Department of Foreign Language Education Program of English Language Teaching AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY İrem ALTUNEL Master’s Thesis Ankara, (2018) With leadership, research, innovation, high quality education and change Department of Foreign Language Education Program of English Language Teaching AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY ZİHNİYET VE YABANCI DİL ÖĞRENME KAYGISI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİYE YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA İrem ALTUNEL Master’s Thesis Ankara, (2018) Acceptance and Approval Abstract This study aimed to investigate the relationship between mindset and foreign language anxiety (FLA) of EFL learners at both a private and a state university in Turkey. Quantitative methods were used and two Likert-scales, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) and Dweck’s Mindset Instrument (DMI) were administered to collect a set of data. Turkish versions of the both scales were used during this phase. Four demographic factors namely gender, type of department, type of high school graduated from, and L2 proficiency level were used as variables. Besides, three sub-dimensions of language anxiety, which are communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation, were also examined. The study was conducted at the prepatory school of Gazi University and Atılım University, with 203 participants. The data obtained from the scales were analyzed through both descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS Statistics 21.0. Both parametric and non-parametric tests were applied depending on whether the data was normally distributed. The findings revealed that there was no statistically significant correlation between mindset and foreign language anxiety. Moreover, their mindset and foreign language classroom anxiety did not differ significantly in regard to type of department, type of high school graduated from, and L2 proficiency level. However, it was found out that participants’ mindset differed significantly in regard to gender, and female participants tended to have a growth mindset more than male participants. Moreover, a positive correlation at a statistically significant level was attained between department of study and the sub-dimension of fear of negative evaluation. Keywords: mindset, foreign language anxiety, EFL learners, gender, type of department, type of high school graduated from, L2 proficiency level. Öz Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesinde ve bir özel üniversitede yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen öğrencilerin zihniyet ve yabancı dil öğrenme kaygısı arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Bu amaçla, çalışmada nicel yöntemler kullanılmış olup, veri toplama sürecinde iki Likert ölçek, Yabancı Dil Sınıf Kaygı Ölçeği ve Zihniyet Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Her iki ölçeğinde katılımcıların ana dili olan Türkçe versiyonu uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada katılımcıların cinsiyeti, okunulan bölüm türü, (sözel vs sayısal), mezun olunan lise türü ve şu anki İngilizce yeterlik seviyesi, 4 demografik değişken olarak kullanılmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra, yabancı dil öğrenme kaygısının 3 altboyu olan iletişim kaygısı, test kaygısı ve olumsuz değerlendirilme korkusu da incelenmiştir. Araştırma, Gazi Üniversitesi ve Atılım Üniversitesi hazırlık okulunda toplam 203 katılımcıya uygulanmıştır. Her iki üniversitedeki katılımcı sayısı birbiriyle dengelidir. Ölçeklerden elde edilen nicel veriler SPSS İstatistik 21.0 kullanılarak analiz edilmiş ve hem betimsel hem de çıkarımsal istatistik yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, veri analizinde verinin normal dağılıp dağılmamasına göre hem parametrik hem de parametrik olmayan testler uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, zihniyet ile yabancı dil kaygısı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Dahası, öğrencilerin zihniyetleri ve yabancı dil öğrenme kaygısı, kayıtlı oldukları bölümlere, mezun oldukları lise türüne ve şu anki İngilizce seviyelerine göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir. Öte yandan, öğrencilerin zihniyetleri cinsiyete göre anlamlı derece farklılık göstermiş olup, kız öğrencilerin erkek öğrencilere göre daha fazla gelişim zihniyetine sahip oldukları görülmüştür. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin bölüm türleri ile olumsuz değerlendirilme korkusu alt boyutu arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Anahtar sözcükler: zihniyet, yabancı dil öğrenme kaygısı, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen öğrenciler, cinsiyet, okunulan bölüm türü, mezun olunan lise türü, İngilizce yeterlik seviyesi. Devoted to my beloved family, Orhan, Füsun and Pınar ALTUNEL & to all of my students who are not afraid of facing their fears and worries… Acknowledgements This thesis, without a doubt, has been a truly life-changing experience for me and the biggest test of my own commitment, patience and perseverance, so it is not a fair task to acknowledge all the people who made this M.A. thesis possible with a few words. However, I will try to do my best to express my sincere gratitude to all those people who have given their invaluable support and assistance both scientifically and emotionally throughout this journey. First and foremost, I offer my most heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor Asst.Prof.Dr. İsmail Fırat Altay for his understanding, encouragement, motivation and expertise. Under his guidance I successfully overcame many difficulties and learned a lot. I am also extremely indebted to the jury members Prof.Dr.Mehmet Demirezen and Prof.Dr.İsmail Hakkı Erten for their valuable advice and constructive feedback. I am also deeply grateful to Prof.Dr.Carol Dweck and Prof.Dr. Elaine K Horwitz for letting me use the scales they developed. You both have been the sources of inspiration for this thesis. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Many special thanks go to Assoc.Prof.Dr.Tülin Otbiçer Acar for guiding and helping me a lot during data analysis. I shall extend my special thanks to my dear friends and colleagues working at Atılım University and Gazi University. Without your support and help during data collection, it would have been much harder to conduct this study. I am also extremely thankful to each and every participant of this study for their effort and time to help out. Above all, this thesis would never have been possible without my beloved family, Orhan, Füsun and Pınar Altunel. I do not know how to thank you enough for providing me with the opportunity to be where I am today. During the inevitable ups and downs of writing an M.A. thesis, you were always there for me during my toughest and happiest moments. I dedicate this thesis to you all. “I can no other answer make, but, thanks, and thanks.” - Shakespeare, cited in Craig (1914). Table of Contents Abstract ii Öz iii Acknowledgements v List of Tables x List of Figures xi Symbols and Abbreviations xii Chapter 1 Introduction 13 Statement of the Problem 14 Aim and Significance of the Study 15 Research Questions 16 Assumptions 17 Limitations 17 Definitions 18 Conclusion 19 Chapter 2 Literature Review 20 Introduction 20 Implicit Theories 20 Mindset 23 Foreign Language Anxiety 31 Components of Foreign Language Anxiety 34 Sources of Foreign Language Anxiety 36 Effects of Foreign Language Anxiety 38 Factors Associated with Foreign Language Anxiety 40 Mindset and Foreign Language Anxiety 44 Conclusion 46 Chapter 3 Methodology 47 Introduction 47 Research Design 47 Setting 49 Participants 49 Data Collection 52 Instruments 53 Data Analysis 57 Conclusion 60 Chapter 4 Findings 61 Introduction 61 Preliminary Analyses 61 The Reliability Analysis of FLCAS 61 Exploratory Factor Analysis and the Reliability Analysis of Dweck’s Mindset Instrument 63 Main Findings 65 Research Questions 65 The correlation between mindset and foreign language anxiety 66 Participants’ level of foreign language anxiety 68 The percentage of participants holding fixed and growth mindsets 69 The correlation between participants’ gender and their particular mindset 70 The correlation between participants’ gender and foreign language anxiety 70 The correlation between participants’ type of department and their mindset 72 The relationship between participants’ type of department and foreign language anxiety 73 The relationship between graduated high school type and mindset 76 The relationship between graduated high school type and foreign language anxiety 77 The relationship between participants’ L2 proficiency level and their particular mindset 82 The relationship between participants’ and foreign language classroom anxiety 83 Conclusion 86 Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusions and Suggestions 87 Introduction 87 Discussion 87 Mindset and foreign languge anxiety 87 Students’ level of foreign language anxiety 88 The percentage of participants adopting a fixed or growth mindset 89 Gender and mindset 90 Gender and foreign language anxiety 91 Mindset and department of study 94 Foreign language anxiety and department 94 Mindset and graduated high school type 95 Foreign language anxiety and graduated high school type 96 Foreign language anxiety and L2 proficiency level 98 Summary of the study 99 Conclusion 102 Limitations of the Study 104 Pedagogical Implications 104 Suggestions for Further Research 108 References 110 APPENDIX-A: Volunteer Consent Form 127 APPENDIX-B: Instruments in Their Original Forms 128 Dweck’s Mindset Instrument (Dweck, 2006) 128 APPENDIX-C: Instruments in Turkish 133 APPENDIX-D: Screenshots from Brainology online program (Dweck, 2008) 138 APPENDIX-E: The article used in Brainology workshop (Retrieved from www.mindsetworks.com) 140 APPENDIX-F: Ethics Committee Approval 143 APPENDIX-G: Declaration of Ethical Conduct 144 APPENDIX-H: Thesis Originality Report 145 APPENDIX-I: Yayımlama ve Fikrî Mülkiyet Hakları Beyanı 146 List of Tables Table 1 Summary of the mindset intervention studies 30 Table 2 Demographic Information about the Participants 52 Table 3 Data Collection Instruments 56 Table 4 Data Analysis 59 Table 5 The Reliability Analysis of FLCAS 62 Table 6 Exploratory Factor and the Reliability Analyses of Mindset Scale 63 Table 7 Principal Component Analysis 65 Table 8 Test of Normality: Shapiro-Wilk Test Analysis 67 Table 9 Spearman Brown Correlation Coefficients of the Variables 67 Table 10 Descriptive Statistics: Levels of FLA and Its Sub-dimensions 68 Table 11 Descriptive Statistics: The percentage of learners who hold fixed and growth mindset, and who are undecided 69 Table 12 Chi-Square Test of Independence Analysis 70 Table 13 Test of Normality: Shapiro-Wilk Test Analysis 71 Table 14 The Analyses of Independent Sample T-Test and Mann-Whitney U Test 72 Table 15 Chi-Square Test of Independence Analysis 73 Table 16 Test of Normality: Shapiro-Wilk Test Analysis 74 Table 17 The Analyses of Independent Sample T-Test and Mann-Whitney U Test 75 Table 18 Chi-Square Test of Independence Analysis 76 Table 19 Test of Normality: Shapiro-Wilk Test Analysis 78 Table 20 The Analyses of One Way ANOWA and Kruskal Wallis Test 80 Table 21 Chi-Square Test of Independence Analysis 82 Table 22 Test of Normality: Shapiro-Wilk Test Analysis 83 Table 23 The Analyses of One-Way ANOWA and Kruskal Wallis Test 84 Table 24 Post Hoc (LSD Test) Analysis 85 Table 25 Summary of the reviewed literature on the relationship between gender and language anxiety 93 List of Figures Figure 1. Mindset Graphic from Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Dweck, 2006) 26 Figure 2. Types of Anxiety 32 Figure 3. Components of Foreign Language Anxiety 34 Figure 4. Effects of Foreign Language Anxiety 40 Figure 5. Factors associated with FLA 44 Figure 6. The Eigenvalues of Items in Mindset Scale 65 Symbols and Abbreviations FLCA: Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety FLCAS: Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale DMI: Dweck’s Mindset Instrument CA: Communication Apprehension TA: Test Anxiety FNE: Fear of Negative Evaluation L2: Second/Foreign language EFL: English as a Foreign Language xii Chapter 1 Introduction Foreign language anxiety (FLA), also known as xenoglossophobia, is considered as one of the most powerful predictors of language achievement