The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Foreign Language Anxiety, and Demotivational Factors in an English Preparatory Language Program

Research questions

To meet these objectives, the following research questions were addressed in this study:

1. What is the emotional intelligence (EI) level of the B1 Turkish students enrolled in an English language preparatory program?

2. What is the foreign language anxiety (FLA) level of the participants?

3. What is the demotivation factor (DF) level of the participants?

4. Is there any statistically significant relationship between EI, FLA, and DF among the students in the current program?

Literature review

This chapter establishes a basis for background information about emotional intelligence, foreign language anxiety, and demotivational factors during the foreign language learning process. The sections will be discussed in that order, and the final part focuses on recent studies.

Emotional intelligence (EI)

EI is an approach that gained popularity in the 1990s within contexts such as education, technology, psychology, work, and so forth ( Gök, 2020. Hafızoğlı, 2007, Şakrak, 2009. Mayer et al., 2008 ). As EI is a rather wide term to identify, there are several interpretations and prototypes from different points of view, which can be seen in the literature. Bar-On (1988) propounds the term of Emotional Quotient (EQ), which was in line with IQ according to him. EQ was seen as a variety of emotional and social skills that help people address their needs. Furthermore, a couple of years later, Salovey and Mayer (1990) introduced the phrase emotional intelligence, which has a different perspective in comparison to Bar-On’s model. It was identified as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990, p. 189). From these perspectives, it can be deduced, from the sense of EI, that curricula should promote emotional skills management; factors like self-control, analytical thinking, cooperative learning, and the need to concentrate on targets must be included. Learners may even make tremendous improvement if the instructors recognize and are responsive to learners who are shy, aggressive, weak, or pessimistic, particularly when they can observe and believe that such concepts can have an underlying problem. Therefore, with EI, learning is possible on a broader scale in both the learner and the instructor.

The major hypothesis of EI

The ability model by Mayer and Salovey (1990)

The theoretical aspects of EI were founded by Mayer and Salovey (1990) . To formalize the hypothesis, the terms were analyzed individually as emotion and intelligence to shape the definition and grasp the notion of emotional intelligence ( Salovey and Mayer, 1997 ). Several elaborative kinds of research were conducted to identify the underlying components of EI and the connection between emotions and intelligence. EI has to do with the individual receiving information about emotion and the responses of emotion. How individuals feel was pondered and examined, which consisted of the mental skills necessary in identifying and classifying emotions. Salovey and Mayer (1997) established the description of EI as “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (p. 35). They classified EI in four main categories, symbolizing a collection of skills ranging from bait to more challenging tasks:

Figure 1: The four-branch model of emotional intelligence

Source: Mayer and Salovey (1997)

The role of EI in foreign language learning

Goleman (1995) pointed out the connection between academic performance and emotional and social capacities. He indicated that EI is more important than IQ when it comes to forecasting success in life, including academic performance. Additionally, the argument that EI represents a major difference in academic achievement and the concept that EI can be taught and hence take place in educational curricula is still commonly considered in educational literature ( Parker et al., 2009 ). According to Goleman, EI is essential for individual and institutional development, as it deals with the awareness and assessment of the behavioral model. In the educational context, EI supports academic achievement while decreasing anxiety and negative emotions in the learning process for the school, educators, and learners.

Foreign language anxiety (FLA)

During language learning, students evaluate their abilities. This self-esteem can usually promote learning by supporting them to improve techniques to increase their language skills ( Maclntyre et al., 1997 ). However, it can be frustrating and demotivating for highly anxious learners to recognize their potential weaknesses ( MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989 ). The term FLA was first launched by Horwitz et al. (1986) as a divergent and parted hypothesis for foreign language learning (FLL). In addition, the term was broadened, supported, and developed by MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1989) study. According to obtained results, a weak correlation was found between general anxiety and FLA. It was recognized as a separate type of anxiety and was categorized as communicative. Likewise, Gardner (1991) widened the term of classical intelligence and stated that language development is not confined to syntax, phonetics, and meaning. As Ellis (1994) reports, many other parameters, especially second language learning, may trigger language acquisition. These parameters also include effective variables such as anxiety. For language classes, FLA is a significant issue that needs to be well described and clarified ( Horwitz et al., 1989 ). Even though learners are proficient in other subjects at school, they become nervous and anxious during foreign language learning. Students have indicated that they tend to sweat or freeze during English classes. Moreover, they can easily forget their previous knowledge of some grammar rules because of their high degree of anxiety ( Horwitz et al., 1986 ). This insecurity can arise from the fact that students see themselves as vulnerable towards their friends and teachers during language lessons ( Tsui, 1996 ).

