1016556

research-article20212021
SGOXXX10.1177/21582440211016556SAGE OpenLiu and Wu

Original Research

SAGE Open

Teaching Anxiety and Foreign

April-June 2021: 1­–12
© The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/21582440211016556
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016556

Language Anxiety Among Chinese journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

College English Teachers

Meihua Liu1 and Bin Wu1,2

Abstract
This study explored teaching anxiety and teacher foreign language anxiety (FLA) in 151 Chinese college English teachers
in relation to their individual characteristics. Analyses of data collected from mixed-form questionnaires revealed the
following major findings: (a) Major causes for teaching anxiety were concern about classroom teaching, research, other
work and promotion, and interest and confidence in teaching, and major sources for teacher FLA were apprehension
of speaking English, fear of negative outcomes, and confidence in English competence; (b) the participants of various
backgrounds suffered from varying degrees of teaching anxiety and teacher FLA; (c) gender, age, educational level,
English proficiency, and experience of visiting/studying in English-speaking countries significantly affected the participants’
teaching anxiety and teacher FLA levels; and (d) anxiety seriously affected the participants’ work and life. Evidently,
anxiety is an important issue faced by university language teachers and needs to be further researched and seriously
handled.

Keywords
teaching anxiety, foreign language anxiety, college English teacher, individual characteristics, effect

