Motivation and Willingness to
Communicate as the Predictors of L2
Learning Success
Alla Nadeykina
S2010933
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 1
1. Introduction ... 2
2. Background Literature ... 4
2.1 DST and Learners’ Characteristics ... 4
2.2 The notion of motivation ... 7
2.3 Main types of Motivation ... 10
2.4 Willingness to communicate ... 12
2.5 Research questions of the study... 15
3. Method ... 17
3.1 Subjects ... 18
3.2 Materials and procedures ... 19
3.3 Design and analyses ... 21
4. Results ... 23
5. Discussion ... 37
6. Conclusion ... 41
References ... 43
1
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine learners’ characteristics as the predictors of L2 success of students following bilingual education in Stedelijke College, the Netherlands. The participants of this research are TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students of the aforementioned school. A survey was designed in order to evaluate the level of motivation and willingness to communicate; subjects had to indicate their level of agreement using a 4 item Likert scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”.
2
1. Introduction
“Why is it that students of a second language differ in their level of attainment, some ultimately becoming bilingual, others remaining virtual monoglots? <…> Are sociable individuals better at learning a second language than those who are introverted and shy? Does learning a second language have the same meaning and significance for a member of a minority ethnic group as it does for an individual from a majority group?” (Gardner, 1985).
Second language acquisition is a complex, dynamic process which raises a lot of questions. Numerous studies have been conducted in order to understand how to teach and learn second languages more effectively. Some of the studies highlighted the importance of individual differences like motivation, aptitude and willingness to communicate (WTC). These are some of the most important factors which influence school achievement, including language learning as well.
3 achievement, self-confidence etc. Dornyei broadened the study and developed a more general framework of L2 motivation.
Another important learner characteristic which is closely related to motivation is WTC. This concept was originally introduced by McCroskey and Baer (1985) and characterized as the probability of engaging in communication when free to choose to do so. Recently, the research of the Individual differences (IDs) have been seen as instable and variable in time constructs.
On the basis of the aforementioned models the main purpose of this study is:
• To investigate the influence of motivation and WTC on the learner’s L2 proficiency
• To reveal the differences of L2 proficiency between highly-motivated students and less motivated students
• To find out if WTC influences the level of motivation
4
2. Background Literature
This literature review gives an insight into such variables as motivation and WTC, the role of these variables in language proficiency as well as about their dynamic nature. It reflects upon current studies conducted in this field and highlights their crucial role in second language acquisition.
2.1 DST and Learners’ Characteristics
In the first half of the 20th century researchers believed that second language acquisition is a static and linear process and a learner was expected to go through more or less similar stages of second language development (SLD). Learning was viewed as behavioural conditioning.
The assumptions behind behaviourism are as follows: the learner is a passive player and tabula rasa (blank slate) in the learning process, various organisms can act as the subjects of learning research, learning results in a relatively permanent change in behaviour, complex behaviour can be reduced into simpler parts, and behavioural change is brought about by interactions with the environment (Gage and Berliner, 1998; Woolfolk, 1998). Behavioural theory has increasingly been replaced by new methods as biology limited the laws of learning. As a result, cognitive psychology appeared.
The assumptions behind cognitive psychology are: knowledge is the outcome of learning, changes in knowledge lead to changes in behaviour (Gage & Berliner, 1998; Woolfolk, 1998). The concept of this theory is that people become active learners. Cognitive psychologists research mental constructs such as memory, metacognition, problem solving, and intelligence. Gradually, the human individual becomes the main unit and another theory appeared named constructivism.
5 Glaserfeld, 1984, 1995). According to this theory, the knowledge of a learner is based on his/her previous experience; and past experience have a great influence on what the learner knows by the present moment. One shortcoming of the theory of active cognizing is that it fails to take into consideration biological changes that may occur as a result of learning. Recognition of this fact has given rise to other theories.
Biological approaches to cognition helped to shift attention from environmental factors to the biological process of cognition. It was assumed that “genes” played a dominant role in cognitive abilities. But after the Bronfenbrenner re-analysis, it was discovered that “genes” are not the sole determinants of cognitive ability. Edelman (1992) has proposed a theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS). Under this model, the neurons are stimulated by learning to make connections in the brain; the more person repeats it the stronger this connection. This integration of the role of biology in behaviour is necessary to a complete theory of learning.
The style of pedagogical practice changed under the influence of a variety of theories based on the way cognition was viewed at that particular time. An examination of cognition is important to the field of education because understanding of cognition leads to effective pedagogy (Wittrock, 1989).
6 external resources, constant change, iteration, change caused by interaction, emergent properties (de Bot et al, 2010).
DST offers a unifying approach to explaining learning, cognitive development, and pedagogy (Capra, 1996; Thelen & Smith, 1994). It recognizes the necessity to understand the system within the context of the whole. From a DST perspective, a language learner can be seen as a dynamic subsystem within a social system with a great number of interacting internal dynamic sub-systems (de Bot et al, 2010).
Students and teachers form dynamical systems as they are individuals with their own biological, cognitive and affective systems. The environment where the students were raised influence the process of studying as well. DST in spite of being in a constant development appears to be in a state space. Systems can self-organize. It occurs when it is disturbance and a system moves from one attractor towards the other. To change attraction of a system to a different state a perturbation is needed (de Bot et al, 2010).
