anxiety، language، participants’، learning

of these parts are divided into low-anxiety group, mid-anxiety group, and high-anxiety group as shown in Table 4.3:

Table 4.3
Anxiety Groups
Groups
Anxiety score range
Low-anxiety
53-72
Mid-anxiety
73-94
High-anxiety
95-113

In this table, the participants whose anxiety mean score is 53 to 72 are placed in the low-anxiety group, the participants with an anxiety mean score of 73 to 94 are put in the mid-anxiety group, and the participants whose anxiety mean score range 95 to 113 are placed in the high-anxiety group. Table 4.4 shows the number and the percentage of the participants’ in each group:

Table 4.4
Participants’ Distribution in Anxiety Groups
Groups
Frequency
Percent
Low-anxiety
15
18.8%
Mid-anxiety
42
52.5%
High-anxiety
23
28.8%
Total
80
100.0

As can be seen in the above table, the percentages of the participants in low-anxiety, mid-anxiety, and high-anxiety groups are 18.8%, 52.5%, and 28.8%, respectively. Therefore, the majority of the participants were in the mid-anxiety group. The high-anxiety group occupied the second position. In contrast, the lowest number of the participants was found in the low anxiety group. Taken the mid- and high-anxiety groups as a whole, it can be said that nearly 81% of the participants experienced a mid to high level of language learning anxiety while the remaining 18.8% experienced a low level of anxiety.
To see if the above classification based on the participants’ mean, minimum, and maximum anxiety scores was valid or not, the One-Way ANOVA test was run as shown in Table 4.5. As can be seen, there is a significant difference between the groups’ mean scores of anxiety (P 0.001), so the participants were correctly classified into the three anxiety groups.

Table 4.5
ANOVA Results for Group Differences
Anxiety
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
11613.049
2
5806.525
197.645
.000
Within Groups
2262.151
77
29.379

Total
13875.200
79

Consequently, in response to the first research question that deals with the extent to which Iranian intermediate EFL learners experience anxiety in language classrooms, it can be said that most of the Iranian intermediate EFL learners in this study experienced a mid to high level of language learning anxiety.

4.1.2 Relationship between the Participants’ Level of Anxiety and Motivation
The second research question addresses the possible relationship between participants’ level of anxiety and their willingness and desire to learn English. More precisely, we want to find out if there is any relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ level of anxiety and their motivation.

4.1.2.1 Participants’ Scores on Motivation Questionnaire
Table 4.6 shows the participants’ motivation for learning English. As is evident in the table, the mean score of participants’ motivation to learn English is 94.10, their maximum level of motivation is 127, and their minimum level of motivation is 67.
Table 4.6
Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Motivation

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Motivation
80
67
127
94.10
13.192
Valid N (listwise)
80

Table 4.7 shows the participants’ motivation level in the three anxiety groups. As evident in this table, the mean score of the participants’ motivation in the low-anxiety group is 102.80, the mean score of the participants’ motivation in the mid-anxiety group is 94.98, and the mean score of the participants’ motivation in the high-anxiety group is 86.83, respectively. Accordingly, the low-anxiety group had the highest motivation to learn English. The mid-anxiety group occupied the second position in terms of the motivation learn English while the lowest level language learning motivation was found among the participants in the high-anxiety group.
Table 4.7
Participants’ Motivation in the Anxiety Groups
Groups
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Low-anxiety
15
102.80
13.176
Mid-anxiety
42
94.98
12.811
High-anxiety
23
86.83
10.012
Total
80
94.10
13.192

Accordingly, it appears that the participants with lower levels of the language learning anxiety were more motivated to learn English. In contrast, those participants with higher levels of the language learning anxiety were less motivated to learn English. In other words, there is an indirect relationship between language learning anxiety and language learning motivation. That is the higher the language learning anxiety, the less motivation to learn English and vice versa. To test this assumption; the correlation between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their motivation to learn English was calculated and shown in Table 4.8:
Table 4.8
Correlation between Language Learning Anxiety and Motivation

Anxiety
Motivation
Anxiety
Pearson Correlation
1
-.382**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N
80
80

As can be seen in the above table, the value of the correlation between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their motivation to learn English is -0.382, so there is a moderately negative correlation between the two variables. Besides, the value of the significance level suggests that this correlation is significant (P 0.01). Therefore, it can be said that there was a negative significant relationship between theparticipants’ language learning anxiety and their motivation to learn English.
In short, the participants with lower levels of the language learning anxiety were more motivated to learn English. By comparison, those participants with higher levels of the language learning anxiety were less motivated to learn English. This is due to the fact that there was a negative significant relationship between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their motivation to learn English.

