The notion of PP has developed immense popularity since Martin Seligman, often called the “father of PP,” was elected as president of the American Psychological Association in 1996. The PP movement, starting with the landmark Special Issue in American Psychologist (2000), has catalyzed a shift from clinical psychology’s view of identifying, preventing, and repairing problems, weakness or illness to PP’s view of building strengths in life that contribute to the flourishing of individuals, communities, and societies (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Maddux, 2002).

Positive psychology is considered to be flourishing with its main topic of “well-being.” Seligman (2011) developed the well-being theory and proposed a five-dimensional PERMA model of well-being, namely “positive emotion (P), engagement (E), relationships (R), meaning (M), and accomplishment (A)” (p. 12). He claimed that the ultimate goal of PP is to improve well-being by increasing the five key areas of “PERMA” including positive emotions. However, PP, with its focus on well-being, does not ignore difficulties, obstacles, and negativity. Instead, it faces them from a strength-based perspective rather than weakness (Snyder and Lopez, 2002). This indicates that PP is not about fixing what is wrong, but about building what is right (Seligman, 2002).

Positive psychology has been flourishing in SLA with its basic commitments of enabling the well-being and L2 success of students (Strzałka, 2016; Szymczak, 2016; Jiang and Li, 2017). Resonating with the “positive renaissance” in general psychology, the area of SLA has also witnessed a “positive turn” (Dewaele and Li, 2018; Li and Dewaele, in press). Lake (2013) may be the first who introduced the term and perspective of PP to the field of SLA (Mercer and MacIntyre, 2014, p. 158). Shortly after the first study linking PP to SLA, the landmark Special Issue on “PP in SLA” came out (2014), showing signs of the advent of the PP movement in SLA. In 2016, two influential anthologies edited by MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer, and Gabryś-Barker and Gałajda brought the PP movement to a spurt with diverse topics and rigorous research methods (Al-Hoorie, 2017).

Influenced by Seligman’s well-being theory (2011), PP has largely been mispresented as a way to eliminate obstacles and problems and being pertinent to positive emotions exclusively (Komorowska, 2016). Oxford and Cuéllar (2014), Oxford (2015), and Komorowska (2016) expressed their suspicion of the idealistic approach of creating a difficulty-free learning environment and claimed that language learning is inherently a complex process full of growth as well as obstacles and difficulties, where diverse emotions unavoidably occur, including both positive and negative emotions. Komorowska (2016), and Li (2018) argued that PP in the SLA context is more about seeking value in the obstacles and difficulties of L2 learning and taking a strengths-based approach to them.

In the context of language learning, Oxford (2016a, b) thus modified Seligman (2011) PERMA model of the well-being theory, with an exclusive concentration on positive emotions, to a new theoretical model named EMPATHICS (E: emotional intelligence and emotion; M: meaning and motivation; P: perseverance; A: agency and autonomy; T: time; H: habits of mind; I: intelligence; C: character strengths; S: self-factors). EMPATHICS is an acronym outlining nine complex, interrelated and interacting psychological dimensions. These dimensions are “part of human well-being and positively influence language learners’ achievement and proficiency” (Oxford, 2016a, p. 26). Oxford (2016b) also argued for a holistic look on both positive emotions and negative emotions in L2 learning. According to the EMPATHICS model, the two variables, EI and emotions are primary elements of the first dimension (“E”), both of which are important factors in language learning (Dewaele et al., 2008; Oxford, 2016b, 2018). Furthermore, they are interrelated with each other theoretically. Thus, it is natural to propose the question: What are the relationships between them empirically?

Before the advent of PP at the very beginning of 21st century (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), EI had already gained extensive attention in general psychology (e.g., Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1995; Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Petrides and Furnham, 2000, 2001). EI has risen to its popularity particularly in the field of PP for its significant role in human performance and well-being, both of which are the primary foci of PP (Allen et al., 2014). EI can therefore be rightfully viewed as a key concept of character strengths within PP (Salovey et al., 2002).