7
2.2 The notion of motivation
It is very common today for citizens throughout the world to speak more than one language. Tucker (1981) claims that “there are many more bilinguals in the world than monolinguals, and that there are more students who by choice or necessity attend schools where the medium of instruction is their second or later acquired language rather than their mother tongues”. L2 learning is increasingly getting popular globally, even in countries where people are used to speaking only one language. Nonetheless, acquiring a second language is a long and sophisticated process and requires much effort from the learners. One of the most powerful forces that push the learner to the success in language learning is motivation.
Motivation is an important factor regarding success in foreign language learning and has been thoroughly investigated (Gardner, 1985; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Shearin, 1996; Dornyei, 2001). Motivation is a multifaceted construct and can be characterized in many ways. In general, the term motivation can be defined as a driving force which helps an individual to achieve his/her goal. Keller (1983) defines motivation as follows: “Motivation refers to the choices people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid and the degree of effort they will exert in this respect”.
According to MacIntyre, motivation is one of the most complex variables used to explain individual differences (MacIntyre et al, 2001, 462). The term deals with many-sided problems faced by scholars, teachers and students. Systematic investigation into motivation in education was first undertaken by Canadian psychologists Gardner and Lambert in the 1950’s.
8 Gardner (1985) demonstrated that there are two primary individual difference variables involved in language learning: ability and motivation. He proposed that students with higher levels of ability (both intelligence and language aptitude) will tend to be more successful at learning the language than students less endowed. Students with higher level of motivation will be more successful, goal-oriented, and persistent and will enjoy the process of language learning more, and will thereforebe more self-confident in their performance.
Gardner (1985) established a model of motivation in L2 learning called the socio-educational model. Gardner states that firstly, the individual displays some goal-directed activity, and secondly, that person expends some effort. In short, motivation involves four aspects: a goal, effort, a desire to attain the goal and favourable attitudes toward the activity in question. The goal, although a factor involved in motivation, is not a measurable component of motivation. It specifies the motivational orientation of a learner into instrumental or integrative. Instrumental is associated with getting a better job or grades while integrative can be described as the wish to know more about the culture and people of the language the learner acquires. The goal stimulus which gives rise to motivation, individual differences in motivation itself are reflected in the latter three aspects listed above, effort expended to achieve the goal, desire to achieve the goal and attitudes toward the activity involved in achieving the goal.
The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) was created by Gardner (1985) in order to evaluate individual difference variables mentioned in the socio-educational model. As it has been mentioned above, Gardner focused mostly on the integrative motive. It contains three main constructs:
Construct 1: Integrativeness (integrative orientation, interest in L2)
9 Construct 3: Motivation (effort, desire and attitude towards learning)
The AMTB consists of over 130 items from five categories: integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, motivation, instrumental orientation and language anxiety.
To recap, Gardner believes that in language learning there are two main variables: ability and motivation. The student with higher intelligence and language aptitude tends to be more successful in acquiring second language than the student with lower ability, because highly motivated students are eager to apply more effort in reaching their goal, will enjoy the process of learning more and will develop self-confidence in their performance. Interestingly, ability and motivation should be discussed separately as students with higher ability can have low motivation and vice versa.
Dörnyei (2005) points out that without sufficient motivation, individuals with the most remarkable abilities cannot accomplish long termgoals. Similarly, appropriate curricula and good teaching are not enough on their own to ensure student achievement—students must have a degree of self-motivation.
Gardner highlights that “to many individuals, the learning of a second language is a relatively unimportant task faced by children early in their education; while for many others it is a foregone conclusion” (Gardner, 1985). Some children learn the language “automatically” if this language is spoken in the family or in a vice versa situation when the language is not spoken at home, but at school where the children acquire it “automatically”. Or it can be the situation when one or more languages are taught at school and students develop good levels in these languages.
10 achievement, affiliation, and power are being met by learning the L2; 3) expectancy of success or failure; and 4) outcomes (i.e., the extrinsic rewards felt by the learner). External, behavioural characteristics include the fact that the learner: 1) decides to choose, pay attention to, and engage in L2 learning; 2) persists in it over an extended period of time and returns to it after interruptions; and 3) maintains a high activity level.
To conclude, even though a motivated person expends effort to learn the language, it does not necessarily mean that the individual is motivated. The student can learn the target language due to many reasons like trying to pass an exam, or getting a reward for the good grades; all these factors contribute to students producing an effort in learning L2. The question is to which extent he/she wants to strive and to obtain the goal. The distinction between twomotivational orientations such as instrumental and integrative will be helpful in solving this dilemma.
2.3 Main types of Motivation
Even though motivation is a complex construct, this section examines two principal types of motivation: integrative and instrumental. Both of them play an important role in the results of the students’ acquiring a second language.
The learner is moved by an integrative motivation when he/she wants to gain knowledge about the culture of the target language or socialize with the native speakers. Instrumental motivation is characterized by learners seeking to acquire language in order to be able to reach their career goals.
11 to show the importance of integrative motivation rather than to number all the variables which influence language achievement.
Gardner states that integratively motivated learners are not only more successful in learning a second language, they are also more willing to participate in class activities such as excursions to different countries as well as communicate with the members of this cultural community and are likely to finish their studies (Gardner, 1983).
Oxford and Shearin believe that instrumental motivation is based on the desire to acquire the language in order to get an appreciation from the society or to get a higher grade in the learning environment (Oxford et al, 1994). Conversely, integratively motivated students are interested in the process of acquiring language and are motivated to the task without need for reward.
