- Email: [email protected]
Dynamicity of motivation, anxiety and cooperativeness in a semester course
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
System 38 (2010) 172e184 www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Dynamicity of motivation, anxiety and cooperativeness in a semester course Tsutomu Koga Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan Received 29 May 2009; revised 4 November 2009; accepted 23 November 2009
Abstract Motivation is one of the most frequently discussed variables due to its crucial role in successful second or foreign language learning. Several studies have shown the construct of motivation and relationships between motivational components and language achievement. However, it is still unclear whether or not these individual-difference variables can be developed or undermined in a classroom context. In this study, the dynamicity of individual-difference variables during 15-week university English courses in Japan was investigated. A total of seven variables were examined: test and English classroom anxiety, persistence, motivation to learn English, integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, communication apprehension, and cooperativeness. The results indicated that learners’ anxiety and their sense of cooperativeness changed significantly, but other variables showed a stabilizing tendency from a global perspective. However, an individual analysis revealed that learners with high motivation showed the upholding of motivational components, whereas learners with low motivation showed the positive development of them. Finally, the decrease in communication apprehension that was assumed to be caused by the increase in cooperativeness led to the disappearance of negative relationships between communication apprehension and motivational variables. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Motivational development; Anxiety; Communication apprehension; Cooperativeness
1. Introduction Ever since Gardner first proposed his groundbreaking theory of motivation, the socio-educational model (e.g., Gardner, 1985, 2001), motivation research has been flourishing for several decades, and several theories and models of motivation, some of which are self-determination theory (SDT) (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 1985; Noels, 2001), willingness to communicate (WTC) (e.g., MacIntyre et al., 1998; MacIntyre, 2007), and the process model of second language (L2) motivation (e.g., Do¨rnyei and Otto´, 1998; Do¨rnyei, 2000), have been proposed. This phenomenon clearly suggests the importance of affective variables in successful language learning, together with other individualdifference (ID) variables, such as language aptitude, learner styles, and learning strategies (see Do¨rnyei, 2005 for detailed discussions of ID variables). These studies have made clearer the construct of motivation and the relationships between the variables and language learning. However, the dynamicity of motivation is often overlooked (Do¨rnyei, E-mail address: [email protected] 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.03.001
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
173
2005), which calls for a longitudinal research design. Following the traditional trait-state distinction of motivation, it is implied that trait motivation may not change easily, compared with state motivation; however, some recent studies have reported that learners’ trait level of motivation tends to decrease as learners become more mature (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Inbar et al., 2001). Moreover, interestingly, but unfortunately enough, several studies investigating motivational evolution reported consistent decreases in motivation. These may be explicable in terms of their research designs in which the between-subject variables were examined. This explanation is supported by Gardner et al. (2004), who examined the within-subject variables and found that certain ID variables were more amenable to variation, whereas other ID variables were less variable. Due to the relatively small number of studies accounting for motivational dynamicity, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion that learner motivation tends to be undermined. This study, thus emphasizing the within-subject variables, attempts to provide a clearer picture of motivational development. 2. Literature review and research questions Traditional motivation research has focused on trait levels of motivation (i.e., one’s stable and enduring disposition) and has discussed the relationships between ID variables and language achievement; most of these studies have found that trait motivation had a direct effect on achievement (e.g., Gardner et al., 1997; Masgoret and Gardner, 2003; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995). Gardner et al. (1997), for instance, examined a variety of ID variables and reported that motivation influenced strategy use, self-confidence, and language achievement. As predicted from the socioeducational model, integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation had a direct effect on motivation. Intimate relationships between motivation and achievement were further revealed by a meta-analysis conducted by Masgoret and Gardner (2003), who discovered moderate correlations (r ¼ .29 to .39), depending on different measurements used to assess achievement (p. 156). The socio-educational model, although sufficiently informative and influential, was targeted by researchers who called for motivation research in educational and classroom contexts (e.g., Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Oxford and Shearin, 1994). It is probably task-specific state motivation that gives insights into the dynamic aspect of motivation in a classroom setting because different kinds of tasks can elicit diverse responses. On the basis of the appraisal model by Boekaerts (1986, 1988) who emphatically claimed the importance of the trait-state distinction of motivation, Julkunen (2001) reported that a high-proficiency group demonstrated more positive attitudes toward individualistic and competitive closed vocabulary tasks than a low-proficiency group. The variations in task-specific motivation were positive in the cooperative tasks, suggesting the most effective task administration for both types of learners. Moreover, he argued that the open tasks were more motivating than the closed tasks. Kormos and Do¨rnyei (2004) also investigated task motivation and its relationships with task performance. Interestingly, the result showed that task motivation was affected by pairing, and that learners with positive task attitudes tended to have a positive influence on less-motivated learners. Within the framework of flow theory, Egbert (2003) identified five types of tasks that enhanced learners’ flow experiences. Task motivation is a situation-specific state level of motivation that can change from time to time; however, it does not sufficiently account for the variations in a more general, trait level of motivation. Do¨rnyei’s process model of L2 motivation (e.g., Do¨rnyei and Otto´, 1998; Do¨rnyei, 2000), however, is a dynamic one that represents how learner motivation changes or is protected. A total of three stages are involved in this process: (a) preactional stage (i.e., choice motivation) in which motivation has to be first generated, (b) actional stage (i.e., executive motivation) in which it must be then executed, and (c) postactional stage (i.e., motivational retrospection) where it must be finally evaluated. In this cyclical process, learners determine whether or not they continue taking some actions (Do¨rnyei, 2005). Despite the limited amount of empirical research that has been conducted to validate this model, it is theoretically influential in that it illustrates a dynamic development of motivation. From the studies on motivational development, it is noticeable that learner motivation tends to decline as learners become more mature (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Gardner et al., 2004; Inbar et al., 2001; Tachibana et al., 1996). In Asian countries, Tachibana et al. (1996), for example, indicated that Japanese and Chinese EFL learners showed decreases in motivation from junior to senior high school, and similar decreases in motivational variables of Japanese first-year junior high school students were found in Koizumi and Matsuo (1993), although the students maintained a consistent level of the variables at the end of the semester. Bernaus et al. (2007) also reported decreases in motivational components of secondary school students learning Catalan in Barcelona. In terms of university learners, Gardner et al. (2004) indicated that motivational components declined from a fall semester to a spring semester.
174
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
Because these studies have shown the decreased level of motivation, demotivation is a crucial issue to be discussed, and in fact, Do¨rnyei (2001) pointed out several demotivating factors, such as school environments, teachers’ roles, and classroom activities. Sakai and Kikuchi (2009), targeting high school learners in Japan, also identified five demotivating factors (i.e., learning contents and materials, teachers’ competence and teaching styles, inadequate school facilities, lack of intrinsic motivation, and test scores) and reported that among these five factors, learning contents and materials, and test scores were seen as the demotivating factors especially for those with lower levels of motivation. Falout et al. (2009) pointed out three categories of demotivating factors in a Japanese EFL context: (1) external factors (i.e., teacher immediacy, grammar-translation, and course level) that were related to demotivation caused in classroom settings, (2) internal factors (i.e., self-denigration, value, and self-confidence) that concerned learners’ feelings toward learning English and past experiences, and (3) reactive factors (i.e., help-seeking, enjoyment-seeking, and avoidance) that pertained to strategies to deal with demotivation. Focusing on learners’ proficiency levels, they suggested that there was a high probability for learners with fewer learning experiences and low-proficiency levels to feel demotivated because of limited skills to handle their affective conditions. However, Do¨rnyei (2001) stated that although learners were demotivated, it did not necessarily mean that they completely lost their motivation but rather still possessed some positive motivational components. If this is the case, teachers can stimulate such positive motivational components so as to increase or reproduce learner motivation. In fact, following the ideas of SDT, Hiromori (2006) discovered the positive development of learners’ basic psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) during 12-week writing classes in a university in Japan. Furthermore, learners with a low level of motivation showed a shift from external regulatory types to more intrinsic types. In spite of the small number of studies demonstrating positive motivational evolution, it is assumed that teachers or educational intervention can affect learners’ motivation level favorably. In Japanese EFL contexts, two studies (i.e., Tachibana et al., 1996; Koizumi and Matsuo, 1993) have reported a decreasing tendency of motivational variables of junior and senior high school learners; however, one study (Hiromori, 2006) has shown a positive change from extrinsic to intrinsic regulatory types. The discrepancy in these results may be caused by different learning situations: Japanese junior and senior high school learners must take a difficult entrance examination, whereas university learners are exempted from the examination. Another important variable that has a role in language learning is anxiety, which can be divided into three types: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation (Horwitz et al., 1986). Several studies have reported a negative relationship between anxiety and language performance (e.g., MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994; MacIntyre et al., 1997). Closely linked with anxiety is self-confidence or perceived competence. In WTC, communication apprehension and perceived communication competence form L2 communication confidence, which directly affects WTC in L2 (e.g., Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004). These results supported the