and has long been the focus of teachers and educators in the world. Some specific factors that lead to foreign language anxiety have been identified in various studies, and it is commonly believed that foreign language anxiety impairs language learning (e.g., Horwitz, 2001; MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994b; Woodrow, 2006). To clarify, variables such as foreign language proficiency, (e.g., Hewitt and Stephenson, 2012), learners’ personality traits (Dewaele, 2013) and low self- esteem (MacIntyre, 1999; Zare and Riasati, 2012) are claimed to trigger foreign language anxiety. In addition to these factors, many other different factors have received research attention: age (Ezzi 2012; Gandhimathi, 2016; Gerencheal and Horwitz, 2016), academic achievement (e.g., Hashemi and Abbasi, 2013; Kunt and Tüm, 2010; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey and Daley, 1999), perfectionism (Gregersen and Horwitz, 2002); competitiveness among learners and evaluation coming from the classmates (Bailey, 1983); societal interference and lack of preparation (Wei, 2014); error correction techniques (Gregersen, 2003; Young, 1991) and self- presentation concerns (Cohen and Norst, 1989). When the literature in Turkish EFL context was reviewed, it was seen that fairly limited research, which mainly focused on the relationship between anxiety and gender (Öztürk and Gürbüz, 2012), sources and effects of language anxiety (Aydin et al. 2006), how language anxiety affects learners’ achievement (Dalkılıç, 2001), and how technology affects language anxiety (Aydin, 2011), was carried out. Most of the mentioned studies did not come to an agreement about how FLA influence learners, and undoubtedly, more research should be conducted especially in Turkish context keeping in mind lack of consensus in the present literature on this topic. In addition to all aforementioned variables, another strong predictor of language achievement is the mindset that learners adopt, fixed vs. growth mindset, a famous and broadly embraced concept suggested by Dweck (2006). According to her, students who carry fixed mindset view the source of intelligence is a virtue we are born with, stable and unchangeable whereas those with a growth mindset believe that intelligence is malleable, changeable and can be improved with persistence. Fairly limited empirical research has been carried out in this particular issue. In 2008, a research was studied by Dweck to explore the achievement relevance between mindset and maths/science. The correlation between gender and mindset (Kornilova et al., 2009; Macnamara and Rupani, 2017; Spinath, Spinath and Riemann, Yan et al., 2014) and between mindset and academic achievement (Castella et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2014) has also been explored in numerous studies. Even though some research finds a significant correlation between fixed-minded students and higher test anxiety (Bandura and Jourden, 1991; Martocchio, 1994; Northrop, 2014; Trudeau, 2009), there is no empirical study known seeking to identify the relationship between mindset and foreign language anxiety. Therefore, an important gap in the literature about this issue is indisputable, and it is required to be considered as an important research of field by both Turkey and world-wide. The ultimate goal of the current study is the determination of any existing connection of mindset to foreign language learning anxiety of EFL learners in Turkey by taking four demographic variables namely gender, type of department, the high school graduated from, and L2 proficiency level, into consideration. Besides, three sub-dimensions of foreign language classroom anxiety suggested by Horwitz et al. (1986), which are communication apprehension (CA), test anxiety (TA), and fear of negative evaluation (FNE), are also examined. Firstly, the statement of the problem, aim and significance of the study, the main research question and sub-research questions are explained. Then, assumptions of the study, limitations of the study, and definitions of the key terms that give this study a strong base are discussed in this chapter. Statement of the Problem Foreign language learning is a distinct area which is closely related to the psychology of human, and a large body of research has been conducted to investigate the correlation of various affective variables regarding language learning (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993; Horwitz et al., 1986; Young, 1990). As a result of these studies, it has been clearly seen that one of the critical emotive elements that has a significant impact on foreign language learning is foreign language anxiety (Aida, 1994). Horwitz (2000) asserts that “The potential of anxiety to interfere with learning and performance is one of the most accepted phenomena in psychology and education.” (p. 256). Many research studies have proved that anxiety affects language learning in a negative way (Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999; Yan and Horwitz, 2008). As well as the other psychological factors that affect language learning including anxiety, mindsets (fixed vs. growth mindset), which can be defined as learners’ core inner beliefs upon which they base their view of themselves and of the world, also shape our understanding of language learning. In line with this, learners’ academic achievement is correlated with their mindset (Dweck, 2008) and it surely has an indispensable role in language achievement. Research suggests that one’s mindset can have tremendous effects on different parts of our lives (Mangels et al., 2006). It is also evident that the impacts of FLA, which are mostly detrimental, have been already revealed. (Bailey, Onwuegbuzie and Daley, 1999; MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991b, 1994a, 1994b). However, what remains unclear is if there is an association between mindset and foreign language anxiety level of EFL learners. Very little research has been done to discover the correlation between mindset of EFL learners and foreign language classroom anxiety. Therefore, by aiming to fill the gap in the literature, the current research study will examine the possible existence of a relationship between mindset and FLA. While examining this relationship, four demographic variables namely gender, type of department, graduated high school type L2 proficiency level, and three sub-dimensions of foreign language anxiety (FLA), which are communication apprehension (CA), test anxiety (TA), and fear of negative evaluation (FNE), will also be taken account. In the next chapter, a clear background image will be created by summarizing implicit theories, mindset, and foreign language anxiety. Aim and Significance of the Study The present study will be a remarkable endeavor in determining and being aware of what kind of mindsets EFL learners have and what the level of their foreign language anxiety is by taking four variables namely gender, type of department, type of high school graduated from, and L2 proficiency level, into consideration. Moreover, the study will try to explore any existing correlation between mindset and foreign language classroom anxiety. This study will also provide recommendations on how to move from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset, and how to decrease the level of foreign language classroom anxiety of students during language learning. The findings of the study will be of great benefit to students, instructors, and the researcher herself. Firstly, for students, it can raise more awareness about the particular mindset that they adopt, and how anxious they feel during the process of language learning. Therefore, those who have a fixed mindset will attempt to change it to a growth mindset in order to achieve more success in their language learning process. Also, considering the revealed learners who adopt a fixed mindset and who are anxious, lessons and curriculums can be planned accordingly, and even some training and intervention programs that aim to both teach learners the growth mindset and its benefits and help them decrease their level of foreign language classroom anxiety can be arranged. Furthermore, by considering each learner’s mindset, instructors can have the chance to apply particular strategies and activities into foreign language classrooms so that anxiety level can decrease more. In addition to this, by gaining a deeper insight about students’ particular mindset and being aware of their foreign language classroom anxiety level, the researcher can shape her teaching style much more carefully to achieve more success in language classes. Research Questions In the current study, following research questions will be investigated: Main Research Question To what extent, if at all, is there a relationship between mindset and foreign language classroom anxiety level of EFL learners? Sub-Research Questions 1) What is the level EFL learners’ foreign language classroom anxiety? 2) What is the percentage of learners who view intelligence as fixed and growth, and who are undecided? 3) How does learners’ gender correlate with their particular mindset? 4) How does learners’ gender correlate with their foreign language classroom anxiety? 5) Is there a statistically significant correlation between learners’ type of department and their particular mindset? 6) Is there a statistically significant correlation between learners’ type of department and foreign language classroom anxiety level? 7) Is there any association between graduated high school type and learners’ particular mindset? 8) Is there any association between graduated high school type and foreign language classroom anxiety? 9) What relationship exists between learners’ L2 proficiency level and their particular mindset? 10) What relationship exists between learners’ L2 proficiency level and foreign language classroom anxiety? Assumptions There are some certain assumptions for this particular study. Firstly, it is assumed that participants in this study responded to the questions in an honest and candid manner, thus the instruments to be used elicitated reliable responses. Secondly, it is assumed that participants fully understood the items of the scales and responded accordingly. Thirdly, it is assumed that the developed theories and applied research about mindset are exact in which adopting a growth mindset is much more favorable than adopting a fixed mindset. Another assumption is that foreign language anxiety is considered as a factor that has negative and detrimental effects on language achievement. Lastly, regarding the possible discoveries of the current research, it is assumed that the more fixed mindset EFL learners have, the more their level of foreign language classroom increases. Conversely, the more they adopt a growth mindset, the more they are assumed to have lower foreign language anxiety. Limitations There are three primary limitations of this study that may inhibit the generalizability of results. First, this study is correlational in design, so predictive conclusions are limited. Another limitation of this quantitative correlational study is the setting. Although the sample size will be larger enough to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to find significant relationships from the data, the study will be conducted at two universities, Gazi and Atılım University Prepatory Schools, which have been intentionally chosen as one state and one private university. Therefore, the results may not be possible to generalize to all Turkish university students studying in prep-classes. Third limitation of this study is lack of prior research studies on the topic. Despite the fact that there has been some research on mindset and a large amount of research regarding foreign language anxiety separately, very limited number of studies has been conducted to explore whether or not a correlation exists between mindset and anxiety in EFL learners. Therefore, in spite of this limitation, the present study seeks to contribute to the elimination of a gap on this issue. Definitions Entity Theory: It refers to the belief that intelligence is a fixed, static and unchangeable trait (Dweck, 1999). Incremental Theory: It represents the idea that “intellectual ability can be increased through one’s efforts.” (Dweck, 1999). Mindset: It is described as presumptions, habits, beliefs, or methods carried