English for maritime purposes

39

English for maritime purposes:

Communication apprehension and
communicative competence among maritime
students in the Philippines
Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla
De La Salle UniversityManila

ABSTRACT
This paper reports on communication apprehension or speech anxiety in relation
to oral communication activities conducted in a maritime ESP class in Manila,
Philippines. The study attempted to determine levels of communication anxiety and
perceived communication competence among the students, and possible correlations
with particular speech tasks. Speech performance scores were obtained through teacher
and peer grading. The results indicate that students performances varied in relation to
the type of speech task, and that their perceptions about their communicative abilities
were almost independent of the teacher or peer grades given to them. Since the study
is exploratory, it is recommended that it be replicated in other ESP classes that require
extensive application or use of the students oral communication skills.

Introduction
[On board I speak] mostly Tagalog and English. But I prefer English, they
speak English much more often and you can get your English more uent to
communicate with the nationalities. (from Sampsons eldnotes, in Sampson
& Zhao, 2003, p. 40)

A Filipino seafarers quote above about his thoughts on using English in a

multilingual crew ship illustrates the type of communication situation that a
number of Filipino maritime practitioners experience. These are Filipinos who
have decided that life on sea is the better option to earn a living than staying
in their home country. The type and quality of English spoken on board these
ships are a concern because these highlight job-related social interaction and
communication in a specialized industry. The current study draws, however,
on a maritime-related context of communicationthat of oral communication
while the maritime students are still in their training and education. A study of
such kind is deemed important in order to gain more understanding of English
within ESP and to address future needs of these maritime students especially in
relation to their oral prociency.
Oral communication continues to be a part of the curriculum among
would-be professionals in the Philippines because of the need to train workers
who are not only technically knowledgeable in their respective elds, but are
also competent to participate in the social or interpersonal aspects of their
Reections on English Language Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 3958

40

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

jobs. Teaching oral communication may involve a focus on its interpersonal or

intercultural aspects, but is often associated with public speaking. One of the
issues often raised in public speaking is communication apprehension or CA
which is essentially dened as an anxiety syndrome associated with either real
or anticipated communication with another person or persons (McCroskey,
1977, pp. 27-28).
On communication apprehension
Communication apprehension has attracted a lot of research in the elds
of psychology and education, especially in the area of student behavior in the
classroom. Powers & Smythe (1980, p. 146) have noted, for example, that because
the role of communication apprehension in shaping educational outcomes has
emerged as a major concern of instructional communication researchers...an everincreasing body of research has accumulated indicating that there is a pervasive
relationship between this communication variable and various aspects of the
academic experience. Indeed, Holbrook (1987) would later add that peoples
levels of CA do have a profound impact on their oral communication, social
skills, and self-esteem (see also Witt & Behnke, 2006; Opt & Loffredo, 2000).
Earlier studies have focused on correlations between CA and academic
achievement. McCroskey & Andersen (1976), for example, have attempted to
nd out the relationship between communication apprehension and academic
achievement among college students. The focus of the study was to look into
whether students GPA, SAT scores, performances in examinations and enrolment
in a mass lecture versus traditional classroom setting (one teacher with a certain
number of students belonging to a class), correlated with the students possession
of low, moderate and high CA. Indeed, CA had a signicant correlation with SAT
scores; GPAs of high CA students were signicantly lower than those students of
low CA; and those with high CA tended to favor the mass lecture method over
small classes. Similarly, Powers & Smythe (1980) have found that CA levels had
a signicant effect on nal course grades.
Indeed, these studies show that there is a clear correlation between CA levels
and academic achievement; and thus, especially the more recent cognitive-based
investigations of CA levels in classroom contexts, they afrm the continuing
relevance of work on CA among our students.
Internal factors affecting CA
Some studies attempt to provide evidence for associations between CA and
different aspects of communication. For instance, there may be factors related to
some physiological or other internally driven considerations. One study focuses
on apprehension and self-perceived communication competence among students
who stutter and those who do not (Blood, Blood, Tellis, & Gabel, 2001). This
study has found that students who stuttered had higher levels of CA and poorer
scores on their self-perceived communication competence compared to those
who did not stutter. Opt & Loffredo (2000), on the other hand, have established a

