Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes: Longitudinal, Comparative and Explanatory Perspectives 9781441194275, 9781472542205, 9781441167361

Citation preview

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Also Available From Bloomsbury Bloomsbury Companion to Discourse Analysis, edited by Ken Hyland and Brian Paltridge Bloomsbury Companion to Second Language Acquisition, edited by Ernesto Macaro First Language Acquisition in Spanish, Gilda Socarras Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, edited by Claire Kramsch Parameter Setting in Language Acquisition, Dalila Ayoun Second Language Identities, David Block

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes Longitudinal, Comparative and Explanatory Perspectives Sybille Heinzmann

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com First published 2013 © Sybille Heinzmann, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Sybille Heinzmann has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as author of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-1-4411-6736-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Heinzmann, Sybille. Young Language Learners’ motivation and attitudes : longitudinal, comparative and explanatory perspectives / Sybille Heinzmann. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4411-9427-5 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4411-6736-1 (pdf) -- ISBN 978-1-4411-5783-6 (epub) 1. Language and languages--Study and teaching (Elementary) 2. Language arts (Elementary) I. Title. P51.H45 2013 372.6--dc23 2013007979 Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

To Daniel and Kainoa

Contents Figures Tables Acknowledgements Abbreviations

ix xi xiii xv

1

Aims and Scope of the Book

2

Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation 7 2.1 Social psychological perspectives 7 2.2 Educational psychological perspectives 24 2.3 Integrating different perspectives: Dörnyei’s Process Model of Motivation 39

3

Language Attitudes and Stereotypes 3.1 The relationship between language attitudes and language learning

1

45

motivation46

3.2 Stereotypes and their relation to language attitudes 3.3 Research into language learners’ stereotypes of TL speakers 3.4 Can negative attitudes and stereotypes be changed?

49 51 57

4

Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology 65 4.1 Foreign language education in Switzerland 65 4.2 Research questions, research design and samples 67 4.3 Instruments 69 4.4 Scaling procedure 75 4.5 Analysis 80

5

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions 5.1 Overall motivation 5.2 Intrinsic orientation 5.3 Extrinsic–instrumental orientation 5.4 Extrinsic–lingua franca orientation 5.5 Summary and conclusions

89 95 100 104 107 116

viii Contents

6

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions 125 6.1 Attitudes towards TL groups 125 6.2 Attitudes towards a globalized world 132 6.3 Attitudes towards English 137 6.4 Summary and conclusions 143

7

Learners’ Evaluation of English and French in Comparison 7.1 Language learning motivation 7.2 Language attitudes 7.3 Perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of English and French 7.4 Summary and conclusions

8

151 152 159 165 174

Factors Influencing Primary School Children’s Language Learning Motivation and Language Attitudes 181 8.1 English 187 8.2 French 195 8.3 The effect of different kinds of attitudes on language learning motivation 205 8.4 Summary and conclusions 207

Notes References Appendix Index

221 225 239 261

Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Motivation and its antecedents Initial model of language learning motivation Clément’s Social Context Model Extended model of language learning motivation 1 Self-Determination Theory Extended model of language learning motivation 2 Extended model of language learning motivation 3 A process-model of motivation

8 19 21 24 26 31 38 41

3.1 Extended model of language learning motivation 4

57

4.1 Invariance testing LGC models

86

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

96

Second-order LGC model overall motivation Second-order LGC model intrinsic orientation Second-order LGC model instrumental orientation Second-order LGC model lingua franca orientation Individual differences development of lingua franca orientation boys Individual differences development of lingua franca orientation monolinguals

6.1 Second-order LGC model attitudes towards English TL groups without USA 6.2 Autoregressive model attitudes towards a globalized world 6.3 Autoregressive model attitudes towards English 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Comparison motivational dimensions English and French Comparison of attitudes towards English and French TL groups Comparison of attitudes towards English and French Evaluation of the importance of English and French

8.1 Input model motivation English and French 8.2 Antecedents of English motivation final model 8.3 Antecedents of French motivation final model

101 105 109 113 116

128 135 141 156 161 165 170 184 189 197

Tables 2.1 Three dimensional attributional model

33

4.1 Data collection plan 4.2 Overview of the constructs assessed and the corresponding scales and subscales

69

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

90

Motivation to learn English across the years Bootstrap estimates LGC model overall motivation Bootstrap estimates LGC model intrinsic orientation Bootstrap estimates LGC model instrumental orientation Bootstrap estimates LGC model lingua franca orientation Bootstrap estimates LGC model lingua franca orientation by gender Bootstrap estimates LGC model lingua franca orientation by language background

6.1 Attitudes towards English TL groups across the years 6.2 Bootstrap estimates LGC model attitudes towards English TL groups without USA 6.3 Attitudes towards a globalized world across the years 6.4 Bootstrap estimates autoregressive model attitudes towards a globalized world 6.5 Attitudes towards English across the years 6.6 Bootstrap estimates autoregressive model attitudes towards English 7.1 5th graders’ motivational orientations with regard to English and French 7.2 5th graders’ effort and perception of the importance of English and French 7.3 5th graders’ Swiss orientation 7.4 Wilcoxon Tests motivation to learn English and French 7.5 Attitudes towards English TL groups 7.6 Attitudes towards French TL groups 7.7 5th graders’ attitudes towards English and French 7.8 5th graders’ evaluation of the importance of English and French

80

97 102 106 110 112 114 126 130 133 136 138 142

153 154 155 157 159 160 163 168

xii Tables

7.9 5th graders’ perception of the spread of English and French

171

8.1 Bootstrap estimates final model English 8.2 Standardized direct, indirect and total effects on motivation and language attitudes with regard to English 8.3 Bootstrap estimates final model French 8.4 Standardized direct, indirect and total effects on motivation and language attitudes with regard to French

190 193 199 204

Acknowledgements This book and the empirical research preceding it could not have been completed without the help of a great many people, and I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have contributed in different ways to this endeavour. First and foremost I would like to thank my husband Daniel Agten for both his patience and his impatience with me during the many years I invested into this project, his unfaltering belief in me, and his unwavering support. My parents Marcel Heinzmann and Judith Furrer I want to thank for always having let me go my own way, always having believed in me and at the same time never having asked anything more from me than simply giving it my best shot. I am also deeply indebted to Prof. Dr Didier Maillat, Prof. Dr Richard Schmidt, Prof. Dr Andrea Haenni Hoti and Prof. Dr Peter Trudgill for their tireless academic and personal support. Furthermore, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Dr Didier Maillat, Prof. Dr Richard Schmidt and Dr Martin Lamb for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of parts of this manuscript. I also want to acknowledge the Swiss National Science Foundation that supported this study with a scholarship that greatly contributed to its advancement and quality. When starting out upon this study I was a complete novice in the field of statistics. I could never have accomplished the analysis of the data without the help of a great many people. I am thankful to Prof. Dr Eldad Davidov, Dr Odilo Huber, Prof. Dr Marianne Müller, Prof. Dr Werner Wicki, Dr Carmine Maiello and Andrea Hauser for having taken the time to answer my countless questions about statistics and for providing help where help was needed. Furthermore, I could also count on the help of a number of people for the many data collections that this study entailed. In this respect my thanks go to Lenny Bugayong, Chantal Imhof and Luzia Wicki, who helped me with the data collections in the subsample. Naturally, I also want to express my gratitude to my dear friends who never tired of listening to my worries and complaints in all those years. In particular, I want to thank Fabiola Eyholzer for having taken the time to format the manuscript and Michael Rollins for being such an unfailing proofreader.

xiv Acknowledgements

I am also grateful to Prof. Dr Dörnyei and Prof. Dr Gardner who granted me permission to reproduce their diagrams and to the Bloomsbury editorial team for their professional and efficient work.

Abbreviations EDK

Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren (Swiss Conference of Cantonal Educational Ministers)

EFL

English as a foreign language

ELF

English as a lingua franca

FL

Foreign language

L1

Mother tongue, first language

L2

Second language, in the context of this study: first foreign language taught at school

L3

Third language, in the context of this study: second foreign language taught at school

LGC

Latent growth curve

ML

Maximum likelihood

SEM

Structural equation modelling

SLA

Second language acquisition

TL

Target language

WTC Willingness to communicate

1

Aims and Scope of the Book

If you want to build a ship, don’t herd people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry This book details the findings of a longitudinal study investigating Swiss primary school children’s motivational and attitudinal dispositions with regard to English and French – which are the two foreign languages (henceforth FLs) taught at the primary school level in most parts of German-speaking Switzerland. The book approaches the motivation and attitudes of young learners from three rather distinct perspectives. The first perspective is a longitudinal perspective and is devoted to a macro-level analysis of primary school children’s motivational and attitudinal trajectory with respect to English across a time span of two years. The comparative perspective delves into a comparison of learners’ motivational and attitudinal profiles with respect to English and French. The explanatory perspective, finally, identifies key antecedents of the learners’ motivational and attitudinal dispositions, thereby opening up possible paths for intervention. The study was undertaken in the context of a major school reform in Switzerland involving the introduction of a second FL into the primary school curriculum (1st to 6th grade) and the bringing forward of the onset of FL instruction into the 3rd grade of primary school. As a result, children in Switzerland now start learning their first FL when they are 9–10 years old and their second FL when they are 11–12 years old. The implementation of this reform is in line with the language policy of the European Union, whose professed aim it is to make future European citizens functionally multilingual in order to secure mobility and cohesion in

2

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

an increasingly globalized and politically, economically and socially interconnected Europe. It is part of a global tendency to introduce or intensify FL instruction at the pre-school or primary school level and mirrors similar educational reforms implemented in many Asian and other European countries (see Cenoz, 2004, pp. 202–3; Enever, 2011, pp. 10, 24). Despite the increased attention that FL instruction at the primary level has received due to these recent educational reforms, there has been little research into the effects of FL teaching at the primary school level so far and those studies that do exist mostly focus on linguistic outcomes (see Cenoz, 2004, p. 204). This is also true of the more comprehensive study within whose framework the present study was conducted (see Haenni Hoti et al., 2011; Heinzmann et al., 2010). The build-up of linguistic skills is not the only and maybe not even the principal goal of FL instruction at the primary school level, however (see Enever, 2011, p. 20). The curriculum for English of Central Switzerland stresses that it is also a goal of FL instruction at the primary school level to build up favourable motivational and attitudinal dispositions that will be conducive to lifelong learning (see Bildungsplanung Zentralschweiz, 2004). It is exactly these affective dimensions of language learning that are the focus of this book. Ever since Gardner and Lambert’s groundbreaking research into language learning motivation carried out in Canada in the 1950s, it has been widely acknowledged that a student’s success at language learning is dependent to a considerable extent on his or her motivation to learn the language. Considering that learners’ motivation is amenable to change, it is not surprising that it has become a widely and intensely researched topic. The ultimate aim of most motivation research is undoubtedly to come up with relevant findings that help practitioners to boost student motivation in the case of unfavourable motivational dispositions or to maintain favourable motivational dispositions. If this goal is to be achieved, motivation research has to go beyond a descriptive account of learner motivation and try to identify what factors can account for particularly high or low levels of motivation. One factor that has repeatedly been shown to impact on students’ motivation to learn a language is their language attitudes. While language learning motivation and language attitudes have long been a widely and intensely researched topic, particularly in the last 20 years, which have been characterized by a resurgence and reorientation of motivation research, it has been little researched in the context of young learners (see Cenoz, 2004, p. 204; Donato et al., pp. 377–8; Stöckli, 2006, p. 58).



Aims and Scope of the Book

3

The dearth of motivation and attitude research in this context has several causes, the most obvious being that until quite recently, institutional, nationwide foreign language learning at the pre-school or primary school level was not enormously widespread. Quite naturally, the above-mentioned Europe-wide tendency of introducing FLs earlier into the curriculum (see Cenoz, 2004, pp. 202–3) has resulted in an increased interest in young learners, but, as already pointed out, this interest has mainly been directed at proficiency or achievement. The few studies that (partly) focus on motivation and/or language attitudes (see Husfeldt and Bader Lehmann, 2009; Mihaljević Djigunović, 1993; Nikolov, 1999; Purdie et al., 2002; Schaer and Bader, 2003, 2005; Shameem, 2004) in most cases concentrate on descriptively outlining the children’s motivation and/or attitudes. With the exception of one study (see Stöckli, 2004), the primary aim is not to illuminate how motivation interacts with a number of other learner variables that may be instrumental for the learning process but to find out how the children feel about the languages they are learning and how much they enjoy studying them. The present study will go beyond a descriptive account of primary school children’s language learning motivation and language attitudes by identifying factors which contribute to the conditioning of these and elucidating the relationships existing between different antecedents of motivation and language attitudes. Another respect in which the present study goes beyond previous studies focusing on young learners is in its broader conceptualization of motivation and its focus on issues of language globalization. Motivation and language attitude research in recent decades has often revolved around the question of whether and how the status of English as a global lingua franca affects learners’ language learning motivation or the applicability of well-established motivation theories to the study of English around the world. Many scholars have raised doubts, for example, on the suitability of Gardner’s well-known construct of an integrative orientation, which denotes a desire of the learner to integrate into the target language (henceforth TL) community, in contexts where English is learnt as a FL and where, due to its status as a global language, it is not associated with a clearly defined TL community (see Dörnyei et al., 2006; Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009; El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a, 2001b; Erling, 2004; House, 2003; Stöckli, 2004; Yashima, 2009; Yashima et al., 2004). The focus on issues of language globalization and its effect on language learning motivation brings with it an examination of variables which, so far, have been more or less ignored in studies dealing with young learners. Among

4

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

these variables are learners’ perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of the languages they are learning and their attitudes towards aspects of a globalized world, the latter being a newly proposed construct for the appraisal of Englishrelated language attitudes. As such, the present study complements a number of other studies that have attempted to adapt Gardner’s motivation theory in the light of a globalized world by suggesting alternative concepts. It is the only study of this type, however, in which the participants are primary school children. Language attitude research at the primary school level may also be relatively scarce because some scholars doubt that young learners of FLs have developed relevant attitudes towards TL speakers and countries, given that they do not yet know a lot about them (for such an argumentation with reference to FL learning contexts in general see Cenoz et al., 2001, p. 5; Dörnyei, 1990, pp. 48–9; Kirchner, 2004, p. 22; Oxford and Shearin, 1994, p. 15). Can nine-yearold children in Switzerland be expected to have developed relevant attitudes towards English speakers and English-speaking countries, for example? After all, their contact with TL speakers is likely to have been extremely limited if not completely absent. However, previous attitude and stereotype research suggests that even very young children develop language attitudes and stereotypes and that the development of such attitudes and stereotypes is not dependent on direct contact or familiarity with TL groups (see sections 3.1 and 3.2). Yet another reason why research into younger learners’ motivational and attitudinal dispositions is not as common as research into adolescents’ and adults’ motivation and language attitudes is the fact that children’s motivation and language attitudes are thought to be less stabilized by many researchers (Gardner, 2005a, p. 15; 2005b, p. 18). Huguet and Llurda (2001) point out that attitudes start to emerge around the age of ten and are clarified and consolidated during adolescence: Prior to this consolidation these attitudes are likely to fluctuate widely (p. 271). If this is indeed true, why should we take the trouble to study them? The answer is simple: if young children’s motivation and attitudes are not yet stabilized this means that they are still malleable and something can be done about negative motivational and attitudinal dispositions before they become firmly established (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, p. 144). It is much more difficult to change attitudes once they have become firmly established (Ingram and O’Neill, 1999, p. 36). While this is a promising prospect, it also needs to be pointed out that our knowledge about the (in)stability of motivational and attitudinal dispositions of young children is as yet limited due to the limited number of studies dealing with this issue. As Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) point out, “relatively little



Aims and Scope of the Book

5

research has addressed the process of motivational development over time, either at the micro-level of moment-by-moment experience or the macro-level of long-term experience or life history” (p. 6), despite the fact that numerous scholars have pointed out the need for such studies (see Cenoz, 2004; Day, 1982; Donato et al., 2000; Enever, 2011, p. 11; Kirchner, 2004; McGroarty, 2001). If the affective dispositions of younger learners indeed fluctuate more than those of older learners, longitudinal studies seem to be all the more vital in this context. The present study can be seen as a contribution to closing this research gap. It is a longitudinal study accompanying Swiss primary school children from 3rd grade to 5th grade and documenting their language learning motivation and language attitudes with regard to English which they start learning in 3rd grade. It aims to help clarify the question of how stable primary school children’s motivational and attitudinal dispositions are. In this respect it may be important to note that the perspective taken in this study is what Dörnyei et al. (2006, p. xi) call ‘macro-motivational’. This means that the motivational and attitudinal dimensions that are being studied are generalizable across different classrooms. The study targets general motivational dispositions and language attitudes rather than situation-specific or task-specific motives where fluctuations are likely to be more pronounced. Consequently, situation-specific aspects of motivation and language attitudes, such as classroom-related and teacher-related aspects, are not focused on, despite no doubt being highly relevant (see Mihaljevic Djigunovic and Lopriore, 2011, p. 58; Nikolov, 1999, pp. 35–8, 42–5, 53; Tragant Mestres and Lundberg, 2011, pp. 81–100). Whether it is more profitable to look primarily at locally defined and situation-specific aspects of motivation or broader and more generalized aspects ultimately depends on the research questions guiding any particular study. The present study includes different groups of learners from different areas with different teachers using different coursebooks. Its primary aim is to provide a general appraisal of motivational and attitudinal dispositions of primary school children as well as their determinants, to identify developments in these generalized dispositions, and to contribute to an understanding of how a major social development (globalization) affects motivational and attitudinal dispositions as well as their relationship with each other. Consequently, a macro-level approach seemed to be most promising. Obviously, this approach cannot provide a finetuned analysis of the effect of the teacher and his or her instruction. It also cannot reveal much about individual learners’ personal relationship with the languages they are learning or their idiosyncratic motivational trajectories. It

6

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

can, however, complement longitudinal studies focusing more on the microlevel of children’s motivation and attitudes with regard to specific classroom activities or in relation to the teacher (Mihaljević Djigunović, 1993; Mihaljević Djigunović and Letica Krevelj, 2009; Nikolov, 1999) and thereby provide new insights into the motivational development of young learners. Before launching into a description of the methodological design or the findings of the study, I will situate it in the broader scheme of things by outlining the theoretical frameworks and concepts underlying it.

2

Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

Research into student motivation has a long-standing tradition. Ever since Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) demonstration of the importance of motivation for achievement in the 1950s, motivation has been actively researched in different disciplines. This chapter provides an overview of the most influential motivational theories developed within the disciplines of Social Psychology and Educational Science.

2.1 Social psychological perspectives Research into language learning motivation was pioneered by Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert in the 1950s in Canada. Their extensive research testifies to the importance of motivation/attitudes as a separate factor influencing language learning achievement independent of language aptitude (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, pp. 53–4). This led them to postulate a sociopsychological theory of language learning. This theory holds that … success in mastering a second language would depend not only on intellectual capacity and language aptitude but also on the learner’s perceptions of the other ethnolinguistic group involved, his attitudes towards representatives of that group and his willingness to identify enough to adopt distinctive aspects of behaviour, linguistic and non-linguistic, that characterize that other group (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, p. 132).

As the name implies, a social psychological theory of language learning is characterized by its emphasis on social and psychological aspects involved in language learning. This focus will be evident in the presentation of social psychological models of language learning in the next two subchapters.

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

8

2.1.1 Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model The model Based on his empirical research in different settings, Gardner developed the socioeducational model of language learning (see Gardner, 1985, pp. 146–9, 2005b, p. 5). This model is by far the most influential model of motivation to have emerged from social psychological research. Gardner points out that the socioeducational model of language learning is primarily concerned with motivation and factors that sustain it. Figure 2.1 illustrates Gardner’s conception of motivation and its antecedents (Gardner, 2005b, p. 6). A student’s motivation is determined by two main factors: his or her attitudes toward the learning situation and his or her integrativeness. Attitudes towards the learning situation refer to the student’s evaluation of different aspects of the learning situation such as the teacher, the coursebook, the class atmosphere etc. Integrativeness is a concept that has led to a substantial amount of confusion. This confusion is understandable as Gardner distinguishes

OTHER SUPPORT

INTEGRATIVENESS

OTHER FACTORS MOTIVATION

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE LEARNING SITUATION

LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT

INTEGRATIVE MOTIVATION LANGUAGE APTITUDE Figure 2.1  Motivation and its antecedents (from Gardner, 2005b, p. 6)



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

9

between an integrative orientation, integrative motivation and integrativeness. Integrativeness, as Gardner defines it, refers to an openness to other cultures in general and to the TL culture in particular. Individuals who are high in integrativeness display an openness to taking on characteristics of another cultural and linguistic group (Gardner, 2005a, p. 10). Gardner conceptualized integrativeness as consisting of three dimensions: an interest in FLs, positive attitudes towards the TL community, and an integrative orientation. An individual who has high integrativeness, consequently, is characterized by having a general interest in FLs, being positively disposed towards the TL community, and having an integrative orientation to language learning. Among all the concepts in Gardner’s model that have to do with integrativeness, the concept of an integrative orientation is by far the most well-known. Gardner developed a distinction between integrative orientation and instrumental orientation that was to become highly influential for later research. Orientation refers to the reasons an individual has for learning a language. An integrative orientation is characterized by a goal of becoming psychologically closer to TL speakers. It implies having a positive disposition towards the TL community (Gardner, 2001, p. 10; Gardner and Lambert, 1972, pp. 12–14). Someone who has an integrative orientation has a desire to interact with and even become similar to valued members of the TL community. In extreme cases it might even involve complete identification with the TL community. An integrative orientation, hence, implies some sort of psychological and emotional identification with the TL community (Dörnyei, 2003, p. 5). An instrumental orientation, on the other hand, implies learning the language for more pragmatic reasons, such as gaining social recognition or economic advantages (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, p. 14). While the distinction between an integrative and an instrumental orientation was to become highly influential, the two concepts involved were also often misunderstood and mistaken for integrative and instrumental motivation. It is rather common for motivation scholars to assess learners’ motivation to learn a given language solely by asking them for their reasons for doing so. In Gardner’s model, reasons for learning a language (that is orientations) are only one constituent of language learning motivation, however. Gardner rightly insists that there is more to motivation than having a reason for doing something and that motivation cannot be assessed by asking students for their reasons for learning alone. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 4) point out that, while there is no commonly agreed upon definition of motivation, most researchers agree that motivation

10

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

concerns the direction and magnitude of human behaviour. As such, motivation is what accounts for the choice of a certain action (why people do what they do), the persistence with that particular action (how long they are willing to sustain the action) and the effort that they expend on it (how hard they are pursuing the action). It is evident from this characterization of motivation that there is more to motivation than having a goal. A motivated individual will put effort into the attainment of his or her goals (commitment, action) and continue to pursue them (persistence). According to Gardner, language learning motivation can be said to be made up of at least four components: orientations (reasons for learning), motivational intensity (effort), desire to learn the language, and positive attitudes towards learning the language (Gardner, 1985, p. 50; 2005a, p. 6; n.d., pp. 9–10; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995, p. 506). Someone who is motivated has a goal, makes efforts, wishes to achieve his or her goal and enjoys what he or she is doing. Therefore, an investigation of student motivation should include as many of the above-mentioned constituents as possible (Gardner, 1985, pp. 52–4). Unfortunately, many motivation studies still fail to go beyond an investigation of orientations.

