【Research Article】

Impact of Group Cohesion on Anxiety and Online Task
Performance: A Correlational Exploratory Analysis
Deborah Maxfield
Abstract
This exploratory research examines impacts of the use of teams in online Debate and Presentation courses. Prior
research from both psychological and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) perspectives has theorized relationships
between group cohesion, task performance, and anxiety. Forming cohesive groups can affect social identity (Turner
et al, 1979), self-esteem (Cast & Burke, 2002), and anxiety (Lee & Robbins, 1998), as well as foster motivation in asecond language (L2) learning environment (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), but these elements may be affected bylearning in an online context. A 26-item questionnaire gathered quantitative data regarding student experiences with
online small group learning, including perceptions of group cohesion and efficacy, and the impacts of these on socialand L2 anxiety. Results indicated that cohesive groups with a positive social climate benefitted in terms of task
achievement and reduced L2 anxiety across differing proficiency levels. Correlational analysis revealed strong
relationships between the effects of teams on affective concerns and L2 use, which suggests that working withcohesive teams may foster motivation by improving students’ learning experience (Dörnyei, 2009). Based on thesefindings, suggestions for future study and recommendations for improving outcomes in future courses will be
discussed.
Keywords: L2 anxiety, group cohesion, teamwork, group norms, L2 online learning

INTRODUCTION
Theoretical Background
In an effort to improve English communication skills at universities across Japan, the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has long encouraged the use of acommunicative language teaching (CLT) approach within EFL classes (Tahira, 2012; Yoshihara et al.,2020). As part of many CLT-based courses, students need to participate in interactive tasks, during
which social group dynamics can impact successful task performance (Poupore, 2013). In the case ofgroup-based tasks, one measure that can mediate success is the level of “group cohesion”, or unity,of a group, which is a measure of its members’ commitment to the group and of how comfortable
they feel together (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003).
Group cohesion can be challenging to define due to the diverse nature of the various groupmemberships that together form our sense of social identity (Tajfel & Turner,1985), from one’s partin family and social groups, to one’s sense of national identity. Meta-analysis of psychological research
into group cohesion (Cota et al., 1995) found it to be a dynamic process that is mediated by thetendency to remain united while pursuing group goals, which is in part bounded by the values andbehaviours of its group members towards their task or goal, and in part by its members’ resistanceto any disruption in achieving their aims (p. 577). A further meta-analysis investigated the relationshipbetween the cohesiveness and performance or productivity of a group (Evans & Dion, 1991), finding
a positive and stable correlation between these across various studies into different types of groups

22

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS(e.g., research participants, sports teams, or business organizations). Evans and Dion (1991)
concluded that although other factors will certainly influence performance, such as the metrics bywhich success is measured, cohesion has reliably proven to be essential for groups to succeed ontasks or otherwise attain good performance. Other research within psychology has found that feelingone is part of a cohesive ingroup can increase self-esteem through a shared sense of pride in groupmembership (Turner & Tajfel,1979) and reduce anxiety (Lee & Robbins,1998). Group cohesion is ofparticular importance within Japan, due in part to lasting cultural influence from Confucian values ofharmony and obedience (Trommsdorff & Iwawaki, 1989). Henrich et al.’s (2010) landmark metaanalysis on psychological differences between various societies found that East Asians tend to view
themselves in terms of roles and relationships with others and generally possess greater motivations
to conform to group norms (p. 71). The emphasis on socialization and group identity begins at an
early age, in which “children learn that they are part of a group and that without the group identity
they do not exist” (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002, p. 450).
Emotions such as anxiety are modulated by the amygdala, a region of the brain responsible forresponding to emotional stimuli, particularly to anything perceived as threatening or a source of
danger (Toates, 2011). Reducing anxiety may have beneficial effects on task performance, particularly
within educational settings, due to the amygdala’s effect on long-term memory (McGaugh et al,1996), as successful recall of information tends to be adversely affected by strong emotional statesaccompanying the target recall stimuli (Koster et al., 2005). Tasks are processed within working
memory, a set of cognitive systems termed ‘executive functions’ (Miyake et al., 2000) that control
what information is currently held in an activated state by switching between ‘updating’ currently
necessary information for the task, and ‘inhibition’, or removal of irrelevant information and stimuli(Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Anxiety and other negative emotional states, such as depression, reduce
the effectiveness of the inhibition function (Joorman, 2006). If the ability to ignore irrelevant
information and focus on a given task is worsened, then working memory capacity (the amount of
information that can simultaneously be processed, recalled or activated) is reduced (Derakshan &Eysenck, 2010). Thus, from a psychological standpoint, working within a cohesive group increases
self-esteem, reduces anxiety, benefits task performance, and may improve memory, all of which
could be beneficial to students within an L2 learning environment.
Anxiety and group cohesion have also been investigated within the EFL literature. Anxiety tends
to be defined as ‘trait anxiety’, how likely one is to feel anxious in any situation, or ‘state anxiety’, thelikelihood of feeling anxious in a particular situation (Ueki & Takeuchi, 2012), such as when speaking
a foreign language, often termed ‘L2 anxiety’. Cohesive groups can alleviate both L2 anxiety andsocial anxiety, benefitting L2 learners as anxiety reduces not only their self-confidence and willingness
to communicate in an L2 (MacIntyre et al., 1998) but also how effectively they can process or produce
it (Poupore, 2013). Cohesion also affects learner motivation; in Clement et al.’s (1994) Foreign
Language Behaviour and Competence model, group cohesion correlated with positive evaluations of
the learning environment (such as peer group and teachers), forming a key area of motivation
separate from the learner’s own integrative motivation. This suggests that working with a cohesiveand highly motivated group could help to foster motivation even in less-motivated learners. Ushioda(2003) argued that supportive interpersonal relations from a peer group and a positive learning
environment are necessary for fostering motivation in Japanese students, and similar observations
on the importance of group cohesion for motivation have been made in other East Asian L2 learning
environments such as Taiwan (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003) and South Korea (Poupore, 2013).
Moreover, the social norms or values of a group can have a direct impact on classroom atmosphere23