According to Horwitz et al. (1986) , FLA is “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (p. 128). Horwitz and Young (1991) , postulated two approaches to identifying FLA. The first one, the transfer approach, FLA was identified as the manifestation of another sort of anxiety. The second approach, named the unique approach, was identified as the accomplishment in foreign languages connected to FLA and not to other sources of anxiety. As a result, examining various measures of competence, various studies, and even several different theoretical approaches, anxiety has shown a detrimental impact on FLL success. Anxiety generates some of the strongest simple causal relationships between attitudes and proficiency in various circumstances. The next part of this article discusses the role of FLA in language learning.

The role of FLA in language learning

The presence of anxiety has progressively become a significant problem within the learning environment. The results of previous research have revealed that anxiety is one of the major parameters which affects language learning in terms of distracting learners while performing their tasks ( Tse, 2000. Wörde, 2003 ). The impact of anxiety is adverse and has a deteriorative effect on learners’ achievements. For students of a foreign language, anxiety raises some potential issues, as it can conflict with the acquisition, retention, and development of the language ( MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991 ). Regarding the urgency of the levels of anxiety and to define the term thoroughly, Horwitz et al. (1986) defined FLA as situation-specific anxiety. Moreover, the sub-factors of FLA were also identified to assess learners in a social and academic setting. These were communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. On the other hand, Young (1991) stated potential reasons for FLA in terms of triggering factors during the language learning process, namely personal and interpersonal anxieties, learner beliefs about FLL, instructor beliefs about language teaching, instructor-learner interaction, classroom procedures, and language testing. Horwitz and Cope (1986) suggested that instructors help their students to reduce their anxiety levels by dealing with situations that lead to anxiety so that classes can become anxiety-free spaces. According to Price (1991) , it was revealed that educators have an essential mission to aid in dealing with the anxieties of their learners. Educators should be familiar with the concept of FLA; instead of covering the problem or accusing the learner, educators should help learners cope with the problem ( Horwitz and Cope 1986 ).

Motivation and Demotivation

Recent research has shown that motivation is a crucial element in language acquisition which demonstrates its essential function for efficient and productive English language teaching (ELT) ( Aygün, 2017 ). Dörnyei (1994) emphasized the significance of motivation in language learning and identified it as “one of the main determinants of second/ foreign language achievement” (p. 273). In another study, Dörnyei (1998) reported that, despite appropriate curriculum and education programs, learners experienced difficulties to achieve the language objectives without adequate motivation. Apart from motivation, demotivation was recently introduced by Dörnyei (2001) as “the specific external forces” which reduce or lessen motivation during the learning process (p.143). In line with this definition, demotivation is a decrease or drop in the level of motivation starting from an external force before being an internalized process (Ghadirzadeh et al., 2012). Dörnyei and Ushioda (2013) proposed three components to deal with demotivation during the learning process. These components are powerful distractions, the gradual loss of interest, and difficulties in achieving goals. Powerful distractions cannot be seen as a demotivating factor. In other words, rather than decreasing the existing motivation for the main activity, their distracting impact is because they offer more conspicuous alternatives. The gradual loss of interest should not be associated with demotivation, since it can be due to multiple factors such as exhaustion or aging. As the third component on difficulties in achieving goals, there are situations in which a student realizes the discomfort or high cost of achieving the objective. The explanation of why this should not be considered as demotivation is because it requires inner contemplation procedures, and there are not any external inductions. The outcome would have been different if someone else persuaded the student that it requires too much to achieve the goal. This other individual could then be considered an external force that demotivates the learner.

The role of DF in foreign language learning

Learner demotivation is a factor that has not been thoroughly investigated, and research has not developed a specific structure to address this issue. Demotivation concerns negative forces or demonstrators that affect the learning experience of students. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2013) relate demotivation to several negative factors that affect students’ motivation. In contrast to motivation, demotivation and the related factors have been ignored, particularly in the language teaching context. The major components of student demotivation were identified by Dörnyei (1994) at the levels of learners, language, and learning situation. According to Gorham and Christophel (1992) , the behaviors of instructors are the major determinants of learner demotivation. Zhang (2007) supported the hypothesis that the incompetence of an instructor has a great deal of impact on learner demotivation. In addition to instructor inadequacy on teaching, Dörnyei (1998) listed certain demotivation factors as shown in Figure 2 :

Figure 2: Main demotivating factors identified by Dörnyei (1998)

