An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 37 (2009) 57–69 www.elsevier.com/locate/system

An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom Hideki Sakai a,1, Keita Kikuchi b,* a

b

Shinshu University, 6-Ro Nishinagano, Nagano-shi, Nagano-ken 380-8544, Japan Waseda University, School of International Liberal Studies, Nishi-Waseda Bldg 1F, 1-21-1, Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051, Japan Received 29 April 2008; received in revised form 16 July 2008; accepted 1 September 2008

Abstract Demotivation is a relatively new issue in the field of second language (L2) motivation. In this study, we review previous studies that investigated demotivation of learners of English in order to identify common demotivating factors and report a survey study which explored demotivating factors for Japanese high school students. A 35-item questionnaire was completed by 656 Japanese high school students. Through a principal axis factor analysis, five demotivation factors were extracted: (a) Learning Contents and Materials, (b) Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles, (c) Inadequate School Facilities, (d) Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, and (e) Test Scores. The results showed that the Learning Contents and Materials and Test Scores factors were demotivating factors for many Japanese high school students, especially for less motivated learners. Contrary to what previous research suggested, Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles was not a very strong cause of demotivation compared to Learning Contents and Materials or Test Scores for both more and less motivated groups. This study also showed that both more and less motivated learners did not perceive Inadequate School Facilities as demotivating. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Learning motivation; Individual differences; Language learning; English as a foreign language; Learner attitudes

1. Introduction Why do L2 learners lose their motivation to study the target language? According to Do¨rnyei (2001a), demotivation is defined as ‘‘specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action” (p. 143).This issue may be of the interest for not only researchers but many teachers who see their learners becoming demotivated in their daily classrooms. Researchers may be curious about this issue because examining the cause of the demotivation lends support in understanding theories on motivation. And, teachers may want to understand the possible cause of their students’ demotivation

*

1

Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 3 5286 9833; fax: +81 3 3412 8783. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Sakai), [email protected] (K. Kikuchi). Tel./fax: +81 26 238 4191(office), tel./fax: +81 26 259 0097(home).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.09.005

58

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

in order to try to avoid being the cause of demotivation. Many researchers in the L2 learning field, however, have only started to work on this topic fairly recently. However, researchers do not all agree that demotivation is solely external. Many researchers (e.g., Arai, 2004; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Kojima, 2004; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b) included not only external factors but also internal factors such as lack of self-confidence and negative attitude within learners themselves. Despite his definition of demotivation, even Do¨rnyei listed reduced self-confidence and negative attitude toward the foreign language as sources of demotivation (Do¨rnyei, 2001a). Therefore, Do¨rnyei’s original definition may need to be expanded to cover both internal and external factors (i.e., demotivators) which reduce or diminish the motivation to study English. Over the past decade, demotivation has been researched mostly in the area of instructional communication. For example, demotivators in lectures on communication at North American universities (Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997) and demotivators in university lectures in four different countries, China, Germany, Japan, and the USA (Zhang, 2007). In the Gorham and Christophel (1992) study, the researchers asked 308 undergraduate college students what aspects of the class that they had attended immediately before the survey had motivated or demotivated them. Of the 926 demotivator descriptions listed by the participants, 399 (43%) concerned factors related to teacher behavior, such as ‘‘Not knowledgeable; not in control of classroom; low credibility,” ‘‘No sense of humor; loses temper; is a pessimist,” ‘‘Boring; not dynamic; teacher is bored with class; unorganized lectures; unprepared,” and ‘‘No office hours; not available for individual help.” Second, 330 descriptions (36%) concerned what they called the structure/format factor, which is indirectly related to teachers, such as ‘‘physical classroom atmosphere – negative (size of class, poor equipment; unattractive room),” ‘‘General organization of material – negative (text and lectures same, no relationship between text and lectures, too much reliance on videos/speakers, too rigid, makes material hard to grasp),” and ‘‘Dissatisfaction with grading and assignments; unclear instructions; irrelevant assignments; grading too hard or too easy; failure to perform well.” Third, 197 descriptions (21%) concerned the context factor, which are factors that are out of teachers’ control, such as ‘‘Dislike subject area; subject is boring or redundant; subject too difficult; not seen as relevant,” ‘‘Time of day; length of class; sick of school; personal laziness; no challenge; poor health; don’t feel I belong to college,” and ‘‘Too many demands besides class.” Comparing the frequency of these factors, the researchers concluded that negative teacher behavior was more immediately recognized as the cause of demotivation than the context factor. In conclusion, they stated that university students may tend to attribute their lack of motivation to teacher-related factors. Similarly, in a study of students in four countries, Zhang (2007) reported that the most demotivationg factor was teachers’ incompetence, which she defined as ‘‘a cluster of behaviors that reflect teachers’ indifference to the students and/or the course” such as ‘‘confusing and/or boring lectures, unfair testing, and information overload” (p. 211), within and across the four different countries. In the field of language teaching, Rudnai (1996) and Do¨rnyei (1998, cited in Do¨rnyei, 2001a) were among the early attempts to investigate demotivation. In her investigation of why demotivated learners lost their motivation to study English, Rudnai (1996) conducted interviews with 15 students (4 male and 11 female) from two elite secondary schools and two vocational secondary students who identified themselves as unmotivated. Following Do¨rnyei’s motivation model (1994), she prepared interview guides covering demotivation at the language level, the learner level, and the learning situation level to find out why her participants had lost interest in English. She concluded that the most important elements her participants lacked concerned the learner levels and learning situation levels. Learner level problems (e.g., lack of self-confidence, caused mostly by negative past experiences) and learning situation level problems (e.g., being placed into an inappropriate group for their level of English proficiency, lack of free choice, lack of skilled teachers, and lack of constancy in language learning in a relaxed and pleasant atmosphere) were found to be the primary cause of the participants’ demotivation. Do¨rnyei (2001a) presented the following nine demotivating factors based on his unpublished study (Do¨rnyei, 1998) utilizing structured 10–30 min interviews with fifty secondary school students in Budapest, Hungary, studying either English or German as a foreign language, who were identified by their teachers or peers as being demotivated: 1. Teachers’ personalities, commitments, competence, teaching methods. 2. Inadequate school facilities (large class sizes, unsuitable level of classes or frequent change of teachers).