basic claim that the two fundamental predicators of WTC are communication apprehension and perceived communication competence (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Self-confidence, which Cle´ment considered as a major motivational subcomponent, is also composed of the absence of anxiety (e.g., Cle´ment and Kruidenier, 1985; Cle´ment et al., 1994). These studies considered anxiety as a subcomponent of self-confidence and argued its important role in language performance. As for the trait-state distinction of anxiety, MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) created a condition in which learners were videotaped in a vocabulary-learning task. A total of three experimental groups showed significant increases in state anxiety, which led to the declined task performance. Gardner et al. (2004) also discovered that learners’ state anxiety was lower after the winter vacation, but that it increased as the day of the final examination drew closer. The discussion of the dynamicity of trait anxiety is not sufficiently available; however, Bernaus et al. (2007) found out that the anxiety level of grade one students was lower than that of grade two and grade four students, suggesting that the more language experiences learners possessed, the more likely anxiety levels were to increase. The above-mentioned studies have argued how these affective variables are related to language achievement in a complex manner and how they change from situation to situation or from time to time. However, the discussion of their dynamicity of trait variables, which is the main focus of this study, has not yet been fully available, and furthermore, there is a strong demand for longitudinal research with special attention paid to within-subject variables rather than between-subject variables (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Tachibana et al., 1996), so as to more sufficiently account for variations of individual learners. This study investigates whether or not learners’ trait level of ID variables can change over an extended period of time in mandatory English university courses in Japan. The following three research questions are being investigated. The first question concerns whether learners’ ID variables change during a one-semester course. The variations in
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
175
some classroom attributes were found in Gardner et al. (2004), but since the number of studies reporting such variations is still limited, this study examines what variables are more amenable to change. Moreover, several studies presented in the above section (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Tachibana et al., 1996) have reported the general decreasing tendencies of motivational components; hence, the applicability of their findings in the context of universities in Japan is also one of the focuses of interest in this study. The second question deals more specifically with the types of learners who would demonstrate distinct patterns of variations in their ID variables. Gardner et al. (2004) divided participants into three different proficiency levels based on their final grades and reported their perceptional differences in some variables. The current study, however, puts an emphasis on learner profiles (e.g., Csize´r and Do¨rnyei, 2005; Yamamori et al., 2003) and examines what types of learners with similar characteristics are more likely to develop or undermine such variables. Rather than treating the participants as a whole, this individualistic approach would provide a better picture of motivational evolution in different types of learners. The third question analyzes how relationships between the ID variables examined at the beginning of the semester would differ from those examined at the end of the semester. It can be predicted that a change in one variable would result in certain differences in such relationships; the examinations of not only the development of ID variables, but also changes in the relationships between the variables should be called for. 3. Method 3.1. Participants A total of 93 first-year Japanese university students, majoring in physical therapy, participated in this study. Among these participants, five learners who did not complete all items on the questionnaires were eliminated; the analyses were made based on 88 learners. In all, 37 were females, and the remaining 51 participants were males. Although this study did not measure their general English proficiency levels, it is assumed that they were intermediates due to their six years of English learning required in junior and senior high school, as well as their success in passing a university entrance examination. 3.2. Materials A questionnaire used in Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) was selected because it measures various aspects of ID variables, such as affective variables (e.g., motivation and anxiety) and learner beliefs (e.g., competitiveness and cooperativeness). A total of 39 items were initially selected and then modified to be suitable for learners in Japanese EFL contexts. Two postgraduates specializing in foreign/second language learning were responsible for translating the original English version into Japanese (see Schmidt and Watanabe, pp. 353e355 for the original). This questionnaire used a five-point scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree), with 35 items positively worded and four items negatively worded. The latter items were reversely coded when data were input. In addition, the questionnaire administered at the end of the semester included the evaluation of the class (three-point scale ranging from increase to decrease in terms of motivation, anxiety, and confidence experienced in the class), together with a free-response format. 3.3. Procedures This study was conducted in mandatory English classrooms starting from April to August in 2007. The questionnaire was administered on two occasions: the beginning and the end of the semester. The participants were informed that I, as a teacher, would like to know their original motivational profiles at the beginning and also to know whether they had changed at the end of the semester. Participants were also assured that the results of the study would not affect their final grades. 3.4. Data analysis A factor analysis was first done to recheck whether the questionnaire administered in foreign language classrooms in Hawaii (see Schmidt and Watanabe, 2001) was appropriate for EFL university learners in Japan. To examine the
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
176
first question, paired t-tests were used to analyze the differences in the ID variables between the beginning and the end of the semester. In terms of the second question, cluster analysis was first used to divide learners into groups, followed by a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to validate the grouping. After this classification, t-tests were again used to identify which group tended to demonstrate the variations. Since the total number of participants was relatively small, effect sizes were also calculated. Two commonly used effect sizes of t-tests are Cohen’s d and a point-biserial correlation coefficient (i.e., r), and this study adopted the latter as r ranges from 0 (no effect) to 1 (a perfect effect). It is suggested that r ¼ .10 refers to a small effect, r ¼ .30 to a medium effect, and r ¼ .50 to a large effect (Field, 2005, p. 32). Correlation analyses were finally conducted to answer the third question: the differences in the relationships between the variables attained at the beginning and those at the end of the semester. All these analyses were carried out using SPSS 10.0E for Windows at the University of Tsukuba. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Examinations of the questionnaire The final result of the factor analysis indicated that seven factors were extracted and named as test and English classroom anxiety (4 items, a ¼ .713), persistence (3 items, a ¼ .563), motivation to learn English (6 items, a ¼ .841), integrative orientation (5 items, a ¼ .754), instrumental orientation (3 items, a ¼ .678), communication apprehension (2 items, a ¼ .660), and cooperativeness (3 items, a ¼ .797). A large discrepancy between the results of this study and those of Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) was that the two orientations (i.e., integrative and instrumental) were separated from motivation in this current study, whereas the orientations together with intrinsic motivation were formed as one factor in the study by Schmidt and Watanabe. Taking into consideration Gardner’s (2001) claim that orientations are basically different from motivation, the results of this study are justified; Japanese learners in this study conceptualized motivation differently from the two orientations. 4.2. Changes in learners’ ID variables from a global perspective The results of t-tests analyzing the variations in the ID variables demonstrated that only three factors significantly altered: test and English classroom anxiety, communication apprehension, and cooperativeness (see Table 1). Learners’ anxiety and communication apprehension significantly decreased, and cooperativeness increased from the beginning (i.e., the precondition) to the end of the semester (i.e., the postcondition). The effect size of test and English classroom anxiety was relatively small (r ¼ .21), but that of the other two variables was large (r ¼ .48 in communication apprehension and r ¼ .56 in cooperativeness). Another noticeable tendency, although not significant, was the Table 1 Descriptive statistics and results of t-tests. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.224 3.097
.711 .743
t 2.013
.047
.21
Persistence (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.750 3.788
.552 .585
.575
.567
.06
Motivation (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.210 3.267
.631 .569
1.154
.252
.12
Integrative (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.675 3.664
.593 .610
.244
.808
.03
Instrumental (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.693 3.727
.559 .675
.473
.637
.05
Apprehension (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.773 3.352
.795 .841
5.129
.000
.48
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.307 3.765
.755 .695
6.283
.000
.56
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
177
consistent increases in the three motivational components (persistence, motivation to learn English, and instrumental orientation). Therefore, the answer to the first question is that learners’ sense of anxiety and cooperativeness changed, whereas their motivational variables sustained a relatively consistent level. These results were, on the one hand, compatible with those in the previous studies, but on the other hand, different from them. As briefly summarized above, Tachibana et al. (1996) reported that reasons for learning English, such as intrinsic motivation and interpersonal reasons, showed a significant decrease from junior to senior high school. This study, however, showed the maintenance of motivation to learn English consisting of some intrinsic motivation items. This discrepancy can be explained in terms of the different ages of learners. In other words, the differences occurred when university, senior high school, and junior high school students were compared. In Japan, most of the learners are exposed to English in junior high school for the first time, and this exposure is so novel and curious that they may tend to be more intrinsically motivated. However, this motivation changes into a more practical type of reason for learning English (to succeed in entrance examinations), as they enter senior high school. Tachibana et al. (1996) established the fact that the utilitarian reason increased in senior high school. This increase caused the learners to perceive English as a school subject rather than as a language for communication, and thus, intrinsic motivation declined considerably. University in Japan is a different situation, in which learners are required to take English courses, but nevertheless, they are free from entrance examinations. This allows for no dynamic shift in motivational types from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, because university students are more likely interested in their own specializations, they may rarely find a suitable reason for further motivating themselves to learn English. This condition led to the upholding of motivation. Hence, these different results were attributed to the different grades of the participants. Gardner et al. (2004) claimed that nonspecific classroom attributes (e.g., interest in foreign languages and instrumental orientation) were unlikely to change, compared with specific classroom attributes (e.g., French class anxiety and motivational intensity). The current study found similar results to their findings in that motivation and two types of orientations did not differ from the beginning to the end, whereas test and English classroom anxiety and communication apprehension significantly decreased, both of which were considered to be classroom-specific measures. What makes these results similar to those in Gardner et al. can be thought of as the participants’ grade level. In spite of the fact that Canada is called a bilingual country, this does not mean that every single Canadian student is highly motivated to learn French or English. Similar to the situation in Japan, Canadian university students are more interested in their majors than in required or even elective language courses. Unnatural is a situation in which students majoring in, for instance biology, devote themselves to mastering English or French in order to integrate into an English or a French community. 