second language acquisition essay

ET990-2 Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Language Learning Student I/D: 1163612

CENTRE FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS

MA ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

STUDENT ID NUMBER: 1163612

PROGRAMME: MA IN ELTMM/ICT

MODULE NAME: SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND CLASSROOM LANGUAGE TEACHING

ET990-2

MODULE TUTORS: EMA USHIODA / ANNA-MARIA PINTER

WORD COUNT: 3,257

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION:

DATE DUE: 12 NOON on 12 JANUARY 2012

DATE SUBMITTED: 10 JANUARY 2012

In completing the details on this cover sheet and submitting the assignment, you are doing so on the basis that this assignment is all your own work and that you have not borrowed or failed to acknowledge anyone else’s work

Please X this box if you agree to this statement X

0


INTRODUCTION

There has been a paradigm shift in motivation research in respect of second language acquisition

(SLA) over the last twenty years. In the early 1990s, there was a sense that the social-psychological

tradition, which framed methods of enquiry, had run its course and that alternative perspectives

were needed to revitalise and refocus the L2 motivation field ((Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:46).

There was a subsequent phase, the cognitive-situated period, drawing on cognitive theories from

educational psychology. Out of this came a process-oriented approach, focusing on changes in

individual involvement over time. This, in turn, has evolved into (or perhaps merged with) a new

socio-dynamic phase (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:69).

I will discuss several key empirical studies into L2 motivation, roughly arranged in order of whether

they take a quantitative, qualitative or ‘mixed methods’ approach. It must, however, be noted that

despite the obvious distinctions and the preference to view these on a continuum (Dörnyei,

2007:25), they have ideological differences, a contrast in categorization and a contrast in the

perception of individual diversity which permeates the methodology used.

I will follow this with my own commentary, the implications which can be drawn for my own

research and in what ways I have reflected about SLA in the last few months.

QUANTITATIVE APPROACH

Quantitative social research grew out of the desire to emulate the ‘objective’ procedures found in

the natural sciences. The use of measurable, statistically based evidence, ‘a priori categorization’,

variables rather than cases, and standardized procedures seeks to eradicate researcher subjectivity.

It is systematic and rigorous, and uses in-built cross-checking indices (Dörnyei, 2007:32-34).

Language learners’ attitudes and motivation have traditionally been measured by means of

quantitative methods, typically using large-scale questionnaire surveys, to account for the attitudes

of whole speech communities. Most empirical research up until the 1990s was dominated by a

social-psychological approach initiated in bilingual Canada by Robert Gardner, Wallace Lambert and

Richard Clément. This is understandable, according to Dörnyei (1998:122):

since learning the language of another community simply cannot be separated from the

learners’ social dispositions towards the speech community in question … the ‘students’ attitudes

towards the specific language group are bound to influence how successful they will be in

incorporating aspects of that language (Gardner, 1985, in Dörnyei, 1998:122).

1


Gardner et al (1985) developed a standardized motivation battery, the AMTB (Attitude/Motivation

Test Battery) to measure integrative and instrumental orientation, via an AM Index. The former

reflects a sincere interest in the target language culture and a desire to interact with the members of

that community, while the latter emphasizes the pragmatic gains or practical advantages, such as

getting a job with a higher salary. Students with ‘dormant’ French were used deliberately, in one

particular study (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1991), as explained:

The reason for using subjects who had not studied French for some time was not taken lightly.