Integrative and instrumental orientation: which is better? Initially, Gardner and Lambert claimed that an integrative orientation is more conducive to high achievement than an instrumental orientation, because it is better able to sustain long-term motivation. They based this contention on research carried out in Montreal where they found that integratively oriented students were more successful than instrumentally oriented students (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, pp. 4, 132, 196). They mitigated this claim very early on, however. A study they conducted in the Philippines demonstrated that, in this context, an instrumental orientation was very effective for a successful acquisition of English. They attributed this effectiveness of the instrumental orientation to the fact that in the Philippines a high instrumental value is placed on English, which is the language of economic life and the major medium of instruction (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, pp. 122, 130). These and other findings have led to a realization that no orientation to language learning is inherently better than another and that it is of crucial importance to take the social context into account (Baker, 1992, pp. 35–6; Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 275; McGroarty, 2001, p. 72; Noels et al., 2000, pp. 59–60). Despite admitting the effectiveness of an instrumental orientation in the Philippine setting, Gardner continued to focus on integrative orientation and



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

11

integrative motivation in subsequent research. He also never developed a framework of instrumental motivation paralleling his framework of integrative motivation outlined above. He does distinguish between an integrative and an instrumental orientation and he does make the integrative orientation a component of integrative motivation, but he has not elaborated a concept ‘instrumental motivation’ with the instrumental orientation being part of this type of motivation (Dörnyei, 1994b, pp. 518–21). Consequently, while an integrative–instrumental dichotomy exists at the level of orientations, such a dichotomy does not exist at the level of motivation. This is confusing and could be interpreted as an underestimation of the importance of instrumentality. Gardner argues that he never developed a framework of instrumental motivation because the integrative and instrumental orientations are in no way antagonistic counterparts. They are often positively related, both contributing to students’ motivation. This claim has indeed been verified by empirical findings (Baker, 1992, p. 35; Dörnyei, 1994b, p. 520; Gardner and Tremblay, 1994a, p. 360; Schmidt and Watanabe, 2001, pp. 321–2). What is not plausible, however, is Gardner’s deduction that both instrumental and integrative orientation contribute to a student’s integrative motivation (Gardner and Tremblay, 1994a, p. 360). If empirical findings demonstrate that students usually do not learn a language for a single reason but have different reasons for learning, it does not make sense to name the resulting motivation after one of these orientations. There is no justification for giving priority to one of the contributing orientations over the others. Therefore, it would make more sense to simply talk about motivation, rather than integrative motivation, if different orientations are implicated. In this book, different kinds of orientation to language learning will be assessed, but no reference will be made to different types of motivation on the basis of these orientations. Instead, a general motivation score, subsuming learners’ scores on all the different orientations assessed, will be used as a motivation index.

The importance of an integrative orientation in a globalized world Recently, the concept of an integrative orientation has been the object of considerable attention in studies dealing with English as a foreign language (henceforth EFL) around the world. In the course of globalization, English has become a global language. As Dewey (2007, p. 333) aptly points out, English is like no other language in its current role internationally. The extent of its geographical diffusion and the cultural diversity of its speakers as well as the varied purposes it serves are unparalleled. English is used as a lingua franca by people around

12

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

the world. This has led to a situation in which non-native speakers have come to outnumber native speakers and in which most interactions in English do not even involve a native speaker (Dewey, 2007, p. 333; Jenkins, 2000, p. 1). This state of affairs has far-reaching consequences for Gardner’s concept of an integrative orientation that presupposes the existence of a clearly-specifiable TL group into which the learner wishes to integrate. The obvious problem with this theoretical point of view is that, when it comes to learning English as a lingua franca (henceforth ELF), the language is not associated with a particular national culture (see Baker, 2009, pp. 567–74) or national group. The fact that ELF is associated with a lack of a well-specified TL community has led many researchers to consider the concept of an integrative orientation as somehow inappropriate. As Lamb (2004) states: The world itself has changed greatly too since Gardner and Lambert first introduced the notion of integrative motivation in the late 1950s. Their ideas are predicated upon there being clearly identifiable social groups associated with particular languages, with some contact between them. […] [G]lobalization has brought about ‘a new society’ in which English is shared among many groups of non-native speakers rather than dominated by the British or Americans (p. 5).

The crucial question, therefore, is the following: when learning ELF, what or who is it that learners identify with? Some scholars have claimed that, in the era of globalization where English is used increasingly as a lingua franca, there is nothing and no one in particular that learners identify with when they learn English and that, hence, the concept of an integrative orientation may be more or less irrelevant (e.g. Jameson 1998, p. 59; House 2003; Riemer 2003, pp. 1, 17, 20). In her article ‘English as a lingua franca’, House (2003, pp. 559–60) argued that, if used as a lingua franca, English can be regarded as a language for communication, but is unlikely to be regarded as a language for identification. On the other hand, there are also those scholars who think that some form of identification takes place even when learning ELF. Some of these scholars have suggested reconceptualizing the concept of an integrative orientation in a way that does more justice to today’s social realities. Doubts regarding the potential of English as a global language to serve as a means of identification centre around the fact that it is difficult to pinpoint what or who exactly it is that learners identify with. The challenge faced by attempts at reconceptualizing the concept of an integrative orientation, therefore, has invariably been trying to do exactly this: pinpoint what or who it is that learners identify with or what kind of community they want to integrate into. When learning ELF the



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

13

TL community is probably the community of ELF speakers. But what sort of community is this? Some scholars refer to the ELF community as a speech community (see Pölzl and Seidelhofer, 2006, p. 153; Meierkord, 1998). Foley (2006, p. 63), for example, pointed out that every English speaker has a dual speech community affiliation in that they participate both in a local speech community and in ‘the global English speech community’. A speech community can be defined as a community ‘all of whose members share at least a single speech variety and the norms for its appropriate use’ (Ryan et al., 1982, p. 1). In order for the ELF community to be considered a speech community, consequently, ELF has to be granted the status of a speech variety in its own right with a set of norms that are observed by all ELF speakers. Research into ELF is only just beginning to uncover the rules and norms governing its use but there is some evidence that it is indeed governed by a set of lexicogrammatical and pragmatic norms and rules (Breiteneder, 2005; Cogo and Dewey, 2006; Dewey, 2007, pp. 339–44; Firth, 1996: p. 243; Seidelhofer, 2001, pp. 142–3; Sifakis, 2007, p. 359). While Mauranen (2006a, p. 156) contends that these characteristics argue for a consideration of ELF as a variety of English in its own right, Breiteneder (2005, p. 8) draws attention to an important problem area in this respect. She points out that it is difficult to generalize findings from ELF research since the combination of interactants keeps shifting and each combination seems to negotiate their own variety of lingua franca use. While ELF talk can be encountered virtually everywhere on earth, it is usually ‘locally colored’ and variable according to local context (Pölzl and Seidelhofer, 2006, p. 154). This has led some scholars to think of ELF as a set of varieties (Lingua Franca Englishes) rather than a single variety (Cogo and Dewey, 2006, p. 62; Jenkins, 2006, p. 139), and others to reject the classification of ELF as a separate variety of English altogether (Canagarajah, 2007, pp. 925–6, 937; Gnutzmann, 1999, p. 158; Mollin, 2006, p. 45). Regardless of which side you take in this controversy, the localized negotiations going on in ELF interactions around the globe argue against a conceptualization of ELF as a single variety with specific characteristics that are shared by all community members and by implication against viewing the ELF community as a speech community. Thinking of the ELF community as a speech community is also incompatible with another characterization of the speech community as a ‘human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal sings and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language usage’ (Gumperz, 1971, p. 114, emphasis mine).

14

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

As House (2003, p. 572) pointed out, the concept of the speech community is inappropriate for a characterization of the ELF community because in a speech community speakers are assumed to have relatively stable or homogeneous social and behavioural properties. This is not the case in ELF communication, where individuals move in and out of a variety of contexts. She suggested that the concept of a community of practice is more appropriate for the description of the ELF community. The concept of community of practice was developed by Lave and Wenger. According to them a community of practice is characterized by a) mutual engagement, b) a joint enterprise and c) a shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998, pp. 72–3). It is easily conceivable that the members of the ELF community have a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire. Their joint enterprise could be thought of as establishing ties with diverse people around the world and creating and expressing an identity in a language that is not originally their own. Their shared repertoire is the English language in general and characteristics of ELF interactions (pragmatic, syntactic and phonological norms) in particular. When it comes to mutual engagement, however, it is questionable if the community of ELF speakers can be assumed to possess this defining characteristic of a community of practice. Although not all participants in a community of practice participate equally actively in the community, there is an understanding that sustained and regular interaction among individuals is necessary for the build-up and maintenance of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998, pp. 118, 122–31). As such, the concept of a community of practice resembles the concept of a speech community where regular and frequent interaction among its members is also a defining characteristic. This sustained and regular interaction among members is something that the community of ELF speakers is lacking, however. In actual fact the community of ELF speakers is characterized by the exact opposite, namely infrequent and casual contacts and ever-shifting constellations of interactional participants. Just as this characteristic of the ELF community prevents the emergence and consolidation of a common language variety, it also prevents the emergence and consolidation of a common practice, the sine qua non of any community of practice. For that very reason it does not seem any more useful to think of the community of ELF speakers as a community of practice than to think of it as a speech community. Doing so would fail to take into account the multiplicity and disconnectedness of the perspectives involved. As Wenger (1998) puts it, ‘[s]ome configurations are […] too broad, too diverse, or too diffuse



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

15

to be usefully treated as single communities of practice’ (pp. 126–7), and she mentions the speakers of a language as a case in point. If the community of ELF speakers cannot truly be considered a speech community or a community of practice, then what sort of community is it? I think that the concept of an imagined community on which Wenger also elaborates is the most suitable concept to describe the community of ELF speakers. As Wenger points out, imagination can transcend the constraints of time and space and allow us to create new images of the world and ourselves in it (Wenger, 1998, p. 176). What is important in this respect is that individuals can also identify with and feel that they belong to such imagined communities. We may be connected with others through imagination, and imagination, just as actual engagement, contributes to the construction of our identity. What is more, those aspects of our identity that are based on our imagination are no less real and significant than other aspects of our identity (Wenger, 1998, pp. 177–82). As such, I would argue that the ELF community can most profitably be conceptualized as an imagined community that offers the possibility of identification without mutual engagement. Very much in line with this, imagination plays a crucial part in one of the most well-known and well-researched reconceptualizations of the notion of an integrative orientation: Dörnyei’s concept of an ideal L2 self. This concept is embedded in his more comprehensive framework of the L2 Motivational Self System (see Csizér and Dörnyei, 2005, p. 29; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005b, p. 616; Dörnyei et al., 2006, p. 91). The two basic concepts in this framework are the individual’s ideal L2 self and his or her ought-to L2 self, both of which are possible selves and, as such, future projections of as yet unrealized potentials. In other words they are desired future end-states. Motivation is ‘the desire to reduce the perceived discrepancies between the learner’s actual self and his or her ideal and ought-to L2 selves’ (Dörnyei, 2009, pp. 9–15, 18; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005b, p. 617). What distinguishes the ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self from goals is that they are not merely cognitive concepts but go beyond the logical and intellectual to include the imagination and the senses. People can actually see, hear and smell their possible selves (Dörnyei, 2009, pp. 12, 15–17). This focus on imagination ties in with Wenger’s (1998, pp. 176–82) contention that imagination is just as powerful in the formation of identities as actual engagement. The ideal L2 self comprises the representation of all the attributes that a person would like to possess (hopes, aspirations and desires). The ought-to L2

16

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

self comprises attributes that a person thinks he or she ought to possess (duties, obligations and responsibilities) (Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005b, pp. 616–17). Dörnyei and Csizér (2005b, p. 616) argue that if a learner’s ideal L2 self is associated with the mastery of a TL and the person that the learner would like to become is proficient in the TL and a member of an imagined TL community, the learner can be described as having an integrative disposition. Consequently, the construct of the ideal L2 self conceptualizes an integrative orientation in a new and extended way, so that it can be applied to situations where there is no opportunity of any actual integration or where there is little or no contact with L2 speakers (Dörnyei et al., 2006, pp. 91, 145). Over the last five years, Dörnyei and his colleagues have conducted a number of empirical studies into possible L2 selves. These studies lend support to the idea that the concept of ideal L2 selves is closely related to the concept of an integrative orientation (Dörnyei, 2009; MacIntyre et al., 2009; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009) and that measures of ideal L2 selves represent a strong predictor of learners’ motivation to learn English in a variety of settings (Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei et al., 2006; Ryan, 2009). The integrative disposition in Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System framework refers not so much to an actual integration into a TL community as to some internal identification process involving learners’ imagination. The notion of an ideal L2 self could be said to refer to a psychological identification with what the language represents. Obviously, the language may represent rather different things for different learners. In that sense, the concept of an ideal L2 self remains something elusive and abstract, as we may not know what it is the language represents for the learners in question. Another reconceptualization of the notion of an integrative orientation that is closer to Gardner’s original notion, while also trying to make it more meaningful for the study of English in a globalized world, was suggested by Yashima. Investigating the motivational orientations of Japanese college students, Yashima found an orientation that was similar to the integrative orientation but reflected the role of EFL with no clearly specified TL community. She labelled this orientation international posture (Yashima, 2002, p. 57). The construct of an international posture is an “attitudinal construct” (Yashima, 2002, p. 54; Yashima et al., 2004, p. 134) that is hypothesized to capture learners’ general attitude towards an international community. As such it can be considered the equivalent of attitudes towards the TL community in Gardner’s model, albeit adapted for a globalized world. It is composed of the following three dimensions: approach-avoidance tendency, which refers to the



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

17

tendency to approach or avoid non-Japanese in Japan; interest in international vocation/activities, which refers to the degree of interest in an international career or in living overseas; and interest in foreign affairs, which reflects respondents’ interest in international issues (Yashima et al., 2004, p. 132). Yashima’s research on motivation and willingness to communicate (henceforth WTC) demonstrates that international posture is a good predictor of both WTC in English and motivation to learn it (Yashima, 2002, 2009; Yashima et al., 2004). The fact that Yashima’s reconceptualization of the construct of an integrative orientation targets the attitudinal component of integrativeness seems to me to be useful since it can potentially shed some light on the seemingly diminished role that language attitudes play for students’ motivation to learn English, as suggested by two recent studies in Hungary and Switzerland. A nation-wide Hungarian study by Dörnyei et al. (2006) found that, while students’ attitudes towards English speakers and English-speaking communities were deteriorating, this was not the case for their motivation to learn English, English being indisputably the most popular FL among Hungarian teenagers (Dörnyei et al., 2006, pp. 46–51). A similar finding emerged in a study carried out in Switzerland. Stöckli investigated primary school children’s motivation to learn English and French as well as their attitudes towards representative TL countries (England and France). While the children’s language attitudes were positively correlated with their motivation to learn both languages, this correlation was stronger in the case of French than in the case of English (Stöckli, 2004, pp. 89–90). Both these studies demonstrate that the association between attitudes towards particular TL groups and the motivation to learn the TL may be weaker for English than for other languages. This has commonly been explained by the fact that English is no longer strongly associated with a certain national or cultural group (Stöckli, 2004, pp. 110–11). Although English may no longer be strongly associated with a particular national culture, this does not imply that it is not associated with any culture, value system or community at all (see Erling, 2004, pp. 74–5). Yashima’s research clearly demonstrates that some sort of identification with English and English speakers still plays a significant role in learning English, even in a globalized world. Her findings illustrate that attitudinal dispositions are powerfully implicated in the motivation to learn English and that researchers simply have to look at the right kind of attitudes. If English is perceived as a lingua franca, it is likely to be associated with a global or

18

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

international community. This community, too, has its own values (see Arnett, 2002, pp. 777, 780; Foley, 2006, p. 60; Lamb, 2004, p. 5). Consequently, it will probably rather be learners’ attitudes towards an international community that are going to have an impact on their motivation to learn English. This is exactly what Yashima’s research suggests. The concept of an international community is still somewhat intangible, however. Who is part of this international community? What are its characteristics? Inspired by Yashima’s concept of an international posture and Dörnyei’s idea of a psychological identification with what the language represents, the present author endeavoured to come up with a more specific attitude object in relation to English as a global language – aspects of a globalized world. It seems to be uncontested that processes of globalization have contributed to the spread of English around the globe (see Erling, 2004, p. 6; Gnutzmann, 1999, p. 159; Gray, 2002, pp. 153–4; Königs, 1999, p. 249). What is highly contested, however, is whether globalization or processes of globalization are essentially something positive or negative. While some scholars view globalization and the spread of English as a negative phenomenon enforcing a ‘hegemony of English’, a ‘worldwide standardization of lifestyles’ and of communication norms (see Alexander, 1999, pp. 23–39; Block and Cameron, 2002, pp. 1–4; Cameron, 2002, pp. 67–71, 79–81; Canagarajah, 2002, pp. 134–5; Gray, 2002, p. 152; Kubota, 2002, pp. 13, 17–18; Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 5; Pennycook, 1999, pp. 147–55), others see it as a more hybrid and pluricentric phenomenon that is potentially liberating, and stress local appropriation and performance (see Block and Cameroon, 2002, pp. 1–4; Dewey, 2007, pp. 334–8; Erling, 2004, pp. 17–18; Gray, 2002, pp. 152–5; Gupta, 1999, p. 71; Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 6; Pennycook, 1999, pp. 147–55). It is likely that scholars are not alone in their mixed evaluation of processes and effects of globalization and that every individual displays some attitudinal reaction to the increasingly globalized and deterritorialized world they live in. As Mathews (2000, pp. 151–70) shows in his ethnographic study, people do indeed differ in their emotional reaction to aspects of a globalized world. While most people in diverse countries today have both a national and a global identity, they differ substantially in the extent to which they welcome and embrace these two identities. While some people regret or resent the fact that globalization is partly undermining their sense of national identity and rootedness, others feel totally at ease with this. If English is perceived as a global language and associated with the world at large rather than with individual native speaker countries, such



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

19

attitudinal reactions towards aspects of a globalized world are likely to affect the willingness and motivation to learn this language. The hypothesis is that learners who tend to perceive globalization and ELF as a threat will be less motivated to learn the language than learners who tend to perceive them as an opportunity. It may be asked, of course, to what extent primary school children are already aware of the discourse of globalization in the larger community and to what extent processes of globalization evoke attitudinal reactions in them. Interviewing 11–12-year-old junior high school students in Indonesia, Lamb (2004, pp. 12–15) found evidence that these young adolescents, who are about the same age as the 5th graders in this study, had been exposed to the collective discourse of globalization through media, school and family. For them, English seemed to represent a resource of ‘citizens of the world’, and they had developed a vision of themselves as English-speaking, globally-involved but nationallyresponsible future selves. By investigating primary school children’s perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of English and French and their attitudes towards certain aspects of a globalized world, the present study continues the existing research efforts of uncovering how the unique status of English as a global language affects motivational and attitudinal dispositions of learners around the world.

Orientations

Effort

Positive Affect

Value

Motivation

Language Attitudes

Attitudes towards specific national groups

Attitudes towards a globalized world

Figure 2.2  Initial model of language learning motivation

Attitudes towards the target language

20

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

The discussion of Gardner’s socioeducational model of language learning motivation and associated research has introduced a variety of concepts. Figure 2.2 provides an overview of those concepts that will be used in this study and their presumed relationship.

2.1.2 Clément’s Social Context Model and Giles and Byrne’s Intergroup Model The Social Context Model and the Intergroup Model both emphasize the importance of the social milieu and of the relative ethnolinguistic vitality of the respective language communities for language learning.

Clément’s Social Context Model While Gardner’s model only distinguishes between monolingual and multilingual contexts, Clément’s Social Context Model is characterized by a more subtle examination of the social milieu. It not only distinguishes between monolingual and multilingual contexts, but it also takes into consideration the ethnolinguistic vitality of the involved language communities (Giles and Byrne, 1982, pp. 28, 31). The concept of ethnolinguistic vitality combines three aspects: status, demography and institutional support. The ethnolinguistic vitality of a language (group) increases with the status of the language and its speakers, the number and importance of the functions the language serves, its spread, the number of speakers and the institutional support (e.g. media) that the language enjoys (Giles and Byrne, 1982, p. 23; Karahan, 2004, pp. 59, 62; Ryan et al., 1982, pp. 4–5). In Clément’s model, motivation is primarily determined by two antagonistic forces: integrativeness and fear of assimilation. Whether an individual is more strongly driven by integrativeness or by fear of assimilation depends on his or her assessment of the respective ethnolinguistic vitalities of the first language (henceforth L1) and the second language (henceforth L2) groups. A high ethnolinguistic vitality of the L2 group might attract people and foster an integrative tendency. On the other hand, it might also inspire fear of assimilation if the L2 group seems too powerful in comparison to the L1 group. Whether the resulting tendency is rather positive (integrativeness) or negative (fear of assimilation) is ultimately the result of a delicate weighing of the ethnolinguistic vitality of both groups. If fear of assimilation predominates, the learner will be less motivated to learn the L2 and is likely to display avoidance behaviour. If integrativeness



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

21

predominates, the learner is more motivated to learn the L2 and will approach the L2 community (Clément, 1980, pp. 148–51; Giles and Byrne, 1982, p. 31) Clément hypothesizes that in monolingual or unicultural settings this antagonism between integrativeness and fear of assimilation is sufficient to explain a learner’s motivation. He calls this the primary motivational process. In multilingual or multicultural settings, however, he postulates a secondary motivational process to be at work, besides the primary motivational process outlined above. This secondary motivational process is related to the self-confidence of a learner that depends on the frequency and quality of contact with L2 group members. Clément claims that in multilingual settings L2 competence will be determined by both the primary and secondary motivational processes. High competence will result from high levels of integrativeness and high levels of self-confidence (Clément, 1980, pp. 150–1; Giles and Byrne, 1982, pp. 31–2). Integrativeness – Fear of Assimilation

Negative (avoidance) Unicultural

primary motivational process

Positive (approach)

Multicultural

resulting tendency Unicultural

Frequency X Quality of Contact

composition of community secondary motivational process

Self-Confidence Motivation

individual outcome

Communicative Competence Dominant

Non-dominant

relative status of first culture

Integration

Assimilation

social outcome

Figure 2.3  Clément’s Social Context Model (based on Clément, 1980, p. 150)

22

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Given that Clément focuses on societal determinants of second language acquisition (henceforth SLA) which are operative for entire groups, his model also outlines collective outcomes of SLA, such as assimilation or integration of entire groups. Assimilation involves a renunciation of one’s L1 and a complete identification with the L2 community. This is likely to occur if the L1 group is subordinate to the L2 group and has lower perceived ethnolinguistic vitality. Integration refers to an identification with and participation in both the L1 and L2 communities. This is likely to occur if the L1 community has a relatively high perceived ethnolinguistic vitality (Giles and Byrne, 1982, p. 32). Figure 2.3 is an illustration of Clément’s Social Context Model.