English for maritime purposes

41

possible link between CA and personality traits. It was found that those who were
more likely to be introverts experienced higher levels of CA than extroverts.
External factors affecting CA
Levels of communication apprehension could also be triggered by external
factors, such as the type of classroom assignment or speech task. For example, Witt
& Behnk (2006) have statistically tested anticipatory trait anxiety across speech
assignments and found that trait anxiety was highest for impromptu speaking,
lower for extemporaneous speaking and lowest for manuscript reading (p. 173):
not only do students associate general, trait-like expectations of anxiety by speech
type, but they also experience actual state anxiety indicators of differing intensity
when faced with differing speech delivery types (p. 174). Another potential
external source of CA is the eld of study or intended major. For example, Simons,
Higgins, & Lowe (1995) have noted observations by practitioners and academics
who claim that oral and written communication skills among accounting majors
need much attention. Their study has found that accounting majors have higher
apprehension toward speaking and writing compared to other business majors.
On the other hand, Hassall et al.s (2000) study of Spanish, North American
and UK business and accounting students has also found high communication
apprehension levels among these students because practitioners expect them to
be efcient in speaking and writing.
CA in ESL contexts
Another signicant body of research on CA is concerned with how it is
inuenced by the nature of the language learning classroom itself. That is,
it explores CA levels in contexts where the medium of instruction is not the
learners rst language or mother tongue, or simply classrooms where learners
learn English as their second or foreign language. For example, McCroskey, Fayer,
& Richmond (1983) have found, not surprisingly, that Puerto Rican learners of
English as a second language were less apprehensive when communicating in their
L1 (Spanish) but far more apprehensive when communicating in English (L2).
They have also noted a signicant correlation between self-perceived competence
in a second language and their CA levels in the same language. Youngs (1989)
study among high school students learning Spanish also supports the claim that
language anxiety is much pronounced when we communicate in a language that
is not our rst language. Another related and interesting study is that of Keaten,
Kelly, & Pribyl (1997) which has found that communication apprehension levels
of Japanese elementary and secondary school students learning English as a
second language have increased from primary to secondary school.
A wholistic look at CA
Most recently, however, studies on CA have tried to paint a much more
complex picture of social and cognitive inuences affecting CA levels among

42

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

different kinds of learners and students. Zhang (2005), for example, has found
that communication apprehension is affected by both individual (e.g., cognitive,
personality-induced) and cultural (e.g., orientation towards the use of humour in
the classroom, power relations) factors, indicating that student-teacher relations,
and not simply teachers or students per se, correlate with CA levels in various
ways. Meanwhile, delivery formats may also have an impact on the cognitive and
affective learning outcomes of students. Messman & Jones-Corley (2001) have
found that class size (whether big sized lectures, mid- to small class sizes) does
affect the quality of learning. For example, lecture formats have tended to improve
the students cognitive development, while mixed-size formats have resulted in
students signicantly improved affective learning mechanisms. Thus, since the
more communicatively apprehensive students are generally less motivated to
participate and have lower affective learning relative to the less communicatively
apprehensive students (p. 197), certain kinds of classes could bring about
different levels of CA.
Our brief discussion of the relevant literature on CA shows that communication
apprehension is, indeed, a phenomenon that is worth investigating. We are
therefore justied to investigate CA in the context of English as a Second Language
(ESL) and, even more specically, in an ESL English for Specic Purposes context,
because it is in situations like this where various cognitive and cultural elements
work together (or against each other) to generate communication apprehension
that is both complex and real. Besides, zeroing in now on English for maritime
purposes, there has been little research done on experiences of students enrolling
in maritime studies, especially those concerning communication apprehension. It
is thus of much interest to study maritime communication because, as Sampson
& Zhao (2003, p. 31) note, the introduction of multilingual crews and the loss
of universal forms of communication have made English as the lingua franca
of the sea even more desirable and, perhaps, inevitable.
On Maritime Education and Maritime English
According to Ramirez (2003), there are around 118 maritime institutions
all over the Philippines, producing thousands of seafarers over the years, thus
helping make the country the labor capital of the world (p. 279). Students
in the maritime eld enroll in courses such as BS Marine Engineering and BS
Marine Transportation. The maritime eld is heavily reliant on constant and exact
communication as well as understanding of mathematical formulas and their
application on the eld (c.f. Sampson & Zhao, 2003). Students are also expected to
be procient in English since the technical jargon is mainly in English, and because
of the high probability of working in a multicultural environment. Cwilewicz &
Pudlowskis (1998) work on didactic programs for a maritime academy in Poland
state exactly this same view: to ensure safety of their passengers and colleagues,
maritime students must also learn effective communication skills.
An accompanying issue, however, concerns the quality of English in the
maritime eld. Winbow (2002) points out that in most countries, maritime
professionals generally lack English communication skills. This generalization

English for maritime purposes

43

is attributed to the status of English in the countries where these professionals

