Learner motivation in self-access language learning

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

ISSN: 1750-1229 (Print) 1750-1237 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

Learner motivation in self-access language learning David Gardner & Kevin W. H. Yung To cite this article: David Gardner & Kevin W. H. Yung (2017) Learner motivation in selfaccess language learning, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11:2, 159-176, DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2015.1088545 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1088545

Published online: 01 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 367

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rill20 Download by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]

Date: 23 May 2017, At: 06:19

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING, 2017 VOL. 11, NO. 2, 159–176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1088545

Learner motivation in self-access language learning David Gardner and Kevin W. H. Yung Centre for Applied English Studies, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong ABSTRACT

This paper reports on the findings of a study looking at students’ motivation to engage in self-access language learning (SALL) while taking an English for Academic Purposes course which contains a substantial integrated SALL component. To-date there has been limited research into the motivation of such students but it is an important area of research because the extent to which students will make use of and benefit from SALL is likely to be strongly influenced by the type of motivation they experience. Using the framework of the L2 Motivational Self System and data from a questionnaire survey and interviews, this paper categorises the kinds of motivation seen among the students and then discusses the relevance of the findings for promoting and supporting the use of SALL among these and similar students.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 8 January 2015 Revised 9 May 2015 Accepted 21 August 2015 KEYWORDS

Motivation; self-access language learning; learner autonomy; L2 Motivational Self System

Introduction This paper reports on a research project investigating the motivation of learners when engaged in the self-access language learning (SALL) component of an English for Academic Purposes course at a university in Hong Kong. This course contains a large SALL component designed to help students become independent learners and to equip them with the strategies to continue to improve their English after the course has finished. Currently, little is known about the level or kind of motivation of these learners and whether different kinds of motivation are likely to affect their commitment, effort or outcomes in second language learning and in particular their commitment to the use of SALL. This study uses the framework of L2 selves created by Dörnyei (2005, 2009) to discover the kinds of motivation in evidence among these students. The goal is to achieve a better understanding of the students’ approaches to SALL which, in turn will facilitate the provision of better support for future students of the course and other similar courses making use of SALL. This paper begins by situating the study within the relevant literature. It then describes the context, the participants and the methodology used. Next it discusses the findings and draws conclusions about the kinds of motivation seen among the students and the relevance for promoting and supporting the use of selfaccess learning among these and similar students.

Literature review Motivation is a well-recognised factor impacting on success in second language (L2) learning, particularly in SALL which involves a large emphasis on learner autonomy (Gardner and Miller 2014; Kormos and Csizér 2014). L2 learning motivation has been generally conceptualised as a combination of effort, desire and attitude relating to learning the target language (Gardner 1985). Dörnyei describes it as an individual taking responsibility for ‘the choice of a particular action’, ‘the effort expended on it’ CONTACT David Gardner © 2015 Taylor & Francis

[email protected]

160

D. GARDNER AND K. W. H. YUNG

and ‘the persistence with it’ (2001, 7). There is a rich history to the study of learning motivation. For most of the second half of the twentieth century the field was dominated by the work of Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972). They focused on an integrative and instrumental motivation paradigm, with the motivation to learn provided by a focus on the target language community (integrative) or the use of the language as a tool (instrumental). Later work focused on attribution theory (Weiner 1992) and self-determination theory, involving intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000). More recently, Dörnyei (2001) first proposed a ‘process-oriented approach’ and then, building upon all the foregoing theories, developed the L2 Motivational Self System (2005, 2009) which is used as the basis for discussion in this paper. For a more comprehensive review of motivation research, see Benson (2001, 83–87), Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) and Yung (2013). Below, as a way of situating our study, we introduce briefly the L2 Motivational Self System and then outline research on learner strategies, beliefs and perceptions in relation to SALL although, as will become clear, little SALL research is directly related to motivation. This review of the literature culminates in a statement of the research questions addressed in this paper.