Giles and Byrne’s Intergroup Model Giles and Byrne base their Intergroup Model of language learning on social identity theory, which was pioneered by Henri Tajfel. The basic tenet of social identity theory is that individuals partly define themselves in terms of their social group memberships. Our social identity, as opposed to our individual identity, is defined by our membership in a series of groups (Leyens et al., 1994, pp. 53, 61). As our social identity is an important part of our self-concept, we prefer to see the groups we belong to in a positive light. Evaluations of groups are essentially relative, that is a group can only be seen in a positive light with reference to some other group. Consequently, people estimate the value of their own group by comparing it to other relevant groups. They actively try to achieve a positive sense of social identity by making their own social group favourably distinct from other groups on dimensions that they value. Often, one such valued dimension is language. Groups can achieve psycholinguistic distinctiveness by differentiating themselves from other groups on linguistic dimensions (Giles and Byrne, 1982, p. 19; Leyens et al., 1994, pp. 61–2). If a minority group is inferior to some majority group in terms of social status, this is prejudicial to their positive group identity. One way of enhancing their social identity would be to enhance the status of their language and to herald it as a symbol of cultural pride rather than stigmatizing it. The likely consequence for language use would be divergence from out-group speakers (Giles and Byrne, 1982, pp. 21–2). In terms of language learning, such a psychological functioning would obviously be detrimental because it would prevent a wholehearted adoption of the speech patterns of the TL community. The above-mentioned example involving a majority and a minority group suggests that ethnolinguistic vitality is involved in the mechanism of



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

23

psycholinguistic differentiation. Giles and Byrne (1982, p. 33), unlike Clément, hold that the perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of groups does not directly contribute to a learner’s motivation to learn the language, but through the situational strength of ethnic identification. The perceived ethnolinguistic vitality of one’s own group and of the TL group will influence the degree to which group membership is perceived as a salient dimension in a situation and the degree to which individuals will identify with their own ethnic group. According to this theory, the perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of the groups involved will almost certainly have repercussions on learners’ language attitudes. Giles and Byrne (1982, pp. 23–6) propose that individuals are more likely to define themselves in ethnic terms and adopt strategies for positive linguistic differentiation if they perceive their in-group as having high ethnolinguistic vitality. The same is true if they see little opportunity of mobility between groups, and if they do not identify strongly with other groups that afford them with more positive group identities. The concept of ethnolinguistic vitality, a key construct in both the social context and intergroup models, has been adopted for this study as the status of English as a global language and its high ethnolinguistic vitality have been used as an explanation for the differential motivational attraction of English and other FLs in Switzerland and elsewhere (see Holder, 2005, pp. 83, 107–8, 288; Stöckli, 2004, pp. 58–60, 103). Another concept adopted from the Social Context Model but which is also important in expectancy–value theories and attribution theories to be discussed later is the concept of self-confidence. Self-confidence will be regarded as part of an individual’s more general achievement-related self-concept. Figure  2.4 is a boiled down version of Figure  2.2, supplemented with these additional concepts. Even though Clément’s Social Context Model and Giles and Byrne’s Intergroup Model go some way towards a more detailed analysis of the role that the social context plays in motivational processes, they remain at a macro-level, looking at the effects of broad social constellations on the overall motivation of large groups of people. Unlike research that is informed by a micro-perspective (see, among others, Peirce, 1995; Ushioda, 2009), they do not look closely at how specific social constellations in specific situations affect specific individuals and they do not take into account more locally constructed social circumstances and identities.

24

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Ethnolinguistic Vitality

Language Attitudes

Motivation

Self-Concept

Figure 2.4  Extended model of language learning motivation 1

2.2 Educational psychological perspectives Research into language learning motivation has long been almost exclusively conducted within a social psychological framework. At the same time, however, educational psychologists studied general academic motivation in a large range of subjects not specifically focusing on language learning motivation. Up until the 1990s both research traditions existed side by side, being quite oblivious of each other. This absence of interest in other research traditions can be explained by the fact that language learning was considered to be in some ways fundamentally different from other types of academic learning, as language is not just a communication coding system but also an integral part of the individual’s identity. Therefore, language learning raises issues of identity. Learning a language not only involves cognitive factors, but also, and maybe more importantly, affective factors (see Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 274; Gardner, 1985, p. 146). While motivation research within the social psychological framework has directed attention precisely at these affective factors, educational psychology has concentrated more on cognitive factors. Cognitive theories of motivation stress the importance of mental structures, beliefs and cognitive processing. The remainder of section 2.2 provides some insight into the most influential cognitive theories of motivation developed in the field of educational psychology.



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

25

2.2.1 Self-Determination theory The general tenets of the theory The main proponents of self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan, contend that motivation derives from a sense of control, autonomy and choice (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, p. 270; Ryan and Deci, 2000). The key terms in their theory are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is one of the most general and well-known distinctions in motivation theories. Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake, because you find it enjoyable. Intrinsically motivated students learn because of some inherent pleasure in the activity or in order to satisfy their natural curiosity, not because they expect some external reward from it. Extrinsic motivation refers to the motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end. Externally motivated students learn in order to receive some external rewards, such as good grades, or to avoid punishment (Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 275; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 257–8; Ryan and Deci, 2000, pp. 70–3). Deci and Ryan claim that individuals have three basic needs that need to be satisfied in order for students to be intrinsically motivated: the need to feel competent, the need to feel autonomous and the need to belong (Noels, 2001, p. 54; Ryan and Deci, 2000, pp. 73–6). If we want individuals to be intrinsically motivated, we have to allow them to make choices and to feel responsible for their actions. We also have to assign them tasks that are challenging but feasible, so that they can develop a sense of competence. Lastly, we have to create a school climate that fosters identification and a sense of belonging (Dörnyei, 1994a, p.  276; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 270–1). It follows from this that selfdetermination or autonomy is one of the prerequisites to intrinsic motivation. Traditionally extrinsic motivation was thought to undermine intrinsic motivation. More recent studies, however, have shown that external rewards need not necessarily be detrimental to intrinsic motivation, provided that the rewards be informative (providing feedback regarding competence, performance and progress) rather than controlling (praise or reward offered for working on tasks regardless of level of performance, or offered only for a certain level of performance) (Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 276; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 271–2, 274–7). This has led to a more differentiated view of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation where they are no longer seen as antagonistic counterparts. Pintrich and Schunk (1996, p. 258) draw attention to the fact that there is no automatic relation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. A given individual engaged in a given activity can be high on both dimensions or low on both. Someone can

26

Behaviour

Nonself-Determined

Self-Determined

Amotivation

Regulatory Styles

Non-Regulation

Perceived Locus of Causality

Impersonal

External

Relevent Regulatory Processes

Nonintentional, Nonvaluing, Incompetence, Lack of Control

Compliance, External Rewards and Punishments

Extrinsic Motivation

External Regulation

Introjected Regulation

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Regulation

Identified Regulation

Integrated Regulation

Somewhat External

Somewhat Internal

Internal

Internal

Self-control, Ego-Involvement, Internal Rewards and Punishments

Personal Importance, Conscious Valuing

Congruence, Awareness, Synthesis With Self

Interest, Enjoyment, Inherent Satisfaction

Figure 2.5  Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 72)

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Motivation



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

27

learn a language or engage in some particular activity both because he or she enjoys it and because he or she expects some future reward from it. While an intrinsic motivation is invariably associated with self-determined behaviour, extrinsic motivation can be more or less self-determined. Four subtypes of extrinsic motivation have been identified (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation). They can be placed along a continuum of self-determination, with the most self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation (integrated and identified regulation) being close to intrinsic motivation (see Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 276; Noels et al., 2000, pp. 61–2; Noels, 2001, pp. 46–9; Noels, 2003, pp. 101–2; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 71–3). Intrinsic motivation, too, can be subclassified into three different types. These do not differ in terms of the amount of self-determination involved, but in the source of the students’ pleasure or satisfaction. The first is an intrinsic knowledge orientation where the student derives pleasure from satisfying his or her curiosity about a certain topic. The second type is an intrinsic accomplishment orientation where the student derives pleasure from the experience of surpassing himself/herself and of mastering a difficult task. The third type is an intrinsic stimulation orientation where the student derives pleasure from the sound or rhythm of the language (Noels, 2001, p. 45). Apart from intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Deci and Ryan also postulate the existence of amotivation. Amotivation refers to a lack of motivation. A person who is amotivated sees no relationship between his or her effort and the outcome of an activity. He or she becomes passive and engages in activities only to the extent that it is absolutely necessary (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 72). Figure 2.5 illustrates Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory.

Parallels between Deci & Ryan’s and Gardner’s models With respect to language learning motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as amotivation have traditionally been assessed by asking students why they learn a language. Someone who is familiar with Gardner’s motivation theory will easily spot that what is called motivation in Deci and Ryan’s framework would be considered orientations in Gardner’s framework. Since there is more to motivation than having a reason for doing something, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation will be referred to as intrinsic and extrinsic orientation in this book. This is in line with Noels (2001, p. 45), who maintains that the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are orientations. Gardner’s integrative/instrumental dichotomy and Deci and Ryan’s intrinsic/ extrinsic dichotomy have both attracted a lot of attention. It is evident that

28

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Gardner’s instrumental orientation and Deci and Ryan’s extrinsic motivation are conceptually similar. Both imply learning a language as a means to a certain end and both imply learning a language because some external rewards are expected. This conceptual overlap has not gone unnoticed. It has led some scholars to postulate that Gardner’s integrative/instrumental dichotomy maps onto Deci and Ryan’s intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy with the integrative orientation being an instance of intrinsic motivation and the instrumental orientation being an instance of extrinsic motivation (see Dickinson, 1995, p. 170; Noels et al., 2001, p. 427). Gardner himself argues that both the integrative and the instrumental orientation are extrinsic because in both instances language learning is undertaken to achieve a certain goal rather than out of pure interest (Gardner, 1985, p. 12; Noels et al., 2001, p. 427). Noels and associates have undertaken the valuable task of testing which of the above contentions is better supported by empirical evidence. They administered a questionnaire to Canadian learners of French that contained items probing into students integrative, instrumental, intrinsic and different kinds of extrinsic orientations. Subsequently, they correlated these different orientations with each other. A strong link could be demonstrated to exist between an instrumental orientation and external regulation. Noels concludes from this that an instrumental orientation and external regulation seem to represent the same construct (Noels, 2001, pp. 52–3). The integrative orientation correlated most highly with the intrinsic orientation and identified regulation. It is, consequently, most similar to the most self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation (Noels, 2001, p. 53; Noels et al., 2001, pp. 432, 434) Consequently, empirical evidence partially supports both contentions outlined above. A case can be made for classifying an integrative orientation as both intrinsic and extrinsic. Noels considers the integrative orientation to be more similar to the intrinsic orientation than the identified regulation, because it correlates most highly with the intrinsic orientation. The integrative orientation is also similar to the intrinsic orientation in that it involves positive attitudes towards the activity and the learning process (Noels, 2001, p. 51; Noels et al., 2001, pp. 432, 434). On the other hand, Gardner is right in pointing out that the integrative orientation involves learning the language to achieve a certain goal, namely the goal of becoming closer to the TL community. Some external rewards are certainly expected by the learner, such as the reward of gaining friends in the TL community and being accepted by speakers of the language.



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

29

Given that an integrative orientation has been shown to be closely associated with both an intrinsic orientation and more self-determined forms of extrinsic orientation, the decision as to where to place it has to take theoretical considerations into account. Theoretical considerations suggest that an integrative orientation is goal-specific and hence extrinsic, albeit on the more self-determined end of the continuum. A finding by MacIntyre et al. (2001, pp. 474, 483) clearly illustrates the importance of theoretical considerations for the assignment of concepts to certain categories. Like Noels, McIntyre et al. found that the instrumental orientation correlates significantly with an extrinsic orientation, but surprisingly enough they also found that it correlates significantly with both the integrative orientation and the intrinsic orientation, despite being clearly conceptually different from those. This is due to the fact that a given individual is likely to have different reasons for learning a language at any given time, so that they will score highly on different orientation indexes. Therefore, simply looking at correlations between different orientations for establishing their conceptual similarity can be misleading. It is vital to look at what these orientations really imply. The different orientations assessed in this study will be assigned to the extrinsic–intrinsic dichotomy. Similar to the integrative orientation, one of the orientations (lingua franca orientation) focuses on intergroup issues. In keeping with the arguments just put forth, it will be considered an instance of an extrinsic orientation.

2.2.2 Expectancy–value theories Expectancy beliefs and value judgements are central constructs in many motivation theories. The key idea behind the concept of expectancy is that individuals will not choose to engage in a task or continue with it if they expect to fail. The central idea behind the concept of value is that individuals will not choose tasks that have no incentive value for them. Expectancy–value theories reflect a cognitive view of motivation. Individuals are regarded as active and rational decision makers. When deciding whether or not to engage in a task or continue with a task, they will first assess their ability to complete the task successfully (expectancy for success) as well as the importance, value, and desire to complete the task (incentive value) (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 69–77). Expectancy for success judgements are based on an evaluation of the task difficulty, prior experiences, and one’s achievement-related self-concept.

30

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Achievement-related self-concept refers to a student’s perception of his or her competence in a certain domain. These self-perceptions of competence are heavily shaped by students’ attributions, as will be further discussed in section 2.2.3. The expectancy for success construct is more future-oriented than selfperceptions of competence. It refers to students’ evaluation of how well they will perform in some domain in the future (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 73, 77–9, 82). As Pintrich and Schunk (1996) point out, even fairly young children (1st and 2nd graders) have self-perceptions of competence that are domain-specific. It needs to be pointed out, however, that younger children in middle elementary grades (3rd/4th grade) do not have very accurate self-perceptions of competence. More specifically, they tend to overestimate their competence, even though this may be a culture-specific finding. In later elementary grades, selfperceptions of ability become more accurate and the tendency to overestimate your competence decreases (p. 82). Despite some inaccuracy in the achievement-related self-perceptions of younger children, there is no empirical justification for viewing self-reports of competence as invalid measures from 3rd grade onwards from a methodological point of view (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, p. 94). In this respect, it is vital to highlight that the accuracy of student perceptions is not of paramount importance. Inaccurate perceptions are real because they have real motivational and behavioural consequences. A student who underrates his or her competence is likely to avoid tasks, experience more anxiety and do badly (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 85–6, 94–5). Pintrich and Schunk (1996, pp. 95, 261–3) mention anxiety as a consequence of a negative self-perception of competence, a relationship that is both intuitively plausible and substantiated by the negative correlations that have repeatedly been found between the two (see Baker and MacIntyre, 2000; Hashimoto, 2002, Masgoret et al., 2001; Oxford, 1999). We can, therefore, expect anxiety to negatively affect language learning motivation, just as a negative self-concept does. Studies have consistently demonstrated that students’ self-perceptions of competence and expectancy beliefs are strong predictors of subsequent grades. They also correlate with the use of various cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Higher levels of expectancy beliefs and perceptions of competence seem to foster a deeper processing of the material. It appears, therefore, that expectancy beliefs are closely tied to actual achievement and cognitive engagement. But they do not seem to influence a student’s choice of tasks or activities that



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

31

much. In that respect value beliefs are more important. Consequently, a student’s decision as to whether he or she wants to learn something about a given topic and whether he or she wants to engage in particular tasks is not primarily determined by his or her expectancy beliefs but by his or her perception of the importance, utility and interest of a topic or task (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 81–2). One of the promising features of expectancy–value theories is their acknowledgement of the importance of the individual’s perceptions and beliefs as mediators of behaviour. Another research tradition which stresses the importance of student beliefs for motivational thinking and acting is associated with Horwitz’s research into beliefs about language learning (Bernat and Gvozdenko, 2005; Diab, 2006; Horwitz, 1999). In the early 1980s, Elaine Horwitz developed an instrument for identifying beliefs about FL learning called the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI). This instrument has been used in numerous studies and consists of the following five themes: beliefs about the difficulty of language learning, beliefs about foreign language aptitude, beliefs about the nature of language learning, beliefs about learning and communication strategies and motivation and expectations. Although only the last theme is explicitly linked to motivation, other beliefs will undoubtedly affect student motivation either directly or indirectly via affecting learners’ self-concept. Ethnolinguistic Vitality

Language Attitudes

Motivation

Beliefs about Language Learning Self-Concept Anxiety Figure 2.6  Extended model of language learning motivation 2

32

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Supportive and positive beliefs can help to overcome problems and sustain motivation. Negative or unrealistic beliefs can lead to decreased motivation and frustration (Bernat and Gvozdenko, 2005, p. 8). Expectancy–value theories and research into student beliefs have both contributed to the present investigation which recognizes and investigates the influence of learner beliefs and cognitions on their self-concept and motivational states. Figure 2.6 reveals how these concepts are assumed to be related to the other concepts assessed in this study.

2.2.3 Attribution theory Like expectancy–value theories, attribution theory is a cognitive theory of motivation. It is concerned with how students interpret their learning experience and how patterns of thinking and beliefs influence their motivation. The most well-known proponent of attribution theory is Bernard Weiner. The basic assumption of attribution theory is that people are trying to understand and master their environment. This attempt involves trying to understand the causal determinants of their and other people’s behaviour. Simply put, people search for causes. In an academic context this search for causes is mainly targeted at causes for success and failure. Students try to make sense of their achievement and in doing so they will invariably attribute their successes and failures to certain causes (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, p. 108; Williams et al., 2001, p. 172). Weiner identified four main causes to which success and failure are attributed: ability, effort, task difficulty and luck. Later research has drawn attention to the fact that there are more potential causes for success or failure, such as interest, teacher competence, mood etc. There can be an infinite number of reasons that individuals use to explain why they succeeded or failed, but all these reasons can be grouped along three basic dimensions: locus, stability, and controllability (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 128–9, 151; Williams et al., 2001, p. 172). When an individual attributes an outcome to a cause, this cause can be either internal (stemming from the individual) or external (stemming from the environment). An attribution of success or failure to ability and effort is an internal attribution because the cause is internal to the learner. An attribution of success or failure to task difficulty or luck, on the other hand, is external because the cause is external to the learner. The locus dimension has to do with the degree to which a cause can be considered internal or external to the learner (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 129–30; Williams et al., 2001, p. 173).



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

33

The cause to which an outcome is attributed is not only either internal or external but it can also be either stable or unstable. While ability is something relatively stable, effort is something that can vary across situations and is, hence, rather unstable. In terms of the locus dimension both effort and ability are internal causes, but ability is stable whereas effort is not. The stability dimension has to do with the perception of a cause as either a trait of the person or a statelike or situational aspect of the person (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 129–33; Williams et al., 2001, p. 173). Lastly, causes can also be more or less controllable and this is what the controllability dimension refers to. Effort, for example, is usually perceived as something people have control over. In contrast, ability is usually considered as something people have little control over (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 129–35; Williams et al., 2001, p. 173). To sum up, we can say that individuals’ interpretations of their achievements can be understood in terms of whether they see the main causes of their successes and failures as stemming from themselves or others (locus), whether they see the cause as a fixed attribute or open to change (stability) and whether they view possible changes as lying within their control or that of others (controllability) (Williams et al., 2001, p. 173). Table 2.1 presents an overview of this three dimensional attributional model. Table 2.1  Three dimensional attributional model (based on Weiner, 1979, p. 7) Causes of success and failure, classified according to locus, stability and controllability Locus of causality Internal

External

Stable

Unstable

Stable

Unstable

Controllable

typical effort

teacher bias

Uncontrollable

ability

immediate effort mood

unusual help from others luck

task difficulty

The central question now is what students’ attributions have to do with their motivation. The causes to which students attribute their successes and failures will influence their motivation via shaping their achievement-related selfconcept. Attributions influence students’ self-confidence and their expectation of future success. This means that expectancy beliefs, as outlined above, are a consequence of attributional processes. If success is attributed to an internal and stable cause, such as ability, the individual will expect to succeed in the future.

34

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

If success is attributed to an unstable and uncontrollable cause, such as luck, the individual will not expect to do so well in the future. If failure is attributed to an unstable and controllable cause, such as lack of effort, the individual can expect to do better next time. If failure is attributed to an internal and uncontrollable cause, such as ability, however, this will have detrimental consequences for future expectancies for success (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 107, 109–10, 124, 135). These expectancy beliefs that are based on attributions will then determine future behaviour, such as the amount of effort expended or the persistence demonstrated. If students expect to succeed in the future they will be willing to work harder. Apart from these behavioural consequences, attributions also have psychological consequences: They will influence a student’s self-efficacy beliefs as well as the level of anxiety and well-being experienced by students (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 109–10, 124). The three different dimensions of attributions outlined above will differentially affect a student’s motivation. The stability dimension is most closely related to expectancy beliefs. Outcomes that are ascribed to stable causes will be expected to be repeated in the future with a greater degree of certainty than outcomes that are ascribed to unstable causes. The locus dimension will rather affect a student’s self-esteem. A student will feel pride when he or she attributes success to something internal to him or her and humiliation when he or she attributes failure to something internal to him or her. Similar to the locus dimension, the controllability dimension will affect social affects of the student. A student will feel guilty if failure is due to something under his or her control (lack of effort) and shamefaced if failure is due to something that is not under his or her control (ability) (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 111, 135–6, 151). It is important to point out that attributions are the perceived causes of an achievement-related outcome. They may or may not be the actual causes. In terms of their effects on motivation, however, their accuracy is of no importance. No matter if a failure really was caused by lack of ability or not, if this is how the student interprets events it will have the concomitant psychological and behavioural consequences (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 109–11). In terms of their motivational impact, we can distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive attributional patterns. Adaptive attributional patterns are those that foster a positive self-concept and support motivation. Maladaptive attributional patterns are those that are detrimental to a positive self-concept and motivation. It is adaptive, for example, to attribute failure to internal, unstable and controllable causes, such as lack of effort. If a student thinks he or she failed



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

35

because he or she did not try hard enough, he or she will be motivated to try harder next time. It follows from this that it is maladaptive to attribute failure to stable, internal and uncontrollable causes, such as aptitude. If it is beyond the student to do something about the cause of failure, it does not make sense to persist (Dickinson, 1995, p. 171). It is vital that teachers assist the development of adaptive attributional patterns in their students. They can do so by giving students feedback that fosters such adaptive attributional patterns. As Williams and Burden (1999, pp. 196–7) point out, teacher feedback has an overwhelming influence on the kinds of attributions made by the students, especially in the case of younger children. Therefore, it is essential that teachers do not discourage students by attributing their failures to a lack of ability or their successes to sheer luck. In order to be able to foster adaptive attributions in their students, teachers need to maintain positive beliefs about students’ capabilities and continue wherever possible to attribute student failure to controllable and unstable causes rather than to a disposition or trait. (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, pp. 145–9). In this study, students’ attributions will not be directly assessed, but there will be an investigation of their self-perceptions of competence and expectancy beliefs, which, as we have seen, are partly based on their attributions.

2.2.4 Cognitive dissonance theory While not strictly speaking a theory of motivation, cognitive dissonance theory, like self-determination theory and attribution theory, can be seen as a cognitive theory which can account for certain affective and motivational states and changes. Its tenets can account for the arousal of certain motivational states and, more importantly for this study, for changes in motivational and attitudinal dispositions. The central idea is that, whenever people hold cognitions which are related but inconsistent with each other, they will experience a state of psychological discomfort, called cognitive dissonance, which arises from the fact that individuals strive to be consistent within themselves. This state of discomfort is at the same time a motivational force, as people are motivated to reduce the tension. The magnitude of dissonance experienced and of the resulting motivational drive is influenced by how important the dissonant cognitions are to the person experiencing the dissonance (see Aronson, 1999, pp. 104–5; Festinger, 1957, pp. 1–3, 13–15; Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999, pp. 3–4; Wicklund and Brehm, 1976, p. 2).