4.3. Changes in learners’ ID variables from an individual perspective The results of cluster analysis showed four different subclasses of learners. These four subclasses were then subject to the MANOVA, and the results validated the grouping. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics together with the results of the MANOVA. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that most of the variables significantly differed from group to group. The group differences are illustrated in Fig. 1. Based on the group characteristics, they were named as follows: the least-cooperative group, the least-anxious group, the high-motivation group, and the low-motivation and highanxiety group. After this procedure, t-tests were conducted to examine whether the groups differed from each other in terms of the changes in the ID variables. 4.3.1. Least-cooperative group The results of t-tests indicated that the least-cooperative group demonstrated significant changes in two variables: communication apprehension and cooperativeness. Table 3 lists the substantial decrease in communication apprehension and the increase in cooperativeness, suggesting an important assumption that the increase had a positive effect on the decrease, although the cause-and-effect relationship between the increase and the decrease was not clear. This assumption, however, is reasonable because communication apprehension is frequently provoked in an environment where learners are not well acquainted with each other. This is, in fact, supported by the theoretical claims often made by anxiety researchers that a warm and friendly environment creates an anxiety-free atmosphere in classrooms (e.g., Horwitz et al., 1986). The least-cooperative group also shows an interesting tendency in which their persistence and two orientations were maintained relatively higher, but motivation remained lower. Orientations are by no means equal to motivation
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
178 Table 2 Descriptive statistics and results of MANOVA. Factor (max)
Overall
Cluster 1 Least cooperative
Cluster 2 Least anxious
Cluster 3 High motivation
Cluster 4 Low motivation
MANOVA
Tukey post hoc test
(N ¼ 88)
(n ¼ 25)
(n ¼ 15)
(n ¼ 23)
(n ¼ 25)
M/SD
M/SD
M/SD
M/SD
M/SD
Anxiety (5)
3.224/.711
3.110/.696
2.617/.731
3.326/.497
3.610/.634
8.046**
1 < 4*, 2 < 3**, 2 < 4**
Persistence (5)
3.750/.552
3.533/.616
3.978/.445
4.087/.379
3.520/.482
7.995**
1 < 2*, 1 < 3**, 2 > 4*, 3 > 4**
Motivation (5)
3.210/.632
3.233/.357
3.556/.533
3.638/.526
2.587/.493
23.212**
1 < 3*, 1 > 4**, 2 > 4**, 3 > 4**
Integrative (5)
3.675/.593
3.856/.488
3.880/.459
3.948/.570
3.120/.404
15.420**
1 > 4**, 2 > 4**, 3 > 4**
Instrumental (5)
3.693/.559
3.880/.407
3.711/.486
3.855/.558
3.347/.597
5.534**
1 > 4**, 3 > 4**
Apprehension (5)
3.773/.795
4.000/.612
2.567/.623
3.826/.357
4.220/.631
29.463**
1 > 2**, 2 < 3**, 2 < 4**
Cooperative (5)
3.307/.755
2.627/.648
3.778/.600
3.768/.526
3.280/.599
18.608**
1 < 2**, 1 < 3**, 1 < 4**, 3 > 4*
F (3, 13.119)
*p < .05; **p < .01
(Gardner, 2001), and thus even if this group possessed good reasons for learning English, the reasons failed to lead the learners to take any action. 4.3.2. Least-anxious group The least-anxious group, on the other hand, showed no significant variation in any factors (see Table 4), but the medium effect size (r ¼ 34) was found in cooperativeness. What is noticed from the consideration of four motivational variables (i.e., persistence, motivation, and integrative and instrumental orientations) is that the levels of the variables in the precondition were relatively high and remained high in the postcondition, possibly implying that the further stimulation of motivational components may be rather difficult, but that motivated learners can maintain a high level of motivation. These results are similar to the results in Hiromori (2006) that the ‘‘intrinsically-motivated group’’ and the ‘‘internal-pressure group’’ who possessed higher levels of self-regulation did not show any changes in motivation. The low levels of the two types of anxiety in the precondition were kept low in the postcondition. MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposed that personality, which was an enduring component, had an effect on the process of WTC, although it did not have a direct influence on language learning. Since WTC is deeply related to language and communication anxiety, personality cannot be ignored when anxiety is taken into account (e.g., Do¨rnyei, 2005). Hence, it was assumed that some of the learners in the least-anxious group might be the extroverts who were willing to take risks without fear of making mistakes. This is assumed by the high level of cooperativeness, specifying their willingness to interact with others; they were seen rather as sociable and extroverted than unsociable and introverted. 4.5 Least Cooperative Group
4 3.5
Least Anxious Group
3 2.5
High M otivation Group
A nx ie ty
Pe rs ist en ce M ot iv at io n In teg ra tiv e In st r um en ta A l pp re he ns io n Co op ea rti ve
2
Fig. 1. Visual representations of group differences.
Low M otivation and High Anxiety Group
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
179
Table 3 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the least-cooperative group. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.110 3.080
.696 .773
t .225
.824
.05
Persistence (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.533 3.627
.616 .555
.657
.518
.13
Motivation (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.233 3.207
.357 .462
.323
.750
.07
Integrative (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.856 3.808
.488 .467
.663
.513
.14
Instrumental (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.880 3.800
.407 .726
.592
.559
.12
Apprehension (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
4.000 3.500
.612 .829
3.693
.001
.60
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
2.627 3.400
.648 .752
4.501
.000
.68
4.3.3. High-motivation group The high-motivation group demonstrated tendencies almost identical to the least-cooperative group: the four motivational variables were consistent between the precondition and the postcondition, but communication apprehension declined and cooperativeness was enhanced (see Table 5). The effect size of test and English classroom anxiety was medium (r ¼ .37), implying a decrease in the factor. Although slight declines of three motivational variables were observed, the effect sizes were small (r ¼ .27 in persistence, r ¼ .20 in motivation, and r ¼ .26 in integrative orientation). Similarly to the least-anxious group, highly motivated learners were more likely to sustain higher levels of motivation. Since the possible reasons for the maintenance of the motivational variables, the decrease in anxiety and communication apprehension, together with the increase in the preference to cooperative work were pointed out above, the accounts are not repeated here. 4.3.4. Low-motivation and high-anxiety group The most interesting was the result of the low-motivation and high-anxiety group, that their motivation to learn English significantly increased with decreased communication apprehension and increased cooperativeness (see Table 4 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the least-anxious group. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
2.617 2.533
.731 .855
t .557
.587
.15
Persistence (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.978 3.933
.445 .632
.264
.796
.07
Motivation (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.556 3.622
.533 .631
.627
.541
.17
Integrative (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.880 3.960
.459 .722
.612
.550
.16
Instrumental (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.711 3.800
.486 .764
.459
.653
.12
Apprehension (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
2.567 2.633
.623 .990
.242
.812
.07
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.778 3.978
.600 .570
1.348
.199
.34
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
180
Table 5 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the high-motivation group. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.326 3.087
.497 .492
t 1.839
.080
.37
Persistence (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
4.087 3.942
.379 .509
1.311
.203
.27
Motivation (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.638 3.551
.526 .381
.934
.360
.20
Integrative (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.948 3.826
.570 .567
1.253
.223
.26
Instrumental (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.855 3.797
.558 .592
.401
.692
.09
Apprehension (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.826 3.435
.357 .758
2.398
.025
.46
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.768 4.174
.526 .531
2.921
.008
.53
Table 6). It is difficult to pinpoint what factors were responsible for the increase in motivation; however, since overall increases in the other two motivational variables were observed (r ¼ .35 in persistence and r ¼ .32 in instrumental orientation), these increases possibly contributed to the development of motivation. Furthermore, it was consistent with Hiromori’s (2006) finding that unmotivated learners increased intrinsic motivation, and the increase was correlated with the increase in relatedness. In a survey, questionnaire items measuring cooperativeness and relatedness were factor analyzed, and it was realized that items in cooperativeness were gathered together with items measuring relatedness, forming one extracted factor. This result suggests that cooperativeness and relatedness were an overlapping concept that can be assessed by these items. In this respect, the low-motivation and high-anxiety group demonstrated the growth of cooperativeness, and this growth can account for motivational evolution. In addition, the diminution in two types of anxiety is not overlooked because high-anxiety levels were the determinant of their characteristics. The discussions of the decrease in communication apprehension are congruent with those provided earlier, but the additional effect might be observed in this particular group. Anxiety is often
Table 6 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the low-motivation and high-anxiety group. Factor
Condition
M
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.610 3.460
.634 .648
t 1.455
.159
.29
Persistence (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.520 3.720
.482 .629
1.809
.083
.35
Motivation (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
2.587 2.853
.493 .505
2.679
.013
.48
Integrative (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.120 3.192
.404 .445
.834
.412
.17
Instrumental (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.347 3.547
.597 645
1.623
.118
.32
Apprehension (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
4.220 3.560
.630 .618
6.678
.000
.81
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.280 3.627
.598 .626
3.887
.001
.62
SD
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
181
Table 7 Correlations between motivational variables in the precondition.