Recently, in the literature, a distinction has been made between second language acquisition and foreign language acquisition and it has been proposed that the dynamics involved in learning these two different types of language may be quite different (see, for example, Oxford, 1996).
Oxford et al state:
12 Dörnyei distinguishes between motivation of second language learners and foreign language learners as he considers that these two kinds of motivation are disparate. Dörnyei suggests that “integrative motivation might be far less relevant for foreign language learners than for those learning a second language. According to Dörnyei, foreign language learners rarely have sufficient experience with the target language community to have clearly articulated attitudes toward that community, and they are therefore uncommitted to integrating with that group (Dörnyei, 1990).
Dörnyei concludes that instrumental goals contribute significantly to motivation for foreign language learners (probably more so than for second language learners). He also states that integrative reasons are, for foreign language learners, less specific to a particular target culture and are determined more by attitudes and beliefs about foreign languages and cultures in general (Dörnyei, 1990).
Hence these two concepts have been very useful in identifying L2 learners’ orientations, they are extremely broad, are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and may not fully account for the influence of linguistic environment on an individual’s motivation (Clement & Kruidenier, 1983).
2.4 Willingness to communicate
Another important learner’s characteristic is willingness to communicate. Willingness to communicate may depend on many factors such as environment, where learners acquire L2, learners’ level of anxiety, level of proficiency as it may influence on self-confidence, type of personality like introvert and extrovert.
13 Richmond and Roach (1992) affirm “willingness to communicate is the one overwhelming communication personality construct which permits every facet of an individual’s life and contributes significantly to the social, educational and organizational achievements of the individual”. Modern language teaching and learning has emphasized the significance of cultivating communicative competence in second language (L2) learners (Canale & Swain, 1980).
With the advent of the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach, classroom organization has been “increasingly characterized by authenticity, real-world simulation, and meaningful tasks” (Brown, 2001, 42). The traditional teacher lecture mode has been complemented by more teacher-student and student-student interaction. Therefore, learners’ willingness “to talk in order to learn” (Skehan, 1989, 48) is crucial to their second language acquisition (SLA).
The concept of “willingness to communicate” was originally developed by McCroskey and associates (McCroskey & Baer, 1985; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1990, 1991), to capture the trait-like personality that individuals display in first language (L1) communication. Macintyre applied the WTC construct in a second language context (MacIntyre&Charos, 1996; MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998).
14 Dörnyei et al propose that an important factor in acquisition that can come out of any class is the willingness to communicate. In their latest model of the second language acquisition process, they hypothesize that use of the Language is the ultimate goal, and that achievement in the language and willingness to communicate are two of many goals along the way to achieving this goal (MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels 1998).
There were several studies conducted in order to prove the influence of integrative motivation language proficiency. For example, Chinese college students with different majors are increasingly expected to become more competent English users (Wu, 2001). In China there are different types of intensive English language programsoffered to enhance learners’ English competence, for example, the total immersion program provided by the Office of Continuing Education Peking University and the Education Service Exchange with China (ESRC) organization. Immersion students have been found to be more willing to communicate using the target language (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000) and their integrative motivation is significantly correlated with L2 WTC.
Lalonde and Gardner (1984) conducted a study which revealed that personality traits like extroversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness and intellect had a great impact on motivation and willingness to communicate. Their findings proved the assumptions made by MacIntyre et al (1998) that context and personal characteristics are among the variables which influence WTC.
15 Yashima (2002) hypothesized that there was a direct path from motivation to L2 WTC using MacIntyre’s (1998) et al WTC model. The results of the research showed that a low level of anxiety and high level of L2 communication competence tracked to the higher level of WTC which supported the results of MacIntyre et al (1998) research. Yashima and Tanaka (2001) in their research of Japanese students who lived and studied in the US proved the influence of WTC on their adjustment. Students who were open up to speak to their host families managed to speak English better and had more positive experience than those who were not willing to communicate.
It can be seen that WTC is closely associated with motivation. It can facilitate the process of language learning, and the students who are willing to communicate and practice L2 are more likely to be successful in reaching fluency in the language they are acquiring.
2.5 Research questions of the study
Dutch students at the age of 12 are sorted into different levels of high school programme according to their intelligence by means of cito test. The best performing students follow the VWO programme which is studied until the age of 18 and prepares students for University degrees. The next level down from VWO is HAVO; HAVO students attend high school until they are 17 years old and must then go to a higher education college before they can study at the university. The present study seeks the answers to the following questions:
1) Do TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students differ in writing and vocabulary scores? 2) Does the level of motivation influence WTC?
3) Do motivation and WTC influence language proficiency?
16 According to the literature overview several predictions can be made about the answers to the aforementioned research questions. It is likely that TTO VWO students will show better results in writing and vocabulary tasks as we assume that their level of proficiency in L2 is in general higher than the level of proficiency of TTO HAVO students.
Another assumption is that more motivated students are willing to communicate more as they are more self-confident and their anxiety level is lower. We want to investigate if there is a connection between these two variables and if the path exists we want to look to what extent motivation influences willingness to communicate.
17
3. Method
This section consists of the materials, the procedures and the description of the participants. This section will be concluded with the description of the study and the analyses that were used in order to answer the research questions.
Secondary Education in the Netherlands is very different to the educational systems in the rest of the world. At the age of 12, in the final year of primary education, children are sorted into varying levels of high school programme according to their intelligence. This is achieved by way of the cito test, a scholastic aptitudethat is supposed to reflect what they have learned during their primary education.