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

in an L2 learning environment, with implications for student participation and motivation (Maxfield,
2020; Peragine 2019).

The Current Study
In 2014, MEXT announced plans to improve English-language fluency and communicative ability
through its English Education Reform Plan, which recommended that universities conduct classes inEnglish and focus on ‘higher language skills’, including presentations, debates, and negotiations(MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017). These governmental guidelines were followed at Rikkyo University
in Tokyo, in which lecturers were asked to teach two new courses, Debate and Presentation, startingfrom 2020. What had not been foreseen was the spread of Covid-19, and the subsequent governmental
request for universities to switch to an emergency online method of learning. As a result, in the 2020
Fall semester, both Debate and Presentation courses were taught via Zoom, an online videoconferencing platform.
Both were required semester-length courses for freshman students that met weekly for a total of
14 weeks, with around 20 students in each class. Based on previous psychological and EFL researchon the potential benefits of cohesive groups for reducing anxiety and improving L2 learning outcomes(Clement et al., 1994; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Poupore, 2013), students
were assigned to work in regular groups (hereafter termed ‘teams’) of around five students. Eachteam worked together for large parts of weekly lessons over the course of three to four weeks, withthe expectation that remaining in the same teams would encourage peer support and bonding
between students and thereby both reduce anxiety and foster motivation.
At the end of these courses, students were surveyed about their experiences of working inteams, with questions on their perceptions of group dynamics (or ‘social climate’, as defined by
Poupore, 2013), group cohesion and efficacy, and impacts on social and L2 anxiety. Exploratory
research questions aimed to investigate:
1. Whether the use of an online method of learning affected L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
2. Whether the use of teams allowed students to form cohesive groups
3. Whether working in teams affected students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
One element that was particularly of interest was whether there are advantageous aspects ofusing teams that could be incorporated into future face-to-face and/or online classes. Comparisonswere also drawn on whether students in higher or lower proficiency levels (Level 2 or 3 respectively)
reported differing anxiety levels, experiences of learning English online, or experiences of working
with familiar groups. Noels (2013) concluded that the two factors necessary for engendering
motivation were competence (the learner’s ability to complete a task) and relatedness, defined as “asense of security and connection” (p. 20) between the learner and others. Although higher-level
students may have greater L2 competence, similar levels of motivation may be observed if lower-levelclasses compensated for the effects of reduced competence by developing greater groupcohesiveness. Previous observations conducted by the researcher indicated that building rapport
within the class increased peer assistance with unknown L2 vocabulary items and improved
participation in group discussions (Maxfield, 2019). Hence, prior to data collection, it was
hypothesized that differences might be noted between class level, such that:• Level 3 students would report greater L2 anxiety than those in Level 2

24

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS• Level 3 students would report greater cohesiveness than those in Level 2.

