the rationale of motivation, passivity and de-motivation...

Journal of Language and Learning Vol. 3 No. 2 ISSN 1740 - 4983

A Rationale For Passivity and De-Motivation Revealed: An

Interpretation of Inventory Results Among Freshman

English Students

Stuart D. Warrington and David M. Jeffrey

Asia University, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract This paper examines the reasons behind passivity and de-motivation using the Passivity/De-motivation Inventory among Freshman English students at Asia University. It discusses the insights that were revealed by this research and shows that despite existing passivity and de-motivation there may also be motivating factors that manifest themselves that are not readily apparent and can be easily overlooked. This was evident within our research and offers some encouraging revelations regarding motivation.

Introduction

Motivation, passivity and de-motivation are central issues in most if not all EFL classes in Japan

and a primary concern among EFL teachers. Trying to understand the rationale behind this has

been an ongoing and tedious task complicated by context, culture and education. In this article a

research project undertaken at Asia University (hereafter AU) by two teachers of the Center for

English Language Education (hereafter CELE) and its conclusions are explained and some

insights revealed on the rational behind passivity and de-motivation. This article begins with a

brief, but succinct, overview of what is involved in understanding motivation, and the research

involved at AU. This then links to understanding de-motivation and passivity the results found

within its contexts.

312


Understanding Motivation

Much research has been undertaken and there is much in EFL literature regarding the definition

of motivation. However, in order to fully grasp it and its aspects, one needs to understand its vast

vastness. To begin with, Finchpark (2002: 2) believes that motivation is shaped as:

“…sets of beliefs about language learning, the target culture, their culture, the teacher, the learning task, etc.”

Norris-Holt (2001: 1), referring to Crookes and Schmidt (1991), defines motivation as:

“…the learner’s orientation with regard to the goal of learning a second language.”

Motivation is also described as the impetus to create and sustain intentions and goal seeking acts

(Ames and Ames, 1989). Motivation in this context is seen as one relating to attitude and vice

versa, with both having an influence on learning and acquisition.

In a pioneering study, Gardner and Lambert (1972: 132) highlighted “integrative motivation”

which stresses “a sincere and personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other

group” and “instrumental motivation” which stresses “the practical value and advantages of

learning a new language”. Gardner’s later socio-educational model (1982) adds three aspects of

student motivation: effort (time and drive), desire (extent of language proficiency wished for)

and effect (emotional reactions to language study).

Integrative motivation is the desire on the part of the student to feel an affinity with the people,

the society and the culture of the language that is learned, and is usually referred to in the context

of living in the target language community (Falk 1978, and Finegan, 1999). Instrumental

motivation, on the other hand, concerns the practical and concrete rewards that student’s desire

(Hudson, 2000). This relates to achievement purposes for instance passing an exam or getting a

degree. A student’s opinion of a given language is significantly shaped by its perceived

usefulness and relevance to future career goals (Chambers, 1999).

313


What has been iterated here so far is merely a brief glimpse at the vast volume of literature that

exists on the subject. However, it does cover the main aspects of what motivation is deemed

definitional within the constructs of this paper. Nevertheless, it is key and essential to note that

for many EFL teachers in Japan motivation tends to be lacking among students. To explain

further, Norris-Holt (2001: 2) notes difficulty in an example found in applying the term

“integrative” to a monoculture society like Japan. Indeed, Benson (1991) had difficulty using the

terms integrative and instrumental among Japanese students and its language learners. He

consequently produced a third and called it the “personal” group, that exemplified the “pleasure

at being able to read English, and enjoyment of entertainment in English” (Benson, 1991: 36

cited in Norris-Holt, 2001: 2). While Benson was able to find integrative and personal reasons in

a limited sense, he could not find instrumental motivation. Other researchers have added a

similar type of third motivation such as Cooper and Fishman (1977, cited in Shimizu, 2000) who

termed it “developmental” and related it to personal development or personal satisfaction. As

Norris-Holt (2001: 4) indicates:

“Benson suggests that the student’s rejection of instrumental motivation illustrates the view that students do not perceive English as having a vital role to play in their lives. He also makes the point that the rejection of instrumental reasons for the study of English may indicate that the Japanese language is considered adequate for normal daily verbal exchange.”

Indeed high dropout and absentee rates are becoming common among the current student

population in universities and colleges throughout Japan because of a general trend towards

apathy and world-weariness (McVeigh, 2001 and Burden, 2002). This is why motivation,

passivity and de-motivation are central issues in most if not all EFL classes in Japan and a

primary concern for EFL teachers. It could, for the most part, be the greatest challenge that EFL

teachers face in teaching Japanese students in Japan.