Source: Authors

The relationship between EI, FLA, and DF

The performance of learners in a FL class can be influenced by various parameters such as peer pressure, readiness for the lesson, and the level of support provided. Moreover, several conditions such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety may influence students’ participation during the lessons ( Méndez and Cárdenas, 2014 ). The study aimed to find out the effect of emotions among Mexican FL learners on their motivation towards English. The researchers attempted to reveal the affecting factors of emotions and the influencing factors related to the social context during the FLL process. Although there was not an adequate number of studies investigating these three variables, the findings of the studies showed that the variables have a coherent connection, and each of them can affect one another. Therefore, they cannot be seen as totally independent and disparate. However, in the literature, there were no studies conducted that covered EI, FLA, and DF together yet. Chao (2003) was the first researcher who concentrated solely on EI and FLA, looking at their relationship among foreign language learners in Taiwan. The study consisted of 306 English students in compliance with their research criteria. The focus of the research was to investigate the connection between FLA and EI skills. For data collection, the FLA scale (FLCAS) ( Horwitz et al., 1986 ) and the Exploring and Developing EI Skills scale (EDEIS) were used. According to the results, Taiwanese students who had a high degree of FLA had less control of their EI abilities. The findings revealed that there is a connection between EI and FLA. Nevertheless, the study’s results were accurate only for Taiwanese learners and cannot become a sweeping statement for other communities.

Rouhani (2007) indicates that learners’ EI levels may trigger their FLA. The study aimed at exploring the impact of a cognitive-affective curriculum that involved literary quotations included as reading resources, group and pair work tasks, and discussion sessions both on EI and FLA. The learners were allowed to empathize with the people in the reading texts or construed to situations and contexts and display their emotions and thoughts by using their emotional ability to solve and identify the issues. The research revealed that not only the EI skills but also the FLA results of the learners in the experimental group underwent significant change in comparison with the control group. The results showed that the EI scores of participants dramatically improved, but their FLA scores considerably decreased. Therefore, it can be inferred that FLA and EI contributed to each other. Ergün (2011) carried out a study aimed to investigate the relationship between EI skills and the FLA of university students. The data were collected from 436 students, and the Turkish-adapted FLCAS and EQ-i were the data collection tools used to examine the relationship between the variables of age, gender, FL backgrounds, anxiety levels, and the students’ previous language exposure. According to the results, background knowledge of FL, gender, and EI levels were found to have an impact on FLA.

Furthermore, gender and high-school factors made significant differences in the result of EI skills of the learners. In a similar study, López and Tun (2017) conducted research aimed to determine the obstacles in oral participation, as well as motivating and demotivating factors for students during speaking sessions. Data were collected from the students’ emotions journals to define the reasons that hampered learner engagement. Moreover, the students’ ideas were elicited by the interviews to expand on the results. The results revealed that male participants felt a broad range of negative emotions, whereas female participants coped with a limited amount. In contrast, female participants often feel negative feelings while male participants rarely feel them. The findings also indicated that the way men and women interpret and confront situations differs, as well as how they control the emotions produced by the context. In contrast, Kılıç (2018) examined the relationship between the FLA and EI levels of preparatory students at a public university. The data were collected from 158 A1 level students via the FLCAS and the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). The participants’ responses were analyzed regarding their gender and their success levels. The results showed that there was a weak negative correlation between EI and FLA. Based on these overviews, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the existing literature by investigating the connection between EI, FLA, and demotivation among language learners enrolled in English preparatory program at a Turkish university.

Research design

In this study, a correlational quantitative method approach was employed, which was based on a survey. The data were collected to find the levels of EI, FLA, and DF separately, as well as to find the relationship between them in foreign language learning among the preparatory, intermediate-level foundation university students in İstanbul, Turkey. For the data collection procedure, Aygün’s demotivation scale (2017) was used to determine the DF among the participants, whereas Acar’s (2001) Emotional Intelligence Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), adapted and translated into Turkish, was administered to examine the students’ EI level. Finally, the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) by Horwitz et al. (1986) was given to the participating students to reveal their FLA level. The obtained data were analyzed via SPSS 28.

Settings and participants

This study was conducted at the English Preparatory Program of a foundation university (nonprofit and private) located in İstanbul, Turkey. At the beginning of the academic year, the preparatory program requires all learners (whose majors are English) to take an English proficiency exam to assess them at the appropriate level (from A1 to C1) for the preparatory year. The learners are placed according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels at the end of the proficiency test. There were 61 females (41%) and 87 males (59%), whose age range was between 18 to 23 years old. The total number of the participants was 148, and they were placed in the intermediate level after the module exam ( Table 1 )

Emotional Intelligence Quotient Inventory (EQ-i)

The Emotional Intelligence Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) was developed by Bar-On in 1980 to measure individuals’ EI levels and constitute a way of self-reporting. The questionnaire contains 133 questions, which includes 5 meta-factors and 15 sub-factors of EI as displayed in Table 2 :

Table 2: EQi Scale

Table 2 EQi Scale

Source: Bar-On (1980)