Given the materials to be learned, it was known on the basis of previous research (Gardner, Lalonde,

& Moorcroft, 1985) that such individuals would not know any of the vocabulary items at the outset of

the study, and that consequently the rate of learning would reflect factors operating in the learning

task itself as opposed to transfer from previous knowledge. Since the major focus was on the effects

that attitudes and motivation, on the one hand, and monetary rewards, on the other, had on the French

vocabulary learning (and other relevant behaviors), such control seems mandatory. (Gardner and

MacIntyre, 1991:60)

Instrumental motivation of a $10 reward was offered randomly to half of the subjects if they

achieved a superior level of success in the learning task (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1991:59). Timed

responses to eight different attitudinal/motivational characteristics (subscales) were obtained using

a microcomputer (see Appendix A). Subjects were subsequently given six attempts to learn 26

English/French word pairs using an anticipation method. Results were presented by a series of

graphs plotting the two prescribed types of motivation against performance and a correlation table

using the subscales. Conclusions were drawn that instrumentally motivated students, where there

was an opportunity to profit, studied longer than those who were not. In addition, there was an

indication that a reaction time index might provide a method of identifying social desirability

(Gardner and MacIntyre, 1991:57).

Gardner (1985:169) had previously stated that the source of the motivating impetus is relatively

unimportant, provided that motivation is aroused. However, the source of this motivation is

important for practising teachers who need to stimulate motivation. Researchers have claimed that

both integrative and instrumental orientations play a part in performance and that the results could

be generalized to actual language acquisition. These orientations, however, do not adequately

summarise all possible reasons, as pointed out by Oxford and Shearin (1994) when highlighting the

(1991) case of 218 American high school students who were asked to write an essay explaining their

motivation for studying Japanese:

2


more than two-thirds of the teenagers also had additional [non-orientational] reasons for

learning Japanese These reasons included: receiving intellectual stimulation, seeking personal

challenge, enjoying the elitism of taking a difficult language, showing off to friends, developing

greater cultural tolerance through language study, aiding world peace, satisfying curiosity about

cultural "secrets," pursuing a fascination with Japanese writing systems, and having a private code

that parents would not know. (Oxford and Shearin, 1994:12)

In 1991, Crookes and Schmidt, amongst others, called for a new approach, which heralded what has

retrospectively been described as the cognitive-situated period (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011:46):

From a conceptual point of view, much of the work on motivation in SL learning has

not dealt with motivation at all. Consequently, we have adopted here a definition of motivation in

terms of choice, engagement, and persistence, as determined by interest, relevance, expectancy, and

outcomes. We suggest that this will … [provide] a more satisfactory connection to language-learning

processes and language pedagogy. … the role of motivation … ought to be general and not restricted

to particular contexts or groups. In brief, we seek to encourage a program of research that will develop

from, and be congruent with the concept of motivation that teachers are convinced is critical for SL

success.

Crookes and Schmidt (1991:502)

There followed a significant shift towards adopting a more pragmatic, education-centred approach

to motivation research which would be consistent with the perceptions of practising teachers and,

thus, more directly relevant to classroom application (Dörnyei and Csizér, 1998:204).

Some research (e.g. Julkunen, 1989) hypothesized that situation-specific factors closely related to

the classroom reality played a greater role in L2 motivation. How to operationalize this complexity

was a question posed by Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1994). The hypothesis was tested amongst

Hungarian EFL learners who were somewhat isolated from the target language culture (Clement et

al, 1994:423). Building on social psychological constructs, 301 students from Budapest answered a

questionnaire assessing their attitude, anxiety and motivation towards learning English and their

perception of classroom atmosphere and cohesion (see Appendix B). To operationalize the

complexity of classroom environment, the researchers drew upon group dynamics. One concept

central to this is group cohesion, or ‘the strength of the relationship linking the members to one

another and to the group itself’ (Forsyth, 1990:10 in Clement et al, 1994:424) . Questionnaires were

given to students, which included an assessment of their teachers, and vice-versa. Results

confirmed earlier research towards integrative motivation and linguistic self-confidence, but the

3


classroom-specific component was novel and provided support for a pedagogical extension to

research (Dörnyei and Csizér, 1988:205).