Anxiety Persistence Motivation Integrative Instrumental Apprehension Cooperative
Anxiety
Persistence
Motivation
Integrative
Instrumental
Apprehension
Cooperative
e
.258* e
.360** .327** e
.144 .213* .444** e
.032 .138 .268* .362** e
.361** .210* .348** .293** .185 e
.073 .156 .190 .210* .062 .447** e
*p < .05; **p < .01
investigated in relation to self-confidence (Cle´ment and Kruidenier, 1985; Gardner et al., 1997), and these researchers considered low anxiety as high self-confidence. The results of causal path analyses (Gardner et al., 1997) specified that motivation affected self-confidence. In this respect, the increase in motivation had an effect on the decrease in anxiety. Although this interpretation cannot be extended to the least-cooperative group and the high-motivation group who also reduced their anxiety levels, it may be said that for those who are not well motivated and are highly anxious, if the positive factor (i.e., motivation) is stimulated, the negative factor (i.e., anxiety) tends to decline. 4.4. Differences in the relationships between the ID variables Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships between the ID variables obtained in the precondition, and the results are presented in Table 7. The general tendencies in the findings are that the motivational variables were positively correlated with each other, and were negatively correlated with two types of anxiety. This indicates that motivated learners continuously studied English and had good reasons for learning both integratively and instrumentally, whereas less-motivated learners showed the opposite characteristics. The former learners were less anxious about English tests and classes, as well as communicating with others, but the latter group possessed high anxiety and apprehension. The two types of anxiety positively correlated, with communication apprehension negatively related to cooperativeness. The positive correlation between integrative orientation and cooperativeness was also observed, and the interpretation was that the integratively motivated learners who desired to interact with people and culture in the target language community preferred working cooperatively to working individually. This is reasonable because they approve of the interaction with people in both the target and the native language communities. The most surprising fact was that communication apprehension always had negative effects on all the variables, except for test and English classroom anxiety. Focusing on the results of the correlation analysis in the postcondition, unpredicted relationships between the variables were found. Table 8 represents the similar results found in the precondition, such as the positive correlations between motivational variables and between the two anxiety types. However, what makes the results completely different from those in the precondition was the disappearance of the negative correlations of communication apprehension with other variables. To be more precise, in spite of the presence of the negative correlation between test and English classroom anxiety and motivation to learn English, the disappearances of the significant negative
Table 8 Correlations between motivational variables in the postcondition.
Anxiety Persistence Motivation Integrative Instrumental Apprehension Cooperative *p < .05; **p < .01
Anxiety
Persistence
Motivation
Integrative
Instrumental
Apprehension
Cooperative
e
.023 e
.337** .425** e
.250 .143 .535** e
.111 .072 .182 .457** e
.372** .033 .015 .120 .058 e
.117 .093 .191 .253* .139 .109 e
182
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
Fig. 2. Relationships between cooperative work, cooperativeness, and anxiety.
correlations between communication apprehension and the motivational variables are noteworthy because of the consistent negative correlations identified in the precondition. In the previous sections, the reasons for the decrease in communication apprehension were discussed; the increase in learners’ sense of cooperativeness played an important role in the decline. What was responsible for the increase in cooperativeness is, however, still not apparent, although the obvious speculation is that pair/group work fostered their sense of cooperativeness. To confirm this assumption, the data obtained from the free-response-format questionnaire administered in the final class were collected, and then all the responses were noted down so as to ascertain learners’ preferences for the instruction. Among the 92 learners, 34 learners specifically mentioned their preferences for cooperative or pair work; one-third of the students found it interesting and motivating to engage in it. The number of learners who stipulated the importance of communicative activities was also counted because communication cannot occur with only a single person involved. A total of 11 learners who did not overlap with the 34 learners counted above were found, and all the 11 students were considered as those who were also oriented toward cooperative work. As a consequence, half of the learners (45 learners in total) conceived pair/group work as interesting and important. This result suggests that learners’ sense of cooperativeness was significantly developed from the precondition to the postcondition through the use of pair/group work. Fig. 2 illustrates the cyclical relationships between the use of cooperative work, learners’ sense of cooperativeness, and the decreases in anxiety and communication apprehension. This model proposes that using cooperative work in a classroom develops learners’ sense of cooperativeness, which in turn contributes to declining anxiety. Learners with decreased levels of anxiety are reengaged in cooperative work. Ultimately, this process of learning results in the decline of negative factors that affect motivational variables. 5. Conclusion This study has discussed the dynamicity of the ID variables, focusing on how they tended to change within the individual perceptions. Three main findings were: (1) unlike junior and senior high school students, university learners in Japan kept their motivational variables relatively stable, but their level of anxiety and a sense of cooperativeness were more amenable to change, (2) motivated learners kept their motivation levels comparatively consistent, but lessmotivated ones were more likely to develop their motivation, and (3) the changes in communication apprehension caused the favorable relationships between other variables. These results were remarkable because although learner motivation in general varies very little, it is still possible to have an effective classroom approach to motivation in which educators can first identify the negative factors related to motivational variables and then eliminate them so as to protect learner motivation. Two limitations need to be addressed here. The first limitation was the small number of participants involved, especially in the discussion of each group. However, considering the effect size together with the significance compensated for this limitation. The second limitation was that this study did not clearly identify the factors contributing to the increases and the decreases in the variables, although cooperative work was considered as a crucial
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
183
instruction that enhanced learners’ positive attributes. Learners’ instructional preferences have implications for classroom teachers that offer insight into student learning. As discussed earlier, motivational variables of Japanese junior and senior high school learners tend to decline, and one possible reason for the decrease is related to entrance examinations. The students need to engage in individualistic, input activities to accumulate linguistic knowledge required to succeed in such examinations, and the activities may play a negative role in learner motivation. However, this study showed positive effects of cooperative work on the motivational variables of university students. This suggests that if junior and senior high school learners are more exposed to cooperative work than individualistic work, they can develop or at least maintain their motivation to learn English. Cooperative work also allows for fostering a sense of cooperativeness, which is necessary to form positive group cohesiveness in classrooms (Do¨rnyei and Murphey, 2003). The use of such work in Japanese EFL classroom contexts has a tremendous amount of potential to positively influence learners’ motivational variables. References Bernaus, M., Moore, E., Azevedo, A.C., 2007. Affective factors influencing plurilingual students’ acquisition of Catalan in a CatalaneSpanish bilingual context. Modern Language Journal 91, 235e246. Boekaerts, M., 1986. The measurement of state and trait motivational orientation: refining our measures. In: van den Bercken, J.H.L., De Bruyn, E.E.J., Bergen, Th. C.M. (Eds.), Achievement and Task Motivation. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, Netherlands, pp. 229e245. Boekaerts, M., 1988. Motivated learning: bias in appraisals. International Journal of Educational Research 12, 267e280. Cle´ment, R., Do¨rnyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1994. Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44, 417e448. Cle´ment, R., Kruidenier, B.G., 1985. Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: a test of Cle´ment’s model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4, 21e37. Crookes, G., Schmidt, W.R., 1991. Motivation: reopening the research agenda. Language Learning 41, 469e512. Csize´r, K., Do¨rnyei, Z., 2005. Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivated learning behavior. Language Learning 55, 613e659. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, New York. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2000. Motivation in action: towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 519e538. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Pearson Education Limited, Essex. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey. Do¨rnyei, Z., Murphey, T., 2003. Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Do¨rnyei, Z., Otto´, I., 1998. Motivation in action: a process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4, 43e69. Egbert, J., 2003. A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 87, 499e518. Falout, J., Elwood, J., Hood, M., 2009. Demotivation: affective states and learning outcomes. System 37, 403e417. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, second ed. Sage Publications, London. Gardner, R.C., 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Edward Arnold, London. Gardner, R.C., 2001. Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 1e19. Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.M., Tennant, J., Mihic, L., 2004. Integrative motivation: changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning 54, 1e34. Gardner, R.C., Tremblay, P.F., Masgoret, A.M., 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: an empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81, 344e362. Hiromori, T., 2006. The effects of educational intervention on L2 learners’ motivational development. Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) 43, 1e14. Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., Cope, J., 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70, 125e132. Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Shohamy, E., 2001. Students’ motivation as a function of language learning: the teaching of Arabic in Israel. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 297e311. Julkunen, K., 2001. Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign-language learning. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 29e41. Koizumi, R., Matsuo, K., 1993. A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in learning English among Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese Psychological Research 35, 1e11. Kormos, J., Do¨rnyei, Z., 2004. The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Retrieved April 19th, 2006, from. Zeitschrift fu¨r Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 9. Retrieved April 19th, 2006, from. http://www.ualberta.ca/wgerman/ ejournal/kormos2.htm. MacIntyre, P.D., 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal 91, 564e576. MacIntyre, P.D., Cle´ment, R., Do¨rnyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal 82, 545e562.
184
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1994. The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 1e17. MacIntyre, P.D., Noels, K.A., Cle´ment, R., 1997. Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: the role of language anxiety. Language Learning 47, 265e287. Masgoret, A.M., Gardner, R.C., 2003. Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning 53, 123e163. Noels, K.A., 2001. New orientations in language learning motivation: towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 43e68. Oxford, R.L., Shearin, J., 1994. Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Learning 78, 12e28. Sakai, H., Kikuchi, K., 2009. An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System 37, 57e69. Schmidt, R., Watanabe, Y., 2001. Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 313e359. Tachibana, Y., Matsukawa, R., Zhong, Q.X., 1996. Attitudes and motivation for learning English: a cross-national comparison of Japanese and Chinese high school students. Psychological Reports 79, 691e700. Tremblay, P.F., Gardner, R.C., 1995. Expanding the motivational construct in language learning. Modern Language Learning 79, 505e518. Yamamori, K., Isoda, T., Hiromori, T., Oxford, R., 2003. Using cluster analysis to uncover L2 learner differences in strategy use, will to learn, and achievement over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics 41, 381e409. Yashima, T., 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: the Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal 86, 54e66. Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., Shimizu, K., 2004. The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning 54, 119e152.