Introduction Literature Review

As a psychological and affective factor, anxiety often exists
in the teaching profession (Desouky & Allam, 2017; Fimian
& Blanton, 1987). As reviewed below, a multitude of studies
have been done on anxiety in teachers of various back-
grounds, especially on pre-service or primary and secondary
school teachers (Cheung & Hui, 2011; İpek, 2016; Kim &
Kim, 2004; Merç, 2011). Comparatively, fewer studies have
been done on anxiety experienced by non-native second/for-
eign language (SL/FL) instructors, especially in-service SL/
FL instructors (Horwitz, 1996; Kralova & Tirpakova, 2019;
Tum, 2014). As discussed in Tum (2014), although foreign
language anxiety (FLA), a significant issue in SL/FL learn-
ing and acquisition, has been widely researched in SL/FL
learners, it has been much under-researched on SL/FL teach-
ers. Moreover, as non-native SL/FL teachers, they have to
confront not only teaching anxiety but also FLA, both of
which are fundamental factors for career performance and
development and yet put them under enormous pressure.
Thus, research in this area is worthwhile and the present
study sought to examine Chinese college English teachers’
teaching anxiety and FLA in relation to their individual
characteristics.
Teaching Anxiety
Anxiety refers to the subjective feelings of nervousness, fear,
panic, turmoil, and worry (Spielberger, 1966, 1983). It arises
as a response to the uncertainty of a forthcoming event/eval-
uation and/or worry of the consequence of an event.
Spielberger (1966) proposed and differentiated state anxiety
from trait anxiety. State anxiety is situational, involves feel-
ings of apprehension following activities in the autonomic
nervous system, and arises in concrete circumstances deemed
as threatening, while trait anxiety is an “acquired behavioral
disposition that predisposes an individual to perceive a wide
range of objectively non-dangerous circumstances as threat-
ening” (Spielberger, 1966, p. 17).
As a type of state anxiety, teaching anxiety refers to
“anxiety experienced in relation to teaching activities that
1
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
2
Chang’an University, Xi’an, China
Corresponding Author:
Meihua Liu, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China.
Emails: liumeihua@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn; ellenlmh@yahoo.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
involve the preparation and execution of classroom activi-
ties” (Gardner & Leak, 1994, p. 28). Alternatively, teaching
anxiety is closely related to the task of teaching (Keavney &
Sinclair, 1978). To gauge teaching anxiety, Parsons (1973)
developed the Teaching Anxiety Scale (TAS), which has
been widely employed in subsequent studies (Cheung & Hui,
2011; İpek, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2004; Merç, 2011). These
studies, as well as those using other methods (Ahmed &
Julius, 2015; Desouky & Allam, 2017; Liu & Yan, 2020;
Merç, 2011; Parsons, 1973; Peker, 2009; Robinson & Clay,
2005; X. Wang & Wang, 2015; Yazici & Altun, 2013), find
that anxiety exists in many teachers of various backgrounds
due to reasons like conflicts of values, workload, students’
behavior, relations between faculty members, academic
demands, and lack of educational resources. These studies
also show that teaching anxiety levels are prone to differ-
ences in individual characteristics like teaching experiences,
professional title, gender, education, age, and the school
environment. For example, Cheung and Hui’s (2011) study
of 195 teachers indicated that teachers in Hong Kong and
Shanghai experienced teaching anxiety, with those in Hong
Kong at a higher level. This finding was supported by
research on teachers of specific disciplines, such as university
psychology teachers (Gardner & Leak, 1994), pre-service
mathematics teachers (Peker & Ertekin, 2011), and univer-
sity teachers of arts (Liu & Yan, 2020).
Teacher FLA
FLA, a situation-specific type of anxiety, is specified as “a
distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and
behaviors related to classroom language learning arising
from the uniqueness of the language learning experience”
(Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 128). As complicated mental opera-
tions are “required in order to communicate, any perfor-
mance in the L2 is likely to challenge an individual’s
self-concept as a competent communicator and lead to reti-
cence, self-consciousness, fear, or even panic” (Horwitz et
al., 1986, p. 128). Consequently, SL/FL learners may doubt
their abilities, worry about their performance, and even have
a mental block (Horwitz et al., 1986; Tobias, 1979). Studies
using various methods like surveys, interviews, and diaries
generally reveal a predominantly debilitating effect of FLA
on SL/FL learning (Dewaele & Alfawzan, 2018; Horwitz,
2010; Horwitz et al., 1986; Liu & Xiangming, 2019). For
example, Liu and Xiangming’s (2019) longitudinal study on
324 Chinese postgraduate students found that FLA was
highly related to the students’ overall test performance as
well as performance in English speaking, reading, listening,
and writing, and that FLA was a powerful predictor of the
latter, especially speaking test performance.
FLA is not only a crucial issue for SL/FL learners but a
major concern for SL/FL language teachers in teaching
the SL/FL (Horwitz, 1996; Tum, 2014). Although not much
researched as student FLA, teacher FLA has also long
merited researchers’ attention (Horwitz, 2010; Horwitz et al.,
1986). Horwitz (2008), a pioneer in research on student FLA,
is also a pioneer in research on teacher FLA who designed
the Teacher Foreign Language Anxiety Scale (TFLAS) to
gauge the level of anxiety experienced by non-native SL/FL
teachers. Via the TFLAS, dairies, and/or interviews, increas-
ingly more research has been done on teacher FLA, most of
which focuses on FLA in pre-service EFL teachers or ele-
mentary and middle school teachers (Bekleyen, 2009; Kim
& Kim, 2004; Kralova et al., 2017; Kralova & Tirpakova,
2019; Kunt & Tüm, 2010; Machida, 2015; Merç, 2011;
Yoon, 2012). These studies reveal that EFL (English as a FL)
teachers are generally anxious about teaching due to various
reasons such as English proficiency, pupil–student relation-
ship, lack of educational resources, workload, and classroom
management. For example, Yoon (2012) studied how much
anxiety was experienced by 52 pre-service EFL teachers in
Korea during the teaching practicum. Analyses of the ques-
tionnaires showed that sources of their anxiety were mainly
fear of English speech in the classroom and lack of confi-
dence about the target language. This finding was further
supported by Kunt and Tüm (2010). Bekleyen’s (2009) study
of FL listening anxiety (FLLA) among Turkish student
teachers of English found that the students generally experi-
enced high levels of FLLA, and that their FLLA levels
decreased with the increase in their listening grades. The
study also found that the sources of the FLLA were a lack of
emphasis on listening in previous educational stages and
deficit listening skills. To further explore the topic, Tum
(2014) interviewed a cohort of 12 EFL student teachers and
discovered that their anxiety stemmed from concern over
error and fear of negative evaluation. The study further
revealed that FLA hindered the participants from using
English and language-intensive teaching practices. Kim
and Kim’s (2004) study of Korean elementary and middle
school EFL teachers showed that the most predominant
source of teaching anxiety was inadequate proficiency in
English, followed by limited confidence, limited knowledge
of linguistics and education, inadequate class preparation
and comparison with native teachers, partially supported in
subsequent research (Kralova & Tirpakova, 2019). Other
main sources of EFL student teachers’ anxiety were student
profiles, teaching procedures, under-preparation, and class-
room management (Machida, 2015; Merç, 2011). Kralova
and Tirpakova (2019) also found that non-native teachers’
English-speaking anxiety increased with age.
Studies on FLA in in-service SL/FL teachers show that
these teachers also suffer from varying degrees of anxiety
due to various reasons, such as workload, imperfect perfor-
mance or competence of the target language, inadequate
preparation, and pressure from research and promotion (İpek,
2016; X. Wang & Wang, 2015; Zhang, 2010). For example,
İpek’s (2016) qualitative study of Turkish EFL teachers iden-
tified three predominant sources of teaching anxiety: fear of
failure, making mistakes, and using the mother tongue. This
Liu and Wu
finding was supported by X. Wang and Wang (2015), who
found that Chinese EFL teachers generally reported feeling
anxious due to such reasons as heavy workload, failure to
engage in family routines, course preparation, teaching abil-
ity, and unfair evaluation by deans and students.
Research Questions
As reviewed, a multitude of studies have been done on anxi-
ety in teachers of various backgrounds (Cheung & Hui, 2011;
İpek, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2004; Merç, 2011), most of which
target elementary–middle school students and/or pre-service
student teachers. Comparatively, fewer studies have been
investigated on anxiety experienced by non-native SL/FL
teachers (Horwitz, 1996, 2008; Kralova & Tirpakova, 2019;
Tum, 2014). Thus, SL/FL teachers’ FLA is still a much
under-explored area (Tum, 2014). Research on this is espe-
cially worthy given that teaching anxiety and FLA are two
fundamental factors for non-native EFL teachers’ career per-
formance and development. Aiming to explore Chinese col-
lege English teachers’ teaching anxiety and FLA in relation
to their individual characteristics, the present study intended