Freshman English at Asia University

Freshman English (hereafter FE) at AU is a course administrated by CELE. It is a compulsory

class needed for graduation. Many CELE staff use the communicative approach as one way to

314


motivate students, and it is in the FE classes that students have a chance to communicate in and

listen to English on a regular basis from Monday through Friday. The communicative approach

aims to encourage students to converse and listen as much as possible, and to do this without

concern for making mistakes. It also stresses that the most important aspect of conversation and

listening is the ability to convey meaning and understanding as opposed to grammatical

perfection.

Freshman students have forty-five minutes classes five days a week, and are divided into four

faculties: Economics, Law, Business and International Relations. The classes are non-content

based, and there is a five-and-a-half month overseas program referred to as the Asia University

American Program (hereafter AUAP), which is mandatory for the International Relations

students, but optional for the students of other faculties. CELE’s FE program is large and is

comprised of 22 proficiency levels and is taught by 22 teachers (level 1 is the highest proficiency

and level 21 is the lowest proficiency, while level 22 is an ultra-high proficiency class taught by

the vice-director).

The PDM Inventory

We, (Warrington and Jeffrey), attempted to measure passivity and de-motivation among

Freshman English students. Initially, a measuring tool was conceptualized (Warrington, 2005).

This tool, known as the PDM Inventory (Passivity/De-motivation Inventory) was designed to

assess and measure passivity and de-motivation. This was then administered to FE students with

the assistance of another teacher (Brooks). We each teach at three different levels of English

language proficiency (Warrington teaches level 19, Jeffrey at 2 and Brooks at level 10). We

wanted to ascertain the various factors regarding passivity and de-motivation applied to our

immediate teaching situations. The PDM Inventory was deemed appropriate since its function is

for research and investigative purposes. It is used as a diagnostic tool to disclose the potential

reasons or rationale for passivity and de-motivation found in and amongst FE students.

Briefly, the PDM Inventory serves to:

315


• Heighten teacher and student awareness of reasons for passivity and de-motivation among

Freshman English students

• Assist teachers in counteracting the process of passivity and de-motivation by revealing what

students regard as de-motivating

• Influence the methods and means employed by teachers in the classroom, so that they can

motivate rather than de-motivate students to study and learn English as a foreign language

• Reveal indirectly what students deem motivating

To undertake the PDM Inventory, we administrated the survey in Appendix 1 to our students on

Monday April 25th 2005. Careful attention had been paid beforehand to the Japanese translation

(Appendix 1B, Brooks, 2005), so that there would be no potential misunderstanding by the

students regarding what was being asked and that the English and the Japanese translations were

and are an accurate reflection of each other. The students had to choose five out of fifteen

possible answers that are/were possible de-motivating factors to their study of English. The

students were given fifteen minutes to complete the questionnaire and 188 complete responses

were received. All students appeared to have no trouble in completing the questionnaire in the

required time. The Inventory took into account present and past reasons for passivity and de-

motivation, and this was accounted for by the Japanese translation as well.

The Results of the PDM Inventory and the Interpretations

The data was processed by Warrington using Microsoft Excel, and the final totals are revealed in

pie and bar charts (Appendix 2 FINAL TOTALS). We divided the results into two factors:

1. ‘Significant factors’ (factors contributing to passivity and de-motivation), and;

2. ‘Insignificant factors’ (factors that were not major promoters of passivity and de-motivation

but could be regarded as potentially motivating).

316


The ‘significant factors’ were (see Appendix 2 FINAL TOTALS):

• M (12% of respondents) – because I have seen very little to no improvement in my English

language ability since the onset of my English language studies since junior high school

• B (12% of respondents) – because I did not like the way it was taught in junior high and high

school

• F (12% of respondents) – because it is difficult and impossible to learn

• A (11% of respondents) – because I was taught only English grammar and reading before

university

• J (11% of respondents) – because I’m not used to native English speakers, their culture and

their customs

The ‘insignificant factors’ were:

• K (4% of respondents) – because I have no plan to go abroad nor do I have a plan to work in

an environment where English is required

• N (4% of respondents) – because there are more important things for me to study than

English

• E (4% of respondents) – because I have no use for it in my life

• G (3% of respondents) – because it is not fun and enjoyable to learn

• L (3% of respondents) – because this is Japan. I’m Japanese and I only need to speak

Japanese

• O (2% of respondents) – because I’d rather study another language

• D (1% of respondents) – because it is not meaningful and interesting to me

Regarding the above significant and insignificant factors, an interpretation was made and a

hypothesis was proposed. This hypothesis is represented diagrammatically in Figure 1.

Factor A (grammar and reading based English language content taught in high school and junior

high school) is linked to Factor B (the grammar translation methodology employed to teach

English in those settings). Then, both the content aspects in Factor A and methodology aspects in

317


Factor B filter into Factor M (where students see little to no apparent improvement in student

English language abilities). Factor M then leads directly to Factor F (a manifestation of defeatist

attitudes and the belief that English is impossible to learn, and therefore impossible to ‘own’.