come fromas either ESL (English as a Second Language) or EFL (English as a
Foreign Language). More often, miscommunication due to cultural differences
and the perceived lack of prociency in the English language of these maritime
students are identied as sources of concern in the language classroom. With the
involvement of technical terms/jargon and the high use of written and spoken
communication, it is therefore even more imperative for maritime professionals
to undergo extensive English communication skills training. Of course, crosscultural and/or communication skills training must be contextualized to achieve
maximum effectiveness. After nding out that most available materials in ESL
maritime English teaching are designed for more traditional teaching of English,
Benton (2003) suggests that maritime instructors use materials that suit the
specic needs of their maritime students.
Background of the study
A group of Filipino maritime stakeholders communicated with De La
Salle University (DLSU)Manila expressing their interest to fund a Maritime
Academic Ramp Program in English, Math and Science. This was to satisfy the
goal of meeting the needs of the global maritime industry and make the Filipino
students competitive applicants to foreign shipping companies alongside other
nationalities such as the Chinese and Indians.
The students selected for enrollment in the maritime institution would be
required to undergo the Ramp Program. The Ramp Program was designed to
review concepts and skills learned in high school and use some of these concepts
and skills to prepare the students for their maritime studies. These students were
to complete their maritime education with the Maritime Academy of Asia and the
Pacic (MAAP)Kamaya Point located in the province of Bataan. Since students
were pre-selected by the stakeholders in coordination with MAAP, DLSUManila
simply provided assistance through the summer instruction. The author of the
paper served as their instructor for speech or oral communication in the summer
of 2004.
For a period of two weeks (half of the instruction was conducted at DLSU,
the other half was done at the MAAP campus), the students were exposed to
the impromptu, extemporaneous and informal debate types of speeches. These
speeches were deemed useful for both interpersonal/group and more formal or
public-type oral communication situations that the students might encounter
in the future. For the extemporaneous speech, the students prepared a speech
of description (for the diagnostic task) and a persuasive speech. The persuasive,
impromptu and informal debate speeches were the ones included in the study.
The students were given enough time in the classroom for input and practice, as
each class was around three hours per day. Peer and teacher assessments were
also conducted.
Prior to instruction, the students were given a questionnaire to determine
their level of communication apprehension using the Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension (labeled in this paper as PRCA) adapted from

44

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

McCroskey (1982) and the Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale

(labeled in this paper as SLFPER) also adapted from McCroskey & McCroskey
(1988). Both instruments have been used in previous studies and were proven
to be reliable (for communication competence, c.f. Horwitz, 1986; McCroskey,
Fayer, & Richmond, 1985; for PRCA, c.f. McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax,
1985; Pribyl, Keaten, Sakamoto, & Koshikawa, 1998; Beatty, 1985; Keaten, Kelly,
& Pribyl, 1997; and Blood, Blood, Tellis, & Gable, 2001).
After the summer instruction, the students were asked to complete the same
forms. Throughout this paper, PRCA and SLFPER1 refer to data obtained prior
to instruction while SLFPER2 refers to data obtained after instruction. SLFPER1
and SLFPER2 were administered to determine if students perception of their
own competence has changed through the speech sessions.
Objectives of the study
The study is generally exploratory. It attempts to nd out if communication
apprehension exists among maritime students, whether or not the students view
themselves as communicatively competent in English, and more specically
now, whether or not the speech tasks have helped them improve as speakers
thus reducing their level of speech anxiety and improving their perceptions
of their communicative competence. Did their speech performances correlate
with particular levels of communication anxiety and perceived communication
competence?
This study specically intends to answer the following questions:
a. What correlations exist between the Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA) and Self-Perceived Communication Competence 1
(SLFPER1)?
b. What correlations exist between the results of the SLFPER before and after
undergoing the presentations?
c. What correlations exist between PRCA and the presentations (based on teacher
and peer grades)?
d. What correlations exist between SLFPER1 and the presentations, and SLFPER2
and the presentations before and after undergoing the Academic Ramp
Program (based on teacher and peer grades)?
The following are the hypotheses of the study:
a. There is a significant relationship between the Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension (PRCA) and the Self-Perceived Communication
Competence Scale 1 (SLFPER1).
b. There is a signicant relationship between the PRCA scale and the students
scores (based on teacher and peer grades).
c. There is a signicant relationship between students scores (based on teacher
grades) and the SLFPER1.
d. There is a signicant relationship between students scores (based on teacher
grades) and the SLFPER2.
e. There is a significant relationship between students scores (based on
peer grades) and the Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale 1
(SLFPER1).

English for maritime purposes

f.

45

There is a significant relationship between students scores (based on

peer grade) and the Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale 2
(SLFPER2).

Methodology
This section presents the prole of participants in the study, the instruments
used, the procedures in data gathering, and the statistical treatment/s used.
Participant prole
The participants of the study, all male, were initially 50 incoming rst year
students of the Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacic or MAAP (in Kamaya
Point, Bataan, Philippines). They were housed initially in a dormitory near De
La Salle University in Manila, and later in the program inside the MAAP campus.
They were given an entry-level examination and an English subject post-course
evaluation. They were recruited from various provinces all over the country based
on the standards of MAAP. However, some students dropped out of the program
due to a variety of reasons (e.g., did not meet the health requirements, change
of mind about pursuing the program) which resulted in the nal number of 24
participants.
Instruments/materials/procedures
As mentioned earlier, a checklist for the individuals report on Self-Perceived
Communication Competence (SLFPER 1 and 2) adapted from McCroskey &
McCroskey (1988) was distributed to the participants before and after instruction
(see Appendix A). This instrument consists of 12 statements representing
various contexts of communication (public speaking, dyad, meeting, group,
friend, etc.). The participants completed the questionnaire by indicating their
level of competence in each given context, with 0 as the lowest score and 100 as
the highest. Each communication context indicates a possible range of level of
competence. For example, for Public, a score > 86 means High SPCC, while a
score < 51 indicates Low SPCC. In Meetings, a score > 85 indicates High SPCC
while a score < 51 indicates Low SPCC.
The second instrument used in the study was McCroskeys (1982) Personal
Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) (see Appendix B). It has 24
statements concerning feelings of people when they communicate with others.
The respondents were asked to rate each statement by using this scale: strongly
agree (1-SA), agree (2-A), undecided (3-U), disagree (4-D), or strongly disagree
(5-SD). This instrument was given to the students prior to instruction. According
to this instrument, scores can range from 24 to 120. Scores below 51 represent people
who have very low CA. Scores that fall within 51-80 represent people with average
CA. Scores above 80 represent people who have high levels of trait-like CA.
In the course of the public speaking program, the participants performed
speech presentationsthe impromptu speech, debate, and persuasive speech