to answer the following three research questions:
Research Question 1: What are the sources of teaching
anxiety and FLA experienced by Chinese college English
teachers?
Research Question 2: How are teaching anxiety and
teacher FLA related to the participants’ individual
factors?
Research Question 3: What are the effects of teaching
anxiety and teacher FLA?
Research Design
Context
To improve the quality of education and enhance the reputa-
tion both at home and abroad, most institutions of higher
education in China set demanding requirements in teaching
and research for promotion. Namely, a university teacher has
to demonstrate excellent research abilities (e.g., projects,
funds, and numbers of publications in high-ranking journals)
and teaching performance (e.g., minimum teaching hours per
week and good student evaluation results) to win chances for
promotion. Meanwhile, they often have to take administra-
tive work simultaneously to satisfy various needs of the
department, faculty, university, or even higher level adminis-
tration. All these put university teachers in greater pressure
than before. As college English courses are compulsory to all
students of a university, college English teachers often have
to teach more hours per week than those in other disciplines
and thus may face even greater pressure. Housework may
add more pressure and anxiety to them because the majority
of FL teachers at all educational levels in China are female.
3
Participants
Altogether, 151 (21 men and 130 women) college English
teachers working at various universities in China answered
the survey in the present research. Of these participants, 71
(47%) aged 31 to 40, 55 (36.4%) aged 41 to 50, 18 (11.9%)
aged 51 to 60, and seven (4.6%) aged 26 to 30; 104 (68.9%)
were lectures, 49 (25.8%) associate professors, two (1.3%)
professors, and six (4%) assistant lecturers; 114 (75.5%) held
master’s degree, 25 (16.6%) and 12 (7.9%) held bachelor’s
degree and doctor’s degree, respectively. With a range of 0 to
37 years’ experiences of teaching English in universities, the
participants generally had taught English for 15.17 (SD =
7.255) years. With an average of 11.44 (SD = 3.396) and a
range of 0 to 24 required hours of teaching per week, most
participants taught 12 hr (64/42.4%), followed by 10 hr
(22/14.6%), 8 hr (16/10.6%), and 9 hr (10/6.6%) per week,
respectively. With a mean of 0.44 (SD = 0.821) years of vis-
iting an English-speaking country, over half of the partici-
pants (88/58.3%) had never visited any English-speaking
countries. With a mean of 0.58 (SD = 3.321) years of study-
ing in an English-speaking country, more than 60%
(104/68.9%) participants had never studied in any English-
speaking countries. On a scale of 1 to 10, the participants
generally rated their English proficiency as 7.05 (SD =
1.267), 126 (83.44%) of whom rated themselves as interme-
diate–advanced English learners.
Instruments
The mixed-form survey used in the present research included
the nine-item background questionnaire, the 33-item TAS,
the 18-item TFLAS, and four open-ended questions. The
questions were as follows: “Do you often feel anxious?”;
“As a university teacher, my anxiety primarily stems from
________”; “As a college English teacher, my anxiety pri-
marily stems from ________”; and “As the result of anxiety,
I _________.”
The Demographic Questionnaire. To collect individual infor-
mation about the respondents, the nine-item Demographic
Questionnaire intended to gather such information as profes-
sional title, age, gender, educational level, years of teaching
in universities, teaching hours per week, experience of visit-
ing/studying in English-speaking countries, and self-rated
English proficiency.
TAS. The 33-item TAS used in the present research (Cron-
bach’s α = .851) was modified from that used in Parsons
(1973) with reference to the findings in Liu and Yan (2020).
For better clarity, the present study removed statements
about parent observation/conference and added those about
promotion and research. Moreover, expressions like pre-ser-
vice and other interns/teachers were replaced by colleagues/
other teachers. The resulted TAS items were placed on a
4 SAGE Open
5-point Likert-type scale, with values of 1 to 5 assigned to
the five descriptors ranging from “never” to “always,”
respectively. Hence, a score of more than 3, 2 to 3, and below
2 on a TAS scale signified high, medium, and low teaching
anxiety, respectively (Parsons, 1973; Liu & Yan, 2020).
TFLAS. The 18-item TFLAS utilized in the present research
(α = .902) was modified from that designed by Horwitz
(2008). To better suit the present situation, the item “I would
not worry about taking a training course conducted entirely
in English” was changed to be “I would not worry about
teaching a course conducted entirely in English.” The
TFLAS was also a 5-point Likert-type scale with values of 1
to 5 assigned to the five descriptors ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree.” Thus, a respondent’s anxiety
level is determined by the sum of his or her responses to all
the questions divided by 18: an average of around 3 means
slight anxiety about language proficiency; a score of around
4 indicates a certain amount of anxiety (Horwitz, 2008).
Data Collection and Analyses
The survey was translated into Chinese and then back-
checked by two researchers proficient in both Chinese and
English, which, together with a consent form, were then
issued online for a month to prospective respondents in
China. The participation was voluntary. The collected data
were then analyzed via SPSS 20. The TFLAS and TAS were
subjected to rotated (varimax) principal components analy-
ses to explore causes for FLA and teaching anxiety. Then,
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; Duncan) and inde-
pendent-samples t-tests were run to examine patterns and
differences in TFLAS and TAS scales in relation to indi-
vidual factors. The answers to the open-ended questions
were analyzed according to the themes, which could be
words, phrases, ideas, and topics (Richards, 2009). The
themes used in the present study were ideas, such as pres-
sure from research, teaching hours, and health. When cod-
ing the responses, a number was given to each open-question
respondent, which was used when their responses were cited
in the paper.
Results
Causes for Teaching Anxiety and Teacher FLA
With reference to Liu and Yan (2020), a six-factor solution
was adopted on TAS (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin [KMO] = .867,
Bartlett’s test = 2.417, p = .000), with eigenvalues being
5.895, 3.576, 3.504, 2.487, 2.066, and 1.906, respectively.
Accounting for 17.865% of the total variance, Factor 1,
Concern About Classroom Teaching (TAS1), included 13
items indicating concerns about classroom teaching such as
classroom management, responding to students’ questions,
teacher–student relationship, being observed, presenting
teaching, and effectiveness of teaching. The second factor,
Confidence in Teaching (TAS2), covered seven items reflec-
tive of confidence in teaching as a profession of college
English teacher, which accounted for 10.836% of the total
variance. The third factor, Concern About Research (TAS3),
consisted of four items indicating worry about applying for
research projects and funds, writing up research papers, and
getting them published, which explained 10.619% of the
total variance. Factor 4 (TAS4), Concern About Other Work,
which explained 7.537% of the total variance, had four items
suggesting worry about work unrelated to teaching and
research such as expressing opinions in the public, adminis-
trative work, planning time for different work, and other
errands. Three items constituted TAS5 (Interest in Teaching)
which were expressive of interest in and happiness about
teaching and explained 6.261% of the total variance. TAS6
(Concern About Promotion) had two items suggestive of
concern about promotion and accounted for 5.777% of the
total variance. The loadings of the TAS items are reported in
Table 1.
The analysis of the TFLAS yielded three factors (KMO
= .919, Bartlett’s test = 1.191, p = .000), with eigenvalues
being 5.329, 2.836, and 1.607, accounting for 29.606%,
15.746%, and 8.9% of the total variance, respectively.
Factor 1 (TFLAS1), Apprehension of Speaking English, had
nine items expressing worry and fear of speaking English in
diverse situations; Factor 2 (TFLAS2), Fear of Negative
Outcomes, included five items suggesting fear of making
mistakes and failing to understand others; and Factor 3
(TFLAS3), Confidence in English Competence, had four
items indicative of confidence in one’s own English profi-
ciency and performance. The loadings of TFLAS items are
reported in Table 2.
Correlations Within and Between TFLAS and TAS
Scales
Results of correlation analyses are presented in Table 3,
which shows that the TFLAS scales were significantly highly
correlated with each other, with coefficients ranging from
.571 to .952 (p ≤ .05). So were TAS scales except for TAS3
and TAS4, with a coefficient range of .182 to .852 (p ≤ .05).
TAS4 was significantly (r = .511, p ≤ .05) related to TAS3
but lowly with other TAS scales, and TAS3 was significantly
correlated with TAS1, TAS4, TAS6, and TAS (r = .169–
.584, p ≤ .05) but lowly with TAS2 and TAS5. These results,
coupled with the loadings presented in Tables 1 and 2, indi-
cated that TFLAS1, TFLAS2, and TFLAS3 were important
components of TFLAS, and that TAS1, TAS2, TAS3, TAS4,
TAS5, and TAS6 were important components of TAS.
These results largely conformed with the respondents’
answers to the open-ended questions on causes for anxiety.
Of 151 survey participants, 87 explained causes for their
anxiety in working as a college English teacher (Table 4).
Liu and Wu 5

