The relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between intercultural communicative competence and demotivation to learn a second language. The participants of the study included 60 Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level of language proficiency. Data were collected through administering the intercultural communicative scale and demotivation questionnaire and also conducting interviews. Data analysis was performed by running Pearson Correlation Coefficient using SPSS 21. The results of Pearson Correlation Coefficient showed that intercultural communication competence was negatively related to demotivation. Analysis of interview data showed that participants believed in negative relationship between intercultural communication competence and demotivation. They also maintained that integrating with other cultures and communicating with people from other cultures are sources of motivation in English language learning. Based on the findings of the study, teachers are encouraged to try to develop learners’ intercultural communicative competence in an effort to reduce EFL learners’ demotivation.

Keywords:

• demotivation
• motivation
• culture
• intercultural communicative competence

Public Interest Statement

One of the important elements in learning a second language is familiarity with the culture of the language being learnt. Presumably, having awareness of the cultural differences between the first and second language can help language learners use the second language more appropriately and communicate more effectively. Motivation is also another important factor when it comes to learning another language. Learners can be motivated at the outset of their learning experience but may lose their motivation and become demotivated in the course of their learning. This study sought investigates the relationship between intercultural communicative competence and demotivation to learn a second language. The results of data analyses showed that intercultural communication competence was negatively related to demotivation. Based on the findings of the study, teachers are encouraged to try to develop learners’ intercultural communicative competence in an effort to reduce EFL learners’ demotivation.

1. Introduction

It is generally agreed among learners, educators, L2 teachers, materials developers, and researchers that motivation has an essential role in achieving mastery over a second or foreign language (Kikuchi, 2009). The previous studies (e.g. Brown, 2000; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Csizer & Dörnyei, 2005, 1998; Noels, Clement, & Pelletier, 1999, 2001; Pae, 2008; Ramage, 1990) show that motivation contributes to the quality of L2 learning as it keeps the learners continuously studying L2, paving the way for the long-term retention of the L2 content (Brown, 2000; Liu, 2007; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Ramage, 1990).

Besides, the investigations on motivation reveal that a great number of ESL/EFL learners attribute their lack of success in learning English to demotivation (e.g. Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2010; Falout, Elwood, & Hood, 2009; Hu, 2011; Kim, 2009). Consequently, many researchers have sought to identify the causes of demotivation among L2 learners (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2010). Knowledge of the sources of demotivation can be of immense help in deleting the obstacles to motivation. In particular, in today’s educational programs, motivation is considered as one of the learner’s needs, which teachers in general and L2 teachers, in particular should accommodate in their teaching. Put it other way, keeping the learners motivated in the process of learning is essential to effective learning. As pointed out by Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011), the main issue is the unfamiliarity of teachers and learners with the sources. Such familiarity can reduce the impact of demotivational factors.

Thus, more investigations should be conducted to shed light on these sources so that learners become more motivated. However, Dörnyei (2003) highlights that, despite the great number of studies about the main aspects of motivation (e.g. Brown, 2000; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Csizer & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 1998; Noels et al., 1999, 2001; Pae, 2008; Ramage, 1990) and demotivation, (e.g. Akay, 2017; Abu-Jarour, 2012; Ch. & Zhou, 2017; Falout & Falout, 2005; Ghadirzadeh, Pourabolfathe Hashtroudi, & Shokri, 2012; Hosseini & Jafari, 2014; Hu, 2011; Rastegar, Akbarzadeh, & Heidari, 2012; Sher Ali & Pathan, 2017; Trang & Baldouf, 2007; Unal & Yelken, 2014; Venkatesan, Varghese, & Ananthanarayanan, 2009) demotivation has not been adequately at the center of attention. According to Dörnyei (2005), both positive and negative forces impact the ongoing learners’ behaviors. Yet, from Dörnyei’s (2005) viewpoint, the previous studies conducted on motivation have failed to take account of the negative motives which prevent the development of motivation. In addition, as discussed by Chambers (1993) and Gorham and Millette (1997) while some studies have examined the issues related to demotives, no studies have sought to devise an established framework to help better understanding the demotivation. Consequently, it seems that the construct of demotivation has gone rather unexplored in the context of EFL. One of the possible factors presumably related to demotivation is the culture.