METHODAt the end of the 2020 Fall semester, a total of 98 students enrolled in Debate (N = 55) and
Presentation (N = 43) classes responded to an online questionnaire on their affective and social
experiences of online learning. Questions were translated into the students’ L1, Japanese, to minimize
potential misunderstandings.
Most questions were multiple choice items utilizing a six-item Likert scale. Likert responses
were converted into numeric data (strongly disagree = 1, slightly disagree = 2… strongly agree = 6) for
statistical analysis in SPSS to find overall trends including mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s r
correlations between items, and quantify comparisons between student proficiency levels (Level 2 or
3). Negatively worded questions (such as “I did not feel comfortable talking with teammates” werereverse-coded in SPSS to maintain comparability between positively and negatively worded items.
Questions relating to the three different hypotheses under investigation were randomly ordered,for which some questions employed different wording of the same concept to maximize reliability. A
further question type required students to select one to three words from a list of options that best
described their overall affective state whilst working with their teams, and in the class in general. It
was hoped that these questions could help to summarize general attitudes or cover aspects of student
experience missed by the multiple-choice questions.

RESULTS
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Overall Data, Mean Responses by Class Level, and Differences in Means Between Levels
Expressed as a Percentage (Mean Diff.)
Overall Data
Question Item%
agreement

Mean

Speaking English online is easierthan speaking English face-to-face

69.4%

I felt more anxious when speaking
English online than speaking English
face-to-faceComparisons by Class Level
SD

Level 2
Mean

Level 3Mean

Mean diff.

4.01

1.36

3.84

4.05

5%

49.5%

3.47

1.26

3.16

3.55

11%

I felt anxious about talking toclassmates online before I started
this class

71.1%

4.30

1.39

4.00

4.37

9%

After studying in this class, it wasless scary than I had expected

85.7%

4.47

1.03

4.53

4.46

-2%

I often feel anxious in face-to-faceconversations

63.3%

3.82

1.30

3.37

3.92

14%

I feel less anxious about studying
English online after taking this class

85.7%

4.31

1.07

4.16

4.34

4%

It was easy to make friends with my
teams

77.6%

4.30

1.25

4.11

4.34

5%

Working with a team helped me inthis class

93.9%

5.10

0.92

5.11

5.10

0%

I enjoyed working with my teams

91.9%

4.99

0.96

4.84

5.03

4%

25

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

There was good teamwork in ALL of
my teams

91.9%

4.90

0.98

4.84

4.91

1%

Talking with my teammates helped
me to feel less anxious in class

91.9%

4.96

0.98

5.05

4.94

-2%

I felt relaxed when speaking English
with my teammates

75.5%

4.42

1.08

4.63

4.37

-6%

I felt more relaxed when speaking
English with my teammates thanother students in class

69.4%

4.41

1.21

4.42

4.41

0%

Talking with teammates online wasmore relaxing than I expected

82.7%

4.70

1.06

4.79

4.68

-2%

Working with a team helped me tospeak English

55.6%

4.82

0.94

4.74

4.85

2%

I felt relaxed with my teammates

91.8%

4.90

0.96

4.95

4.88

-1%

R: I did not like working with thesame people over several lessons

26.8%

-2.75

1.40

-2.63

-2.78

5%

R: It was difficult to talk with my
team

22.4%

-2.46

1.37

-2.37

-2.48

5%

R: My teammates rarely / neverhelped me

20.4%

-2.20

1.62

-1.84

-2.29

20%

R: Sometimes my teams did not work
well together

24.7%

-2.69

1.35

-2.78

-2.67

-4%

R: I did not feel comfortable talking
with teammates

32.0%

-3.01

1.20

-2.89

-3.04

5%

R: I did not feel comfortable using
English with teammates

32.0%

-3.01

1.20

-2.89

-3.04

5%

Group Mean – positive items

4.49

4.41

4.51

Group Mean - negative items

-2.69

-2.57

-2.72

Table 2
Pearson’s r Correlations Between Questionnaire Items (Negative)
R: My
R: It was difficult
teammates
to talk with myrarely / neverteamhelped me
R: I did not liker
working with thesame people overSigseveral lessons
R: It wasdifficult to talkwith my team
R: My
teammates
rarely / neverhelped me
R: Sometimes
my teams did
not work welltogether26r

R: Sometimes
my teams did
not work welltogether

R: I did not feel
comfortable
talking withteammates

R: I did not feel
comfortableusing English
with teammates.305**.331**.453**

.227*

.227*

.002

.001

.001

.026

.026

1

.436**.459**.453**.453**

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.285**.340**.340**

.005

.001

.001

1

.368**.368**

.001

.001

Sig
r

-

Sig

-

r

-

-

Sig

-

-

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

R: I did not feel
comfortable
talking withteammates

r

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

1.998**.001**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3
Pearson’s r Correlations Between Questionnaire Items (Positive)
It waseasy tomakefriends
with my
teams
After
r
studying inthis class, it
was lessscary than Sig
expected
It was easyr
to makefriends withSig
my teams
Workingrwith a teamhelped me
Sigin this class
I enjoyed
workingwith myteams
There wasgood
teamworkin ALL of
my teams
I feltrelaxedwhen
speaking
Englishwithteammates
Talkingwithteammates
online wasmorerelaxing
than I
expected

