An Exploration of Chinese EFL Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Foreign Language Anxiety

An Exploration of Chinese EFL Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Foreign Language Anxiety KAIQI SHAO Hangzhou Normal University School of Foreign Languages Wenlan Street 1 Hangzhou, ZJ 310036, China Email: shaokaiqi@live.cn WEIHUA YU* Hangzhou Normal University School of Foreign Languages Wenlan Street 1 Hangzhou, ZJ 310036, China Email: weihuayu0806@163.com ZHONGMIN JI Hangzhou Normal University School of Foreign Languages Wenlan Street 1 Hangzhou, ZJ 310036, China Email: jzmrain@yahoo.com This study examined 510 Chinese students’ emotional intelligence (EI) and English classroom learning anxiety at three universities in Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China. Results obtained from the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF) and the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) showed the following results: (a) More than half of the Chinese college students possessed a middle to high level of EI and at least one third experienced language anxiety in English class; (b) Moderate to relatively strong associations were found among students’ EI, foreign language anxiety (FLA), English achievement, and self-rated English proficiency; (c) FLA had a significant and partial mediating effect on EI in predicting students’English achievement; and (d) FLA also significantly and partially mediated the relationship between EI and self-rated English proficiency. Results and implications are discussed in the context of the importance of emotional factors affecting the learning of English. Keywords: emotional intelligence; foreign language anxiety; second language learning; English proficiency; Chinese EFL students EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EI) IS THE ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions to assist thought, to under- stand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). As a theoretical construct, it incorporates all possible feelings and emotional skills into a unified framework (Goleman, 2001). Accordingly, it is theorized as allowing an individual to identify and regulate negative emotions and also to generate and utilize positive emotions to facilitate thinking (Ciarrochi & Mayer, 2007). Finally, it determines a person’s level of anger, frustration, and motivation (Goleman, 1995). With regard to language learning, MacIntyre (2002) stated that “to some extent language learning itself is prone to create intense emotion” (p. 67). Furthermore, to him, emotion “just might be the fundamental basis of motivation, one deserving far greater attention in the *Denotes Corresponding Author The Modern Language Journal, 97, 4, (2013) DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12042.x 0026-7902/13/917–929 $1.50/0 © 2013 The Modern Language Journal language learning domain” (pp. 45–68). Scovel (2000) concurs in this assessment of the impor- tance of emotion, finding that “emotions might well be the factor that most influences language learning, and yet is the least understood by researchers in second language acquisition (SLA)” (p. 140). Specifically, negative emotions such as anxiety, fear, stress, and anger can compromise learners’ optimal learning potential and largely reduce their language learning capacity. By contrast, positive emotions such as self-esteem, empathy, motivation, and enjoyment can put learners in an optimal state for language learning and greatly facilitate the language learning process (Arnold& Brown, 1999; Schumann, 1994; Stevick, 1995). Second language learners with a higher level of EI are better able to control impulses, manage stress, and maintain a positive attitude in the face of challenges and frustrations during the acquisition process (Pishghadam, 2009). In essence, EI claims to predict how learners will react to the demands of various second language learning and use contexts, which is crucial for their successful acquisition of the second language. Research devoted to themeasurement of EI has led to two distinct models (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). The ability model of EI employs a purely cognitive measure that aims to elicit test takers’ maximal performance on certain emo- tional information processing tasks. By contrast, the trait model of EI is concerned with behavioral dispositions and self-perceived abilities as mea- sured through self-reports that strongly reflect personality variables. Trait EI theory considers EI as a constellation of emotion-related self-percep- tions and dispositions. Such a theoretical propos- al is consistent not only with mainstream theories of personality but also with the bulk of the available evidence from multiple studies in different domains, such as life satisfaction, rumination, and coping styles (Petrides & Furn- ham, 2006; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). Extending their theoretical work into empirical research, Petrides and Furnham (2001, 2003) developed a research instrument, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). It has repeatedly been used in research and overwhelmingly found to be a highly valid and reliable instrument (Barlow,Qualter, & Stylianou, 2010; Freudenthaler et al., 2008; Mavroveli et al., 2008; Mikolajczak et al., 2007; Mikolajczak & Luminet, 2008; Swami, Begum, & Petrides, 2010). Based on the extensive research that docu- ments the importance of EI for learning overall, a key question pertains to the nature of foreign language anxiety (FLA). At themost general level it is characterized as the feeling of tension and apprehension associated with second language learning contexts, particularly in relation to speaking and listening tasks (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). Importantly, like MacIntyre and Gardner, Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986), too, see FLA as situation-specific and describe it as a distinct complex of self- perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning that arises from the uniqueness of the language learning process. It differs from the anxiety experienced in other fields of learning because of the socio- cultural and linguistic demands that it imposes on learners. In fact, an entire theoretical construct, the affective filter hypothesis, was posited by Krashen (1980) to recognize the impact of anxiety on language learning. Accord- ing to Krashen, when second language learners’ anxiety is high, their affective filter is raised and they become less able to process language input, fail to take in the available target language messages, and do not progress in their language acquisition. Along similar lines,MacIntyre (1995) proposed that language anxiety causes divided attention and therefore diminishes levels of cognitive performance that further impair lin- guistic performance. In turn, Horwitz (1986) noted that language learners with high levels of anxiety tend to be self-conscious, have difficulty concentrating, and fear making mistakes. As a result, they will avoid communicative situations, study for extended times, become forgetful, and even experience a mental block (Horwitz et al., 1986; Tobias, 1979). Echoing those observations, Broidy (2005) argued that students with higher language anxiety are prone to have irrational ideas, are less able to control their impulses, and cope less successfully than other learners. Not surprisingly, such performance im- pairment results in lower levels of achievement. Thus, a number of researchers have found negative relationships between language anxiety and various measures of achievement, though, in general, this correlation was moderate (Aida, 1994; Argaman&Abu–Rabia, 2002; Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert, 1999; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, & Dailey, 1999; Phillips, 1992). Indeed, Dewaele (2002) and Sparks and Ganschow (1991) had difficulty confirming the role of FLA in foreign language learning. However, Aida’s (1994) study of 94 English-speaking students studying Japanese at 918 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013) a U.S. university found that highly anxious students received significantly lower grades than students with low anxiety. Linking language performance, FLA, and EI, the following nexus thus becomes plausible: High EI individuals believe that they can regulate their emotional reactions over time, manage stress, and be assertive. They are also likely to be confident in their ability to communicate effec- tively in a foreign language, a quality that makes them less likely to experience FLA (Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008), which, using Krash- en’s terminology, was previously referred to as having a lowered affective filter. This common- sensical assumption seems to have been con- firmed in recent research focused on examining the connections between EI and FLA. For example, Dewaele et al. (2008), studied the effects of EI and a set of sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and FLA among 464 multilingual adults. They observed that participants’ EI and FLA scores were inversely correlated and that diverse sociobio- graphical variables, such as age of onset of acquisition, context of acquisition, and frequency of use, also linked with FLA. Theoretical and empirical insights such as these become particularly consequential for educational systems with considerable numbers of foreign language learners, such as China, the country that has the largest number of EFL students in the world. Most of these learners have little opportunity to speak English outside the classroom and often fear using the language to communicate in public or naturalistic settings, even when they are high achievers. There is, then, an urgent need to address their emotional needs and feelings during foreign language learning, for the obvious reason that knowledge on the part of teachers and administrators, even on the part of the students themselves, of how to reduce anxiety, might enhance learners’ ability to become successful language users and language learners. As Wang (2005) observed, “success in language learning is largely connected with how teachers take care of students’ emotional needs. When students’ emotional needs are met, then students in turn concentrate on learning the language” (p. 2). Situated in the Chinese EFL context, the present study aimed to examine students’ EI and FLA at the tertiary level with the goal of contributing to a more differentiated awareness and understanding of the relationship among three main types of learner variables: emotional intelligence, language anxiety, and English profi- ciency. The study was guided by the following research questions: RESEARCH METHOD Participants Participants in the study were 510 non-English major first year students at three universities in Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, 355 females and 155 males. We chose nonmajors in order to facilitate comparability among the learners. Students’ ages ranged from 16 to 21, with a mean age of 18.35 (SD¼ 1.75). All had passed the college entrance examination and registered for four-year full-time undergraduate study. They were required to take an English course for 3.5 hours per week for two academic years. At the end of the first academic year, all students took the College English Test 4 (CET4), the only national and official college English test in China. Procedures Participants were recruited by homeroom teachers and informed about the study’s focus on “their emotional intelligence and foreign language anxiety.” In September 2011, at the beginning of the academic year, participants completed the Chinese translated version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire– Short Form (TEIQue–SF) and the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) during a twenty minute homeroom period. They were informed that their scores on the CET 4 would be collected at their respective universities. In June 2012, after two semesters of study, participants’ EI and FLA scores were matched with their English record. Also, students self-rated their English proficiency, using a 5- point Likert scale to respond to the question: “What is your overall English proficiency?” RQ1. What are the general tendencies of students’ EI and FLA? RQ2. What are the associations among students’ EI, FLA, English achievement, and self-rated English proficiency? RQ3. Does FLA play a mediating role in the relationship between EI and English achievement? If so, what is the extent and significance of such mediation? RQ4. Does FLA play a mediating role in the relationship between EI and self-rated English proficiency? If so, what is the extent and significance of that mediation? Kaiqi Shao et al. 919 Instruments The study used two well-established assessment instruments, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Ques- tionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF) and the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is a measurement instrument based exclusively on trait EI theory. Its measures are based on an international scientific research program that aims to integrate various nontradi- tional intelligences (e.g., social intelligence, multiple intelligences) into mainstream models of personality and differential psychology (Pet- rides & Furnham, 2001, 2003). The TEIQue–SF is the short form of