In the words of Dörnyei (2001), teaching an L2 amounts to forceful incorporation of another culture into the learners’ own life space. This is likely to influence the motivation of learners either positively or negatively. According to Dörnyei (2001), learners are motivated to learn an L2 in varying degrees given their perception of the target culture (Dörnyei, 2001). Considering the today’s increasing internationalization, it is generally believed that learning a foreign or second language can not materialize merely through academic study. In fact, L2 learning has to do with learning a way of communicating (Zhou & Griffiths, 2011). Zhou (2011) asserts that communication in the real world is a contextualized phenomenon and as culture is considered a part of context, communication is not culture-free. Given that there is a close interrelationship between language and culture, it is impossible to separate language learning from learning about the target cultures.

Intercultural competence, defined as the capability to change one’s knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors to be open and flexible to other cultures, has turned in a key issue in the globalized society the current century (Alred & Byram, 2002). Hymes (1972) coined the term communicative competence. He defined such competence as having the knowledge of both rules of grammar as well as rules of language use appropriate to a particular context. His studies clearly represented a shift of linguists’ emphasis away from the investigation of language as a system in isolation to the investigation of language as communication. Intercultural competence is viewed to be a subfield of “communicative competence” (Deardorff, 2006).

According to Tesoriero (2006), given that language and culture are closely related, being communicatively competent requires that learners be interculturally competent as well. From Tesoriero’s (2006) perspective, differences including values, perceptions, traditions, culture, ethnicity, social rituals, political beliefs, sexuality and religion influence people all around the world so that they interpret their surroundings according to their individual attitudes. In the view of Huang, Rayner, and Zhuang (2003), an individual who enjoys intercultural competence is able to forge relationships with individuals from various cultures; he/she can manage to solve complicated conflicts through surpassing the obstacles that arise due to cultural differences so that his/her ability to do business with counterparts from different cultures is improved. Recently, considerable research has been carried out on these differences and thanks to these studies the concept of “intercultural communicative competence” has emerged.

Marek (2009) notes in his research that L2 culture plays an important role in the process of effective L2 learning. Consequently, L2 teachers do well to cover more of the target language culture in the classroom. In fact, learners’ respect for cultural differences can be greatly enhanced in the process of L2 learning in the classroom if the L2 teachers take account of culture into the language teaching process. Sebnem, Dicle, and Guldem (2009) conducted an analysis of the intercultural sensitivity levels among university students along with effect of education and intercultural experience on the development of intercultural communicative competence. The results showed that learners’ respect for different cultures increases with the increased engagement in international interactions. Although many studies (e.g. José & Aguilar, 2008; Planken, van Hooft, & Korzilius, 2004; Sudhoff, 2010; Usó-Juan & Martínez -Flor, 2008; Zhou & Griffiths, 2011) have so far investigated intercultural communicative competence in the context of ELT, none of these studies has explored its relationship to demotivation. Thus, the current study in an attempt to fill the existing gap, sought to probe the relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence. To this aim, the following research questions were formulated:

RQ1:

Is there any significant relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence?

RQ2:

What are the perceptions of the participants towards the possible relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence?

2. Methods

2.1. Design

The present study adopted a concurrent mixed-methods design via analyzing qualitative data in an attempt to triangulate the results gained from the quantitative phase of the study (Creswell, 2009). As Creswell (2009), maintains, mixed-methods research is:

The type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration. (p. 123)

Accordingly, in the current study the researcher used questionnaire scores as quantitative data and semi-structured interview contents as qualitative data. It should be noted that the quantitative part of the present study constituted the main aspect. The qualitative part, in the form of analysis of interview data, had the aim of corroborating the quantitative findings. This combination has been previously employed by scholars and as asserted by Silverman (2013) has been favored by many researchers. It should also be mentioned that since the qualitative part of the study had a corroborative role, the analysis of the interview data was simply in the form of surveying the respondents’ statements to examine if the Iranian EFL learners support the relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence or not.

2.2. Participants

Participants of the study included 60 EFL learners at intermediate level of language proficiency in a foreign language institute in Tehran. The language institute taught general English courses to adults and young adults at various levels of language proficiency. These 60 learners were studying English courses at intermediate level of language proficiency. They were both male (12) and female (18) and within the age range of 21–28. With regard to their socio-economic background no specific information was available, but since they had enrolled at a foreign language institute at the city center they could be classified as people with average income and from middle class community. Their goals of learning of English were mainly education as they wanted to know English to be intentionally literate and perfume better in their academic and social life. The selection of the participants was based on convenient sampling from the available English language learners at intermediate level of language proficiency. Maximum care was taken to include both male and female learners with equal level of language proficiency. Their participation was voluntary after they were informed about the study and its purpose. To further ensure that participants were at equal level of language proficiency Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was administered and it was revealed that their scores fell within the same level of language proficiency. In other words, students had scores with the range of 28–36 which is considered intermediate level in OPT scale.