Workingwith aI enjoyed
teamworking
helped me with myin this
teams
class

I feltThere was relaxed
when
good
teamwork speaking
in ALL of English
my teams withteammates

Talkingwithteammates
online wasmorerelaxing
than I
expected

Working
I feltwith arelaxedteam
helped me with myteammatesto speakEnglish

.099

.133

.173

.099

.294**.490**.292**.280**

.331

.190

.089

.330

.003

.001

.004

.005

1

.400**.535**.361**.439**.386**.213*.293**

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.036

.004

1

.699**.592**.348**.369**.605**.689**

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.669**.561**.455**.558**.574**

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.361**.339**.437**.574**

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.559**.442**.442**

.001

.001

.001

1

.516**.512**

.001

.001

-

r

-

-

Sig

-

-

r

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

r

-

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

-

r

-

-

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

-

-

27

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Workingrwith a teamhelped me
to speakSig
English

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

1.702**.001**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Results shown as p = .000 have been rounded up to p = .001).

Word Choice Data
While most items on the questionnaire utilized a six-item Likert scale, students were also asked
to respond to the questions “Which words best match your experience in class?” and “Which words
best match your experience with teams?” by choosing up to three words from a list. This was offered
as a way for students to rapidly summarize their general attitude or isolate common emotions felt ineach condition, whether in class as a whole, or whilst working with their team. The possible answer
options were “fun, friendly, happy, relaxed, calm, scary, silent, bored, anxious”, with a total of 284
words being selected in response to “Which words best match your experience in class?” and 290
used to answer “Which words best match your experience with teams?”.
Figure 1.
Word Choice Data: How Students Described Experiences ‘In Class’ or ‘In Teams’
90
80

83

70

79

77
68

60
50

52
46

40
30

34

30

26

20

20
10

14

0
fun

happy

friendlyrelaxedIn Class(N=284)

9

calm

13

7

scary

4

12

silentanxious

In Teams(N=290)

DISCUSSION
Overall Findings
On the whole, results suggest that the majority of students found working with a team helpful
and enjoyable during the course, with 93.9% of students agreeing that “working with a team helped

28

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

me in this class” and 91.9% agreeing that “I enjoyed working with my teams”. Thus, it seems likelythat students regarded their teamwork to have facilitated task performance and that the majority
experienced a positive social climate through the formation of cohesive groups.
Although many students reported that “I felt anxious about talking to classmates online before I
started this class” (71.1%), it appears that afterwards a high proportion reported feeling less anxiety
than they had predicted, as 85.7% agreed that “after studying in this class, it was less scary than I had
expected”. A majority believed that “speaking English online is easier than speaking English face-toface” (69.4%), but there was no clear consensus on how L2 anxiety was affected by online learning,as around half (49.5%) agreed that “I felt more anxious when speaking English online than speaking
English face-to-face”. Taken together, these results imply that although most students found using an
L2 online slightly easier than they did face-to-face, studying online did not greatly affect L2 anxiety.
Some students still felt L2 anxiety by the end of the course, with 32% agreeing that “I did not feel
comfortable using English with teammates”, suggesting that the use of teams did not greatly mitigate
L2 anxiety for all students. A minority also reported feeling social anxiety even with their teams,
agreeing with statements such as “I did not feel comfortable talking with teammates” (32%) or “it wasdifficult to talk with my team” (22.4%). However, it should be noted that the majority of students
disagreed with these sentiments. As 93.9% of students felt that “working with a team helped me” and91.9% had “enjoyed working with teams”, it seems that even some of the students who felt
uncomfortable with their team still recognised that they had benefitted from the experience.