Table 1. Loadings of Rotated Principal Factor Analyses of TAS Items.

TAS items TAS1 TAS2 TAS3 TAS4 TAS5 TAS6

28. I feel uncertain about my ability to improvise in the classroom. .359 .456 .344 .250 −.006 .376
29. Even if I have trouble answering a student’s questions, I find it easy to .059 −.189 .117 −.607 .023 .163
concentrate on questions that follow.
30. I feel anxious when I am preparing lessons. .167 .209 .199 .622 −.028 .345
31. I’m afraid students won’t follow my instructions. .419 .470 .232 .330 .054 .263
32. I would feel calm if the chairperson informed me he or she was coming to −.444 −.401 −.322 −.259 .196 −.149
class to observe.
33. I’m afraid other teachers think I’m incompetent. .240 .392 .088 .512 .285 .268
34. I feel anxious about my ability to keep a class under control. .396 .584 .136 .333 .097 .193
35. I’m happier teaching than I thought I’d be. .712 .166 .014 −.044 −.061 −.024
36. I am confident in teaching. .762 .270 −.067 .168 .063 −.050
37. I am afraid to speak up in staff meetings. .166 .674 .090 −.157 .167 .036
38. I feel certain I really want to be a teacher. .785 .035 .112 .038 .114 .035
39. I feel certain about my ability to keep the students interested in what I .696 .027 .017 .318 .224 .069
teach them.
40. I find it difficult to admit to the class that I don’t know the answer to a .067 .761 −.057 .268 −.016 −.058
question a student asks.
41. I’m worried whether I will find teaching a satisfying profession. .539 .383 .171 .092 .022 .073
42. I feel that I am as good as other teachers in my program. .658 .263 −.074 −.064 .264 .029
43. I feel at ease when I am being observed by my colleague. .630 .257 .266 −.183 −.087 .086
44. I’m afraid I will forget everything I know when I get in front of a class. .308 .618 −.008 .414 −.018 −.054
45. I feel calm and collected when a student asks me a question I can’t answer. .266 .231 −.035 .079 .359 −.241
46. I feel well prepared for teaching. .599 .078 .009 .364 .129 −.005
47. I am able to decide how to present information in the classroom without .517 −.076 .033 .506 .159 .025
a feeling of uncertainty.
48. I feel sure I can be a good teacher. .618 .066 .102 .270 .307 .266
49. Good rapport with my students is one of my strong points. .548 .395 −.052 −.012 .356 .185
50. I worry about students’ evaluation of my teaching. .252 .422 .134 .348 .242 .131
51. I worry about promotion. .160 .136 .571 .081 −.066 −.015
52. I feel sure that my students are satisfied with my teaching. .410 .261 −.133 .253 .567 .111
53. I am satisfied with my research. .006 .045 .483 −.032 .667 .153
54. I am sure that I will be promoted duly. .219 −.080 .433 .022 .643 −.118
55. I am not sure whether I can do research well. .063 .159 .736 −.095 .244 .130
56. I have difficulty balancing research and teaching. −.014 .088 .775 .036 .157 −.084
57. I find it difficult to publish my papers. −.021 −.042 .669 .032 .112 −.416
58. I find it competitive to apply for research grants. −.004 −.121 .668 .015 −.039 −.333
59. Administrative duties make me tired. −.020 .034 .185 −.042 .027 −.650
60. Errands unrelated to teaching and research waste too much of my time −.152 −.250 .384 −.027 −.152 −.654
(e.g., attending unnecessary meetings and filling up various forms).