by individuals. Fixed Mindset: It is described as “the belief that traits such as intelligence are fixed or uncontrollable” (Dweck, 2006, p. 7). Growth Mindset: It means “the belief that traits such as intelligence are malleable and can increase with effort” (Dweck, 2006, p. 7). Anxiety: It refers to “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the automatic nervous system” (Spielberger, 1983). Foreign Language Anxiety: It means “a distinct complex construct of self- perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process.” (Horwitz et al, 1986). Communication Apprehension: It is defined as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons." (McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Test Anxiety: It means “the set of psychological, behavioral responses that accompany concern about possible negative results or failure on an exam or similar evaluative situation.” (Zeidner, 1998, p.17). Fear of Negative Evaluation: It means “an apprehension about others’ evaluations, distress over their negative evaluations, avoidance of evaluative situations and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself negatively.” (Watson and Friend, 1969: 448). Conclusion In this chapter, some introductory information regarding the present study was given. The chapter first started with the statement of the problem section, which included the main issues and concepts that will be investigated in this study. Then, the ultimate aim and significance of the study was explained, and the research question and sub-research questions were given. It was followed by the assumptions and limitations sections, and finally the key terms that are mainly discussed in the study were defined. An elaborate literature review, methodology including participants and settings, data collection, instrumentation, and data analysis, findings, implications for further research, suggestions and conclusions will be presented in detail in the following chapters. 30 Chapter 2 Literature Review Introduction The main purpose of this study is to analyze the existing relationship, if any, between EFL learners’ level of foreign language classroom anxiety and their mindset. In addition, the study will also discover if students’ mindset and foreign language anxiety differ significantly in regard to four demographic variables namely gender, type of department, graduated high school type, and L2 proficiency level. Lastly, three sub-dimensions of foreign language classroom anxiety described by Horwitz et al. (1986) will also be examined during the study. Before conducting an effective and valid study in this area, the relevant concepts and research understanding which have preceded this study should be presented. Firstly, the comprehensive review of literature starts with an examination of implicit theories. Since the interest of the current study is specifically relevant to the idea of mindset, implicit theories, including the entity theories of intelligence and incremental theories of intelligence, will be described. Then, the concept of mindset and its two types, fixed mindset vs. growth mindset, will be discussed elaborately. It will be followed by the previous relevant research in the field. Later, the ways of developing a growth mindset and benefits of having a growth mindset will be stated in turn. After the detailed discussion of implicit theories and mindset, anxiety & its types, foreign language anxiety (FLA), factors contributing to FLA, which are test anxiety (TA), communication apprehension (CA), and fear of negative evaluation (FNE) will be described. Then, effects and sources of FLA will be highlighted in turn. They will be followed by the discussion of factors associated with FLA. Finally, the relationship between mindset and anxiety, and previous important studies on this relationship, which are surprisingly quite limited, will be highlighted. Implicit Theories Learners’ beliefs about themselves and their own intelligences powerfully influence their learning success as these beliefs about the nature of intelligence structure their inferences, judgments, and reactions to different actions. A person’s beliefs about the malleability, in other words, processability of intelligence are accepted as implicit theories of intelligence. Two implicit theories intelligence have been identified by Dweck (2008): ‘Incremental’ and ‘Entity’. To start with, entity theorists are of the opinion that intelligence is a fixed and stable trait, and people are born with it. Moreover, entity theorists believe that even though people are able to learn new information, their intelligence does not improve further (Ablard and Mills, 1996; Dweck, Chiu and Hong, 1995), and they are inclined to blame their own intelligence and abilities when they face failures. Consequently, they are at risk for academic underachievement since they do not tend to attempt challenging tasks and are more interested in seeming competent rather than learning new skills (Ablard and Mills, 1996) since they have “a high desire to prove themselves to others and to be seen as smart and avoid looking unintelligent” (2008, p. 1). Furthermore, they tend to orient more towards performance goals so that they can show their capability (Dweck, 1999). On the other hand, learners with an “incremental” theory believe that their intelligence is malleable, changeable, and can be cultivated through effort and persistence. Moreover, they feel smart and comfortable by “engaging fully with new tasks, exerting effort to master something, stretching their skills, and putting their knowledge to good use.” (Dweck, 1999). They want to challenge themselves to increase their abilities even if they fail at first. Moreover, as opposed to entity theorists, incremental theorists are more inclined to set learning goals for themselves rather than performance goals. While challenge is threatening for entity theorists, incremental theorists view it as informative even if these challenges cause them to make more mistakes while they are learning. A great deal of research has been conducted to identify possible existence of various correlations between implicit theories of intelligence and learners’ academic achievement. The findings of these studies reveal that there is indeed a correlation between them. One of these studies has been conducted by Elliot and Dweck (2005), proving that there is a correlation between implicit theories and academic achievement in that students’ thoughts about intelligence and its malleability play a crucial role on both their academic achievement and how they learn. In two studies (Bandura and Dweck, 1985; Dweck and Leggett, 1988), fifth, sixth and eighth grade students’ theories of intelligence were measured by giving them some agreement and disagreement statements as follows: “Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much.” “You can learn new things but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.” “You have a certain amount of intelligence and you can’t really do much to change it.” After a while, some certain tasks were given to students and they were told to choose any task they wish to work on. The first two tasks offered a performance goal whereas the third one offered a learning goal. The important point here was whether students holding different theories of intelligence would choose different goals to pursue. As a result, a significant relationship was found between students’ theories of intelligence and the goals they pick. The findings showed that entity theorists tended to choose a performance goal while incremental theorists tended to choose a learning goal. Mangels et al. (2006) tested undergraduate students carrying one of two beliefs about intelligence. It was observed that learners who hold the “entity” view of intelligence agreed strongly with scale items like “You have a certain amount of intelligence and you can’t do much to change it.". Contrarily, undergraduates who adopt the “incremental" theory of intelligence viewed intelligence as more malleable and changeable. In this experiment, learners first completed a quiz including various subjects like history and maths. Afterwards, they were also asked how confident they felt about their answers. Right after each question was answered by learners, they were told about whether or not their answer was true. When the answer was false, the correct one was told them. After answering all questions, they were tested again only on the questions which were answered wrongly before. The results of this experiment indicated that both groups –entity and incremental theorists- performed equally well on the first test session, and were also equally confident about the answers they gave. Yet, it was seen that learners holding a more flexible, “growth" theory of intelligence responded to errors differently. When they were informed about the fact that their answer was incorrect, they paid more attention to find the correct answer in the second time, proving that their brains went deeper and this led them to give more correct answers during the second testing. Taking this into consideration, it can be said that learners who saw intelligence as malleable and changeable actually learned better than learners who saw intelligence as fixed and unchangeable. Carol Dweck, the most important originator of the implicit theories of intelligence concept, also popularized the terms ‘fixed’ and ‘growth’ mindset. In the present context, what mindset refers to must be understood well since it is often quoted interchangeably with implicit theories of intelligence as a more popularized and recent terminology. Mindset Not all the learners are the same and their beliefs, behaviors, needs and skills highly differ from each other. However, there is one more point which is not all the same in learners: their mindset. Mindset refers to implicit beliefs about the malleability of personal attributes (Dweck, 1999). Based upon research studies regarding implicit theories of intelligence, achievement and success, Dweck (2006) has come up with a new concept named ‘mindset’, which makes all the difference in learning and teaching. This new and broadly embraced idea suggests that one can possess one of these two mindsets: fixed mindset or growth mindset. More specifically, Mercer (2012) asserts that the mindset in foreign language education “reflects the extent to which a person believes that language learning ability is dependent on some immutable, innate talent or is the result of controllable factors such as effort and conscious hard work.” (p.22). Fixed mindset. Those who carry a fixed mindset —entity theorists—support that the possessed intelligence level is stable and unable to change since it is an innate ability. According to Dweck (2005), “In a fixed mindset, people believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success—without effort. They’re wrong.” In other words, in a fixed mindset, students do not believe that they can indeed change and improve their existing intelligence since they view it as a stable and inborn quality. It is also worth mentioning that students avoid challenges or opportunities to learn if they feel that they may make mistakes (Mueller and Dweck, 1998, cited in Dweck, 2008). If they make mistakes or something wrong, instead of correcting them, they tend to hide it (Nussbaum and Dweck, 2008) because they can easily give up when they face challenges and obstacles. Moreover, they are apt to ignore useful feedback, or even can take it personally. Since they don’t believe that they become successful as long as they put enough effort, they do not use the feedback to learn, either. Rather, they believe that the higher innate ability they have, the more successful they will be. For this reason, they are afraid of failures as it means constraints or limits that they cannot readily overcome. Furthermore, if they witness the success of their peers, they may feel threatened rather than admiring. Growth mindset. Contrary to fixed mindset, growth mindset is met with different characteristics (Dweck, 1999). Those have a growth mindset – incremental theorists- support that one’s intelligence is fully shaped by self- improvement and determination (Elliott and Dweck, 1988). This is possible because of neuroplasticity – the brain’s ability to restructure itself and to form new connections with more repetitive practices, making it stronger in turn. Dweck (2015) suggests that “In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. Virtually all great people have had these qualities.” To put it differently, the ones who adopt a growth mindset fundamentally believe that talent comes through effort, and their abilities can be further developed when they are dedicated, perseverant and well-trained enough, so intelligence is indeed improvable (Bandura and Dweck, 1985; Dweck and Molden, 2007). As a result, they do not believe that everyone can be very intelligent or genius, but they believe that everyone can be more intelligent when they work harder and put enough effort into what they aim to achieve. The difference between the fixed and growth mindset is summarized by Dweck (2015) as follows: “In the fixed mindset, everything is about the outcome. If you fail—or if you’re not the best—it’s all been wasted. The growth mindset allows people to value what they’re doing regardless of the outcome. They’re tackling problems, charting new courses, working on important issues. Maybe they haven’t found the cure for cancer, but the search was deeply meaningful”. Moreover, despite the fact that individuals with a fixed mindset care how they are judged by others, those with a growth mindset focus on their own learning. They welcome feedback as a means to improve rather than ignoring or avoiding it. Furthermore, unlike students with a fixed mindset, if those with a growth mindset make any mistakes, they try to correct it immediately. Failures are just temporary setbacks for growth mindset holders, and they are seen as potential chances for growth-minded students for instructive feedback and thus their mistakes make indeed their learning better (Dweck, 2006). For this reason, they tend to demonstrate more adaptive behaviors and psychological traits such as resilience in response to failure. The success of their peers makes them inspired and gives them some lessons. Taking all these into consideration, learners who are of the opinion that abilities are fixed are less likely to progress better than others who believe that abilities can be improved. Dweck and Molden (2007) state that there is also one more category where those who do not strongly hold either of these two mindsets–fixed vs growth- compose. Their work indicated that among children and adults, approximately 40% of them endorse a growth mindset whereas another 40% adopt fixed mindset. The remaining 20% is undecided, in other words, they fall into somewhere in the middle of the applied scale points. As opposed to Dweck’s (2006) argument, Mercer (2012) asserts that fixed mindset prevails in language learning. Two mindsets have been clearly illustrated in Dweck’s famous book (2006), which is presented in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Mindset Graphic from Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Dweck, 2006) The study of mindsets leads to determine the motivation sources of students and how these motivations can encourage them to fulfill their potential and succeed the best of their ability (Dweck, 2015). Doubtlessly, mindsets shape the actions we take, the lives we lead, and our future world. Studies show that what people believe about their intelligence can substantially affect their achievement, anxiety level and resiliency (Dweck, 2008). Furthermore, research also suggests that holders of a growth mindset are inclined to feel more motivated and to have more academic achievement with higher test scores (Aronson et al., 2002; Castella et al., 2015). Another studies also proved that more specifically, a growth mindset usually leads to better academic outcomes (Castella and Byrne, 2015; Yeager, Johnson, Spitzer, Trzesniewski, Powers and Dweck, 2014). The relationship between gender and mindset has also been explored in various studies (Kornilova et al., 2009; Macnamara and Rupani, 2017; Spinath, Spinath and Riemann, Yan et al., 2014). There are three main views regarding what the findings of these studies suggested: a) Women are more inclined to adopt a fixed mindset than men (Leggett, 1985; Licht and Shapiro, 1982) b) Men are more inclined to have a fixed mindset than women (Spinath, Spinath and Riemann, 2003) c) Women and men do not diverge significantly on their mindsets (Kornilova et al., 2009; Macnamara and Rupani, 2017; Yan et al., 2014). The most common view among the aforementioned ones in the relevant literature is the first one, which suggests that women tend to have a fixed mindset more than men as “Starting in infancy, parents tend to give boys more process praise, an advantage that results in a greater desire for challenge, and a growth mindset, later on” (Dweck and Simmons, 2014). However, a very recent study conducted by Macnamara and Rupani (2017) contradicted with the existing literature and the common view mentioned above. Their study tested if having a growth mindset predicts learners’ achievement. It also examined whether or not women tend to have a fixed mindset more than men. The findings of this study showed that contrary to popular belief, fixed mindset was associated with greater academic achievement. Furthermore, another surprising finding was the fact that women either did not diverge from men, or were more likely to endorse a growth mindset, and no indication or discrepancy indication was found regarding the assumption that women hold more fixed mindset than men Developing a growth mindset with interventions. Another point it is worth mentioning regarding the concept ‘mindset’ is that people can change from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset, that is to say, the mindset one adopts at first is not permanent at all times. To achieve this, Dweck (2006) lists 4 simple steps to create a growth mindset: “Step 1: Learn to hear your fixed mindset voice. Step 2: Recognize that you have a choice. Step 3: Talk back to it with a growth mindset voice. Step 4: Take the growth mindset action.” Some intervention studies have been conducted in order to see how developing a growth mindset affects students. These studies show that when a growth mindset is taught and developed, students’ level of motivation and success can be higher. (Aronson et al., 2002; Blackwell, Trzesniewski and Dweck, 2007). To illustrate, Aronson et al. (2002) explored that when a growth mindset intervention was implemented to African-American undergraduates over a period of thirty days, they had higher grade point averages (GPAs) and better attitudes for academic ability at the end of the semester. Blackwell et al. (2007) conducted two studies in the USA to observe the effects of the articular mindsets on academic success. The first study was a longitudinal one applied to 373 students and was conducted in seventh grade classes. Firstly, students’ mindset type, what learning goals they had, and how they responded to failure were assessed at the beginning of the semester. Then, their grades in math were tracked during two years. When both fixed and growth mindset holders started the seventh grade, it was seen that they were equally successful in maths as the effects of mindsets could not be observed until they had to deal with any failures or difficulties. Until the end of the term, it was seen that students endorsing a growth mindset at the beginning of the term were more motivated and successful in maths in the next two years. The math grades of two groups had increased remarkably and over the following two years, they continued to diverge (Blackwell et al., 2007). In their second study, 48 of the same 373 participants, the experimental group, were taught about the mindset concept, and remaining 43 students were placed in a control group. The lessons of the experimental group started with an article explaining the idea of growth mindset very efficiently (see Appendix-E), and then they were taught that when they challenge themselves by learning something new, their brain can change with new learning along with increasing neural connections since the brain is like a muscle which works better and much more effectively through regular practice and hard work. Furthermore, maths teachers of students were asked to give information about some certain learners whose patterns of motivation showed differences. It was observed that three weeks after the intervention, students in the experimental group students adopted growth mindset more. Contrarily, no change was observed in the control group. What is more, maths teachers reported that 27% of intervention group students exhibited impressive changes in their motivation. However, only 9% of learners in the control group was reported to show important motivational changes. In the end, this study proved that an intervention, even a short, quick and a single one aiming to change or improve any point, can play a vital role for being motivated and successful. (Blackwell et al., 2007). This study provides evidence that the mindset which an individual adopts can be affected by the learning environment, and a fixed mindset can be changed into a growth mindset. So as to teach growth mindset, several researchers have also developed growth mindset workshops and studied their effects on learners. To give an example, Aronson et al. (2002) lectured the concept of growth mindset to the undergraduates at Stanford University with the help of a workshop. In this study, there were 2 control groups, one of which received an informative workshop emphasizing the fact that there are different types of intelligence and if they fail or perform poorly in any subject, they should not immediately feel disappointed or demotivated. On the contrary, the other control group did not receive any treatment. It was seen that at the end of their study term, students having participated in the growth mindset workshop gained much superior grades than others who were in the control groups and they had significant advantages in their academic studies. All in all, as in the other studies mentioned above, this study also showed that even brief growth mindset workshops made drastic changes in participants’ mindsets (Aronson, Fried and Good, 2002). Table 1 Summary of the mindset intervention studies Reference Participants: Age & Gender Country of Study Outcome Measure Results Aronson, Fried, & Good (2002) 109 participants The USA SAT scores Better grades, especially in African Americans Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck (2007) 99 participants, 7th grade, 59 male / 49 female The USA Maths grades, motivation, theory of intelligence Better math grades, more incremental mindset and motivation than control group Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003) 138 participants, 7th grade, 62 male / 76 female The USA Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (maths and reading) Gender gap closed Yeager, Trzesniewski, & Dweck (2013) 246 participants, ages between 14-16, 127 male/ 103 female The USA GPA, absenteism, implicit theories, lateness in core subjects, aggression Increased resilience, decreased levels of agression, depression, conduct problems and absence Benefits of having a growth mindset. When all the points discussed so far are taken into consideration, it is essential to know that gains of obtaining a growth mindset are numerous. Some of them can be summarized as follows: 1. A training on growth mindset can help students’ test scores improve better (Blackwell et al., 2007). 2. Growth mindset leads students to make use of more effective learning strategies, and thus their poor grades will be higher in the end (Grant and Dweck, 2003). 