Correlational Analysis – Negative items
A correlational analysis was also conducted to uncover further relationships between
questionnaire items (Table 2). Pearson’s r correlations were determined via SPSS and wereinterpreted using Dancey and Reidy’s (2007) recommended classifications for psychology or social
sciences, in which correlations can be termed perfect (r = 1), strong (r = .7 – .9), moderate (r = .4 –.6), weak (r = .1 - .3), and zero (r = 0).
The strongest relationship found was r = 1.00 (perfect) between “I did not feel comfortable
talking with teammates” and “I did not feel comfortable using English with teammates”. All
respondents had provided matching answers to both questions, strongly suggesting that social andL2 anxiety may have compounded each other in teams with a poor social climate, whereas cohesive
teams reduced both types of anxiety. Both of these questionnaire items also correlated moderately
with “it was difficult to talk with my team” at r = .45. This would fit with previous findings indicatingthat L2 anxiety significantly impacts social climate, as “learners with high L2 anxiety produced lesslanguage and contributed less to creating a positive group work climate” (Poupore, 2013, p. 114).
Moderate correlations were found between “it was difficult to talk with my team” and othernegatively coded items, such as “sometimes my teams did not work well together” (r = .46) or “myteammates rarely / never helped me” (r = .44). This suggests that feeling comfortable with a teamwas the most basic requirement, without which further social benefits, such as reducing L2 anxiety
or providing peer-to-peer assistance, could not occur.
However, these values do not mean that general student experience of teams was poor, as therelatively low mean values of the negatively-coded items (-2.02 to -3.01) indicate that the majority ofstudents tended to disagree with these statements. For instance, 75.3% of students disagreed with thestatement that “sometimes my teams did not work well together”, and 79.6% of students did not
believe that “my teammates rarely / never helped me”.

29

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Correlational Analysis – Positive items
Conversely, a strong correlation was found between “working with a team helped me to speak
English” and “I felt relaxed with my teammates” (r = .70), implying students felt that a comfortablesocial climate had a major impact on L2 use (Table 3). This could have been either that students weremore willing to communicate in cohesive groups or that teammates were more likely to offer L2
assistance within cohesive groups. Another strong correlation was found between “working with ateam helped me in this class” and “I enjoyed working with my teams” (r = 0.70), which was mirroredin the high mean (5.1 and 5.0) scores on both items.
Moderate correlations were also found between “working with a team helped me in this class” /“I felt relaxed with my teammates” (r = .69) and “I enjoyed working with my teams” / “I felt relaxedwith my teammates” (r = .57). These suggest that a relaxed and enjoyable social climate, such as canbe found in a cohesive group, was related to successful task performance. If accurate, this conclusion
would fit with existing literature on the importance of cohesion for motivation and successful task
performance (Evans & Dion, 1991). Students’ general agreement that “there was good teamwork in
all of my teams” is evidenced by its high mean (4.9) and by the correlation with “working with a teamhelped me in this class” (r = .59). This indicates that productive teamwork was seen by students as
an essential part of effective learning in these courses, as well as a major part of whether they
enjoyed the task, as “good teamwork” correlated quite strongly with “I enjoyed working with myteams” at r = .67.
Although many students had agreed that “talking with my teammates helped me to feel lessanxious in class” (M = 5.0), it produced only low to moderate correlations with other items such as“working with a team helped me in this class’’ (r = .42) and “I enjoyed working with my teams” (r =.36). It is possible that students may have interpreted “talking” in this question as meaning ‘chatting
about task-irrelevant topics’ and therefore did not relate this to “working”.
In relation to the research questions,
1. Whether the use of an online method of learning affected L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
2. Whether the use of teams allowed students to form cohesive groups
3. Whether working in teams affected students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
the correlational data indicates that the use of teams had allowed students to bond with others andform cohesive groups and, to a lesser extent, had some positive effects on L2 and social anxiety.
However, no strong or moderate correlations were found between items relating to an online methodof learning and L2 or social anxiety, suggesting that students’ perceptions of anxiety were neither
positively nor negatively affected in any significant way by a switch to online learning.

By Class Level
o
o
o
o

30

In comparison with Level 3 students, Level 2 students tended to experience:
6% less L2 anxiety with teams (I felt relaxed when speaking English with my teammates)
2% less social anxiety with teams (Talking with my teammates helped me to feel lessanxious in class)
2% less anxiety than expected (After studying in this class, it was less scarythan I had expected)
1% better team performance (There was good teamwork in ALL of my teams).

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

o
o
o
o

Compared with Level 2 students, Level 3 students experienced:
20% less assistance from teams (My teammates rarely / never helped me)
14% higher social anxiety (I often feel anxious in face-to-face conversations)
11% higher L2 anxiety online (I felt more anxious when speaking English online thanspeaking English face-to-face)
9% higher social anxiety pre-class (I felt anxious about talking to classmates online
before I started this class)

