to language. Boston,
MA: Wadsworth.
Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective.
Language Teaching, 41(2), 147-181.
Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL
classroom. ELT Journal, 55(4), 347-353.
Guzel, S. & Aydin, S. (2014). A review of research on the effects of second life on
speaking anxiety. Ataturk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute,
18(3), 233-242.
Kavanoz, S. H. (2006). An exploratory study of English language teachers' beliefs,
assumptions, and knowledge about learner-centeredness. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2).
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching,
43(2), 154-167.
Hammond, J. & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.),
Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education.
Sydney: Primary English Teachers Association.
 76

Hu, W. (2010). Communicative language teaching in the Chinese environment. US-

China Education Review, 7(6), 78-82.
Inman, C., Wright, V. H. & Hartman, J. A. (2010). Use of second life in K-12 and
higher education: A review of research. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 9(1), 44-63.
Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around
computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning &
Technology, 9(3), 121-145.
Johnson, N. (2006). The educational potential of Second Life. Ohio: Digital Union.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995).
Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance
education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Kanatlar, G. M. (2005). L1 use in beginner level EFL speaking classes and its effect
on elementary level students's oral performances. Anadolu University,
Eskisehir, Turkey.
Kurudayıoğlu, M. (2011). Speaking and speaking education as physical process in
Turkish education. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(2), 224-229.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New
York: Prentice-Hall International.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York:
Longman.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26(2), 175-182.
Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2011). How languages are learned. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lin, G. H. C. (2008). Pedagogies proving Krashen's theory of affective filter. Hwa
Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 14, 113-131.
Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels.
System, 34(3), 301-316.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
Macedo, A. & Morgado, L. (2009). Learning to teach in second life. In Proceedings
of EDEN Seventh Open Classroom Conference (pp.120-126).
Matsuda, S. & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the
foreign language classroom. System, 32(1), 21-36.
Mayrath, M. C., Traphagan, T., Heikes, E. J., & Trivedi, A. (2011). Instructional
design best practices for Second Life: A case study from a college-level
English course. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 125-142.
 77

McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT. Essex: Wiley-
Blackwell.
MacIntyre, P. D. & R. C. Gardner (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on
cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2),
283–305.
Melser, D. (2009). Verbal communication: from pedagogy to make-believe.
Language Sciences, 31(5), 555-571.
Mercer, S. (2011). The beliefs of two expert EFL learners. The Language Learning
Journal, 39(1), 57-74.
Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The
Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 151-168.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing
small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 90(2), 169-184.
Nazara, S. (2011). Students’ Perception on EFL Speaking Skill Development.
Journal of English Teaching, 1(1), 28-43.
Nazari, A. (2007). EFL teachers' perception of the concept of communicative
competence. ELT Journal, 61(3), 202-210.
Payne, M. (2011). Exploring Stephen Krashen's 'i+1' acquisition model in the
classroom. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 419-429.
Peterson, M. (2012). EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL,
24(1), 20-39.
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child. (Gabain, M & Gabain, R.
Trans.). London and New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1923)
Richards, J. C. (1983). Communicative needs in foreign language learning1. ELT
Journal, 37(2), 111-120.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Subasi, G. (2010). What are the main sources of Turkish EFL students’ anxiety in
oral practice? Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 1(2), 29-49.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning (97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Twining, P. (2009). Exploring the educational potential of virtual worlds−Some
reflections from SPP. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 496-
514.
Wang, C. X., Song, H., Stone, D. E., & Yan, Q. (2009). Integrating Second
 78

Life into an EFL program in China: Research collaboration across the

continents. TechTrends, 53(6), 14-19.
Wang, F., & Shao, E. (2012). Using second life to assist EFL teaching: We do not
have to sign in to the program. TechTrends, 56(4), 15-18.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second life in higher education: Assessing the potential for
and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426.
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W. & Downey, S. (2011). The effects of second life on the
motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 277-289.
Wigham, C. R., & Chanier, T. (2013). A study of verbal and nonverbal
communication in Second Life–the ARCHI21 experience. ReCALL, 25(01),
63-84.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind in
society, Edited by: Cole, M., Steiner, V. J., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E.
79–91. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Kluwer Academic /
Plenum Publishers.
 79

7.
APPENDIX

Appendix 1

SPEAKING GRADING SCALE (Kanatlar, 2005)

GRAMMAR 30

5. accurate and appropriate use of grammar with few noticeable errors which do not 30
affect communication

4. occasional use of grammar errors which do not, however, affect communication

24
3. frequent use of grammar errors which occasionally may affect communication
18
2. use of grammar errors which affect communication
12
1. use of grammar errors (even in basic structures) result in disrupted communication
6

VOCABULARY 30

5. accurate and appropriate use of vocabulary with few noticeable wrong words which 30
do not affect communication

4. occasional use of wrong words which do not, however affect communication

24
3. frequent use of wrong words which occasionally may affect communication
18
2. use of wrong words and limited vocabulary which affect communication
12
1. use of wrong words and vocabulary limitations (even in basic structures) result in
disrupted communication 6

INTELLIGIBILITY 20

5. easily understandable 20

4. little difficulty in being understood 16

3. occasional difficulty in being understood 12

2. frequent difficulty in being understood 8

1. difficulty to understand 4
 80

FLUENCY 10

5. natural flow of speech with minimal hesitation 10

4. occasional hesitation, which do not interfere with communication 8

3. frequent hesitations, which occasionally may affect communication 6

2. usually hesitant that affects communication 4

1. no connected speech result in disrupted communication 2

TASK ACHIEVEMENT 10

5. tasks completed fully

10
4. tasks completed adequately
8
3. tasks completed almost adequately
6
2. tasks completed inadequately
4
1. tasks not completed
2

TOTAL 100
 81

Appendix 2

Section 1. Background Questionnaire

Name ___________________________ Gender Female (1) Male (2)

Age ____________ GPA ___________

Section 2. Survey on Language Learning (Liu & Jackson, 2008)

Sometimes

Always
Rarely
Never

Often
Statements

1. I feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
in my foreign language class.

2. I worry about making mistakes in language

class. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

3. I tremble when I know that I'm going to be

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
called on in language class.