4.1.3 Relationship between the Participants’ Language Proficiency, Level of Anxiety, and Motivation
This section addresses the relationship between the participants’ language proficiency, level of anxiety, and their motivation to learn English in order to find out if there is any relationship between them or not.

4.1.3.1 Participants’ Performance in the Proficiency Test
One of the variables in this study was the participants’ English proficiency measured by a paper-based TOEFL test to see whether there is any significant correlation between the participants’ language proficiency, level of anxiety, and their motivation. Table 4.9 shows how the participants performed in the English proficiency test:

Table 4.9
Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Scores in the proficiency test
Proficiency
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Scores
80
10
42
24.25
6.944
Valid N (listwise)
80

50

As the above table indicates, the total mean score of the particiants in the English proficiency test is 24.25 out of 50 which shows that the participants had a relatively poor performance in the proficiency test. Besides, the minimum score is 10 and the maximum score is 42. Table 4.10 presents the mean scores of male and female participants in the English proficiency test:
Table 4.10
Male and Female Participants’ Scores in the Proficiency Test
Gender

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Males
35
23.17
7.771
1.313
Females
4
5
25.09
6.186
.922

As shown in Table 4.10, the mean score of the male participants in the proficiency test is 23.17 and that of the female participants is 25.09. The maximum score for male participants is 32, and for female participants is 45, respectively. Therefore, female participants scored higher than male participants in the proficiency test. In other words, female participants had a better performance in the proficiency test than male participants did. In addition, the standard deviations related to male and female scores in the proficiency test are 7.771 and 6.186, respectively. This shows that female participants performed slightly more homogeneously in the proficiency test than male participants did. In the same vein, as Table 4.11 indicates, there is no significant difference between male and females’ performance in the proficiency test (P 0.05). In other words, both male and female participants performed similarly in the proficiency test.
Table 4.11
Results of Independent Samples t-test for Male and Female Performance in the Proficiency Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
Proficiency Test
F
Sig.
T
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower
Upper
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
1.819
.181
-1.229
78
.223
-1.917
1.560
-5.023
1.188

-1.195
63.800
.237
-1.917
1.605
-5.124
1.289

4.1.3.2 Relationship Between the Participants’ Language Proficiency & their Level of Anxiety
One of the purposes of the present study was to examine the relationship between the participants’ language proficiency and their level of anxiety. Table 4.12 shows the participants’ English proficiency in the three anxiety groups. As shown in this table, the mean score of the participants’ English proficiency in the low-anxiety group is 28.40; the mean score of the participants’ English proficiency in the mid-anxiety group is 24.88, and the mean score of their English proficiency in the high-anxiety group is 20.39, respectively. Consequently, the low-anxiety group had the highest level of English proficiency followed by the mid-anxiety group, and the high-anxiety group being ranked as the second and third.
Table 4.12
Participants’ English Proficiency in the Anxiety Groups
Groups
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Low-anxiety
15
28.40
6.501
Mid-anxiety
42
24.88
7.075
High-anxiety
23
20.39
4.989
Total
80
24.25
6.944

As was the case for the language learning anxiety, the participants with lower levels of the language learning anxiety were more proficient English learners. In contrast, the participants with higher levels of the language learning anxiety had lower English proficiency. In other words, there is a negative relationship between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their level of English proficiency. Table 4.13 shows the correlation between the participants’ language proficiency and their level of anxiety:
Table 4.13
Correlation Between Language Learning Anxiety and English Proficiency

Anxiety
Proficiency
Anxiety
Pearson Correlation
1
-.410**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N
80
80

As can be seen in the above table, the value of the correlation between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their English proficiency is -0.410, so there is a moderately negative correlation between the two variables. In addition, the value of the significance level indicates that this correlation is significant (P 0.01). Accordingly, it can be said that there was a negative significant relationship between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their English proficiency.
Generally speaking, the findings of the study concerning the relationship between the participants’ language proficiency and their level of anxiety suggested that the low-anxiety group had the highest level of English proficiency followed by the mid-anxiety group and the high-anxiety group. Consequently, the participants with lower levels of the language learning anxiety were more proficient English learners and vice versa as there was a negative significant relationship between the participants’ language learning anxiety and their English proficiency.

4.1.3.3 Relationship Between the Participants’ Language Proficiency and their Motivation
This sections aims to find how the participants’ motivation is related to their English language proficiency, and whether the participants with

این نوشته در پایان نامه ها و مقالات ارسال شده است. افزودن پیوند یکتا به علاقه‌مندی‌ها.