46

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

all of which were graded by the researcher and the participants classmates. The
rubric used by the researcher in grading the impromptu speech tasks was based on
the rubric used at DLSUManila where 70% percent of 100 is the passing grade.
However, after these tasks, the students requested a change to an easier rubric
because it was the rst time they used such an instrument. This decision to use
a different rubric for both teacher and peer evaluation was adapted for the rest
of the speech assignments. For this set of descriptors, the highest possible grade
was 8 (see Appendix C for the rubric), and the passing mark was 5.6 (equivalent
to 70%).
Data analysis and statistical treatment
What will be reported in this paper are scores for all the 24 students regardless
of their section assignments. The numerical aspects of the study included the
means, percentages and standard deviations. The statistical analysis included
Pearson R correlation.
Results
General performance of the students in the speech tasks
Table 1 displays the mean and the standard deviation of the students scores
in all three speech activities conductedimpromptu speech, persuasive speech,
and debateduring the summer Ramp Program.
Based on the teachers grade, the results indicate that on the average, the
students met the passing score of 70% for the impromptu speech. However, their
mean scores for the persuasive and debate speeches were a little under the passing
score of 5.6 (out of 8). Peer grades, on the other hand, show that the students
were slightly more generous in giving marks to their peers in all the speech tasks.
The standard deviation obtained for both peer and teacher grades, especially in
the persuasive and debate speeches, appears to indicate that the scores given were
not too disparate from each other, except for the impromptu grade given by the
teacher.
Table 1
Mean scores obtained in impromptu, persuasive and debate speeches
Scoring: 0100 points

Scoring: Scale of 08

Type of speech
activity

Mean Scores
(Teacher Grade)

SD

Mean Scores
(Peer Grade)

SD

Impromptu

70.36*

11.1

5.73**

.93

Persuasive

5.37**

.90

6.02**

.73

Debate

5.47**

.75

6.13**

.57

N = 24
* computed based on the original DLSU rubric
** computed based on the revised rubric

47

English for maritime purposes

Table 2
General mean and standard deviation values of the students reports for PRCA and SLFPER 1 and 2
Variables

Mean

Standard Deviation

1. PRCA scale

66.62

13.16

2. SLFPER 1 scale (administered before the Ramp Program)

64.15

17.82

3. SLFPER 2 scale (administered after the Ramp Program)

79.46

11.84

N = 24

Meanwhile, Table 2 shows the mean scores and standard deviation values of
the students PRCA and their SLFPER.
In terms of the PRCA score, the students perception of their own level of
communication anxiety is moderate (the score is within the 51-80 average range).
The value obtained for SLFPER 1 (64.15) indicates that students might not have
viewed themselves as highly exible, assertive and competent communicators.
The value obtained for SLFPER 2 (79.46) shows an increase in their perceptions
about themselves as communicators after undergoing the oral communication
course. Students perceptions of their own language skills could have improved.
The standard deviations obtained indicate that the students varied in terms of
their perception on levels of communication apprehension and competence.
Correlations between Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA)
and Self-Perceived Communication Competence 1 (SLFPER1)
For this part of the study, it was hypothesized that there is a signicant
relationship between the Personal PRCA and SLFPER1that the students own
report of their communication apprehension correlates signicantly with their
perception of their own communication competence. The Pearson R value
obtained for PRCA and SLFPER1 was -.541, a value indicating moderate strength
of association and, at the same time, indicating that the two variables (PRCA and
SLFPER1) are inversely related. This may mean that generally, there were instances
when students considered themselves competent in certain speaking contexts
and non-competent in other contexts. In addition, the inverse relationship may
mean that the higher their perception is of their communication competence,
there is a possibility of a lower score for communication anxiety. The data also
indicate that the Pearson R value is higher than the critical value (.402) set at .05
condence level. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted.
Correlations between Perceptions of Communication Competence before and
after undergoing the presentations
The correlation between perceptions of communication competence before
and after undergoing the presentations was also sought. Indeed, the correlation
value of .654 obtained for SLFPER1 and SLFPER2 indicates a strong association.
The positive correlation may indicate that if the SLFPER 1 value is high, it is likely