Further questionnaire survey research has looked at motivational strategies within the classroom, by

questioning both the beliefs and practices of 200 Hungarian teachers of English (Dörnyei and Csizér,

1998). The main purpose was to ‘draw up a set of motivational macrostrategies to which teachers

could pay special attention when trying to implement a motivation-conscious teaching approach’

(Dörnyei, 1998:131). This was done by focusing on the ‘importance’ and ‘frequency’ of each

strategy. A pilot study, with 20 respondents, was first carried out, with modifications made to the

questions, until 51 motivational strategy items were grouped into clusters and internal consistency

of these scales was verified by means of reliability analysis (ibid:213). By standardising the

importance and frequency scores a ‘relative frequency’ index was created, therefore determining

underuse or overuse. The final rank order (see Appendix C), including ten multi-item scales and

eight individual item strategies revealed which ten ‘variables’ would form the basis of ‘ten

commandments’ for motivating language learners (Appendix D).

Quantitative methods still abound but have not remained unchanged. Examples of these are

correlational studies (e.g. Dörnyei and Kormos, 2000), factor analytical studies (e.g. Chen, Warden

and Huo-Tsan Chang, 2005) and experimental studies (e.g. Inbar et al, 2001). More significantly,

according to Dörnyei (2001/2011), the relatively recent structural equation modelling (SEM) (e.g.

Wen-Ta Tseng and Schmitt, 2008) has been used to interpret large, multivariate datasets. It is

appropriate for testing ‘grand’ theories, that is, comprehensive models made up of a number of

complex, interrelated variables (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:227).

QUALITATIVE APPROACH

Whereas quantitative research is relatively straightforward to define, qualitative research has no

theory or paradigm that is distinctly its own. Nor does qualitative research have a distinct set of

methods or practices that are entirely its own. A wide range of seemingly unconnected methods are

used to get a better fix on the subject matter in hand (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994:2 and in Dörnyei,

2007:35). Furthermore:

[It] is not simply a question of methodology. It is defined by the nature of its theoretical

focus and empirical purpose. The value of the approach lies in its potential to cast a different light

on the phenomena under investigation and to raise a different set of issues … [for SLA] the issue is

not whether qualitative research methods may yield to support or undermine traditional and current

theoretical approaches in the quantitative paradigm. The purpose is rather to analyse and explore

4


aspects of motivation that are not easily accommodated within the dominant research paradigm. In

essence, a qualitative approach is underpinned by a fundamentally different concept of motivation

itself. (Ushioda, in Dörnyei and Schmidt, 2001:96)

I will begin a look at more qualitative studies by raising a concern made by Oxford and Shearin

(1994) that they:

[had rarely] seen an L2 teacher administer a motivation survey or discuss students’ goals …

still less often have we found teachers tracking the changes in students’ motivations over several

years. (Oxford and Shearin, 1994:16)

One longitudinal study (Nikolov, 1999) which addressed this concern, explored the attitudes and

motivations of young Hungarian learners aged between 6 and 14, using the teachers’ direct

involvement. The study was triggered by classroom needs juxtaposed with her own lack of

theoretical knowledge (ibid:39). A total of 84 children were involved in three separate eight year

periods, with 45 included for the full term. A short questionnaire consisting of six open-ended

questions were asked in their native tongue, based upon reasons for learning English, its importance

compared with other subjects, likes and dislikes about learning and suggestions for the teacher. This

questionnaire was administered each year, followed by a discussion about the responses. Answers

were tabulated by theme with comparison across three different age ranges. Motivation was found

to be situation-specific, for example, attitudes towards the learning context, the teacher, tasks and

materials. These were deemed to be stronger than integrative or instrumental motives. Knowledge

overtook the role of extrinsic factors like rewards and approval (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:210).

The way in which motivational processes happen in time was first highlighted, amongst others, by

Williams and Burden (1997). They argued for a continuum consisting of ‘initiating’ and then

‘sustaining’ motivation:

It is important to emphasise here that motivation is more simply than arousing interest. It also

involves sustaining interest and investing time and energy into putting the necessary effort to achieve

certain goals. We make this point because so often, from a teacher’s point of view, motivation is seen

as simply sparking an initial interest, for example, presenting an interesting language activity.