Although original hypotheses had predicted that
• Level 3 students would report greater L2 anxiety than those in Level 2• Level 3 students would report greater cohesiveness than those in Level 2,
responses when split by class level generally differed to a fairly minor degree. The largest percentage
difference found was 20% (My teammates rarely / never helped me), while several items differed byonly 5% or less.
It would appear that Level 3 students had felt higher L2 anxiety in an online environment andhigher social anxiety, both in general and in anticipation of the course. Therefore, the hypothesis that
‘Level 3 students would feel greater L2 anxiety than those in Level 2’ appears to have been somewhat
accurate.
Level 2 students reported significantly better team performance, as well as somewhat reduced
L2 and social anxiety when working with their teammates, than Level 3 students. This could be
related to the higher levels of L2 anxiety felt by Level 3 students: Poupore (2013) reported asignificant relationship between L2 anxiety and learner’s interpretations of a group dynamic, withmore anxious learners being more likely to perceive the group dynamic negatively, whereas lessanxious learners (such as Level 2 students) may take a more positive view of the social climate.
Therefore, the initial hypothesis that ‘Level 3 students would report greater cohesiveness than thosein Level 2’ to compensate for reduced competence was proven incorrect. While different ability levels
may gain different benefits from teamwork, it seems that lower-level classes will not necessarily feela greater degree of cohesiveness.

Word Choice Data
The most commonly chosen words (Figure 1) for both the ‘in class’ and ‘in teams’ condition was“fun” (83 in class/79 in teams) with “friendly” at a close second (68 in class / 77 in teams). Therefore,
it seems likely that the majority of students felt there was a positive atmosphere overall, with ‘inteams’ slightly higher than ‘in class’ on both measures. Word choice data also suggests that students
tended to feel more relaxed when working with their teams (52) than they generally did in class (30).
This could be a good indication of cohesiveness if students had tended to feel more relaxed with themore familiar, close-knit group of their team. Furthermore, a much higher proportion of students
reported feeling more “anxious” in class (46) than they had when working with their teams (20).
The Word Choice data implies that while student experience was positive overall, as evidenced
by the high scores for both “fun” and “friendly”, the ‘in class’ experience was markedly more“anxious” and less “relaxed” than the ‘in teams’ experience. In terms of learning environment, this
could suggest that teams were cohesive and supportive learning groups in which students felt morerelaxed due to a familiar, close-knit social climate. However, it could also be that students felt moreanxious when gathered as a class if they were aware that they could all be observed by the teacher.

31

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

A further potential explanation for this could be that students felt greater social anxiety ‘in class’ dueto the online environment. When working in teams, students were put into Zoom breakout rooms
where they could enjoy relative privacy during team discussions, yet when they came together as awhole class, students would all appear on the same Zoom screen and therefore be observable to all
20 of their classmates.
One potential way to reduce this anxiety could be to encourage students to use their cameras inbreakout rooms to allow for smoother discussions and improved social bonding via non-verbal social
cues (such as nodding, smiling, or laughing with classmates); however, students should be informedthat those who feel nervous about using their camera in front of a larger group may turn it off. Whilst
this may benefit students with anxiety, many online educators may feel disheartened when faced witha wall of blank screens, particularly as they cannot gauge from student expressions or reactions
whether students are attentive, listening, engaged, comprehending, or even present at the keyboard.
The effect of camera use on L2 and social anxiety in an online learning environment is perhaps one
that could be better understood through further study.
Regardless of whether classes are conducted online or face-to-face, teachers can aim to mitigate
L2 and social anxiety in the early stages of group formation by developing a learning environment inwhich students feel comfortable both with each other and with the teacher, such as throughicebreaker activities to build acceptance and trust (Poupore, 2013). For instance, allowing teams tochoose their own group norms that embody the ideal L2 classmate (Peragine, 2019) during the first
lesson together could increase students’ sense of belonging via deliberately building a unified group
identity, and hence increase the cohesiveness of newly established teams.

CONCLUSION
By offering positive L2 learning experiences, teachers can have a major effect on both students’motivation and anxiety (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017). While not all students may enter an EFL
classroom with intrinsic motivation, working within a cohesive and supportive group can foster
motivation (Ushioda, 2003) Regardless of ability level, an overwhelming majority of students reported
that they had found working with a team helpful (93.9%) and enjoyable (91.9%). There was also
widespread agreement that students felt less L2 anxiety when talking with their team (69.4%),
providing further support for prior findings that cohesive groups reduce anxiety (Poupore, 2013).
Results indicate that the majority of students had been able to form cohesive groups by making
friends (77.6%) and felt relaxed with their teams (91.8%). Correlational analysis of “working in a teamhelped me to speak English” and “I felt relaxed with my teammates” (r = 0.70) strongly suggests thata positive social climate improved L2 performance when students were able to form cohesive groups.
High mean scores across differing ability levels demonstrate a widespread belief that “talking withteammates helped me to feel less anxious in class”, which implies that working with teams reduced
anxiety. However, correlation and mean-difference data did not reveal major relationships between
anxiety and online learning, indicating that the switch to online classes had not majorly affected L2
or social anxiety.
In response to the exploratory research question regarding whether working in teams had
affected students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety, the main finding was that social climate was thebiggest factor in whether teams reduced students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety. Moreover,student interpretations of social climate (i.e., whether they could “feel comfortable talking withteammates”) had a moderate effect on student perceptions of whether they were able to successfully