3. Thanks to having a growth mindset, achievements gaps among students gradually diminish. (Dweck, 2010b; Good et al., 2003). Foreign Language Anxiety Anxiety. Among all the affective variables for language achievement such as motivation, attitudes, language aptitude and so on, it has been proved that one of the most important barriers in language achievement is anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986). Spielberger (1983) defines anxiety as “the subjective feelings of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the autonomic nervous system”. Scovel (1991) also states that “Anxiety is a psychological construct, commonly described by psychologists as a state of apprehension, a vague fear that is only indirectly associated with an object” (p.18). Besides, it is also seen as “a threat to some value that the individual holds essential to his existence as a personality” (May, 1977, p. 205). Horwitz et al. (1986) suggests that the premise general anxiety is used for those who are generally anxious in various situations. However, when anxiety is limited to only a certain condition, such as learning or using a foreign language, this particular sort of anxiety is known as specific anxiety. Trait anxiety, state anxiety and situation-specific anxiety. Researchers traditionally classify anxiety as trait anxiety, state anxiety and situation-specific anxiety. Spielberg (1983) asserts that trait anxiety is the likelihood of becoming anxious in any context, and this type of individuals experiences anxiety much more commonly and intensely when compared to other people. Contrarily, state anxiety is a temporary state that is activated by the nervous system at a particular moment in time when an individual faces a threatening situation (Spielberger, 1983). As for situation-specific anxiety, it occurs when people feel anxious only in some specific situations, but not in the others (MacIntyre, 1999). MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) indicate that “foreign language anxiety should be studied with situation specific measures”. To put it differently, state anxiety is temporarily felt at a specific time (Spielberger, 1983) whereas trait anxiety is a more stable personality characteristic when one perceives any threat in the environment (Scovel, 1978). On the other hand, situation-specific anxiety “can be seen as trait anxiety limited to a given context” (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991a, p.90). The types of anxiety are illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2. Types of Anxiety Facilitating vs. Debilitating Anxiety. Apart from trait, state and situation- specific anxieties, some prior studies have also emphasized the difference between facilitating anxiety and debilitating anxiety. Scovel (1978) draws a vivid picture of this difference as follows: “Facilitating anxiety motivates the learner to ‘fight’ the new learning task; it gears the learner emotionally for approval behavior. Debilitating anxiety, in contrast, motivates the learner to ‘flee’ the new learning task; it stimulates the individual emotionally to adopt avoidance behavior” (p.139). Alpert and Haber (1960), cited in Brown (1994), have also emphasized that anxiety can have either helpful or detrimental effects on learners. Facilitating anxiety, whose impacts are always positive and helpful, encourages learners to do better and more effectively in any task they perform. In contrast to facilitating anxiety, debilitating anxiety results in lower levels of English proficiency, poor performance, and low motivation and concentration. Language anxiety is mainly considered as a type of debilitative anxiety since it negatively affects learners’ achievement, motivation, and performance. Learners with extreme anxiety tend to avoid being active participants of the language classes and classroom activities. One possible reason of this is explained by Horwitz and Young (1991) as follows: “As long as foreign language learning takes place in a formal school setting where evaluation is inextricably tied to performance, language anxiety is likely to continue to flourish’ (p.35). Foreign Language Anxiety. When learning a new language triggers the feeling of anxiety among learners, it is named foreign language anxiety, which is defined as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours related to classroom language learning that arise from the uniqueness of the foreign language learning process” (Horwitz et al., 1986). According to MacIntyre and Gardner (1994b, p. 284), it refers to “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts, including speaking, listening, and learning”. Language anxiety is also defined as "a term that encompasses the feelings of worry and negative, fear-related emotions associated with learning or using a language that is not an individual's mother tongue" (MacIntyre and Gregersen, 2012, p. 103). Research on FLA has showed that it is categorized as situation-specific anxiety, which results from a particular reason such as learning or using a foreign language (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991b). Numerous studies show the existence of a negative relationship between FLA and foreign language learning among different languages such as English, French, Spanish or Japanese (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991b; Aida, 1994; Horwitz, 1986). According to MacIntyre and Gardner, a context in which foreign language anxiety is experienced hinders cognitive processing (1994a, 1994b), and it hinders to communicate actively in the target language (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991a, 1991b). However, there are also various views about this issue. To clarify, some researchers have emphasized the fact that an anxious attitude towards foreign language learning may indeed facilitate the learning process (Spielmann and Radnofsky, 2001). Besides, some of the authors view FLA as a result of learning deficiency (Sparks, Ganschow and Javorsky, 2000). In the light of this information, it can be said that the problem of anxiety and its connection to foreign language learning is still an ongoing discussion in the literature. However, it is crucial to note that FLA level of students should not be neglected under any circumstances since it is of utmost importance to support and sustain effective language learning and teaching. Components of Foreign Language Anxiety Horwitz (1986) suggests three components related to foreign language anxiety, which are also the subdimensions of Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz et al.1986) used in this study: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Figure 3 summarizes them below: Figure 3. Components of Foreign Language Anxiety Communication apprehension. McCroskey (1977) defines communication apprehension as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons." (p. 78). Horwitz et al. (1986) also defines it as “a type of shyness characterized by fear of or anxiety about communicating with people.” According to McCroskey (1984), communicatively apprehensive people display three typical behaviour patterns: They avoid, withdraw and disrupt the communication. McCroskey (1980, as cited in Holbrook, 1987) has also suggested seven factors which can result in making people communicatively apprehensive and thus hindering effective communication: “intellectual skills, speech skill deficiencies, voluntary social introversion, social alienation, communication anxiety, low social self-esteem, and ethnic/cultural divergence in communication norms.” Test anxiety. There is no doubt that the environment where people take the test causes anxiety for them. TA is referred as the second segment of FLA proposed by Horwitz (1986) which is vitally important in people’s lives for various reasons. Simply put, it implies a sort of performance anxiety which arises from the fear of deficiency in testing or evaluation environment. Zeidner (1998, p.17) also describes test anxiety as “the set of psychological, behavioral responses that accompany concern about possible negative results or failure on an exam or similar evaluative situation.” Horwitz et al. (1986) asserts that students experiencing test anxiety often feel that if their performance in the test is not perfect, it can be considered as a failure since they put unrealistic demands on themselves. As for its impacts on learners, a large body of research discovered that anxiety that arises from taking a test has many negative effects such as poor language achievement, negative self-evaluation beliefs, lack of motivation & concentration, an increase in school absenteeism and general anxiety (Tobias, 1979; Whitaker-Sena, Lowe and Lee, 2007). Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that test anxiety should be regarded as a significant problem in students’ academic achievement. Fear of negative evaluation. FNE implies "apprehension about others' evaluations, avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself negatively" (Watson and Friend, 1969: 448). It occurs when foreign language learners are not self-confident enough and not completely sure about what they are saying. Furthermore, since evaluation on each other is an essential part of second language classes, learners feel anxious, insecure and uncomfortable when they are aware of the fact that they are being watched by the teacher and other peers (Zhao, 2007). As a result, it affects their class performance in a negative way. Besides, students tend to believe that they cannot display the proper social impression as they desired. According to Aida (1994, p.157), students with FNE "sit passively in the classroom, withdraw from classroom activities that could otherwise enhance their improvement of the language skills" or even "cut class to avoid anxiety situations". It is essential to state that FNE and test anxiety seem similar at first, however, they are different concepts in that FNE is not only limited to test-taking situations, but rather it also includes such anxiety types as social anxiety or public- speaking anxiety. Therefore, it is much broader in scope than test anxiety. Sources of Foreign Language Anxiety According to the researchers, FLA may be expressed due to several factors. To illustrate, Sparks and Ganschow (1991, 1993, 1995) asserted that native language skills of learners have a significant effect on creating FLA if a disability in the process of their first language occurs, and thus it causes difficulties in language learning settings. Consequently, students feel anxious about learning a second language due to the poor native language skills. Unsurprisingly, Sparks and Ganschow and other researchers’ views on FLA have been strongly criticized. Researchers (e.g., Horwitz, 2000; MacIntyre, 1995a, 1995b) claimed that rather than being dependent, FLA is actually not related with disabilities experienced in the first language learning and it might be accepted as a crucial indication which prevents language learning. Apart from the native language, it has been found that personality and other individual factors (Gregersen and Horwitz, 2002) as well as negative experiences with language classes (Chen and Chang, 2004) cause anxiety among language learners. Furthermore, Young (1991) identified six possible origins for language anxiety: “personal and interpersonal anxieties, learner acceptances for language learning, instructor acceptances for language teaching, instructor-learner instructions, classroom practices, and language testing.” More generally, Young (1991, 1994, 1999) categorized sources of FLA as learner’s factors, teacher’s factors, and the instructional practice. Furthermore, Zhang and Zhong (2012) has classified reasons of FLA as “learner-induced, classroom-related, skill-specific, and some society-imposed depending on different contexts”. According to them, the fundamental reason of language anxiety is “learners’ unrealistic or erroneous beliefs about language learning” (Zhang and Zhong, 2012). On the one hand, some learners tend to think that the capacity which they have is not fairly enough to learn a new language (Price, 1991). On the other hand, some believe that two years are sufficient to have proficiency in a foreign language (Horwitz, 1988). Additionally, the fact that learners are highly expected to communicate in foreign language in public results in anxiety as speaking is viewed as a factor which triggers anxiety most in foreign and second language learning (Cheng et al. 1999; Kitano 2001). Since anxious learners view speaking skill as the most important one, they hold the opinion that their language abilities, especially speaking, are not as stronger as their peers (Young, 1991). When anxiety is related to the classroom, it is in connection with instructors, peers and classroom practices (Zhang and Zhong, 2012). For instance, Young (1991) noted that some instructors hold the opinion that their main responsibility is to make immediate corrections on students’ mistakes at all times, and they avoid having learners work in pairs or groups for the fear that they may fail to keep the control of the class. Furthermore, they think that their role in the class is similar to a “drill sergeant” rather than a “facilitator”. Thus, this