L2 Motivational Self System Based on the concept of ‘possible selves’ and ‘future self-guides’ by Markus and Nurius (1986), Dörnyei (2005) developed the L2 Motivational Self System, which consists of three components: Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self and L2 Learning Experience (Figure 1). Dörnyei (2009, 13) describes the ideal self as a ‘representation of hopes, aspirations, or wishes’, thus it is the person that the learner wants to become, for example, a person proficient in the L2 or, more ideally, a native L2 speaker. This echoes the ‘integrativeness’ Gardner (1985) proposed (i.e. integration into the L2 speaker community), but Dörnyei (2009) has reinterpreted it as having a mediating effect on other attitudinal or motivational variables on the two criterion measures of language choice and intended effort to study the L2. He further suggests that attitudes towards L2 speakers/community and instrumentality are the two immediate antecedents of integrativeness. Dörnyei (2009) believes that it is the learner’s attitude towards L2 speakers which determines the learner’s image of the ideal self. A positive attitude to the L2 community will result in an attractive ideal L2 self. Gardner’s (1985) concept of instrumentality is related to the practicality of learning a language as a tool but this may lead to two different types of ‘selves’. Internalised and promotion-focused instrumentality (approaching a desired state) creates an ideal L2 self. However, extrinsic, prevention-focused instrumentality (avoiding a feared-state) creates an ought-to L2 self. Dörnyei also takes into account the L2 learning

Figure 1. Schematic representation of L2 Motivational Self System based on Dörnyei (2005, 2009).

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

161

experience which looks at motives associated with ‘the immediate learning environment and experience’ and which may be influenced by one or more of: ‘the teacher, the curriculum, the peer group and the experience of success’ (2009, 29). Thus, the Motivational Self System combines a processoriented approach and dynamic interaction between motivation and context.

Research on SALL Previous studies of relevance to this paper either look at strategies, perceptions and beliefs in relation to SALL, or motivation for SALL. The former category is most numerous of which a representative sample is reviewed here. Hyland (2004), in a study of the beliefs, chosen activities and strategies used by 304 pre-service and in-service teachers in Hong Kong, found they preferred receptive activities such as listening and reading rather than speaking, and they liked individual and private activities rather than public ones mainly because of the fear of negative judgment. In a survey of 377 Chinese tertiary level students, Ruan (2007) found they ‘hold positive and favourable beliefs as regards taking control of their language learning’ (83). Victori (2007), in a study of 141 university students’ perceptions of the development of a self-access centre and the mechanisms of learners’ support, reported they were generally positive about the programme but encountered problems such as lack of time, self-discipline, persistence and understanding of tasks. In an examination of the perceptions of outside reading and self-access counselling among 350 first year undergraduates’, Cheng and Lin (2010) found students felt they had benefited from the tasks but needed more teacher instruction and guidance. Valdivia, McLoughlin, and Mynard (2011), on the basis of two studies, found affective factors important in SALL and suggest strategies to engage learners in SALL such as awarenessraising, written comments from learning advisors and tutors and ongoing questioning of learners to explore their feelings about the SALL course. Tassinari and Ciekanski (2013) also found a need for greater attention to affect when counselling self-access learners. Most studies of learner beliefs are based, necessarily, on participants’ own self-reports. Such data are important because this is often the only way of accessing beliefs but we should acknowledge the potential subjectivity of such data. The relationship between SALL and motivation has also been studied. In an insightful study showing how SALL can become motivating to students, Murray (2011a) adopted Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System for a large study of 269 Japanese university students participating in a SALL programme. He suggests the importance of using metacognition and imagination to motivate students in SALL and found that self-access learning contributed to the learners’ development of their L2 selves. Murray (2011b) also undertook a detailed case study of an individual learner in which he documents the development of the learner’s ideal self and its importance in the self-access learning process. In a study of users of two university self-access centres in Mexico, Castillo Zaragoza (2011, 104) found that ‘what learners are, and also what they want to become (ideal L2 self), or think they have to become (ought-to L2 self), has a strong influence on the decisions they make towards their language learning’ and that SALL helps them discover the links between these selves. Ueki and Takeuchi (2013), in a study of 302 Japanese university students, found a close connection between motivation and learner autonomy. They also found that students majoring in English were most strongly affected by the L2 ideal self, whereas the non-English major students were more affected by the L2 ought-to self. They conclude that transforming L2 ought-to selves into ideal L2 selves is pedagogically important and will guide those learners towards becoming more autonomous learners. Magid and Chan (2012, 11) show how a motivational programme based on the work of Dörnyei which was integrated into a course with university students in Hong Kong produced positive results with students by ‘enhancing their vision of their ideal L2 self’. Studies of Dörnyei’s Motivational Self System in relation to SALL are based either on large numbers of participants or in-depth data collection (and sometimes both) but they tend to be restricted to specific groups of learners. These studies suggest that engaging learners in thinking about their learning in relation to their L2 selves is beneficial.

