Week 15 Reflection

First off, apologies for the late post. I left HI on Mon, Dec 3, and have been up to my neck since. In fact, even before that, it was a lot of sorting and packing as I had to clear my room, and then it was a field week attending conferences and completing my papers while getting over the jetlag and adjusting to the cool, dry and polluted air in HK, which was pretty hard on my sensitive bronchii system.

I only remembered that I had to make this post, but had not, and worse, had left my notes in HI as well. So, my apologies again for this very short write-up, which Megumi contributed, and many thanks, Megumi and Masaki, for responding to my email requesting assistance. Fortunately, you will not be missing out much because Week 15 wasn't one of those "substantive" weeks. It was more of a recap, and a neat summary of what we had done in the past 4 months.

On Tue, Nov 28, Prof Ortega summed up what we have done for the term. She elicited responses from the class before putting them neatly into the various categories. Below is the bare bones of what had transpired in class (based on what I could gather).

1. Cognitive Interactionist SLA (1970, 1980s): Piaget
Interaction: Long, Gass, Pica, MacKey
Environment
Cognition
Individual Differences: DeKeyser

2. Sociocultural SLA (mid-1990s): Vygotsky, Halliday
Vygotskyan SLA: Lantolf, Swain
CA for SLA: Kasper, Markee, Mori
Language Socialization: Duff
Identity Theory: Norton, Pavlenko
Critical Theory: Canagarajah, Pennycook
Systemic Functional Linguistics

3. Formal Linguistic Approach to SLA: Chomsky
Schwatz, Bley-Vroman, O'Grady
"Native Speaker"
Emergentism: Ellis

How time flew! One term and a lot of hard work had just gone by. With the benefit of hindsight, which is 20/20, now everything seems to come together and make much greater sense once all the pieces of the jigsaw have been pieced together.

Personally, I have found this class to be very informative, and challenging at times.

On behalf of my classmates and myself, I would like to thank Prof Ortega for her patience and support as she facilitates the lessons and guides us, especially on the many installments of our own projects.

On Thu, Nov 30, we had three presenters who respectively presented their rather advanced project for this course. They were Mi Yung, Jung Min, and Masaki, in order of presentation.

Masaki's presentation was entitled "Novice Language Teachers’ Development in a Japanese Language Immersion Camp".

If you are able or so inclined, please feel free to add to this post.

Many thanks, and happy holidays!

Greetings all.
So I pseudo-promised to post the movie my paper is based on here at the blog.
Since this version is intended for web-streaming, the quality is rather lacking. The original is much nicer, but it gives you the basics.
Well, I need to get back to my paper so I can get it emailed in today. Eeeeek!
BEN

Interesting articles

Aloha everyone,

Building up on last week's class about ELF and the NS/NNS dichotomy, I thought I would share two articles that may be of interest for some of you. Both are from Sarah Benesch, who is a professor of applied linguistics at the College of Staten Island, The City University of New York. She has done a lot of work with EAP students from a critical perspective and I would recommend her book Critical English for Academic Purposes (2001) to anyone who enjoys reading these two articles. Plus I got to meet her last year and she's super cool :-)

I uploaded the articles on my uh website, just click on the links to download them to your computer.

The first one (1996) is a great example of a critical approach to needs analysis for EAP programs
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~chudeau/Benesch1996%20needs%20analysis.pdf

The second one (1999) is a 'rights analysis' that explores the power relations involved in NNS students' academic careers in an american university
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~chudeau/Benesch1999%20rights%20analysis.pdf

Also, if you're interested in the topic, I'd be happy to share with you the critical pronunciation materials that Dr. Crookes and I piloted this semester for the ELI.

Happy reading!

Weekly Reflection: Week 14

November 20th, Tuesday,

On the two articles we got through email last Wednesday, we discussed ① what the main thesis and the authors’ positions are and ② whether we are swayed or unswayed by the authors’ position, first in a group of three, and then in a class. For the class discussion, we took either swayed /unswayed side and debated our points.

Article 1.
Ellis,E. (2006). Monolingualism: The unmarked case. Estudio de Sociolinguistica 7(2), 173-196.
The main thesis
Although there are far more bilingual and multilingual speakers in the world than monolinguals, linguists and monolinguals themselves (especially English speakers) tend to consider "Monolingualism" as the norm and thus invisible, whereas bilingual or multilingual speakers are viewed as exceptions. This paper reviews three representations of monolingualism in applied linguistic.

-Monolingual bias: monolinguals are presented as a preferred, normal, neutral,
default state. (other bias in our society: gender, race, language, etc.)
-Three representations of monolingualism
1. unmarked: state of normality, invisible
2. limitation: missing on really good values such as intellectual, cultural, social, emotional, and economic benefits.
3. disease, sickness: The forefront advocate, Skutnabb-Kangas:
"monolingual reductionism", "monolingual stupidity" etc.
-Which one of the three does the author take a position with?
#3, the most radical state.
We can tell from the way the presented this view. (It was presented in the end. Difficult point to make, but no need to be aggressive. Be reasonable and state carefully)
In conclusion, "It's the monolingual's turn to be marginalized!"

Article 2.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of
English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2),
133-158.

The main thesis & the author's position
There is a huge gap between the phenomena of English as a lingua franca and an English teaching reality. What we need is a systematic description. In order
to narrow this gap, an ELF corpus is now in progress.

Our Voices

• A systematic description for ELF is helpful because it can concretely explain what ELF is and goes deeper than just emotionally appealing for the existence of ELF.
• The phenomena in which the majority of English users use ELF does exist. ELF should be introduced as a means of communication. The fact that non-native teachers teach English tells us that there is no way that they are introducing ENL in the first place.
• how do you assess students' ELF if there is no standard? In order to spread ELF, a model to teach, assess, and test will be needed.
• Students still want to learn ENL.
• Do we always teach what the students want? We don't need to.
• Understanding what the students need/want is not enough. Language policy and how the language is actually viewed in the society should be concerned.
• The notion of ELF is great, but when it comes to making a curriculum for ELF, it is difficult because it involves many sociocultural, political, economical, and language ideological aspects. It's hard to decide where to start.
• How about academic writing? We are sometimes evaluated by the way we write, and are expected to reach a certain level of academic writing.
• The reality is that professors are already accepting ELF products and what we do in class is already ELF (product of ELF).
• How do we introduce ELF to beginners? Introducing many different kinds of English may confuse them. (process of being ELF)
• Three different pronunciations of "hello" does not harm children.
• Isn't it just enough to teach "English"? It doesn't need to be ELF. Just teach to be tolerate and flexible about English.
• 50 years ago, there was no language school which focused on spoken form. Written form was the best variety possible. Now, we have a description of spoken language and communicative language teaching attracts many interests. Things can change.