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

59

Reduced self-confidence due to their experience of failure or lack of success. Negative attitude toward the foreign language studied. Compulsory nature of the foreign language study. Interference of another foreign language that pupils are studying. Negative attitude toward the community of the foreign language spoken. Attitudes of group members. Course books used in class.

The first category, related to teachers, was observed most frequently, accounting for 40% of the reports. Inspired by his work, many researchers in Japan started to investigate demotivation of Japanese learners of English (Arai, 2004; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Hasegawa, 2004; Ikeno, 2002; Kikuchi, in press; Kikuchi and Sakai, 2007; Kojima, 2004; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b). Several of these researchers attempted to categorize demotivating factors on the basis of L2 learners’ responses to open-ended questions. Ikeno (2002) asked 65 Japanese university students majoring in education and humanities to write about their experiences of motivation and demotivation. He collected 89 motivating experiences and 76 demotivating experiences and proposed 22 categories for the motivating factors and 13 categories for the demotivating factors. Some of the demotivating factors that he listed were the lack of a sense of control over what one is learning (n = 12), distrust in the ability of teachers (n = 11), doubts about the character of teachers (n = 8), a sense of classes being solely exam-oriented (n = 6), feelings of inferiority about one’s English ability (n = 5), and peers’ negative attitude toward English learning (n = 2). In conclusion, he stated that his findings were preliminary based on a small sample of students and called for more research to gather episodes of motivating and demotivating experiences from a variety of learners in various learning contexts. Hasegawa (2004) studied Japanese English language learners’ experiences with English learning and demotivation with 125 junior high school students and 98 senior high school students. Hasegawa asked the students whether they like to study English, their overall grade, what they like or dislike about their English classes, whether they have lost interest in studying and a description of the situation when they lost interest in studying English. She qualitatively analyzed the data and pointed out that the experiences related to teachers were the most frequently cited as a source of demotivation for both junior and senior high school students. Based on the analysis, she concluded that inappropriate teacher behaviors may exert a ‘‘strong impact” on student demotivation (p. 135). Although it may be difficult to generalize her findings to other junior or high school students because her participants were from only one public junior high school and one private senior high school, Hasegawa’s study is of significance because she asked junior and senior high school students directly about factors that demotivated them. Falout and Maruyama (2004) used a 49-item questionnaire constructed on the basis of nine categories suggested by Do¨rnyei (2001a) in order to examine whether demotivating factors before entering to college differ between lower-proficiency and higher-proficiency learners of English. Six categories of questions in their questionnaire concerned teachers, courses, attitude toward English speaking community, attitude toward English itself, self-confidence, and attitude of group members. The participants, 64 college students from two science departments, were selected from two proficiency levels as measured by an in-house institutional test. The participants were asked to reflect on their English study before entering college and respond to the 49-item questionnaire by indicating their agreement as demotivating forces on a 6-point Likert scale. By comparing the mean of items obtained for each category, the researchers found that (a) the demotivating factors for the lower-proficiency group were self-confidence, attitudes toward the L2 itself, courses, teachers, and attitudes of group members (in descending order), (b) for the higher-proficiency group, self-confidence was the demotivating factor with the other factors being relatively neutral, (c) the higher- and lower-proficiency groups had been demotivated to the same degree, and (d) the lower-proficiency group started to develop negative attitudes towards English earlier than the higher-proficiency group. Tsuchiya (2006a, 2006b) listed nine demotivating factors among unsuccessful learners of English: (a) teachers, (b) classes, (c) the compulsory nature of English study, (d) a negative attitude toward the English community, (e) a negative attitude toward English itself, (f) reduced self-confidence, (g) negative group attitude, (h) the lack of positive English speaking models, and (i) ways of learning based on her previous