48

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

Table 3
Correlations between Personal Report of Communication Apprehension and the Three-Speech Tasks
(based on teachers grades)
Variables

R (based on teachers grade)

R (based on peer grade)

PRCAImpromptu

-.178

.223

PRCAPersuasive

-.171

-.051

PRCADebate

-.343

.121

Note: r = > .402, df = .22, p = < .05

that SLFPER2 value is also high. This means that the students ratings have been
reliable as they showed consistency of perceptions of their own competence
before and after the presentations. Because the computed value is greater than
the critical value of .402 at .05 condence level, the hypothesis for this question
is accepted.
Correlations between Personal Report of Communication Apprehension and
the speech tasks based on teacher and peer grades
It was also hypothesized that there is a signicant relationship between the
Personal Report on Communication Apprehension scale and the students scores
(based on teacher and peer grade). Table 3 displays the correlations between the
Personal Report of Communication Apprehension and each of the three activities
as graded by the teacher and the peers.
The results generally indicate weak correlations between PRCA and the
different speech tasks. In addition, all speech tasks were inversely correlated
to PRCA. The results imply that there is no correlation between the students
perceptions of their communication apprehension and the teachers grades. In
addition, the students and teachers perceptions do not necessarily match. With
computed values all less than the critical value of .402, the hypothesis is rejected
in consideration of the teachers grades.
On peer grading, the correlation values obtained indicate weak correlations
between the PRCA and each of the three activities, as graded by the students
peers. PRCA is found to be negatively correlated with the persuasive speech, unlike
the two other speech tasks. Similar to the results of the correlations in relation
to the teachers grades, these results mean that the peers perceptions of their
performances in the different speech tasks do not necessarily match their own
perceptions of their communication anxiety levels, leading to the possibility that
communication apprehension may not be a predictor of success in performance.
Since the computed values are less than the critical value of .402, the hypothesis
is rejected concerning peer grades.

49

English for maritime purposes

Correlations between Self-Perceived Communication Competence (before and

after undergoing the Academic Ramp Program) and the speech tasks based on
teachers grades
The hypotheses for this section are the following: rst, that there is a signicant
relationship between students scores (based on teachers grades) and SLFPER1,
and second, there is a signicant relationship between students scores (based
on teachers grades) and SLFPER2 (see Table 4 for the correlations).
The results reveal that neither the persuasive nor the debate grades given by
the teacher show a strong correlation to SLFPER1, although the debate speech
task is negatively correlated to SLFPER1. It appears that perceptions of general
communication competence are independent of perceptions of the students
abilities in fullling these particular speech tasks. That is, their success in
performing the speech tasks does not depend on how they viewed themselves
as communicators. A student may have viewed himself as a poor communicator,
but may still get a good grade as evaluated by the teacher.
In contrast, there is moderate correlation between the impromptu activity and
SLFPER1. The students also met the minimum cut-off score for the impromptu.
This correlation might signal that behaviors such as anxiety, reticence, and fear of
making language mistakes were inherent in the students because the impromptu
activity was done during the rst few sessions of the course. Based on the results,
the hypothesis is rejected for both the persuasive and debating activities, while the
hypothesis is accepted for the impromptu activity. That is, the students perception
of their competence did not correlate with the teachers grades in persuasive
and debating activities, while there was some positive relation between their
perception of their competence during the impromptu speech and the grades
that they eventually received from the teacher.
Meanwhile, the correlation between SLFPER2, done upon completion of
the English speech course, and each of the three speech activities as evaluated
by the teacher, reveals that neither the persuasive and debating activities highly
correlated with SLFPER2, similar to the results of SLFPER1. In contrast, there is
also a moderate correlation between the impromptu activity and the SLFPER2.
Similar to SLFPER1, the hypothesis is rejected for both the persuasive and debate
activities, while the hypothesis is accepted for the impromptu activity.
Table 4
Correlation matrix of Self-Perceived Communication Competence 1 and 2 (SLFPER 1 and 2) and
the three speech tasks based on teachers grades
Before Instruction