The highest performing students follow the VWO programme which is studied until the age of 18 and prepares students for university education. In some schools this is divided into Gymnasium and Atheneum, the only difference being that Gymnasium students
,
being regarded as particularly bright, also learn Classic Greek and Latin alongside their other subjects.The next level down from VWO is HAVO; HAVO students attend high school until they are 17 years old and must then go to a higher education college before they can study for a bachelor’s degree. There are lower levels of secondary education but they are not relevant to our research as it is only VWO and HAVO that also offer TTO or bilingual education.
18 offer TTO HAVO, and it is often the perception that HAVO students don’t have the capacity to achieve good enough results.
Nonetheless, in carrying out research for this study, a number of TTO HAVO instructors, emphasised that there is no reason why HAVO students cannot perform sufficiently well, provided that teachers are aware that HAVO students are not as clever as VWO students and don’t learn new subjects as quickly and tailor their lessons accordingly.
3.1 Subjects
Seven hundred ninety six students in total participated in our investigation. The participants of the study, school children from approximately 12 to 18 years old, who attend Stedelijke College in Eindhoven. Despite offering a regular program this school also offers bilingual education which means that a number of subjects are taught in English like English, History, Geography, Maths, Drama, PE (Physical Education), MCS (Multi cultural studies), biology, physics, chemistry, Social studies, SSP (Science for Social purposes) and Final thesis. It is worth mentioning, that instructors, as well as children are allowed to use only English during the lessons.
We investigated only TTO VWO (1-6 grades) and TTO HAVO students (1-5 grades). VWO (voortgezetwetenschapelijkonderwijs or pre-university education), is the highest level of secondary education in the Netherlands. The students were selected for these programs on basis of their cito score. The cito scores of the TTO HAVO students are lower than cito scores of TTO VWO and thus they are considered to be a bit less motivated and ready to put less effort into accomplishing their goals like reaching a higher level of language proficiency.
19 students is almost a native language. Some students had copied information from the internet, so they were eliminated as well.
3.2 Materials and procedures
The materials used for this study are a questionnaire, writing proficiency task and vocabulary test. Our survey was designed to assess motivation, WTC and aptitude.
The survey consisted of closed-ended questions which do not require any free writing from the subjects in order to simplify the assessing procedure. The questionnaire consists of 33 items. Of those 33 items, 15 related to motivation, they were further divided into several subcategories like a) attitudes towards the L2, e.g. “I like the English language”, b) instrumental motivation, e.g. “Studying English is important, because it will be useful in getting a job”, c) integrative motivation, e.g. “I would like to have many English speaking friends”. 8 items relate to WTC; they represent willingness to communicate at school, e.g. “I always give answers in English in class” and willingness to communicate out of class, e.g. “I feel worried when I have to speak English”. Most of the questions were taken from the study of Gardner and his “The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery”.
The AMTB contains 130 items which form five categories such as attitudes towards the learning situation, motivation, instrumental orientation, language anxiety and integrativeness. Subjects had to indicate their level of agreement using a 4 item Likert scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. A reliability analysis showed that Cronbach’s Alpha for motivation is .823 and .863 for WTC which is quite high, showing that all items measure almost the same construct.
20 lessons in English”. The assignment was purposefully designed taking into consideration the age of the subjects so that their real proficiency level could be established. All the essays were scored by a group of evaluators.
The evaluation started with a “training session” during which each evaluator had to assess a set of texts (100 in total) and had to grade them from 1 to 8; 1 was given to the weakest essays and 8 to the strongest ones. The grades were discussed among the raters in small groups of 3 or 4 and afterwards among all the raters in order to reach the consensus on reasons for evaluating the essays as strong or weak.
The raters agreed that such aspects as vocabulary, use of tenses, chunks and syntactic complexity can be taken into consideration while grading the essays. After the “training session” the raters formed small groups (3-4 people in each) and based on the aforementioned aspects evaluated the students’ works. If the majority of the raters could agree on a score, this score was accepted; if the raters were not “in tune” the score was discussed among all the raters. This procedure was repeated until all the essays had been scored.
To estimate the receptive English word knowledge the “English as a Foreign Language Vocabulary Test” (EFL vocabulary test) developed by Meara (1992) was used for defining receptive word knowledge of our foreign language learners. This test represents two types of words: real English words and non-existent words which are created according to English phonological rules. The EFL-test has various versions and contains different levels of difficulty. There are four types of responses possible for the EFL-test; two are correct responses which mean “yes” to an existing word and “no” to a pseudo-word; and two are incorrect responses which mean “no” to an existing word and “yes” to a pseudo word.
21 words) and another list which contained more sophisticated and less frequent words for the grades 4-6 (120 words). To calculate the scores on the EFL-test Isdt scoring method was used based on the Signal Detection theory and the following formula:
4h(1-f)-2(h-f)(1+h-f) Isdt = 1- —————————
4h(1-f)-(h-f)(1+h-f)
In this formula Isdt stands for EFL - score, h stands for hit and f - for false alarm. The final EFL scores ranged from 0-1 with 0 showing a very low vocabulary score and 1
indicating a very high vocabulary score.
3.3 Design and analyses
The Eindhoven project is a cross-sectional study that was conducted in order to see the impact of motivation and willingness to communicate on the language proficiency of bilingual students. Two groups of students: TTO VWO and TTO HAVO participated in this research. Motivation and WTC are compared in relation to measures of proficiency score, which is the sum of writing task and vocabulary test.