2.3. Instruments

Three quantitative scales were used in the study for measuring the variables; language proficiency, intercultural competence and demotivation. Language proficiency of the participants was assessed using OPT. In order to measure the intercultural competence, the Intercultural Communicative Scale (ICS) of Chen and Starosta (2000) was used and to measure the demotivation, demotivation questionnaire developed by Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) was employed.

2.4. Oxford placement test

OPT is an English language test that put language learners at their correct level of language proficiency. The test has been published by Oxford University Press and is widely used across the world for language placement purposes.

2.5. Intercultural Communicative Scale (ICS)

ICS contains 24 items and has a five point Likert type scaling ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (See Appendix A). The questionnaire has been developed by Chen and Starosta (2000) and assesses the ICS from five aspects including interaction engagement, interaction confidence, the respect for cultural differences, interaction enjoyment, and interaction attentiveness. Interaction engagement deals with the commitment of individuals in sustaining an interaction and interaction confidence refers to the confidence and self-efficacy of individuals in having interaction with members of other cultures. Respect for cultural differences shows the open-mindedness of individuals when encountering different cultures and interaction enjoyment shows individuals’ interest in intercultural communication. Finally, interaction attentiveness is about the way people react to their interlocutors in intercultural interactions (Chen & Starosta, 2000). With regard to the validity of the scale Chen and Starosta (2000) estimated the correlation of ICS with other similar scales and reported significant relationships. In order to ensure about the reliability of the ICS, internal consistency of ICS was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha, and it was found that ICS had reliability index of 0.78.

2.6. Demotivation questionnaire

The demotivation questionnaire that was used in the current study had 35 items constituting five factors; the Learning Contents and Materials, Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles, Inadequate School Facilities, Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, Test Scores. Each item of questionnaire assessed the participants’ demotivating causes on a five-point Likert Type scale (5 = true to 1 = not true). The questionnaire was developed by Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) (See Appendix B). They confirmed a five factors solution for the demotivation construct and reported Cronbach’s Alpha values over 0.70 for the questionnaire. The reliability of the demotivation questionnaire was also estimated in the current study using Cronbach’s Alpha formula, and it was found that demotivation questionnaire was reliable enough (α = 0.81).

2.7. Semi-structured interviews

In addition to the tools used to measure the above variables, semi-structured interviews (See Appendix C) were carried out to seek participants’ perception of the relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence. The interview contained three questions that targeted learner’s opinions about the possible relationship between demotivation and intercultural communicative competence and the ways the two concepts are related. To address the validity of the interview questions, the researcher initially made three questions and then gave the questions to two Ph.D. holders in TEFL to be reviewed. The reviewers gave comments on the content of the questions and following that due revisions were carried out. The modified questions were also posed to five participants having similar characteristics to the main participants of the study to assure the clarity of the items. Then, based on the feedback received from these five participants, minor changes were made to the grammar and wording of the items.

2.8. Data collection

To collect the data for the current study, initially the participants of the study were selected. Sampling of the study was done through convenient sampling in which the most available language learners at intermediate level of language proficiency were selected. The selected participants took OPT to make sure that they were at intermediate level of language proficiency.

In the next phase of the study, data on intercultural communication competence and demotivation were collected by administering the ICS and demotivation questionnaire. The data collection occurred in one of the class hours and took about 30 min. With the help of administrators of the language institute, data collection was performed in one of the class sessions. Before data collection, participants were informed about the data collection procedure. Their consent for participating in the data collection was sought after ensuring the participants that all their personal data would remain confidential and used for research purpose only. Before students started the completion of ICS and demotivation questionnaire, enough guidance was given to the participants in terms of how to complete the ICS and demotivation questionnaire and what each five options of the scales meant. During the completion of the scales, the researcher was present to help the participants with any ambiguity and misunderstanding.

After language learners completed ICS and demotivation questionnaire, 10 language learners were asked to participate voluntarily and individually in a 10-minute interview. The purpose of the interview was seeking language learners’ perceptions of the relationship between intercultural communication competence and demotivation.