System 38 (2010) 172e184 www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Dynamicity of motivation, anxiety and cooperativeness in a semester course Tsutomu Koga Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan Received 29 May 2009; revised 4 November 2009; accepted 23 November 2009
Abstract Motivation is one of the most frequently discussed variables due to its crucial role in successful second or foreign language learning. Several studies have shown the construct of motivation and relationships between motivational components and language achievement. However, it is still unclear whether or not these individual-difference variables can be developed or undermined in a classroom context. In this study, the dynamicity of individual-difference variables during 15-week university English courses in Japan was investigated. A total of seven variables were examined: test and English classroom anxiety, persistence, motivation to learn English, integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, communication apprehension, and cooperativeness. The results indicated that learners’ anxiety and their sense of cooperativeness changed significantly, but other variables showed a stabilizing tendency from a global perspective. However, an individual analysis revealed that learners with high motivation showed the upholding of motivational components, whereas learners with low motivation showed the positive development of them. Finally, the decrease in communication apprehension that was assumed to be caused by the increase in cooperativeness led to the disappearance of negative relationships between communication apprehension and motivational variables. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Motivational development; Anxiety; Communication apprehension; Cooperativeness
1. Introduction Ever since Gardner first proposed his groundbreaking theory of motivation, the socio-educational model (e.g., Gardner, 1985, 2001), motivation research has been flourishing for several decades, and several theories and models of motivation, some of which are self-determination theory (SDT) (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 1985; Noels, 2001), willingness to communicate (WTC) (e.g., MacIntyre et al., 1998; MacIntyre, 2007), and the process model of second language (L2) motivation (e.g., Do¨rnyei and Otto´, 1998; Do¨rnyei, 2000), have been proposed. This phenomenon clearly suggests the importance of affective variables in successful language learning, together with other individualdifference (ID) variables, such as language aptitude, learner styles, and learning strategies (see Do¨rnyei, 2005 for detailed discussions of ID variables). These studies have made clearer the construct of motivation and the relationships between the variables and language learning. However, the dynamicity of motivation is often overlooked (Do¨rnyei, E-mail address: [email protected] 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.03.001
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
173
2005), which calls for a longitudinal research design. Following the traditional trait-state distinction of motivation, it is implied that trait motivation may not change easily, compared with state motivation; however, some recent studies have reported that learners’ trait level of motivation tends to decrease as learners become more mature (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Inbar et al., 2001). Moreover, interestingly, but unfortunately enough, several studies investigating motivational evolution reported consistent decreases in motivation. These may be explicable in terms of their research designs in which the between-subject variables were examined. This explanation is supported by Gardner et al. (2004), who examined the within-subject variables and found that certain ID variables were more amenable to variation, whereas other ID variables were less variable. Due to the relatively small number of studies accounting for motivational dynamicity, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion that learner motivation tends to be undermined. This study, thus emphasizing the within-subject variables, attempts to provide a clearer picture of motivational development. 2. Literature review and research questions Traditional motivation research has focused on trait levels of motivation (i.e., one’s stable and enduring disposition) and has discussed the relationships between ID variables and language achievement; most of these studies have found that trait motivation had a direct effect on achievement (e.g., Gardner et al., 1997; Masgoret and Gardner, 2003; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995). Gardner et al. (1997), for instance, examined a variety of ID variables and reported that motivation influenced strategy use, self-confidence, and language achievement. As predicted from the socioeducational model, integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation had a direct effect on motivation. Intimate relationships between motivation and achievement were further revealed by a meta-analysis conducted by Masgoret and Gardner (2003), who discovered moderate correlations (r ¼ .29 to .39), depending on different measurements used to assess achievement (p. 156). The socio-educational model, although sufficiently informative and influential, was targeted by researchers who called for motivation research in educational and classroom contexts (e.g., Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Oxford and Shearin, 1994). It is probably task-specific state motivation that gives insights into the dynamic aspect of motivation in a classroom setting because different kinds of tasks can elicit diverse responses. On the basis of the appraisal model by Boekaerts (1986, 1988) who emphatically claimed the importance of the trait-state distinction of motivation, Julkunen (2001) reported that a high-proficiency group demonstrated more positive attitudes toward individualistic and competitive closed vocabulary tasks than a low-proficiency group. The variations in task-specific motivation were positive in the cooperative tasks, suggesting the most effective task administration for both types of learners. Moreover, he argued that the open tasks were more motivating than the closed tasks. Kormos and Do¨rnyei (2004) also investigated task motivation and its relationships with task performance. Interestingly, the result showed that task motivation was affected by pairing, and that learners with positive task attitudes tended to have a positive influence on less-motivated learners. Within the framework of flow theory, Egbert (2003) identified five types of tasks that enhanced learners’ flow experiences. Task motivation is a situation-specific state level of motivation that can change from time to time; however, it does not sufficiently account for the variations in a more general, trait level of motivation. Do¨rnyei’s process model of L2 motivation (e.g., Do¨rnyei and Otto´, 1998; Do¨rnyei, 2000), however, is a dynamic one that represents how learner motivation changes or is protected. A total of three stages are involved in this process: (a) preactional stage (i.e., choice motivation) in which motivation has to be first generated, (b) actional stage (i.e., executive motivation) in which it must be then executed, and (c) postactional stage (i.e., motivational retrospection) where it must be finally evaluated. In this cyclical process, learners determine whether or not they continue taking some actions (Do¨rnyei, 2005). Despite the limited amount of empirical research that has been conducted to validate this model, it is theoretically influential in that it illustrates a dynamic development of motivation. From the studies on motivational development, it is noticeable that learner motivation tends to decline as learners become more mature (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Gardner et al., 2004; Inbar et al., 2001; Tachibana et al., 1996). In Asian countries, Tachibana et al. (1996), for example, indicated that Japanese and Chinese EFL learners showed decreases in motivation from junior to senior high school, and similar decreases in motivational variables of Japanese first-year junior high school students were found in Koizumi and Matsuo (1993), although the students maintained a consistent level of the variables at the end of the semester. Bernaus et al. (2007) also reported decreases in motivational components of secondary school students learning Catalan in Barcelona. In terms of university learners, Gardner et al. (2004) indicated that motivational components declined from a fall semester to a spring semester.
174
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
Because these studies have shown the decreased level of motivation, demotivation is a crucial issue to be discussed, and in fact, Do¨rnyei (2001) pointed out several demotivating factors, such as school environments, teachers’ roles, and classroom activities. Sakai and Kikuchi (2009), targeting high school learners in Japan, also identified five demotivating factors (i.e., learning contents and materials, teachers’ competence and teaching styles, inadequate school facilities, lack of intrinsic motivation, and test scores) and reported that among these five factors, learning contents and materials, and test scores were seen as the demotivating factors especially for those with lower levels of motivation. Falout et al. (2009) pointed out three categories of demotivating factors in a Japanese EFL context: (1) external factors (i.e., teacher immediacy, grammar-translation, and course level) that were related to demotivation caused in classroom settings, (2) internal factors (i.e., self-denigration, value, and self-confidence) that concerned learners’ feelings toward learning English and past experiences, and (3) reactive factors (i.e., help-seeking, enjoyment-seeking, and avoidance) that pertained to strategies to deal with demotivation. Focusing on learners’ proficiency levels, they suggested that there was a high probability for learners with fewer learning experiences and low-proficiency levels to feel demotivated because of limited skills to handle their affective conditions. However, Do¨rnyei (2001) stated that although learners were demotivated, it did not necessarily mean that they completely lost their motivation but rather still possessed some positive motivational components. If this is the case, teachers can stimulate such positive motivational components so as to increase or reproduce learner motivation. In fact, following the ideas of SDT, Hiromori (2006) discovered the positive development of learners’ basic psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) during 12-week writing classes in a university in Japan. Furthermore, learners with a low level of motivation showed a shift from external regulatory types to more intrinsic types. In spite of the small number of studies demonstrating positive motivational evolution, it is assumed that teachers or educational intervention can affect learners’ motivation level favorably. In Japanese EFL contexts, two studies (i.e., Tachibana et al., 1996; Koizumi and Matsuo, 1993) have reported a decreasing tendency of motivational variables of junior and senior high school learners; however, one study (Hiromori, 2006) has shown a positive change from extrinsic to intrinsic regulatory types. The discrepancy in these results may be caused by different learning situations: Japanese junior and senior high school learners must take a difficult entrance examination, whereas university learners are exempted from the examination. Another important variable that has a role in language learning is anxiety, which can be divided into three types: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation (Horwitz et al., 1986). Several studies have reported a negative relationship between anxiety and language performance (e.g., MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994; MacIntyre et al., 1997). Closely linked with anxiety is self-confidence or perceived competence. In WTC, communication apprehension and perceived communication competence form L2 communication confidence, which directly affects WTC in L2 (e.g., Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004). These results supported the basic claim that the two fundamental predicators of WTC are communication apprehension and perceived communication competence (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Self-confidence, which Cle´ment considered as a major motivational subcomponent, is also composed of the absence of anxiety (e.g., Cle´ment and Kruidenier, 1985; Cle´ment et al., 1994). These studies considered anxiety as a subcomponent of self-confidence and argued its important role in language performance. As for the trait-state distinction of anxiety, MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) created a condition in which learners were videotaped in a vocabulary-learning task. A total of three experimental groups showed significant increases in state anxiety, which led to the declined task performance. Gardner et al. (2004) also discovered that learners’ state anxiety was lower after the winter vacation, but that it increased as the day of the final examination drew closer. The discussion of the dynamicity of trait anxiety is not sufficiently available; however, Bernaus et al. (2007) found out that the anxiety level of grade one students was lower than that of grade two and grade four students, suggesting that the more language experiences learners possessed, the more likely anxiety levels were to increase. The above-mentioned studies have argued how these affective variables are related to language achievement in a complex manner and how they change from situation to situation or from time to time. However, the discussion of their dynamicity of trait variables, which is the main focus of this study, has not yet been fully available, and furthermore, there is a strong demand for longitudinal research with special attention paid to within-subject variables rather than between-subject variables (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Tachibana et al., 1996), so as to more sufficiently account for variations of individual learners. This study investigates whether or not learners’ trait level of ID variables can change over an extended period of time in mandatory English university courses in Japan. The following three research questions are being investigated. The first question concerns whether learners’ ID variables change during a one-semester course. The variations in
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
175
some classroom attributes were found in Gardner et al. (2004), but since the number of studies reporting such variations is still limited, this study examines what variables are more amenable to change. Moreover, several studies presented in the above section (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2007; Tachibana et al., 1996) have reported the general decreasing tendencies of motivational components; hence, the applicability of their findings in the context of universities in Japan is also one of the focuses of interest in this study. The second question deals more specifically with the types of learners who would demonstrate distinct patterns of variations in their ID variables. Gardner et al. (2004) divided participants into three different proficiency levels based on their final grades and reported their perceptional differences in some variables. The current study, however, puts an emphasis on learner profiles (e.g., Csize´r and Do¨rnyei, 2005; Yamamori et al., 2003) and examines what types of learners with similar characteristics are more likely to develop or undermine such variables. Rather than treating the participants as a whole, this individualistic approach would provide a better picture of motivational evolution in different types of learners. The third question analyzes how relationships between the ID variables examined at the beginning of the semester would differ from those examined at the end of the semester. It can be predicted that a change in one variable would result in certain differences in such relationships; the examinations of not only the development of ID variables, but also changes in the relationships between the variables should be called for. 3. Method 3.1. Participants A total of 93 first-year Japanese university students, majoring in physical therapy, participated in this study. Among these participants, five learners who did not complete all items on the questionnaires were eliminated; the analyses were made based on 88 learners. In all, 37 were females, and the remaining 51 participants were males. Although this study did not measure their general English proficiency levels, it is assumed that they were intermediates due to their six years of English learning required in junior and senior high school, as well as their success in passing a university entrance examination. 3.2. Materials A questionnaire used in Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) was selected because it measures various aspects of ID variables, such as affective variables (e.g., motivation and anxiety) and learner beliefs (e.g., competitiveness and cooperativeness). A total of 39 items were initially selected and then modified to be suitable for learners in Japanese EFL contexts. Two postgraduates specializing in foreign/second language learning were responsible for translating the original English version into Japanese (see Schmidt and Watanabe, pp. 353e355 for the original). This questionnaire used a five-point scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree), with 35 items positively worded and four items negatively worded. The latter items were reversely coded when data were input. In addition, the questionnaire administered at the end of the semester included the evaluation of the class (three-point scale ranging from increase to decrease in terms of motivation, anxiety, and confidence experienced in the class), together with a free-response format. 3.3. Procedures This study was conducted in mandatory English classrooms starting from April to August in 2007. The questionnaire was administered on two occasions: the beginning and the end of the semester. The participants were informed that I, as a teacher, would like to know their original motivational profiles at the beginning and also to know whether they had changed at the end of the semester. Participants were also assured that the results of the study would not affect their final grades. 3.4. Data analysis A factor analysis was first done to recheck whether the questionnaire administered in foreign language classrooms in Hawaii (see Schmidt and Watanabe, 2001) was appropriate for EFL university learners in Japan. To examine the
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
176
first question, paired t-tests were used to analyze the differences in the ID variables between the beginning and the end of the semester. In terms of the second question, cluster analysis was first used to divide learners into groups, followed by a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to validate the grouping. After this classification, t-tests were again used to identify which group tended to demonstrate the variations. Since the total number of participants was relatively small, effect sizes were also calculated. Two commonly used effect sizes of t-tests are Cohen’s d and a point-biserial correlation coefficient (i.e., r), and this study adopted the latter as r ranges from 0 (no effect) to 1 (a perfect effect). It is suggested that r ¼ .10 refers to a small effect, r ¼ .30 to a medium effect, and r ¼ .50 to a large effect (Field, 2005, p. 32). Correlation analyses were finally conducted to answer the third question: the differences in the relationships between the variables attained at the beginning and those at the end of the semester. All these analyses were carried out using SPSS 10.0E for Windows at the University of Tsukuba. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Examinations of the questionnaire The final result of the factor analysis indicated that seven factors were extracted and named as test and English classroom anxiety (4 items, a ¼ .713), persistence (3 items, a ¼ .563), motivation to learn English (6 items, a ¼ .841), integrative orientation (5 items, a ¼ .754), instrumental orientation (3 items, a ¼ .678), communication apprehension (2 items, a ¼ .660), and cooperativeness (3 items, a ¼ .797). A large discrepancy between the results of this study and those of Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) was that the two orientations (i.e., integrative and instrumental) were separated from motivation in this current study, whereas the orientations together with intrinsic motivation were formed as one factor in the study by Schmidt and Watanabe. Taking into consideration Gardner’s (2001) claim that orientations are basically different from motivation, the results of this study are justified; Japanese learners in this study conceptualized motivation differently from the two orientations. 4.2. Changes in learners’ ID variables from a global perspective The results of t-tests analyzing the variations in the ID variables demonstrated that only three factors significantly altered: test and English classroom anxiety, communication apprehension, and cooperativeness (see Table 1). Learners’ anxiety and communication apprehension significantly decreased, and cooperativeness increased from the beginning (i.e., the precondition) to the end of the semester (i.e., the postcondition). The effect size of test and English classroom anxiety was relatively small (r ¼ .21), but that of the other two variables was large (r ¼ .48 in communication apprehension and r ¼ .56 in cooperativeness). Another noticeable tendency, although not significant, was the Table 1 Descriptive statistics and results of t-tests. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.224 3.097
.711 .743
t 2.013
.047
.21
Persistence (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.750 3.788
.552 .585
.575
.567
.06
Motivation (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.210 3.267
.631 .569
1.154
.252
.12
Integrative (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.675 3.664
.593 .610
.244
.808
.03
Instrumental (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.693 3.727
.559 .675
.473
.637
.05
Apprehension (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.773 3.352
.795 .841
5.129
.000
.48
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 88)
Pre Post
3.307 3.765
.755 .695
6.283
.000
.56
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
177
consistent increases in the three motivational components (persistence, motivation to learn English, and instrumental orientation). Therefore, the answer to the first question is that learners’ sense of anxiety and cooperativeness changed, whereas their motivational variables sustained a relatively consistent level. These results were, on the one hand, compatible with those in the previous studies, but on the other hand, different from them. As briefly summarized above, Tachibana et al. (1996) reported that reasons for learning English, such as intrinsic motivation and interpersonal reasons, showed a significant decrease from junior to senior high school. This study, however, showed the maintenance of motivation to learn English consisting of some intrinsic motivation items. This discrepancy can be explained in terms of the different ages of learners. In other words, the differences occurred when university, senior high school, and junior high school students were compared. In Japan, most of the learners are exposed to English in junior high school for the first time, and this exposure is so novel and curious that they may tend to be more intrinsically motivated. However, this motivation changes into a more practical type of reason for learning English (to succeed in entrance examinations), as they enter senior high school. Tachibana et al. (1996) established the fact that the utilitarian reason increased in senior high school. This increase caused the learners to perceive English as a school subject rather than as a language for communication, and thus, intrinsic motivation declined considerably. University in Japan is a different situation, in which learners are required to take English courses, but nevertheless, they are free from entrance examinations. This allows for no dynamic shift in motivational types from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, because university students are more likely interested in their own specializations, they may rarely find a suitable reason for further motivating themselves to learn English. This condition led to the upholding of motivation. Hence, these different results were attributed to the different grades of the participants. Gardner et al. (2004) claimed that nonspecific classroom attributes (e.g., interest in foreign languages and instrumental orientation) were unlikely to change, compared with specific classroom attributes (e.g., French class anxiety and motivational intensity). The current study found similar results to their findings in that motivation and two types of orientations did not differ from the beginning to the end, whereas test and English classroom anxiety and communication apprehension significantly decreased, both of which were considered to be classroom-specific measures. What makes these results similar to those in Gardner et al. can be thought of as the participants’ grade level. In spite of the fact that Canada is called a bilingual country, this does not mean that every single Canadian student is highly motivated to learn French or English. Similar to the situation in Japan, Canadian university students are more interested in their majors than in required or even elective language courses. Unnatural is a situation in which students majoring in, for instance biology, devote themselves to mastering English or French in order to integrate into an English or a French community. 