Among the 740 students included in the analysis, 541 of them are TTO students, 54 of them have either no vocabulary or writing score which leads to a missing proficiency score and 25 of them have no cito score. For the following reliability and factor analysis with motivation and willingness, only those students (487 in total) with a proficiency score are included. Proficiency score is a standardized score of the sum-up of the two standardized scores of vocabulary and writing.
22 to analyse the questionnaire and get better idea why students learn the English language the means of Motivation and WTC item scores were recalculated.
23
4. Results
This section highlights the results of the study including influence of motivation and WTC on the language proficiency, mean score of each motivational and WTC types as well as influence of background variables on each other.
In order to show that items of our questionnaire measure the same underlying constructs the reliability analysis was carried out for both variables Motivation and WTC. The reliability level of 15 motivation items is satisfactory .823. The reliability level of 8 WTC items is .863 which is very good. To reduce the number of unobserved variables Factor analysis was conducted.
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Positive attitude towards English and Integrative motivation Instrumental motivation and Attitude Integrative motivation and Attitude Attitude towards English class and instrumental motivation I enjoy speaking English .792
I like the English language .693 I would like to have many
English speaking friends
.655 I like to talk to native speakers
of English
.622 I am good at English .567 It is important for me to learn
English
.749 Studying English will be useful
in getting job
.669 English is an important
language of communication
.626
I will need English .607
English enables me to communicate
.603
I want to be fluent in English .418
I like my English class .766
I am interested in the cultures of English speaking countries
24 I understand everything during
my English lessons
.634 English helps me find new
friends on holiday
-.410 Table 1: Factor analysis of motivation items
Factors group together into four independent clusters. These clusters were defined as: a) Positive attitude towards English and Integrative motivation; b) Instrumental motivation and Attitude c) Integrative motivation and Attitude d) Attitude towards English class and instrumental motivation.
The first factor has a high loading on items I enjoy speaking English/I like the English
language/I would like to have many English speaking friends/I like to talk to native speakers of English/I am good at English. This factor clusters items that have to do with positive
attitude towards English and Integrative motivation.
The second factor has high loadings on the following items: It is important for me to
learn English/Studying English will be useful in getting job/ English is important language of communication/ I will need English/English enables me to communicate/I want to be fluent in English. These items can be described as measure of Instrumental motivation and Attitude.
The third factor contains the following items: I like my English class/I am interested
in the cultures of English speaking countries/I understand everything during my English class. This factor combines factors that seem to measure Integrative motivation and Attitude.
The last factor seems to combine items which measure Attitude towards English class and Instrumental motivation. Factor 1 Factor 2 Negative feeling about communication in English Confidence about speaking English
I am afraid that my classmates will laugh at me when I speak English
25
I get nervous speaking English .761
I don’t feel comfortable speaking English .760 I feel comfortable talking English in small
groups
.787 I feel comfortable talking English in large
groups
.746
I often give answers in English in class .714
I feel comfortable speaking English in a group discussion
.634 Table 2: Factor analysis of WTC items
For the 8 WTC items, the factor analysis results in a very clear pattern that 4 positive statements load on one factor and 4 negative ones load on another. Interestingly, examination of the factors showed that some measures lend to more than one factor, so these categories are not reciprocally exclusive.
In order to give a deeper insight on the major forces which make students learn English it is necessary to look at the means of the items of both streams: TTO VWO and TTO HAVO. The results show mean scores of Motivation and WTC items according to Likert scale strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree. They should be interpreted as following: the higher the mean score the more motivated the students are in the particular type.
Questions N Mean Std. Deviation
English is an important language of communication 487 3,75 ,436 It is important for me to learn English 487 3,56 ,532
I want to be fluent in English 487 3,53 ,547
English enables me to communicate with people from different countries
487 3,52 ,569
Studying English will help me to get a job 487 3,47 ,554
I will need English 487 3,31 ,637
I like the English language 487 3,29 ,518
I enjoy speaking English 487 3,22 ,548
26 I like to talk to native speakers of English 487 3,06 ,655 English helps me to find new friends on holiday 487 2,95 ,748
I like my English class 487 2,87 ,675
I am good at English 487 2,82 ,579
I would like to have many English speaking friends 487 2,74 ,724 I like culture of English speaking countries 487 2,60 ,777
Table 3: Mean scores of Motivation items
As it can be seen from the table, students find English language important for communication (3.75) and future career. Interestingly, the items “I would like to have many English speaking friends” and “I like culture of English speaking countries” show the lowest mean, which may represent that although students realise the importance of English language for their future life, they are not eager to know more about culture of the language they acquire. Thus, both streams of students seem to be more instrumentally motivated.
Questions N Mean Std.
deviation I'm afraid that my classmates will laugh at me when I
have to speak English.
487 3,35 ,706 I do not feel comfortable speaking English 487 3,27 ,640 I feel worried when I have to speak English 487 3,22 ,667 I feel comfortable talking English in a small group of
people my age
487 3,19 ,540
I get nervous speaking English 487 3,04 ,735
I feel comfortable speaking English in a group discussion
487 3,04 ,622 I often give answers in English in class 487 3,01 ,662 I feel comfortable talking English in a large group of
people my age
487 2,91 ,672
Table 4: Mean scores of WTC items (all negative WTC items have been recoded “strongly disagree” is given 4 and “strongly agree” is given 1).