Note. Coefficient of determination—small: r ≤ .1, medium: r = .3, and large: r ≥ .5 (Cohen, 1988). TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale; TAS1 = Concern
About Classroom Teaching; TAS2 = Confidence in Teaching; TAS3 = Concern About Research; TAS4 = Concern About Other Work; TAS5 = Interest
in Teaching; TAS6 = Concern About Promotion.

As summarized in Table 4, examination of the 87
responses identified 20 sources of teaching anxiety, the
most important of which were pressure from research (e.g.,
applying for projects and funds, writing up papers, getting
papers published, unpredictable policies, poor research
ability; 22/25.3%), pressure from promotion (e.g.,
demanding promotion requirements, unpredictable promo-
tion policies, unfairness; 14/16.1%), heavy teaching load
(e.g., heavy workload, many teaching hours per week;
6/6.9%), worry about teaching effectiveness (e.g., not good
teaching, students not liking the class, being unable to moti-
vate students; 6/6.9%), little/low self-confidence (e.g., being
dissatisfied with self, being not good enough, worrying
about own competence; 5/5.7%), too much and endless
work (5/5.7%), difficulty in balancing work and family
(3/3.4%), students not working hard (e.g., having inadequate
knowledge of the subject, making inadequate efforts, being
not interested; 3/3.4%), being not interested in teaching
(3/3.4%), and imbalance between efforts and returns
(3/3.4%). As confided by the respondents, it was difficult
6 SAGE Open

Table 2. Loadings of Rotated Principal Factor Analyses of TFLAS Items.

TFLAS items TFLAS1 TFLAS2 TFLAS3

10. It frightens me when I don’t understand what someone is saying in English. .151 .875 −.129
11. I would not worry about teaching a course entirely in English. .656 .268 −.016
12. I am afraid that native speakers will notice every mistake I make. .144 .744 .308
13. I am pleased with the level of my English language proficiency I have achieved. .641 .345 −.209
14. I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of teachers of English. .487 .496 .347
15. When speaking English, I can get so nervous I forget things I know. .461 .418 .441
16. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules I have to learn in order to speak English. .282 .289 .530
17. I feel comfortable around native speakers of English. .599 .243 .186
18. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking English in front of native speakers. .593 .276 .466
19. I am not nervous speaking English with students. .588 .153 −.005
20. I don’t worry about making mistakes in English. .773 .214 −.047
21. I speak English well enough to be a good English teacher. .787 .171 .156
22. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word a native speaker says. .336 .593 .458
23. I feel confident when I speak English. .754 .256 .102
24. I always feel that other teachers speak English better than I do. .477 .364 .284
25. I don’t understand why some people think learning English is so hard. .169 .036 −.490
26. I try to speak English with native speakers whenever I can. .528 −.106 .148
27. I feel that my English preparation was adequate for becoming an English teacher. .652 .161 .122

Note. Coefficient of determination—small: r ≤ .1, medium: r = .3, and large: r ≥ .5 (Cohen, 1988). TFLAS = Teacher Foreign Language Anxiety Scale;
TFLAS1 = Apprehension of Speaking English; TFLAS2 = Fear of Negative Outcomes; TFLAS3 = Confidence in English Competence.

Table 3. Correlations Within and Between TAS and TFLAS Scales (N = 151).

Scales TFLAS2 TFLAS3 TFLAS TAS1 TAS2 TAS3 TAS4 TAS5 TAS6 TAS
TFLAS1 .757** .856** .952** .710** .680** .144 −.006 .531** .240** .647**
TFLAS2 1 .571** .893** .638** .609** .257** .031 .431** .265** .617**
TFLAS3 1 .771** .573** .564** .134 −.042 .406** .182* .517**
TFLAS 1 .735** .706** .200* .000 .528** .264* .682**
TAS1 1 .789** .169* .051 .645** .325** .852**
TAS2 .139 −.008 .628** .293** .792**
TAS3 1 .511** .143 .584** .548**
TAS4 1 .083 .361** .410**
TAS5 1 .286** .706**
TAS6 1 .618**
TAS 1

Note. Coefficient of determination—small: r ≤ .1, medium: r = .3, and large: r ≥ .5 (Cohen, 1988). TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale; TFLAS = Teacher
Foreign Language Anxiety Scale.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

for them to “apply for projects and funds, to write up papers
and get them published,” which drove them “crazy” (No.
34). Meanwhile, unpredictable policies of requirements on
research and poor research ability were great challenges to
some respondents. Concurrently, demanding promotion
requirements, unpredictable promotion policies, and unfair-
ness in promotion exerted great pressure on many respon-
dents. In addition, some respondents were worried about the
effectiveness of their teaching: They were afraid that they
could not teach effectively, that students might not like their
teaching, and/or that they would not be able to motivate
their students. Many teaching hours per week and low/little
confidence in their own competence put a number of respon-
dents under pressure. Other minor causes for teaching anx-
iety included poor health, worry about self-development,
low salary, approaching retirement, being old, overexpecta-
tion, ongoing reforms, pressure from colleagues, and pursu-
ing perfection.
As shown in Table 4, the main source for teacher FLA was
worry about English proficiency: spoken English being not
good enough (5/5.7%) and low-confidence in English com-
petence (3/3.4%). Other causes included inadequate prepara-
tion (2/2.3%), pursuing perfection (1/1.15%), and fear of
teaching outcomes (1/1.15%).
Liu and Wu 7

Table 4. Causes for Anxiety (N = 87).

Causes for teaching anxiety 14. Being unable to teach freely (1/1.15%)
1. Pressure from research (22/25.3%) 15. Low salary (1/1.15%)
2. Pressure from promotion (14/16.1%) 16. Low status (1/1.15%)
3. Heavy teaching load (6/6.9%) 17. Overexpectation (1/1.15%)
4. Worry about teaching effectiveness (6/6.9%) 18. Ongoing reforms on teaching (1/1.15%)
5. Little/low self-confidence (5/5.7%) 19. Pressure from colleagues (1/1.15%)
6. Too much and endless work (5/5.7%) 20. Difficulty in balancing teaching and research (1/1.15%)
7. Difficulty in balancing work and family (3/3.4%) Causes for teacher foreign language anxiety
8. Students not working hard (3/3.4%) 1. Spoken English being not good enough (5/5.7%)
9. Not interested in teaching (3/3.4%) 2. Low-confidence in English competence (3/3.4%)
10. Imbalance between efforts and returns (3/3.4%) 3. Not having enough reading and adequate preparation (2/2.3%)
11. Poor health (2/2.3%) 4. Pursuing perfection (1/1.15%)
12. Worry about self-development (2/2.3%) 5. Fear of teaching outcomes (1/1.15%)
13. Not having enough time (2/2.3%)

Note. The numbers in the brackets refer to frequency and percentage respectively.

Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of TAS and TFLAS confided that they did not feel anxious about teaching and/or
Scales for the Whole Sample (N = 151). teaching English.
Scales M SD Skewness Kurtosis
Anxiety levels in relation to individual factors. Results of one-
TAS1 2.48 0.43 0.732 0.842 way ANOVA (Duncan) conducted on TAS and TFLAS scales
TAS2 2.30 0.50 1.337 4.24 in relation to age, professional title, educational level, and
TAS3 3.90 0.70 −0.499 0.271 independent-samples t-tests in relation to experience of visit-
TAS4 3.51 0.68 −0.601 0.557 ing/studying in English-speaking countries are presented in
TAS5 2.42 0.69 1.103 1.671 Tables 6 to 9.
TAS6 3.32 0.93 −0.011 −0.769
As seen from Table 6, the participants’ TAS and TFLAS
TAS 2.79 0.39 0.499 1.780
scores of different age groups embodied a similar pattern to
TFLAS1 2.48 0.61 0.447 −0.195
those of the whole sample. Meanwhile, the respondents
TFLAS2 2.697 0.76 0.374 −0.198
aged 26 to 30 scored the highest on TAS1, TAS3, TAS4,
TFLAS3 2.79 0.54 0.832 1.487
TFLAS 2.61 0.57 0.571 0.317
TAS6, and TAS; those aged 31 to 40 scored the lowest on
TAS2 and TAS5; those aged 41 to 50 scored the lowest on
Note. TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale; TFLAS = Teacher Foreign Language TAS1 and the highest on TAS2; those aged 51 to 60 scored
Anxiety Scale. the lowest on TAS4 and TAS6 and the highest on TAS5; and
the participants in higher age groups scored higher on
TFLAS scales than those in lower age groups. Statistically
Anxiety Levels in Relation to Individual Factors significant differences were observed in TAS1 between age
General anxiety levels for the whole sample. The means and group 26 to 30 and age groups 31 to 40 and 41 to 50, in
standard deviations of TFLAS and TAS scales for the whole TAS2 between age group 31 to 40 and age groups 26 to 30
sample were reported in Table 5, which shows that the and 41 to 50, in TAS3 between age group 51 to 60 and the
participants scored above 3 on TAS3 (M = 3.90), TAS4 other three groups, in TAS4 between age group 26 to 30 and
(M = 3.51), and TAS6 (3.32), but below 3 on the other TAS age group 51 to 60, in TAS6 between age group 51 to 60 and
scales. This indicated that the respondents generally did not age groups 26 to 30 and 41 to 50, and in TAS between age
feel worried about classroom teaching (TAS1). Meanwhile, group 26 to 30 and the other three groups. Alternatively, the
they reported to be confident (TAS2) and interested in teach- participants aged 31 to 40 were significantly more worried
ing (TAS5), (fairly) worried about research (TAS3), other about classroom teaching than their peers aged 41 to 50,
work (TAS4), and promotion (TAS6). Likewise, the partici- those aged 31 to 40 were significantly more confident in
pants scored below 3 on all TFLAS scores (M = 2.48–2.79), teaching than their peers aged 26 to 30 and 41 to 50, those
meaning that they were generally not anxious about their aged 51 to 60 were significantly less concerned about
English proficiency. On the contrary, they seemed to be con- research than their peers in other age groups, those aged 26
fident in speaking English, not fearful of failure, and confi- to 30 were significantly more worried about other work
dent in their English proficiency. than their peers aged 51 to 60, those aged 51 to 60 were
By contrast, when responding to the open-ended question, significantly less worried about promotion than their peers
56 (64.37%) respondents reported that they were often or aged 26 to 30 and 41 to 50, and those aged 26 to 30 were
sometimes anxious about teaching, and 35 (40.23%) reported significantly more anxious about teaching in general than
feeling anxious about teaching English; only 17 (11.3%) their peers in other age groups.
8 SAGE Open

Table 6. ANOVA Results (age group).

G1 (N = 7) G2 (N = 71) G3 (N = 55) G4 (N = 18)

Sum of Places of significance
Scales M SD M SD M SD M SD squares F p (p = .05)
TAS1 2.79 0.43 2.48 0.38 2.40 0.38 2.60 0.67 1.289 2.398 .070 G1&G2-3
TAS2 2.63 0.38 2.26 0.43 2.68 0.47 2.45 0.78 1.391 1.878 .136 G2&G1,G3
TAS3 4.14 0.64 3.94 0.67 3.98 0.61 3.40 0.94 5.366 3.803 .012 G4&G1-3
TAS4 3.82 0.49 3.45 0.597 3.63 0.695 3.24 0.87 3.034 2.271 .083 G1&G4
TAS5 2.52 0.66 2.36 0.66 2.38 0.55 2.78 1.09 2.77 1.956 .123 —
TAS6 3.71 0.86 3.30 0.92 3.48 0.84 2.72 1.05 8.981 3.659 .014 G4&G1,G3
TAS 3.08 0.25 2.77 0.34 2.78 0.34 2.77 0.64 0.631 1.410 .242 G1&G2-4
TFLAS1 2.62 0.39 2.45 0.56 2.46 0.63 2.63 0.80 0.611 0.538 .657 —
TFLAS2 2.97 0.55 2.72 0.66 2.62 0.79 2.73 1.08 0.934 0.534 .660 —
TFLAS3 2.89 0.56 2.76 0.47 2.76 0.57 2.88 0.73 0.313 0.353 .787 —
TFLAS 2.78 0.397 2.59 0.497 2.57 0.59 2.71 0.83 0.489 0.492 .688 —

Note. G1 = age 26–30; G2 = age 31–40; G3 = age 41–50; G4 = age 51–60. ANOVA = analysis of variance; TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale; TFLAS =
Teacher Foreign Language Anxiety Scale.

Table 7. ANOVA Results (Professional Title).

AL (N = 6) L (N = 104) AP (N = 39) P (N = 2)
Sum of Places of significance
Scales M SD M SD M SD M SD squares F p (p = .05)
TAS1 2.65 0.49 2.46 0.38 2.49 0.53 2.77 0.33 0.376 0.676 .568 —
TAS2 2.43 0.46 2.27 0.45 2.34 0.64 2.43 0.61 0.377 0.496 .686 —
TAS3 4.00 0.57 3.93 0.72 3.82 0.70 3.63 0.88 0.568 0.376 .770 —
TAS4 3.67 0.70 3.46 0.66 3.62 0.71 3.13 0.18 1.174 0.854 .466 —
TAS5 2.22 0.54 2.43 0.65 2.44 0.84 2.33 0.47 0.269 0.183 .908 —
TAS6 3.25 1.04 3.45 0.87 3.00 1.01 3.00 0.71 5.908 2.347 .075 —
TAS 2.90 0.30 2.78 0.35 2.78 0.49 2.82 0.47 0.084 0.184 .907 —
TFLAS1 2.48 0.42 2.47 0.58 2.51 0.72 2.56 0.63 0.049 0.042 .988 —
TFLAS2 2.70 0.62 2.69 0.71 2.72 0.93 2.70 0.42 0.025 0.014 .998 —
TFLAS3 2.75 0.63 2.73 0.48 2.88 0.67 3.13 0.53 0.898 1.028 .382 —
TFLAS 2.60 0.48 2.59 0.52 2.65 0.72 2.72 0.55 0.129 0.129 .943 —

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; AL = assistant lecturer; L = lecturer; AP = associate professor; P = professor; TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale;
TFLAS = Teacher Foreign Language Anxiety Scale.