(The latter, impossibility to ‘own’ will be explained later). Finally Factor F links up with Factor J

(performance anxiety due to poor prior English education and the lack of exposure to native

English language speakers, their cultures and customs). Finally Factors F and J lead to Students

passivity and de-motivation towards learning English as a foreign language.

It must also be pointed out however that the ‘insignificant factors’, which imply motivation, are

important and surprising as well. They encourage us to consider that despite the passivity and de-

motivation there are positive indications of motivation too. Students showed great interest in

going abroad and even working in an environment where English is required. They did see

English as important and useful for their life. It was also perceived as being fun and enjoyable to

learn. Consequently, the fact that the students are Japanese and studying in Japan did not

necessarily indicate a barrier in learning English. In fact, few would seem to want to study any

other language. Finally, and perhaps most curious, the results showed that, despite the many de-

motivational factors, English is still meaningful and interesting to them, which for many EFL

professionals shows promise.

An Understanding of the Findings

Based on the findings of this study and again expressed here, grammar and reading based

English language content taught in high school and junior high school along with the grammar

translation methodology employed to teach English in those settings lead students to see little to

no apparent improvement in student English language abilities. This then metamorphosis into

itself in defeatist attitudes and the belief that English is impossible to learn. Performance anxiety

due to poor prior English education and the lack of exposure to native English language speakers,

their cultures and customs is the end result and ultimately students become passive and de-

motivated towards learning English as a foreign language. These, initially, are in keeping with

the findings of many other researchers. Negative and monotonous prior experience with learning

English in high school leaves a negative attitude and a low self-esteem that is long lasting

318


(Chambers 1999, Norris-Holt 2001, Norris-Holt 2002, Kobayashi et al 1992, Hashimoto 1993,

LoCastro 1996, Berwick and Ross 1989, Doyon 2000, Tajima 1978, Buck 1988, Christensen

1989). This list of authors is just a small sample of the many that agree on this issue.

The significant factors and the way we interpreted them in Figure 1, were thus somewhat

expected. As stated above, most other research undertaken regarding why university students are

passive and de-motivated point to their negative prior experience with English language

instruction in a classroom environment. this then, adversely affects a their desire to study English

in the future.

The main features in the literature highlight the fact that high school activities are geared towards

preparing students for the university entrance examinations which are not aimed at assessing

speaking and listening skills, but rather grammar and reading skills. In two very informative

papers by Norris-Holt (2001, 2002) a summary of various studies on student motivation by a

number of other researchers is presented. With regard to what motivates junior and senior high

school students to study English Norris-Holt (2001: 3) says:

“Certainly, a high percentage of both junior and senior high school students identify the major reason for English study as a necessity for achievement in examinations.”

Also Hashimoto (1993) mentions:

“If people have to study a foreign language in artificial settings, they need some definite and concrete motivation. In the case of Japanese students, passing an entrance examination or meeting course requirements for a diploma are most decisive reasons for committing themselves, and form the limits for that commitment.”

Consequently, learning merely grammar and reading, without conversational skills, is deemed

de-motivational, and becomes fairly deeply ingrained after six years. Their attitude towards

English as something unpleasant has become difficult to reverse by the time they enter university.

319


Kobayashi et al (1992, cited in Norris-Holt, 2002: 4) conducted a study of college students’

attitudes to their high school experiences expressed dissatisfaction with large class sizes, English

grammar points being explained over and over in Japanese and a lack of focus on conversation.

Norris-Holt (2002) also mentions Doyon (2002), who stated that high school is a place where

little student input is solicited and they are made to listen rather than speak. Hence, they are left

with merely a shallow understanding of what they have studied (Tajima 1978).

Also, once students have entered university their sense of purpose (i.e. studying English to get

into a university) falls apart and de-motivation and passivity set in. Often the style of teaching

English at university is different – communicative in the AU sense, rather than grammar

orientated, and students become confused or overwhelmed by the change.

Compounding the above findings, university life in Japan seems to be an accepted form of peace

and relaxation between high school and working life, and the future of students is not primarily

determined by academic performance, as Wright (1997: 2) points out:

“A student’s future position in society is decided by the name of the school from which they graduate, not by the grades they attained there. Successful socialization and the development of a well-rounded member of society are the goals of college life, not academic rigor.”

Thus, with no more university entrance exam to study for, and no sense of academic challenge,

many university students lose academic direction (Norris-Holt, 2001). This further erodes

motivation, and has caused much frustration among EFL teachers, for example Shimizu (2000:

1) who says:

“Since I began teaching in Japan nine years ago, I have always felt that students viewed me more as an entertainer than a teacher.”

Furthermore, Shishin (2002: 1) mentions:

“Japan has a long fascination and delight with things foreign. It has an equally long history of suspicion of foreign influences and foreigners themselves. This

320


contradiction extends into every facet of Japanese life. It is significantly present in Japanese education.”