27 classmates will laugh at them when they start speaking English. Moreover, the lowest mean shows that they do not feel comfortable speaking English in larger groups.
1) Do TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students differ in writing and vocabulary scores?
We assume that TTO VWO students have higher writing and vocabulary scores than TTO HAVO students.
Figure 1: Overall vocabulary scores of TTO VWO (grades 1-6) and TTO HAVO (grades 1-5) students
Figure 1 presents the vocabulary score of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students. We can see that overall vocabulary score of TTO VWO students is 0.80 which is slightly higher than vocabulary score of TTO HAVO students which is 0.73.
School type N Mean Sd
TTO VWO 263 .802 .098
TTO HAVO 199 .739 .107
Table 5: Vocabulary score of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
28 vocabulary score between TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students (t(460)=6.616, p<0.01), with TTO VWO students scoring higher than TTO HAVO students.
Figure 2: Overall writing scores of TTO VWO (grades 1-6) and TTO HAVO students (grades 1-5)
Figure 2 presents overall scores of the students of both streams: TTO VWO and TTO HAVO. It can be seen that overall writing score of TTO VWO students is 4.38 which is higher than overall writing score of TTO HAVO students which is 3.86.
School type N Mean Sd
TTO VWO 263 4.38 1.50
TTO HAVO 199 3.86 1.56
Table 6: Writing score of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
Table 6 presents writing score of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students. In order to see if the differences in writing score between TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students were significant, an independent samples t-test was used. The analysis showed that TTO VWO students outscored TTO HAVO students in writing task as well (t(460)=3.598, p<0.01).
29
Grades Mean Std
Writing score Grade 1 2.75 .095
Grade2 3.89 .115 Grade 3 4.29 .113 Grade 4 5.79 .123 Grade 5 5.21 .156 Grade 6 6.48 .216
Vocabulary score Grade 1 .716 .008
Grade2 .788 .010
Grade 3 .797 .010
Grade 4 .795 .011
Grade 5 .792 0.14
Grade 6 .853 0.19
Table 7: means of vocabulary and writing scores of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
30
Graph 1: Means of writing scores of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
Graph 2: means of vocabulary scores of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
31 grade 6 is made up of only TTO VWO students; therefore we would expect the difference to be more significant than if there were a TTO HAVO 6 grade. This is because TTO VWO students generally outperform TTO HAVO students.
A post hoc test of vocabulary score showed the difference between grade 1 and grade 2 was significant at p<0.01, the difference between grade 1 and grade 3 was significant at p<0.01; the difference between grade 2 and grade 3 was not significant at p=0.249. The difference between grade 4 and grade 5 was not significant at p=1; the difference between grade 4 and grade 6 was also not significant at p=0.183; the difference between grade 5 and grade 6 was not significant at p=0.212.
We expected that the difference between the higher grades would score higher in the vocabulary and writing tasks higher; although the analyses showed that the difference between the grades was not that big.
2) Does the level of motivation influence WTC?
We assume that motivation will have an impact on WTC of the students, so more motivated students are eager to communicate more.
32 A Pearson correlation was computed to assess the relationship between the Motivation and Willingness to communicate of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students. There was a medium positive correlation between two variables, correlation r=0.447, p=0.01 (two-tailed). The more students were motivated the more they were willing to communicate. A scatterplot summarizes the results (Figure 3).
3) Do motivation and WTC influence the language proficiency?
To show the influence of motivation and WTC on Language proficiency score a hierarchical multiple regression analysis is used to explore if motivation and WTC are still able to predict a significant amount of the variance in proficiency when we control for the possible effects of grade, school type and CITO score.
Model R R Square R Square change Adjusted R Square F Change Sig. F Change 1 .680 .462 .005 .458 4,491 .035 2 .706 .498 .036 .493 17.086 .000
Table 8: Results of the regression analysis
Table 8 shows the results of the regression analysis; table 9 represents models of background variables. The first model containing the predictors of “grade”, “school type” and “cito score” explains 46% of the variance in proficiency R2=0.462 (1,475), p<0.05. After entering two more predictors of “motivation” and “WTC” in the second model, a significant contribution is noticed. R2=0.498 (2,473), p<0.01.
Model Standerdized
Coefficients
T Sig.
33 (Constant) -3.415 .001 grades .597 17.758 .000 Cito score .130 3.054 .002 School type -.093 -2.203 .028 Motivation .121 3.208 .001 WTC .101 2.691 .007
Table 9: Models of background variables
Table 9 shows WTC and Motivation have a significant impact on language proficiency. Beta for motivation is .121 and for WTC .101; it means that these variables can be predictors of language proficiency of the students of both streams.
The analysis showed a positive influence of motivation and WTC on Language proficiency score. Moreover, these variables influenced the language proficiency score even if we controlled for cito score.
4) Are VWO TTO students more motivated and willing to communicate than HAVO TTO students?
We assume that TTO VWO students are more motivated and willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students.
34
Figure 4: Overall Motivation and WTC score
We can see that TTO HAVO students are slightly more motivated in comparison with TTO VWO students, but looking at WTC we can see that TTO VWO students are more willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students.
The assumption is that TTO VWO students are more motivated than TTO HAVO students. To check it we used an independent samples t-test (2-tailed). The results of the analysis showed that there was no significant difference in motivation between two school types (t (539) = -1.22, p=.221).