60

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

studies (Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b). She developed a 37-item questionnaire based on these nine categories and administered it to 129 freshman university students (Tsuchiya, 2006a) soon after they entered the university. Based on the results of an English proficiency test, she divided the students into two groups: low-proficiency group (n = 72) and high-proficiency group (n = 57). Statistically significant differences were found for all nine factors of demotivation between these two groups. The low-proficiency group was more demotivated than the high-proficiency group for every factor. The other main finding was the difference between these groups on the rank order of demotivating factors. While external factors such as classes, teachers, negative group attitude, and the compulsory nature of English study were perceived to be more demotivating than internal factors for participants in the high-proficiency group, there was a mix of internal factors and external factors in the rank order for the low-proficiency participants. For instance, the mean scores of items loading on the reduced self-confidence factor were the highest among the nine factors for the low-proficiency group while classes were the most demotivating factor for the high-proficiency group. In sum, Tsuchiya showed that the motivational state of low-proficiency learners of English differs from high-proficiency learners and listed possible demotivating factors. Arai (2004) asked 33 university students to answer whether they had had demotivating experiences in foreign language classrooms and to describe the experiences and their immediate reactions to those experiences. Most of the participants were majoring in English and were considered to be highly proficient in English. She collected 105 comments and categorized the reports into the following four areas: (a) teachers’ behavior or personality, (b) classes being boring or monotonous, (c) class atmospheres, and (d) others. The first category concerning teachers accounted for 46.7%, which was the largest, followed by classes being boring or monotonous (36.2%), class atmospheres (13.3%), and others (3.8%). Kojima (2004) hypothesized and tested a model of demotivation using structural equation modeling based on the survey distributed to high school students. In his study, 2198 high school students (720 private girls’ school students, 906 private boys’ school students, and 572 public coeducation school students) responded to two consecutive surveys. In the first survey, the participants completed open-ended questions. Based on the results of the first survey and previous studies, a closed-response questionnaire was constructed and used so that a structural equation model of English language demotivation could be tested. The five constructs that made up the model were the language level problem, the learner level problem, the learning situation level problem, the students’ listening problem, and the problem concerning the amount of homework. The results indicated that the learner level problem influenced demotivation the most, followed by the language level problem, and finally the learning situation level problem. It is worth noting that he found students’ listening ability and the amount of homework to be demotivating factors for senior high school students. These factors were not reported in the studies with university students. Most recently, Kikuchi and Sakai (2007) explored possible demotivating factors in high school English classes using a similar approach to Kojima (2004). Based on the findings of an earlier qualitative study, in which an open-ended questionnaire was administered to 47 students attending a public university and interviews with five students attending three colleges (Kikuchi, in press), they developed a 35-item questionnaire to gather quantitative data regarding possible demotivating factors for Japanese high school students. One hundred twelve participants attending three private universities in eastern Japan were asked to complete the questionnaire on the Internet. Using a principal axis factor analysis with a direct oblimin rotation, five factors were extracted: (a) Course Books, (b) Inadequate School Facilities, (c) Test Scores, (d) Non-Communicative Methods, and (e) Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles. In order to examine whether these five factors differ, the mean scores of items loading the five factors were calculated and compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results showed a statistically significant difference among the five factors. In addition, paired-samples t-tests were performed for a post-hoc analysis. The combinations of Factor 2 and the other factors showed statistically significant differences while the other combinations did not yield statistically significant differences. They found that Factor 2 (Inadequate School Facilities) was extracted as a factor, but differed from the other factors. Kikuchi and Sakai (2007) concluded that their participants considered the factor concerning Inadequate School Facilities to be less demotivating than the other four factors, Course Books, Test Scores, Non-Communicative Methods, and Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles. Based on these previous studies on motivation, we identified six demotivating factors:

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

61

1. Teachers: Teachers’ attitude, teaching competence, language proficiency, personality, and teaching style (Arai, 2004; Christophel and Gorham, 1995;Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997;Ikeno, 2002; Kikuchi, in press; Kikuchi and Sakai, 2007; Kojima, 2004; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b and Zhang, 2007). 2. Characteristics of classes: Course contents and pace, focus on difficult grammar or vocabulary, monotonous and boring lessons, a focus on university entrance exams and the memorization of the language (Arai, 2004; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Kikuchi, in press; Kikuchi and Sakai, 2007; Kojima, 2004; Ikeno, 2002; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b and Zhang, 2007). 3. Experiences of failure: Disappointment due to test scores, lack of acceptance by teachers and others, and feeling unable to memorize vocabulary and idioms (Christophel and Gorham, 1995;Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Kikuchi, in press; Kikuchi and Sakai, 2007; Kojima, 2004; Ikeno, 2002; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b). 4. Class environment: Attitude of classmates, compulsory nature of English study, friends’ attitudes, inactive classes, inappropriate level of the lessons, and inadequate use of school facilities such as not using audio–visual materials (Arai, 2004; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Kikuchi, in press; Kikuchi and Sakai, 2007; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b). 5. Class materials: Not suitable or uninteresting materials (e.g., too many reference books and/or handouts) (Arai, 2004; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Kikuchi, in press; Kikuchi and Sakai, 2007; Kojima, 2004). 6. Lack of interest: Sense that English used at schools is not practical and not necessary. Little admiration toward English speaking people (Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Kojima, 2004; Ikeno, 2002; Tsuchiya, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b). Next, we would like to make two points about the previous studies conducted in Japan. First, most Japanese learners start the formal study of English in the 7th grade, the 1st-year of junior high school. However, as shown above, few researchers have targeted junior or senior high school students with the exception of Hasegawa (2004) and Kojima (2004). Most researchers have focused on university students and elicited learners’ reports about their experience of demotivation in their past English study history. In order to further explore internal and external factors contributing to student demotivation, it is important to elicit data from various learners of English. Thus, it is necessary to examine not only university students but also junior or senior high school students learning English. This study focused on senior high school students. Second, most previous researchers have focused on either less motivated learners or more motivated learners. Although several researchers attempted to specify the difference between higher and lower-proficiency learners, none investigated the differences between more motivated and less motivated learners. There may be a relationship between the current motivation state of the learners and demotivation factors. Thus, in this study we also elicited responses about the current motivational states. We posited the following research questions for this study: 1. What are demotivating factors in English class for Japanese senior high school students? 2. To what degree do less motivated and more motivated learners differ in terms of factors they find demotivating?