Table 7 shows that TAS and TFLAS scores of respondents
with differing professional titles demonstrated a similar pat-
tern to that of the whole sample. In addition, respondents
with higher professional titles tended to score higher on
TFLAS scales, but no significant difference was observed.
Assistant lecturers scored the highest on TAS2, TAS3, TAS4,
and TAS but the lowest on TAS5; lecturers scored the lowest
on TAS1, TAS2, and TAS but the highest on TAS6; associate
professors scored the highest on TAS5 but the lowest on
TAS; and the professors scored the highest on TAS1 but the
lowest on TAS4 and TAS6. Nevertheless, no statistically sig-
nificant difference was identified.
Table 8 demonstrates a similar score pattern to that of the
whole sample for respondents with different educational
levels. BA respondents scored the highest on TAS1, TAS2,
TAS4, TAS5, and TAS; MA respondents scored the highest
on TAS3 and TAS6; and PhD respondents scored the lowest
on all TAS scales. Nevertheless, statistically significant
difference occurred only in TAS3 between PhD respondents
and the other two groups, indicating that PhD respondents
were significantly less worried about research than their
peers with BA and MA.
Meanwhile, Table 8 shows that BA participants scored the
highest on all TFLAS scales, MA participants scored the
lowest on TFLAS2, and PhD participants scored the lowest
on TFLAS1, TFLAS2, and TFLAS. Statistically significant
differences occurred in TFLAS1 and TFLAS between BA
participants and the other two groups, and in TFLAS2
between BA and PhD participants. This finding meant that
BA respondents were significantly more apprehensive of
speaking English and anxious about their English than their
MA and PhD, and were significantly more fearful of nega-
tive outcomes than their PhD peers.
Table 9 demonstrates a similar score pattern to that of
the whole sample for respondents with differing experi-
ences of visiting or studying in English-speaking countries.
Liu and Wu 9

Table 8. ANOVA Results (Educational Level).

BA (N = 25) MA (N = 114) PhD (N = 12)

Sum of Places of significance
Scales M SD M SD M SD squares F p (p = .05)
TAS1 2.55 0.61 2.48 0.39 2.40 0.36 0.219 0.592 .554 —
TAS2 2.38 0.69 2.29 0.46 2.19 0.46 0.319 0.632 .533 —
TAS3 3.90 0.71 3.95 0.69 3.46 0.73 2.62 2.697 .071 PhD & BA, MA
TAS4 3.60 0.63 3.50 0.69 3.35 0.64 0.499 0.543 .582 —
TAS5 2.60 0.995 2.39 0.63 2.33 0.49 0.990 1.03 .360 —
TAS6 3.02 1.08 3.42 0.89 3.00 0.798 4.543 2.696 .071 —
TAS 2.84 0.58 2.79 0.34 2.63 0.33 0.371 1.237 .293 —
TFLAS1 2.80 0.66 2.43 0.595 2.34 0.48 3.071 4.273 .016 BA & MA, PhD
TFLAS2 2.99 0.99 2.67 0.70 2.30 0.49 4.129 3.704 .027 BA & PhD
TFLAS3 2.98 0.74 2.73 0.49 2.79 0.47 1.259 2.195 .115 —
TFLAS 2.89 0.73 2.56 0.53 2.43 0.44 2.626 4.176 .017 BA & MA, BA & PhD

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; BA = respondents with bachelor’s degree; MA= respondents with master’s degree; PhD = respondents with PhD
degree; TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale; TFLAS = Teacher Foreign Language Anxiety Scale.

Table 9. Independent-Samples t-test Results (Experience of Visiting/Studying in English-Speaking Countries).

NV (N = 88) V (N = 63) NS (N = 104) S (N = 47)

Cohen’s
Scales M SD M SD t p d M SD M SD t p
TFLAS1 2.59 0.60 2.33 0.598 2.68** .008 0.43 2.49 0.64 2.47 0.55 0.19 .954
TFLAS2 2.79 0.76 2.56 0.74 1.86 .065 — 2.73 0.796 2.62 0.67 0.87 .388
TFLAS3 2.84 0.58 2.69 0.47 1.70 .091 — 2.80 0.57 2.73 0.47 0.76 .451
TFLAS 2.70 0.58 2.47 0.54 2.48* .014 0.41 2.63 0.61 2.57 0.49 0.58 .567
TAS1 2.58 0.43 2.35 0.397 3.30** .001 0.56 2.51 0.45 2.42 0.39 1.26 .211
TAS2 2.37 0.54 2.21 0.42 1.98* .05 0.33 2.30 0.52 2.29 0.47 .099 .921
TAS3 3.92 0.79 3.87 0.57 0.43 .667 — 3.95 0.75 3.79 0.58 1.35 .178
TAS4 3.48 0.68 3.54 0.68 −0.51 .613 — 3.49 0.70 3.55 0.62 −0.50 .616
TAS5 2.48 0.73 2.34 0.63 1.17 .245 — 2.45 0.75 2.35 0.56 0.797 .427
TAS6 3.32 0.94 3.32 0.93 0.01 .996 — 3.30 0.93 3.35 0.94 −0.29 .769
TAS 2.84 0.42 2.71 0.33 2.13* .03 0.34 2.80 0.41 2.74 0.33 0.85 .397

Note. Effect size of Cohen’s d—small: d ≤ 0.2, medium: d = 0.5, and large: d ≥ 0.8 (Cohen, 1988). NV = never visited; V = visited; NS = never studied;
S = studied; TFLAS = Teacher Foreign Language Anxiety Scale; TAS = Teaching Anxiety Scale.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Respondents who had never visited English-speaking coun- Effects of Anxiety