36

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

It is important in this respect to point out that, when referring to cognitions, this can involve a very broad spectrum of cognitions relating to the self (one’s attitudes, one’s beliefs, opinions and behaviour) and the world in which one lives (see Festinger, 1957, pp. 3, 9–10; Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999, p. 5; Wicklund and Brehm, 1976, p. 2). If two cognitions are inconsistent with each other there are different ways to resolve the resulting dissonance: a person can change one of the dissonant cognitions, they can reduce the importance of one of the dissonant cognitions, they can add new consonant cognitions or increase the importance of consonant cognitions. Given this wealth of strategies that could be employed, how can we know which course of action a person is likely to take? The truth is, we cannot know for sure, but we can make certain predictions on the basis of cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance theory holds that dissonance will be resolved by changing the cognitive element which is least resistant to change (see Festinger, 1957, pp. 16, 24–8; Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999, p. 4; Wicklund and Brehm, 1976, pp. 3–6, 10). Now let me flesh out this general theoretical exposition with a specific and oft-cited example: Let us conceive of a person who smokes but who also knows that smoking is bad for his or her health. The cognition about their behaviour (smoking) is dissonant with their cognition about their beliefs about that behaviour (smoking is bad for health). This dissonance causes psychological discomfort that must be resolved or at least alleviated. One way of doing this is to eliminate one of the dissonant cognitions by either ceasing to smoke or ceasing to believe that smoking is bad for your health. Given that smoking is addictive, it can be expected that giving up the behaviour is more painful for the person involved than convincing themselves that smoking is not really bad for their health. In this case, changing the behaviour is probably more resistant to change than changing the beliefs associated with it, and dissonance reduction will most likely revolve around the latter. In light of the fact that there is a lot of evidence for the unhealthy effects of smoking around, it may also be rather difficult to fully convince themselves that smoking is not, indeed, bad for their health. So, another course of action would be to decrease the importance of dissonant cognitions by convincing themselves that always worrying about your health is running counter to a happy and fulfilled life and, hence, should not be foremost on people’s mind. Yet another course of action that might be taken is to add consonant cognitions to the cognition that one is smoking or increase the importance of such consonant cognitions. The person involved may think about how refraining from smoking in the future



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

37

may cause him or her to gain weight, which might be even more disadvantageous for their health. Therefore, it might still be better to smoke than to put on weight as a result of quitting (see Festinger, 1957, pp. 2, 6, 24–5 for a discussion of this example). This example nicely illustrates how cognitive dissonance works and what kinds of consequences it can have. But how is this related to language learning motivation or language attitudes? The answer to this question, I argue, can be found in Aronson’s (1999, pp. 109–10) modification of the original notion of dissonance theory, which postulates that the individual’s self-concept is crucially implicated in the generation and resolution of dissonance. Aronson (1999, pp. 110–18) convincingly demonstrates that it is an implicit assumption of the original cognitive dissonance theory that people have a reasonably positive self-concept and want to see themselves as competent, moral and able to predict their own behaviour. According to him, dissonance is aroused when a person does, believes or voices something that is inconsistent with their positive sense of self. Smoking despite knowing better casts a negative light on a person because it suggests that they are weak and/or unreasonable. If they thought of themselves as weak and unreasonable anyway, the perception that they smoke despite knowing better should not cause any dissonance. Only if they essentially think of themselves as reasonable persons who have their actions under control do these cognitions cause dissonance. Consequently, efforts to reduce dissonance revolve around a process of selfjustification after having engaged in an action that leaves one feeling stupid, immoral or confused. The link of cognitive dissonance theory with self-concept makes the theory potentially relevant for language learning motivation, which is also heavily interconnected with issues of the self. In the very early stages of cognitive dissonance theorizing, most experiments concentrated on the effects of dissonance on attitude change. As Brehm and Cohen (1962, pp. 131–59) point out, however, cognitive dissonance can also have an effect on motivation in that changes in levels of motivation can serve as a means of dissonance reduction. Let us imagine, for example, a learner who, at the outset of FL learning, has a reasonably positive self-concept and thinks of himself or herself as reasonably clever. He or she is also motivated to learn the language and positively disposed towards the language proper and its speakers. Now let us further imagine that this person does not quite meet with the hoped-for success. This is very likely to have negative repercussions on their self-concept, which will become less favourable if failure persists. If this happens, the person involved may

38

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

experience dissonance between their perception of failure and the fact that they are engaged in the study of this language and are actually motivated to learn it. One way of resolving this dissonance would be to drop out of the course and stop studying. For the primary school children in this study this would not be a viable course of action though, as English and French are compulsory subjects. What they could do, however, to create consonance and to protect their sense of self-worth is to convince themselves that they don’t like the language and its speakers and are also not motivated to learn the language. In this way their perception of lack of competence could be accounted for with their lack of motivation and effort which stem from their negative evaluation of the language and its speakers. In this hypothetical example, a negative self-concept has triggered changes in attitudinal and motivational dispositions that help protect a sense of self-worth. As is the case with attributions, processes of cognitive dissonance cannot be observed and are not a target variable in this study. Nevertheless, the theory is important as it represents a powerful tool for explaining changes with regard to motivation, attitudes or beliefs and, thus, may account for some of the relationships that are speculated to exist between different affective variables. These relationships are depicted in Figure 2.7.

Ethnolinguistic Vitality

Language Attitudes

Motivation

Beliefs about Language Learning Self-Concept Anxiety Figure 2.7  Extended model of language learning motivation 3



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

39

2.3 Integrating different perspectives: Dörnyei’s Process Model of Motivation Up until the 1990s, the socioeducational model of language learning was the dominant model in L2 motivation research. In the 1990s, however, this hegemony came under attack. Several scholars (among them Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1994a, 1994b; Oxford and Shearin, 1994) called for a reopening of the research agenda. They claimed that, while clearly valuable, Gardner’s model was so influential that alternative models had not even been considered. Several scholars suggested that L2 motivation research consider what motivation research in mainstream psychology has to offer (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dickinson, 1995; Dörnyei, 1994a, 1994b; Oxford, 1994; Oxford and Shearin, 1994). With the inclusion of ideas from psychology, L2 motivation research has directed more attention to cognitive processes involved in motivation. Thus, the ideas of expectancy–value theories, attribution theory and self-determination theory have been taken up in L2 motivation research (Dörnyei, 1994b, 2003; Dörnyei and Csizér, 1998; Gardner and Tremblay, 1994b; Oxford, 1994; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995). The ‘reopening of the research agenda’ in the 1990s also led to an interest in new motivational correlates. While previous L2 motivation research had focused almost exclusively on the relationship between motivation and language proficiency, more recent research has explored the relationship between motivation and other variables, such as WTC or learning strategies (see Baker and MacIntyre, 2000; Brown et al., 2001; Dörnyei, 2003; Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre et al., 1998, 2002; Schmidt and Watanabe, 2001; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et. al., 2004). Thus, more recent motivation research has set out to shed light on the link between learners’ motivational dispositions and their actual learning behaviours and use of the language. This is in line with the plea of a number of scholars for a more education- or classroom-centred approach to language learning motivation (see Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 2003). Dörnyei was one of the scholars most actively responding to Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) call for a more education-centred approach and an expansion of the variables investigated in L2 motivation research. Although Gardner’s model does include an educational dimension (evaluation of the course and the teacher), the main emphasis is on general motivational components grounded in the social milieu rather than in the foreign language classroom. Dörnyei suggests that L2 motivation research pays more attention to what is going on in

40

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

the classroom. He identified three components that are of interest when looking more closely at the classroom situation. The first is a course-specific component (syllabus, teaching materials, teaching method, tasks); the second is a teacherspecific component (teacher’s personality, teaching style, feedback, relationship with the students); and the third is a group-specific component (dynamics of the learner group) (Dörnyei, 1994a, pp. 273, 277–9; Dörnyei, 2003, pp. 11–12). The advantage of such an education-centred approach is that it renders motivation research more relevant for practitioners. While Dörnyei pleads for a more pragmatic micro-perspective approach to motivation focusing on the classroom, he also acknowledges the merits of a more macro-perspective approach as advocated by Gardner. Considering the merits of both macro and micro perspectives, he developed a comprehensive model of L2 motivation that integrates both perspectives. The model consists of three levels that will be summarized below. The first level is the language level. At this level the focus is on social dimensions, such as students’ orientations or goals, the ethnolinguistic vitality of the language, and the culture it conveys. The second level, the learner level, focuses on the personal dimension. It involves affects and cognitions of the learner. The motivational constructs of self-perceptions of competence, self-efficacy beliefs, attributions and anxiety are part of this level. These first two levels are the ones the present study will focus on. The third level in Dörnyei’s framework is the learning situation level that focuses on the classroom. Variables belonging to this level include course-specific components, teacher-specific components and group-specific components (Dörnyei, 1994a, pp. 279–80; Dörnyei and Csizér, 1998, pp. 205–7). Dörnyei contends that different motivational theories do not necessarily exclude one another but may simply be related to different phases of the motivated behavioural processes (Dörnyei, 2003, pp. 17–18). His process model of L2 motivation distinguishes three distinct phases in the motivational process: the preactional stage, the actional stage and the postactional stage. In the preactional stage motivation needs to be generated. Choice motivation is important at this stage. Students analyze their wishes and desires, set goals and evaluate them in terms of their desirability and chance of fulfilment. Once they commit themselves to a certain goal, an intention to act is formed. Then students develop an action plan, which specifies the planned procedure. Such an operationalized intention is the immediate antecedent of action (Dörnyei and Otto, 1998, pp. 43–9). Once the individual has launched an action targeted at achieving his or



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation MOTIVATIONAL INFLUENCES P R E A C T I O N A L P H A S E

Motivational Influences on Goal Setting (Table 1)

Motivational Influences on Intention Formation (Table 2) Motivational Influences on the Initiation of Intention Enactment (Table 3)

ACTION SEQUENCE Wishes & Hopes Goal Setting

Desires

Executive Motivational Influences (Table 4)

Action Plan

Intention Formation

Means & Resources

Initiation of Intention Enactment

Commitment (Compliance)

Intention Start Condition

Action-Launching Crossing the “Rubicon” of Action Subtask Generation & Implementation Appraisal

Action

Action Control Modify or Continue Action

Actional Outcome

P H A S E POSTACTIONAL PHASE

Opportunities

Goal (Assigned Task)

I N S T I G AT I O N F O R C E

A C T I O N A L

41

+

– Terminated Action

Motivational Influences on Postactional Evaluation (Table 5)

Forming Causal Attributions

Achieved Goal

Postactional Evaluation Dismissing Intention & Further Planning

Elaborating Standards & Strategies

Figure 2.8  A process-model of motivation (from Dörnyei and Otto, 1998, p. 48)

42

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

her goal we are in the actional stage. At this stage the focus shifts to executive motivation that is concerned with the implementation of action. The generated motivation needs to be actively maintained and protected while the particular action lasts. At this stage the individual generates subtasks, implements them and continuously evaluates his or her development. Furthermore, the individual employs a number of action control strategies to protect concentration and direct effort in the face of personal and/or environmental distractions (Dörnyei and Otto, 1998, pp. 50–1). The postactional stage starts when the goal has been attained or the action has been terminated. At this stage the learner retrospectively evaluates how things went. This will determine the kind of activities that he or she will be motivated to pursue in the future (Dörnyei and Otto, 1998, p. 51). Figure 2.8 is a schematic representation of Dörnyei’s process model of L2 motivation. Each of the three phases outlined above is supported by motivational influences that underlie and fuel the motivational process. These motivational influences are specific to certain stages so that people will be influenced by different factors depending on the stage they are at. Goal setting, for example, is influenced by the following factors: subjective values and norms, language attitudes, incentive value of goals, and environmental stimuli. A short look at this list reveals that those aspects traditionally investigated in the social psychological research tradition are all motivational influences on the preactional stage. Intention formation is more strongly influenced by aspects commonly investigated in educational psychology, such as expectancy beliefs, causal attributions, relevance of goals, cost–benefit calculations, degree of self-determination, learner beliefs about L2 learning, etc. (Dörnyei and Otto, 1998, pp. 52–5). The motivational process in the actional phase is influenced by a large number of factors, such as the quality of the learning experience, sensitivity to aspects of the environment, perceived progress, teachers’ and parents’ motivational influence, influence of the learner group, classroom climate, competing action tendencies, distracting influences, and knowledge of self-regulatory strategies among others. In the postactional phase the following motivational influences are operative: attributional factors, self-concept beliefs and feedback from others (Dörnyei and Otto, 1998, pp. 56–62). There are other scholars who have integrated different motivational research traditions in their work, but none of them did so as comprehensively and successfully as Dörnyei. His process model is extremely comprehensive, accommodating virtually all variables investigated in different approaches to



Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation

43

motivation, while outlining their contribution to different stages of the motivational process. It is a model that does justice to the immensely complex and dynamic nature of motivation. Obviously, it does not always make sense to look at all possible stages of motivation and influences thereupon. Often the aim of research is to try to identify a relatively small amount of key variables that explain a significant portion of students’ motivation in a given situation. The decision as to which variables to concentrate upon and which approach to take should be based on the focus of the study. The focus of this study is on generalizable sociocultural variables that are particularly important in the preactional stage rather than on situation-specific classroom variables. Such a focus lends itself more readily to a macro approach.

3

Language Attitudes and Stereotypes While the importance of language attitudes for language learning motivation postulated by Gardner and associates was downplayed in the 1990s and attention shifted to more cognitive and situational factors, this trend seems to have been reversed recently. This is exemplified in a re-affirmation of the importance and complexity of the socio-affective aspects traditionally investigated in attitude and motivation research (El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001b, p. 225). Following Ajzen (2005), an attitude is defined here as ‘a disposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to an object, person, institution, or event’ (p. 3). An attitude is commonly conceptualized as consisting of three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and conative. The cognitive component concerns thoughts and beliefs about the attitude object. The affective component concerns feelings towards the attitude object, such as love or hate. The conative component or action component concerns a readiness for action or a behavioural intention (Baker, 1992, pp. 12–13). Language attitudes can be defined as ‘the feelings people have about their own language or the language(s) of others’ (Crystal, 1992, p. 215). The concept of language attitudes is usually broadened to cover a variety of specific attitudes, not just attitudes towards certain language varieties. It can include attitudes to language groups, attitudes to specific languages, attitudes to certain features of languages, attitudes to language use, attitudes to language variation, attitudes to language learning, etc. (Baker, 1992, pp. 17, 29). We cannot prevent people from experiencing attitudinal reactions to different language varieties and their use. Whenever a person speaks, he or she provides the listener with clues about his or her group membership. This will evoke certain ideas or stereotypes about the given group in the listener (Fraser, 1973, pp. 28, 35; Preston, 2002, p. 40). Sociolinguistic attitude research has demonstrated that the attitudes that listeners have towards the groups in question and the cultural associations they have regarding these groups will be projected onto the language variety the group members speak. British people, for example, tend

46

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

to consider rural accents of British English much more pleasant than accents associated with urban industrialized areas. This is due to their ‘romanticized nostalgic view of the countryside’ (Trudgill and Giles, 1983, p. 219). Americans, however, who do not know which British accents are rural and which ones urban and who, consequently, do not have the same social connotations as the British judges do not judge urban accents less favourably than rural accents of British English. Instances of this kind lend strong support to the ‘social connotation hypothesis’ advocated by Trudgill and Giles which holds that language attitudes do not reflect any inherent value of the language varieties in question but rather the ideas that listeners have about the speakers of these language varieties (Trudgill and Giles, 1983, pp. 210–17). Attitudes towards languages or language varieties are indicative not only of people’s attitudes towards speakers of the language, but also of their likely behaviour towards these speakers and of the status, value and importance attributed to the language in question (Baker, 1992, pp. 9–10, 15–17, 20; Smith, 1973, p. 97). Given the importance of language attitudes for intergroup relations and language policies, social psychological and sociolinguistic research have been keen on uncovering people’s attitudes towards certain social groups and their language varieties.

3.1 The relationship between language attitudes and language learning motivation If people’s attitudes towards certain language varieties reflect their attitudes towards speakers of these varieties, it is only plausible that they will also impact the willingness and motivation to learn them. It is not surprising that this relationship between language attitudes and language learning motivation was discovered by scholars working in the parent discipline of attitude research, social psychology (see Baker, 1992, p. 8). Gardner and Lambert were the first to draw attention to the repercussions of students’ language attitudes on their language learning motivation. The idea that language attitudes are vital to success at language learning did not go unchallenged, however. One of the scholars arguing against the importance of language attitudes for success at language learning on theoretical grounds is Macnamara (1973, pp. 36–40). He argues that L2 learning is basically the same as L1 learning in that the learning process is triggered by the need to understand and to make oneself understood. Success in learning a language depends on the



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

47

existence of this need and not on students’ language attitudes. He points out that a child who moves from Toronto to Berlin will rapidly learn German no matter what he or she thinks of the Germans. He also points out that language shift often took place in situations where the attitudes towards the conquering people and their language was negative, but that the need to master the majority language ensured successful acquisition of the conquering language. The problem about this argumentation is that it does not, according to my view, translate to a traditional classroom situation. Macnamara (1973, pp. 38–40) does realize that it is a problem of many classroom situations that there is no authentic need for communication in the L2 (due to the fact that the focus is on teaching rather than really talking to each other, and that in many cases the teacher and student can switch to their common mother tongue if need be). Therefore, in Macnamara’s view, the important variable to look at is communication not language attitudes. But even though new teaching approaches are more communicatively oriented, there is no denying the fact that in many classrooms (such as in primary school classrooms in Central Switzerland) there is simply no vital need to acquire the FL, even less to a high degree of proficiency. Given that this vital need is lacking, the students must be triggered into action by other factors. Need is a powerful motivator and I hypothesize that, in its absence, other motivators come into play and the students’ attitudes towards TL speakers are likely to be such a motivator. Let us look at whether empirical research supports this contention. Empirical findings regarding the relationship between language attitudes and motivation are rather inconsistent. While a vast number of studies have successfully demonstrated that language attitudes influence students’ language learning motivation and/or their language learning achievement (Donato et al., 2000; Dörnyei et al., 2006; Gardner, 1985; Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Grotjahn, 2004), others have found no such relationship and, hence, question the importance of attitudes for motivation and achievement (Brohy, 2001; Kirchner, 2004). Masgoret and Gardner (2003, pp. 167–8, 170, 175–7) point out that the equivocal findings regarding the role played by language attitudes for language learning motivation and achievement can be partly attributed to research being conducted in many different settings with many different populations (i.e. children, adolescents, adults) and with differing conceptualizations of the variables in question (i.e. some researchers equating motivation with orientation). The role played by language attitudes may also be mediated by the learning context. It has been suggested, for example, that language attitudes may be less

48

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

important in FL learning contexts where students have little or no contact with the TL community than in L2 learning contexts where the language is readily available outside the classroom (Cenoz et al., p. 5; Dörnyei, 1990, pp. 48–9; Kirchner, 2004, p. 22; Oxford and Shearin, 1994, p. 15). As Dörnyei (1990) suggests: ‘[f]oreign language learners often have not had enough contact with the target language community to form attitudes about them’ (p. 69). McGroarty (2001) seems to be of a similar opinion when he points out that Gardner’s model is based on the premise that students have enough information about the TL group to have developed relevant attitudes towards it. In some FL settings, however, learners have little first-hand information about TL speakers. Therefore, they may depend on preconceptions or stereotypes (p. 72). This is certainly true. It is important to note at this point, however, that language attitudes do not depend on direct contact or accurate knowledge and may very well be based on stereotypes. Before turning our attention to stereotypes, however, let us first resolve the issue of the importance of language attitudes in different language learning contexts. Masgoret and Gardner’s meta-analysis of studies carried out by Gardner and associates found little support for the hypothesis that the relationship of attitudes and motivation is stronger in L2 learning contexts than in FL learning contexts (Masgoret and Gardner, 2003, pp. 198–9). Several studies conducted in European FL learning settings have demonstrated that language attitudes are also relevant in FL learning contexts (Gardner, 2005a, pp. 14–21). Equally, El-Dash & Busnardo (2001b, p. 224) deduce from their research in Brazil that ‘socio-psychological and socio-cultural aspects of motivation may be just as operative in foreign language learning as in second language acquisition’. Dörnyei et al.’s (2006) large-scale study conducted in Hungary also attests to the importance of language attitudes and concomitant integrative dispositions in FL learning settings. While conceding that attitudinal dispositions are also relevant in FL learning situations, Dörnyei also notes that different kinds of attitudes may be of importance in those settings. Rather than being primarily influenced by attitudes towards specific TL groups, motivation may be more influenced by general attitudes towards languages and different cultures/people or by attitudes towards the cultural and intellectual values that the TL conveys, especially when the TL involved is an international language (Dörnyei, 1990, pp. 65, 69).



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

49

3.2 Stereotypes and their relation to language attitudes An early definition of stereotypes introduced by Walter Lippman (1922, cited in Leyens et al., 1994) characterizes stereotypes as ‘pictures in our head’ (p. 10). A more cognitive view of stereotypes describes them as ‘a collection of beliefs about the characteristics of a social group’ (Stangor and Schaller, 1996, p. 7). In this work, stereotypes will be defined as ‘shared beliefs about person attributes, usually personality traits, but often also behaviours, of a group of people’ (Leyens et al., 1994, p. 11). As such, they can be considered mental representations consisting of a collection of associations between group labels (such as Italian) and features that are assumed to be true of the group (e.g. romantic) (Stangor and Schaller, 1996, p. 8). On the basis of this definition, students’ stereotypes of different groups could be considered part of their attitudes towards these groups. As illustrated above, attitudes consist of a cognitive, affective and conative component. The cognitive component of attitudes is made up of ideas and beliefs about the attitude object. Students’ stereotypes about certain groups can be said to represent their ideas and beliefs about these groups and, as such, to represent the cognitive part of their intergroup attitudes (Dovidio et al., 1996, pp. 280–1). In early research stereotypes were considered to be something negative. They were seen as errors or offensive generalizations. Such a view does not quite do justice to the function of stereotypes though. Stereotypes are generalizations based on the membership of people in certain groups. As such, they have two basic functions. On the one hand, they give meaning to the world by explaining and predicting social behaviours. Stereotypes need to have an explanatory value. They serve as a theory for explaining other people’s behaviour and personality. People use stereotypes to explain and structure the world they live in. As such, their function can be likened to that of scientific theories. Hence, they can be considered naïve theories and efficient devices for dealing with a complex social reality. On the other hand, stereotypes confer a positive sense of identity. Social identity theory holds that people form stereotypes in an attempt to make their own group positively distinctive from other groups because they have a desire to view their in-group more positively than the out-group (Leyens et al., 1994, pp. 2, 14–16, 53, 61-2, 129, 172, 195, 204–6; Mackie et al., 1996, pp. 56–8; Stangor and Schaller, 1996, pp. 19–24). The negative view of stereotypes prevalent in early research has led some researchers, such as Allport, to equate stereotypes with prejudice. Dovidio et al. (1996) define prejudice as ‘a negative attitude toward a socially defined group’

50

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

(p. 278). Unlike prejudices, which are by definition negative, stereotypes can also be positive. Stereotypes of a given group are unlikely ever to be totally negative. More often than not they consist of a mixture of favourable and unfavourable attributes (Leyens et al., 1994, p. 13). There seems to be consensus in stereotype research that stereotypes do not depend on contact with or knowledge of the stereotyped group. Stereotypes are no doubt often formed through observation of and direct contact with members of the target group. But stereotypes are also often acquired through social learning. That is, they are learned through indirect sources such as parents, peers, teachers, leaders, school materials or the mass media. If observers have no direct contact with out-group members and know little about the group in question, the only behaviours they will observe are those that attract media attention. Therefore, the mass media is likely to have a profound effect on stereotype formation in such contexts (Gardner, 1985, p. 46; Leyens et al., 1994, pp. 40–1; Mackie et al., 1996, pp. 60–2; Schneider, 1996, p. 432; Stangor and Schaller, 1996, pp. 6, 9, 12, 16). Research has demonstrated that people do indeed form stereotypes about groups with which they have had no direct contact and that these stereotypes can be quite rich and well developed (Stangor and Schaller, 1996, p. 16). As Leyens et al. (1994, p. 70) point out, almost no knowledge about the stereotyped group is necessary for the formation of stereotypes. Hearsay and TV series may already be sufficient sources for stereotype formation. Consequently, it is not only legitimate but also useful to investigate students’ stereotypes of TL speakers in contexts where contact is limited or even nonexistent, as in the case of the majority of primary school children learning English and French in Central Switzerland. Another question that needs to be considered is whether nine-year-old children have already developed stereotypes of and attitudes towards certain out-groups. Day (1982, p. 116) draws attention to the scarcity of research on children’s language attitudes, hypothesizing that this might be related to Labov’s claim that children only become aware of the social significance of language variation during adolescence. His own research, however, suggests that even very young children (3.6 years) are able to discriminate linguistically and to make attitudinal judgements that reflect adult beliefs present in the speech community (Day, 1982, p. 116). Drawing on research by Aboud and Mercer, he concludes that, by the age of 3.6 or 5.0 at the latest, children are aware of language differences and can distinguish between the language they speak and languages other people speak. Furthermore, they are also able to make judgements about such differences before elementary school (Day, 1982, pp. 117–18).