As shown in the table, the first meta-factor, intrapersonal EQ, consists of five sub-factors (selfregard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, and self-actualization) in 40 questions. The second meta-factor, interpersonal EQ, consists of three sub-factors (empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationship) in 29 questions. The third meta-factor, stress management, consists of two sub-factors (stress tolerance and impulse control) in 18 questions. The fourth meta-factor, adaptability, consists of three sub-factors (reality testing, flexibility, and problemsolving), and it involves 26 questions. Finally, the last meta-factor, general mood, consists of two subfactors (optimism and happiness), and it has 15 questions. The scale was designed as a Likert scale, which includes five different answers ranging from 1 (very seldom or not true for me) to 5 (very often for me or true for me). The test-retest reliability and the consistency were assessed, and the coefficients ranged from 0,78 to 0,92 and from 0,55 to 0,82, thus showing a high consistency ( Bar-On, 1997a).

This study used Bar-On’s (1997) EQ-i, which was adapted into Turkish by Acar (2001) by eliminating some items which were neither relevant to the subfactors nor clear enough for Turkish participants to respond appropriately. The questionnaire included 88 items based on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

Findings

The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationships between EI, FLA, and DF in English-language preparatory programs offered at a Turkish university. The data relating to EI, FLA, and DF scales were collected and analyzed through SPSS. The differences in DF were investigated as well. Finally, the possibility of predicting changes in DF as a result of changes in EI and FLA was assessed. This section reports the findings of the quantitative data analysis, which are presented by the research questions.

Figure 3: The main schemes of demotivation and question distributions

Source: Aygün (2017)

Findings regarding the EI level of the participants

Considering the findings of the EI level of the participants, the mean values of the Emotional Intelligence scale’s meta-factors, which are intrapersonal (80 ± 7.39), interpersonal (40.95 ± 5.46), stress management (36.87 ± 5.81), adaptability (40.79 ± 4.42), and general mood (29.5 ± 3.83). In other words, the participants showed a high level of intrapersonal skills, but a medium level of interpersonal, stress management, and adaptability skills. Finally, the general mood was the weakest EI meta-factor (See Table 3 ).

Findings regarding the FLA level of the participants

Regarding the obtained results concerning the FLA level of the participants, a high score (99.19 ± 16.81) was detected, indicating a moderate level of anxiety (See Table 4 ).

Findings regarding the DF level of the participants

As for the DF level of the participating students, Table 5 reports the mean value of the DF scale scores. According to the results, the average score was 79 ± 22.83. This shows that the participants experienced a medium level of demotivation.

Additionally, the mean values of the demotivation sources ranged from Min = 2.27 to Max = 2.82. Past experiences had the highest mean value with 2.82, while the form of instruction had the lowest mean value with 2.27 (See Table 6 ).

Considering the first sub-factor of demotivation, the mean values of the elements in the personal reasons category are presented in Table 7 . These values ranged between Min. = 1.78 and Max. = 3.32. The statement I have the feeling that I just study to pass the preparatory class had the highest mean value with 3.32, and I am not in favor of having English as the medium of instruction in my department had the lowest mean value with 1.78 (See Table 7 ).

Table 4: Mean value for the foreign language anxiety score

Table 4 Mean value for the foreign language anxiety score

Source: Authors

Table 5: Mean value for the demotivating factors score

Table 5 Mean value for the demotivating factors score

Source: Authors

Table 6: Descriptive statistics for sources of demotivation

Table 6 Descriptive statistics for sources of demotivation

Source: Authors

Furthermore, Table 8 presents the mean values for the elements within past experiences as a subfactor of demotivation. According to the results, the values ranged from Min. = 2.27 to Max. = 3.24. The statement I have not learned anything as to English since primary school had the highest mean value with 3.24, and I have not been informed about how to study English so far had the lowest mean value with 2.27.

Additionally, the mean values concerning the features of the preparatory school programs are presented. According to the results, the mean values ranged between Min. = 2.03 and Max. = 2.93. Compulsory attendance decreases my motivation had the highest mean value with 2.93, and Weekly syllabi are quite intensive had the lowest mean value with 2.03 ( Table 9 ).

Finally, the mean values for the elements concerning the form of instruction as a sub-factor of demotivation are presented in Table 10 . According to the results, the mean values ranged between Min. = 1.56 and Max. = 2.85. The statement, The English that I learn here does not prepare me for academic English in my department had the highest mean value with 2.85, and Teachers who do not encourage us to participate in the lessons had the lowest mean value with 1.68.

Findings regarding the relationship between EI, FLA, and DF

The correlation coefficients of the obtained findings revealed that there was a significant positive relationship between the two datasets. The correlation coefficient between DF and FLA is r = .585, p = .000 < .05, r = .236, p = .004 < .05 between DF and EI, and r = .442, p = .000 < .05 between FLA and EI ( Şakrak (2009) ).