After Instruction

SLFPER1Impromptu

-.178

SLFPER2Impromptu

.223

SLFPER1Persuasive

-.171

SLFPER2Persuasive

-.051

SLFPER1Debate

-.343

SLFPER2Debate

.121

Note: r = > .402, df = .22, p = < .05

50

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

Correlations between the Self-Perceived Communication Competence (before

and after undergoing the Academic Ramp Program) and the speech tasks
based on peer grade
Finally, two additional hypotheses were posed in relation to the possible
change in perceived communication competence before and after instruction,
namelythere is a signicant relationship between students scores (based on peer
grades) and SLFPER1; and, there is a signicant relationship between students
scores (based on peer grades) and SLFPER2. Table 5 displays the correlations
between self-perception and peer grades before and after instruction.
The Pearson R values obtained for the impromptu and persuasive speeches
in relation to SLFPER1 and SLFPER 2 show weak positive correlations in contrast
to values obtained for SLFPER1 and 2 in relation to debate, which indicate weak
but negative correlations. This means that regardless of the peer grade, students
would generally perform beyond their and their peers expectations during their
speech activities. Second, students could have improved regardless of the extent
of their peers quantitative feedback on their speech performances in class. The
third possibility could be the inconsistency in terms of peer score and SLFPER2
score. For instance, a student could have reported his communicative competence
to be low despite a good performance in class. Thus, in relation to peer grade,
the hypothesis regarding the signicant relationship is rejected.
Discussion
First, the results of the PRCA and the two SLFPER scales indicate that the
students communication apprehension and perceived competence were generally
average. These could be because of the students growing positive attitudes towards
learning English throughout the duration of the course. An increase in the two
SLFPER scales indicates that the three speech presentations could have had a major
role in the students improvement in their self-perception of communication
skills. Interactive in nature, these activities could have motivated the students to
improve their English language skills through the presentations.
However, there were also a generally weak to no correlations between the
three activities and the peer grades and the three different scales (PRCA, SLFPER1,
and SLFPER2), as well as between persuasive and debating activities and teachers
grades. Despite this, correlations observed were between: (a) PRCA and SLFPER1,
Table 5
Correlation matrix of Self-Perceived Communication Competence 1 and 2 (SLFPER 1 and 2) and
the three speech tasks based on peer grades
Before Instruction
SLFPER1Impromptu

R
.006

After Instruction
SLFPER2Impromptu

R
.115

SLFPER1Persuasive

.040

SLFPER2Persuasive

.007

SLFPER1Debate

-.048

SLFPER2Debate

-.042

Note: r = > .402, df = .22, p = < .05

English for maritime purposes

51

(b) SLFPER1 and SLFPER2, (c) SLFPER1 and Impromptu (teachers grades), and
(d) SLFPER2 and Impromptu (teachers grades).
Therefore, the study points to three general ndings. The rst concerns
how a positive attitude towards a speech task, coupled with a sufcient level
of motivation, correlates positively with marked improvement in ones own
performance. This could mean that one of the Summer Ramp Programs goals
was met: to make the students anticipate the kind of speech activities they would
encounter in the maritime school. The opportunity to be exposed to these realworld activities could have led to their deeper appreciation of the classroom work.
A second main nding relates to how students who are aware of their strengths and
weaknesses in communication tend to improve in subsequent communicationbased activities. In the course of the oral communication program, the students
might have appreciated the value of seeing rst-hand each others performance,
being able to provide feedback through the peer grading, as well as receiving
feedback from the teacher. In addition, through their active participation in the
speech preparation stage, they were likely to have developed a sense of solidarity
with their interlocutors, making them more relaxed and less apprehensive in the
classroom. This classroom phenomenon can be explained through recourse to
the socio-affective dimensions of communicative language learning. In this sense,
language learning is also facilitated by feedback coming from real audience
members, and not just feedback coming from the teacher. Lastly, the study shows
how communicative competence and apprehension vary from context to context.
This is evidenced by the correlation values obtained from the different speech
tasks and their scores. These ndings prove the applicability of using standardized
measures such as the PRCA and the communication competence scale. Results
are comparable to those of previous research particularly those of McCroskeys
cross-cultural studies.
There are, of course, limitations and weaknesses in the present study. It is
recommended that future studies replicate this in other maritime institutions not
only in Metro Manila but also in other major cities of the Philippines to verify its
ndings and possibly for comparison purposes. Since this study is limited only
to one maritime institution, a general conclusion on maritime students English
speech performance could not be made. Second, it would be optimal to increase
the sample size so that the statistical analyses would be more reliable. Third,
other types of speech activities may be included. This could help determine the
consistency of students reports of communication anxiety and self-perception
with their performances in other speech activities and contexts. Other researchers
might wish to extend or replicate this study to students of other degree programs
(e.g., within ESP contexts such as English for nurses, medical transcription and
other health-allied areas, English for the call center and the hotel and restaurant
service industry), in order to determine similarities and differences in the levels
of communication anxiety and speech performance among the students. This
would encourage school administrators, curriculum planners, and ESP teachers to
develop real-life, context-based, and interactive activities for students to minimize
their communication apprehension.