4. It frightens me when I don't understand what

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
the teacher is saying in the foreign language.

5. It would bother me to take more foreign

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
language classes.

6. During language class, I find myself thinking

about things that have nothing to do with the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
course.

7. I keep thinking that the other students are (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 82

better at languages than I am.

8. I am usually at ease during tests in my

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
language class.

9. I start to panic when I have to speak without

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
preparation in language class.

10. I worry about the consequences of failing my

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
foreign language class.

11. I understand why some people get so upset

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
over foreign language classes.

12. In language class, I can get so nervous I

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
forget things I know.

13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
my language class.

14. I would be nervous speaking the foreign

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
language with native speakers.

15. I get upset when I have problems

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
understanding what the teacher is correcting.

16. Even if I am well prepared for language class,

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
I feel anxious about it.

17. I am reluctant go to my language class. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

18. I feel confident when I speak in foreign

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
language class.

19. I am afraid that my language teacher is ready

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
to correct every mistake I make.

20. I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
to be called on in language class.

21. The more I study for a language test, the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 83

more confused I get.

22. I feel pressure to prepare very well for

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
language class.

23. I always feel that the other students speak

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
the foreign language better than I do.

24. I feel very self-conscious about speaking the

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
foreign language in front of other students.

25. Language class moves so quickly I worry

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
about getting left behind.

26. I feel more tense and nervous in my language

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
class than in my other classes.

27. I get nervous and confused when I am

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
speaking in my language class.

28. When I'm on my way to language class, I feel

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
very sure and relaxed.

29. I get nervous when I don't understand every

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
word the language teacher says.

30. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
you have to learn to speak a foreign language.

31. I am afraid that the other students will laugh

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
at me when I speak the foreign language.

32. I would probably feel comfortable around

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
native speakers of the foreign language.

33. I get nervous when the language teacher

asks questions which I haven't prepared in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
advance.

34. I get tense and nervous when talking to a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 84

person whose sex is opposite to mine.

35. I get tense and nervous when I have to (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
discuss things unfamiliar to me in English.

36. I feel overwhelmed by the number of words I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
have to learn to speak in English.

37. I like to wait until I know exactly how to use (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
and English word before using it.

38. I don't like trying out a difficult sentence in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
class.

39. At this point, I don't like trying to express (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
complicated ideas in English in class.

40. I prefer to say what I want in English without (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
worrying about the small details of grammar.

41. In class, I prefer to say a sentence to myself (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
before I speak it.

42. I prefer to follow basic sentence models (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
rather than risk misusing the language.

43. I think learning English in a group is more fun (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
than learning on my own.

44. I enjoy talking with the teacher and other (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
students in English.

45. I enjoy interacting with the other students in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
the English class.

46. I think it's important to have a strong group (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
spirit in the English classroom.

47. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

48. I talk less because I'm shy. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 85

49. I talk a lot because I am not shy. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

50. I like to get involved in group discussions. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

51. I feel nervous when I have to speak to others. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

52. I have no fears about expressing myself in a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
group.

53. I am afraid to express myself in a group. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

54. I avoid group discussions. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

55. During a conversation, I prefer to talk rather (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
than listen.

56. I find it easy to make conversation with (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
strangers.

57. I don't think my friends are honest in their (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
communication with me.

58. My friends and family don't listen to my ideas (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
and suggestions.

59. I think my friends are truthful with me. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

60. I don't ask for advice from family or friends (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
when I have to make decisions.

61. I believe my friends and family understand (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
my feelings.

62. My family doesn't enjoy discussing my (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
interests and activities with me.

63. My friends and family listen to my ideas and (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
suggestions.
 86

64. My friends seek my opinions and advice. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

65. Other people are friendly only because they (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
want something out of me.

66. Talking to other people is just a waste of time. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

67. I started to learn English at the age of

______________

68. I started to learn spoken English at the age of

_________________
 87

Appendix 3 Research Consent Form

Name of Researcher(s) Serhat Güzel

Title of study The Effect of Second Life as a Virtual Language Learning Environment on
Speaking Anxiety

Please read and complete this form carefully. If you are willing to participate
in this study, ring the appropriate responses and sign and date the
declaration at the end. If you do not understand anything and would like
more information, please ask.

 I have had the research satisfactorily explained to me in verbal

and / or written form by the researcher. YES / NO

 I understand that the research will involve: 4 weeks and 20 hours

total YES / NO

 I understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time

without having to give an explanation. This will not affect my
future care or treatment. YES / NO

 I understand that all information about me will be treated in

strict confidence and that I will not be named in any written work
arising from this study. YES / NO

 I understand that any material of me will be used solely for

research purposes and will be destroyed on completion of your
research. YES / NO

I freely give my consent to participate in this research study and have

been given a copy of this form for my own information.

Signature:………………………………………………………..

Date: ………………………………………………………………