My Voice

First, I'm sorry if I could't get your opinion correctly or missed completely. The topic was exciting and I almost forgot my role as a recorder.You might notice that I was taking the "unswayed" side. I totally agree with the fundamental concept of teaching ELF as "the majority of English speakers are non-natives who have their own right to use English as a lingua franca, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of their variety of English". But my big question was "Isn't it good enough to change the students' perspectives about English by dealing with many topics related to global issued including many different countries, people, cultures, and languages?". "Does ELF have to be taught?" As for English skills, teachers are mostly producing the students who use ELF in FL contexts, no matter how hard they try to introduce ENL using ENL materials. So, ELF users are already right there with/without being taught ELF intentionally. All we need to do is to change the students' attitudes and perspectives toward varieties of English, and reconsider the ways to evaluate the students' ELF. And thanks to the ELF corpus in progress, teachers may be able to prioritize linguistic skills treating in class. That way, teachers can spend limited English class hours more effectively focusing more on essential aspects. I assume all I mentioned here can be done without actually teaching "ELF". Or do I still have a bias in terms of linguistic skills accepting only the concept of ELF? I wonder.... In addition, not only non-native but also native speakers of English should make efforts to communicate in ELF. Maybe, "It's the native English speakers' turn to learn ELF!"

Announcement: No reading but do something on next Tuesday.

Happy Thanksgiving !!

Megumi (ELF writer)

In Amanda's Autistic Language

Hey all,

I just watched a CNN report on autism and came across this video made by "a rising star" whose name is Amanda which I hope will trigger some fruitful discussion and interest in her LANGUAGE. The title of the clip is "In My Language".

For further information on Amanda, pls CLICK HERE.

Summary and Reflection: Week 12

Tuesday

Announcement
: Brownbag and HATESOL Workshop on Thursday (8th), Writing Workshop on Friday (9th), and Special SLS Talk on the next Monday (12th)

Discussion on Myths about L2 learning (suggested by the SLS 650 class, fall 2007)
: We had a discussion as pair-work and then as whole-class, keeping in mind: “Which one sounds completely false/true?”

▪ Myth 1: Intrinsic motivation is better than extrinsic motivation.

Generally we (including many researchers) believe that intrinsic motivation helps language learning better than extrinsic motivation, but extrinsically motivated students had better results than those intrinsically motivated in some studies. Also, it seems to be hard to decide whether learners have intrinsic or extrinsic motivation simply based on their self-report. Keep in mind that motivation can change.

▪ Myth 2: Language learners cannot acquire the native-like language fluency and accuracy until they live in the foreign county where people speak the target language.

One student told a story about a Japanese lady who was so good at using English without having any experiences abroad and without having any favor of using English (actually she was forced to use that language). This suggests that such other conditions as affect or efforts could be also important for successful language learning.

▪ Myth 3: Learners can dramatically improve their language skill in the second language context.
A story of a female who had got several harassments and cultural shocks in the second language context and eventually stopped learning a language was told by Dr. Ortega. Even though this is not a usual case, it at least tells us that simply staying in the second language context does not guarantee successful language learning.

▪ Myth 4: Making a lot of mistakes help you learn the target language.

We have heard that Dr. Norris said that trying to be accurate would help learn a language. However, Dr. Ortega said that trying not to make mistakes and trying to be accurate would not help you learn a language better and accuracy be a result of learning. Well, we can make mistakes. We do not need to be afraid of making mistakes a lot. The important thing is that we should learn from our mistakes and try not to make the same mistakes again.

▪ Myth 5: Talking with native speakers help you learn the target language rather than talking with non-native speakers.

It was generally agreed that it would depend on the proficiency level of learners. Some competent users might get benefits from talking with native speakers. One student also mentioned that we could learn an accent while talking with native speakers.

I would like to list other popular ideas introduced by Lightbown and Spada (2006). I believe that thinking about these myths contribute to a better understanding of SLA and directing where you go as a language learner, teacher, or researcher.

1. Language are learned mainly through imitation.
2. Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors.
3. Highly intelligent people are good language learners
4. The best predictor of success in second language acquisition is motivation.
5. The earlier a second language is introduced in school programmes, the greater the likelihood of success in learning.
6. Most of mistakes that second language learners make are due to interference from their first language.
7. The best way to learn new vocabulary is through reading.
8. It is essential for learners to be able to pronounce all the individual sounds in the second language.
9. Once learners know roughly 1,000 words and the basic structure of a second language, they can easily participate in conversations with native speakers.
10. Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples of each one before going on to anther.
11. Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones.
12. Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.
13. Teachers should use materials that expose students only to language structures they have already been taught.
14. When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example, in group or pair activities), they copy each other’s mistakes.
15. Students learn what they are taught.
16. Teachers should respond to students’ errors by correctly rephrasing what they have said rather than by explicitly pointing out the error.
17. Students can learn both language and academic content (for example, science and history) simultaneously in classes where the subjects matter is taught in their second language.