Hashimoto (1993: 1) mentions that one of the of the causes is the “highly ethnocentric and male-

dominated society” of Japan, and highlights gender inequalities, stating that:

“… many strategies to produce a more effective way of teaching in Japan have been unsuccessful since there is a lack of perspective on the relationship between language education, the society and the individual. For example, the current language education in Japan does not incorporate the process of language learning which can be the social field where people, particularly women, can realize an independent self..”

The above paints a depressing picture of the state of EFL teaching in Japan, and whilst much of

it is true, it is interesting to note that in our study we were able to pick out some positive aspects

by default that do contradict the findings of other studies to some degree. For instance, the

‘insignificant factors’, which imply motivation, are to be taken seriously. They show us that

despite the presence of passivity and de-motivation there are positive aspects. It is easy to

become too enamored with the negative aspects that, whilst being legitimate, can blind one and

jade one’s perspective on what positive aspects may be present. A good example of this from in

our study is where students showed great interest in going abroad and even working in an

environment where English is required (see Appendix 1A/1B and Appendix 2, In default to

statement K). This contradicts a study undertaken by Cogan, Torney-Purta and Anderson (1988,

cited in Norris-Holt 2002: 5), which highlighted a lack of personal importance for English and

stated that of the first year university students sampled only 34% indicated that they would study

a foreign language if it were not compulsory.

The students in our study did see English as significant and helpful for their life. It was also

perceived as being enjoyable and pleasant to learn. Few wanted to study any other language.

Thus despite their de-motivation and passivity, English is still deemed meaningful and

interesting. This again contradicts the study of Cogan, Torney-Purta and Anderson (1988, cited

in Norris-Holt 2002: 5), which mentioned that few students considered the study of a language

useful for getting a good job and that most Japanese students view English as only an academic

pursuit and not for practical purposes.

321


Another contradiction can be found with the study undertaken by Long and Russell (1999, cited

in Norris-Holt 2002: 6) of students at a university in Kyushu where despite fairly positive aspects

mentioned it was stated:

“When questioned regarding their enjoyment of the English class and level of confidence, the negative responses were double that of the positive ones.”

It should be mentioned that the positive aspects mentioned above may be the result of the fact

that the students have been exposed to a new learning environment at university, based on a

communicative approach and away from a grammar-drilling one, which may have contributed to

their positive outlooks being more that what we would have expected.

It would also seem that anxiety plays an important and a dual role in the sense that it can be

debilitative or facilitative, and that students’ prior experience with English has a large impact on

that, especially given that much of it is negative. Thus it is important to point out that that, in our

study, Factor J (because I’m not used to native English speakers, their culture and their customs)

was particularly prominent among the International Relations students, which seems puzzling

since the AUAP is mandatory for these students and many come to Asia University for this

reason. We have hypothesized though that the reason may relate to ‘performance anxiety’.

Anxiety can be debilitative or facilitative, depending on its quantity (Alpert and Harper, 1960).

This is because many of International Relations students know that there will soon come a time

when they will have to encounter native English speakers, their culture and their customs during

their time in the AUAP. They thus seem to exhibit more of a fear of this than other students in

other faculties for whom the AUAP is only an option. This fear can be envisioned as debilitating.

Another interesting find was that Factor F (because it is difficult and impossible to learn) was

noticeably lower among International Relations students, which possibly implies that the AUAP,

despite causing some ‘performance anxiety’ also acts as a facilitator and that they do see English

as possible to learn. Motivation and the filtering process are also closely related. As Finchpark

(2002: 9) notes:

322


“Learners do not attend to all the input they receive. They attend to some features, and ‘filter’ other features out. This often depends on affective factors such as motivation, attitudes, emotions and anxiety.”

While a low filter has little anxiety and contributes to higher levels of comprehension and

attention, a high filter is full of anxiety that causes students to develop psychological barriers to

learning (LeLoup, 2000).

For students who have had negative experiences with learning English in high school, stress and

anxiety is often debilitative having a negative affect on learning English (Naimon, Frohlich,

Stern and Todesco, 1978). Anxiety plays a subtle role, yet is a barrier to student success in

communication activities (Balili, 2002). Correlations exist between high anxieties and low scores,

according to Pimsleur, Mosberg and Morrison (1962, and noted by Hadley 1994). Situations seen

as a threat (Lazarus and Folkman, 1985) or lack of student confidence (Bandura, 1977) are

significant contributors to stress and anxiety. This is particularly relevant for those students who

do not have any transfer opportunities such as the AUAP or working abroad, and here it is

important to consider the role of transfer with regard to motivation, ownership and

internalization. Brunner (1960: 31) says:

“The best way to create interest in a subject is to render it worth knowing, which means to make the knowledge gained usable in one's thinking beyond the situation in which learning has occurred.”