kind of instructors may contribute and increase language anxiety level of learners. Conversely, instructors who are relaxed, patient, and friendly, who have a good sense of humor, and who encourage learners to speak in the target language by making them comfortable rather than stressed are believed to reduce anxiety (Young, 1991). Furthermore, other major causes of anxiety stem from the evaluation or criticisms from peers (Conway, 2007) since they are afraid of the fact that their peers may consider them as incompetent and foolish (Jones, 2004). Another source of extreme language anxiety is classroom activities applied in the language classes. A number of anxious learners are afraid of making pronunciation mistakes while they are speaking in front of their classmates (Price, 1991). Moreover, delivering an oral presentation has been found as the classroom activity which triggers anxiety most (Koch and Terrell, 1991) in that it makes learners nervous and stressful since the atmosphere in the class becomes more formal. On the other hand, collaborative activities through which learners work together reduce the level of anxiety and stress, and increases self-confidence (Hashemi and Abbasi, 2013). In addition to all the studies discussed above, Yan and Horwitz (2008) carried out a qualitative research in China, and 21 students who had different anxiety and L2 proficiency levels were interviewed. As a result of these interviews, they came up with seven major sources of FLA: “regional differences, language aptitude, gender, foreign language anxiety, class arrangements, teacher characteristics, language learning strategies, test types, parental influences, comparison with peers, and achievement.” Effects of Foreign Language Anxiety Stimulating factors of FLA are inevitable in the process of language learning, and specifically on language achievement (Horwitz et al., 1986; Young, 1990). Their effects were examined by MacIntyre (1999) under four categories: academic, cognitive, personal and social effects. To start with the first one, the literature on language anxiety showed some controversial results about academic effects. Previously performed studies strongly emphasized debilitating effects of language anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986; Price, 1991) while its facilitating role was referred in many different studies as well (Gregersen, 2003; Spielmann and Radnofsky, 2001). Another possible effect of language anxiety may be cognitive effects. A model offered by Tobias (1979, 1986) can be given as an example for this. It presents the consequences of FLA in the following steps: input, followed by processing, and ended by output. In the input stage, a kind of mechanism filters some information at first, and the input is stucked and cannot go into the other one. If anxiety starts at this stage, it is likely that a learner does not process the information at an expected speed, and thus repeated exposure to the task will be needed. In the second stage, which is processing, anxiety distracts students and hinders them to learn new grammar points. In the final stage, the quality of productive skills in the target language, speaking and writing, is influenced due to anxiety. Social factors also have a crucial role on FLA. To give an example, Yan and Horwitz (2008) conducted a study at a Chinese University, and they found out that the regions students came from and the dialects they spoke led them to feel anxious while speaking. Dewaele et al. (2008) also examined the impacts of social factors on FLA among multilingual adults, and their study indicated that inadequate socialization in the target language and a small network of interlocutors might trigger anxiety. For personal effects, the experiences of anxious language learners reported by Horwitz et al. (1986) can portray a vivid picture: ”I know I have some sort of disability: I can’t learn a foreign language no matter how hard I try.” ”When I’m in my Spanish class, I just freeze. I can’t think of a thing when the teacher calls on me. My mind goes blank.” ”I feel like my French teacher is some kind of Martian death ray: I never know when he’ll point at me.” ”It’s about time someone studied why some people can’t learn languages.” (p.125) Price (1991) also conducted a qualitative study by interviewing with anxious learners, proving the importance of personal factors in FLA. One of the learners describes his/her experiences during language learning as follows: “I cancelled everything I was supposed to do because I could not sit through anything, knowing I had to study French. …. we tried to study. We were hysterical! ... I remember thinking on the way, I just can’t do this. I’m going to have to drop this course.” (p.105) Another student shares his/her experiences with the following statements: “French classes were very, very stressful for me, because I didn’t speak well…. Everything came out in a Texas accent, which was horrible; because the professors would stop me and made me go over and over it and I still couldn’t get it right. The more they made me do it, the more frightened I became!” (p. 105). Figure 4. Effects of Foreign Language Anxiety Factors Associated with Foreign Language Anxiety A considerable number of factors associated with language anxiety has been found out by researchers. To begin with, gender was found to be a crucial factor affecting level of language anxiety experienced by learners, which is still a controversial issue since the studies reveal various results regarding the difference of language anxiety between females and males. Many studies found out that female students experience higher levels of anxiety than males when it comes to foreign language learning (Arnaiz and Guillén, 2012; Bensoussan and Zeidner, 1989; Chang, 1997; Donovan and MacIntyre, 2005; Elkhafaifi, 2005; Ezzi, 2012; Felson and Trudeau, 1991; Furnham and Haeven 1999; Machida, 2001; Öztürk and Gürbüz, 2012; Park, 2013). Cheng (2002) made a comparison for gender and found out that female university students suffered from higher levels of L2 writing anxiety than male students. Mejias et al.’s (1991) study also concluded that more Mexican American females appeared to experience communication anxiety than their male peers. Similarly, Ezzi (2012) conducted a study with 163 third and fourth graders at the university. As in the current study, the data of Ezzi’s (2012) study were collected using FLCAS and findings revealed that males’ anxiety level is much lower than females. On the other hand, some studies suggested that unlike females, male learners demonstrate higher levels of anxiety than females (Campbell and Shaw, 1994; Fariadian, Azizifar and Gowhary, 2014; Kitano, 2001). For example, Campbell (1999) investigated the level of students’ anxiety before and after beginning the course. Before beginning the course, it was observed that the level of anxiety experienced by both males and females did not differ significantly, but after they started the course, their level of anxiety was again investigated and it was seen that females revealed lower level of anxiety when compared to males. Contrary to studies mentioned above, there are some studies showing no relationship between gender and foreign language anxiety as well (Aida, 1994; Bell and McCallum, 2012; Dewaele et al., 2008; Matsuda and Gobel, 2004; Nahavandi and Mukundan, 2013; Tahernezhad, 2014; Voorhees, 1994). A study conducted by Aida (1994), for instance, did not reveal a remarkable difference for foreign language anxiety between Japanese male and female students. As can be understood from the aforementioned discussion, research on the relationship between foreign language anxiety and gender displayed controversial results. According to Wang (2010), “unknown variables” or “unknown factors” (Wang, 2010, p. 96), and even relevant constructs, for example, listening anxiety (Elkhafaifi, 2005, p. 214) may be the reasons of these disputable results regarding the correlation between gender and foreign language anxiety. Another factor contributing to FLA is found to be students’ target language proficiency level in the relevant literature. The findings of the most related studies showed that more language-proficient students were inclined to show lower levels of anxiety (Liu, 2006; Tianjian, 2010; Zhao and Whitchurch, 2011). To illustrate, Liu (2006) conducted a study with EFL learners in China and discovered that the more proficient students were in the target language, the less they felt anxious. Similarly, Elkhafaifi (2005) concluded that advanced students had lower level of language anxiety than beginner or intermediate students. However, Debreli and Demirkan (2016) found just the opposite of what the aforementioned studies suggested. They conducted a study with a total of 196 students through both FLCAS and semi-structured interviews with 10 students. The data obtained from the conducted study shows that students with greater qualification in the language felt more anxious than students with lower qualification in the language. An elaborate literature review also reveals that some studies found no significant difference in the level of language anxiety felt by students enrolled in beginner, intermediate, and advanced L2 classes (Onwuegbuzie, Bailey and Daley, 1999). Next, research carried on foreign language anxiety presents inconsistent results for the correlation analysis of language achievement and FLA. To clarify, a negative relationship was found between language achievement and FLA in many studies (Horwitz, 1986; Phillips, 1992). Horwitz (1986), for example, found a significant negative relationship between FLA and language achievement of students in English who were also learning French or Spanish languages. As a result, she concluded that students who have greater levels of FLA obtain lower grades. Aida (1994) also investigated the correlation between FLCAS scores and final grades of American second-year Japanese students and found out that they are negatively related. Furthermore, Awan et al. (2010) studied the connection of language achievement with FLA. In this study, 149 undergraduates were administered a short version of FLCAS and an inventory of situations which cause anxiety. The findings of the study reveal that language anxiety and achievement are negatively associated with each other. On the other hand, several studies revealed no correlation (Parkinson and Howell-Richardson, 1990), and there is also some research reporting a positive correlation between anxiety and achievement (Kleinmann, 1977). To put it differently, though teachers often predict that anxiety causes lower grades, and thus lower language achievement, some studies suggested the other way around, and found that students who have higher levels of anxiety actually gained better grades. Regarding the ambiguous results of the early studies, Scovel (1978) argued that this situation may result from the fact that researchers used a number of different constructs and measures of anxiety, and he concluded that researchers should be more specific about which type of anxiety they are measuring. Taking this argument into consideration, some researchers (e.g. Gardner, 1985; Horwitz et al., 1986) viewed FLA as a situation-specific anxiety and as independent from other types of anxiety. Another factor associated with FLA was visiting foreign countries, which was suggested by Onwuegbuzie et al. (1999). Surprisingly, some research found out that learners who had lived or stayed in a foreign language country tended to be more anxious than those who had never stayed abroad (Kitano, 2001; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999; Gregersen, and Horwitz, 2002). On the other hand, there are also some studies finding the vice versa (Zhao and Whitchurch, 2011). Aida (1994), for instance, found out that students who went to Japan before were inclined to feel lower levels of FLA than those who did not. Furthermore, Matsuda and Gobel’s (2004) study revealed a similar result and concluded that learners with an experience of visiting foreign language country tended to be less anxious while speaking the target language. In addition to gender, language achievement, L2 proficiency level and experience in visiting foreign countries, another factors linked to foreign language anxiety such as perfectionism (Gregersen and Horwitz, 2002), self-perceived achievement (MacIntyre, Noels