Rethinking Second Language Anxiety: Looking Beyond the Classic View of the Anxiety → Achievement Relationship

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE
Abdullah A. Alamer, Richard L. Sparks, Philip S. Dale
{"title":"Rethinking Second Language Anxiety: Looking Beyond the Classic View of the Anxiety → Achievement Relationship","authors":"Abdullah A. Alamer, Richard L. Sparks, Philip S. Dale","doi":"10.1111/modl.70092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A large and emerging body of evidence has challenged the classic view that L2 anxiety is a causal factor in L2 learning achievement and that when anxiety is mitigated, L2 proficiency improves. This classic “anxiety → achievement” view has three major problems. First, studies frequently draw causal conclusions from cross‐sectional associations, even though such designs cannot establish temporal precedence and are highly vulnerable to reverse causality and confounding. Second, common L2 anxiety self‐report instruments embed language skills and self‐perceived competence within item content, inflating anxiety–achievement correlations. Third, the classic view on anxiety has developed an “anxiety monoculture”: a persistent tendency to favor the affective interpretation “anxiety → achievement” while neglecting rival explanations, language‐related confounds, and falsification‐oriented designs. In this paper, we synthesize evidence from longitudinal and experimental work indicating that language achievement more plausibly precedes anxiety than the reverse, and provide pedagogical implications that highlight emotional support as an important resource in the process rather than a key causal factor. We then propose an alternative research agenda for the new view on L2 anxiety comprising four components: (a) stronger causal‐inference designs, including longitudinal and experimental approaches; (b) improved measurement standards that decouple anxiety from language ability; (c) explicit accounting for language achievement and L2 aptitude measures when modeling the anxiety–achievement relationship; and (d) reconceptualizing anxiety as a reflection of the learner's concurrent level of language proficiency, which can decrease as language competence and language achievement grow. We argue that progress in conceptualizing L2 anxiety depends crucially on moving beyond past designs and interpretations by adopting these recommendations.","PeriodicalId":42049,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE MIDWEST MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE MIDWEST MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.70092","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A large and emerging body of evidence has challenged the classic view that L2 anxiety is a causal factor in L2 learning achievement and that when anxiety is mitigated, L2 proficiency improves. This classic “anxiety → achievement” view has three major problems. First, studies frequently draw causal conclusions from cross‐sectional associations, even though such designs cannot establish temporal precedence and are highly vulnerable to reverse causality and confounding. Second, common L2 anxiety self‐report instruments embed language skills and self‐perceived competence within item content, inflating anxiety–achievement correlations. Third, the classic view on anxiety has developed an “anxiety monoculture”: a persistent tendency to favor the affective interpretation “anxiety → achievement” while neglecting rival explanations, language‐related confounds, and falsification‐oriented designs. In this paper, we synthesize evidence from longitudinal and experimental work indicating that language achievement more plausibly precedes anxiety than the reverse, and provide pedagogical implications that highlight emotional support as an important resource in the process rather than a key causal factor. We then propose an alternative research agenda for the new view on L2 anxiety comprising four components: (a) stronger causal‐inference designs, including longitudinal and experimental approaches; (b) improved measurement standards that decouple anxiety from language ability; (c) explicit accounting for language achievement and L2 aptitude measures when modeling the anxiety–achievement relationship; and (d) reconceptualizing anxiety as a reflection of the learner's concurrent level of language proficiency, which can decrease as language competence and language achievement grow. We argue that progress in conceptualizing L2 anxiety depends crucially on moving beyond past designs and interpretations by adopting these recommendations.
第二语言焦虑的再思考:超越焦虑→成就关系的经典观点
大量新出现的证据挑战了传统观点,即第二语言焦虑是第二语言学习成就的一个因果因素,当焦虑减轻时,第二语言熟练程度就会提高。这种经典的“焦虑→成就”观点有三个主要问题。首先,研究经常从横断面关联中得出因果结论,尽管这种设计不能建立时间优先权,并且极易受到反向因果关系和混淆的影响。其次,常见的第二语言焦虑自我报告工具将语言技能和自我感知能力嵌入到项目内容中,夸大了焦虑与成就的相关性。第三,关于焦虑的经典观点已经形成了一种“焦虑单一文化”:一种持续倾向于支持情感解释“焦虑→成就”,而忽视竞争解释、语言相关的混淆和证伪导向的设计。在本文中,我们综合了来自纵向和实验工作的证据,表明语言成就更有可能先于焦虑,而不是相反,并提供了强调情感支持是这一过程中的重要资源而不是关键因果因素的教学启示。然后,我们提出了一个关于第二语言焦虑的新观点的替代研究议程,包括四个组成部分:(a)更强的因果推理设计,包括纵向和实验方法;(b)改进了将焦虑与语言能力分离的测量标准;(c)在建立焦虑-成就关系模型时,明确考虑语言成就和第二语言能力倾向测量;(d)将焦虑重新定义为学习者语言能力水平的反映,这种水平会随着语言能力和语言成就的提高而降低。我们认为,二语焦虑概念化的进展关键取决于通过采纳这些建议来超越过去的设计和解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association publishes articles on literature, literary theory, pedagogy, and the state of the profession written by M/MLA members. One issue each year is devoted to the informal theme of the recent convention and is guest-edited by the year"s M/MLA president. This issue presents a cluster of essays on a topic of broad interest to scholars of modern literatures and languages. The other issue invites the contributions of members on topics of their choosing and demonstrates the wide range of interests represented in the association. Each issue also includes book reviews written by members on recent scholarship.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书