the TEIQue, comprised of 30 items with two items each from the 15 subscales (see the Appendix, items 1–30). The test yields scores on four primary factors: well-being, self- control, emotionality, and sociability, in addition to global trait EI. It is coded on a 7-point Likert scale continuum from “Completely Disagree (1)” to “Completely Agree (7).”Within a possible score range from 30 to 210, a total score of more than 150 indicates a well-developed EI; a total score of 120 to 150 suggests a moderately developed EI; and a total score of less than 120 reveals an underdeveloped EI. The internal consistency of the test is usually above .80 and has not dropped below .70 in any studies. The reliability (Cron- bach’s alpha) of the test in this study was found to be as high as .86. The validity of the test has also been confirmed by several researchers (Freudenthaler et al., 2008; Mavroveli et al., 2008; Mikolajczak et al., 2007; Petrides, Pe´rez– Gonza´lez, & Furnham, 2007). The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), the second instrument used in the study, was originally developed by Horwitz and her colleagues (1986) to meet the needs of the research community for a consistent way of measuring foreign language classroom anxiety. Based on students’ self-report, clinical experi- ence, a review of related instruments, and the researchers’ personal experience as language teachers, it differentiates three main sources of language anxiety. Communication apprehension is a type of shyness characterized by fear or anxiety when communicating with people in the foreign language. Test anxiety refers to a type of perfor- mance anxiety that stems from a fear of failure in examinations. The third component, fear of negative evaluation, is defined as “apprehension about others’ evaluation, avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself negatively” (Horwitz et al., 1986, pp. 127–128). Since its first presentation, the instrument has gained widespread popularity in researching the role of anxiety in various language learning contexts and thus became the instrument of choice for our study. The FLCAS contains 33 items (see Appendix, items 31–63) whose responses are recorded along a 5-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree (1)” to “strongly agree (5).” Within the total possible score range from 33 to 165, the following levels are generally identified: Scores above 132 signify high anxiety; scores between 99 and 132 denote a middle level of anxiety; and scores below 99 imply little or no anxiety. The test has shown very high internal consistency (above .90) in several studies (Aida, 1994; Horwitz, 1986; Liu & Jackson, 2008; Rodriguez & Abreu, 2003). In this study, the reliability of the scale as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was .92. The test–retest reliability of the questionnaire was .83 inHorwitz (1986) and .80 in Aida’s (1994) study. Its validity, too, has been supported or partially supported by research (e.g., Aida, 1994; Argaman & Abu–Rabia, 2002, 2002; Horwitz, 1986; Liu & Jackson, 2008; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Rodriguez & Abreu, 2003). Because half of the items (items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, and 28) on the TEIQue–SF and eight items (items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22 and 28) on the FLCAS are negatively worded, responses to these items were reversed and recoded. As a result, a high score on these two scales represents high trait EI or high language anxiety. RESULTS General Tendencies of EI and FLA To establish general tendencies of students’ EI and FLA, descriptive statistics such as the total scores, standard deviations, mean,median, mode, minimum, andmaximumwere calculated.Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the above parameters on the TEIQue–SF and FLCAS. As displayed in Table 1, the TEIQue–SF had a mean of 140.78, a median of 142, and mode of 135. With all three parameters falling into a middle range, one can conclude that more than half of the participants believed that they were aware of the emotional states of others as well as their own and capable of regulating these emotions according to environmental changes. For the FLCAS, the mean (92.03) and median (95) fell below the low-middle threshold score of 99; however the mode (104) was higher than the average score. Additional frequency analysis 920 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013) showed that at least one third of the students experienced moderate to high levels of anxiety in English classrooms, a result that is consistent with the finding in Liu and Jackson’s (2008) study. Table 1 also shows that students varied greatly on their EI and FLA scores, as indicated by the respective standard deviations (20.75; 20.42). Some students (e.g., with a score of 189) reported a very high level of emotional competency whereas others (e.g., with a score of 83) clearly exhibited a serious deficit in their emotional command. Likewise, some students (e.g., with a score of 36) felt extremely confident in classroom English learning while others (e.g., with a score of 161) were overwhelmed by their anxiety in English class. Associations of EI and FLA With Students’ English Achievement and Self-Rated English Proficiency To assess the relationships among students’ EI, FLA, English achievement, and self-rated English proficiency, a Pearson Product correlation analy- sis was performed. Table 2 presents correlations among all these variables. As shown in Table 2, students’ scores on EI and FLA (r ¼ �0.681, p < 0.01) were negatively and significantly correlated with each other. Students who scored higher on EI tended to score lower on FLA. This indicates that students who were better at controlling emotions in different situations were less likely to develop language anxiety in English classrooms, a result that supports the findings in Chuan–Ta’s (2003) study, which found that students’ FLA scores correlated significantly with each of the EI skills, EI total scores, and some EI problem areas. Table 2 also shows that students’ English achievement was positively and significantly related to their EI (r ¼ 0.327, p < 0.01) but negatively and signifi- cantly related to their FLA (r ¼ �0.320, p < 0.01). As illustrated by the regression lines in Figure 1, which visualize this information, students’ En- glish score scattered around the upward slant of EI and the downward slant of FLA. This implies that students who possessed a higher level of EI or experienced a lower level of FLA weremore likely to perform better in English examinations. Both the positive effect of EI on English success (Pishghadam, 2009; Shao, Yu, & Ji, 2012) and the negativ