52

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

References
Blood, G., Blood, I., Tellis, G., & Gabel, R. (2001). Communication apprehension and self-perceived
communication competence in adolescents who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 161178.
Beatty, M. (1985). Communication apprehension and general anxiety in the prediction of public
speaking anxiety. Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 174-84.
Benton, G. (2003). Maritime English, critical thinking and American ESL programs. Proceedings of the
4th General Assembly of International Association of Maritime Universities. Retrieved on November
10, 2007, from http://www.iamu-edu.org/generalassembly/aga4/benton.pdf.
Cole, J., & McCroskey, J.C. (2003). The association of perceived communication apprehension, shyness,
and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and
interpersonal contexts. Communication Quarterly, 51(1), 101-110.
Cwilewicz, R., & Pudlowski, Z. (1998). New didactic methods in the education of engine room ofcers.
Global Journal of Engineering Education, 2, 223-230.
Hassall, T., Joyce, J., Ottewill, R., Arquero, J., & Donoso, J. (2000). Communication apprehension in
UK and Spanish business and accounting students. Education & Training, 42(2/3), 93-101.
Holbrook, H. (1987). Communication apprehension: The quiet student in your classroom. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved on November 22, 2007, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage_01/0000019b/80/32/2c/9e.pdf.
Horwitz, E.K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language anxiety
scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559-562.
Keaten, J., Kelly, L., & Pribyl, C. (1997). Communication apprehension in Japan: Grade school through
secondary school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, 319-343.
McCroskey, J.C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th Ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
McCroskey, J.C., & Andersen, J. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension and
academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3(1), 73-81.
McCroskey, J.C. (1977). Classroom consequences of communication apprehension. Communication
Education, 26, 27-33.
McCroskey, J.C. Beatty, M., Kearney, P., & Plax, P. (1985). The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a
measure of communication apprehension across context. Communication Quarterly, 2, 165-173.
McCroskey, J., Fayer, J., & Richmond, V. (1983). Dont speak to me in English: Communication
apprehension in Puerto Rico. Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 185-192.
McCroskey, J.C., & McCroskey, L.L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication
competence. Communication Research Reports, 5, 108-113.
Messman, S., & Jones-Corley, J. (2001). Effects of communication environment, immediacy, and
communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning. Communication Monographs,
68(2), 184-200.
Opt, S., & Loffredo, D. (2000). Re-thinking communication apprehension: A Myers-Briggs perspective.
The Journal of Psychology, 134(5), 556-570.
Powers, W., & Smythe, M. (1980). Communication apprehension and achievement in a performanceoriented basic communication course. Human Communication Research, 6(2), 146-152.
Pribyl, C., Keaten, J., Sakamoto, M., & Koshikawa, F. (1998). Assessing the cross-cultural content
validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24). Japanese
Psychological Research, 40(1), 47-53.
Ramirez, V. (2003). Philippine maritime and nursing education benchmarking with APEC best
practices. In Tullao, T. (ed.), Education and globalization (pp. 273-333). Philippines: Philippine
APEC Study Center Network (PASCN) and Philippine Institute for Development Studies
(PIDS).
Sampson, H., & Zhao, M. (2003). Multilingual crews: Communication and the operation of ships.
World Englishes, 22(1), 31-43.
Simons, K., Higgins, M., & Lowe, D. (1995). A prole of communication apprehension in accounting
majors: Implications for teaching and curriculum revision. Journal of Accounting Education, 13,
159-176.

English for maritime purposes

53

Winbow, A. (2002). The importance of effective communication. International Seminar on Maritime

English. Retrieved on November 20, 2007, from http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.
asp/data_id=18000/InternationalSeminar.pdf.
Witt, P.L., & Behnke, R.R. (2006). Anticipatory speech anxiety as a function of public speaking
assignment type. Communication Education, 55(2), 167-177.
Young, D.J. (1990). An investigation of students perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign
Language Annals, 23, 539-553.
Zhang, Q. (2005) Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication apprehension
in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53(1), 109-124.

54

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

APPENDIX A: Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale (SPCC)

The SPCC was developed to nd out about peoples perception of their own competence in different
communication contexts and given different types of receivers. Early self-report measures of competence
were structured to represent what the creators of the measures felt were the components of communication
competence. The scale is intended to let the respondents dene communication competence. Since people
make decisions with regard to communication (for example, whether they will even engage in it), it is
their own perception that is important, and not that of an outside observer. It is important that users of
this measure recognize that this is not a measure of actual communication competence; it is a measure
of perceived competence. While these two different types of measures may be substantially correlated,
they are not the same thing. The SPCC has generated good alpha reliability estimates (above .85) and
has strong face validity. It also has been found to have substantial predictive validity.
Directions: Below are twelve situations in which you might need to communicate. Peoples abilities to
communicate effectively vary a lot, and sometimes the same person is more competent to communicate
in one situation than in another. Please indicate how competent you believe you are to communicate
in each of the situations described below. Indicate in the space provided at the left of each item your
estimate of your competence.
Presume 0 = completely incompetent and 100 = competent.
1. Present a talk to a group of strangers.
2. Talk with an acquaintance.
3. Talk in a large meeting of friends.
4. Talk in a small group of strangers.
5. Talk with a friend.
6. Talk in a large meeting of acquaintances.
7. Talk with a stranger.
8. Present a talk to a group of friends.
9. Talk in a small group of acquaintances.
10. Talk in a large meeting of strangers.
11. Talk in a small group of friends.
12. Present a talk to a group of acquaintances.

Scoring: To compute the sub-scores, add the percentages for the items indicated and divide the total by
the number indicated below.
Public

1 + 8 + 12; divide by 3.

Meeting

3 + 6 + 10; divide by 3.