Aslo, I would like to introduce one private language school I used to work as a teacher and an academic supervisor. While hearing about the school, you can find some myths we have been talking about in class. (The following excepts are from my paper done in other class)

“G (pseudonym) is a private English institute established in June 2004. This business essentially targets elementary and middle school students, advertising that the program is formulated for the purpose of enhancing communicative language competence. Its motto is “learning English just like our mother tongue, Korean”. The primary mission of G is to provide genuine English education context, that is, to assist learners to acquire English while learning various English contents by means of innovative media.…. As for teachers, G does not hire any so-called native speakers. It says that this is because the contents per se of movies and books are the inspiring teachers and a human being teacher is just an assistant…When hired, all teachers are required to obtain a teacher education for a week. Not learning English itself, but they are mostly trained how to manipulate DVD players capably, to exploit various activities to get an attention of easily-bored students in the classroom, to support students to be on the right track of G Way such as English only policy or mimicking, to counsel with demanding parents, and to deal with other unexpected circumstances… Every classroom is equipped with a TV and DVD player, which are used throughout the class. There are two sections of the lesson: movie DVD class and book DVD class. In the first class, students watch 10-minute movie clip, do mimicking and do workbook like filling in the blanks as listening, answering the comprehension questions, and summarizing the story. In the second, students watch 10-minute book DVD, read after the storyteller, and do workbook just like doing in the first class. A teacher mostly exclaims exaggeratedly to boost the morale of the learners saying like “Let’s watch today’s exciting movie clip!” “Now, listen carefully and repeat aloud after the line!” “Excellent!” “Could you try to mimic one more time with the action?” “Great!” “What is the story about?” and the like. The teacher also relates a lot of game-like activities such as role-playing, doing puzzles, and musical chairs with class. Because of these roles, teachers in G often call themselves entertainers and guides. After the class, students do homework, which is watching 10-minute movie clip three times, reading aloud 10-minute passages of book DVD after the storyteller five times, and doing workbook with DVD…. Almost all of the children, excluding those who have experiences of having lived in an English speaking country for a while or prove substantial English proficiency, are directly stationed to the class in accordance with their age, not their level of English. G believes that low-level students can learn from high-level students, and the high-level students can also learn in some way while helping the low-level students if they study in the same class….”

SLRF 2007 Timetable
: We reviewed three dimensions affecting to L2 learning (multidimensionality); (a) Universal Influences like age, or L1; (b) Individual Differences like aptitude, and (c) Social Dimensions like identity or cultural social status. Then, we were directed to match each title of presentation shown in SLRF 2007 timetable with one of those dimensions. As Dr. Ortega said, it would be much better if we could see the abstract.

Thursday

“The Social Turn in SLA: Vygotskian theory & Identity”

▪ Facilitators: Emiko and Nick
▪ Articles: Lantolf & Thorne (2006), Norton & Toohey (2001), and Norton (2006)
▪ Concepts we covered:

Sociocultural Theory: a theory of learning and mental development, “the human mind is mediated”, a theory is predicated on understanding the importance of interaction between people for the formation of mental activities (Vygotsky, 1978)

Internalization: “Internalization is a negotiated process that reorganizes the relationship of the individual to her or his social environment and generally carries it into future performance”

Imitation: “ development based on collaboration and imitation is the source of all the specifically human characteristics of consciousness the develop in the child ”
The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): the distance between what learner can do by himself or herself and what he or she can do with guidance from a teacher (adult) or a more capable peer

▪ Task 1(Right or Wrong?)
: We discussed the statements (sorry! I failed to get all statements) and figured out if they were right or wrong, with the help of the articles.

Statement 1: Language shapes the way we view and conceive the world.
One group said that the way of influencing is not unidirectional. It is rather bidirectional.
Well, as far as I know, there are many variations in Korean describing some colors like blue, read, yellow, white, or black, compared to other languages. Does this mean that those expressions might affect the way Korean view the world or Korean cultures/spirits might affect the way of expressing colors? (Is this overly generalized? :)

Statement 2: ZPD = Scaffolding?
As the article says, there are two misconceptions about ZPD. One is that ZPD is the same thing as scaffolding or assisted performance and the other is that it is similar to Krashen’s notion of i+1. Since scaffolding mainly concerns completion of a task with help of expert, there might be quite passive role of novice in expert-novice interactions. In ZPD, we may think that the goal will be helping the learner develop and be independent. While Krashen focuses on language and langauge device (comprehensible input), ZPD focuses on the learners themselves.

▪ Task 2 (Social Context and Language Learning)
: We had a discussion on four people (Jamal, Katie, Ravi, and Mike), considering the concepts mentioned in the articles (e.g., GLL, identity, community of practice, etc.)
What predictions can you make about the language learning process of these learners of English? What could make their learning easier/more difficult?
As a teacher and expert in SLA what advice would you give them?

Weekly Reflection in Week 13

Tuesday, November 13^th

Announcement:

Thursday(November 15th): Peer-review of the interim draft
→ 1. send 1 to Dr. Ortega by way of email
→ 2. bring 1 copy to the class to work with your partner


Since we do not have reading assignments this week (due to concentration on writing the drafts), Dr. Ortega brought two activities on writing a research paper.

Activities on Writing a Research Paper:

1. Moving from analysis to interpretation
Analysis
↓
1) Results (= closer to the data, lower inference)

2) Findings (= a bit further away from the data, higher inference)

3) Interpretations

4) Implications(= so what, what else, big leap)

↑
Interpretation

☼ As moving from 1) ~ 4), it goes further from the data. The writer cannot jump but take each phase precisely to write a reader-friendly, good writing.

For a hands-on activity, we looked into 5 examples and underlined the parts to distinguish three degrees of separation from the data.
(1= close 2= further away 3= the furthest away from the data)

1) From Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequencesin SpanishL2dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 380-397.

1 & 2: starts very close from the data with low inference and moving on to high inference
(no direct connection with the data, cannot be guessed too much)

☼ The word "interesting" sounds subjective, but the sentence only talks about a piece of data.

2) From Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The ModernLanguage Journal, 85, 549-566.

2&3: nicely stated as "found...", "finding..."
: Once variables are leveled (e.g. instructional level, the experience of ...), it goes a little bit beyond the data ( results → findings): implications for teachers

3) From Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 69-84.

1 & 2 & 3: as can be seen from the title, this is a qualitative study. The same as quantitative study, the paper organizes the data to show evidence as a starting point (close from the data), and then goes further from the data to interpretations.

☼Although when a study is a qualitative one (and the results may sound interpretation), a researcher should not stop on the 1st (result) or 2nd phase (finding). The 3rd phase(interpretation) is necessary.

4) From McGinnis, S. (1997). Tonal spelling versus diacritics for teaching pronunciation of Mandarin Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 228-236.