2.9. Data analysis

In the current study, since the collected data were quantitative and qualitative, the data analysis was also two types i.e. quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data included numerical data in the form of scores obtained from administration of ICS and demotivation questionnaire. These data were analyzed using Pearson Correlation Coefficient to detect any possible relationship between intercultural communication competence and demotivation among Iranian EFL learners. To report the results of the interviews, the content analysis approach recommended by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) were used in this study. According to Auerbach and Silverstein (2003), content analysis is the most common form of analysis for qualitative data. They further enumerate six stages including:

• getting familiar with data,

• coming up with initial codes,

• looking for themes among codes,

• reviewing the themes,

• defining and labeling the themes, and

• producing the final report.

The researcher and a Ph.D. holder in TEFL went through these six stages to report the interview contents. Thus, to analyze the qualitative data, the participants’ answers to interview questions were carefully surveyed and content analyzed to understand how they perceived the relationship between intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation. To ensure the reliability of theme construction, it deemed necessary to establish the reliability of the procedure. To this end, agreements and disagreements were calculated using Holsti’s (1969) coefficient of reliability (C. R.), which reveals the number of agreements per total number of coding/theme decisions. The formula applied is as follows:

Ole Holsti (1969) formula $\mathbf{R}=\frac{2\mathbf{M}}{\mathbf{N}1+\mathbf{N}2}$

M = Number of agreements

N1 = Number of decisions by rater/coder 1

N2 = Number of decisions by rater/coder 2

In the codification process, the number of decisions made by rater one turned out to be 5 and for rater two it was 6 and the number of agreements was 5.

Therefore, based on the formula, the coefficient of reliability (C. R.) was calculated as

$\mathbf{R}=\frac{2{ }^{\ast }5}{6+5}=.90$

The C. R. value as revealed was 0.90, which indicates excellent agreement. This number showed that the inter-rater’s coding results were consistent.

3. Results

The purpose of the study was investigating the relationship between intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation among Iranian EFL learners. The data on intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation were in the form of scores indicating their degree of intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of intercultural communication competence and demotivation

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a
						Statistic	df	Sig.
ICS	60	56.00	90.00	72.7000	8.13925	.055	60	.200*
Demotivation	60	43.00	82.00	62.2833	9.41166	.086	60	.200*
Valid N (listwise)	60

In ICS, language learners scored 72.70 (SD = 8.13) while in demotivation scale, they scored 62.28 (SD = 9.41). Both of the two sets of scores were normally distributed as indicated by Kolmogorov Smirnov test of normality (P > 0.05). In the next step, to estimate the correlation between intercultural communicative competence and demotivation, results of Pearson Correlation Coefficient was consulted (Table 2).

Table 2. Correlation coefficient between intercultural communication competence and demotivation

		Demotivation
ICS	Pearson Correlation	−.676**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000
	N	60

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on the results of Pearson correlation it was found that intercultural communication competence and demotivation were significantly but negatively related (ƿ = −0.67, p = 0.00). This means that people with high competence in intercultural communication are less demotivated to learn English and vice versa.

The results of qualitative analysis of participants’ answers to the interview questions were in line with the results of quantitative analysis (negative relationship between intercultural communication competence and demotivation). After analyzing the participants’ answers to the interview questions, it was revealed that they mainly believed that a person who is more competence in intercultural communication would be less demotivated to learn English as a foreign language. When asked why they thought so, they expressed two main reasons. One of the reasons was that a person with intercultural competence is interested in intercultural communication. This interest means that such a person is motivated to learn English as an international and intercultural language. Another reason was that if a person is demotivated to learn a language, such a person would never attain a good level of intercultural communication competence. Because it is through learning language that people learn how to speak and behave culturally appropriate. The participants’ answers to the question why intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation are related can be summarized in the following statements:

• Interest to other cultures is one of the motivating factors to learn an international language like English.

• Some people like to be a member of international community and this causes more motivation to learn English.

• Many Iranians are fond of western culture which can be a source of motivation to learn English.

• Some people like to act and behave like European and Americans and this means more motivation to learn English.

As it is evident in the above depictions of the relationship between intercultural communication competence and motivation, intercultural communication competence has been associate with more motivation to learn English. In other words, demotivation was perceived as negatively related to intercultural communication competence.

4. Discussion

The results of the study indicated that intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation has a negative relationship among Iranian EFL learners. It was also revealed that Iranian EFL learners had the perceptions that the relationship between intercultural communication competence and language learning demotivation in negative.

The fact that intercultural communication competence was negatively correlated with language learning demotivation was quite line with initial exceptions at the outset of the study. In other words, the hypothesis that intercultural communication competence would be in negative relationship with demotivation was supported by the results of the study. Such negative relationship can be explained by the theoretical definition of intercultural communication competence and demotivation.