2. Method 2.1. Participants Six hundred and fifty-six Japanese students attending four Japanese senior high schools (Schools K, S, H, and N) participated in this study (see Table 1). Of the students studying in the General Course (n = 562) who

62

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

Table 1 Participants’ Information. School

Course

Grade

n

Gender

School K School S

General General International studies International studies General International studies General

2 2 1 2 3 3 2

233 70 35 32 161 27 98

233 females 31 males, 39 females 35 females 3 males, 27 females, 2 unknown 45 males, 115 females, 1 unknown 3 males, 24 females 47 males, 51 females

School N School H

came from these four schools, 401 were 2nd-year students (11th grade) and 161 were 3rd-year students (12th grade). Two of the four schools offered an International Studies Course in which students spend more time studying English and global issues compared to the students in the general course. Ninety-four students studying in an International Studies course took part in this study as well (n = 94): 35 1st-year students, 32 2nd-year students, and 27 3rd-year students. 2.2. Demotivation questionnaire The demotivation questionnaire consisted of 35 5-point Likert type questions about demotivation (see the Appendix). These 35-items designed to measure six constructs derived from previous studies: teachers (items 10–15), characteristics of classes (items 1–6, and 26), experiences of failure (items 7–9, 27, and 30), class environment (items 21–25, 28, and 29), class materials (items 16–20 and 35), and lack of interest (items 31–34). The instructions for this part were: ‘‘How much is the following statement true for you as a demotivating factor?” The participants were required to choose one of the alternatives: 1: Not true; 2: Mostly not true; 3: Not either true or untrue; 4: To some extent true; and 5: True. The questionnaire also included one question about motivation to learn English: ‘‘How motivated are you to learn English?” The participants were required to choose one of the alternatives: 1: I have almost no motivation; 2: I have a little motivation; 3: I have moderate motivation; and 4: I have high motivation. Based on the responses to this question, the participants were divided into less motivated learners and more motivated learners. 2.3. Analysis To explore the factor structure of the questionnaire items, an exploratory factor analysis was performed. Following this, mean scores of items loading each factor were calculated and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with groups being a between-subjects factor and with demotivating factors being a within-subject factor was performed. 3. Results 3.1. Demotivating factors in English class for Japanese senior high school students Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for each item. Most of the means, except for item 3 (‘‘Most of the lessons focused on grammar.”) and item 7 (‘‘I had difficulty memorizing words and phrases.”), were lower than 3.00. More than one-third of the participants chose 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) for the following items: (a) lack of the chances to communicate in English (item 1), (b) focus of lessons mainly on grammar and its accuracy (items 3 and 5), (c) difficulties in memorizing words and phrases (item 7), (d) knowing how to self-study for English lessons (item 9), (e) low scores on tests (items 8 and 27), and (f) long passages or uninteresting topics in the textbooks (items 16 and 17). In other words, the participants considered these items as relatively more demotivating.

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

63

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for University Students’ Questionnaire Responses (N = 656). No

M

SD

Min

Max

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

2.84 2.35 3.19 2.26 2.95 1.96 3.49 2.99 2.83 2.51 2.22 1.85 2.63 2.78 1.80 2.94 2.69 2.76 2.68 1.81 1.76 2.09 1.64 1.91 1.78 1.78 2.67 1.32 1.48 2.07 2.10 2.52 2.39 2.06 2.45

1.36 1.22 1.38 1.23 1.36 1.17 1.31 1.36 1.34 1.22 1.29 1.19 1.36 1.40 1.18 1.36 1.36 1.28 1.34 1.00 1.02 1.22 0.97 1.13 1.02 1.04 1.35 0.76 0.80 1.22 1.23 1.39 1.32 1.26 1.27