The concept of EI became immensely popular in the media and public, with the release of Goleman’s (1995) influential book entitled EI: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. The release occurred long before scientific investigation of its construct and the development of rigorous measurement (Allen et al., 2014). It has been enormously popular especially in organizational psychology. Many organizations started to assess the EI of interviewees as an additional criterion in the absence of psychometrically tested procedures or measurements (Matthews et al., 2002). The urgency to explore the potentially important construct motivated a plethora of definitions, models, and measurements developed by different research groups (e.g., Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Petrides and Furnham, 2000, 2001; Barchard, 2003; Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Bar-On, 2006; Mayer et al., 2016).

Competing theoretical models of EI were classified into two different types: ability models and mixed/trait models (Allen et al., 2014). The ability model conceptualizes EI exclusively as a person’s emotion-related ability. The most influential ability construct is the Four-Branch model proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997). They defined EI within a cognitive-emotional framework as the ability to (1) perceive emotions, (2) use emotions to facilitate thought, (3) understand one’s own emotions as well as those of others, and (4) manage emotions. Task-based measures are required to assess EI as an ability, which remains a challenging task (Li, 2019). The first comprehensive and theory-based task measure for ability EI was the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) (Mayer et al., 1999), with its refined successor called the Mayer, Salovey and Caruso Emotional Intelligence Scale (MSCEIT) (2002) (Mayer et al., 2002).

For mixed/trait models, EI was defined as a mix of personality traits including emotion-related personality traits (Petrides et al., 2016). Petrides and Furnham (2000, 2001, 2003) viewed EI as a personality trait pertaining to self-perceived emotion-related ability and should thus be measured using self-reported measures. The trait EI questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides and Furnham, 2001, 2003) incorporates items not only from the four-branch ability EI model (Mayer and Salovey, 1997), but also from the realm of personality (Goleman, 1995), and intelligences (social, intra-, and inter-personal intelligences) (Gardner, 1983; Goleman, 1995).

Following EI literature in applied linguistics (e.g., Dewaele et al., 2008; Shao et al., 2013; Li, 2019), the present study adopts the trait model of EI. That is, EI is viewed as a personality trait encompassing a cluster of dispositions and self-perceptions related to emotions, positioned at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Dewaele et al., 2008, 2019b; Alba-Juez and Pérez-González, 2019). Trait EI is measured using self-reported measures including questionnaires (Petrides and Furnham, 2001). This conceptual decision was made to address the following concerns. First, empirical evidence on the very high correlation between EI and personality indicates that EI is substantially a personality trait (Allen et al., 2014). Second, contemporary language learning and teaching have an inherently communicative nature (Mercer and Gkonou, 2017). In other words, collaboration and cooperation prevalently occur among students, and also between language teachers and students. Thus, the construct of trait EI was adopted for its emphasis on and overlap with both intrapersonal and interpersonal EI (Li, 2019). Finally, as mentioned above, task-based tests of ability EI have proven to be a challenging task due to the inherent subjectivity of emotional experience. This indicates that EI is “thus not amenable to truly objective scoring procedures” (Dewaele et al., 2008, p. 919). Trait EI using the self-reported measure was adopted for its practicability, especially in a large-scale study.

Despite conceptual differences, we can conclude a theoretical link between EI and emotions. The link adequately underpins the main research question of the present study, regarding the relationship between EI and L2 classroom emotions.

A series of EI-related studies also emerged and confirmed empirically its important role for both language learners (e.g., Dewaele et al., 2008; Shao et al., 2013; Gregersen et al., 2014; Strzałka, 2016; Li, 2019) and teachers (e.g., Gkonou and Mercer, 2017; Mercer and Gkonou, 2017; Dewaele et al., 2018).