4.3. Changes in learners’ ID variables from an individual perspective The results of cluster analysis showed four different subclasses of learners. These four subclasses were then subject to the MANOVA, and the results validated the grouping. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics together with the results of the MANOVA. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that most of the variables significantly differed from group to group. The group differences are illustrated in Fig. 1. Based on the group characteristics, they were named as follows: the least-cooperative group, the least-anxious group, the high-motivation group, and the low-motivation and highanxiety group. After this procedure, t-tests were conducted to examine whether the groups differed from each other in terms of the changes in the ID variables. 4.3.1. Least-cooperative group The results of t-tests indicated that the least-cooperative group demonstrated significant changes in two variables: communication apprehension and cooperativeness. Table 3 lists the substantial decrease in communication apprehension and the increase in cooperativeness, suggesting an important assumption that the increase had a positive effect on the decrease, although the cause-and-effect relationship between the increase and the decrease was not clear. This assumption, however, is reasonable because communication apprehension is frequently provoked in an environment where learners are not well acquainted with each other. This is, in fact, supported by the theoretical claims often made by anxiety researchers that a warm and friendly environment creates an anxiety-free atmosphere in classrooms (e.g., Horwitz et al., 1986). The least-cooperative group also shows an interesting tendency in which their persistence and two orientations were maintained relatively higher, but motivation remained lower. Orientations are by no means equal to motivation
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
178 Table 2 Descriptive statistics and results of MANOVA. Factor (max)
Overall
Cluster 1 Least cooperative
Cluster 2 Least anxious
Cluster 3 High motivation
Cluster 4 Low motivation
MANOVA
Tukey post hoc test
(N ¼ 88)
(n ¼ 25)
(n ¼ 15)
(n ¼ 23)
(n ¼ 25)
M/SD
M/SD
M/SD
M/SD
M/SD
Anxiety (5)
3.224/.711
3.110/.696
2.617/.731
3.326/.497
3.610/.634
8.046**
1 < 4*, 2 < 3**, 2 < 4**
Persistence (5)
3.750/.552
3.533/.616
3.978/.445
4.087/.379
3.520/.482
7.995**
1 < 2*, 1 < 3**, 2 > 4*, 3 > 4**
Motivation (5)
3.210/.632
3.233/.357
3.556/.533
3.638/.526
2.587/.493
23.212**
1 < 3*, 1 > 4**, 2 > 4**, 3 > 4**
Integrative (5)
3.675/.593
3.856/.488
3.880/.459
3.948/.570
3.120/.404
15.420**
1 > 4**, 2 > 4**, 3 > 4**
Instrumental (5)
3.693/.559
3.880/.407
3.711/.486
3.855/.558
3.347/.597
5.534**
1 > 4**, 3 > 4**
Apprehension (5)
3.773/.795
4.000/.612
2.567/.623
3.826/.357
4.220/.631
29.463**
1 > 2**, 2 < 3**, 2 < 4**
Cooperative (5)
3.307/.755
2.627/.648
3.778/.600
3.768/.526
3.280/.599
18.608**
1 < 2**, 1 < 3**, 1 < 4**, 3 > 4*
F (3, 13.119)
*p < .05; **p < .01
(Gardner, 2001), and thus even if this group possessed good reasons for learning English, the reasons failed to lead the learners to take any action. 4.3.2. Least-anxious group The least-anxious group, on the other hand, showed no significant variation in any factors (see Table 4), but the medium effect size (r ¼ 34) was found in cooperativeness. What is noticed from the consideration of four motivational variables (i.e., persistence, motivation, and integrative and instrumental orientations) is that the levels of the variables in the precondition were relatively high and remained high in the postcondition, possibly implying that the further stimulation of motivational components may be rather difficult, but that motivated learners can maintain a high level of motivation. These results are similar to the results in Hiromori (2006) that the ‘‘intrinsically-motivated group’’ and the ‘‘internal-pressure group’’ who possessed higher levels of self-regulation did not show any changes in motivation. The low levels of the two types of anxiety in the precondition were kept low in the postcondition. MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposed that personality, which was an enduring component, had an effect on the process of WTC, although it did not have a direct influence on language learning. Since WTC is deeply related to language and communication anxiety, personality cannot be ignored when anxiety is taken into account (e.g., Do¨rnyei, 2005). Hence, it was assumed that some of the learners in the least-anxious group might be the extroverts who were willing to take risks without fear of making mistakes. This is assumed by the high level of cooperativeness, specifying their willingness to interact with others; they were seen rather as sociable and extroverted than unsociable and introverted. 4.5 Least Cooperative Group
4 3.5
Least Anxious Group
3 2.5
High M otivation Group
A nx ie ty
Pe rs ist en ce M ot iv at io n In teg ra tiv e In st r um en ta A l pp re he ns io n Co op ea rti ve
2
Fig. 1. Visual representations of group differences.
Low M otivation and High Anxiety Group
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
179
Table 3 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the least-cooperative group. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.110 3.080
.696 .773
t .225
.824
.05
Persistence (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.533 3.627
.616 .555
.657
.518
.13
Motivation (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.233 3.207
.357 .462
.323
.750
.07
Integrative (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.856 3.808
.488 .467
.663
.513
.14
Instrumental (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.880 3.800
.407 .726
.592
.559
.12
Apprehension (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
4.000 3.500
.612 .829
3.693
.001
.60
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
2.627 3.400
.648 .752
4.501
.000
.68
4.3.3. High-motivation group The high-motivation group demonstrated tendencies almost identical to the least-cooperative group: the four motivational variables were consistent between the precondition and the postcondition, but communication apprehension declined and cooperativeness was enhanced (see Table 5). The effect size of test and English classroom anxiety was medium (r ¼ .37), implying a decrease in the factor. Although slight declines of three motivational variables were observed, the effect sizes were small (r ¼ .27 in persistence, r ¼ .20 in motivation, and r ¼ .26 in integrative orientation). Similarly to the least-anxious group, highly motivated learners were more likely to sustain higher levels of motivation. Since the possible reasons for the maintenance of the motivational variables, the decrease in anxiety and communication apprehension, together with the increase in the preference to cooperative work were pointed out above, the accounts are not repeated here. 4.3.4. Low-motivation and high-anxiety group The most interesting was the result of the low-motivation and high-anxiety group, that their motivation to learn English significantly increased with decreased communication apprehension and increased cooperativeness (see Table 4 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the least-anxious group. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
2.617 2.533
.731 .855
t .557
.587
.15
Persistence (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.978 3.933
.445 .632
.264
.796
.07
Motivation (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.556 3.622
.533 .631
.627
.541
.17
Integrative (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.880 3.960
.459 .722
.612
.550
.16
Instrumental (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.711 3.800
.486 .764
.459
.653
.12
Apprehension (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
2.567 2.633
.623 .990
.242
.812
.07
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 15)
Pre Post
3.778 3.978
.600 .570
1.348
.199
.34
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
180
Table 5 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the high-motivation group. Factor
Condition
M
SD
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.326 3.087
.497 .492
t 1.839
.080
.37
Persistence (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
4.087 3.942
.379 .509
1.311
.203
.27
Motivation (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.638 3.551
.526 .381
.934
.360
.20
Integrative (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.948 3.826
.570 .567
1.253
.223
.26
Instrumental (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.855 3.797
.558 .592
.401
.692
.09
Apprehension (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.826 3.435
.357 .758
2.398
.025
.46
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 23)
Pre Post
3.768 4.174
.526 .531
2.921
.008
.53
Table 6). It is difficult to pinpoint what factors were responsible for the increase in motivation; however, since overall increases in the other two motivational variables were observed (r ¼ .35 in persistence and r ¼ .32 in instrumental orientation), these increases possibly contributed to the development of motivation. Furthermore, it was consistent with Hiromori’s (2006) finding that unmotivated learners increased intrinsic motivation, and the increase was correlated with the increase in relatedness. In a survey, questionnaire items measuring cooperativeness and relatedness were factor analyzed, and it was realized that items in cooperativeness were gathered together with items measuring relatedness, forming one extracted factor. This result suggests that cooperativeness and relatedness were an overlapping concept that can be assessed by these items. In this respect, the low-motivation and high-anxiety group demonstrated the growth of cooperativeness, and this growth can account for motivational evolution. In addition, the diminution in two types of anxiety is not overlooked because high-anxiety levels were the determinant of their characteristics. The discussions of the decrease in communication apprehension are congruent with those provided earlier, but the additional effect might be observed in this particular group. Anxiety is often
Table 6 Descriptive statistics and results of t-test on the low-motivation and high-anxiety group. Factor
Condition
M
p
r
Anxiety (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.610 3.460
.634 .648
t 1.455
.159
.29
Persistence (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.520 3.720
.482 .629
1.809
.083
.35
Motivation (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
2.587 2.853
.493 .505
2.679
.013
.48
Integrative (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.120 3.192
.404 .445
.834
.412
.17
Instrumental (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.347 3.547
.597 645
1.623
.118
.32
Apprehension (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
4.220 3.560
.630 .618
6.678
.000
.81
Cooperativeness (N ¼ 25)
Pre Post
3.280 3.627
.598 .626
3.887
.001
.62
SD
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
181
Table 7 Correlations between motivational variables in the precondition.