1 & 2 : This example includes both results and findings.

☼When there are any tables/figures ( even in appendix section), it should always be mentioned in the text (e.g. Table 1 shows...)

5) From Thompson, I. (1996). Assessing foreign language skills: Data from Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 47-65.

1 & 2 & 3: In the middle part ("Comparing these results with those of Magnan's 1986 for French"...), the researcher compares his/her results with those of other study. In a discussion section, such a comparison is possible as an interpretation, although it is quite far from the data.


2. Avoiding the "laundry-list effect" when presenting previous research ( it's not a list review, but a lit review ☺!)


Dr. Ortega brought a nice model of a literature review from Spada & Lightbown (1999).

1) We first paid attention to some generic languages used for literature review.

e.g. Previous research has shown that..., so and so has suggested that...,

☼ Out of 15 paragraphs, only 2 paragraphs start precisely with these kinds of generic phrases. There are many ways to start a new paragraphs in lit. review. We can learn them through reading many literatures and find good models.

2) The main part of activity 2 was to examine the parts where we find the researchers' opinions. We can find such sentences in paragraph 2, 10, 13, and 15.

The researchers start their review of lit. from overview of the research topic, move on to more recent studies as their review goes on ( showing their interpretations little by little). They explicitly begin to narrow down the topic to their study from paragraph 10, writing about different studies on the similar topics to theirs. In the last part of paragraph 13, they state their position mentioning about the shortcomings of the previous studies. Then, in final paragraph, they summarize their lit. review and clearly proposes their thesis statement of their study, advocating that they would like to fill the gap between previous studies.

My Reflection

It was nice to have a step by step instruction on writing a research paper. Although students in graduate level are encouraged to learn how to write a research paper through reading many previous literatures, it is very helpful to learn it with some hands-on activities like the ones we had today. I wish there was some graduate level academic writing course. Thanks to some professors ( including Dr. Ortega ), HATESL started to offer some writing workshops, but it would be nice, if we formally had a course focusing on our own writing (not only how to teach L2 writing). I suppose that we feel more comfortable making progresses towards the end of the semester. We can use the knowledge we've gained in the writings in different courses. Last of all, I woudl like to recommend a report (with good suggestions from our professors) of the HATESL Writing Workshop which was sent to us by way of email attachment.

Could you share your good strategies to write a research paper with your classmates?

Thursday, November 15^th

We had a peer-review session with the same partners as the first peer-review for the research proposal. Since all of our papers have progressed further at this phase since last draft (research proposal), Dr. Ortega advised us to pay special attention on the contents. Also, we were advised not to do oral briefing in order to provide feedback from objective point of view. Another advice from Dr. Ortega was to give feedback on organizational issues such as heading and the components in each section (e.g. divide into different section). We all had good opportunities to have objective input from the partners.

Announcement:

1. Reading assignment for next week: November 20^th ( Thursday is a holiday)
   Two readings will be sent electronically. We are expected to read at least one of them.

Dr. Ortega have sent them soon to us after the class meeting. Following is part of email message from her.

Please read at least one of them. Here is my suggestion for who should
prioritize which:

Elizabeth Ellis' (2006) discussion of three conceptualizations of
monolingualism:
Anne
Samantha
Merica
Nick
Miyung
Shay
Emiko

Barbara Seidlhofer's (2001) discussion of English as a lingua franca:
Megumi
Masaki
Ky
Ben
Jung-Min
Hatsumi
Rayoung
Sean

Hope you enjoy these two readings!
Lourdes

2. Tentative Schedule regarding student presentations on their papers

November 29^th, Thursday

Masaki, Miyung, Jung-Min

December 4^th, Tuesday

Ky, Ben, Megumi

December 6^th, Thursday

The rest of the students

The purpose: to get feedback to finalize our papers

Assigned time: Max in 15 minutes & 5 minutes for feedback

If some of us have difficulties to do presentation, it is negotiable with Dr. Ortega. Also, the schedule is not fixed yet. Therefore, it is advised to contact Dr. Ortega if we have any problems.

Greetings all!
I forgot. I said I would post the web address for the OWL at Purdue.
Lots of great things for would-be writers.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

Enjoy!!!

Also a little anecdote for those of you who are interested...

Yesterday I went to my night job teaching English to ESL kids from Korea. I hit the elevator button and leaned against the wall for a brief moment of peace. The lobby attendant saw me happy in contemplation and found it necessary to come and disturb... er converse with me. I suppose it's in his job description.
He sauntered up and said, "So, you work up on there with the Korean kids?"
"Um, yeah." I eloquently replied.
"So, what do you do?"
"I teach them English." Says I.
He looked puzzled, "So you speak Korean? That's cool."
"No actually," I reply, "I don't speak any Korean."
"How you teach them then?"
"Well, they know some English, but even if they didn't, I could teach them."
"No !"
"Yeah, no ."
“How you do that?” He looked completely and totally confused.
“Well, there are pictures, acting things out, materials that are useful. I taught English to kids in Japan for 2 years without saying a word in Japanese.”
“And it worked? No !!” He grinned.
Thankfully at this point the elevator arrived and I bid farewell.

What’s the lesson of this story? I really don’t know, but I thought it was funny and just a bit interesting.

Summary and refrection on week 11

Reminder :Due date of our draft
Dr. Ortega extended the due date of our draft from Tuesday, November 6 to Tuesday, November 11.

Summary:
This week, we read chapter 8 on Affect on Tuesday (Hatsumi, Megumi, and Miyung, thank you for great facilitation!). On Thursday, we discuss myths about affect and L2 learning.

Tuesday

As we did last week, the facilitators give us chance to brainstorm in pairs to think about own definition on affect, one aspect of affect, and how affect relate to our second language learning. The groups mentioned about anxiety, correlation of WTC and communicative competence, personality (introvert vs. extravert), affect on self language learning (pleasure of challenging knowledge can be affect) and so on.

According to Arnold & Brown (1999), affect is “The aspects of emotion, feeling, mood, or attitude, which condition behavior.” Three dimensions of affect are personality (e.g. shyness), changeable factors (e.g. positive/negative language attitude), and constantly fluctuating states (e.g. enthusiasm, anxiety, boredom, apathy, elation.) Although we covered personality, anxiety, WTC, and strategies, the facilitator emphasized affect cover more than them.