tries scored higher on all TFLAS scales and TAS scales
except for TAS6 than those who had done so. Statistically
significant differences were identified in TFLAS1, TFLAS,
TAS1, TAS2, and TAS (d = 0.34–0.56 with a medium effect
size). This suggested that respondents who had never visited
English-speaking countries were significantly more appre-
hensive of speaking English, more anxious about their
English proficiency, more worried about classroom teach-
ing, less confident in teaching, and more anxious about
teaching in general.
Table 9 also shows that participants who had never stud-
ied in English-speaking countries scored higher on all
TFLAS scales as well as TAS scales except for TAS4 and
TAS6. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences
occurred in any scale.
Of 82 survey respondents who explained how anxiety
affected them, four said that anxiety had no effect on them,
two reported that anxiety was two-sided, and the others
mainly described the negative effects of anxiety. The results
are reported in Table 10, which reveals 24 negative effects
and three positive effects. The greatest negative effects were
bad sleep (e.g., insomnia, inadequate sleep, poor sleeping
quality; 21/26.9%), depression (e.g., being upset/dismayed,
in a low mood; 11/14.1%), lowered devotion to teaching
(e.g., being tired, being unable to be devoted to or concen-
trate on teaching; 8/10.3%), sub-health (e.g., lowered body
immunity/resistance to viruses; 5/6.4%), lowered motivation
to work (e.g., not being motivated, feeling burnt out; 5/6.4%),
becoming nervous (3/3.8%), being bad-tempered (e.g., being
10
Table 10. Effects of Anxiety (N = 78).
Negative effects
1. Bad sleep (21/26.9%)
2. Depression (11/14.1%)
3. Lowered devotion to teaching (8/10.3%)
4. Sub-health (5/6.4%)
5. Lowered motivation to work (5/6.4%)
6. Becoming nervous (3/3.8%)
7. Bad-tempered (3/3.8%)
8. Being unable to focus on something (3/3.8%)
9. Losing pride in teaching profession (2/2.6%)
10. Becoming unhappy (2/2.6%)
11. Stuck in a vicious circle of anxiety (2/2.6%)
12. Having gray hair young (1/1.3%)
13. Losing enthusiasm in teaching (1/1.3%)
14. Losing confidence in the profession (1/1.3%)
15. Becoming sick (1/1.3%)
16. Procrastination (1/1.3%)
Note. The numbers in the brackets refer to frequency and percentage respectively.
easy to lose temper, feeling upset and irritated; 3/3.8%), and
being unable to focus on something (3/3.8%). As confided by
the respondents, anxiety led to a series of bad consequences,
such as insomnia; poor sleeping quality; feelings of depres-
sion, frustration, and unhappiness; lowered devotion; moti-
vation and enthusiasm; and sub-health. For example, due to
anxiety, “I often can’t sleep well” (No. 42), “I feel tired and
can’t concentrate on teaching” (No. 90), and “I am always in
a bad mood, and become easy to lose my temper” (No. 100).
Moreover, anxiety could also result in gray hair, procrastina-
tion, sickness, lowered confidence, and so on, which defi-
nitely affected the respondents’ work and life.
Meanwhile, Table 10 shows that anxiety could be a moti-
vator to a few respondents, pushing them to work harder to
better themselves.
Discussion and Conclusion
Sources of Teaching Anxiety and Teacher FLA
The present study revealed that major causes for teaching
anxiety were concern about classroom teaching, research,
other work and promotion, and interest and confidence in
teaching. Similar to their counterparts in other contexts
(Ahmed & Julius, 2015; Desouky & Allam, 2017; Liu &
Yan, 2020; Parsons, 1973; Robinson & Clay, 2005; Yazici &
Altun, 2013), the participants in the present study experi-
enced (great) anxiety due to applying for projects and funds,
writing up papers, getting papers published, and getting pro-
moted. Meanwhile, they had to face heavy teaching load and
worry about the effectiveness of their teaching and self-
development. This might be largely attributed to the fact that
as college English teachers, they had to teach generally more
than 12 hr per week to meet the needs of almost all students
of a university, because English courses were compulsory
in all universities in China. Meanwhile, they had to meet
SAGE Open
17. Worry about losing the teaching job (1/1.3%)
18. Worry about own teaching effectiveness (1/1.3%)
19. Wish to retire (1/1.3%)
20. Difficulty in balancing teaching and research (1/1.3%)
21. Disrupting the current rhythm (1/1.3%)
22. Taking too much time (1/1.3%)
23. Imbalance between efforts and returns (1/1.3%)
24. A strong sense of frustration (1/1.3%)
25. Doubting own teaching ability (1/1.3%)
Positive effects
1. Working harder to better oneself (2/2.6%)
2. Being a motivator (1/1.3%)
3. Urging one to plan time more reasonably and
prepare adequately in advance (1/1.3%)
research (e.g., projects and number of publications) and
other administrative requirements to win chances for promo-
tion. This added to their pressure and anxiety. Furthermore,
lack of training and support, low salary, and low self-confi-
dence in teaching drove some participants anxious, as hap-
pened in Parsons (1973) and Liu and Yan (2020).
Meanwhile, the present study showed that major sources
for teacher FLA were apprehension of speaking English, fear
of negative outcomes, and confidence in English compe-
tence, as discussed in Horwitz (2008). Similar to their coun-
terparts in Bekleyen (2009), Machida (2015), Yoon (2012),
and Merç (2011), the participants feared making mistakes
and failing to understand others, were anxious about speak-
ing English, and worried about their English competence and
teaching effectiveness. Although EFL learners had much
more access and exposure to English than before nowadays
in China, they still did not have much chance to use English
daily yet, which might even lower their ability to use English,
especially speaking abilities. Hence, they understandably
worried about their English competence and English teach-
ing effectiveness.
Anxiety Levels in Relation to Individual Factors
Similar to the current literature (Ahmed & Julius, 2015;
Desouky & Allam, 2017; Liu & Yan, 2020; Parsons, 1973;
Shao, 2009; X. Wang & Wang, 2015; Yazici & Altun, 2013),
the participants of various backgrounds (e.g., gender, age,
educational level, professional title) in the present study also
suffered from varying degrees of teaching anxiety. Although
the survey data showed that the respondents generally did
not feel worried about teaching and were confident and inter-
ested in teaching, more respondents confided to be anxious
about teaching, indicating that actually more teachers experi-
enced anxiety about teaching. This was probably related to
Liu and Wu
the pressure from research and promotion, as previously
discussed.
Statistical analyses also revealed that gender, age, educa-
tional level, English proficiency, and experience of visiting/
studying in English-speaking countries significantly affected
the participants’ teaching anxiety and teacher FLA levels, as
found in the current literature (Cheung & Hui, 2011; İpek,
2016; Kim & Kim, 2004; Kralova & Tirpakova, 2019; Liu &
Yan, 2020; Machida, 2015; Merç, 2011; L. Wang & Zhang,
2011; X. Wang & Wang, 2015; Yazici & Altun, 2013). These
findings might be because generally the older a teacher is,
the more experienced he or she is; the better educated a
teacher is, the more competent in research and English he or
she is; the higher professional title a teacher has, the less
worried he or she is about research and promotion. Moreover,
male teachers generally tend to focus more on work but less
on housework and family life, which releases them from
much pressure, as found in Liu and Yan (2020). And the
experience of visiting/studying in English-speaking coun-
tries undoubtedly helped improve proficiency in English and
reduce English-speaking anxiety, as discussed in DeKeyser
(2007).
Effects of Anxiety
Although some respondents reported that anxiety could be a
motivator and urged them to do better, more respondents
reported it to be a debilitator, as found in studies on SL/FL
learners’ FLA (Horwitz et al., 1986; Liu & Xiangming,
2019; Tobias, 1979; Tum, 2014). As confided by the respon-
dents, anxiety led to a series of bad consequences, the worst
of which were bad sleep, depression, lowered devotion to
teaching, lowered motivation to work, becoming nervous,
bad-temper, inability to focus on something, gray hair, pro-
crastination, sickness, and lowered confidence, as found in
similar studies (Cheung & Hui, 2011; Liu & Yan, 2020;
Robinson & Clay, 2005; Yazici & Altun, 2013). All these
definitely affected the respondents’ work and life.
As discussed above, college English teachers in China
currently face teaching anxiety and FLA due to differing rea-
sons such as workload, and worry about research and promo-
tion. To alleviate the anxiety, training, raising self-awareness,
preparation, and counseling are all helpful, as discussed in
Liu and Yan (2020), and Peker (2009). It is important for col-
lege English teachers to be clearly aware of what is required
and expected of them in teaching and research and take
actions correspondingly. For example, they can improve
their research ability by taking programs/courses and attend-
ing lectures and conferences. They can also regularly reflect
on their work to get (more) prepared and plan their time care-
fully and to achieve balance between family and work, and
between teaching and research. Meanwhile, universities and
colleges should provide appropriate resources and support
for English teachers to increase their confidence in the lan-
guage and in teaching the language, as evidenced in studies
11
on student FLA (Dewaele & Alfawzan, 2018; Horwitz
et al., 1986; Liu & Xiangming, 2019). Administrators and
policy makers need to implement policies for assessment and
promotion appropriate to the local context so that English
teachers may feel (more) secure and less anxious. Equally
importantly, it is useful to establish a conducive rapport
among colleagues, which may influence their perceptions
and conduction of teaching in the classroom.
Although the present study revealed several enlightening
findings, some limitations existed in the study. The biggest
limitation was that the participants were all FL teachers and
predominantly female. The results would have been more
generalizable if teachers of other subjects with different gen-
der ratios had been recruited, which will be the focus of
future research. In addition, a better picture would have been
revealed if the quantitative data had been complemented by
more qualitative data like interviews. For a more in-depth
understanding of teaching anxiety and FLA in China at a cer-
tain educational level, triangulated data need to be collected.
All these justify continuous research on the issues.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the participants, without whom the present
paper would have been impossible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
Ethical Statement
We state that this research is approved by the Research Ethics
Committee of Tsinghua University.
ORCID iD
Meihua Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5951-4167
References
Ahmed, Z., & Julius, S. H. (2015). The relationship between depres-
sion, anxiety and stress among women college students. Indian
Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 6(12), 1232–1234.
Bekleyen, N. (2009). Helping teachers become better English
students: Causes, effects, and coping strategies for foreign
language listening anxiety. System, 37, 664–675. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.010
Cheung, H. Y., & Hui, S. K. F. (2011). Teaching anxiety amongst
Hong Kong and Shanghai in-service teachers: The impact
of trait anxiety and self-esteem. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 20(2), 395–409. https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en
/publications/publication(c606d5d5-6392-453b-a672-
3cc2273f4dba).html
12
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language prac-
tice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second language:
Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology
(pp. 208–226). Cambridge University Press.
Desouky, D., & Allam, H. (2017). Occupational stress, anxiety and
depression among Egyptian teachers. Journal of Epidemiology
and Global Health, 7, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jegh.2017.06.002
Dewaele, J. M., & Alfawzan, M. (2018). Does the effect of enjoy-
ment outweigh that of anxiety in foreign language perfor-
mance? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
8(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.2
Fimian, M. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1987). Stress, burnout, and role
problems among teacher trainees and first-year teachers.
Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 157–165. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/3000368
Gardner, L. E., & Leak, G. E. (1994). Characteristics and corre-
lates of teaching anxiety among college psychology teachers.
Teaching of Psychology, 21(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15328023top2101_5
Horwitz, E. K. (1996). Even teachers get the blues: Recognizing
and alleviating language teachers’ feelings of foreign language
anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 365–372. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01248.x
Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Becoming a language teacher: A practical
guide to second language learning and teaching (2nd ed.).
Pearson.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety.
Language Teaching, 43(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S026144480999036X
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70,
125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
İpek, H. (2016). A qualitative study on foreign language teaching
anxiety. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(3),
92–105. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c3s5m
Keavney, G., & Sinclair, K. E. (1978). Teacher concerns and
teacher anxiety: A neglected topic of classroom research.
Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 273–290. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543048002273
Kim, S., & Kim, J. (2004). When the learner becomes a teacher:
Foreign language anxiety as an occupational hazard. English
Teaching, 59(1), 165–185. http://journal.kate.or.kr/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2015/02/kate_59_1_9.pdf
Kralova, Z., Skorvagova, E., Tirpakova, A., & Markechova, D.
(2017). Reducing student teachers’ foreign language pronun-
ciation anxiety through psycho-social training. System, 65,
49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.001
Kralova, Z., & Tirpakova, A. (2019). Nonnative EFL teachers’
speaking anxiety: Post-communist country context. SAGE
Open, 9(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846698
Kunt, N., & Tüm, D. Ö. (2010). Non-native student teachers’
feelings of foreign language anxiety. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4672–4676. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.sbspro.2010.03.748
Liu, M., & Xiangming, L. (2019). Changes in and effects of anxi-
ety on English test performance in Chinese postgraduate EFL
classrooms. Education Research International, vol. 2019,
Article ID 7213925. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7213925
SAGE Open
Liu, M., & Yan, Y. (2020). Anxiety and stress in in-service Chinese
university teachers of arts. International Journal of Higher
Education, 9(1), 237–248. http://ijhe.sciedupress.com
Machida, T. (2015). Japanese elementary school teachers and
English language anxiety. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 40–66. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tesj.189
Merç, A. (2011). Sources of foreign language student teacher
anxiety: A qualitative inquiry. Turkish Online Journal of
Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 80–94. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED
537806
Parsons, J. S. (1973, February–March). Assessment of anxiety
about teaching using the Teaching Anxiety Scale: Manual
and research report. The Annual Meeting of American
Educational Research Association. Louisiana. https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED079330
Peker, M. (2009). The use of expanded microteaching for reduc-
ing preservice teachers’ teaching anxiety about mathematics.
Scientific Research and Essay, 4(9), 872–880. http://www.
academicjournals.org/SRE
Peker, M., & Ertekin, E. (2011). The relationship between math-
ematics teaching anxiety and mathematics anxiety. The New
Educational Review, 23(1), 213–226.
Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data. SAGE.
Robinson, J. H., & Clay, D. L. (2005). Potential school violence:
Relationship between teacher anxiety and warning-sign iden-
tification. Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 623–635. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pits.20100
Shao, H. (2009). A study of anxiety in and coping strategies used
by university teachers. China Adult Education, 6, 78–79.
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D.
Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–20). Academic
Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (Form Y). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tobias, S. (1979). Anxiety research in educational psychology.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(5), 573–582. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71
Tum, D. O. (2014). Foreign language anxiety’s forgotten study:
The case of the anxious preservice teacher. TESOL Quarterly,
49(4), 627–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.190
Wang, L., & Zhang, D. (2011). A study of state anxiety in elemen-
tary and middle school teachers. China Education Journal, 3,
19–22.
Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2015). Analysis on the state anxiety of
college English teachers during transitional period of col-
lege English teaching reform and coping strategies. Foreign
Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 31–28. http://
www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GWJX201502006.
htm
Yazici, H., & Altun, F. (2013). Conditions of beginning teach-
ing and anxiety perceived in teacher candidates. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 974–977. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.313
Yoon, T. (2012). Teaching English through English: Exploring
anxiety in non-native pre-service ESL teachers. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 2(6), 1099–1107. https://doi.
org/10.4304/tpls.2.6.1099-1107
Zhang, X. (2010). A study of anxiety in college English teachers.
Education and Career, 24, 175–176. https://doi.org/10.13615/j.
cnki.1004-3985.2010.24.020