As discussed above, EI is a significant predictor of well-being because of its strong link with emotions (Nelis et al., 2011), especially positive emotions. However, the theoretical links are only partially empirically supported in our field. To be more specific, previous studies revealed the negative relationship between EI and negative L2 emotions, particularly, language anxiety. For example, Dewaele et al. (2008) found that adult multilinguals with higher EI tended to feel less anxious. This indicates that individuals with higher EI perceived themselves as more competent in perceiving and understanding the emotions of their interlocutors, managing their own stress and feeling more confident (Oxford, 2017). In a Chinese EFL context, Shao et al. (2013) also found that learners who were more emotionally intelligent generally experienced a lower level of FLA, supporting the link between EI and the negative L2 classroom emotions. However, how EI is related to positive L2 classroom emotions remains to be explored that. Motivated by this gap, the present study is designed to investigate the links between EI and both positive and negative L2 classroom emotions, creating a fuller picture of the emotional landscape of language learners.

There has been a growing interest in developing school-based interventions aimed at raising EI (Salovey et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2009; Waters, 2011). EI interventions are closely tied to more general social and emotional learning (SEL) programs (Mayer et al., 2002; Brackett and Rivers, 2014), with a focus on developing social and emotional skills, such as emotion regulation and resilience among students, teachers, and school leaders. Its ultimate aim is to foster the well-being and academic achievements of students (Cohen, 1999; Zins et al., 2000; Brackett and Rivers, 2014; Pérez-González and Qualter, 2018).

There are hundreds of curriculum-based SEL programs, most of which provide emotion skill-building opportunities for students to identify, gauge, talk about and to regulate their feelings (Mayer et al., 2002; Brackett and Rivers, 2014). For example, the RULER approach to SEL is a multiyear, structured, comprehensive, and systematic approach that engages all the “stakeholders” involved in students’ education including students, teachers, school leaders, support staff, and family members (Brackett et al., 2009, 2011). The RULER approach is theoretically grounded on the Four-Branch model of Mayer and Salovey (1997) and focuses on developing each stakeholder’s five key emotional skills. Evidence shows that the RULER approach is useful for effective teaching and learning, and promoting well-being and performance for both children and adults (Mayer et al., 2008).

In the field of L2 education, MacIntyre et al. (2019b) argued for PP-based interventions in language learning and teaching to improve “interpersonal relationships, positive emotions, lower stress, greater well-being, and so on” (p. 5). Recognizing the major role of EI in well-being and performance for both language learners and teachers (Oxford, 2016a), Oxford (2016a) argued that there is a need for language teachers to help their students to develop and employ their EI in language learning and contact with others. Mercer and Gkonou (2017) also suggested incorporating training programs to develop EI in order to support effective teaching.

Unfortunately, in SLA, EI-specific interventions based on PP principles remain at a starting stage. There are quite a few theoretically grounded and evidence-based intervention practices whose efficacy have been tested. Among the limited number of attempts, Gregersen et al. (2014) innovatively implemented EI interventions to an English learner and a pre-service TESOL teacher by adapting three activities from PP whose efficacy have been empirically tested. The three activities include identifying “three good things” (see Seligman et al., 2005), “savoring” positive experiences (see Peterson, 2006) and developing participants’ “learned optimism” in adverse experiences related to language teaching, learning, or education (see Seligman, 2006) (Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 340–347). However, as pointed out by Gregersen et al. (2014), the intervention practice could be more EI-oriented with exercise tightly tied to specific emotional skills, which may bring greater outcomes. Furthermore, a qualitative approach was adopted to focus on intervention effectiveness, leaving room for other research methods which can better visualize the changes before and after intervention practices.

Thus, the EI intervention implemented in the present study was designed to improve EI-specific skills based on the theoretical constructs of trait EI. A mixed method of both quantitative and qualitative approaches was adopted to test the efficacy of EI interventions for language learners.