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Skewness 0.03 0.48 0.26 0.63 0.10 1.07 0.58 0.10 0.05 0.33 0.72 1.24 0.29 0.16 1.33 0.06 0.19 0.13 0.26 1.12 1.18 0.77 1.43 1.04 1.13 1.27 0.21 2.58 1.62 0.89 0.86 0.38 0.48 0.91 0.45

Kurtosis 1.22 0.83 1.22 0.64 1.24 0.23 0.82 1.21 1.22 0.87 0.60 0.44 1.13 1.21 0.66 1.22 1.23 1.06 1.13 0.58 0.52 0.58 1.32 0.07 0.38 0.90 1.23 6.60 1.98 0.25 0.34 1.16 1.00 0.37 0.86

1 (%)

2 (%)

3 (%)

4 (%)

5 (%)

24 33 17 37 22 49 11 20 23 27 42 58 28 26 60 21 27 22 26 51 56 46 63 52 55 54 27 81 68 45 45 34 36 48 31

18 24 17 23 16 22 14 18 20 24 19 16 21 17 15 17 20 22 23 25 20 20 16 20 21 23 23 9 19 22 22 19 20 20 23

23 24 17 23 21 18 15 21 22 27 23 15 22 25 13 22 20 26 22 17 16 18 16 17 17 15 18 7 11 18 18 19 21 16 25

23 14 29 11 27 6 35 26 24 16 9 7 17 16 7 25 22 20 18 5 6 12 3 8 6 5 23 2 2 9 9 17 16 11 13

13 5 20 6 14 5 26 15 12 6 8 5 12 16 5 14 11 10 12 2 2 4 2 3 2 3 10 1 0 6 6 11 8 6 8

Note: The standard error of skewness is 0.10; the standard error of kurtosis is 0.19.

A principal axis factor analysis using a direct oblimin rotation procedure was performed on the 35 questionnaire items. Based on the scree plot and the interpretability of the factor solution, a five factor solution was selected. Five factors were rotated. Table 3 indicates the pattern structure of the factor analysis and items loading on each factor. The first factor contains five items with factor loadings above .40. The items concern teaching materials (Items 17, 18, and 19) and the focus on grammar (Items 3 and 5). The first three items relate to course books, which Do¨rnyei (2001a), Kikuchi (in press), and Kikuchi and Sakai (2007) identified as one demotivating factor. In this study, items concerning the focus of lessons on grammar also loaded on this factor. Thus, this factor was labeled Learning Contents and Materials. The second factor was named Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles because the items concerning the teachers’ ability (Item 11), way of teaching (Items 10, 13, and 14), and attitudes (Items 12 and 13) loaded on this factor. The third factor was defined by four items related to the school facilities whose factor loadings were above .40. Thus, this factor was labeled Inadequate School Facilities. The fourth factor was named Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, as the items loading on this factor concern intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. The last factor, Test Scores, was defined by two items with factor loadings above .40. Table 3 shows the reliability coefficients of each factor as estimated by Cronbach’s alpha. The five factors have relatively high reliability coefficients of .77–.83. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the items loading on each factor. Overall, the mean scores of factors 1 and 5 are relatively high (2.85

64

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

Table 3 Factor analysis of demotivation (35-Items). No Factor 3 17 19 18 5 Factor 14 11 13 12 15 10 Factor 21 22 23 24 Factor 33 34 32 31 Factor 27 8

Items

F1

1: Learning Contents and Materials (a = .77) Most of the lessons focused on the grammars. English passages in the textbooks were too long. A great number of textbooks and supplementary readers were assigned. English sentences dealt with in the lessons were difficult to interpret. I was expected to use (or speak and write) grammatically correct English. 2: Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles (a = .82) Teachers’ explanations were not easy to understand. Teachers’ pronunciation of English was poor. Teachers made one-way explanations too often. Teachers ridiculed students’ mistakes. Teachers shouted or got angry. The pace of lessons was not appropriate. 3: Inadequate School Facilities (a = .82) Computer equipment was not used. Visual materials (such as videos and DVDs) were not used. The Internet was not used. LL equipment was not used. 4: Lack of Intrinsic Motivation (a = .80) I lost my interest in English. I lost my goal to be a speaker of English. I lost my understanding of the purpose of studying English. English was a compulsory subject. 5: Test Scores (a = .83) I could not do as well on tests as my friends. I got low scores on tests (such as mid-term and final examinations).