and Clément, 1997), overstudying (Horwitz et al., 1986), the difficulty level of the target language (Saito, Horwitz and Garza, 1999), foreign language aptitude (Ganschow and Sparks, 1995, 1996) and competitiveness (Bailey, 1983) have also been discovered in the relevant literature. Figure 5 illustrates all the mentioned factors below: Gender Proficiency level Visiting foreign countries Language achievement Factors Associated with FLA Foreign language aptitude Perfectionism Difficulty level of the target language Self- perceived achievement Overstudying Figure 5. Factors associated with FLA Mindset and Foreign Language Anxiety Although there are a number of empirical studies concerning diverse variables and techniques, a limited number of studies have been conducted to figure out what is the correlation between mindset and anxiety. Research suggested that the more students hold a fixed mindset, the more they feel higher levels of test anxiety (Bandura and Jourden, 1991; Martocchio, 1994; Trudeau, 2009). For instance, Martocchio (1994) conducted a field experiment of 76 employees in order to investigate whether they view ability something as an acquirable skill (growth mindset) or a fixed entity (fixed mindset), and how this affects their computer anxiety. The findings showed that there was a significant decrease of computer anxiety in trainees with growth mindset between the pre- and post-training assessments while the anxiety level of trainees in the entity condition (fixed mindset) did not change considerably, which suggests that fixed mindset holders may experience greater anxiety levels. In an experiment conducted by Schleider and Weisz (2018), it was proven that a quick 30-minute lesson for growth mindset could assist young adolescents to cope with the depression and anxiety symptoms. In the first step of the study, learners took a self-reported survey measuring the symptoms of anxiety and depression. Their parents also took a survey so as to evaluate the symptoms in their children. According to the results of the self-reported survey, only learners showing severe symptoms were accepted as the participants of the study. Then, participants took a 30-minute computer-guided growth mindset intervention, informing them about the benefits of this relatively new concept in psychology. Further explanations were provided regarding the idea of “neuroplasticity” and that our intelligence is actually far more malleable and changeable than we believe. Then, some follow-up sessions, which aimed to find out how much participants’ symptoms of anxiety and depression had differed, were held with each participant after 3, 6, and 9 months. Not surprisingly, the results clearly presented that on all follow-up sessions, those who took one-time intervention about growth mindset showed lower symptoms of anxiety. Schleider, Abel, and Weisz (2015) conducted a very thorough review of 17 studies including over 6,500 students and discovered that having a fixed mindset brought mental health problems in teenagers, one of which is anxiety. Comparing students holding a fixed mindset and growth mindset, holders of a fixed mindset were 58% more likely to show more serious symptoms of anxiety, depression, or aggression. In sum, fixed mindset holders may tend to have greater anxiety levels when they face demanding tasks that can negatively affect their level of self-confidence (Dweck and Elliott, 1983). Simply stated, students with high levels of confidence tend to display mastery-oriented behaviours whether or not they adopt a fixed or growth mindset. However, when they have a challenging task to do, fixed mindset carriers usually show greater level of anxiety whereas growth mindset holders precede to reveal mastery-oriented behaviours (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). It is most likely that this results from the fact that those who endorse a fixed mindset try to prove themselves to others and are afraid of making mistakes and failing, thus they feel much more anxious and stressed as a consequence of their low level of self-confidence. Conclusion In this chapter, the literature was reviewed and presented thematically guided by research objectives. The key concepts and variables of this study were explained in detail, and the related studies which meet the objects of the current study were reviewed. Firstly, implicit theories have been explained, and the concept of mindset and its two types, fixed mindset and growth mindset, were discussed. Next, critical studies regarding mindset were reviewed. Later, the ways of developing growth mindset and some mindset intervention studies in the literature were elaborated. After that, anxiety, foreign language anxiety (FLA), and types of anxiety were described followed by important studies. Then, sources of FLA, effects of FLA, and factor associated with FLA were elaborately discussed. Finally, the correlation between mindset and FLA was explained with the help of some. 40 Chapter 3 Methodology Introduction This chapter covers the methodological procedures followed in this study. Firstly, the research design of the present study will be elaborated. Secondly, the settings where the data was collected and the participants of this study will be explained. Next, the data collection procedure will be mentioned in detail. Then, the instruments used in this study will be reported. Finally, data analysis will be described at the end of the section. Research Design The current study adopts a quantitative study design, which refers to “explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods in particular statistics.” (Aliaga and Gunderson, 2002, p. 1). Hopkins (2008) states that the purpose of performing a quantitative study is to figure out any existing connection between one dependent and one independent variable among different variables in a given population. A variable is defined as an observable and measurable characteristic or attribute of a person or an organization which varies among the people or organization studied (Creswell, 2007). There are two types of studies that aim to quantify the relationships: descriptive and experimental. The difference between these two types is that while there is no attempt to change the conditions in the former one, and thus they are measured as they are, the latter one concerns taking measurements, introducing an intervention, and observing and studying its effects (Hopkins, 2008). The current study is descriptive in its nature since the data was collected without changing or manipulating the conditions or the environment. As mentioned above, the present study has a non-experimental research design, which has three types: descriptive research including survey research and observational research, correlational research, and causal-comparative research. Since the ultimate goal of this study is to describe characteristics of a group of EFL learners via some surveys, it is fair to say that that survey research is adopted in the present study. According to Balnaves and Caputi (2001), survey research is “a method of collecting data from people about who they are (education, finances, etc.), how they think (motivations, beliefs, etc.), and what they do (behavior).” (p. 76). More specifically, it is a quantitative research technique in which some sort of surveys or questionnaires are administered to a population, as a result, the attitudes, opinions, and characteristics of this particular population are revealed (Creswell, 2005). Survey method is highly preferred by the researchers because of representing a high population, being cost and time-effective, gathering the data with different ways such as telephone, e-mail, interview, web-based and direct administration of surveys (Cresswell 2005; Fraenkel et al. 2012; Mertens, 2005) and providing fast and precious results. Direct administration was chosen in the present study, providing an easier and faster data collection procedure. There are two different types in which a survey research is conducted: cross-sectional and longitudinal. Regarding what these terms stand for, cross- sectional studies collect the data and make comparisons at one point in time whereas longitudinal studies follow the subjects over time and measure them repeatedly to see the changes that take place. This study does not involve the repeated observations of the same variables over time, thus it obviously adopts a cross-sectional design. A cross-sectional design is often recommended over a longitudinal design as it is generally quick, easy and cost-efficient to perform whereas longitudinal studies are found to be costly and time-consuming. While survey research can be used in a descriptive manner as explained, it is also possible to use it for investigating the relationship between the variables involved (Fraenkel et al., 2012). This can be done by combining a survey research and correlational research design, and it is crucial to emphasize that the current study exactly tries to do so since it seeks to find out the relationships among a number of variables by administering some sort of surveys. Correlational research, the importance of which has been emphasized by many researchers and authors (Cronbach 1957; Woodworth 1938), is concerned with determining the relationships between more than one variable in a certain population, or between the same variables in two populations. This type of research is preferred since a large amount of information may be gathered quickly, and the revealed relationship can provide the basis for other predictions. Setting The present study was conducted in two different settings, one of which is a private university in Ankara whereas the other one is a state university, based on the assumption that findings from these universities would also be generalized to other private and state universities in Ankara. The first setting is Atılım University Prepatory School where the researcher currently works as an English Instructor. It is a private university founded in 1997 and located in Ankara, Turkey. The language of instruction for all courses is English. The main aim of the English Preparatory School at Atılım University is to offer English training program to teach four main skills of English, receptive and productive ones, so that students can conduct their academic studies efficiently when they start their departmental education. Prep-school students take 6 hours of English lessons per day except for Wednesday and they have 27 hours of English lessons per week. There are five levels – D, C, B, A and Pro, and each level takes approximately 8 weeks to complete. For the level evaluation, students have a number of weekly quizzes, writing quizzes, story quizzes and midterms throughout one academic year. The second setting of the study is School of Foreign Languages at Gazi University, which is a state university in Ankara, Turkey. It aims to equip students with the main foreign language skills required in a global level in order to assist their future studies in their academic life in the most effective way. The medium of instruction is partly English. Students take 24 hours of English lessons per week – 5 hours per day except for Friday, and they have quizzes, midterms, portfolio and a final exam for evaluation. Participants The present study was conducted on 203 participants who were enrolled in various departments and were receiving compulsory English prep-class education. Among 203 participants, 100 (49.26%) of the students are currently studying at Atılım University Prepatory School whereas 103 (50.74 %) of the students are currently studying at Gazi University Prepatory School. In the present study, convenience sampling, a kind of non-probability or non-random sampling where the participants of study are determined among the ones who are easily accessible, available at a certain time, or simply willing to participate (Dörnyei, 2007), was preferred to be used. The rationale behind the application of the given sampling technique is because of its practicality and readily available participants. Before applying scales, as the study has a number of variables, some demographic information about participants was gathered such as their department, graduated high school type and so on. In terms of gender distribution, it was seen that 90 (44.3%) female and 113 (55. 