However, motivating learners entails far more than this (Williams and Burden, 1997:121 in Dörnyei

and Ushioda, 2011:61).

During this process-oriented period, Williams and Burden (for example, 1999) also drew upon

psychological attribution theory for their own research. Attributional processes ‘form one of the

most important influences on the formation of peoples’ expectancies and their investigation was the

5


dominant model in research on student motivation in the 1980s’ (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:15).

The small-scale study focused on an investigation into the development of British schoolchildrens’

attributions for their perceived success or failure in learning French. Semi-structured interviews

were conducted across four school year groups, in a ’relaxed manner’, expressing confidentiality

(Williams and Burden, 1999:196). Using a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1990),

the researchers allowed the data to suggest natural categories. The results:

indicated that most of these learners tended to judge their success by external factors such as

teacher approval, marks, or grades, and that the range of attributions increased with age. Many of the

attributions mentioned, however, were superficial in nature. It appears that the teacher plays a

significant role in the development of students’ attributions. Implications [were] drawn with regard to

language teaching and to the nature of the learning environment (Williams and Burden, 1999:193).

Effort became increasingly identified as the main reason for success while, in contrast, reasons cited

for failure included distraction by others, difficulty of work, and poor teaching, as well as lack of

concentration (see Appendix E).

I now wish to turn to one of the main early advocates for qualitative research. Ushioda (2001)

provided a key longitudinal work which examined the ‘temporal dimension’ of motivation. The

study, actually conducted in two separate stages in 1991 and 1993, used a manageable sample of 20

Irish university undergraduates studying French. It sought to provide insights into the learner’s own

working conceptions of their motivation and their perspectives on motivational evolution over time

(ibid:93). For institutionalised language learning especially, Ushioda (1996) states:

the common experience would seem to be motivation flux rather than stability … yet the

potential for developing a dynamic theory of L2 motivation would seem to extend beyond the

phenomenon of motivational loss or growth alone. In this respect a more introspective type of

research approach is needed to explore qualitative developments in motivational experience over time,

as well as to identify the contextual factors perceived to be in dynamic interplay with motivation

(Ushioda, 1996:240).

Rather than priming respondents with motivational concepts, that might unduly influence

responses, a loosely structured interview technique was employed to draw out introspective data.

Despite the dangers of the elicited data varying considerably (ibid:98), the first stage resulted in the

emergence of eight descriptive dimensions (ibid:102-4; see Appendix F). These dimensions were

arrived at, not by ‘factor analytic reduction’, as quantitative data might provide, but rather to put

6


some kind of ‘collective shape’ on the introspective data (ibid:102). Subjects were prompted to

consider other factors which they had previously not mentioned (ibid:104) before a motivational

profile for each subject was generated. Having collated these, four motivational dimensions, in

particular, were emphasized. A ‘positive learning history’ and ‘enjoyment of the French language’

scored over ‘future goal-orientation’ and a ‘desired level of L2 competence’, pointing to intrinsic

factors rating higher than extrinsic goals.

The second stage followed a semi-structured interview format, with 14 of the original 20 subjects,

taking four aspects of motivation as a dynamic phenomenon:

1. Motivational evolution over time (5 questions)

2. Motivational perspectives on L2 development over time (2 questions)

3. Factors negatively affecting L2 motivation (1 question)

4. Motivational strategies (1 question)

(Ushioda, 2001: 99-100; 109)

For each aspect, subjects’ responses to the open-ended questions posed were summarized in note

form. These were compared and common underlying patterns found. Qualitative developments,

not possible under more rigid, statistically-based procedures, were found to include individual or

personal reasons. Examples would be positive or negative experiences from visiting France, success

in exams leading to greater perception of achievement and the dominance of exam-oriented

motivation at the expense of intrinsic motivation (ibid:110). Interestingly, ‘demotivating’ factors

were found to be, almost exclusively related to negative aspects of the institutionalized learning

context (ibid:114).