Another assumption is that TTW VWO students are more willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students. The t-test did not prove a significant difference between HAVO and VWO in their willingness to communicate (t (539) =1.231, p=0.219).
35
Figure 5: Subtotal motivation score of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
36
Figure 6: Subtotal WTC score of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students
Figure 6 represents Willingness to communicate of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students. In the first year TTO VWO students seem to willing to communicate more than TTO HAVO students. In the second year the level of WTC of both streams is approximately the same and rather high. Overall TTO VWO students seem to be slightly more willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students. However, similarly to their motivation levels, WTC also fluctuates between year groups, whereas that of the TTO HAVO students remain more constant.
37
5. Discussion
The reliability analysis for both variables Motivation and WTC showed that items of our questionnaire measure the same underlying constructs. In order to reduce unobserved variables Factor analysis was performed.
We looked at the means of the items of both streams: TTO VWO and TTO HAVO. The analyses showed that students of both streams have a positive attitude towards English language, they find it important to learn as they realize that knowing it will help them to find better job in the future. Interestingly, students are not eager to know more about the culture of English speaking countries and to know more native speakers. Moreover, they are interested in communicating with the help of English with people of other cultures. This result proves that students consider English as means to communicate with people from all over the world, than just with native speakers.
1) Do TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students differ in writing and vocabulary scores?
An independent simple t-test showed that that the difference in wiring and vocabulary score between TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students is significant. TTO VWO students outscored TTO HAVO students in both tasks. In vocabulary score the difference was slightly noticeable; it can be explained by the fact that students follow the same program at school, they have the same input of English language.
38 The post hoc test of vocabulary scores showed that the difference between grades 2; 1-3 was significant, but the difference between 2-1-3 was not significant; the level of proficiency in writing of TTO VWO students seem to be slightly worse than the level of proficiency of TTO HAVO students. The difference between grade 4 and grade 5 was not significant as well the difference between grade 4 and grade 6; the difference between grade 5 and grade 6 was not significant too.
This analysis showed that in terms of writing proficiency TTO VWO students do achieve higher grades; however, after analysis of the vocabulary scores. The non-significant result between grades 5-6 suggests that TTO HAVO students are as proficient in this area as TTO VWO students.
In terms of receptive skills, it seems that TTO HAVO students may be at the same level as TTO VWO students only their productive skills are somewhat below TTO VWO level. In the future it may be interesting to research this outcome using other forms of receptive and productive skills testing to see if the same results are found. This research used only vocabulary recognition and writing proficiency. It would be interesting to find out if the same applies for skills such as reading comprehension and speaking.
We assumed that the difference between the higher grades would perform better in the vocabulary and writing tasks than lower grades, though the analyses showed that the difference between the grades was not that big.
2) Does the level of motivation influence WTC?
39 It means that the more students are motivated the more they willing to communicate. It coincides with the research of McIntyre et al (1996) who investigated the influence of motivation on WTC and found out that motivation is significantly correlated with L2 WTC. This outcome seems to be reasonable, because the more motivated students feel more confident and as a result their anxiety level is lower. As Yashima (2002) states, highly motivated students put an effort in learning and as a result their level of proficiency improves and their confidence increases and they are willing to communicate more.
3) Do motivation and WTC influence language proficiency?
We assumed that motivation and willingness to communicate could be predictors of language proficiency. Willingness to communicate can be characterized as readiness to communicate in L2; a learner chooses a specific moment when he/she decides to become an active L2 user. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that these learner’s characteristics have a significant impact on language proficiency. We got two models; one of them represented predictors of “grades”, “school type” and “cito” and these variables could explain 46% of language proficiency, but after adding “WTC” and “motivation” in a second model, we could see a significant contribution to the students’ language proficiency. It shows that individual feeling and motives may partly determine success in acquiring the L2. Interestingly, even when we control for cito score, WTC and Motivation still influenced the proficiency score of the students of both streams.
40
4) Are TTO VWO students more motivated and willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students?
We assumed that TTO VWO students are more motivated and willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students as their level of proficiency proved to be higher. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference in motivation and willingness to communicate between the school types. This outcome seems to be reasonable as the students follow the same bilingual program, using the same books and materials and having the same input.
Figure 5presents subtotal motivation scores between grades of TTO VWO and TTO HAVO students and we can see that TTO HAVO students seem to be slightly more motivated than TTO VWO students during first two years; in grade 3 the difference is seen more clearly, but in grade 5 TTO HAVO students demonstrate much higher motivation than TTO VWO students. It is worth mentioning that motivation of TTO HAVO students increases, while the development of motivation of TTO VWO students fluctuates. Another interesting observation is that the level of motivation of TTO HAVO students in the 4th grade is slightly higher than in the 5th grade; motivation of TTO VWO students is rather high in the 4th than in the previous years.
41
6. Conclusion
To bring the paper to a close, I would like to highlight the main outcomes of this research. The learners’ characteristics such as motivation and willingness to communicate seem to contribute to second language learning success.
The results of our analyses showed that the students of both streams are motivated and willing to communicate in L2 almost equally. Interestingly, TTO HAVO students seemed to be more motivated while TTO VWO students – more willing to communicate. This result may show that the results did not prove our assumption that TTO HAVO students are less motivated than TTO VWO students; on the contrary, some of the results showed that TTO HAVO students are slightly more motivated and willing to communicate than TTO VWO students. Though, TTO VWO students showed higher level of proficiency as they outscored TTO HAVO students in writing and vocabulary tasks.