Anxiety Persistence Motivation Integrative Instrumental Apprehension Cooperative
Anxiety
Persistence
Motivation
Integrative
Instrumental
Apprehension
Cooperative
e
.258* e
.360** .327** e
.144 .213* .444** e
.032 .138 .268* .362** e
.361** .210* .348** .293** .185 e
.073 .156 .190 .210* .062 .447** e
*p < .05; **p < .01
investigated in relation to self-confidence (Cle´ment and Kruidenier, 1985; Gardner et al., 1997), and these researchers considered low anxiety as high self-confidence. The results of causal path analyses (Gardner et al., 1997) specified that motivation affected self-confidence. In this respect, the increase in motivation had an effect on the decrease in anxiety. Although this interpretation cannot be extended to the least-cooperative group and the high-motivation group who also reduced their anxiety levels, it may be said that for those who are not well motivated and are highly anxious, if the positive factor (i.e., motivation) is stimulated, the negative factor (i.e., anxiety) tends to decline. 4.4. Differences in the relationships between the ID variables Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships between the ID variables obtained in the precondition, and the results are presented in Table 7. The general tendencies in the findings are that the motivational variables were positively correlated with each other, and were negatively correlated with two types of anxiety. This indicates that motivated learners continuously studied English and had good reasons for learning both integratively and instrumentally, whereas less-motivated learners showed the opposite characteristics. The former learners were less anxious about English tests and classes, as well as communicating with others, but the latter group possessed high anxiety and apprehension. The two types of anxiety positively correlated, with communication apprehension negatively related to cooperativeness. The positive correlation between integrative orientation and cooperativeness was also observed, and the interpretation was that the integratively motivated learners who desired to interact with people and culture in the target language community preferred working cooperatively to working individually. This is reasonable because they approve of the interaction with people in both the target and the native language communities. The most surprising fact was that communication apprehension always had negative effects on all the variables, except for test and English classroom anxiety. Focusing on the results of the correlation analysis in the postcondition, unpredicted relationships between the variables were found. Table 8 represents the similar results found in the precondition, such as the positive correlations between motivational variables and between the two anxiety types. However, what makes the results completely different from those in the precondition was the disappearance of the negative correlations of communication apprehension with other variables. To be more precise, in spite of the presence of the negative correlation between test and English classroom anxiety and motivation to learn English, the disappearances of the significant negative
Table 8 Correlations between motivational variables in the postcondition.
Anxiety Persistence Motivation Integrative Instrumental Apprehension Cooperative *p < .05; **p < .01
Anxiety
Persistence
Motivation
Integrative
Instrumental
Apprehension
Cooperative
e
.023 e
.337** .425** e
.250 .143 .535** e
.111 .072 .182 .457** e
.372** .033 .015 .120 .058 e
.117 .093 .191 .253* .139 .109 e
182
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
Fig. 2. Relationships between cooperative work, cooperativeness, and anxiety.
correlations between communication apprehension and the motivational variables are noteworthy because of the consistent negative correlations identified in the precondition. In the previous sections, the reasons for the decrease in communication apprehension were discussed; the increase in learners’ sense of cooperativeness played an important role in the decline. What was responsible for the increase in cooperativeness is, however, still not apparent, although the obvious speculation is that pair/group work fostered their sense of cooperativeness. To confirm this assumption, the data obtained from the free-response-format questionnaire administered in the final class were collected, and then all the responses were noted down so as to ascertain learners’ preferences for the instruction. Among the 92 learners, 34 learners specifically mentioned their preferences for cooperative or pair work; one-third of the students found it interesting and motivating to engage in it. The number of learners who stipulated the importance of communicative activities was also counted because communication cannot occur with only a single person involved. A total of 11 learners who did not overlap with the 34 learners counted above were found, and all the 11 students were considered as those who were also oriented toward cooperative work. As a consequence, half of the learners (45 learners in total) conceived pair/group work as interesting and important. This result suggests that learners’ sense of cooperativeness was significantly developed from the precondition to the postcondition through the use of pair/group work. Fig. 2 illustrates the cyclical relationships between the use of cooperative work, learners’ sense of cooperativeness, and the decreases in anxiety and communication apprehension. This model proposes that using cooperative work in a classroom develops learners’ sense of cooperativeness, which in turn contributes to declining anxiety. Learners with decreased levels of anxiety are reengaged in cooperative work. Ultimately, this process of learning results in the decline of negative factors that affect motivational variables. 5. Conclusion This study has discussed the dynamicity of the ID variables, focusing on how they tended to change within the individual perceptions. Three main findings were: (1) unlike junior and senior high school students, university learners in Japan kept their motivational variables relatively stable, but their level of anxiety and a sense of cooperativeness were more amenable to change, (2) motivated learners kept their motivation levels comparatively consistent, but lessmotivated ones were more likely to develop their motivation, and (3) the changes in communication apprehension caused the favorable relationships between other variables. These results were remarkable because although learner motivation in general varies very little, it is still possible to have an effective classroom approach to motivation in which educators can first identify the negative factors related to motivational variables and then eliminate them so as to protect learner motivation. Two limitations need to be addressed here. The first limitation was the small number of participants involved, especially in the discussion of each group. However, considering the effect size together with the significance compensated for this limitation. The second limitation was that this study did not clearly identify the factors contributing to the increases and the decreases in the variables, although cooperative work was considered as a crucial
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
183
instruction that enhanced learners’ positive attributes. Learners’ instructional preferences have implications for classroom teachers that offer insight into student learning. As discussed earlier, motivational variables of Japanese junior and senior high school learners tend to decline, and one possible reason for the decrease is related to entrance examinations. The students need to engage in individualistic, input activities to accumulate linguistic knowledge required to succeed in such examinations, and the activities may play a negative role in learner motivation. However, this study showed positive effects of cooperative work on the motivational variables of university students. This suggests that if junior and senior high school learners are more exposed to cooperative work than individualistic work, they can develop or at least maintain their motivation to learn English. Cooperative work also allows for fostering a sense of cooperativeness, which is necessary to form positive group cohesiveness in classrooms (Do¨rnyei and Murphey, 2003). The use of such work in Japanese EFL classroom contexts has a tremendous amount of potential to positively influence learners’ motivational variables. References Bernaus, M., Moore, E., Azevedo, A.C., 2007. Affective factors influencing plurilingual students’ acquisition of Catalan in a CatalaneSpanish bilingual context. Modern Language Journal 91, 235e246. Boekaerts, M., 1986. The measurement of state and trait motivational orientation: refining our measures. In: van den Bercken, J.H.L., De Bruyn, E.E.J., Bergen, Th. C.M. (Eds.), Achievement and Task Motivation. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, Netherlands, pp. 229e245. Boekaerts, M., 1988. Motivated learning: bias in appraisals. International Journal of Educational Research 12, 267e280. Cle´ment, R., Do¨rnyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1994. Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44, 417e448. Cle´ment, R., Kruidenier, B.G., 1985. Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: a test of Cle´ment’s model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4, 21e37. Crookes, G., Schmidt, W.R., 1991. Motivation: reopening the research agenda. Language Learning 41, 469e512. Csize´r, K., Do¨rnyei, Z., 2005. Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivated learning behavior. Language Learning 55, 613e659. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, New York. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2000. Motivation in action: towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 519e538. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Pearson Education Limited, Essex. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey. Do¨rnyei, Z., Murphey, T., 2003. Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Do¨rnyei, Z., Otto´, I., 1998. Motivation in action: a process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4, 43e69. Egbert, J., 2003. A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 87, 499e518. Falout, J., Elwood, J., Hood, M., 2009. Demotivation: affective states and learning outcomes. System 37, 403e417. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, second ed. Sage Publications, London. Gardner, R.C., 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Edward Arnold, London. Gardner, R.C., 2001. Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 1e19. Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.M., Tennant, J., Mihic, L., 2004. Integrative motivation: changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning 54, 1e34. Gardner, R.C., Tremblay, P.F., Masgoret, A.M., 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: an empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81, 344e362. Hiromori, T., 2006. The effects of educational intervention on L2 learners’ motivational development. Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) 43, 1e14. Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., Cope, J., 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70, 125e132. Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Shohamy, E., 2001. Students’ motivation as a function of language learning: the teaching of Arabic in Israel. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 297e311. Julkunen, K., 2001. Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign-language learning. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 29e41. Koizumi, R., Matsuo, K., 1993. A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in learning English among Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese Psychological Research 35, 1e11. Kormos, J., Do¨rnyei, Z., 2004. The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Retrieved April 19th, 2006, from. Zeitschrift fu¨r Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 9. Retrieved April 19th, 2006, from. http://www.ualberta.ca/wgerman/ ejournal/kormos2.htm. MacIntyre, P.D., 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal 91, 564e576. MacIntyre, P.D., Cle´ment, R., Do¨rnyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal 82, 545e562.
184
T. Koga / System 38 (2010) 172e184
MacIntyre, P.D., Gardner, R.C., 1994. The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 1e17. MacIntyre, P.D., Noels, K.A., Cle´ment, R., 1997. Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: the role of language anxiety. Language Learning 47, 265e287. Masgoret, A.M., Gardner, R.C., 2003. Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning 53, 123e163. Noels, K.A., 2001. New orientations in language learning motivation: towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 43e68. Oxford, R.L., Shearin, J., 1994. Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Learning 78, 12e28. Sakai, H., Kikuchi, K., 2009. An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System 37, 57e69. Schmidt, R., Watanabe, Y., 2001. Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, pp. 313e359. Tachibana, Y., Matsukawa, R., Zhong, Q.X., 1996. Attitudes and motivation for learning English: a cross-national comparison of Japanese and Chinese high school students. Psychological Reports 79, 691e700. Tremblay, P.F., Gardner, R.C., 1995. Expanding the motivational construct in language learning. Modern Language Learning 79, 505e518. Yamamori, K., Isoda, T., Hiromori, T., Oxford, R., 2003. Using cluster analysis to uncover L2 learner differences in strategy use, will to learn, and achievement over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics 41, 381e409. Yashima, T., 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: the Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal 86, 54e66. Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., Shimizu, K., 2004. The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning 54, 119e152.