F2

F3

F4

F5

.537 .508 .495 .475 .465

.026 .056 .133 .022 .122

.037 .051 .099 .076 .024

.018 .167 .161 .199 .052

.141 .108 .076 .213 .083

.124 .031 .131 .025 .050 .130

.787 .767 .714 .588 .481 .439

.141 .066 .037 .010 .052 .055

.031 .061 .085 .036 .108 .140

.023 .108 .012 .076 .097 .111

.003 .155 .046 .169

.132 .025 .120 .055

.857 .687 .680 .647

.012 .104 .094 .103

.069 .007 .062 .016

.057 .003 .115 .221

.024 .043 .066 .023

.054 .088 .033 .057

.752 .749 .641 .494

.063 .032 .053 .054

.051 .099

.031 .010

.037 .034

.015 .020

.831 .830

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Each Factor. Factor

M

1. Learning Contents and Materials (k = 5) Less motivated learners (n = 240) 3.26 More motivated learners (n = 416) 2.62 Total (N = 656) 2.85 2. Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles (k = 6) Less motivated learners (n = 240) 2.44 More motivated learners (n = 416) 2.22 Total (N = 656) 2.30 3. Inadequate School Facilities (k = 4) Less motivated learners (n = 240) 1.87 More motivated learners (n = 416) 1.84 Total (N = 656) 1.85 4. Lack of Intrinsic Motivation (k = 4) Less motivated learners (n = 240) 2.88 More motivated learners (n = 416) 1.91 Total (N = 656) 2.27 5. Test Scores (k = 2) Less motivated learners (n = 240) 3.11 More motivated learners (n = 416) 2.67 Total (N = 656) 2.83

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

0.99 0.88 0.97

0.52 0.02 0.08

1.99 0.53 0.61

0.95 0.90 0.92

0.32 0.40 0.38

0.59 0.53 0.54

0.92 0.85 0.88

0.98 0.78 0.87

0.31 0.26 0.02

1.00 0.87 1.03

0.11 0.89 0.51

0.64 0.44 0.58

1.28 1.21 1.25

0.15 0.21 0.09

1.09 1.05 1.11

Note: The standard errors of skewness for less motivated learners, more motivated learners, and the total are 0.16, 0.12, and 0.10; the standard errors of kurtosis for less motivated learners, more motivated learners, and the total are 0.31, 0.24, and 0.19.

and 2.83, respectively), followed by factors 2 and 4 (2.30 and 2.27, respectively). The mean score of factor 3, Inadequate School Facilities, was the lowest (M = 1.85).

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

65

3.2. Differences in demotivating factors between less motivated and more motivated learners In order to examine whether the five factors differ between less motivated and more motivated learners, a two-way ANOVA was performed with general motivation to study English as a between-subjects factor and with the mean scores of items loading on the five factors as a within-subjects factor. The participants were divided into two groups based on the responses to the question about motivation to study English: less motivated learners who answered I have almost no motivation (n = 58) or I have a little motivation (n = 182) and more motivated learners who answered I have moderate motivation (n = 326) or I have high motivation (n = 90). Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of the mean scores of items loading on the five factors by groups; Fig. 1 graphically profiles the means scores of the five factors by groups. A two-way ANOVA showed statistically significant difference for the main effect of groups (F (1, 654) = 67.92, p = .000, partial eta squared = .094), the main effect of demotivating factors (F(3.59, 2,345.75) = 196.99, p = .000, partial eta squared = .231), and the interaction effect of the demotivating factors and the groups (F (3.59, 2,345.75) = 32.52, p = .000, partial eta squared = .047). In other words, the results show that (a) significant differences in profiles between groups existed, (b) the entire sample shows differences across the five factors, and (c) each group has different profiles. Five t-tests were performed to evaluate the differences between the two groups for each factor and two oneway ANOVAs to evaluate the differences among the mean factor scores for each group. With a Bonferroni adjustment, the alpha level was set at .007 for each test. Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for factor 1 (t(654) = 8.48, p = .000), factor 4 (t(443.27) = 12.45, p = .000), and factor 5 (t(654) = 4.45, p = .000), whereas there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for factor 2 (t(654) = 2.91, p = .004) or factor 3 (t(654) = 0.40, p = .682). To sum up, no group differences were found for Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Style or Inadequate School Facilities. Less motivated

Less Motivated Learners More Motivated Learners

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Fig. 1. Profiles of general motivation to study English and demotivating factors.

66

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

learners considered the other three factors (Learning Contents and Materials, Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, and Test Scores) to be more demotivating than more motivated learners. For less motivated learners, a one-way ANOVA shows statistical significance among the five factor scores (F (3.84, 916.62) = 108.66, p = .000, partial eta squared = .313). A post-hoc analysis using paired-samples ttests with Bonferroni adjustments revealed statistically significant differences among eight of the ten combinations of the five factors (see Table 5). The most demotivating factor for less motivated learners was Learning Contents and Materials (factor 1), followed by Test Scores (factor 5). These two factors were statistically more demotivating than Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles (factor 2) and Inadequate School Facilitates (factor 3). The third most demotivaing factor (factor 4), Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, was not statistically lower than Test Scores (factor 5). For more motivated learners, a one-way ANOVA shows statistical significance among the five factor scores (F (3.38, 1,404.05) = 108.43, p = .000, partial eta squared = .207). A post-hoc analysis using paired-samples ttests with Bonferroni adjustments revealed statistically significant differences among eight of the ten combinations of the five factors (see Table 6). Like less motivated learners, factor 1 (Learning Contents and Materials) and factor 5 (Test Scores) were more demotivating than the other factors. What differed from the results for less motivated learners is that for more motivated learners, factor 4 (Lack of Intrinsic Motivation) was not statistically higher than the lowest factor (factor 3). 4. Discussion The first research question asked what the salient demotivating factors for senior high school students were. The extracted factors were as follows: (a) Learning Contents and Materials, (b) Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles, (c) Inadequate School Facilities, (d) Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, and (e) Test Scores. Although we constructed our questionnaire on the basis of a six-factor model (teachers, characteristics of classes, experiences of failure, class environment, class materials, and lack of learners’ interest), five factors were extracted with the factor analysis. While we hypothesized characteristics of lessons and learning materials as two separate factors, both loaded as one factor, Learning Contents and Materials. All other factors were similar to what they were hypothesized to be. More specifically, the Inadequate School Facilities factor was a part of what we identified as learning environment in the beginning; the Lack of Intrinsic Motivation factor was a part of Learners’ Interests; and the Test Scores factor was a part of Experiences of Failures.