We were divided into 4 groups in order to summarize and report influence of each affect. Scenario was given to each group.

1. Personality in L2 Learning
Scenario: In your class, you identify some talkative students dominating and some students who avoid participating in class activities. (Do you see it as problematic? If so, how do you deal with it? If not, why not?)

According to Group 1:
It ranges from slightly problematic to problematic depending on the context and expectation of the class. Solutions are preparing a variety of exercises with various topic and assign roles and so on.

2. Foreign Language anxiety
Scenario: You are in Japan studying abroad. All of your classmates are Japanese who don’t speak English well. Then you are asked to introduce yourself in Japanese. You feel very anxious. (How would you overcome the situation and survive the rest of the semester?)

According to Group 2:
•Comforting myself first and introduce myself.
•Making friends and conduct language exchange.
•Sending email to ask questions.
We argued the last point because it may be difficult for the person to write questions in Japanese.

3. Willingness to communicate
Scenario: You are taking 3 courses this semester.
Class 1. You know a lot about the topic
Class 2. You don’t know a lot but are very interested in the topic.
Class 3. You are neither knowledgeable nor interested in the topic. But the classroom atmosphere is very friendly.
(In which class do you feel most comfortable initiating the conversation? Why?)

According to Group 3:
Each group member seemed to have a different preference. One member said that she preferred the class 1 at first but in the class 3 also she could feel comfortable to initiate the conversation because of her experience. In one class which has a lot of international students, everybody nodded to whatever she said.

4. Learning strategies
Scenario: You are hosting an international student who has a poor memory for vocabulary learning. You try to introduce new words but the student keeps forgetting them. (What kind of effective strategies would you provide the student?)

According to Group 4:
Since the context was home stay, task base would be effective. The international student would not be assessed because we were a host family. (I do not want be assess when I home stayed… )

At last, we worked on WTC battery test and come up with critiques.

Thursday

We were divided into 4 groups in order to discuss myths about affect and L2 learning.
The two myths which Dr. Ortega prepared were:

Myth 1:
Extraversion is something that helps language learning; extraverted people have a good start, an advantage, and are likely to be better language learners.

Myth 2:
Concern for accuracy is a good thing, students who are accuracy-oriented (i.e., they are care about being accurate and pay attention to it) are likely to learn more and better than people who do not worry about accuracy.

Next week will continue to talk about Myths on language learning. I try to collect other myths now.

These are myths I got from each group so far

Masaki's group
Myth 1:
Intrinsic motivation is better than extrinsic motivation.

Myth 2:
Language learners cannot acquire the native-like language fluency and accuracy until they live in the foreign county where people speak the target language.

Myth 3:
Learners can dramatically improve their language skill in the second language context.

Myth 4:
Making a lot of mistakes help you learn the target language.

Myth 5:
Talking with native speakers help you learn the target language rather than talking with non-native speakers.

Myth 6:
Watching TV in the foreign language help you learn the target language.

Myth7:
The more motivation, the more participation in the class.

Ben's group
Myth 1:
The Japanese brain is neutologically wired in a way which makes speaking and understanding Enflish extremely difficult when compared to other ethnic groups.

Myth 2:
People who speak faster are smarter and better at languages.

Myth 3:
People who speak many languaegs are smarter.
People who are smart can learn language fast.

Hatsumi's group
Myth 1:
Musicality is related to languagelearning ability. People who have learned music when they were young have high aptiude in language learning.

Class Meeting Reflection: Week 10

Tuesday, October 23, 2007:

Class Discussion of Motivation in L2 Learning

Motivation has always played a crucial part in Second/Foreign language (L2) learning research since it came to the scene almost 50 years ago. Through many years of development, L2 motivation researchers have contributed a great amount of literature to this interesting yet challenging area of investigation. The problem is, despite the available scholarship and the awareness of the key role motivation plays, most L2 teachers and learners, including many of us in this class, I believe, have never been able to fully understand its nature. This chapter, therefore, was especially beneficial for us as language teachers and future researchers in that it gave us an opportunity to explore further into the components that constitute the often-talked-about notion of L2 learning motivation. For a summary of the main points in the chapter, please reread Masaki’s preview posted on September 3, 2007 on our class blog.

To better prepare participants for the discussion, the facilitators (Ben, Masaki, and Ky) had posted an L2 motivation literature review on the class blog. Then in class, the first thing they did was to have participants brainstorm in groups to answer three questions about motivation, namely its definition, its role in L2 learning and teaching, and possible ways to motivate L2 learners. This was a good way to activate participants’ knowledge and lead them into the topic. In giving out their own definition, most groups came up with something quite close to famous reseachers’ (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), using key words such as “desire”, “orientation”, and “goal”, etc., which showed that they had comprehended quite well chapter 7 in Dr. Ortega’s book.

In discussing Wilga Rivers’ (1997) famous statement “Motivation springs from within; it can be sparked, but not imposed from without”, the class came to a unanimous decision that this is very true about the essence of motivation. Earlier in her definition, Samantha stressed the term “innate” when describing motivation, which sparked a few disagreements from other class members and Dr. Ortega because, as they asserted, although motivation is something that begins from within the learner, it is not what they were born with but instead could develop along the course of learning.

In order to refresh participants’ knowledge of motivation from the reading, the facilitators then had the class work in 4 random groups to discuss and summarize the most important points of major parts of the chapter which included antecedents of motivation, self-determination theory and intrinsic motivation, EFL learners’ orientations and attitudes, and dynamic motivation. The group discussions and reports greatly benefited all class members because it not only provided a chance for them to review what they have read in the chapter but also helped to identify points that needed clarifying, which was immediately provided by Dr. Ortega and other participants in their follow-up comments.

Because many class members are interested in pedagogy, and also because there was unanimous agreement with Dornyei’s (2001) idea that “teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness”, the last part of the class discussion was dedicated to pedagogical applications of methods to bring motivation into the L2 classroom. The facilitators provided 4 L2 classroom scenarios for which participants will have to work in groups to come up with effective ways to motivate their students. Following are the situations:

• You are teaching an EFL course in an Asian country. The students in your class almost always speak their native language both in and out of class. How would you motivate them to use English?