162

D. GARDNER AND K. W. H. YUNG

Research questions Building upon previous studies and applying Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System as a theoretical framework to the Hong Kong context, the current study addresses the following research questions: (1) What kinds of motivation do the second-year undergraduates have in SALL as reflected in their goals, reasons for learning English, activities chosen and perceptions? (2) How do these kinds of motivation fit within the theoretical framework of the L2 Motivational Self System proposed by Dörnyei (2005, 2009)?

The study The context The context of this study is a SALL component integrated into a course of English for Academic Purposes at a university in Hong Kong. The course is the second of two compulsory courses taken by undergraduates in the Faculty of Science and is taught for two hours per week for 12 weeks. Eight of the course hours are devoted to individual self-access learning which students are invited to supplement with their own time. The SALL component includes a compulsory visit to a self-access centre, a compulsory setting of two or three goals (of which the first is pre-determined by the course requirements), a compulsory requirement to keep a record of SALL work accompanied each time by a reflection on the value of that work, two in-class discussions acting as sharing sessions on SALL activities and their value, and a requirement to submit to the teacher the completed SALL record including an overall reflection on SALL. In much of the rest of the course students are engaged in small group intensive improvement of speaking and also in completing a writing assignment. For a fuller description of this course and of the integrated SALL component see Gardner (2007).

The participants The participants were 77 Year 2 undergraduate university students of science (56 male and 21 female) whose mother tongue was either Mandarin or Cantonese. To satisfy university entrance requirements all participants attained a required minimum level of English proficiency (approximately equivalent to a 6.5 overall score in the IELTS examination). English is the medium of instruction at the university, so all participants had been immersed in English for the 16 months prior to data collection.

The methodology The course is taught in classes of 20 students. Participants were recruited from five of those classes all of which were taught by the same teacher to eliminate potential variables introduced by approaches to teaching or attitudes to SALL. The teacher was aware of the need to ensure that all classes received the same encouragement and input about SALL and the same opportunities to report on SALL activities and to receive feedback from the teacher and peers. The students were invited to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire survey (Appendix). Those who completed the questionnaire were also invited to participate in a one-to-one interview. Data collection took place in the last session of the course because the goal of the research was to ask students to reflect on their recent experience of SALL during the course. Much of this experience was new to the students so the researchers purposefully chose not to attempt a pre- and post-course comparison which would have compared anticipation of unknown experience with actual experience. While potentially interesting this would not contribute to the goals of the research. Because one researcher was also the class teacher (hereafter called the teacher-researcher, or TR) all recruitment of participants and administration of questionnaires and interviews was undertaken solely by the other researcher (hereafter called the non-teacher researcher, or NTR). The TR was unable to view any data until the course had finished and all grades had been submitted to

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

163

the relevant examinations board. This is an important part of the ethical practices of this research because it prevents students feeling pressured to participate and thus is likely to produce more accurate data. The questionnaire focused on participants’ goals, strategies and perceptions of SALL and was completed voluntarily at the end of the course. Each section of the questionnaire contained a set of questions (relate to our research questions) with Likert style answers followed by an open-ended option for respondents to add further information. The questionnaire included an invitation for respondents to contact the NTR by email if willing to participate in a follow up interview. Sadly, only five students agreed to be interviewed and only four attended. The interviews were semi-structured to retain a focus while also allowing flexibility. They investigated participants’ SALL activities, difficulties encountered and solutions, successful motivational factors and whether interviewees found SALL effective for themselves and for their classmates. Asking participants about their classmates encourages speculation but also prompted interviewees to express more openly their general views on SALL by attaching them to other students. Although the number of interviews is small they have allowed a richer understanding of the points emerging from the questionnaire data. For analysis, the quantitative data were compared using mean scores. Open-ended questionnaire data and interview data were tagged using Weft QDA to identify themes in participants’ responses.