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

51

In order to develop attitudes towards what they perceive to be different, though, the children will clearly need some information about the groups in question. This kind of information is most likely provided by the socializing institutions of family and school. These findings tie in with stereotype research which has demonstrated that the cognitive processes underlying stereotype formation, such as categorizing, classifying and making biased attributions, emerge very early in childhood. Even preschool children are able to classify people along the dimensions of ethnicity, occupation and age. Of course, categorization does not yet represent a full-blown stereotype. In order for a stereotype to evolve, the perceiver needs to acquire some knowledge about the group in question and develop a set of beliefs about it. There is evidence that young children do acquire such knowledge. Parents provide their children with information about other social groups and even transmit stereotype content to them (Burwitz-Melzer and Quetz, 2006, p. 211; Mackie et al., 1996, pp. 46–7, 58, 61–2). By age five, for example, most children have begun to develop clear-cut racial attitudes and their ideas about racial groups are highly similar to those of their parents and friends (Mackie et al., 1996, pp. 46–7, 58, 61–2).

3.3 Research into language learners’ stereotypes of TL speakers Despite the legitimacy and usefulness of investigating students’ stereotypes of TL speakers in FL learning contexts, such attempts have been rather limited so far. El-Dash and Busnardo (2001b, p. 225) draw attention to the fact that stereotypes are a social psychological variable not yet explored to any great extent in FL acquisition studies. In this respect, as in many others, Gardner and Lambert had a pioneering role. In their early investigations carried out in Canada and the United States, they not only investigated students’ language learning motivation and their attitudes towards TL groups, but also their stereotypes of these groups. They elicited stereotypes by means of a matched-guise experiment and found that English-speaking students’ stereotypes of French-speaking Americans or Canadians were considerably negative. Surprisingly, the French-speaking Americans and Canadians themselves judged French speakers less positively than English speakers. It seems that they have adopted community-wide negative stereotypes about their own group (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, pp. 97–103, 139, 293–304).

52

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Such a degrading of one’s own group has often been identified among minority (and often stigmatized) groups and seems to be age-related. When children speaking a minority dialect or language enter school, they often display a preference for or at least neutral attitude towards their speech variety. As they grow older and have spent some time in the school, however, they tend to acquire the language attitudes of the dominant culture and come to value the dominant variety more highly (Day, 1982, pp. 119–22). Often this preference for the dominant variety does not manifest itself with regard to all dimensions of judgement though. Stereotype research to date has identified two fundamental and apparently universal dimensions underlying the evaluation of individuals and groups and driving emotional and behavioural reactions towards them – warmth or solidarity and competence or status (see Cuddy et al., 2008, pp. 68–75, 79–88). The warmth dimension has to do with an evaluation of a person’s or group’s social intents. It comprises characteristics such as morality, trustworthiness, sincerity, kindness and friendliness. The competence dimension consists of the evaluation of individuals or groups in terms of their ability to act upon their intents. It refers to evaluations of efficacy, skill, confidence, intelligence and social status (see Cuddy et al., 2008, 65–6, 70–1, 89–90, 92–4). According to the stereotype content model (see Cuddy et al., 2008, pp. 68, 75–89), ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension and low on the other) are more common than univalent stereotypes (high or low on both dimensions). That this is indeed the case is evidenced by stereotype research focusing on dominant and non-dominant linguistic groups. Speakers of dominant and standard varieties are generally more positively evaluated in terms of their status and competence by both majority (standard) and minority (non-standard) speakers, speakers of minority, non-standard regional and ethnic varieties tend to be viewed as more personally attractive and evaluated more positively in terms of their integrity, especially by the speakers of these varieties themselves. The less dominant and often also stigmatized varieties seem to serve a bonding or solidarity function. While the dominant varieties tend to enjoy overt prestige, non-dominant varieties may enjoy covert prestige (see Bourhis, 1982, pp. 34–62, for a survey of language attitudes in francophone areas of the world; Carranza, 1982, pp. 68–81, for a survey on language attitudes towards Hispanic language varieties; and Edwards, 1982, pp. 23–7, for a survey of relevant research in English-speaking countries). Gardner and Lamberts’ illustration of the French speakers’ adoption of the community-wide rather negative stereotype of their group is clearly interesting



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

53

and relevant. What is missing in their stereotype research, however, is an assessment of how these rather negative stereotypes affect the learners’ language attitudes and their language learning motivation. They simply assert that negative stereotypes will have a derogatory effect on students’ language learning motivation without empirically demonstrating such a link. In my view, empirical verification of this claim is badly needed and the present study will attempt to provide such an empirical verification. El-Dash and Busnardo’s research in Brazil also provides valuable insights into FL students’ stereotypes of different national groups. The interesting thing about El-Dash and Busnardo’s study is that it assesses students’ stereotypes in a context where learners have little or no contact with representatives of the language(s) they are learning. What makes their study even more relevant for the present investigation is the fact that they assess Brazilian learners’ stereotypes of English speakers at a time and in a context where the hegemony of English in certain domains has led to a keen realization of its status as a global language and where it is probably associated with a global culture rather than some national culture. El-Dash and Busnardo (2001a, pp. 59–60) hypothesize that the situation of students learning English in Brazil is comparable to that of a minority group learning a majority group’s language. They point out that ‘Portuguese may sometimes be perceived as a “minority” within the international scheme of things’ (El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a, p. 60). If this is the case, Portuguese speakers could be expected to rate English speakers higher on dimensions of status, while rating Portuguese speakers higher on dimensions of solidarity. This was indeed the pattern to emerge with adult raters, which lends support to the hypothesis that Brazilians see themselves as a minority in a world where English represents international status while Portuguese is the preferred language for in-group solidarity (El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a, p. 60). Interestingly, however, adolescent raters showed different patterns of ratings. Unlike adults, some of them rated English guises higher on solidarity dimensions and Portuguese guises higher on status and competence dimensions. It is unusual that their mother tongue, despite being associated with social prestige by them, does not elicit feelings of attraction and solidarity. El-Dash and Busnardo (2001a) hypothesize that this identification with speakers of a FL may be due to the attraction of international youth culture. Solidarity in the case of these adolescents might indicate identification with an imaginary youth community rather than with actual native speakers. It needs to be said, however, that this study was limited in scope in that it only comprised two adults and two adolescents. We cannot, therefore, know how

54

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

representative these subjects were and if the adolescents in question were simply unusual. For that reason El-Dash and Busnardo carried out a more comprehensive follow-up study (see El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a) concentrating on adolescents (including those who rated English guises higher on solidarity and Portuguese guises higher on status dimensions in the previous study). The study revealed that, as young adults, these former adolescents have changed their attitudes and have approximated the adult pattern of ratings. It may be that the international youth culture has lost its attractiveness for them or that they were formerly not fully aware of the power of English (El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a, pp. 60–1, 65, 70–2). Apart from this, El-Dash and Busnardo (2001a) identified four different patterns of ratings in their follow-up study. Some of the adolescents in this study rated English guises higher on both status and solidarity dimensions, while again others rated Portuguese guises higher on both dimensions. Another, smaller group of adolescents rated Portuguese guises higher on solidarity and English guises higher on status dimensions. This would actually be the expected pattern if we think of Portuguese speakers as a minority on the global scale. Finally, the smallest, but still sizeable, group of adolescents rated English guises higher on solidarity and Portuguese guises higher on status. This shows that the two adolescents of the original study were not so unrepresentative after all. There is a sizeable group of adolescents who attribute status and prestige to their mother tongue but still do not seem to identify with it. The subjects’ evaluation of the ethnolinguistic vitality of English showed that those individuals who rated Portuguese guises higher on status dimensions fail to perceive the higher international status of English. This may reflect a lack of experience with the wider international situation of English and Portuguese. Maybe these adolescents belong to a milieu in which the awareness of international globalization processes has yet to emerge (El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a, pp. 70–1). Consequently, some adolescents appear to perceive the high international status of English (namely those rating English guises higher on status) while others do not. The recognition of the prestige and status of English does not lead to the same reaction in all individuals, however. Some individuals react to it by rejecting English and favouring Portuguese in terms of solidarity. These individuals probably perceive global English as a threat. On the other hand, there are also those individuals who seem to embrace this symbol of status and identify with it, which is reflected in their higher rating of English guises in terms of solidarity.



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

55

These interesting patterns of ratings exhibited by Brazilian adolescents attest to the possibilities and usefulness of stereotype research. Students’ stereotypes of English speakers, especially their evaluation of them along the dimensions of status and solidarity, have the potential of revealing something about the perception of English as a global language – whether it is rather perceived as something threatening or something attractive by learners of different ages and if such a perception is present at all. In that respect it is also a promising line of research for the present study. The present study also wants to go a step beyond El-Dash and Busnardo’s research, however, and shed light on the relationships between stereotypes, language attitudes and language learning motivation. It seems that El-Dash and Busnardo intended to probe into such relationships at a later stage, as they state that there is a possible link between attitudes and orientations and the stereotypes held by learners but that such a link can only be established once the stereotypes have been uncovered. This descriptive focus is something that El-Dash and Busnardo’s studies share with a good deal of stereotype research, which, generally speaking, can be characterized by a primary interest in the uncovering of the content of stereotypes and the cognitive workings underlying social perceptions, but not so much in the effect that these have on cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions. More recent theorizing about social perceptions (see Cuddy et al., 2008) has addressed exactly these questions, however, and, thus, provides valuable insights for the present study. The stereotype content model (SCM) and its extension – the behaviours from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map – hold that, while warmth and competence are two fundamental and probably universal dimensions of social perception, warmth judgements are, nevertheless, primary in the sense that they are more cognitively accessible, more sought after and more predictive of affective and behavioural reactions. Consequently, global evaluations of others, feelings towards them and behaviours towards them will be more heavily influenced by how warm they are perceived to be than by how competent they are perceived to be (see Cuddy et al., 2008, pp. 70, 89–92). Cuddy et al. (2008, p. 89) point out that this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because a person’s intent for good or ill matters more to our survival than whether he or she can actually act out these intents. According to them it is the warmth dimension that determines the valence (positive or negative) of interpersonal judgements. The competence dimension only influences the extremity of the impression (how positive or

56

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

how negative you evaluate someone). This primacy of warmth is supported by a wealth of empirical evidence (see Cuddy et al., 2008, pp. 89–92). Applied to the situation of stereotypes, language attitudes and language learning motivation, the primacy of warmth suggests that the solidarity or warmth dimension of learners’ stereotypes of TL speakers will be more predictive of their language attitudes and language learning motivation than the status or competence dimension. This assumption is further supported by another tenet of the BIAS map: warmth and competence judgements are associated with different behavioural consequences. Due to their primacy, warmth judgements elicit active, goaldirected behaviours whereas competence judgements elicit passive behaviours. In terms of the interpersonal/intergroup approach of the BIAS map, this means that individuals and groups that are perceived as warm elicit active facilitation (promotion, help) while individuals and groups that are perceived as cold elicit active harm (discrimination, attack). Individuals who are perceived as competent can count on passive facilitation (compliance, toleration) and those that are perceived as incompetent must expect passive harm (disregard, indifference) (see Cuddy et al., 2008, pp. 70–1, 107–19). Even though these interpersonal behavioural tendencies do not directly relate to the issue of language learning motivation, the fact that motivation per definitionem refers to active, agentive and effortful behaviour seems to create a clear interface. Given that motivation is clearly predicated upon the idea of an active, goal-oriented individual, it seems reasonable to expect that the motivation to learn a particular language will be more heavily influenced by how personally attractive or warm representative TL speaker groups are judged to be than how competent they are judged to be. In that sense an evaluation of TL speakers as warm is expected to lead to high motivation to learn the language and an active engagement with it while a perception of TL speakers as cold is expected to lead to an active rejection of the language and, hence, low motivation to learn it (or rather high motivation not to learn it). In contrast, an evaluation of TL speaker groups as competent is more likely to lead to a kind of tolerance of English instruction and passive cooperation with the teacher or programme while an evaluation of TL speaker groups as incompetent is more likely to evoke some kind of indifference towards English. Both these rather passive behaviours seem to be a reflection of ‘half-heartedly’ motivated individuals. Despite their apparently inferior predictive power, status-related judgements are also expected to contribute their share to emotional and behavioural reactions in this study.



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

57

Ethnolinguistic Vitality

Stereotypes

Language Attitudes

Motivation

Beliefs about Language Learning Self-Concept Anxiety Figure 3.1  Extended model of language learning motivation 4

Figure 3.1 illustrates what relationships are hypothesized to exist between learners’ stereotypes, their language attitudes, their language learning motivation and other relevant variables based on the empirical findings and theoretical tenets presented so far.

3.4 Can negative attitudes and stereotypes be changed? The aim behind most language attitude and stereotype research is, quite naturally, to fight unfavourable language attitudes and stereotypes and thereby to improve intergroup relations. Gardner and Lambert (1972, pp. 97, 103) were convinced that a deeper look at students’ stereotypes of TL speakers could help render language training more effective because learning another group’s language would be greatly facilitated if negative stereotypes could be changed. This conviction seems to be shared by many educators as it is a professed aim of FL teaching to improve or enhance intercultural understanding (Ingram and O’Neill, 1999, p. 3; Itakura, 2004, p. 38). The issue of stereotype or attitude change has attracted considerable attention because negative stereotypes are detrimental not only to the motivational

58

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

dispositions of language learners but also to friendly and cooperative intergroup relations. Particularly negative stereotypes can encourage discriminatory treatment of members of certain groups. If negative stereotypes are present at an institutional level and influence policy decisions, discrimination can even become more widespread and pernicious. In view of this, it is not surprising that researchers have been interested in finding out if and under what conditions negative stereotypes can be changed. We have seen that stereotypes are often learned (social learning theory) (see also Baker, 1992, p. 103). They are part of a cultural legacy transmitted via parents, teachers, institutions and the mass media. If they are learned they can also be changed. Different approaches to changing cultural stereotypes have been advocated. The most common approach to changing stereotypes is to establish contact between the different groups involved. This approach is based on the Contact Hypothesis, the basic assumption of which is that negative stereotypes result from a lack of sufficient information or the existence of erroneous information about the other group. Contact with members of the stereotyped group is supposed to rectify erroneous perceptions and improve relations (Leyens et al., 1994, p. 47). Research has shown, however, that contact alone is not sufficient for promoting more positive stereotypes and cross-cultural attitudes. In order for positive effects to occur the contact situation has to meet certain conditions. The two groups involved should enjoy equal status, they should have some common interests and goals and the contact situation should have the potential for cooperation and friendship (Baker, 1992, pp. 107–8; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005a, pp. 328–9; Hewstone, 1996, p. 327; Leyens et al., 1994, p. 47). Gardner (1985, p. 85), who detected a significant increase in favourable attitudes towards French Canadians and an increased interest in learning French for integrative reasons as a result of a four-day excursion to Quebec City, also points out that mere interaction is not enough for attitude change. The nature and the amount of interaction are essential. In his study, positive changes could be found particularly among those students who actively sought out opportunities to use French with members of the TL group (Gardner, 1985, p. 86). The nature of the contact between members of different groups has effects not only on the extent to which attitude change takes place but also on the extent to which these changes are generalized. Contact can be construed as interpersonal or intergroup contact. If contact is experienced as interpersonal, the out-group members with which an individual has contact will be individuated. That is,



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

59

they will be seen as unique individuals rather than as prototypical members of the out-group. While this is good to the extent that it reduces thinking in categories, it also has a major drawback. Positive attitudes that are developed towards those individuals with which one has contact will not be generalized to the out-group as a whole because these individuals are not perceived as representatives of their group. If the aim is a generalized change of out-group attitudes, therefore, contact should be construed as intergroup contact. This can be achieved by ensuring that the participants in the contact situation see each other as representatives of their groups. It may make sense to make group memberships explicit and salient because stereotype disconfirming information has a greater impact on the perception of the group as a whole when it is associated with a group member who is perceived as typical of the group (Hewstone, 1996, pp. 328–37, 339). In sum we can say that contact per se does not necessarily foster positive intergroup attitudes or the demise of negative intergroup attitudes. The nature of the interaction between group members will play a crucial role in determining whether positive attitudes will be developed or not and to what extent these attitudes will be generalized. It would be naïve to think that bringing people together will always result in the demise of negative stereotypes and the development of positive intergroup attitudes, just as it would be naïve to think that changing beliefs about particular members of a group has the power to change attitudes towards the group as a whole (Hewstone, 1996, pp. 341–2). On the whole, prospects for change appear most encouraging when members of different groups perceive each other as representatives of the respective groups and are in situations that force them to work cooperatively, interdependently and in pursuit of common goals (Eberhardt and Fiske, 1996, p. 391). In FL learning contexts where there are no TL speakers close by, direct contact between groups is often not feasible. Consequently, students may have to make do with indirect contact. E-mail projects, for example, are a way of establishing such indirect contact between FL learners and TL speakers in FL learning contexts. Numerous projects designed to promote intercultural understanding have made use of e-mail correspondence, and various positive effects have been reported (Itakura, 2004, p. 38). A study by Itakura (2004, p. 46) indicates that cultural input from native speakers in the form of e-mails can be strongly influential in undermining cultural stereotypes and in facilitating the development of a more complex view of the TL culture, even if the information comes from a single person. On the other hand, there is also some danger that this sort of contact reinforces existing stereotypes.

60

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

One of the most intriguing findings of Itakura’s study is that, depending on where stereotypes are learned, and depending on which sources they are based on, they may be more or less resistant to change. We have seen that stereotypes are fed by different sources, such as hearsay from peers, classroom teaching and interaction or the mass media. These different kinds of input seem to differ in the degree of impact they have. While students were found to be ready to dismiss stereotypical information gathered from their peers and the mass media, they were much less willing to adjust stereotypical assumptions based on information provided by the teacher (Itakura, 2004, pp. 37, 41–3, 48). It seems that students are much more sceptical about information disseminated by mass media or peers than about information disseminated by the teacher (see also Baker, 1992, pp. 110–11). This is not all that surprising. After all, the teacher, being a figure of authority, is supposed to know and to inform his or her students in a responsible way. It follows from this that classroom teaching may be more influential in the formation of stereotypes than other sources. Consequently, teachers need to be made aware of the potentially powerful impact of their remarks on the formation of stereotypes (Itakura, 2004, pp. 42, 48). They should fulfil their role as sources of cultural information in a responsible way, avoiding the expression of clearly prejudicial information. By implication these results also suggest that the classroom is also a good place to foster stereotype change. It may also be the case that, depending on the age of the students, different information sources will be given more credit and, accordingly, will be more resistant to change. There is evidence, for example, that during childhood parents exert the strongest influence on students’ attitudinal responses to different groups (Baker, 1992, p. 109; Gardner, 1985, pp. 108–9). Research by Gardner (1985, p. 111) has demonstrated that in younger ages parents are the primary source of children’s attitudes toward ethnic groups. There is a strong relationship between parents’ and children’s attitudes (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, p. 143). As children enter adolescence the peer group is likely to become more important (Gardner, 1985, pp. 108–9). Not everyone thinks that contact is necessary for effecting stereotype or attitude change. In educational circles there seems to be a prevalent belief that language teaching and language learning as such have the potential of shaping students’ intergroup attitudes and stereotypes and fostering intercultural understanding (Ingram and O’Neill, 1999, p. 7). As Baker (1992, p. 110) points out, school is often regarded as the most influential institution for attitude change. This belief seems to be shared by the Council of Europe. In 1982 the Committee



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

61

of Ministers issued a recommendation which asserts that ‘[…] the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity between its members […]’ and ‘[…] it is only through a better knowledge of European modern languages that it will be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother tongues in order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and co-operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination’ (Council of Europe, 1982, p. 1). The empirical evidence on the effect of language teaching on cross-cultural attitudes is equivocal, however (Ingram and O’Neill, 1999, p. 11). While some studies have found no apparent effects of language teaching on students’ language attitudes (Gardner, 1985; Gardner et al., 2004; Ingram and O’Neill, 1999), others have found positive effects (Dörnyei et al., 2006; Gardner, 1985; Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Ingram and O’Neill, 1999). Riestra and Johnson, for example, report that students who had studied Spanish had significantly more favourable attitudes towards Spanish-speaking people than those who had not studied Spanish (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, p. 46). Gardner and Smythe discovered that students’ attitudes towards the TL community became more favourable the more years they spent studying the TL (Gardner and Lambert, 1972, p. 46). Dörnyei et al. (2006, pp. 68–70), too, found that students who were actively engaged in L2 study had more positive attitudes towards the language and the people than those not actively engaged in L2 study. The problem about studies which attest to a positive effect of language instruction on language attitudes is that language courses are often not compulsory and, hence, are chosen voluntarily by the students. It seems likely that those students voluntarily engaging in a language course will be characterized by positive attitudes towards the TL group. Therefore, their positive attitudes may be an antecedent to language instruction rather than a consequence of it. A study by Inbar et al. (2001) conducted in Israel, however, found that students who studied Arabic had more positive language attitudes than those not studying it, no matter if they studied the language voluntarily or were compelled to do so (pp. 300–3, 307–8). Dörnyei et al. (2006), too, found indications that students engaged in language learning have more favourable intercultural attitudes irrespective of whether they chose to study the given language or not, because in 1993 when their study started, students usually could not choose which FL they would like to study. Their choice was predetermined by the language provision offered by the schools (p. 71). A closer look at studies which did not find any positive effect of language teaching on students’ intergroup attitudes reveals that the language programmes

62

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

investigated were not targeted at fostering attitude change. The study by Gardner et al. (2004) investigates the language attitudes of university students enrolled in a university language course, which focuses on the development of the traditional four language skills, especially on writing and reading. In this language course the attention is likely to be on building competence and confidence in the language but not on social-emotional relations with the TL community. The same seems to be true of the five-week intensive French language programme which was the basis of another of Gardner’s studies (Gardner, 1985, pp. 98–101) and of the language instruction that was experienced by Ingram and O’Neill’s (1999, pp. 29–34) informants. It can be concluded from this that the nature of the language instruction greatly determines its potential for affecting students’ language attitudes and stereotypes (Gardner, 1985, pp. 100–1). It is unlikely that students’ language attitudes become more favourable merely by being in a language class. The effect of language teaching may even be negative if the learning experience is negative and if the negative attitudes towards the course are generalized to the TL group. But a language teaching programme can be structured in such a way as to promote more favourable language attitudes (Ingram and O’Neill, 1999, p. 16). Ingram and O’Neill (1999, pp. 11–14, 16, 40–2) argue that, in order for language instruction to have an impact on cross-cultural attitudes, it needs to focus on social-emotional relations. It needs to entice students to subject their attitudes to rational examination and to enable them to interact with TL speakers in meaningful contexts. Making students aware of their attitudes and their sources in the first place seems to be important. Baker (1992, p. 101) points out that attitudes are more open to change when the cognitive component is known and understood. This means that students need to become aware of their beliefs and ideas about characteristics of out-group members before they can fruitfully work on them. To sum up, we can say that the various sources which influence the formation of stereotypes also have the potential of undermining or changing them. Therefore parents, the community, teachers, the school, peer groups and the mass media can all contribute to attitude and stereotype change (Baker, 1992, pp. 112–13). Just as direct contact is not a necessary condition for the formation of stereotypes, it is not a necessary condition for their change either. Change can also be triggered in the school or in the home. But change does not occur of itself. It has to be aimed at. Children’s attitudes do not automatically change when they meet TL speakers or when they sit in FL classes. Contact or language lessons have to be organized in such a way as to stimulate attitude change.



