Last week we learned that there are three concepts to understand the study of individual differences in L2 learning, and we have already examined “language aptitude”, the issue of cognition (thinking). This week we have investigated “motivation” and “affect and other sources of individual differences,” covering the issues of conation (trying or wanting) and affect (feeling).
On Tuesday, we were divided into five groups, and each group worked on a different topic within motivation, (a) traditional approach vs. the most recent approach (the L2 motivational self-system), (b) theoretical renewal: self-determination and dynamic motivation, (c) contexts; and within affect and other sources of individual differences, (d) personality, anxiety, and willingness to communicate, (e) cognitive styles, strategies, and self-regulation.
Traditional approach on motivation focuses on its quantity than quality. Then it faced the crisis during the 90’s because Gardner’s AMTB model does not work in EFL context although it works in Canadian French-speaking context, and there was a call for research on motivational quality. The most important finding is that L2 motivation is not static, but dynamic, considering the issues of time, context, and behavior. It looks at learner’s future: the ideal self. Also, related to affect, it is important to keep in mind that affect cannot be separated from cognition and from conation, since they influence one another.
We discussed Gan, Humphreys and Hamp-Lyons’s (2004) study, “Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities” and Lamb’s (2008) study, “The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study”on Thursday.
In Gan, Humphreys and Hamp-Lyons’s (2004) article, we investigated the successful learners and the unsuccessful learners within six themes emerged from the collected data such as conceptualizing English language learning, perceptions of the college English course, learning and practicing strategies, self-management, internal drive, and English proficiency tests. The study shows the interaction of learner difference factors (strategies, attitudes, and motivation) and contextual factors (instrumental importance of English, teacher’s teaching styles, and graduation requirement). Also, successful learners generally showed a broader view of English learning than unsuccessful learners did. From this study, we language teachers can teach students not only the language knowledge, but also the strategies characterizing their more successful peers.
Furthermore, in Lamb’s research, we examined how Indonesian students’ reported motivation change and how internal and external factors are related with the changes, focusing on Dornyei’s (2005) L2 motivational self system (ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self and L2 learning experience). The data shows that two contrasting results. One is that enthusiasm for the process of formal learning in school fall down; the other is that attitudes toward language and of actual learning activity in informal contexts stay very positive. Since the main problems reported by learners are English teachers related to their monotonous classroom procedures and incomprehensible lessons, it provides us how important teachers’ roles are.
Two studies have important pedagogical advice for teachers to help students. Language teachers may pay attention to the students’ needs in order to achieve high academic standards and provide more integrative and personally relevant curricula and learning assessment along with learners’ language learning and strategy training. Also, teachers need to provide simple explanations, supportive feedback, and advices on independent ways to learn. Based on my experience, considering myself as an EFL learner and an EFL teacher, students’ positive feelings toward a teacher and instruction really influence students’ motivation in learning and interest in classes. In this respect, we have really important roles to play as a teacher.
1 comment:
Kyunghee-- Thanks for your very nice commentary! It is a great summary of the themes of this week, and you also offer a good reflection on the two empirical studies we discussed with a personal touch and reaction.
I also want to thank the group who facilitated the discussion on Thursday: Shu-Ling, Tanny, and Hoa. They did a superb job of analyzing and explaining the two studies and they designed very good group work activities and questions so we all benefited maximally from working on the two studies together in class.
It is really nice to have students take over and organize the class interactions in their own way. I am learning a lot!
Thanks again Kyunghee,
Lourdes
Post a Comment