• You are teaching EFL in an Asian high school class and you want to bring Communicative Language Teaching (TBLT, CBLT, etc.) into your classroom, but your students are strongly resistant to the approach because their goal is to pass the university entrance exam and what they want to learn are grammar and test preparation. How would you motivate them to learn English communicatively and accept your approach?

• You are teaching Academic Writing at the ELI of an American university. The international students in your class didn’t choose to be there but they “had to”. Because these students think their English is good enough and due to their busy class schedule, they don’t participate very actively in class activities and often neglect their homework. How would you motivate them?

• You are teaching an ESL course twice a week at a community school for adult in Honolulu. Some students don’t come to the class very often and even if they do, they don’t participate in class activities as actively as you expect. How would you motivate those students?

Before this activity was carried out, there had been concern about whether there would be enough time, but the class finally insisted that the discussion be done in class that day and the reports be saved for the following meeting. As predicted, we ran out of time and the groups were therefore asked to bring their ideas back for class reports on Thursday, which, unfortunately, could not come true due to the lack of time in the following session.

All in all, the class discussion activities were well received by class members. It is undeniable that these activities have helped to consolidate and enhance participants’ knowledge of motivation in L2 learning. It is also beneficial for participants, many of whom are and will be L2 teachers, that activities to promote pedagogic applications of L2 learning motivation were brought up for discussion and reflections. I am sure the knowledge we gain from this chapter will go with us for the rest of our life.

Thursday, October 25, 2007:

IRB & Application for New Approval of a Study Involving Human Subjects

Application for IRB clearance is a complicated process, especially for student researchers who have very little experience in doing so. Dr. Ortega’s handout of the application and detailed explanation of the steps were therefore more than appreciated in the second class meeting of this week. Following is a brief summary of the main points of notice

- Project title: Make sure it is the same as your paper’s title.

- Start date: Don’t confuse this with application date. It’s a good idea to type “as soon as I get clearance from IRB” into this space instead of a specific date. Remember the start date can’t be earlier the application date!

- Summarize your proposed research. Outline objectives and methods: Word this section as a plan, i.e., use the future tenses where appropriate. In as few words as possible, try to convey the reason(s), purpose(s), and research method(s) you will use.

- Summarize all involvement of humans in this project: In this section, words such as “ideally”, “about”, “up to”, etc. should be used when referring to the number of humans involved. You should also include the frequency and procedure of involvement.

Tip: If you teach a class and do something for your teaching purpose (survey, evaluation, activities, etc.) and later want to include some of those data into the study, it is wise not to mention that in the application.

- Describe mechanism for safety monitoring: If you have any specific way to protect the privacy of participants, list them here. Useful phrases include: “there are no risks”, “voluntary”, “no names will be used”, “data will not be identifiable”, etc.

- Benefits to each human subject or to mankind: Be realistic when you write this section. It is a good idea to give participants some small remuneration, and don’t forget to include that information in this part. However, benefits of significant financial value can risk your chance of getting the clearance as they may think you are trying to “buy” participants.

In general, IRB procedures are often complicated, but it is necessary and you will have to do that sometime before your graduation (e.g., when you write your SP, thesis, or dissertation, not to mention articles for presentation at conferences and/or publication). Because your professors/advisors will have to be responsible for your application, it is important to let them know of your intention and ask them to help revise your application before submitting it.

Finally, please join me in thanking Dr. Ortega for providing us with very very helpful information and valuable advices.

Also, thank you all for your active participation in the class discussion

Motivation Literature Review

Dear classmates,

To prepare for Tuesday's class discussion, please read the chapter in Dr. Ortega's book thoroughly. Here's some literature review by an anonymous author, which, hopefully, will help you enjoy the chapter better.

See you in class,

Ben, Masaki, & Ky

Literature review of motivation

in second and foreign language acquisition

by Anonymous

I. Introduction

Motivation is not at all a new topic of concern in second and foreign language (L2) teaching and learning, yet it still draws much attention from the many parties who are involved in the profession, including researchers, curriculum developers, teacher trainers, and teachers themselves. After decades of research and discussion (Gardner & Lambert, 1959 & 1972; Lukmani, 1972; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Brown, 2000; Dornyei, 2001; and McGroarty, 2001, just to name a few), it has been concluded that motivation is undeniably an essential component that decides successful acquisition of an L2. As Dornyei (2001) pointed out, “'teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness”, which means motivation now lies at the heart of L2 teaching and learning activities. Consequently, theorists have been trying nonstop to find out the most effective ways to motivate learners with a view to achieving a long-desired methodology which could be the most productive in the L2 classroom.

Unfortunately, as Dornyei (2001) observed, in reality, motivation still has a very limited place in the curriculum of L2 teacher education programs worldwide. It seems paradoxical that teachers are still not equipped with enough necessary skills to motivate their students while motivation’s central role in L2 acquisition has long been recognized and much research has been done in recent decades. As such, it is necessary that this issue be brought up over again so as to keep reminding teachers and teacher trainers of the benefit they can and should gain from available scholarship and findings in the field. The purpose of this report is therefore first of all to review current literature concerning motivation in L2 teaching and learning, then proposing several prerequisites for further research into one possible source of effective motivation in the language classroom which is the test preparation process.

II. The history of motivation research in L2 teaching and learning

As mentioned earlier, research into motivation in the field of L2 teaching and learning has taken place over the past 4 decades or so. During that course of development, the topic of motivation has been addressed from a wide variety of angles and perspectives and has undergone significant changes in terms of both approaches and findings. After years of intensive study and observation, Dornyei (2005) summarized the history of motivation research into three stages namely the social psychological, the cognitive-situated, and the process-oriented periods.

According to Dornyei (2005, pp.66-67), the first period lasted from 1959 to 1990 and was most active in Canada with researches done by Robert Gardner and his associates whose approach was formed through a doctrine that “students’ attitudes toward the specific language group are bound to influence how successful they will be in incorporating aspects of that language” (Gardner, 1985, quoted by Dornyei, 2005), which means that there was an integration of individual focuses and social psychology in the study of motivation in language learning. Beside distinguishing motivation in L2 teaching and learning from that in other school subjects, Gardner greatly contributed to the development of motivation research by introducing the instrumental and integrative motivation concepts and providing the attitude/motivation test battery (AMTB) which helps to define motivational factors (Gardner, 2001).