Language Attitudes and Stereotypes

63

Students have to be made aware of their attitudes and their likely sources, and contact with out-group members has to take place in a friendly, cooperative way. People who attempt to change other people’s attitudes should also refrain from unrealistic expectations. They need to be aware that attitudes usually change slowly and gradually rather than radically (Baker, 1992, p. 106; Hewstone, 1996, p. 339) and that often they do not change in a linear pattern. Furthermore, while attitude change may be stimulated, it cannot be imposed. Attitude change has to be voluntary. Imposing conformity is unlikely to successfully ameliorate attitudes. Informing and convincing are more promising ways to success (Baker, 1992, p. 107).

4

Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology The present study was carried out within the framework of the more comprehensive study ‘English in primary school: a longitudinal study on the effects of English (L2) on French (L3) language skills’ investigating the effectiveness of a FL teaching reform recently implemented in Swiss primary schools (see Haenni Hoti et al., 2011). As this school reform forms the backdrop of the study, the present chapter will start with a brief synopsis of FL education in Switzerland and a description of the specific FL teaching models in operation at the different research sites during the duration of the study. This will be followed by an outline of the guiding research questions and the methodological foundations of the study.

4.1 Foreign language education in Switzerland Switzerland is a multilingual country with four national languages – German, French, Italian and Romansh. Due to its federal organization these national languages are to be found in different parts of Switzerland. In order to guarantee cooperation among and mobility across these different language regions it is indispensable that the citizens develop competence in one or more national language(s) apart from their mother tongue. Therefore, FL instruction has always played an important role in Switzerland. For a long time, however, FL instruction almost exclusively served the purpose of intra-national identity construction, language peace and cooperation. Consequently, FL instruction basically meant instruction in one or more of the four national languages. More recently, however, educational policy has expanded the scope of FL instruction in Switzerland, adopting a more international perspective. For that reason a number of important innovations have recently been initiated with regard to FL learning and teaching.

66

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

In 1997 the Swiss conference of cantonal educational ministers (EDK) charged a group of experts with the elaboration of a concept for language teaching in multilingual Switzerland. Based on the advice of this group of experts the EDK issued a new series of guidelines for FL instruction throughout Switzerland. One of these guidelines states that, in addition to the local national language, every child should learn an additional national language as well as English during compulsory schooling (grades 1–9). Furthermore, a more significant role is to be given to the mother tongue of immigrant children (see EDK, 1998). The guidelines also call for an earlier start with FL instruction. More specifically they recommend introducing a second FL into the primary school syllabus. While one of the FLs taught at primary schools should be a national language, the other should be either English or another national language (EDK, 2004, pp. 2, 4). This specification aims at taking into account both the political and the cultural significance of the four national languages on a national level, as well as the increasing importance of English as a lingua franca on an international level. The implementation of this policy resulted in an intensification and preponement of FL instruction in primary schools. Teaching of two FLs in the primary school context constituted an innovation for most parts of Switzerland where hitherto only one FL had been taught in primary schools. This used to be French in the German- and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland and German in the French- and Romansh-speaking parts of Switzerland. Due to the diverse linguistic situations in different cantons of Switzerland, the decision as to which language to start with and when can be made by the cantonal authorities (EDK, 2004, p. 4). This has led to the introduction of different models in different parts of Switzerland, with some parts of Switzerland starting with a national language as the first FL and others starting with English as the first FL. The present study was conducted in German-speaking Central Switzerland in the cantons of Obwalden, Zug and Schwyz. In these cantons the primary school children learn English (L2) from 3rd grade onwards and French (L3) from 5th grade onwards. Hence, for the majority of the children who grow up monolingual speaking (Swiss) German, English constitutes the first and French the second FL learnt.



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

67

4.2 Research questions, research design and samples In line with the three perspectives of this book, the present study focuses on the following three research questions. 1. How do primary school children’s motivational and attitudinal dispositions with respect to English change over the years? 2. How motivated are the children to learn English and French and how do they evaluate the two languages and their speakers? 3. Which factors contribute to the explanation of the children’s motivational and attitudinal dispositions with regard to English and French? The study partly draws on data collected in the framework of the study ‘English in primary school: a longitudinal study on the effects of English (L2) on French (L3) language skills’ (see Haenni Hoti et al., 2011). The sample consists of a randomized group of 30 school classes in the cantons of Obwalden, Zug and Schwyz which introduced the new FL teaching model with English from 3rd grade onwards and French from 5th grade onwards in 2005 (n=552). Due to time and space limitations (see section 4.3), not all the variables of interest could be included in the questionnaire that was distributed in these 30 school classes. Therefore, a substantial amount of the data was collected independently in a subsample of the same population. In total the study comprises three data collections carried out in the entire sample (30 school classes) and two data collections carried out in the subsample. The first data collection in the subsample involved six school classes (n=114). For a number of statistical analyses, in particular structural equation modelling, it would have been desirable to have a larger sample for which reason the second data collection in the subsample involved 11 school classes (n=212). The first data collection was carried out in spring 2006 in 30 3rd grade classes. The participants’ average age was 9.6 years at that time. The last data collection took place in spring 2008 by which time the children were in 5th grade. From the first to the last data collection the sample size decreased by 41 informants. This drop can be ascribed to children moving away and to absences during data collections. The gender distribution in the sample is even with girls and boys equalling 50 per cent each. In order to obtain more information on the informants’ demographic background, the questionnaire contained a section in which the children were asked about their national identification and language background. As far as their national identification is concerned they were asked to indicate two

68

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

things. First, they were asked to indicate if they were Swiss or not, and second, to indicate if they were something else than Swiss. We explicitly stated that they can also be Swiss and something else. The children were then assigned to three different groups: Swiss citizens if they only indicated being Swiss, double citizens if they indicated being Swiss and something else, and foreigners if they indicated being other than Swiss citizens only. In 3rd grade 78 per cent of the children indicated being Swiss, 11 per cent indicated being double citizens and another 11 per cent indicated that they only identify with another country.4.1 These percentages slightly changed across the years. A similar procedure was employed with regard to the language background of the learners. They were asked to indicate if they speak Swiss German at home and if they speak any other language(s) than Swiss German at home. The assignment of the learners to different language background categories is, consequently, based on self-reported data and not on an observation of actual practices at home. Based on the self-reported language use at home the children were assigned to two different categories. Children reporting using just Swiss German or German at home were classified as monolingual. Children using both Swiss German and High German at home were also classified as monolingual. They will be considered bidialectal rather than bilingual in this study. Classifying them as monolingual rather than bilingual is useful to the extent that it allows comparisons with multilingual children who, due to their partial lack of familiarity with the local language of instruction (High German), are typically assumed to be at either an advantage or a disadvantage when it comes to FL learning. Children reporting using another language than (Swiss) German at home or using more than one language at home were classified as bi-/multilingual. In 3rd grade, 85 per cent of the children reported speaking one language (most of them Swiss German) at home, 13 per cent reported speaking two languages at home, most of them Swiss German and another language, and 2 per cent indicated speaking three or four languages at home.4.2 On the basis of their reported language use at home 81 per cent of the children were classified as monolingual and 19 per cent as bi-/multilingual. Table 4.1 provides an overview of the different samples, and the data collected in these samples across the years.



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

69

Table 4.1  Data collection plan Variables assessed

Sample

Demographic Variables: MM Age MM Gender MM Nationality MM Languages spoken at home MM Number of books in the household MM Special needs status English (3rd, 4th, and 5th grade); French (5th grade): MM Language learning motivation – Orientations – Effort – Value attributed to learning – Positive affect MM Attitudes towards specific national groups MM Achievement-related self-concept MM Anxiety

Timeline

3rd grade (school year 05/06) Spring 06 Entire Sample

4th grade (school year 06/07) Spring 07 5th grade (school year 07/08) Spring 08

4th grade (School year General: MM Attitudes towards a globalized world 06/07) MM Beliefs about language learning Autumn 06 English (4th and 5th grade); French (5th grade): Subsample MM Attitudes towards TLs 5th grade (school year MM Perception of ethnolinguistic vitality of TLs 07/08) Spring 08 (spread and importance) MM Stereotypes of TL groups and in-group

4.3 Instruments Given that the children were already literate at the start of the study, the data could be collected by means of a series of questionnaires. Obviously, using questionnaires with young informants is particularly challenging as the instruments have to be adjusted to their cognitive maturity (see also Enever, 2011, pp. 14–15). Borgers, de Leeuw and Hox (2000) offer recommendations for surveying children at different stages of cognitive development, based on the stages suggested by Jean Piaget in his influential theory of cognitive growth. The children surveyed in this study would be situated at the developmental stages of concrete operations (8 to 11 years) and formal thought (11 to 15/16 years). Borgers et al. (2000, pp. 4, 9) recommend that questionnaire items should be unambiguous, positively phrased and as clearly worded as possible when

70

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

dealing with children at the stage of concrete operations, the stage from which on children can be surveyed in a systematic way. With children at the stage of formal thought it is possible to use standardized questionnaires similar to those for adults. Another valuable piece of advice with regard to the use of self-report measures with children stems from Assor and Connell (in Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, p. 94) who note that Likert scales are an acceptable and valid measure of children’s self-perceptions of competence but that four-point scales may be differentiated enough with younger children. These recommendations were taken into account when designing the questionnaires for this study. Four-point Likert scales were used, care was taken to formulate the items in an understandable and unambiguous manner, and only very few items were negatively phrased. Furthermore, the piloting of the questionnaires was used as an opportunity to call on the children to mark all the questions that they did not understand or had problems answering and to discuss these items with them. Based on their feedback the questionnaires were subsequently fine-tuned. The main questionnaire was distributed in the entire sample once a year in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade. Furthermore, additional questionnaires were distributed in a subsample, once in 4th and once in 5th grade. All questionnaires consisted of a series of closed questions and most of them were answered on four-point Likert scales. The main questionnaire assessed the demographic background of the students (see Table 4.1) and comprised questions on the following variables: language learning motivation, attitudes towards specific national groups, anxiety, and achievement-related self-concept. The questionnaire items on these topics were to a large extent inspired by previous research carried out in primary and secondary schools in Switzerland (Holder, 2005; Schaer and Bader, 2003; Schaer and Bader, 2005; Stöckli, 2004) and the comprehensive research by Gardner (1985), Gardner and Lambert (1972) and Dörnyei et al. (2006), while almost all of them were adapted for the context and age group. Based on Gardner’s theoretical model of motivation, language learning motivation was conceptualized as consisting of four different dimensions (see section 2.1.1 for a discussion of the multilayered nature of motivation): MM

MM

MM

MM

orientations (reasons for learning the language) (nine items) effort (one item) value attributed to the learning task (one item) and positive affect associated with the learning task (one item).



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

71

Given that motivation is such a complex and multilayered psychological construct, any given measure can only represent part of the construct. The operationalization of the construct in this study is no exception to this. Even though the conceptualization of motivation in this study goes beyond learners’ reasons for learning a given language, the operationalization is dominated by measures of different orientations to language learning. It would have been desirable to have an equally strong focus on the dimensions of value, effort and positive affect. Limitations in terms of questionnaire length made this impossible, however. The variable attitudes towards specific national groups assessed the children’s attitudes towards clearly specified, nationally-based groups. It assessed learners’ attitudes towards two attitude objects: MM

MM

attitudes towards specific TL countries (two items) attitudes towards specific TL speakers (two items).

The variable achievement-related self-concept assessed: MM

MM

MM

the learners’ ease of learning (one item) the learners’ (achievement-related) competence perception, which captures their perception of their current competence in the TLs (one item) and the learners’ (achievement-related) expectancy of success, which is futureoriented and captures their expectations for the future (one item).

The item targeting learners’ expectancy of success assessed to what extent the learners believe they will be able to speak English/French well when they are grown up. As such it may actually probe into their ideal L2 self, which is also future-oriented and involves the ability to conjure up a vivid image of oneself as a TL speaker (see Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009, p. 10). Given that the main questionnaire was only one of the instruments used during the data collections in the entire sample, and due to the relatively young age of the informants, it was necessary to keep it as short as possible. The children took about 15 minutes to complete the survey. Hence, the number of items focusing on each concept had to be reduced to a minimum and some of the constructs were assessed with a single item, as is evident from the list of constructs above. For the same reason not all the variables which were of interest to this study could be included in the main questionnaire. Consequently, an additional questionnaire was drawn up and distributed in a subsample of the same population (see section 4.2). This additional questionnaire included

72

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

the following variables: attitudes towards a globalized world, beliefs about language learning, attitudes towards the target languages (TLs), perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of the TLs, and stereotypes of TL groups and in-group. To aid the construction of the additional questionnaire for the subsample, a brainstorming questionnaire with open questions was distributed in two pilot classes. In this brainstorming questionnaire the learners were asked what comes to their mind when they think about: MM

MM

MM

MM

the USA England France French-speaking Switzerland.

Furthermore, they were asked what adjectives come to their mind when they think about the people living in these countries/regions. In addition, they were asked what they think English and French are important for nowadays. The learners’ answers to these open questions helped construct the stereotype and ethnolinguistic vitality sections of the additional questionnaire. The brainstorming questionnaire for English was distributed in summer 2006, a couple of months before the first data collection in the subsample (n=36). The brainstorming questionnaire for French was distributed in autumn 2007, about half a year before the second data collection in the subsample (n=34). The learners’ comments from these brainstorming questionnaires will be used to illustrate and complement the quantitative findings of the study. The idea of investigating the children’s attitudes towards a globalized world was triggered by the discussion about the importance of an integrative orientation in a globalized world (see section 2.1.1). The concept of attitudes towards a globalized world is based on Yashima’s concept of an international posture that aims at reconceptualizing the concept of an integrative orientation in the light of new social realities. It has also been inspired by Appadurai’s (1990, pp. 296–300) characterization of globalization in terms of different sorts of global landscapes or global flows. Altogether Appadurai distinguishes between five different flows: the flow of moving people, such as tourists, immigrants, refugees etc. which is referred to as ethnoscapes; the flow of technologies and machinery across boundaries, which he labels technoscapes; the flow of capital, referred to as finanscapes; the flow of information through media such as newspapers, magazines and television, which is called mediascapes; and, lastly, the flow of ideological discourses, such as



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

73

the Western discourse of freedom, democracy or the value of diversity, which Appadurai refers to as ideoscapes. It is assumed that the concept is also related to the children’s English-related ideal L2 selves (see Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009, pp. 9–42), an assumption which is supported by recent empirical evidence demonstrating a close association between the construct of an international posture and the construct of an ideal L2 self (Csizér and Kormos, 2009, pp. 105–7; Yashima, 2009, pp. 157–9). Broadly speaking the variable attitudes towards a globalized world assessed the children’s ease with or embrace of the following aspects which are characteristic of a globalized world: MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

mobility – ethnoscapes (two items) use of modern communication technologies for the purpose of intercultural contact – technoscapes (one item) spread of global pop culture – mediascapes (one item) availability of global information/interest in foreign affairs – mediascapes (two items) use of lingua francas for the purpose of intercultural contact – ethnoscapes (two items) and diversity – ideoscapes (one item).

The flow of capital (finanscapes) was deliberately left out since it was assumed that it would not be relevant for this age group. An investigation of attitudes towards a globalized world among adult learners should try to take this dimension into account as well, however. The variable attitudes towards the TLs assessed the learners’ perception of the aesthetic value, importance and usefulness of the languages they learn. They were presented with eight adjectives (easy, beautiful, melodious, interesting, useful, important, modern, international) together with their semantic opposites and asked to assess English and French on a continuum between these pairs of opposite adjectives. The greater popularity of English in Swiss schools has commonly been explained as being the result of the global spread of English. In order to empirically verify if the children indeed perceive English to be more of a world language than French and if this influences their motivation to learn the respective languages, the variable ethnolinguistic vitality assessed the children’s perception of: MM

MM

the spread of English and French across the world (15 items) and the importance of English and French for different domains (seven items).

74

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

As far as the students’ perception of the spread of English and French is concerned, the learners were presented with a list of 15 countries in which the TL is an official language or an important lingua franca and asked to tick all the countries in which they think people would understand them if they spoke English/French to them. The assessment of pupils’ beliefs about language learning draws on selected items from Horwitz’s (1999) ‘Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory’ (BALLI). The following beliefs about language learning were investigated: MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

belief that it is easier for children to learn languages than for adults (one item) belief that knowing English facilitates learning French later on (one item) belief that a language can be learnt well within three years (one item) belief that girls are better at language learning than boys (one item) belief that being good at maths implies being bad at language learning (one item).

To examine the children’s stereotypes of TL groups and their in-group the informants were presented with a list of 24 personality trait adjectives and their semantic opposites and were asked to place members of different TL groups and their own group on a continuum between these adjectives. This continuum was divided into four parts, and thus converted into a four-point scale. The personality trait adjectives stem from two sources. Some of the adjectives were provided by Swiss primary school children themselves in the brainstorming questionnaire that was administered in two pilot classes before questionnaire construction. These adjectives were then complemented with those commonly found in language attitude and stereotype research (Baker, 1992; Brohy, 2001; Dörnyei and Kormos, 2004; El-Dash and Busnardo, 2001a, 2001b; Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Grotjahn, 2004; Hewstone, 1996; Huguet and Llurda, 2001; Ingram and O’Neill, 1999; Leyens et al., 1994; Sciriha, 2001). The chosen adjectives are assumed to represent status-related and solidarity-related personality dimensions. Before the first data collection, all questionnaires were piloted in two school classes. On these occasions, the children were asked to highlight all items that caused problems or were not clear to them. Upon completion of the questionnaires, problematic items were discussed with the children. On the basis of the learners’ feedback, problematic or difficult items were reworded. The data collections were carried out by trained project collaborators who were always present in the school classes during the entire duration of the data



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

75

collection procedure and who encouraged the learners to approach them with any questions or uncertainties they might have. They also explained to the children that there are no right or wrong answers to the questionnaire items but that the aim is to find out what they truly think. Furthermore, they assured the children of the confidentiality of the data by pointing out that neither their parents nor their teachers nor their classmates would ever learn what answers they provided. The fact that the same project collaborator visited the same classes across the years contributed to establishing a rapport of trust between the researchers, the children and the teachers. After the data collections the data were entered into the statistical program SPSS version 14.0.

4.4 Scaling procedure In order to identify the broad dimensions underlying the survey data, exploratory factor analyses were carried out after the first and second data collection and mean scales were generated on their basis. This results in a pooling of the questionnaire items into thematic clusters. An exploratory approach was chosen since the items used were adaptations from material found in a number of other studies and, as such, had never been tested. Furthermore, it did not seem justified to assume an a priori factor structure in a sample as little studied as these children. For the exploratory factor analyses, the principal component method was used. Varimax rotation was used as the rotation technique. The decision as to the number of factors to be extracted was guided by a combination of theoretical considerations, the scree plot criterion and Eigenvalues. Separate factor analyses were conducted for each questionnaire and each language. After the first and second data collection, confirmatory factor analysis was employed to verify if the proposed factor structure is sound. As a general rule, items with corrected item-total correlations below .3, or factor loadings below .3 in the case of confirmatory factor analysis, were excluded from the scales. It needs to be pointed out, however, that some compromises in terms of scale characteristics had to be made in order to make scales comparable across the years and across different languages, which was essential for the longitudinal and comparative analyses of the study. All things considered, the pattern of factor loadings was surprisingly stable across the years. Nevertheless, it occasionally happened that a certain item did not fit very well into a given scale one year but fit well one or two years later, or that a certain item did not fit well into a given scale for one language but fit well for the other language. In such cases the item

76

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

was eliminated from the scale if the scale had more than two good indicators without the problematic item and if the item was not of particular theoretical importance. Otherwise, it was kept. One such example is the item targeting the learners’ perception of the importance of English and French for daily life in Switzerland. This item did not fit well into the English ethnolinguistic vitality–importance scale because this is the only dimension for which the learners do not really consider English to be very important. In the case of French, which is a national language, the pattern is different and the item does fit into the French ethnolinguistic vitality–­importance scale. For a comparison of the learners’ perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of English and French, the scale had to be the same for the two languages, however. Eliminating the Swiss component would have favoured English, which was undesirable. Consequently, the item was kept for the scales of both languages, despite its unsatisfactory corrected item-total correlation in the English scale. The following section will summarize the results of the factor analyses: As far as the learners’ motivational orientations are concerned, exploratory factor analyses revealed that the different reasons for learning the TLs presented to the children can be classified into three different kinds of orientation. Based on an analysis of the items loading on the three factors, these orientations were labelled intrinsic orientation, extrinsic-instrumental orientation and extrinsiclingua franca orientation. The intrinsic orientation factor consists of items that refer to an inherent pleasure in the TL lessons, in hearing and speaking the TL, and one item referring to a feeling of studying voluntarily. As far as learners’ enjoyment of the FL lessons is concerned, this was originally thought of as a separate dimension, namely positive affect. Factor analysis revealed, however, that this dimension is strongly associated with learners’ intrinsic orientation to learning, for which reason the item was included in the intrinsic orientation scale. Furthermore, the item referring to a feeling of compulsion loaded on both the intrinsic factor (negatively) and the anxiety factor (positively). As time went by this item became more and more closely associated with the intrinsic factor, so I decided to include this item in the intrinsic orientation scale as well. It is not a particularly good indicator of the underlying construct in 3rd grade but becomes a good indicator in 4th and 5th grade. The extrinsic–instrumental orientation scale is made up of items which refer to a desire to learn the TL for instrumental reasons, such as understanding one’s computer game or favourite music, and the extrinsic–lingua franca orientation scale is characterized by a desire to learn the TL in order to be able to communicate with people from all over the world.



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

77

The questionnaire for French contained two additional items relating to learners’ motivational orientations that were not in the English questionnaire. Both items were related to learning French because of it being a national language. Given that the scales for English and French had to be comparable, these items could not be integrated into any of the already existing orientation scales. A separate orientation scale labelled extrinsic–Swiss orientation scale was created for French containing these two items. Despite the fact that different orientations can be identified, no reference will be made to different kinds of motivation based on these different kinds of orientations. This decision is based on previous research showing that different motivational orientations are positively correlated rather than mutually exclusive (see section 2.1.1). The four items tapping into the learners’ attitudes towards clearly-specified TL groups all loaded onto one factor, which I labelled attitudes towards specific national groups. Similarly, all three items probing into the learners’ self-concept loaded onto one factor, which I labelled self-concept accordingly. The anxiety factor is composed of four items that relate to learner stress and anxiety in the FL lessons. The six factors extracted from the main questionnaire data (intrinsic orientation, extrinsic–instrumental orientation, extrinsic–lingua franca orientation, self-concept, anxiety, and attitudes towards specific national groups) account for 62–70 per cent of the variance in the English data and 67 per cent of the variance in the French data. Originally, the construct of attitudes towards a globalized world was devised to encompass an appreciation of the following six dimensions: mobility, use of modern communication technologies for the purpose of intercultural contact, spread of global pop culture, availability of global information/interest in foreign affairs, use of lingua francas for the purpose of intercultural contact, and diversity. It turned out, however, that the item targeting learners’ appreciation of diversity (‘I find it a good thing that not everybody is the same’) did not really fit into the scale. Similarly, confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the two items looking at the children’s appreciation of mobility (‘I could imagine living abroad for a while some day’ and ‘I’d like to live in Switzerland forever’) were not good indicators of the underlying construct either. The item regarding a wish to live in Switzerland forever did not fit into the scale either in 4th or in 5th grade. It is possible that this aspect of a globalized world is simply not relevant for these children yet. Probably 10–11-year-olds are not yet thinking about where they

78

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

would like to live in the future. I could imagine that the only kind of international mobility that the primary school children envision is travelling, and it might have been advisable to cover the mobility aspect with questions relating to travel rather than to more permanent stays abroad. Given that the items focusing on the mobility and diversity dimensions of the construct were not good indicators, they were not included in the attitudes towards a globalized world scale. The eight adjectives which were presented to the learners to evaluate English and French all loaded on one single factor, so that they could all be combined into the attitudes towards the TLs scale. As far as the learners’ assessment of the importance of English/French for different domains was concerned, the items did not fit well into one scale. The item asking about the importance of English/French for school did not go well with the other items concerned with the importance of English/French for other domains, neither in 4th grade nor in 5th grade and neither for French nor for English. Therefore, it was not taken up into the ethnolinguistic vitality–importance scale. As already pointed out above, the item regarding the importance of English for daily life in Switzerland did not really fit into the ethnolinguistic vitality–importance scale for English because this is the only domain for which English is not considered very important. The item was kept for the scale, however, because it is important for the French ethnolinguistic vitality–importance scale. Similarly, the item asking about the importance of English for career was kept despite the fact that it did not fit well into the English scale in 4th grade, as it did fit well into both the English and French scale in 5th grade. The ethnolinguistic vitality–spread scale, which assesses the learners’ perception of the spread of the two languages, is different from the other scales in the sense that the informants’ values on all the items were added up into a sum score without consideration of the corrected item-total correlations of individual items. It was quite obvious, for example, that many children did not perceive Switzerland to be a predominantly English-speaking country, while the USA, England, and Canada were considered predominantly English-speaking. Consequently, Switzerland would not really fit into the English ethnolinguistic vitality–spread scale. The fact that Switzerland is not perceived as a country where English will be understood serves to show the limits of the perception of English as a global language, however. English is simply not perceived to be a language that will be understood by most people pretty much everywhere. The fact that certain countries were not perceived as predominantly English- or French-speaking provides important information about the perception of the ethnolinguistic vitality of English and French by the primary school children.