7%) male students participated in this study. The number of participants in terms of gender is balanced enough to have more reliable results. As for their department, it is seen that 162 (80.2 %) of them are students of Natural Sciences (Engineering, Medicine, Nutrition and Dietetics, Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, Psychotherapy and Rehabilitation, Pilotage, Industrial Design, City and Regional Planning, Architecture) whereas 40 (19.8 %) of them are students of Social Sciences (Psychology, Business Administration, Economics, International Relations, International Trade and Logistics, Public Relations and Advertising, Aviation Management). As sixteen different departments were identified and it was hard to analyze them, the researcher preferred to divide these departments into two groups as natural sciences and social sciences. Relevant analyses were run on these two groups of department. When the type of high school participants graduated from is analyzed, it is found out that 20 (9.9 %) of them are graduates of Science High School, 86 (42.6 %) of them are graduates of Anatolian High School, 23 (11.4 %) of them are graduates of Basic High School, 16 (7.9 %) of them are graduates of Vocational High School and Anatolian Teacher Training High School, 57 (28.2 %) of them are graduates of Private High School. As for the participants’ L2 proficiency level, 154 (75.9 %) of them stated that they are at Pre-Intermediate level, 43 (21.2 %) of them stated that they are at Intermediate level, and 6 (3 %) of them stated that they are at Upper-Intermediate level. Concerning the number of year that participants have known English, 40 (19.7 %) of them responded as 1-5 year, 113 (55.7 %) of them responded as 5-10 year, and 49 (24.1 %) of them responded as +10 year. Ultimately, for the question of whether participants know any other language except for their native language and English, 31(15.3 %) of them responded as yes and 172 (84.7 %) of them responded as no. According to the participants’ responses, these foreign languages include German, French, Russian, Korean, Macedonian and Azerbaijani. It is important to note here that although six demographic questions were asked on the questionnaire and the necessary information regarding them was gathered, only the first four variables that are presented below, which are gender, type of department, type of high school graduated from and L2 proficiency level, were used while examining the correlations. The last two variables, on the other hand, were not preferred to be analyzed in order not to have too many variables since the correlation among each demographic variable, mindset, and foreign language anxiety would be investigated one by one. Table 2 Demographic Information about the Participants F % Gender Female 90 44,3 Male 113 55,7 Department of Study Natural Science 164 80,8 Social Sciences 39 19,2 Science High School 21 10,3 Anatolian High School 86 42,4 Social Sciences High School 1 ,5 Vocational High School 10 4,9 Type of High School Gratuated Regular High School 11 5,4 Private High School/College 57 28,1 Basic High School 11 5,4 Anatolian Teacher Training High School 6 3,0 Pre-Intermediate 154 75,9 L2 proficiency level Intermediate 43 21,2 Upper-Intermediate 6 3,0 1-5 years 41 20,2 The number of Years English is Known 5-10 years 113 55,7 +10 years 49 24,1 Any Other Languages Known Different from English and Native Tongue Yes 31 15,3 No 172 84,7 Data Collection Prior to collect data for the given study, the permission of Hacettepe University Ethics Commission was applied. In order to do this, some necessary documents such as consent forms obtained from the developers of the scales were submitted. After a couple of weeks, the study received the necessary approval from the Ethics Commission in November, 2017 (see Appendix-F). To reach a larger sample group, the data was collected at two universities in December, 2017-2018 Fall term. The researcher first started to collect data from Atılım University Prepatory School where she is currently working. Before handing out the scales, she first distributed the Volunteer Consent Form (see Appendix-A) to the participants. Thanks to this form, they were informed about the main objectives of the study. Furthermore, they were also informed that this study got approval from Hacettepe University Ethic Committee, and confidentiality and anonymity would be maintained, so the results of the study would not be shared with any other people or institutions. They were also mentioned that if a participant decided at any time that s/he did not want to participate in this study, s/he could tell the researcher and would withdraw from the study for any reason. The researcher also repeated participants’ rights orally. Having read the form, almost all students accepted to be a part of this research and signed the form. After that, the researcher administered the scales in one week and finished the data collection procedure at Atılım University. Next, with the help of her colleagues at Gazi University, the researcher started to collect data in the 2nd setting of the study, and the same procedure was applied there. Collecting data from Gazi University took one week as well, and finally the whole data collection procedure was completed in two weeks. Instruments In the present study, data was collected using two different instruments. The scale developed by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) aimed to measure students’ level of foreign language anxiety in the classroom, and the instrument developed by Dweck (2000) was to understand how people view their own intelligence and talent. Both instruments were administered to the students separately and the required permission was granted by the researchers developing these instruments. Dweck’s mindset instrument (DMI). DMI, a 6-point Likert Scale, was developed by Dweck (2000) in order to assess how students view their own intelligence and to separate them accordingly into two “mindset” categories: fixed and growth. The reliability of Dweck’s Mindset Instrument was found quite high, indicating excellent internal consistency (α= 0.94 to 0.98) (Dweck, 1999). In line with this, the Cronbach alpha was calculated at. 91 in the present study, indicating quite strong internal reliability for DMI. Originally, Dweck’s Mindset Instrument consists of 16 items focusing on both intelligence and talent views of students. However, since all the questions were the same for both intelligence and talent viewpoint items, the researcher did not want to ask them separately and adapted the instrument by combining both intelligence and talent viewpoints in a total of 8 items as follows: ‘You have a certain amount of intelligence and talent, and…’ Thus, the number of the items was reduced from 16 to 8 in this study. As a result, DMI used in this study consists of 8 separate item statements, which students ranked on an agreement scale of 1-6: 1 (strongly agree), 2 (agree), 3 (mostly agree), 4 (mostly disagree), 5 (disagree), and 6 (strongly disagree). By answering the items on the DMI, students revealed what they believe about their own intelligence and success and they were grouped into the mindset they adopt. There are both fixed and incremental item statements in this instrument. The fixed item statements on the questionnaire consist of items 1, 2, 4, and 6. These items view intelligence as fixed and unchangeable. The incremental item statements, which view intelligence as changeable, consist of items 3, 5, 7, and 8. The scores selected by students for the incremental item statements will be reversed (1 becomes 6, 2 becomes 5, 3 becomes 4, 4 becomes 3, 5 becomes 2, and 6 becomes 1) to ensure that strongly disagreeing with a fixed item statement means strongly agreeing with an incremental item statement. At the end of scoring, students who collect a score between 1 and 3 are considered to view intelligence as something fixed at birth and unable to change, and therefore to have a fixed mindset. Students who gained a score between 4 and 6 are considered to view intelligence as something changeable, and therefore to have a growth mindset. On the other hand, students who gained a score between 3 and 4 are considered as uncertain about intelligence and therefore tended to have both fixed mindset and growth mindset. The items related to growth mindset are negatively and strongly correlated with the fixed mindset items (-0.69 and -0.86), which means that if one agrees with the growth mindset items, s/he will disagree with the fixed mindset items. (Dweck, 1999). By taking participants’ language qualification into consideration, this instrument was translated into their native language, Turkish, by the researcher. Therefore, not the original version but the Turkish translated version was administered to the participants. Since it was of great importance to have no difference between both versions, the procedures of translation and back- translation were applied thanks to some native speakers of English and Turkish colleagues. Translation and Back-Translation Procedures. DMI Instrument was originally in English and no Turkish version of the instrument existed. Thus, all the items on the scale were translated into Turkish. Firstly, the English version of the instrument was translated into Turkish by the researcher herself, and then she asked three colleagues to grade the consistency between the original and translated versions of the instruments. After evaluating the grades and getting feedback on some few potential problematic parts, the researcher worked on them and made improvements in accordance with the feedback obtained. Then, two other colleagues were asked to translate the Turkish version back to English. As a result, a back-translated English version of DMI was created. The last step was to ask two native speakers of English to rate the synonymy between the original and back-translated version of instruments. Finally, 96,2% synonymity was found between them. At the end, the Turkish version of the scale was used and administered while collecting the data. Foreign language classroom anxiety scale (FLCAS). The second scale used in this study is FLCAS, which has been developed by Horwitz et al. (1986) in order to measure the level of anxiety of foreign language learners in the classroom, and has been adapted into Turkish by Aydın (1999). Horwitz (1991) states the reason of why they designed FLCAS as follows: “Existing measures of anxiety do not test an individual’s response to the specific stimulus of language learning. The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) has been developed to provide investigators with a standard instrument for this purpose (p.37)”. FLCAS has 33 items in total, each of which is responded on a five-point Likert scale. These items are mostly about anxiety felt while producing the target language and about more general apprehensive attitudes towards foreign language learning. It ranges from 1 to 5 to measure how strongly or weakly students agreed or disagreed with items. However, as this study aimed to obtain even numbers in ratings of the scale for the purpose of having either positive or negative end of the scale for responders rather than a neutral or ambivalent answer choice, 6-point Likert scale version of the original instrument, ranging from (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Mostly Agree, (4) Mostly Disagree, (5) Disagree, and (6) Strongly Disagree, was used. FLCAS has 3 sub-dimensions which can be classified as Communication Apprehension (Item 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32), Test Anxiety (Item 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28) and Fear of Negative Evaluation (Item 2, 7, 13, 19, 23, 31, 33). Some of the scale questions are reverse-scored. (Item 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, and 32) since they are negatively-worded. Horwitz (2008) states that “For these items, you will need to switch your students’ response. Fives should be scored to ones, fours to twos, ones to fives, and twos to fours. Of course, 3’s will not have to be switched.” (p. 235). Since a 6-point Likert scale variant of the instrument was applied to the participants in the current study, the negatively-worded items were reversed as follows: 1 becomes 6, 2 becomes 5, 3 becomes 4, 4 becomes 3, 5 becomes 2, and 6 becomes 1. Table 3 Data Collection Instruments Research Questions Data Collection Instrument Main Research Question