Next came the cognitive-situated period in the 1990s with the prevalence of research drawing on cognitive theories in educational psychology which encompassed two popular trends namely “the desire to catch up with advances in motivational psychology and to extend our understanding of L2 motivation by importing some of the most influential concepts of the 1980s” and “the desire to narrow down the macroperspective of L2 motivation… to a more fine-tuned and situated analysis of motivation as it operates in actual learning situations” (Dornyei, 2005, pp.74-75). Graham Crookes and Richard Schmidt (1991) were deservedly given credit for bringing up new research atmosphere in the field through their article “Motivation: Reopening the research agenda”, which incited much study into the various aspects of L2 classroom motivation components including the teacher, the curriculum, and the learner group (Williams & Burden, 1997). Still drawing on theories previously developed by Gardner, researchers in this period started to examine a broader spectrum of contextual factors that supposedly have to do with motivation, among which were multiculturalism, language globalization, and intercultural communication, etc. The three most important landmarks introduced in this period were the self-determination theory, the attribution theory, and task motivation. The first theory laid stress on the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motives and was vigorously discussed and supported by works of Douglas Brown (1994), Deci and Ryan (2002), and Kim Noels (2001), among others. The second theory gained predominance in the 1980s as “it successfully linked people’s past experiences with their future achievement efforts” (Dornyei, 2005, p. 79). Research into task motivation, whose focus, according to Dornyei (2005), was on a task processing system consisting of task execution, appraisal, and action control, hinged around the question of “how to operationalize the dynamic interface between motivational attributes and specific language behaviors” (p. 81).

The process-oriented period in L2 learning motivation has strongly emerged in the past few years with considerable acclaim as it looks into various motivational phases which have long drawn attention from L2 acquisition researchers. This period is most clearly marked with efforts by Dornyei and his associates. Particularly, Dornyei and Otto (1998) successfully introduced a process model that explores the multi-faceted motivational evolution in L2 research, which distinguishes the three different phases in L2 motivation, namely the Preactional Stage in which motivation is generated, the Actional Stage where motivation is maintained and protected, and the Postactional Stage that focuses on the learners’ retrospective evaluation of what happened in the previous stages. However, as Dornyei (2005, p.87) admitted, because of its novelty, the process-oriented conception of L2 motivation is still in controversy and needs further testing.

III. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation

As the term itself suggests, intrinsic motivation is motivation from within the students (Lumsden, 1994), and they learn simply because learning gives them a sense of satisfaction and self-concept. In other words, intrinsic motivation is what people will do without external inducement. Among other notable findings in intrinsic motivation research, Marlone and Lepper (1987) have succeeded in introducing a synthetic way to design intrinsically motivating learning environments which is shown through individual factors and interpersonal factors. While the former attaches importance to the situation where the student works a lone, the latter emphasizes the interaction between the student and other people. Factors usually listed as promoters of intrinsic motivation include challenge, curiosity, control, fantasy, competition, cooperation, and recognition (Vockell, 2001).

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end. Individuals who are extrinsically motivated work on tasks because they believe that participation will result in desirable outcomes such as a reward, teacher praise, or avoidance of punishment. Usually, the students learn the language because they feel they have to do so and not because they want to do so, which means the learning process takes place somewhat reluctantly. This kind of motivation is especially emphasized by behavioral psychologists who seek to explain motivation as reinforcement theory.

Many a researcher has asserted the prevalence of intrinsic over extrinsic motivation on the ground that the former is more sustainable and voluntary while the latter can easily be eradicated once there is no more reward to be earned or the students do not feel obligated to learn any more. They say intrinsic motivation brings the learner more potential benefits and that students who are intrinsically motivated tend to try harder and think more deeply in their learning process. However, it is also widely believed that extrinsic motivation is especially important where there is no intrinsically motivated aspect within the learners because it will push them into learning even if they feel reluctant to do so.

IV. Noted Models of Motivation

IV.1. The Socio-Educational Model

This model of motivation was closely linked with studies conducted by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972), in which they summarized that the learner’s attitude toward the L2 and its community’s culture are very important in L2 learning motivation. As mentioned earlier, a central contribution of Gardner and Lambert (1972) is that they successfully brought the concepts of instrumental and integrative motivation into life.

According to Gardner, instrumental motivation, which is closely related to extrinsic motivation, is “the desire to learn a language because it would fulfill certain utilitarian goals, such as getting a job, passing an examination, etc.” Integrative motivation, on the contrary, is defined as “the desire to learn a language in order to communicate with people from another culture that speak that language” and “the desire to identify closely with the target language group”.

Since the appearance of these two concepts of motivation, there have been numerous research and discussions that try to explain their roles in L2 acquisition. Many of the researchers have so far been of the opinion that integrative motivation has a more important role than its instrumental counterpart (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972; Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000) because it represents the perception of language skills as an integral part in participating in the social groups that use the L2. Some researchers (e.g. Falk, 1978) strongly believed that the admiration of the culture and the people who speak the target language, and the possession of a desire to get familiar with or even become integrated into the target language community can bring great success to the L2 learner. Others asserted that integrative motivation has a more influential role to play in the success of L2 acquisition (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). McDonough (1981) even divided integrative motivation into two types: assimilative motivation, which shows a strong motivation to assimilate into the L2 group, and affiliative motivation, which simply indicates a weak motivation and wish to have greater contact with L2 speakers.

However, in recent years, further research into instrumental motivation (Dornyei 1990, 1998; Brown, 2000) has disclaimed the (falsely) notorious superiority of integrative motivation in L2 teaching and learning. Dornyei (1998) claimed that instrumental dimensions are important (extrinsic) constituents of motivation. This is especially true in situations where the target language is a foreign language. When L2 learners do not have the opportunity to integrate into the target language group, that is, they do not feel the need to learn the L2 in order to become a member of that community, instrumental motivation has the vital role in that it makes language learning happen and puts pressure on the learners to maintain their course of learning. In fact, even in countries like India where English is widely used as an official language, instrumental purposes still serve as the main reason for successful English language acquisition among a large group of people in the Indian society.