Transfer is the appliance of prior knowledge to fresh learning circumstances (McKeough, 1995),

and is frequently viewed as the learning purpose, and the degree to which it takes place is a

measure of accomplishment (Pea, 1987 and Perkins, 1991). Ngeow (1998: 1) says:

“Research suggests that transfer and motivation are mutually supportive in creating an optimal learning environment. If the learner perceives what he is learning to be relevant and transferable to other situations, he will find learning meaningful, and his motivation to acquire the skill or knowledge will increase.”

For transfer to take place, the student must be motivated to do two things: firstly, recognize

opportunities for transfer, and secondly, possess motivation to take advantage of recognized

opportunities (Prawat,1989).

323


Given the prominence of the significant (or the negative factors) which contribute to de-

motivation and passivity, it is hard for EFL teachers to seek opportunities to find innovative

ways that can lead to insignificant (or the positive factors) that this study came across by default.

It is important to note that we as teachers had become so acutely aware of the de-motivation and

passivity that this study was undertaken to find out the underlying reasons. However, in doing so,

positive factors also came to light, and these could be used to impose some positive influence on

students overcoming passivity. Nevertheless, the damage that has already been done by the way

English has been taught in high school could be life-lasting for many students, and the

debilitative anxiety they face could possibly be compared to a form of post-traumatic stress. How

then can we go about encouraging students to become motivated to communicate and listen

given the findings of this study?

Turning the Findings into Suggestions

One way to encourage students is to take ownership of English as an international language

(hereafter EIL). In addition to teaching English per se, students also need to be taught something

of the history of English and the role that English plays as an international language in the world.

Talebinezhad and Aliakbari (2001: 2) note:

“English is the language of the Industrial Revolution and remains the language of science and technology. More importantly, it is the language of the computer and Internet and is the chief language of tourism all over the world.”

Students need to be aware that EIL refers to the use of English by non-native, as well as native

English speakers of different nations as a medium for communication. It transcends national

boundaries, and many social groups with distinct traditional languages and ethnic traditions. It

started with the beginning of colonialism around 500 years ago and continues to the present age

of globalization. (Smith 1976, Quirk 1978, Alptekin & Alptekin 1984, Stern 1992, Talebinezhad

& Aliakbari 2001).

EIL is potentially transforming English to a language that can assist in improving socio-

economic relationships (Jeffrey, 2002). In the ex-colonial and non-native English speaking

324


countries of Nigeria (Omodiaogbe, 1992 and Bisong, 1995), the Philippines (Agana, 1998) and

Singapore (Abbott, 1992), people adopted English, and continue to adopt it by taking ownership

of it. This is an important turning point in the evolution of EIL they have and still are. English in

these countries appears to no longer be imposed from the outside, but rather as something that

has become a part of the national culture. In this way the depleting cultural and economic nature

of EIL is being eroded and replaced by a potentially replenishing one for its former victims, who

are taking ownership of English. Students need to be made to feel proud of being non-native

speakers of English since non-native speakers of English now represent more than two-thirds of

English speakers in the world (Crystal, 1997).

Contemporary globalization also no longer renders any sense in differentiating native speakers

from non-native speakers of English, given that more interactions take place between non-native

speakers of English than between non-native speakers and native speakers of English (Walker,

2001). Thus, the traditional concept of “authentic” English within the framework of EIL has

become problematic in that English now represents the words and cultures of many nations

(Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996). English no longer belongs to any particular group of people, and

non-native speakers are no longer mere consumers of the Western-Anglo-Saxon tradition. It is

important for Japanese students to understand this and to become less concerned with ‘mistakes’

and exams, because it would seem that they do seem to underestimate their English ability. If the

Chinese can speak Chinese-English, the Africans can speak African-English, Filipinos can speak

Philippine-English, then what can be wrong with Japanese speaking Japanese-English? The

trouble seems to be that for six years in school it has been drummed into them that if their

English is not that of the native English speaker then that is no good. That is why there is so

much emphasis on grammar in school and not enough on communication. What good is it if one

can master the grammar though not the communication? There is nothing wrong with Japanese-

English, and they have every right to be proud of it in the same way that other non-native

English speakers of the world are proud of their English.

The hard fact is that the world is not static and winners today can become the losers of tomorrow,

and Japan needs to find innovative ways to face global challenges, and part of this could be the

need to take ownership of English. According to Hadley (2002: 1):

325


“… more of Japan’s citizens will need to acquire a greater level of proficiency in the English language, if Japan is to maintain its place as the world’s second largest economy.”

Kaplan (1987: 144) indicates that the consequence of successful globalization:

“… is significantly tied to the availability of English because, for better or for worse, English is the language of science and technology.”

However, it is understandable that many Japanese students might consider their culture, language

and national identity to be under attack from the forces of globalization and EIL.

Certainly, some Japanese English scholars have not helped the matter when they have been

prone to public scrutiny and condemnation of the study and acquisition of the English language.