Findings and discussion This section looks at participants’ evaluations of their English language abilities and needs; their SALL goals; their choices of learning activities; and their perceptions of SALL. By taking a broad view in looking at students’ self-evaluations and goal-setting it is hoped to better understand their choices and perceptions, as well as identify possible influencing correlations between them.

Participants’ self-assessment of English language abilities Participants self-evaluated their ability within each of the language skills and with grammar and vocabulary. By rank ordering responses according to mean scores (Table 1) it can be seen that participants assess their receptive skills more highly than their productive skills. It should be noted, however, that most participants gave themselves a relatively average score on all skills (47% to 61%) which is consistent with their self-evaluation of overall proficiency (53%). Participants’ self-evaluations of their abilities with grammar and vocabulary also fall within the same general range although it is noteworthy that ability with vocabulary scores near the bottom end of the range. The participants’ self-assessments may not be a particularly reliable measure of their language abilities but they provide insights into their view of their strengths and weaknesses. More importantly, they offer a platform for the participants to visualise their current L2 selves, which act as a starting point in the pathway to their future L2 selves. This is a topic we will return to when comparing their perceived language proficiency with their SALL goals and their chosen SALL activities. Table 1. Participants’ self-evaluation of their English language proficiency. Rank

Areas of proficiency

Very weak (0)

Weak (25)

Fair (50)

Good (75)

Very good (100)

Mean proficiency

1 2 3 4 5 6

Reading ability Listening ability Grammar ability Writing ability Vocabulary ability Speaking ability Overall proficiency

2.60% 2.60% 5.20% 2.60% 6.50% 6.50% 2.60%

5.20% 10.40% 18.20% 22.10% 16.90% 27.30% 13.00%

42.90% 39.00% 37.70% 53.20% 58.40% 40.30% 57.10%

44.20% 39.00% 35.10% 20.80% 13.00% 22.10% 23.40%

5.20% 9.10% 3.90% 1.30% 5.20% 3.90% 3.90%

61.10 60.45 53.63 49.03 48.38 47.45 53.25

164

D. GARDNER AND K. W. H. YUNG

Table 2. Participants’ SALL goals (participants may state more than one goal). Rank

Goals relating to proficiency areas

Proportion

Grammar Speaking Vocabulary Listening Writing Reading Other

92.31% 65.38% 51.28% 42.31% 29.49% 23.08% 5.13%

1 2 3 4 5

Participants’ English language learning goals As a way of gaining insights into participants’ motivation and creating possible selves which act as future self-guides (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011), they were asked to clarify their learning goals and to reflect on why they were learning English. The majority of participants recorded two or three goals (Table 2) although a small number recorded fewer or more (up to six goals). In stating their goals, participants tended to remain within the broad areas of language proficiency reported earlier. When rank ordered it is clear that grammar stands out above all other goals. However, these students are expected to list grammar as a SALL goal because it will be a focus in a later examination but not taught in the course. Thus, its apparent importance as a goal should be discounted. All other goals are entirely self-selected and it is therefore interesting to note that speaking is given prominence. In comparing the rank order of participants’ self-selected SALL goals (ordered in terms of the language skills they relate to) with their self-evaluations of their language skills (Table 3), it is not surprising to note a somewhat inverse relationship. Speaking and then vocabulary are given the highest ranking as SALL goals and they are ranked lowest in participants’ self-evaluations of proficiency. Reading was selected least often as a SALL goal and it was ranked highest in self-evaluations of proficiency. The relationships between self-evaluation and goal-setting for the remaining areas of proficiency are less clear cut. The most problematic appears to be writing which participants select infrequently as a SALL goal but also self-rank relatively low in terms of their skills proficiency. It is perhaps odd that listening is ranked third highest as a SALL goal while it is also ranked second highest in terms of self-evaluated proficiency. However, this may be partly explained by the kinds of activities included in the listening category as will be discussed later. Overall, the relationship between participants’ self-evaluated proficiency and their SALL goals suggests that participants are setting SALL goals that will help them improve in their perceived areas of weakness. This can be interpreted to show a connection between their current L2 selves and their projected future L2 selves (as discussed by Murray 2011a). Students can be motivated by the future self-guides with the psychological desire to minimise the discrepancy between the current and possible future selves (Dörnyei 2009). In the wider view of participants’ perceptions of why it is important for them to study English, it is clear that they tend to be driven by instrumental more than intrinsic or integrative motivations. Table 4 shows that success in career prospects and course grades rank highly as do communication skill and a general sense of success. Significantly, lower rankings are applied to items relating to Table 3. Comparison of self-ranked proficiency goals and self-evaluation of skills proficiency. Proficiency area Speaking Vocabulary Grammar Listening Writing Reading a