Group

4 + 9 + 11; divide by 3.

Dyad

2 + 5 + 7; divide by 3.

Stranger

1 + 4 + 7 + 10; divide by 4.

Acquaintance

2 + 6 + 9 + 12; divide by 4.

Friend

3 + 5 + 8 + 11; divide by 4.

To compute the total SPCC score, add the subscores for Stranger, Acquaintance, and Friend. Then,
divide that total by 3.

55

English for maritime purposes

Reliability

Mean

Standard Deviation

Public

.72

68.8

17.8

Meeting

.68

68.8

17.1

Group

.67

76.1

14.6

Dyad

.44

81.1

12.4

Stranger

.87

55.5

23.6
15.3

Acquaintance

.84

77.4

Friend

.78

88.2

11.3

Total

.92

73.7

13.8

Public

> 86 High SPCC

Meeting

> 85 High SPCC

< 51 Low SPCC

Group

> 90 High SPCC

< 61 Low SPCC

Dyad

> 93 High SPCC

< 68 Low SPCC

Stranger

> 79 High SPCC

< 31 Low SPCC

Acquaintance

> 92 High SPCC

< 62 Low SPCC

< 51 Low SPCC

Friend

> 99 High SPCC

< 76 Low SPCC

Total

> 87 High SPCC

< 59 Low SPCC

Higher SPCC scores indicate higher self-perceived communication competence with basic communication
contexts (public, meeting, group, dyad) and receivers (strangers, acquaintance, friend).
Source: McCroskey & McCroskey (1988).

56

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

Appendix B: Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)

The PRCA-24 is widely used to measure communication apprehension. It is preferable above all earlier
versions of the instrument (PRCA, PRCA10, PRCA-24B, etc.) because it is highly reliable (alpha regularly
>.90) and has very high predictive validity. It permits one to obtain sub-scores in the contexts of public
speaking, dyadic interaction, small groups, and large groups. However, these scores are substantially less
reliable than the total PRCA-24 scoresbecause of the reduced number of items. People interested only
in public speaking anxiety should consider using the PRPSA rather than the public speaking sub-score
drawn from the PRCA-24. It is much more reliable for this purpose.
This instrument is composed of twenty-four statements concerning feelings about communicating
with others. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether
you: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; are Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5.
1. I dislike participating in group discussions.
2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.
3. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
4. I like to get involved in group discussions.
5. Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and nervous.
6. I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.
7. Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.
8. Usually, I am comfortable when I have to participate in a meeting.
9. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a meeting.
10. I am afraid to express myself at meetings.
11. Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.
12. I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.
13. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous.
14. I have no fear of speaking up in conversations.
15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations.
16. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.
17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.
18. Im afraid to speak up in conversations.
19. I have no fear of giving a speech.
20. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech.
21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.
22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with condence.
24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.
Scoring
Group discussion

18 - (scores for items 2, 4, & 6) + (scores for items 1,3, & 5)

Meetings

18 - (scores for items 8, 9, & 12) + (scores for items 7, 10, & 11)

Interpersonal

18 - (scores for items 14, 16, & 17) + (scores for items 13, 15, & 18)

Public Speaking

18 - (scores for items 19, 21, & 23) + (scores for items 20, 22, &24)

57

English for maritime purposes

Group Discussion Score
Interpersonal Score
Meetings Score
Public Speaking Score
To obtain your total score for the PRCA, simply add your sub-scores together.

Scores can range from 24-120. Scores below 51 represent people who have very low CA. Scores
between 51-80 represent people with average CA. Scores above 80 represent people who have high
levels of trait CA.

Norms for the PRCA-24 (based on over 40,000 college students; data from over 3,000 non-student
adults in a national sample provided virtually identical norms, within 0.20 for all scores.)
Mean

Standard Deviation

High

Low
< 51

Total Score

65.6

15.3

> 80

Group

15.4

4.8

> 20

< 11

Meeting

16.4

4.2

> 20

< 13

Dyad (Interpersonal)

14.2

3.9

> 18

< 11

Public

19.3

5.1

> 24

< 14

Source: McCroskey, J. C. (1982).

58

Mildred A. Rojo-Laurilla

Appendix C: Revised rubric used

Criteria

Vocal Elements
(voice level, pitch, tone, vocal variety, etc.)
Non-verbal elements
(hand and eye movements, other gestures/
movement, facial expression, etc.)
Content
(expression of ideas, development of
ideas, etc.)
Organization
(clearly dened and developed intro, body
and conclusion, presence of cohesive
devices like transition markers, etc.)
Audience Impact
(includes condence and uency, rapport
with audience, etc.)
Note: Put a check on the box which represents your rating for each of the criterion.
Legend:
1 I do not like your performance at all.
2 I did not see you perform this at all.
3 I believe you need a lot of improvement here.
4 I could not comment on your performance.
5 I nd your performance satisfactory.
6 I nd your performance good.
7 I nd our performance very good.
8 I nd your performance outstanding.