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

79

Therefore, it was important that all the countries were included in the ethnolinguistic vitality–spread scale. The three scales attitudes towards TLs, ethnolinguistic vitality–importance and ethnolinguistic vitality–spread together explain 38 per cent of the variance in the English data in 4th grade and 40 per cent of the variance in the English and French data in 5th grade. As far as the 24 personality trait adjectives probing into learners’ stereotypes are concerned, a separate factor analysis was carried out for each target group (the English, Americans, the French, French-speaking Swiss and Germanspeaking Swiss). These factor analyses suggested a two- or three-factor solution for each group. A two-factor solution was ultimately chosen as it provided more comparable results across the different groups investigated. This two-factor solution reflects the solidarity and status dimensions identified in previous stereotype research and, thus, yields further evidence for the centrality of these two dimensions in social perception. Consequently, two factors were created for each group – one reflecting learners’ evaluation of the groups in question in terms of solidarity and likeability and the other their evaluation of the same groups in terms of status and power. These two factors explain between 43 per cent and 47 per cent of the variance in the 4th grade data and between 48 per cent and 61 per cent in the 5th grade data. The items probing into the primary school children’s beliefs about language learning could not be integrated into a scale as the different beliefs assessed were too diverse. The analysis of those beliefs will be carried out on the basis of individual items, therefore. The generated scales for each language and survey phase together with the constituent items and their psychometric properties are displayed in the Appendix with comments on items that were kept despite unsatisfactory psychometric properties. For item wordings the reader is referred to the English translation of the questionnaire which can also be found in the Appendix. Most of the scales display good reliability with Cronbach alphas ranging between .55 and .96. These internal consistency values are particularly satisfactory considering the relatively young age of the informants and the limited number of items constituting some of the scales. The only scales with somewhat less than satisfactory internal consistency are the stereotype-status scales and the attitudes towards a globalized world scale. This is something that has to be taken into account when evaluating the results of the study. Table 4.2 provides an overview of the different variables assessed and the corresponding scales and subscales.

80

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Table 4.2  Overview of the constructs assessed and the corresponding scales and subscales Constructs

Scales and subscales

Language learning motivation

Total motivation scale intrinsic orientation scale MM extrinsic–instrumental orientation scale MM extrinsic–lingua franca orientation scale MM (Swiss orientation scale) MM effort (1 item) MM value (1 item) Attitudes Attitudes towards specific national groups scale Attitudes towards a globalized world scale Attitudes towards the target languages scale Anxiety Anxiety Achievement-related self-concept Self-concept scale Beliefs about language learning No corresponding scale could be created as the beliefs assessed were too diverse. Ethnolinguistic vitality of the Ethnolinguistic vitality–importance scale target languages Ethnolinguistic vitality–spread scale Stereotypes Solidarity scale Status scale MM

4.5 Analysis The data were analyzed quantitatively using the statistical programs SPSS 17 and AMOS 17. Given that the data is not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were used wherever possible. Spearman correlations were used to test for associations between variables and Mann Whitney U-Tests were used to compare the means of two different groups. For comparisons between English and French, Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Tests were used. The significance level was set at 0.05 for all tests. For the investigation of the (in)stability of the primary school children’s motivation and language attitudes across time and for the multivariate analyses exploring the relationship between different variables bearing on motivation, structural equation modelling (henceforth SEM) was used. SEM can be seen as an extension of the general linear model and a more powerful alternative to multiple regression, path analysis, factor analysis, time series analysis and analysis of covariance (see Garson, 2009). The advantage of SEM over other kinds of analysis is that it allows for more complex modelling,



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

81

including models with multiple dependents and mediating variables thereby overcoming the strictly additive character of traditional regression analyses. Another advantage of SEM is that, unlike traditional methods, which assume that the constructs under investigation are measured perfectly by the instrument at hand, it takes into account measurement error, thus yielding more accurate results. In addition, SEM also allows the researcher to take into account that the constructs under scrutiny may not be directly observed (which is the case for language learning motivation and language attitudes for example) but latent constructs which are inferred from a series of directly observed variables (in this case the individual questionnaire items) (see Byrne, 2001, pp. 3–4; Garson, 2009). The structural equation modelling procedure essentially entails two steps. The first step involves the validation of the measurement model. This is accomplished by making sure that the observed variables (items in the questionnaire) actually constitute good indicators of the underlying latent variables which cannot be directly observed (theoretical constructs). This is done by means of confirmatory factor analysis (see section 4.4). The second step consists of the fitting of the structural model or, put differently, of the testing of the hypothesized model. Different goodness-of-fit-indices can be used to evaluate if the data actually fits the specified model. The following fit indices were used for the analysis at hand and will be reported here (for more information on goodnessof-fit-indices see Arbuckle, 2005, pp. 489–509; Byrne, 2001, pp. 80–8): MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Chi square statistics (χ2): This tests the null hypothesis that the model is 100 per cent correct. A non-significant χ2 reflects a good fit to the data (see Woodrow, 2010, p. 308). The Chi square is widely known as being not particularly useful for the evaluation of model fit, as it is sensitive to sample size and any model will be rejected if the sample size is big enough. Chi square normed index (χ2/df): Values ranging between 1.00 and 3.00 indicate an acceptable model fit (see Byrne, 2001, p. 81; Woodrow, 2010, pp. 308–9). Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values can range from 0 to 1 and values above .90 are indicative of an acceptable fit. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values below 0.05 indicate a good fit and values up to 0.08 still represent a reasonable approximation. PCLOSE: this is a test of the hypothesis that the RMSEA is ‘good’ (that is, below 0.05). If PCLOSE is higher than 0.05 we can assume that the RMSEA is good and that the model represents an adequate fit to the data.

82

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

It is important to point out that a model that fits the data well is only one of many possible well-fitting models. It is possible that another model would fit the data equally well or even better (see Byrne, 2001, pp. 4–8; Garson, 2009; Woodrow, 2010, pp. 306–8). Consequently, the models presented in this book by no means constitute the ultimate best explanation of the data at hand. The fact that they can be shown to adequately fit the data simply means that they are a reasonable representation of what is going on in the data. Nevertheless, there might be other models that can account for the data just as well or even better. In order to ease understanding of the models presented in the ensuing chapters, a short synopsis of relevant SEM graphic conventions follows. In SEM models rectangles represent observed variables (individual questionnaire items in this case, although sometimes scales will be treated as observed variables due to limitations in terms of the number of variables that can be included in a model on the basis of the sample size), ovals represent latent variables (the underlying constructs), small circles represent measurement error, double headed arrows represent a correlation and single-headed arrows represent regression paths. The analysis of change in chapters 5 and 6 employs two different kinds of SEM analysis based on the number of panel waves. The primary school children’s motivational dispositions and their attitudes towards selected TL groups were assessed three times. These were analyzed by means of latent growth curve (henceforth LGC) modelling. LGC modelling requires longitudinal data collected in at least three waves. It enables researchers to examine not only if there is change across time but also what the trajectory looks like (shape of change, e.g. linear, curvilinear) for the sample as a whole and for specific subgroups. Any latent growth curve model will provide information on the initial level of a construct, on individual differences in terms of the initial level, on change and on individual differences with regard to the rate or pattern of change (see Duncan et al., 1999, pp. 1–4; Legge et al., 2008, pp. 257–8; Stoel et al., 2004, pp. 241–2). The LGC model is based on the idea that the development in an observed or latent variable under scrutiny (e.g. motivation) is a function of a latent intercept and a latent growth factor, called slope (see Duncan et al., 1999, pp. 1–4; Legge et al., 2008, pp. 257–8; Stoel et al., 2004, p. 241). The intercept represents the starting point. The mean of the intercept factor represents the sample mean at the time of the first data collection and the variance of the intercept factor represents the amount of individual variation that existed at the time of this first survey. The regression coefficients of the intercept on the different measures of



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

83

the target variable are fixed to 1 (see Duncan et al., 1999, pp. 13–15; Legge et al., 2008, p. 257; Stoel et al., 2004, pp. 244–5). The slope represents the average rate of change over time. The mean of the slope indicates the mean amount of change that can be identified in the sample. If the mean is significant, the identified change is significant. The variance of the slope indicates to what extent individuals differ in terms of the rate or pattern of change. If the variance of the slope factor is significant there are significant individual differences with regard to the rate of change identified for the sample as a whole. The factor loadings of the slope factor on the target variable carry information about the rate of change. In order for an LGC model to be identified, at least two slope loadings must be set to some fixed value. The remaining loadings (in this study one) can be freely estimated. The following fixed loadings were used in this study: the factor loading of the slope on the first measure (temporally) of the target variable is set to zero as this is the initial level and no change has taken place yet. The factor loading of the slope on the last measure (temporally) is set to one as (for the purpose of the study) change is complete at this point (given that we do not know what happens afterwards). The intervening factor loading will be freely estimated by AMOS based on the data and will tell us something about the trajectory of change (see Duncan et al., 1999, pp. 13–15; Legge et al., 2008, p. 257; Stoel et al., 2004, pp. 244–5). In this study, second-order latent growth curve models will be used as they allow testing for measurement invariance, which is a prerequisite for a meaningful interpretation of change. Testing for measurement invariance means testing whether you actually measured the same thing throughout time. Unfortunately, this prerequisite is rarely tested since traditional methods of studying change (such as ANOVA or Friedman tests) simply take measurement invariance for granted. This severely jeopardizes their reliability and usefulness for mean comparisons (see Lance et al., 2000, pp. 108–12; Stoel et al., 2004, p. 243). Testing for the assumption of measurement invariance across time involves testing and comparing a series of nested models. A combination of the χ2 difference test and more pragmatic fit indices will be used for the evaluation of these nested models since the χ2 difference test is sensitive to sample size and non-normality (see Byrne and Stewart, 2006, p. 305). In line with the arguments put forth by Byrne and Stewart (2006, pp. 305–7), a more constrained model will be accepted as better or equivalent if a) it exhibits an adequate fit to the data, and b) the difference in CFI is negligible. Cheung and Rensvold report critical values regarding the change of CFI for the evaluation of nested models.

84

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

According to them we can accept the more constrained model if the difference in CFI does not exceed 0.01. If the difference in CFI lies somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02 there is some suspicion that differences may exist. If the difference in CFI is larger than 0.02 there are definitely differences and we have to reject the more constrained model (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000, pp. 45–6). The first kind of invariance that is tested when testing for measurement invariance is configural invariance. This involves testing if the nature of the underlying construct that is operationalized by measured variables remains unchanged across measurement occasions. In terms of model specification this means testing a model where the underlying concept (e.g. intrinsic orientation) is measured by the same items every year and where time 1 items only load on the time 1 factor, time 2 items only load on the time 2 factor etc. (for more information see Lance et al., 2000, p. 122). If configural invariance fails to be forthcoming, the observed measures represent different constructs at different points in time. This strongly argues against a meaningful assessment of change (see Lance et al., 2000, pp. 109–10, 122–3; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000, pp. 17, 36–7). As Lance et al. (2000, p. 135) aptly point out, it makes little sense to assess change with regard to an underlying construct if the participants’ interpretation of that construct has somehow changed over the years, as you would be comparing apples and oranges. When configural invariance has been established, metric invariance is tested. Metric invariance means that the relations between the observed indicators and the underlying construct remain the same across time. This means that the participants responded to the items in the same way across the years. In order to test this, additional constraints are placed on the configural invariance model in that all the factor loadings of like indicators are constrained to be equal across the years (see Figure 4.1). If strict metric invariance does not yield a good model fit, it is possible to test for partial metric invariance, in which case only some (but at least two) of the factor loadings of the indicators are constrained to be equal across the years (see Lance et al., 2000, pp. 109–10, 122–3; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998, pp. 80–1). Once (partial) metric invariance has been established, the last step is to test for scalar invariance. This means that the indicators are calibrated equivalently to their underlying constructs with respect to location parameters across measurement occasions. You could say that testing for scalar invariance means testing for systematic response bias across time. If children were to become systematically less lenient as time goes by, for example, scalar invariance would not be forthcoming. Testing for scalar invariance implies adding additional



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

85

constraints on the (partial) metric invariance model. In the scalar invariance model, intercepts of like indicator variables are constrained to be equal across time (see Figure 4.1). Just as with metric invariance, partial scalar invariance can be tested if full scalar invariance cannot be assumed to exist. Partial scalar invariance can be assumed to exist if some (at least two) of the indicator intercepts are invariant across time (see Lance et al., 2000, pp. 109–10, 122–3; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000, p. 38). Failure to establish full metric or scalar invariance is not as serious an issue as failure to establish configural invariance, as partial metric and scalar invariance can be modelled and, thus, these sources of inequivalence can be controlled for (Lance et al., 2000, p. 110). Most researchers agree that partial metric and scalar invariance are sufficient for mean comparisons (see Lance et al., 2000, p. 110; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998, pp. 81–2; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000, pp. 56–7). Figure 4.1 represents a basic second-order LGC model where all the relevant parameters for measurement invariance testing are labelled. The equations below indicate which parameters are constrained to be equal for which kind of invariance testing: Configural Invariance: the regression weight of the first indicator variable is set to 1 for each point in time the intercept of the first indicator variable is set to 0 for each point in time. MM

MM

Metric invariance: the regression weight of the first indicator variable is set to 1 for each point in time the intercept of the first indicator variable is set to 0 for each point in time a=b=c d= e=f. MM

MM

MM

MM

Scalar invariance: the regression weight of the first indicator variable is set to 1 for each point in time the intercept of the first indicator variable is set to 0 for each point in time a=b=c d=e=f ia=ib=ic id=ie=if. MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

1

0

V1T1 1

0, 1

0,

0,

e2

0,

e3

1 ia

1 id

V2T1

1

V3T1

a

0

e6 1 ib

1 ie

V1T2

V2T2

V3T2

1 0,

1

e14

b

Latent Variable T2

e13 1

0, e7

0

d

Latent Variable T1

0,

e5

1

1

f1

n, ea IM

ICEPT

0,

0, e10

0, e11

0

1 ic

1 if

V1T3

V2T3

V3T3

e9 1

e

1

0

c

Latent Variable T3

f 0 1 0, e15

f2

f3

SLOPE

ce ian ar IV

SV ar ian ce

0, e1

SM ea n,

86

Figure 4.1  Invariance testing LGC models

The learners’ attitudes towards a globalized world and their attitudes towards the English language were only assessed twice. Accordingly, no LGC models could be used for the analysis of change with regard to these variables. The stability of these two types of attitudes was investigated by means of autoregressive models. The basic assumption behind these models is that a certain variable at time point two can be seen as a function of itself at time point one and a residual. The model parameters provide information about stability at both the group and the individual level. Just as with the LGC analyses, measurement invariance testing was first carried out to assess if the means can reasonably be compared across the two measurement occasions. While structural equation modelling is based on the assumption of multivariate normality, AMOS provides a bootstrap procedure as an approach to handling non-normal data. Carrying out SEM with non-normal data will lead to excessively large χ2 values and underestimated fit indices which, in turn, is



Research Sites, Research Questions and Methodology

87

likely to lead to a rejection of an acceptable model. The bootstrap procedure involves a re-sampling process in which the original sample is considered to represent the population and multiple subsamples of the same size as the parent sample are then drawn randomly, with replacements, from this population. This bootstrap sampling distribution is free from the restriction of normality. It allows the researcher to assess the stability of parameter estimates and, thus, to arrive at more accurate parameter estimates. The bootstrap procedure is also useful for analyses with moderately large samples, making it a suitable tool for the present analyses (for more information see Byrne, 2001, pp. 268–70). All the bootstrap analyses in this study are based on 200 bootstrap samples. One of the drawbacks of the bootstrap procedure is that it cannot be carried out with missing data. Therefore, cases with missing values either have to be eliminated from the dataset or missing values have to be imputed in one way or another. As long as the elimination of cases with missing values did not result in too substantial a loss of informants (> 15 per cent), cases with missing values were deleted for the bootstrap analysis. If the loss of informants exceeded 15 per cent, missing values were imputed using the Bayesian imputation method in AMOS. A multiple imputation method with five imputation datasets was employed. Unlike single imputation techniques, multiple imputation techniques take into account that, no matter how sophisticated the procedure employed, imputed values always remain a plausible guess. There is always a certain measure of uncertainty involved as we can never be sure what the true value would have been. This uncertainty is taken into consideration by virtue of the fact that more than one plausible simulated value (the number of imputed values can be specified by the researcher) is imputed for each missing value. This yields x alternative versions of the complete dataset. The analysis is then carried out across these alternative datasets (in this case five) which yield slightly different parameter estimates, and the results are subsequently summarized (see Schafer and Graham, 2002, p. 165). More information about the tests used will be provided in the presentation of the results.

5

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions This chapter examines the primary school children’s motivational dispositions with regard to English as a school subject across a time period of two years (3rd grade to 5th grade) at a macro-level.5.1 The examination of the motivational variables will start out with a descriptive analysis. The aim of this descriptive analysis is to tease out what motivates the primary school children to study English and how motivated they are. These descriptive analyses will be followed by LGC analyses that identify and discuss significant changes with regard to the motivational dispositions outlined in the descriptive section, thereby aiming to contribute to our understanding of how stable or unstable primary school children’s motivational dispositions actually are. Children who were not present during the entire duration of the study or who either reported learning or using English on a regular basis outside English classes at school (including children who indicated using English at home) were filtered out for the analyses in this chapter. Children using English at home were filtered out as – being native speakers – their language learning motivation is unlikely to be representative of the population of English learners. After all, they are not really learners of the language in the traditional sense. As far as their language learning motivation is concerned, it is likely that they are either very motivated to learn their native language or quite the opposite, as it may be too unchallenging for them and they might become bored before long. Obviously, studying this group on its own and comparing it to the group of beginning learners would be interesting in its own right. It would go beyond the scope of the present study, though, which is concerned with the general language learning motivation and language attitudes of beginning language learners. Table 5.1 illustrates which reasons for learning English constitute the most powerful motivators for the primary school children, how much effort they invest into the study of English and how important they perceive the study

Table 5.1  Motivation to learn English across the years (n=490)

… because I enjoy speaking 44% 31% 33% 39% 43% 42% 14% 19% 20% 3% the language. … because I enjoy hearing 45% 32% 35% 33% 39% 34% 16% 20% 24% 6% the language. I enjoy the 56% 38% 29% 30% 40% 47% 9% 16% 19% 5% English lessons. … not only because I have to. (reversed) … because a lot of people around the world speak English. … because it allows me to communicate with people from all over the world.

6%

6% 2.4/0.8 2.1/0.9 2.0/0.8

5th grade

7% 2.2/0.9 1.9/0.9 2.0/0.9

4th grade

9%

4th grade

6% 2.2/0.8 2.0/.09 2.0/0.9

3rd grade

8%

3rd grade

Mean/SD (whole scale) 5th grade

Mean/SD (per item)

5th grade

“not at all” (0) 3rd grade

5th grade

4th grade

“not really” (1) 3rd grade

5th grade

4th grade

3rd grade

5th grade

“quite right” (2)

4th grade

Intrinsic orientation Extrinsic–lingua franca orientation

4th grade

“exactly” (3) 3rd grade

I learn English …

2.2/.07 2.0/.07 2.0/.08

50% 50% 45% 14% 25% 28% 16% 16% 15% 19% 10% 12% 2.0/1.2 2.2/1.0 2.1/1.0

45% 46% 54% 29% 28% 30% 17% 16% 11% 9%

9%

5% 2.1/1.0 2.1/1.0 2.3/0.9

56% 58% 55% 27% 28% 32% 13%

5%

4% 2.3/0.9 2.4/0.8 2.4/0.8 2.2/0.7 2.2/0.7 2.2/0.7

9%

9%

5%

Extrinsic–instrumental orientation

… in order to understand the text of my favourite music. … in order to understand my PC game. … in order to understand what I read on the internet.

Effort

46% 37% 31% 31% 35% 35% 14% 17% 25% 9% 11% 10% 2.1/1.0 2.0/1.0 1.9/1.0

I learn more English than is absolutely required. (reversed)

12% 15% 20% 19% 28% 31% 28% 30% 29% 41% 27% 20% 1.0/1.0 1.3/1.0 1.5/1.0

Value

… because it allows me to get to know people from different countries.

English is important nowadays.