As Tesoriero (2006) maintains language and culture are closely inter-related and any factor pertinent to culture might bear relevance to language learning. Evidently, one of the crucial factors in language learning is motivation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), and thus it can be inferred that the darker side of motivation i.e. demotivation has a relationship to cultural elements inherent in the process of language learning. Therefore, intercultural competence which can be a positive attribute for language learners can be related to demotivation. In the definition of intercultural communication competence, a desire to start and sustain an effective communication with individuals from other culture is implied. Such desires require sensitivity to cultural differences and having the intention to respect and integrate with other cultures. Ameli and Molaei (2012) maintain that intercultural sensitivity is one of the essential requirements of successful communication in multicultural environment. On the other hand, demotivation means loss of interest in sustaining second language learning efforts (Dörnyei, 2001) due to many reasons which could be social and cultural. As Huang et al. (2003) assert an individual who enjoys intercultural competence is able to forge relationships with individuals from various cultures which can consequently enhance learners’ motivation to learn another language and feel less demotivated.

Lack of cultural understanding and cultural information can also be regarded as the connecting point between demotivation and intercultural communication competence. Chi and Suthers (2015) explain that close ties between members of various culture is the key to cultural information and intercultural communication. A person who is demotivated to learn a second language would experience less communication with other cultures and would learn less about the cultural norms of the target community. Therefore, demotivation means less communication and less communication means less knowledge about other culture which consequently leads to less intercultural communication competence.

The negative relationship between intercultural communication competence and demotivation can also be explained from the willingness to communicate perspective. One of the concepts that is closely related to motivation in second language learning is willingness to communicate. Willingness to communicate is defined as the desire and interest of people in having interaction and communication (McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Richmond, 1990; Zakahi & McCroskey, 1989) and studies show that willingness to communicate is significantly related to attitudes toward international community (e.g. Asmali, 2016; Ghonsooly, Khajavy, & Asadpour, 2012). Ghonsooly et al. (2012) studied the construct of WTC and its variables in an EFL setting in Iran and found that L2 self-confidence and attitudes toward international community predicted L2 WTC. Asmali (2016) also conducted a similar study in Turkish context of EFL and found that attitude toward international community, their motivation to learn English, and their confidence in English communication had significant and positive effect on their willingness to communicate in English. Such studies imply that lack of motivation would be related to lack of willingness to communicate. Such lack of willingness to communicate can consequently lead to a lack of competence in intercultural competence. In other words, without having desire to communicate and practicing communication, there is little chance of developing intercultural communication.

Thus, it can be inferred that demotivation is negatively related to intercultural communicative competence and on the other hand motivation can have positive associations to intercultural competence. For instance, Integrative motivation has long been mentioned as one of the aspects of motivation to learn a second language in which learners are motivated to learn a second language because they intend to integrate with target language culture and community (Dörnyei, 2001). This partly indicates that a lack of interest to welcome other cultures could cause less intercultural competence. Although integrative motivation is not the only factor explaining learners’ interest in learning a second language, it can to some extent explain that lack of interest in other cultures (mainly western culture) may cause less motivation and also less intercultural communication competence.

5. Conclusion

The study found that intercultural communication and demotivation to learn a second language was negatively related. Furthermore, it was revealed that students had the perceptions that intercultural communication and demotivation are negatively related. They believed that interest in other cultures is a source of motivation and many Iranians like to integrate with international community and western culture. The negative relationship between intercultural communication and demotivation could be justified by making references to theories of motivation, demotivation, and intercultural communication competence. By surveying the theories, it was hypothesized that integrative motivation is the connecting point linking intercultural communication and demotivation. To put it another way, lack of intercultural communication competence may mean lack of integrative motivation that would lead to demotivation in language learning. In addition, some empirical studies have pointed out that willingness to communicate is related to motivation and attitudes toward international community which may explain why intercultural communication competence would be in conflict with demotivation to learn a second language. In other words, when there is more willing to communicate then there is more positive attitude toward intercultural communication and motivation which consequently increase the chance of intercultural communication development. Therefore, demotivation would be considered a threat to intercultural communication competence.

Such a finding implies that in order to develop the intercultural communication competence, language teachers need to pay close attention to the issue of demotivation and its underlying factors. After all, English in Iran is a foreign language and any attempts to develop the communicative competence in Iranian learners need to consider this fact they actually need to be prepared for intercultural communication competence. This research revealed just one aspect of intercultural communication competence. It is felt that more research is needed to know how pedagogical intervention can be oriented toward the development of intercultural communication competence. For instance, which type of materials and which techniques and strategies need to be employed for enhancing the intercultural communication competence of learners? Or, which strategies should be tough to the learners so they can become more sensitive to intercultural communication values? All these issues can be subjects of further research in future in the area of intercultural communication competence in foreign language leaning.