32

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

collaborate on tasks (“sometimes my teams did not work well together” / “my teammates rarely/
never helped me”). As the strongest correlation found was between “I did not feel comfortable
talking with teammates” and “I did not feel comfortable using English with teammates”, it seems the
key to productive and mutually beneficial teamwork is that students must feel comfortable before any
further benefits of teamwork can occur. This finding clearly indicates the importance of icebreakeractivities geared towards building a learning environment that is conducive to mutual help andsupport. The MEXT guidelines for English education currently in place show a clear ministerial
preference towards developing students’ fluency and “higher” language skills, including presenting
and debate, (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017); however, from the students’ affective standpoint,meeting the pressing psychological need to feel a sense of belonging to a social group (Dovidio et al.,2009) cannot be overstated. While teachers may be under pressure to satisfy ministry or curricula
objectives, such as teaching vocabulary or critical thinking skills, one of the most importantcomponents for achieving these is first establishing a comfortable L2 environment and allowing
students the opportunity to bond and build mutual trust with peers (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017).
Only from this starting point can cohesive and therefore productive teams develop; and without asupportive team, students will not be able to meet further demands placed on them, such as providing
L2 vocabulary assistance or effective and suitable peer-to-peer feedback.
Icebreaker activities are generally not awarded a preeminent place within a curriculum, yet inmany situations, the adage that ‘first impressions count’ holds true. This is not to claim that the first
lesson with a class will necessarily set the stage for the entirety of the course, as group dynamics canimprove, decline, or fluctuate over the course of a semester (Maxfield, 2020). However, setting up ateam with a set of actionable, democratically selected group norms could help to not only create a
productive team (Peragine, 2019) but also create a shared or superordinate identity (Dovidio et al.,2009) that can increase team cohesion and mitigate the effects of social anxiety. As this study has
shown a strong correlation between L2 anxiety and social anxiety, it is conceivable that any classroom
activities that aim to reduce social anxiety may also diminish L2 anxiety.
This study shows that in an EFL classroom that depends on collaborative efforts, establishing a
comfortable learning environment and building rapport between students must be a priority and nota secondary outcome of other educational activities. As teachers play a key role in creating andmaintaining the atmosphere of a class (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017), recommendations forteachers of similar courses in future include encouraging student identification as part of a team andgiving teams the opportunity to autonomously select productive group norms, such as through theuse of Peragine’s (2019) Ideal Classmate activity.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Study
Limitations of the current research include a potential sampling bias created by the optional
nature of the questionnaire. It is conceivable that only the more motivated students responded, as
students driven only by extrinsic motivational factors, such as grades, may not have answered. All ofthe questionnaire data reported came from the same sample of student responses, and therefore
results may not be applicable to the entire population of Debate or Presentation students or to thoseundertaking similar English-language courses in other institutions.
In defence of the results found by this study, however, at N = 98 the sample was as large andrepresentative as possible, forming around 49% of the number of students taught by the researcher,and included learners across the spectrum of proficiency levels. Due to the low p-values (p < .001)

33

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

found on all major correlations reported upon, it is extremely unlikely that chance or sampling error
were solely responsible for the results found. In the current study, data were gathered at only a single
point towards the end of the semester; however, in future, presenting questionnaires pre-, during,and post-semester would allow for motivation, anxiety, and cohesiveness to be measured dynamically(Poupore, 2013).
Further avenues for research could include investigating the ideal group size for these classtypes, or perhaps within the EFL classroom as a whole. Future research could also investigate
whether grouping students by different factors (e.g. randomly, by character type, by ability level, orwith students choosing their own groups) has any effects on cohesion. Depending on how theseclasses are conducted in the future, comparisons could also be drawn between online and face-to-facelearning environments.

REFERENCES
Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041-1068.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self‐confidence, and group cohesion in
the foreign language classroom. Language learning, 44(3), 417-448.
Cota, A. A., Evans, C. R., Dion, K. L., Kilik, L., & Longman, R. S. (1995). The structure of groupcohesion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 572-580.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson education.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Emotional states,
attention, and working memory. Cognition and Emotion, 24(2), 189-199.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self,
36(3), 9-11.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Shnabel, N., Saguy, T., & Johnson, J. D. (2009). Recategorization andprosocial behavior: Common ingroup identification and a dual identification. Psychology ofhelping: New directions in intergroup prosocial behaviour. Wiley-Blackwell.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small groupresearch, 22(2), 175-186.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control
functions: a latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral andbrain sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
Joormann, J. (2006). Differential effects of rumination and dysphoria on the inhibition of irrelevant
emotional material: Evidence from a negative priming task. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
30(2), 149-160.
Koster, E. H., De Raedt, R., Goeleven, E., Franck, E., & Crombez, G. (2005). Mood-congruent
attentional bias in dysphoria: maintained attention to and impaired disengagement fromnegative information. Emotion, 5(4), 446.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1998). The relationship between social connectedness and anxiety, selfesteem, and social identity. [Editorial]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 (3), 338–345
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness tocommunicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern

34

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacWhinnie, S. G., & Mitchell, C. (2017). English classroom reforms in Japan: A study of Japanese
university EFL student anxiety and motivation. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign
Language Education, 2(1), 1-13.
Maxfield, D. (2019). “I can’t English!”: Reflecting on motivation and participation within a discussion
class context. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7, 48-54.
Maxfield, D. (2020). Go Team! A pilot study into group norms and cohesion. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8, 160-167.
McGaugh, J. L., Cahill, L., & Roozendaal, B. (1996). Involvement of the amygdala in memory storage:interaction with other brain systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(24),13508-13514.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The
unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe”
tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100
Ning, H., & Hornby, G. (2014). The impact of cooperative learning on tertiary EFL learners’
motivation. Educational review, 66(1), 108-124.
Noels, K. A. (2013). Learning Japanese; Learning English: Promoting motivation through autonomy,competence and relatedness. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva, T. Fellner (Ed.), Language Learning
Motivation in Japan. (pp. 15-34). Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Peragine, M. (2019). Idealizing L2 classmates to combat amotivation, calculate motivation deviation,and foster group cohesiveness. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7,(pp. 168-178).
Poupore, G. (2013). The influence of L2 motivation and L2 anxiety on adult learners’ socio-affective
conditions and language production during communicative tasks. The Asian EFL Journal
Quarterly, 15(3), 93-128.
Sugihara, Y., & Katsurada, E. (2002). Gender role development in Japanese culture: Diminishinggender role differences in a contemporary society. Sex roles, 47(9), 443-452.
Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s new course of study guidelines. The Language Teacher, 36(3), 3-8.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Psychology ofIntergroup Relations, 6-24.
Toates, F. (2011). The brain: basics of structure and role. Biological psychology. 3rd edition. PrenticeHall/Pearson Education.
Trommsdorff, G., & Iwawaki, S. (1989). Students’ perceptions of socialisation and gender role inJapan and Germany. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(4), 485-493.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in
ingroup favouritism. European journal of social psychology, 9(2), 187-204.
Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2012). Validating the L2 motivational self system in a Japanese EFL
context: The interplay of L2 motivation, L2 anxiety, self-efficacy, and the perceived amount of
information. Language Education & Technology, 49, 1-22.
Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. Learner autonomy in the foreign
language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment, 90-102.
Yoshihara, R., Kurata, A., & Yamauchi, A. (2020). Reflective journals to explore struggles anddifficulties of novice Japanese EFL university instructors. Reflective Practice, 21(1), 81-93.

35

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

APPENDIX
Questionnaire for Students€ Presentation€ Debate€ Level 2€ Level 3€ I do not want to give my level

Anxiety
I felt anxious about talking to classmates online before I started this class
Before I took this class, I felt anxious about starting it
Talking with classmates online was more relaxing than I expected
I often felt anxious in class
I often feel anxious in face-to-face conversations
This class was scarier than I expected
After studying in this class, it was less scary than I had expected
I feel less anxious about studying English online after taking this class
It is easier to speak English online than face-to-face
Speaking English online is easier than speaking English face-to-face
I felt more anxious when speaking English online than speaking English face-to-face
Familiar Groups (Teams)
It was easy to make friends with my teams
Working with a team helped me in this class
I enjoyed working with my teams
There was good teamwork in ALL of my teams
I did not like working with the same people in several lessons
I felt relaxed with my teammates
Sometimes my teams did not work well together
My teammates rarely / never helped me in class
I made friends with people in my teams
It was difficult to talk with my team
I did not feel comfortable talking with teammates
I wanted to stay with the same team all semester
Familiar Groups (Teams) and Anxiety
Talking with my teammates helped me to feel less anxious in class
I felt relaxed when speaking English with my teammates
I felt more relaxed when speaking English with my teammates than with other students in classWorking with a team helped me to speak English
I did not feel comfortable using English with teammates
Word choice questions:
Which words best match your experience with teams:
fun scary nervous worried relaxed calm happy friendly
Which words best match your experience in class:funscary nervous worried relaxed calm happy friendly

bored

36

bored

silentsilent