MIXED METHODS

Having looked very briefly at some predominantly quantitative and qualitative approaches, I now

wish to turn to a mixed method approach, which combines elements of both. The purpose is

threefold:

There are two main and somewhat conflicting purposes … (a) to achieve a fuller

understanding of a target phenomenon and (b) to verify one set of findings against the other … the

traditional goal of triangulation, namely to validate one’s conclusions by presenting converging

results obtained through different methods. … [but] we can add a very practical third purpose … to

reach audiences that would not be sympathetic to one of the approaches if applied alone (Dörnyei,

2007, partly quoting Sandelowski, 2003).

7


One procedure involves a questionnaire survey with a follow-up interview. An example of this was

Lamb’s (2004) research into the motivation of Indonesian junior high schoolchildren, aged 11-12

years. The investigation combined a survey of 219 students with semi-structured interviews with a

‘focal group’ of 12 of these. Interviews were also conducted with eight teachers at the school. The

questionnaire contained eight items to elicit background information, while the remainder of items

sought to uncover attitudes and motivations towards learning English. A simple single-item, three-

point Likert scale was used to rank order their responses (see Appendix G). There were also three

open-ended questions. From the resultant discovered disposition and behaviour, a selection of a

broadly representative sample formed the ‘focal group’, which were subjected to in-depth

interviews exploring feelings, activities involving English usage outside the classroom and attitude

towards English-speaking peoples and cultures (Lamb, 2004:7 - Appendix H). Very high levels of

motivation were found, including integrative and instrumental orientations, but these two

constructs were broadly indistinguishable, raising questions about the meaning of integrative

orientation in this context (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:244). As Lamb stated:

English is no longer associated just with Anglophone countries. Moreover, we have seen that

an integrative and instrumental orientation are difficult to distinguish as separate concepts. Meetings

with westerners, using computers, understanding pop songs, studying or travelling abroad, pursuing a

desirable career – all these aspirations are associated with each other and with English as an integral

part of the globalization processes that are transforming their society and will profoundly affect their

own lives (Lamb:2004:14-15).

Another example is the pioneering study of Egbert (2003), using the concept of ‘flow’

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990); an experiential state characterized by intense focus and involvement that

leads to improved performance on a task. Flow can be seen as a heightened level of motivated task

engagement, or ‘optimal experience’ (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011:94-5), which had not previously

been researched in respect of SLA. Egbert found that:

The task conditions under which flow occurs can be organised along four dimensions: (1)

there is a perceived balance of task challenge and participant skills during the task, (2) the task offers

opportunities for intense concentration and the participants’ attention is focused on the pursuit of clear

task goals, (3) the participants find the task intrinsically interesting or authentic, and (4) the

participants perceive a sense of control over the task process and outcomes. These underlying

dimensions display a balanced mixture of motivational, cognitive and affective constituents. (Dörnyei

and Ushioda, 2011:95).

8


Egbert wanted to establish the foundation for a research stream addressing flow in language

learning and to investigate whether flow exists in the L2 classroom. She focused on one class (13

students) of American teenagers studying Spanish. The researcher observed a number of tasks (see

Appendix I) carried out within class. A ‘task’ was defined as a goal-specific, meaningful and

purposeful endeavour that is self-contained (Egbert, 2003:508, sic). First, participants answered

questions about their personal and educational backgrounds and past language learning

experiences. Past performances in Spanish were added from records. These were coded into a

database. Second, a modified perceptions questionnaire, consisting of 14 items reflecting the four

flow dimensions, were answered on a 7-point Likert format. Some university students were used to

pilot this. Third, observational data was acquired using checklist topics. Fourth, task products, such

as transcripts, were collected for the purpose of examining actual task processes. Finally,

retrospective interviews involving stimulated recall were carried out. This crucial element allowed

for further qualitative data to be elicited. Various operational techniques were used to garner

participation, whilst ‘flow theory’ was analysed thus:

We independently coded mentions of the four flow dimensions in the interview data. We

highlighted and categorized instance of control, focus, interest, and challenges or skills. We compiled

the results and reconciled differences through discussion. Interview data for students in flow that

indicated positive perceptions of any of the four flow dimensions served as confirmatory evidence

that flow did occur in the classroom and as support for conclusions about task characteristics.

Negative perceptions served to signal potential barriers to flow (Egbert, 2003: 510).

The above ‘mixed methods’ examples involve a survey followed by more exploratory interviews. An

alternative approach is to carry out focus group interviews first, in order to narrow the focus. This is

useful if developing an ‘instrument’ (questionnaire), which can be subsequently tested via a pilot-

study (e.g. Tseng et al, 2006). There are several other complex combinations (see Dörnyei,

2007:169-173) which can be very beneficial in conducting research, but they require sufficient

knowledge about method mixing and significant expertise in design (Dörnyei, 2007:174).

COMMENTARY

The research methods discussed above cannot be said to represent all of the variable methods that

have been applied in this field. For example, I have neglected ‘self-determination theory’ (Deci and

Ryan, 1985, in Dörnyei, 2001) with its well-known distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’

motivation. The latter would encapsulate both ‘instrumental’ and ‘integrative’ purposes. I have not

discussed goal-setting (e.g. Locke and Latham, 1990) or goal-orientation theory. Nor have I

9


discussed task motivation (e.g. Dörnyei and Kormos, 2000) or the conception of the ‘Ideal L2 Self’

and ‘Ought-to L2 Self’ (Dörnyei in Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009:29).

I have, however, given some examples, using methods permeated by ideological perspectives. Much

of this focuses on the different approaches to individual diversity. While the ‘quantitative’ approach

aims to analyse individuals in general, using reductionist logic, the ‘qualitative’ approach looks at

specific, context-related, individual motivation. Statistical evidence is impossible to ignore because,

as evidenced by mixed methods approaches, categories need to be formed, coding needs to be

generated and the validity of information demonstrated. Generalisations based on variables,

however, can be meaningless. As the examples above showed, qualitative techniques are far more

appropriate in discovering the dynamic factors involved within the individual learner. Individual

motivation can, for example, develop over time, increase through cumulative experiences or be

adversely affected by peers or, has been found, institutions. We can learn more from a more socio-

dynamic approach, but this requires even greater radical changes to methodology.

IMPLICATIONS FOR OWN RESEARCH

Using the discussion so far, I will now draw some implications for how I might conduct research in

my own ELT context. I feel persuaded towards carrying out a micro-study focusing on specific socio-

dynamic factors for motivation. My own personal strengths lie not in the accumulation of statistical

data, but in detailed, socio-cultural explanations.

I am interested by the principles of attribution theory. I am keen, therefore, to uncover meaningful

causal attributions about past achievements. I am also interested by demotivating influences, and

which factors, supposedly outside of the student or teachers’ control, affect positive achievement.

As mentioned already, some research (e.g. Ushioda, 2001) has shown that demotivating aspects for

students consist of negatives aspects of the institutionalised learning context (Dörnyei and Ushioda,

2011:146). Subsequently, many students do not successfully develop autonomous learning, where

motivation comes from within (Deci, 1996 and others). I am similarly interested in self-

determination theory and possibly exploring this through a cohort of students who are motivated

not simply because of extrinsic pushes and pulls, but through an inner enjoyment of knowledge

development.