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Azam Badrkoohi

Azam Badrkoohi is an MA holder in TEFL from Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch in Tehran, Iran. She has been teaching English for several years at different language schools in Tehran. Her main research interests are individual differences in language learning, demotivation, intercultural differences and motivations.

 

Appendix A. Intercultural Communicative Scale (ICS)

Below is a series of statements concerning intercultural communication. There are no right or wrong answers. Please work quickly and record your first impression by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Thank you for your cooperation.

5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = uncertain, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree

(Please put the number corresponding to your answer in the blank before the statement)

1. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.

2. I think people from other cultures are narrow-minded.

3. I am pretty sure of myself in interacting with people from different cultures.

4. I find it very hard to talk in front of people from different cultures.

5. I always know what to say when interacting with people from different cultures.

6. I can be as sociable as I want to be when interacting with people from different cultures.

7. I don’t like to be with people from different cultures.

8. I respect the values of people from different cultures.

9. I get upset easily when interacting with people from different cultures.

10. I feel confident when interacting with people from different cultures.

11. I tend to wait before forming an impression of culturally-distinct counterparts.

12. I often get discouraged when I am with people from different cultures.

13. I am open-minded to people from different cultures.

14. I am very observant when interacting with people from different cultures.

15. I often feel useless when interacting with people from different cultures.

16. I respect the ways people from different cultures behave.

17. I try to obtain as much information as I can when interacting with people from different cultures.

18. I would not accept the opinions of people from different cultures.

19. I am sensitive to my culturally-distinct counterpart’s subtle meanings during our interaction.

20. I think my culture is better than other cultures.

21. I often give positive responses to my culturally-different counterpart during our interaction.

22. I avoid those situations where I will have to deal with culturally-distinct persons.

23. I often show my culturally-distinct counterpart my understanding through verbal or non-verbal cues.

24. I have a feeling of enjoyment towards differences between my culturally-distinct counterpart and me.

Note: Items 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 22 are reverse-coded before summing the 24 items. Interaction Engagement items are 1, 11, 13,21, 22, 23, and 24, Respect for Cultural Differences items are 2, 7, 8, 16, 18, and 20, Interaction Confidence items are 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10, Interaction Enjoyment items are 9, 12, and 15, and Interaction Attentiveness items are 14, 17, and 19.

 

Appendix B. Demotivation Questionnaire

No	Item
1	I seldom had chances to communicate in English.
2	Most of the lessons focused on translation.
3	Most of the lessons focused on grammar.
4	Most of the lessons were entrance examination oriented.
5	I was expected to use (or speak and write) grammatically correct English.
6	I was forced to memorize the sentences in the textbooks too often.
7	I had difficultly memorizing words and Phrases.
8	I got low scores on testes (such as mid- term and final examinations).
9	I got lost in how to self- study for English lessons.
10	The pace of lessons was not appropriate.
11	Teachers’ pronunciation of English was poor.
12	Teachers ridiculed students’ mistakes.
13	Teachers made one- way explanations too often.
14	Teachers’ explanations were not easy to understand.
15	Teachers shouted or got angry.
16	Topics of the English passages used in lessons were not interesting.
17	English passage in the textbook were too long.
18	English sentences dealt with in the lessons were difficult to interpret.
19	A great number of textbook and supplementary readers were assigned.
20	Topics of the English passages used in lessons were old.
21	Computer equipment was not used.
22	Visual materials (such as videos and DVDs) were not used.
23	The Internet was not used.
24	LL equipment was not used.
25	Audio materials (such as CDs and tapes) were not used.
26	The number of students in classes was large.
27	I could not do as well on test as my friends.
28	I did not like my classmates.
29	My friends did not like English.
30	I was often compared with my friends.
31	English was a compulsory subject.
32	I lost my understanding of the purpose of studying English.
33	I lost my interest in English.
34	I lost my goal to be a speaker of English.
35	English questions did not have clear answers.

 

Appendix C. Interview Questions

• Do you think that being able to communicate in an intercultural environment is connected to language learning motivation or demotivation? Explain with more details.

• Do you think such relationship is positive or negative? Explain.

• Why do you think demotivation is negatively/positively related to intercultural communication competence?