This was just the case a few years back when Nakamura (year), a professor of English at Keio

University was quoted as saying that the learning and study of the English language only justifies

the “dumbing down of the Japanese language”. Nor could these comments have provided any

positive influence upon student motivation when they were further negated by his claim that the

study and learning of English only leads “to the creation of slaves to the English language”.

These along with misguided suggestions of “English Imperialism” certainly have done no better

than incite notions of ethnocentrism, anti-internationalism and anti-bilingualism. More

importantly, they are riddled with pessimistic tones and precedents that could have a devastating

effect on the Japanese youth’s perspective of English as a positive language of today.

Yet, remarkably, Nakamura is not alone in his thoughts. Another linguist, Suzuki (1999) though

differing in Nakamura’s take on English imperialism, made it very clear in a (2000) interview

that students should not be learning or studying English for “the purpose of learning from other

cultures”. Such a clear exhibition of cultural sensitivity and ignorance cannot be realistically

supported. Logically and anthropologically, culture and language cannot be readily divorced.

Language is culture: One cannot embrace one without the other. Countering his claim, Suzuki’s

notion would seem to suggest that one should not know or learn a thing about Japanese culture

before learning Japanese. It is questionable if many Japanese would agree with him. Still, his

remarks suggest that for those Japanese studying English, they need not embrace anything

326


cultural from their language experience. What motivation to study a language would exist

without culture is indeed the question neglected here.

Thankfully, for the time being, the results from the research here within indicate quite the

contrary. A promising percentage of students surveyed did not exhibit any strong indication of

ethnocentrism, anti-internationalism and anti-bilingualism (see Appendices), but still it is

alarming to know that that there are those within Japanese academia who do encourage it.

Therefore, taking ownership of English in Japan, should involve the addition of English

alongside Japanese, as a means of increasing communication internationally, as a basis of

sustaining a strong Japanese economy. It should not imply a simultaneous sacrifice of Japanese

culture, language and national identity.

About the Authors

The authors both teach at Asia University, Tokyo, Japan.

Emails: Stuart D. Warrington [email protected]

David M. Jeffrey [email protected]

References

Abbott, G. (1992). ‘Development, Education, and English Language Teaching’. ELT Journal

46/2: 172-178.

Agana, R. J. P. (1998). Pilipino and English: A Brief Historical and Sociolinguistic Analysis.

URL http://www.angelfire.com/ak/RJPADirectory/ecolinguistics.html.

Alpert, R., and Haber, R. (1960). ‘Anxiety in Academic Situations’. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology 61: 207-215.

Alptekin, C. and Alptekin, M. (1984). ‘The Question of Culture: EFL Teaching in Non-English

Speaking Countries’. ELT Journal 38/1: 14-20.

327


Ames, C., and Ames, R. (1989). Research in Motivation in Education. San Diego: Academic

Press.

Balili, J. B. (2002). ‘Language Anxiety: Its Effect on the Oral Performance In English College

Freshmen’. Paper presented to The Linguistic Society of the Philippines International

Conference, Manila December 9-11, 2002.

Bandura, A. (1977). ‘Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change’.

Psychological Review 84: 191-215.

Benson, M. J. (1991). ‘Attitudes and Motivation Towards English: a Survey of Japanese

Freshmen’. RELC Journal 22/1: 34-48.

Berwick, R and Ross, S. (1989) Motivation after Matriculation: Are Japanese Learners of

English Still Alive after Exam Hell? JALT Journal, 11/2: 193-210

Bisong, J. (1995). ‘Language Choice and Cultural Imperialism: a Nigerian Perspective.’ ELT

Journal 49/2: 122-132.

Brooks, M. (2005). In Warrington, S, The Passivity/De-Motivation Inventory. Center for English

Language Education, Asia University.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Buck, G. (1988). Testing listening comprehension in Japanese university entrance examinations.

JALT Journal, 10/1: 15-42.

Burden, P. (2002). ‘A Cross Sectional Study of Attitudes and Manifestations of Apathy of

University Students Towards Studying English’. ELT Journal 26/3: 3-10.

Cambridge International Dictionary of English (2002). URL http://dictionary.cambridge.org/.

Chambers, G. N. (1999). Motivating Language Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Christensen, T. (1989). Survey of student perceptions of changes between English teaching in

high school and in college in large classrooms in Japan. Journal of Hokusei Gakuen

Women Junior College, 26: 1-13.

Cogan, J., Torney-Purta, J., & Anderson, D. (1988). Knowledge and attitudes toward global

issues: Students in Japan and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 32/3,

282-298.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doyon, P. (2000). Shyness in the Japanese EFL classroom: Why it is a problem, what it is, what

causes it, and what to do about it. The Language Teacher, 24/1: 11-16.

328


Finchpark Glossary of Basic Terms in TEFL Studies, (2002).

http://www.finchpark.com/courses/bglossary.htm.