Emotion had traditionally been neglected as “irrational factors” until the introduction of humanistic language teaching values in the 1970s and 1980s. Scholars began to take a holistic view on language learners, emphasizing their cognition and emotion equally (Arnold, 1998, 1999; Al-Hoorie, 2017; Piniel and Albert, 2018; Dewaele et al., 2019a this volume). Echoing this view, the Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) was proposed to underline the fundamental role of emotion in language learning. The hypothesis motivated a plethora of studies on language anxiety in the past three decades (Gkonou et al., 2017).

However, the advent of PP in SLA (MacIntyre and Gregersen, 2012; Mercer and MacIntyre, 2014) catalyzed an “affective turn” and a “positive movement.” The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001, 2003) underpinned the emotional movement in SLA. This has contributed to a shift from an exclusive focus on anxiety to a wide range of classroom emotions including both positive and negative emotions (Dewaele and Li, 2018; MacIntyre et al., 2019b; Prior, 2019). A great variety of different L2 classroom emotions other than anxiety have been reported by language learners and users in different contexts. Pishghadam et al. (2016), for instance, investigated the emotional experiences of 308 Iranian EFL university students and found that positive and negative classroom emotions coexisted with each other. The major positive foreign language emotions identified were “enjoyment, pride, and hope, and the major negative emotions were anxiety, shame, boredom and helplessness” (p. 508). Galmiche (2017), and Ross and Stracke (2017) studied the emotional experiences of shame and pride in the language learning process. In the study of MacIntyre and Vincze (2017), situated within a German-as-a-foreign-language context of Italian language secondary schools, 10 positive emotions including “joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe, and love” (p. 61) and nine negative emotions including “anger, contempt, disgust, embarrassment, guilt, hate, sadness, feeling scared, and being stressed”(p. 61) were identified as basic L2 motivation-related emotions. MacIntyre et al. (2019a) further investigated an inclusive but not exhaustive list of ten positive emotions (“interest, excitement, strength, enthusiasm, pride, alertness, inspiration, determination, attention, and activeness”) (p. 4 in the text) and ten negative emotions (“distress, upset, guilt, scare, nervousness, hostility, irritation, shame, jitter, and afraidness”) (p. 4 in the text) evoked over the past week among L2 learners.

Furthermore, in the first two Special Issues on L2 emotions, namely “Emotions in SLA” and “A PP perspective on emotions in SLA” (Li, in press), a variety of emotions were examined among learners of distinctive language profiles (diverse first languages as well as target L2s) at different instruction levels (from primary level to tertiary level) in diverse L2 learning contexts (countries all over five different continents). For example, Pavelescu and Petrić (2018) investigated the emotional experiences of four Romanian EFL high school students and found that enjoyment and love were the most frequently experienced positive emotions during their language learning process. Pavelescu and Petrić (2018) explored the emotion types that Hungarian English majors experienced in their general use of the L2 and four specific language skills. Nine in- and out-of-class emotions were identified. Seven positive emotions were identified, namely “pride, contentment, comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment,” and two negative emotions were identified, namely “anxiety and not like” (p. 142).

The fruitful findings on diverse classroom emotions does not mean that emotions or positive emotions had not been investigated before 2012, in fact, many researchers and practitioners laid the foundation for the “affective turn” within PP (e.g., Arnold, 1999; Cook, 2000; Broner and Tarone, 2001; Brantmeier, 2003, 2005; Kramsch, 2006; Imai, 2010). However, these studies are flourishing with the PP movement in SLA, creating the strong wave of scholarly interest in L2 classroom emotions that we are currently witnessing (Dewaele and Li, 2018; White, 2018).

Despite the growing number of studies in emotions flourishing with PP movement in SLA, in the Chinese EFL context, studies on emotions are still greatly confined to anxiety, with PP at its starting stage (Li and Dewaele, in press).