Table 5 A Post-Hoc Analysis (Paired-Samples T-Tests with Bonferroni Adjustments) for Less Motivated Learners (N = 240). Type of Motivation

1

2

3

4

5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

– 11.34* 20.16* 5.31* 1.81

– – 8.33* 6.00* 7.88*

– – –

– – – –

– – – – –

Learning Contents and Materials Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles Inadequate School Facilities Lack of Intrinsic Motivation Test Scores

13.46* 14.92*

2.79

Note: The figures in the table show t-values. *p < .0007.

Table 6 A Post-Hoc analysis (paired-samples T-Tests with Bonferroni adjustments) for more motivated learners (N = 416). Type of Motivation

1

2

3

4

5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

– 8.85* 17.16* 16.95* 0.87

– – 7.95* 6.24* 7.00*

– – –

– – – –

– – – – –

Learning Contents and Materials Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles Inadequate School Facilities Lack of Intrinsic Motivation Test Scores Note: The figures in the table show t-values. *p < .0007.

1.50 12.82*

13.31*

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

67

As seen in Fig. 1, the mean score of the Lack of Intrinsic Motivation factor was as high as that of the Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles factor, while statistically significant differences between less motivated learners and more motivated learners were found. As reviewed above, most previous studies (e.g, Do¨rnyei, 2001a) have shown that factors related to teachers are one of the most demotivating factors. This finding is of great importance when determining whether demotivation excludes internal forces or not. It suggests that internal forces cannot be ignored as demotivating factors. A second point is that although factor 3 (Inadequate School Facilities) was extracted as a factor, the participants in this study did not consider this factor to be demotivating. This finding lent support to the results of Kikuchi and Sakai (2007) which found that Japanese university students were not particularly demotivated by a factor they labeled as the Inadequate School Facilities factor. The second research question asked whether there are differences in demotivating factors between less motivated and more motivated learners. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups for three factors (Learning Contents and Materials, Lack of Intrinsic Motivation, and Test Scores), while there were no statistically significant differences for the other two demotivating factors (Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles and Inadequate School Facilities). In other words, participants with almost no motivation and with a little motivation found the three factors to be more demotivating than participants with moderate motivation and with high motivation. In particular, Lack of Intrinsic Motivation was more demotivating for less motivated learners than for more motivated learners. 5. Conclusion This study showed that Learning Contents and Materials and Test Scores were demotivating factors for many Japanese high school students, especially for less motivated learners. In other words, lessons that focused on grammar, lessons that used textbooks which include long or difficult passages, and obtaining low test scores were all perceived as strongly demotivating for those learners. Contrary to previous findings, Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles were not found to be a strong cause of demotivation. In our study, those factors were not as strongly demotivating as factors such as Learning Contents and Materials or Test Scores for both more and less motivated groups. Moreover, both the more and less motivated learners did not perceive Inadequate School Facilities as demotivating. The study also found that motivated learners and less motivated learners differ in their perception of what demotivated them. Based on the findings of this study, we argue that the following should be considered in order to avoid students’ demotivation, especially in EFL contexts similar to Japan. 1. Teachers need to be careful how they implement the so-called focus on forms approach (Long, 1991; Long and Robinson, 1998) with materials of higher levels for learners. Some learners, especially, those whose motivations are low, perceive lessons focused mainly on grammar or with the textbook containing very long passages as demotivating. 2. A lack of goal to be a speaker of English, or not understanding the purpose of studying English may be important issues with learners whose motivations are low. Teachers may need to consider how they can work on motivating these learners. 3. Both more and less motivated learners may consider poor test results as demotivating; in particular, this tendency may be large for learners whose motivation is low. Teachers may need to give a special care for these learners. For instance, giving some encouragement or setting goals for the next test may be necessary (Do¨rnyei, 2001b). One of the limitations of the study was with regard to the types of schools which were surveyed. The participants in this study were attending general courses (Futsu) and international courses (Kokusai) in four high schools in Japan. In other words, students at these schools were likely to have a higher motivation to study English than students attending high schools where the majority of students are not going on to college, and results may differ in other contexts. In addition to replication studies in other countries, future studies should also query high school students attending various types of high schools other than general and international courses.