Finegan, E. (1999). Language: Its Structure and Use. Harcourt Brace.

Gardner, R. (1982). ‘Language Attitudes and Language Learning’. In Bouchard, R. E. and Giles,

H. (eds.) Attitudes Towards Language Variation. Edward Arnold, pp. 132-147.

Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and Motivations in Second Language Learning.

Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Hadley, G. (1994). ‘English and Student Anxiety’. The Japanese Journal of Nursing Education

35/7: 539-543.

Hadley, G. (2002). ‘Relating the Curriculum to Regional Concerns: A Japanese Case Study’.

Paper presented at RELC 37th Annual International Seminar, Singapore.

http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/relcpresent/regionalcurriculum.htm.

Hashimoto, K. (1993). ‘Language, Society and Gender: The Problem of Foreign Language

Education in Japan’ Paper presented for the Australian Association for Research in

Education Conference, Cultural Study Center, La Trobe University, Melbourne,

Australia URL http://aare.edu.au/93pap/hashk93101.txt

Hudson, G. (2000). Essential Introductory Linguistics. Blackwell Publishers.

Jeffrey, D. (2002). Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Impact of English as an International

Language. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, De La Salle University 33/1: 53–70.

Kaplan, R. (1987). ‘English in the Language Policy of the Pacific Rim.’ World Englishes 6/2:

137-148.

Kobayashi, S., Redekop, B., & Porter, R. (1992). Motivation of college English students. The

Language Teacher, 16/1: 7-15.

Kramsch, C and Sullivan, P. (1996). ‘Appropriate Pedagogy’. ELT Journal 50/3: 199-212.

Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer Publishing

Company.

LeLoup, J. W. (2000). Cortland ESL/LEP. URL http://www.cortland.edu/www/flteach/esl/ESL-

Terminology.html.

LoCastro, V. (1996). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman, Society and the

language classroom (pp. 40-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

329


Long, R.W., & Russell, G. (1999). Looking back: Student attitudes change over an academic

year. The Language Teacher, 23/10: 17-27.

McKeough, A. (1995). Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McVeigh, B. (2001). ‘Higher Education, Apathy and Post-Meritocracy’. ELT Journal 25/10: 28-

33.

Nakamura, K (2000) Mainichi Daily News Quotation, Seijo University

Naimon, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, D. and Todesco, A. (1978). The Good Language Learner. Toronto,

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Ngeow, K. Y. (1998). ‘Motivation and Transfer in Language Learning’. ERIC Clearinghouse on

Reading, English, and Communication, Bloomington,

http://www.kidsource.com/education/motivation.lang.learn.html.

Norris-Holt, J. (2001). ‘Motivation as a Contributing Factor in Second Language Acquisition’.

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VII, No. 6, June 2001

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html.

Norris-Holt, J. (2002). ‘An Investigation of High School Students’ Attitudes Towards the Study

of English’. Second Language Learning and Teaching: An Electronic Journal for

Postgraduate Students, Volume 2, URL http://www.usq.edu.au/opacs/sllt/2/Norris-

Holt02.htm

Omodiaogbe, S. A. (1992). ‘150 Years On: English in the Nigerian School System – Past,

Present and Future’. ELT Journal 46/1: 19-28.

Pea, R. D. (1987. ‘Socializing the Knowledge Transfer Problem’. International Journal of

Educational Research, 11, 639-663.

Perkins, D. (1991). ‘Educating for Insight’. Educational Leadership 49, 4-8.

Pimsleur, P., Mosberg, L. and Morrison, A. (1962). ‘Student Factors in Foreign Language

Teaching’. Modern Language Journal 46: 160-170.

Prawat, R. S. (1989). ‘Promoting Access to Knowledge, Strategy, and Disposition in Students: A

research Synthesis’. Review of Educational Research 59: 1-41.

Quirk, R. (1978). ‘Aspects of English as an International Language’. Spoglaereren 9: 15-28.

Shimizu, K (2000) Japanese Student attitudes Towards English Teachers: A Survey. The

Language Teacher, 19/10: 5-8 http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/95oct/shimizu.html.

330


Smith, L.E. (1976). ‘English as International Auxiliary Language’. RELC Journal 7: 1-8.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.

Suzuki, T (1999). Giving English Education a Firmer Focus. From an interview in Japan Echo

Volume 26/5

Tajima, K. (1978). The grammar-translation method: Its historical and social background. In

I.Koike, M. Matsuyama, Y. Igarashi & K. Suzuki (Eds.), The teaching of English in

Japan (pp. 220-227). Tokyo, Japan: Eichosha Publishing.

Talebinezhad, M. R. and Aliakbari, M. (2001. ‘Evaluation and Justification of a Paradigm Shift

in the Current ELT Models in Iran’. Linguistik Online 10, 1/02. http://www.linguistik/.