Our assumption about the higher level of proficiency of TTO VWO students has been proved to be true. Moreover, the analysis of vocabulary and writing scores of the students of both streams showed that difference in language proficiency exists and TTO VWO students, in general, outscore TTO HAVO students. Although, our assumption about significant differences between the higher grades in writing and vocabulary scores was not proved.
We found out that motivation has a certain impact on WTC; it means that more motivated students are willing to communicate more. This outcome is reasonable as the level of language proficiency of the students was high enough to speak English freely and to show their eagerness to express themselves in L2.
42 of the fact that they will have to communicate by means of English with people from different countries not necessarily with native speakers. The students see the English language as an important tool of communication and not necessarily communication with native speakers.
Another important result of the study is that TTO VWO students seem to be more willing to communicate than TTO HAVO students; although TTO HAVO students seem to be more motivated than TTO VWO students. Interestingly, TTO VWO students showed more fluctuation in motivation and willingness to communicate while TTO HAVO students were more constant.
43
References
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The effects of gender and immersion on
communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311-347. (PDF)
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach t language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning, 41(4), 469-512
Clément, R. & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations on second language acquisition: The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and their target language on their emergence. Language
Learning, 33, 273-291.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language
Learning, 40, 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 78(3), 266-272.
Dornyei, Z. (2001), Teaching and Researching Motivation. Applied Linguistics in Action, London: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gage, N.L. & Berliner, D.C. (1998). Educational Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972), Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language
44 Gardner, R.C. (1983) Learning another language: A true social psychological experiment.
Journal of Language and Social Psycology, 2, 219-239
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C. (1996). Motivation and second language acquisition: perspectives. Journal of the CAAL, 18(2), 19-42.
Gardner, R.C. (2001). Language Learning Motivation: the Student, the Teacher, and the Researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6, 1-18. (PDF)
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational Design of Instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional Design Theories and Models. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 386-433.
Lalonde, R. N., & Gardner, R. C. (1984). Investigating a causal model of second language acquisition: Where does personality fit? Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 16, 224-237.
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. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and
Curriculum Center.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
McCroskey, J.C., & Baer, J.E. (1985, November).Willingness to communicate: the construct
and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech
45 McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado. (PDF)
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to Communicate and interpersonal communication. In J. C. McCroskey& J. A. Daly (Eds). Personality and interpersonal
communication, 129-156.
McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56(1), 72-77.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition, and anxiety 19-37. MacIntyre, P. D. & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of
second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3-26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
Meara, P. (1992). EFL Vocabulary Test. Swansea: Centre for Applied Language Studies. Oxford, R. L. (1996). New pathways of language learning motivation. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.)
Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century. (pp. 1-8) Honolulu,
HA: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R. L. & Shearin, J. (1994) Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
46 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tremblay, P. F., and Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.
Tucker, G. R. (1981). Social policy and second language teaching. In R. C. Gardner & R. Kalin (Eds.), A Canadian social psychology of ethnic relations. Toronto, On., Canada: Methuen.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2010). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism.In P. Watzlawick, The
Invented Reality, 17-40.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe L. & Gale J. (Eds.) (1995). Constructivism in education, 3-16.
Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational psychology 7th edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wu, M. W. & Stansfield, C.W. (2001). Towards authenticity of task in test development.
Language Testing, 18(2). 187-206.
Yashima, T., & Tanaka, T. (2001).Roles of social support and social skills in the intercultural adjustment of Japanese adolescent sojourners in the USA. Psychological Reports, 88, 1201–1210.
47
Appendices
Appendix A. Questionnaire
Please indicate how much you agree with each of these statements: Strongly agree – Agree – Disagree – Strongly disagree
Motivation:
1. I am good at English compared to my fellow students 2. I enjoy speaking English
3. I like the English language
4. English enables me to communicate with people from different language groups 5. It is important for me to learn English
6. I will need English after high school for my studies
7. Studying English is important because it will be useful in getting a job 8. I like to talk to native speakers of English
9. English helps me to find new friends on holiday
10. English is an important language of communication in the world 11. I like my English class
12. I understand everything during my English lessons 13. I would like to have many English speaking friends 14. I want to be fluent in English
15. I am interested in the cultures of English speaking countries
Willingness to communicate at school:
48 2. I often give answers in English in class
3. I get nervous speaking English
4. I’m afraid that my classmates will laugh at me when I have to speak English.
Willingness to communicate out of school
5. I feel comfortable talking English in a small group of people my age 6. I feel comfortable talking English in a large group of people my age 7. I do not feel comfortable speaking English
8. I feel worried when I have to speak English
In class Engagement
1. I learn a lot from textbook exercises 2. I like to work in a group
3. I like to work on my own 4. I like to watch videos
5. I learn a lot from listening exercises 6. I listen to the teacher in class
7. I listen to the teacher when he/she talks about grammar
8. I listen to the teacher when he/she talks about the meaning of new words
9. What’s your favourite thing to do in your English class? (Je mag het ook in Nederlands schrijven)
Out of school contact
Please indicate how much time you spend on these activities:
49 per week
1. How many hours per week do you spend listening to English music?
2. How many hours per week do you spend watching English television programmes? 3. How many hours per week do you spend reading English NOT English?
4. How much time per week do you spend speaking English out of school? 5. How many hours per week do you play English video games?
50
Appendix B. The EFL Vocabulary test