Much as they have been distinguished through decades, instrumental and integrative motivation in fact mutually benefits from each other. This viewpoint is strongly supported by Brown (2000) who believes that the two types of motivation are “not necessarily mutually exclusive”. He argues that, more often than not, L2 learners tend to choose both forms of motivation instead of just one. These learners usually learn the L2 not only to fulfill their required tasks but also with the hope that they can become an integrative part of the L2 community. Some researchers even denied the possibility to practically distinguish between instrumental and integrative motivation. Again, it is important to note that integrative motivation has been attracting much more research in L2 acquisition than its counterpart, which means there could be impartiality and subjectiveness if we compare the two on the mere ground of literature available in the field.

IV.2. Some other popular theories and models until the early 1980s

After the much acclaimed introduction of Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) Socio-Educational Model of motivation in L2 learning, other researchers began to work hard on the topic, making considerable contribution to the development of L2 motivation research arena. Schumann (1978, 1986) came to the scene with his Acculturation Model, which sought to look into the effects of personal variables including relative status, attitude, integration, amount of time in the culture, size of the learning group, and cohesiveness of the group. Schumann especially paid attention to adult learners of L2 and suggested three strategies for successful L2 acquisition: assimilation, rejection of target culture, and acculturation. He also believes that the more acculturated the learners are, the more successfully they will acquire the target language.

In 1985, Gardner revisited his earlier model and brought up four important motivational orientations: reason for learning, desire to attain the learning goal, positive attitude toward the learning situation, and effortful behavior. He asserts the three fundamental characteristics of L2 learning motivation which include affect, i.e. the attitudes towards learning a language, want, or the desire to learn the language, and effort, or motivational intensity. This time, he carefully described a highly motivated individual:

"An integratively oriented learner would likely have a stronger desire to learn the language, have more positive attitudes towards the learning situation, and be more likely to expend more effort in learning the language” (Gardner, 1985).

IV.3. Dornyei and his motivation research

Dornyei is one of the first researchers to argue that instrumental motivation even has a more important role in L2 acquisition in foreign language contexts than integrative motivation (1990). He first focused his studies on the Instrumental Motivational Subsystem, the Integrative Motivational Subsystem, the Need for Achievement, and the Attribution about past failures. In 1994, Dornyei introduced his famous taxonomy of motivation which included three levels: the Language Level, the Learner Level, and the Learning Situation Level. According to Dornyei (1994), the Language Level focuses on "orientations and motives related to various aspects of the L2” which determine the language studied and the most basic learning goals. The Learner Level, which has to do with the learner’s internal characteristics, affects motivation through the learner’s need for achievement and self-confidence. The Learning Situation Level emphasizes the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motives including course specific (interest, relevance, expectancy, satisfaction), teacher specific (affiliative motive, authority type – controlling vs. autonomy, supporting, modeling, task presentation, feedback), and group specific (goal-orientedness, reward system, group cohesiveness, classroom goal structure). Later on, Dornyei suggested seven main motivational dimensions (1998) namely the Affective/ Integrative Dimension (which includes the concepts of integrative motives, affective motives, language attitudes, intrinsic motives/ attitudes towards L2, and learning/ enjoyment/ interest), the Instrumental/Pragmatic Dimension, the Macro-Context-Related Dimension (multi-cultural/ intergroup/ ethnolinguistic relations), the Self-Concept-Related Dimension (generalized/ trait-like personality factors), the Goal-Related Dimension, The Educational Context-Related Dimension (learning/ classroom/ school environment), and the Others-Related Dimension (parents, family, friends). Up until now, Dornyei has continued to make valuable contributions to the development of research in L2 acquisition (see, for example, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, among others).

IV.4. A new turn in L2 motivation research

Following Crookes & Schmidt’s (1991) critique of traditional theory and call for a new research agenda in L2 motivation, “the climate of research interest in language learning motivation has changed quite dramatically (Ushioda, 2001). The topic interest was significantly revived in 1994 with a series of articles by Dornyei, Gardner & Tremblay, Oxford, and Oxford & Shearin on The Modern Language Journal, following which were numerous new theoretical approaches and new research agendas (see Dornyei, 1998). Before that, for about three decades, most L2 acquisition motivation research hinged around the socio-psychological theories and the quantitative research paradigm. However, contemporary researchers believe that there needs to be a more qualitative approach in order to complement the long-standing quantitative tradition (Ushioda, 1994), which means that the two approaches should mutually support – not exclude - each other.

In an effort to change the research atmosphere, Noels (2001) tried to generate a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative motivation, in which she once again distinguishes the concepts of orientations and motivation. She starts off by discussing the relations between intrinsic and extrinsic orientations and relevant language learning variables, then the relations between intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations. The role of significant others and the language learning context are also analyzed in great details before a conclusion towards an integrated model of motivation is made (2001, pp. 60-61).

Other researchers in the field have also tried to approach the topic in several new directions (see, for example, Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Dornyei, 2005). Although there has been considerable initial success, much remains to be done in order to bring theories and models of motivation into real life practice and make L2 acquisition a less burdensome task for mankind.

.......

(This is too long already, I think I should just cut it off here :))

References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching (4^th ed.). New York: Longman.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning, Language Learning, 40, 46-78.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.
Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 78, 117-135.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dornyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
Falk, J. (1978). Linguistics and language : A survey of basic concepts and implications (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The roles of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivations in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Luckmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language learning, 22, 261-274.
Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest No. 92. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 200.
MacIntyre, P. D., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. C. (2001). The convergence of multiple models of motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, Kuhl, and
McCroskey. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Marlone, T. W., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun. In A. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction. Vol. 3. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDonough, S.H. (1981). Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: George Allen & Unwin.
McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Toward a contextual model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R. & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In Gingras, R. C. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp.27-50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379–92.
Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga, 14, 76-84.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Vockell, E. L. (2001). Educational Psychology: A Practical Approach (Online Ed.). http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.