In the above-mentioned list, enjoyment and anxiety were reported as two of the most prevalent classroom emotions. They were metaphorically conceptualized as “malevolent and benevolent wolves” (Gregersen et al., 2017) and “feet” (Dewaele and MacIntyre, 2016) for every language learner despite their language proficiency. This could also manifest as a result of the large number of studies on the two emotions termed as Foreign Language Enjoyment (FLE) and Foreign Language Anxiety (FLA) in diverse contexts of L2 learning from a PP perspective (e.g., Dewaele and MacIntyre, 2014, 2016; Dewaele and Dewaele, 2017; Dewey et al., 2018; Elahi Shirvan and Taherian, 2018; Khajavy et al., 2018; Jiang and Dewaele, 2019; Li et al., 2019).

Previous studies have consistently confirmed the triangular relationship between FLE, FLA and L2 achievement. More specifically, there is a significant positive relationship between FLE and L2 achievement, while negative relationships between FLA and L2 achievement, and between FLE and FLA (e.g., Dewaele and Alfawzan, 2018; Jin and Zhang, 2018; Saito et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019). This indicates that learners who enjoy more in their L2 exploration tend to feel less anxious and achieve more. In terms of the correlation between FLE and FLA, despite the general negative relationship pattern between them, Dewaele and MacIntyre (2016) also pointed out that they are two separate emotions instead of two poles of a same dimension and that other interacting patterns exist between them.

Previous studies have also revealed a large list of correlates of the two emotions, including learners’ socio-psychological-behavioral variables and teacher-centered variables (e.g., Dewaele and MacIntyre, 2014; Saito et al., 2018; Dewaele et al., 2019c). Among them, EI was revealed as a significant predictor of language anxiety (Dewaele et al., 2008; Shao et al., 2013). However, the link between EI and positive L2 classroom emotions including FLE remains underexplored (Li, 2019). Furthermore, previous studies exclusively used a quantitative method to reveal the links between EI and FLA, inadequately showing exactly how EI is used by L2 learners to cope with emotion-related information in their L2 learning. Thus, in the present study, a quantitative approach was adopted to investigate the relationship between EI and the two prevalent classroom emotions of FLE and FLA, supported by a qualitative approach showing in detail the employment of EI in different positive and negative emotional experiences in English learning.

The present study followed an exploratory sequential design. It first reveals statistically significant patterns quantitatively, and then validates, enriches, and embellishes the quantitative results with qualitative findings (Creswell and Clark, 2011, p. 81).

The following findings were obtained in response to the research questions.

The quantitative and qualitative results converge to confirm the significant relationships between TEI and both positive and negative L2 classroom emotions, and the general negative relationship between FLE and FLA with other interacting patterns.

The present study shows its main limitation in its measurement. The quantitative data was retrieved only from self-reported scales, meaning that the emotional abilities in the present study are basically self-perceived emotion-related abilities and are unavoidably amenable to social desirability bias. Furthermore, the traditional research methods based on retrospective data collection may either overlook the short-lived and dynamic feature of emotions in the astatic and fluctuating communication process, or define an emotion partially as one specific emotional reaction, which is significantly stronger or occurs closer to the end of the event.

Despite the limitation, the present study still provides insightful theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the quantitative and qualitative findings converge to support the theoretical construct of TEI, linking TEI to both positive and negative emotions empirically in our field of L2 learning. Practically, the quantitative and qualitative findings highlight the co-existence of a great variety of L2 classroom emotions. This provides pedagogical implications that the teacher should be psychologically aware of and should be prepared to embrace leaners’ affective ambivalence (MacIntyre et al., 2009) instead of attempting to create an ideal negativity-free learning environment for their students. Instead, it is more fundamental to equip students with relatively stable emotional strengths and emotional ability to cope with situation-dependent, short-lived and dynamic emotions.

The findings also show the relationships between TEI and different L2 classroom emotions, complemented by qualitative findings on how EI was employed to cope with emotions. Grounded on both the empirical findings and the theoretical links between TEI and emotions, the following intervention of EI was implemented to improve students’ EI and further affect their classroom emotional experiences.