Self-ranking of goals (1 = most important)

Self-evaluation of proficiency (1 = most proficient)

1 2 NAa 3 4 5

6 5 3 2 4 1

Grammar is a de facto goal so is not included here as a self-ranked goal.

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

165

Table 4. Participants’ reasons for learning English.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Strongly disagree (0)

Disagree (25a)

Agree (75a)

Strongly agree (100)

Mean

1% 1% 1% 0%

1% 6% 12% 14%

46% 58% 53% 58%

50% 33% 33% 27%

86.0 79.2 76.6 74.7

1%

19%

50%

28%

71.4

3% 3% 9% 8%

17% 36% 32% 40%

62% 51% 44% 45%

18% 9% 14% 6%

69.2 57.1 55.5 50.6

English is useful for my future career. I want to get a higher grade in the English course. I want to speak like a native English speaker. I need English to communicate with the people around me. I have a sense of satisfaction if I am competent in English. I want to do better in other courses. I love using English. I need English for entertainment. I am interested in English.

a

A weighting has been applied to polarise responses to assist ranking.

interest and entertainment. This variation demonstrates generally higher extrinsic motivation (driven by tangible success) and lower intrinsic motivation (prompted by interest or pleasure), as described by Deci and Ryan (1985). This suggests that for these students, motivation is more frequently provided by a desire to succeed in their studies and future career than by a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment. These extrinsic and instrumental forms of motivations may create oughtto L2 selves because learners may regard learning English as a necessity to fulfil course requirements and social expectations. However, the direction of the future selves also depends on the level of internalisation of these instrumental and extrinsic goals (as discussed by Deci and Ryan 1985; Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011; Kormos and Csizér 2014). The more internalised goals are, the more likely the future self-guides will lead to ideal L2 selves. The latter should not be entirely ignored as sources of motivation because even the less tangible reasons for learning English appealed to at least half the participants. This means that the emerging picture of motivational factors is, unsurprisingly, not clear-cut. Different students are motivated in different ways at different stages and, most importantly, in multiple ways. Some good examples of this come from the interviewees who report different motivations for different areas of SALL work, generating a combination of ideal and ought-to L2 selves: Jane:

I really want to improve my oral speaking so I practice in it and for the grammar side I just base it on the SALL requirements and do the exercise. Nancy: even there is not [a SALL requirement] I would do some, because movies are like a usual common activity so I would do it no matter. But there is SALL so I will [do] the vocabulary thing, the grammar thing I will definitely not do it if there is not SALL.

Engagement in self-access learning activities Participants reported their out-of-class/independent learning activities (but not homework tasks) which were ranked and compared with their self-assessed proficiency and their proficiency-related SALL goals (Table 5). This revealed some discrepancies. As seen earlier, the inverse relationship between goals and self-assessed language abilities suggests participants targeted language skills in which they perform least well. However, this awareness is less clear in choices of activities. The most frequently chosen activities target reading and listening (ranked by participants as their strongest language skills and given low priority in goal setting). Conversely, speaking activities were chosen by considerably less than half the participants even though it was ranked lowest in self-assessed proficiency and was most frequently selected as a SALL goal. Also, notably, all productive skills activities, with one exception, are least popular. Thus, productive skills activities were undertaken by less than 25% of participants. This is inconsistent with participants’ self-assessed abilities and goal-setting.

166

D. GARDNER AND K. W. H. YUNG

Table 5. Comparison of preferred SALL activities, self-selected proficiency goals and self-assessed proficiency levels. Rank 1 2

Degree of popularity (users) Highly Popular (majority)

3 4

Popular (∼50%)

5

Quite Popular (∼33%)

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Not Popular (