My own ELT ‘context’ is not geographically or culturally defined. I have taught in two culturally

diverse locations, Beijing and Riyadh, on foundation or preparatory year courses for prospective

university students. As I am unlikely to return to either setting, I can hypothetically refer to my

‘context’ as being L2 learners in similar tertiary educational settings. Any qualitative analysis would

10


need, however, a more grounded understanding of location, otherwise I would be in danger of

generalising.

I could describe my ‘context’ as the virtual classroom, one in which my learners’ motivation comes

from an intrinsic enjoyment of using Information Communication Technology (ICT). Learners, who

are comfortable with using technology in everyday life, may suffer demotivation in traditional

classroom settings when ICT is rarely used. Whilst various forms of technology (e.g. interactive

whiteboards) have been used in the traditional classroom for some time, these are often teacher

aids which enable clear presentations of the learning topic. The scope of these and the kinds of

technology brought to class by learners themselves (iPads, smartphones etc) bring numerous web

2.0 tool opportunities to engage, motivate and increase autonomous learning.

One possibility would be to carry out some wholly online research, drawing upon attribution theory

or self-determination theory, by conducting interviews via webinars. Student perceptions of

computer assisted learning or online homework feedback could also be researched, using one class

over the duration of a course. Furthermore, an investigation into the motivation of L2 teachers to

use web 2.0 technologies could build upon existing research into this area.

RELFECTIVE WRITING

I will now conclude by reflecting on my own thinking about second language learning/acquisition

and how it has developed since I began this course. Despite having taught EFL for three cumulative

years, I had no theoretical underpinning of SLA before I started. If I have developed any theoretical

knowledge then these have been assumptions gained retrospectively. Having been a relatively

unsuccessful second language learner myself, I am interested how I attribute SLA with my own past

failures. In addition, I am interested in how performance is affected by motivation and other

affective factors, such as anxiety, and social-cultural barriers, such as those to critical thinking. I

have seen at first-hand the frustrations of learners trying to meet the difficult demands of a syllabus

forced upon them by profit and status-driven institutions. Often the perceptions and reality are

wildly different.

I have become interested in how individuals overcome their particular constraints, the socially-

mediated process involved and how motivation, in particular, is part of a dynamic complex

relationship, rather than something that can be simply fostered. My own motivation for doing the

course was examined during one particular seminar. This reflective session was very useful,

especially for comparing responses with others. My motivation developed out of conversations with

more experienced teachers that I have met over the last twelve months. In addition, I felt to

11


develop my skills (intrinsic) and to improve my job prospects for the future (extrinsic), I needed a

further qualification (extrinsic). I also have a genuine interest in understanding the theoretical

concepts behind what I do and, in specialising in ICT, an interest in how to keep students engaged by

acknowledging and utilising an increasing amount of otherwise technological distractions.

With this course, I am quickly building up a theoretical knowledge of the underlying factors for

successful/unsuccessful language learning. I have become very interested in the areas of autonomy,

self-motivation and learner-learner interaction, such as collaborative dialogues and peer assistance.

Each of these areas is broadly connected, as the onus moves away from the teacher, as responsible

for all areas of learning, and onto the students, who could and should be encouraged to become

autonomous.

The use of multimedia technologies inside and outside of the classroom will now be studied as I

proceed with the MA course. This existing interest area can be allied with my growing interest in

learner motivation and autonomy towards a dissertation proposal, which might look at current

trends for stimulating second language acquisition.

Words: 3,257 (not including direct quotes, authors’ names and years in parenthesis)

12


REFERENCES:

Chen, J., C.Warden and H-T Chang. 2005. Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture or motivation. TESOL Quarterly 39/4: 609-33

Cheng, H-F. and Z. Dörnyei. 2007. The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1/1: 153-174.

Clement, R., Z. Dörnyei and K.Noels. 1994. Motivation, Self-Confidence and Group Cohesion in the Foreign Language Classroom. Language Learning 44/3:417-448.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. In Dörnyei, Z., and E.Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.) Harlow: Longman.