The whole intervention program is summarized in Table 5 and subsequently described in greater detail. The outline for the training is presented in the Appendix.

ANCOVA tests for EI, FLE and FLA were conducted to compare intervention and control post-test scores with pre-test scores, controlled as co-variables. Table 6 displays the results.

According to this table, in the intervention group, there was a significant increase in the scores for TEI and FLE, and a decrease in FLA, indicating the significant effect of EI training in all of the three variables. However, the effect size for the intervention on FLE was quite small. Altogether, we can conclude that the EI intervention consisting of ARGUER and the three activities is effective in improving EI and to correspondingly boost more positive emotions, reducing negative emotions in the context of EFL learning.

The qualitative interview with five students supported the efficacy of EI with rich details. They reported benefiting from the training in different aspects, most of which are inherently tied to the instigation of more positive emotions and reduced negative emotions. For example,

Xiaoming (pseudo name)

This extract showed the interviewee’s positive attitude toward EI training. It also indicates the benefits of the EI training including enhanced emotional awareness, increased self-motivation, improved awareness and the ability of emotion regulation, and more chances of experiencing positive emotions. Those outcomes are exactly the elements of EI according to its theoretical constructs (Petrides, 2009)., foregrounding the link between EI and emotions in English learning.

Xiaoli (pseudo name)

This extract indicated the interviewee’s positive change in responsive behaviors in class. She demonstrated an increased level of empathy toward the English teacher, which in turn brings her happiness. In other words, the EI element of empathy (Petrides, 2009) is linked to emotions.

Xiaowang (pseudo name)

This extract indicted the effectiveness of the EI training in improving trait happiness and optimism, both of which are key elements of TEI construct (Petrides, 2009).

The above narrative corresponded to the two prompts for EI, highlighting the effectiveness and popularity of EI training. The English teacher, the leading side of classroom interaction, was also interviewed for her perceptions of students’ emotional states in English learning. The following excerpts are from her narrative:

The teacher’s excerpts echoed students’ in the recognition of the benefits of the EI intervention: more empathy and enhanced language learning motivation. Considering the quantitative results and qualitative findings, the present study in the specific field of SLA, supports the main claim that increasing EI bolsters well-being, emotional experiences and social relationships in the studies by Nelis et al. (2011) and by Lea et al. (2018).

Before concluding, we have to note two of the limitations in the present study. First, this study was a 6-week snapshot of EFL learners’ emotional experiences throughout the EI intervention. There is no way to know the lower limits and upper limits of the length of intervention implementation and assessment. Furthermore, it remains unknown whether the effectiveness from the intervention are short-lived or not. A delayed post-test could be a good way to elucidate this. Finally, most students from the two classes are children who have been left behind for many years and were studying in the boarding school when the study was conducted. The experiences of being left-behind without their parents supporting them daily may have some influence on their psychological features, including EI and emotional experiences in school (Liang and Wang, 2018). Thus, great caution should be taken in terms of the generalizability of the findings to samples or contexts.

Despite these limitations, this is the first mixed-method study showing an EI intervention program in EFL learners and its effectiveness in improving emotional skills as well as affecting emotional experiences based on the trait EI theory. This program was tightly grounded on the RULER approach in general psychology as well as “three activities” adapted from PP and used in a language education context (Gregersen et al., 2014). As we were trying to improve learners’ awareness of and skills in different EI dimensions, we were at the same time moving to increase their ability to cope with different emotion-related information in learning. As EI dimensions such as happiness, optimism, self-motivation, and emotional regulation can put the wind in one’s sails, more positive emotions can inevitably be boosted, and negative emotions can be reduced and managed because of the joint effects of gains in different EI dimensions and positive emotions.

The present study shows practical implications for L2 education in that it offers a theory-grounded and operational intervention practice from a PP perspective in the context of Chinese EFL learning.