Walker, R. (2001). ‘International Intelligibility’. English Teaching Professional, Issue 21,

October 2001: 10-13.

Warrington, S. (2005). The Passivity/De-Motivation Inventory, Center for English Language

Education, Asia University.

Wright, M. (1997). ‘Japanese Universities and Lifelong Education: Trends and Transitions’.

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Comparative and International Education

Society (Western Region), University of Southern California, November 14-15, 1997.

331


Figure 1

How Passivity / De-motivation manifests in FE University Students

(A). Grammar & Reading Based English Language Content taught in High school and Junior High school + (B). The Grammar / Translation Methodology employed to teach English in those settings

=

(M). Little to no apparent improvement in student English Language abilities

=

(F). A manifestation of defeatist attitudes and the belief that English is impossible to learn and therefore, impossible to “own”

+

(J). Performance anxiety due to poor English education and the lack of knowledge and exposure to Native English language speakers, their culture and customs

=

Students Passivity / De-motivation towards learning English as a Foreign Language

332


Appendix 1A

Passivity / De-Motivation Inventory (PDM Inventory)

I feel / felt passive about studying English…

I feel / felt de-motivated about studying English… (A). because I was taught only English grammar and reading before university. (B). because I did not like the way it was taught in junior high school and high school. (C). because I have no confidence to learn it. (D). because it is not meaningful and interesting to me. (E). because I have no use for it in my life. (F). because it is difficult and therefore stressful & impossible to learn. (G). because it is not fun and enjoyable to learn. (H). because it is compulsory (i.e. mandatory) that I study it. (I). because I have never spoken to someone who speaks English. (J). because I’m not used to English speaking people and their culture & customs. (K). because I have no plan to go abroad and / or to work with English speaking people. (L). because this is Japan. I’m Japanese and I only speak Japanese. (M). because I have never seen any improvement in my English language ability since

the onset of my English language studies (Ex: since junior high school). (N). because there are more important things for me to study. (O). because I rather study another language. Choose 5 of the 15 statements above that you feel best represent the reasons you feel (or felt) passive or de-motivated about studying English as a Foreign Language.

Please enter the letter of each statement in the boxes below.

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Stuart D. Warrington, Asia University 2005

333


Appendix 1B

PDM Inventory (Passivity / De-motivation Inventory)

英語の勉強に対しての意欲の意識調査

（A）から（O）の文章を読んでください。自分が英語を勉強することに対して意欲が

低下した（を無くした）あるいは、消極的になる（なった）理由として一番良く当ては

まる文章を５つ選んで、下の欄にその文章のアルファベット文字を記入してください。

I feel/ felt passive about studying English… 私が英語を学ぶことに対して消極的な、（消極的になった）理由は。。。 I feel/ felt de-motivated about studying English… 私が英語を学ぶ意欲が少ない・無い、（意欲が減った・無くなった）理由は。。。

（A） because I was taught only English grammar and reading before university. 大学で学ぶ前まで、英文法や読解のみを教わっていたから。（B） because I did not like the way it was taught in junior high and high school.

中学や高校での英語の教え方が嫌だったから。（C） because I have no confidence to learn it. 自分には英語を学ぶ自信が無いから。（D） because it is not meaningful and interesting to me. 英語は自分にとって価値の無い・興味が沸かないものであるから。

（E） because I have no use for it in my life 自分の生活に必要の無いものであるから。（F） because it is difficult and impossible to learn. 英語は難しいので身につけることは無理だと思う。（G） because it is not fun and enjoyable to learn.

334


英語が面白くない・つまらないと思うから。（H） because it is compulsory (i.e. mandatory) that I study it. 英語が必修科目であるから。（I） because I have never had the experience of speaking to a native English speaker. 英語のネイティブスピーカーとは実際に話をした経験が無いから。（J） because I’m not used to native English speakers, their culture and their customs.

英語のネイティブスピーカー、そしてその文化や習慣などに慣れていないから。

（K） because I have no plan to go abroad nor do I have a plan to work in an environment where English is required.

海外に行ったり、英語を必要とする仕事に就く予定は無いから。（L） because this is Japan. I’m Japanese and I only need to speak Japanese. 私は日本人であり、ここは日本であるので英語が必要無いと思うから。

（M） because I have seen very little to no improvement in my English language ability

since the onset of my English language studies (ex: since junior high school) 英語の勉強を始めたころからほとんど、あるいは全くといって上達をしたと思えないから。（小、中学校から比べて英語力が伸びていないと思うから。）（N） because there are more important things for me to study than English. 英語を学ぶことよりも重要なことがあるから。（O） because I would rather study another language. むしろ、英語以外の言語を学びたいから。

© Stuart Warrington, Asia University 2005 Translation by M. Brooks, Asia University (2005)

335

the rationale of motivation, passivity and de-motivation...

Documents