Deci, E. (with R.Flaste). 1996. Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. New York: Penguin.

Denzin, N. and Y.Lincoln. 1994. Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. and Y.Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage

Dörnyei, Z. 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 78/3: 273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching. 31:117-135.

Dörnyei, Z. 2001. New Themes and Approaches in Second Language Motivation Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 21:43-59

Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods In Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. 2008. Researching L2 Motivation: Towards Combined Quantitative-Qualitative Paradigms. Paper presented at the 11th Warwick Postgraduate Conference, University of Warwick, UK, 18 June.

Dörnyei, Z. and K. Csizér. 1988. Ten Commandments for motivating language learners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2(3): 203-29

Dörnyei, Z. and J. Kormos. 2000. The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance Language Teaching Research July 2000 4: 275-300

Dörnyei, Z., K. Csizér and N.Németh. 2006. Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. and R.Schmidt (eds.) 2001. Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu : Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i at Móanoa

Dörnyei, Z. and E.Ushioda (eds). 2009. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z., and E.Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.) Harlow: Longman.

13


Egbert, J. 2003. A Study of Flow Theory in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal. 83/4: 499-518

Gardner, R. and P.MacIntyre. 1991. An Instrumental Motivation in Language Study – Who says it isn’t effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13:57-72.

Gardner, R., R.Lalonde and R Moorcroft. 1985. The role of attitudes and motivation in second language learning: Correlational and experimental considerations. Language Learning. 35:207-227.

Inbar, O., S.Donitsa-Scmidt and E.Shohamy. 2001. Students’ Motivation as a Function of Language Learning: the teaching of Arabic in Israel in Dörnyei, Z. and R.Schmidt (eds.) 2001. Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu

Julkunen, K. 1989. Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign-language learning and teaching. In Dornyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching. 31:117-135.

Lamb, M. 2004. Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System 32/1:3-19.

Locke, E. and G.Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance in Dörnyei, Z., and E.Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.) Harlow: Longman.

Nikolov, M. 1999. Why do you learn English? Because the teacher is short. A study of Hungarian childrens’ foreign language motivation. Language Teaching Research 3:33-56.

Oxford, R and J.Shearin. 1994. Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal. 78/1:12-28.

Sandelowski, M. 2003. Tables of tableaux? The Challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods In Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.

Strauss, A., and J.Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

Tseng, W-T and N.Schmitt. 2008. Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural question modelling approach. Language Learning 58/2: 357-400.

Ushioda, E. 1996. Developing a dynamic concept of L2 motivation. In Hickey, T. and Williams, J. (eds) Language, Education and Society in a Changing World. Dublin/Clevedon: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters: 239-45.

Ushioda, E. 2007. Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson (ed.) Learner Autonomy 8: Teacher and Learner Perspectives (pp5-24). Dublin: Authentik.

Ushioda, E. 2008. Motivation and good language learners. In C.Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp.19-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, M and R.Burden. 1999. Students’ Developing Conceptions of Themselves as Language Learners. The Modern Language Journal. 83/2: 193-201

14

http://0-journals.cambridge.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/action/displayJournal?jid=SLA


Appendix A : Likert items for 8 different attitudinal/motivational characteristics, as used in Gardner and MacIntyre’s (1991) study.

15


Appendix B: Student Questionnaires from a quantitative approach - Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1994):

Appendix C: Final rank order, top 5 clusters (top 17 motivational strategies only

(Dörnyei and Csizér, 1998)

16


Appendix D: (Dörnyei and Csizér, 1998)

Appendix E: Williams and Burden (1999):

17


Appendix F: Classification of motivational features from interviews, 1991 - Ushioda (2001)

18


19


Appendix G: Questionnaire data obtained and summarised by Lamb (2004):

20


Appendix H: Interview responses extract, from Lamb (2004):

Appendix I: Tasks observed by Egbert (2003):

21

second language acquisition essay

Documents