68

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

Since the instrument we used includes only 35 items, we may have excluded other demotivating factors. Future studies need to be conducted to find other issues. We also recommend measuring the level of motivation with an established instrument to find relationship between participants’ motivation and their perception of what demotivate them. Although the results of the study were derived only from a factor analysis of a 35-item questionnaire, we hope that our attempt to show the causes of demotivation for Japanese high school students and the differences by level of motivation will serve as a basis for understanding the complexity of what demotivates English learners in many places in the world. We hope for more research in this area in the future so that we can deepen the knowledge about L2 learners’ demotivation and derive practical implications for the teachers who see many students becoming demotivated in their classrooms. Acknowledgements We would like to express our sincere thanks to Sachie Nagashima, Yumiko Miyamoto, Hisae Miyao, and Yoshiko Setagawa, who helped us collect the data. We also thank Dr. David Beglar and Dr. Mark Sawyer for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper. We would like to thank Brian Wistner for valuable discussion. We are also grateful for helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers of System. All errors are ours. Appendix. Questionnaire items (translated into English) No

Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

I seldom had chances to communicate in English. Most of the lessons focused on translation. Most of the lessons focused on grammar. Most of the lessons were entrance examination oriented. I was expected to use (or speak and write) grammatically correct English. I was forced to memorize the sentences in the textbooks too often. I had difficulty memorizing words and phrases. I got low scores on tests (such as mid-term and final examinations). I got lost in how to self-study for English lessons. The pace of lessons was not appropriate. Teachers’ pronunciation of English was poor. Teachers ridiculed students’ mistakes. Teachers made one-way explanations too often. Teachers’ explanations were not easy to understand. Teachers shouted or got angry. Topics of the English passages used in lessons were not interesting. English passages in the textbooks were too long. English sentences dealt with in the lessons were difficult to interpret. A great number of textbooks and supplementary readers were assigned. Topics of the English passages used in lessons were old. Computer equipment was not used. Visual materials (such as videos and DVDs) were not used. The Internet was not used. LL equipment was not used. Audio materials (such as CDs and tapes) were not used. The number of students in classes was large. I could not do as well on tests as my friends. I did not like my classmates. My friends did not like English.

H. Sakai, K. Kikuchi / System 37 (2009) 57–69

69

Appendix (continued) No

Item

30 31 32 33 34 35

I was often compared with my friends. English was a compulsory subject. I lost my understanding of the purpose of studying English. I lost my interest in English. I lost my goal to be a speaker of English. English questions did not have clear answers.

References Arai, K., 2004. What ‘demotivates’ language learners?: Qualitative study on demotivational factors and learners’ reactions. Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University 12, 39–47. Christophel, D., Gorham, J., 1995. A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 44, 292–306. Do¨rnyei, Z., 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 78, 273–284. Do¨rnyei, Z., 1998. Demotivation in foreign language learning. Paper presented at the TESOL ‘98 Congress. Seattle, WA. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2001a. Teaching and researching motivation. Longman, Harlow. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2001b. Motivation strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Falout, J., Maruyama, M., 2004. A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation. The Language Teacher 28, 3–9. Gorham, J., Christophel, D., 1992. Students’ perception of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly 40, 239–252. Gorham, J., Millette, D., 1997. A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 46, 245–261. Hasegawa, A., 2004. Student demotivation in the foreign language classroom. Takushoku Language Studies 107, 119–136. Ikeno, O., 2002. Motivating and demotivating factors in foreign language learning: A preliminary investigation. Ehime University Journal of English Education Research 2, 1–19. Kikuchi, K., in press. Listening to our learners’ voices: What demotivates EFL high school students? Language Teaching Research, 13(4). Kikuchi, K., Sakai, H., 2007. Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey study. Unpublished manuscript. Kojima, S., 2004. English learning demotivation in Japanese EFL students: Research in demotivational patterns from the qualitative research results of three different types of high schools. Unpublished master thesis. Kwansei Gakuin University, Hyogo, Japan. Long, M.H., 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R.B., Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 39–52. Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 15–41. Rudnai, Z., 1996. Demotivation in learning English among secondary school students in Budapest. Unpublished master thesis. Eo¨tvo¨s Lora´nd University, Budapest, Hungary. Tsuchiya, M., 2004a. Nihonjin daigakuseino eigogakushuuheno demotivation (Japanese university students’ demotivation to study English). The Chugoku Academic Society of English Language Education Kenkyukiyo 34, 57–66. Tsuchiya, M., 2004b. Factors in demotivation concerning learning English: A preliminary study of Japanese university students. The Kyushu Academic Society of English Language Education (KASELE) 32, 39–46. Tsuchiya, M., 2006a. Factors in demotivation of lower proficiency English learners at college. The Kyushu Academic Society of English Language Education (KASELE) 34, 87–96. Tsuchiya, M., 2006b. Profiling of lower achievement English learners at college in terms of demotivating factors. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan (ARELE) 17, 171–180. Zhang, Q., 2007. Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Education 56, 209–227.