65% 67% 69% 24% 24% 26% 7%

25% 25% 28% 26% 25% 25% 28% 27% 25% 20% 24% 22% 1.6/1.1 1.5/1.1 1.6/1.1

25% 16% 17% 21% 17% 21% 21% 24% 25% 34% 43% 37% 1.4/1.2 1.1/1.1 1.2/1.1 1.4/0.9 1.3/0.9 1.3/0.9

21% 17% 17% 23% 21% 26% 26% 30% 26% 30% 33% 31% 1.3/1.1 1.2/1.1 1.3/1.1

5%

4%

4%

4%

1% 2.5/0.8 2.6/0.8 2.6/0.6

92

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

of English to be. The table is broken down into the different dimensions of motivation outlined in section 4.3, into the three different measurement occasions, and into the four different answer categories provided in the questionnaire. The last two columns indicate the means and standard deviations of the individual items and the scales. The answer category with the highest percentage has been highlighted.5.2 Furthermore, the scale with the highest mean has been highlighted for every year. The mean values can range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (exactly). As far as the children’s motivational orientations are concerned, it is evident that the intrinsic and lingua franca orientation are considerably more strongly endorsed by the primary school children than the instrumental orientation. The mean values on the intrinsic and lingua franca orientation scales are consistently higher than those on the instrumental orientation scale. Apparently there are two main motivators for the study of English. The first is the desire to be able to get in contact and interact with people from different countries. The second is the students’ inherent pleasure in the English lessons, in hearing and speaking the language, and their perception of voluntary engagement with the language. In stark contrast to intrinsic and lingua franca-related reasons for learning English, the majority of the children indicate that it is not really or not at all true that they learn English for instrumental reasons. The prospect of being able to understand music texts, PC games or the internet seems to constitute a mediocre motivator for learning the language at best, as suggested by the mean on the instrumental orientation scale which is consistently just below the midpoint of the scale. The impression is one of students appreciating this extra advantage of learning English, but not of undertaking the task of learning it if it were just for that sake. The means on the intrinsic and lingua franca orientation scales are not only comparatively higher than the means on the instrumental orientation scale but they are also high in themselves. As pointed out above, mean values on all the scales can range from 0 to 3. The mean values of the lingua franca orientation scale are consistently above 2 and those of the intrinsic orientation scale are at or above 2, which can be considered very high. A look at Table 5.1 will also reveal that the overwhelming majority of the primary school children claim that it is exactly or quite true that they learn English for lingua franca-related reasons, as is evidenced by the fact that these answer categories were the ones most commonly chosen by the learners in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade. Similarly,



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

93

most learners indicate that it is exactly true or quite true that they learn English for intrinsic reasons. Most of the primary school children also think that learning English is important (89 per cent in 3rd grade, 91 per cent in 4th grade and 95 per cent in 5th grade). It could be said, therefore, that they attribute high incentive value to the study of English. Nevertheless, the amount of effort that they claim to exhibit is rather low. The mean for the item targeting learners’ effort is consistently below the midpoint of the scale. It is particularly low in 3rd grade, when the majority of the learners (69 per cent) indicated that they do not (really) learn more than is absolutely required. This percentage drops considerably in 4th and 5th grade to 57 per cent and 49 per cent respectively. The high percentage of children claiming to keep their efforts to a minimum in 3rd grade does not quite tie in with the high percentage of children claiming that they find studying the language important and doing so for a number of reasons. It is possible that, being negatively worded, this item presented some difficulty for the learners in 3rd grade and that the numbers in 4th and 5th grade are more representative of their actual engagement with the language. However this may be, the extent of this engagement stills seems to be somewhat minimal as, overall, children report to stick to what is absolutely required. So far we have been looking at the relative importance of different motivational orientations and the children’s overall motivation to learn English. Let us now turn our attention to developments in this respect across the years. It has already been pointed out above that both the intrinsic and the lingua franca orientation are consistently more strongly endorsed by the learners than the instrumental orientation. This points to a high degree of stability in terms of the relative importance of the different motivational orientations. Two years after the first data collection the primary school children still seem to be motivated to learn English for the same reasons. This does not necessarily mean that their motivation is stable, however. It may be that their overall motivation to learn English has decreased substantially with the drop in the different orientations being roughly equal, thus, resulting in a stable overall pattern of ratings. Table 5.1 does not offer strong support for the hypothesis of a substantial change in learners’ motivational dispositions. A look at the means of the different orientation scales across the three years suggests that it is not only the relative importance of the different orientations that has remained stable, but also their absolute importance. In particular, the lingua franca orientation and the instrumental orientation are surprisingly stable. The intrinsic orientation

94

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

seems to be the only orientation where a noticeable decrease manifests itself across the years, taking place between 3rd and 4th grade. While the inherent pleasure of learning English suffers somewhat, the children are apparently willing to expend more and more effort as the years go by. Both trends might be related to the demands of the teachers actually becoming higher as the children progress through primary school, and the lessons demanding more work on the part of the learners. Overall, then, the only major changes that are apparent when comparing the means across the three measurement occasions involve a drop in the primary school children’s intrinsic enjoyment of English and an increase in the amount of effort that they claim to expend. We do not know, however, if these changes may simply have come about by chance or whether they are actually significant and, if so, how substantial they are. Furthermore, simply looking at the means across the three measurement occasions can be misleading in two ways. First, it is possible that the children actually understood the questions presented to them differently across the years and, thus, their interpretation of the underlying construct has changed as they matured. It is also possible that the answering behaviour of the children has changed over the years. They might have become progressively less lenient, for example, or progressively more concerned with social desirability when answering the questions. Both a change in the interpretation of the underlying constructs and a change in response bias would make a comparison of means across the years meaningless. The use of second-order LGC and autoregressive models enables the researcher to test if respondents understood the concepts the same way across the years and if they exhibited the same kind of bias in their responses (see section 4.5). Second, a simple mean comparison can also be misleading as it summarizes scores across a large group of individuals. An apparent stability in those means can potentially mask considerable fluctuations at the individual level. It is theoretically possible, if not very likely, for example, that all the children with low values on a certain scale in 3rd grade suddenly have high values on the same scale in 4th grade and all the children with high values suddenly have low values. This would mean that there is complete instability, and yet the mean might still be the same or very similar as these ups and downs of different individuals would even each other out. This, too, is an issue that can be addressed by means of LGC models that, apart from identifying changes at the group level, also indicate if there is significant variation at the individual level in terms of learner trajectories.



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

95

The ensuing part of this chapter will present a series of latent growth curve models that test how (un)stable the primary school children’s motivational dispositions are at the group and the individual level. The analysis starts with learners’ overall motivation before moving on to a more fine-grained analysis of the individual orientations. Before presenting the results for learners’ overall motivation, let me say a word about model specification and the process of model trimming. For all the ensuing analyses the baseline model was specified in such a way that the residuals of same items were allowed to be correlated across measurement occasions.5.3 These autocorrelations of residuals can be accounted for by identical item wording and memory effects. If they are not taken into account, stability may be overestimated. The model trimming process involved deleting correlations which turned out not to be significant. Once an acceptable baseline model was established, the analysis proceeded to a series of invariance testing (see section 4.5). The results of these tests are displayed in the Appendix. All the models presented in this and the next chapter are (partial) scalar invariance models that ensure that interpretation of concepts and response bias are held constant across the years or that partial changes in this respect are being controlled for. In order to obtain more reliable parameter estimates and significance tests in the face of the existing multivariate non-normality, bootstrap analyses were performed on top of maximum likelihood (henceforth ML) analyses for all the models. While the estimates in the diagrams are those of the ML analyses, the estimates presented in the tables are those of the bootstrap analyses.

5.1 Overall motivation As far as children’s overall motivation is concerned, the baseline model, which tests for configural invariance,5.4 does not represent a particularly good fit to the data (see Appendix). Nevertheless, configural invariance can be assumed to exist as all indicator variables at a given time point only load on the underlying construct at that particular time point, thus, arguing for an equivalent factor structure over time. As we will see later, the reason for the somewhat less than satisfactory model fit lies elsewhere. Full metric and scalar invariance could not be established but partial metric and scalar invariance could (see Appendix). We can, therefore, proceed to an analysis of the primary school children’s motivational trajectory.

Instrumental

Intrinsic

1.00

0, .05

1

e16

1 –.22 Lingua Franca

.75

1.10

Motivation_3

0, .46

e5

1 –.16

0, .29

e6

Effort

Value

.55

0, .72

e7

1 0

1 .65

Intrinsic

.86

.12

Instrumental

1.00

0, .26

e8

1 –.20

1.10

0, .05

0

e17 1.00

1.00

ICEPT

1

Motivation_4

1.00

.00

1 .36

Value

.08

0, .25

e11

0, .72

e12

1 0

1 .60

Effort

.47

.24

0, .36

e10

Instrumental

Intrinsic

1.00

0

0, .18

e13

1 –.20

.96

Lingua Franca

.75

1.01

1.00

SLOPE

0, .83

e14

1 –.05

1.10

Motivation_5

4

, .1

18

2.

Partial Scalar Invariance 2 Unstandardized estimates chi-square=288.562 df=80 p-value=.000 Chi-square/df=3.607 Cfi=.905 rmsea=.072 pclose=.000

Figure 5.1  Second-order LGC model overall motivation (n=508)

.06

0, 1.00

e9

1 –.07 Lingua Franca

.75

.37

4

1 –.20

0, 1.02

e4

.07

0, .27

e15

1 –.17 Effort

1 1.38 Value

.83

.62

0 1

0, .14

e18

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

1 0

e3

.28

, .0

0, .27

e2

.06

.06

16

0, .77

0, .26

e1

.34

.16

–.

.14

.31

96

.09

Mean bootstrap parameter estimateb

Biasc

SE-Biasd

Lower boundse

Upper boundsf

pg

Unstandardized regression weights: Motivation_3   Slope 0.00 Motivation_4   Slope 1.01 Motivation_5   Slope 1.00

0.00 1.03 1.00

.000 .019 – .035 .000

.000 .015 – .020 .000

0.00 0.70 1.00

0.00 1.50 1.00

… .007 – .010 …

Means: Intercept Slope

2.18 –0.15

2.18 –0.16

.000 – .000 –.004 – –.003

.002 – .002 .002 – .003

2.13 -0.20

2.23 -0.08

.009 – .012 .021 – .028

Variances: Intercept Slope

0.14 0.04

0.14 0.04

.001 – .002 .000 – .001

.002 – .002 .001 – .002

0.09 0.02

0.18 0.09

.012 – .018 .004 – .013

Notes: a This is the mean of the standardized ML estimate across the five imputed datasets. b This is the mean of the mean bootstrap estimates across the five imputed datasets. c This denotes the minimum and maximum difference between the bootstrap mean estimate and the ML estimate across the five imputed datasets. A positive value means that the bootstrap estimate is higher than the ML estimate. A negative value means that the bootstrap estimate is lower than the ML estimate. d This denotes the minimum and maximum value of the standard error of the bias value across the five imputed datasets. e This is the mean of the lower bound of the confidence interval across the five imputed datasets. With 90 per cent probability the true value lies within the lower and upper bound. f This is the mean of the upper bound of the confidence interval across the five imputed datasets. g This indicates the range of the p-values across the five imputed datasets.

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

ML parameter estimatea



Table 5.2  Bootstrap estimates LGC model overall motivation (n=508)

97

98

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Figure 5.1 graphically illustrates the results of this analysis. The estimates represented in the diagram are the unstandardized ML estimates. Given that listwise deletion of cases with missing values for the bootstrap analysis resulted in quite substantial data loss (16 per cent), Bayesian data imputation was used to generate five complete datasets. A separate bootstrap analysis was then carried out for all five of these datasets and, subsequently, summarized. The summary of these results is displayed in Table 5.2. The Bollen–Stine p, which, like the χ2 significance test of the ML analysis, tests the overall fit of the model, is 0.005 for all five bootstrap analyses. The results of the bootstrap analysis show that the primary school children start out with a strong motivation to learn English (m intercept = 2.18). The mean of the slope factor indicates that by the time the children are in 5th grade this mean has dropped by 0.16 to 2.02. The mean of the slope is significant, indicating a significant drop in motivation. Nevertheless, it is clearly not massive, as the learners are quite evidently still motivated in 5th grade. That the motivational drop is rather small is evidenced by the small effect size associated with it (r=.22).5.5 The regression weight of the slope factor on the motivation construct in 4th grade (1.03), which has been freely estimated, indicates that this decrease in student motivation entirely happens between 3rd and 4th grade. Remember that the initial regression weight from the slope factor to the motivation construct in 3rd grade has been fixed to the value of zero, thereby indicating that this is the initial level. The last regression weight from the slope factor to the motivation construct in 5th grade has been fixed to the value of one to indicate that by that time the change is complete (for the purpose of the study). Given that the regression weight from the slope factor to the motivation construct in 4th grade is also estimated to be one, the change is already complete by that time. It seems that, not long after having started to learn English, the primary school children have lost a considerable portion of their original motivation to learn the language. After this initial drop, however, their motivation seems to have stabilized at a still encouragingly high level. Remarkably, the intercept and the slope factors are uncorrelated, which indicates that the initial strength of students’ motivation to learn English is not related to how much decrease they experience in this respect and how fast this happens. This is somewhat surprising, as one might expect a high initial level of motivation to have one of two possible effects on motivational trajectories. On the one hand, it is easily conceivable that a high initial level of motivation could protect learners from certain demotivating experiences and, thus, slow



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

99

down or even prevent loss of motivation. On the other hand, it is also conceivable that a high initial level of motivation is somehow bound to be frustrated (just as high expectations often are) and that strongly enthusiastic learners may actually be more vulnerable to disappointments and, as a result, experience a more pronounced or faster drop in motivational arousal. Apparently, however, students experience the same kind and amount of motivational dampening irrespective of how motivated they initially are. The analysis thus far has shown that there are significant changes in the primary school children’s motivation to learn English at the group level. But what about individual trajectories? How much change can be found at the individual level? Table 5.2 illustrates that both the variance of the intercept and the slope factor are significant. The fact that the variance of the intercept factor is significant means that there are significant individual differences with regard to learners’ initial level of motivation. In other words, individuals significantly differ in terms of how motivated they initially are to learn English. The fact that the variance of the slope factor is significant means that there are also significant individual differences with regard to the rate or pattern of change that learners experience. Some learners may experience a drop in motivation, others may remain stable, and yet others may actually experience an increase in motivation; and these changes may not occur at the same rate for all individuals. The variance of the slope factor does not seem to be substantial in size, however. In order to test whether it would be justifiable to assume that there is no individual variation in terms of change, a model in which the variance of the slope factor is fixed to zero was fit to the five different datasets. For all five imputed datasets this model represents a significantly worse fit than the partial scalar invariance model according to the χ2 difference test, but it can be accepted on the basis of the pragmatic fit indices. The difference in CFI is minimal in all instances (–.003 to –.006). Furthermore, PCLOSE is the same and RMSEA is even slightly better than for the partial scalar invariance model 2. Accordingly, the data support the conclusions that there are no significant individual differences with regard to how much or how fast the learners’ motivation changes but that all learners experience the same kind of motivational loss as they progress from 3rd to 4th grade. When discussing invariance testing, I pointed out that the default model does not represent an ideal fit to the data but that this is not due to the lack of configural invariance. The modification indices also do not point to any major misspecifications of the model. An inspection of Figure 5.1 reveals, though, that the effort item is not a particularly good indicator of the underlying motivation

100

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

construct in 3rd and 4th grade. This is not surprising considering the fact that, unlike the different orientation scales and the value item, the effort item gets rather low ratings, particularly in 3rd grade. It is possible that the presence of this suboptimal indicator variable is responsible for the less than ideal model fit. For this reason another second-order LGC model without the effort item was fit to the data. Indeed, this truncated model is a much better fit to the data (χ2=86.16, p=.000, χ2/df=1.83, CFI=.979, rmsea=.041, pclose=.872). The Bollen–Stine bootstrap p of this model across the five imputed datasets ranges between .010 and .070 with a mean of .032. The analysis of this model yields the same results as the previous model in terms of both invariance testing and estimates. Obviously, the analysis at this global level may mask motivational ups and downs in terms of individual orientations. Therefore, sections 5.2 to 5.4 will look at the learners’ trajectories with regard to each of the individual orientations in turn.

5.2 Intrinsic orientation The configural invariance model of the intrinsic orientation represents a good fit to the data (see Appendix). Once again full metric and scalar invariance could not be established, while partial metric and scalar invariance could. The Bollen– Stine bootstrap p of the partial scalar invariance model is .010. Figure 5.2 and Table 5.3 provide an overview of the parameter estimates of this model. Figure 5.2 presents the ML estimates of the initial ML analysis carried out with the complete dataset. Table 5.3 provides the ML and bootstrap estimates of the bootstrap analysis for which cases with missing values have been deleted. Therefore, the ML estimates in the diagram and the table will differ slightly. The estimates of the LGC analysis pertaining to the group level are in keeping with the descriptive results presented above. The mean of the intercept (m=2.22) is the same as the observed mean of learners’ intrinsic orientation in 3rd grade reported in Table 5.1 (m=2.2), testifying that, shortly after having started to learn English, the primary school children strongly enjoy their language learning experience. The LGC analysis also confirms that there is a significant and noticeable decrease (-0.22) in the children’s intrinsic enjoyment of the study of English as they progress from 3rd to 5th grade. The effect size statistic reveals, however,



.18

say

hear

1.00

0, .07

1

e13

1 –.21

voluntary

1.16

Intrinsic_3

0, .39

e6

1 0

1 .33

enjoy

1.09

0, .37

e5

1 –.23

say

.73

hear

1.00

0, .40

e7 1 –.21

e14 1.00

1.00

ICEPT

1

Intrinsic_4

1.00

.00

hear

1.00

0

0, .32

1.00

SLOPE

e18

1 .38

1 .58

enjoy

1.09

voluntary

.80

Intrinsic_5 1.18

0, .74

e11

1 –.23

say

.73

3

, .2

21

2.

.73 0 1

0, .32

e15

101

Partial Scalar Invariance 2 Unstandardized estimates chi-square=96.450 df=52 p-value=.000 Chi-square/df=1.855 Cfi=.980 rmsea=.041 pclose=.872

Figure 5.2  Second-order LGC model intrinsic orientation (n=508)

0, .20

e10

1 0

voluntary

.96

0, .08

0

0, .17

e9

1 .70

enjoy

1.09

0, .77

e17

7

1 –.23

0, 1.22

e16

, .0

1 0

0, .31

e3

20

0, .47

e2

.20 The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

0, .38

e1

.04

.36

.06

–.

.08

102

Table 5.3  Bootstrap estimates LGC model intrinsic orientation (n=451) Mean bootstrap parameter estimateb

Biasc

SE-Biasd

Lower boundse

Upper boundsf

Pg

Unstandardized regression weights: Intrinsic_3   Slope Intrinsic_4   Slope Intrinsic_5   Slope

0.00 1.09 1.00

0.00 1.13 1.00

.000 .032 .000

.000 .014 .000

0.00 0.84 1.00

0.00 1.48 1.00

… .010 …

Means: Intercept Slope

2.22 –0.22

2.22 –.0.22

–.002 .001

.002 .003

2.15 –0.30

2.28 –0.15

.010 .009

Variances: Intercept Slope

0.22 0.08

0.22 0.08

–.003 .003

.002 .002

0.18 0.03

0.27 0.13

.005 .018

Notes: a This is the standardized ML estimate of the parameter (e.g. regression weight, mean value). b This is the mean of the bootstrap estimates of the parameter. c This is the difference between the bootstrap mean estimate and the ML estimate. d This is the standard error of the bias value. e This is the lower bound of the confidence interval within which the estimate lies with a 90 per cent probability. f This is the upper bound of the confidence interval within which the estimate lies with a 90 per cent probability. g This indicates whether the estimate is significant.

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

ML parameter estimatea



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

103

that this decrease is not particularly substantial in size (r=.22). The regression path estimates of the slope factor illustrate that the drop in intrinsic pleasure happens quite soon after the onset of English instruction. By the time the children are in 4th grade their endorsement of intrinsic reasons for learning English has dropped (by -0.24) to 1.98. After that, learners’ intrinsic pleasure of learning English seems to have stabilized as there is only inconsequential change in this respect from 4th to 5th grade (m 5th grade = 2.00). In line with the results relating to learners’ overall motivation, the intercept and slope factors are not correlated. Hence, how much the children’s intrinsic enjoyment of learning English suffers seems not to be related to how strongly they initially enjoy learning English. As is evident from Table 5.3, both the variance of the intercept and the slope factors is significant. This means that significant individual differences exist in learners’ initial level of intrinsic enjoyment and also in the extent to which and the rate at which this enjoyment abates. The estimates also suggest that the variability with respect to initial level of enjoyment is considerably higher than the variability in the change trajectory. Given the comparatively low variance of the slope factor, it was set to zero to test whether a model specifying that everyone develops the same way presents an adequate fit to the data. If we look at the χ2 difference test, the model specifying an equal trajectory for all learners is significantly worse than the default model (∆χ2p=.010). If we consider the pragmatic fit indices, however, there is some reason to accept the equal trajectory model. First, the difference in CFI (–.007) is below the threshold of –.01 suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (see Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Second, the model still constitutes a good fit to the data according to the pragmatic fit indices (χ2/df=2.03, CFI=.973, rmsea=.048, pclose=.589). Apparently, there is very little individual variation in terms of how the primary school children’s intrinsic orientation develops. Obviously, the children do not all develop in exactly the same way, which is why a model where the slope variance is unconstrained yields a somewhat better fit to the data than a model where it is constrained to be zero. But the fact that this latter model can be accepted on the basis of pragmatic fit indices and still represents a good fit to the data also suggests that these individual differences are negligible in size and that the primary school children all go through a similar development with regard to their intrinsic pleasure of learning English: an initial rather strong drop followed by a levelling out. Let us next examine if learners are less homogeneous in their development with regard to the other motivational orientations assessed.

104

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

5.3 Extrinsic–instrumental orientation For the instrumental orientation none of the slope regression weights could be freely estimated as such a model turned out to be unidentified. Consequently, a linear growth curve with the slope regression weights fixed to 0, 0.5 and 1 respectively was specified for this orientation. The configural invariance model fits the data well, as does the metric invariance model. Full scalar invariance, however, cannot be assumed to exist as the scalar invariance model represented a significantly worse fit to the data than the baseline model. Releasing the intercept of one of the items yielded a partial scalar invariance model which is not significantly worse than the baseline model and fits the data very well, despite not being a perfect fit (Bollen–Stine bootstrap p=.015) (see Appendix). This establishes partial scalar invariance and justifies a comparison of the means across the years. Such a comparison of means across the years reveals that there is no significant change in the extent to which the primary school children as a group endorse instrumental reasons for learning English (see Table 5.4). Throughout the period investigated, instrumental reasons for learning English are not a particularly strong motivator for the learners. The mean of their endorsement of such reasons in 3rd grade is 1.53 (see Table 5.4). Note that this estimate of the latent mean is slightly higher than the observed mean reported in Table 5.1. By the time the primary school children are in 5th grade the mean is still the same (m=1.51). The estimated drop of 0.02 is so insubstantial that it is justified to assume that there is no change in the endorsement of this orientation, an assumption that will be tested shortly. What is noteworthy in this respect is that the results of the LGC analysis do not quite tie in with the descriptive results outlined at the beginning of Chapter 5. Simply looking at the descriptive results in Table 5.1 induces the impression that there is actually a minor decrease in learners’ appreciation of English for instrumental reasons. Once conceptual understanding and response bias are controlled for, however, no such decrease is noticeable anymore. Even though this is a minor difference, it serves to show how misleading mean comparisons can potentially be if the assumption of measurement invariance across time is not met and if measurement variance is not controlled for. Another remarkable finding is that, yet again, the intercept and the slope factors are not significantly correlated, indicating that the amount of change in learners’ instrumental orientation is not significantly related to their initial endorsement of this orientation. It is not the case, therefore, that students who



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

105

.18 .29 0, .84

e1

0, .47

Music

1.00

PC game

e5

1 –1.28

1.71

Music

1.66

1.00

.07

0, .42

e6

1 0

Internet

1.71

e14

1

0, .89

e7

1 –1.56

PC game

.06

0, .35

e9

1 –1.28

e10

Music

1.66

0, .32

0, .30

1 0

Internet

0, .14

Instrumental_3 e13

0, .85

e3

1 –1.33

0

0, .17

.30

0, .36

e2 1 0

.08

e11

1 –1.49

PC game

1.00

1 –1.28

Internet

1.71

1.66

0

0

Instrumental_4

Instrumental_5 1

1

.00 1.00

1.00

ICEPT

.50

1.00

1.00

0, .15

e15

SLOPE 02

–.

15

,.

,.

56

02

1.

Partial Scalar Invariance Unstandardized estimates chi-square=47.761 df=26 p-value=.006 Chi-square/df=1.837 Cfi=.988 rmsea=.041 pclose=.790

Figure 5.3  Second-order LGC model instrumental orientation (n=508)

are keener on learning English for instrumental reasons are more or less likely to experience a drop in this motivational orientation than students who are less keen on learning English for these reasons from the outset. At the individual level the second-order LGC analysis shows that there are significant individual differences in terms of learners’ initial endorsement of instrumental reasons for learning English (see Table 5.4). Put differently, the 3rd graders are not a homogeneous group with regard to their desire to learn English for instrumental reasons. When it comes to their motivational trajectory in this respect, however, they are very much a homogeneous group, as no significant individual differences exist with regard to the rate or pattern of

106

Table 5.4  Bootstrap estimates LGC model instrumental orientation (n=453) Mean bootstrap parameter estimateb

Biasc

SE-Biasd

Lower boundse

Upper boundsf

Pg

Unstandardized regression weights: Instrumental_3   Slope Instrumental_4   Slope Instrumental_5   Slope

0.00 0.50 1.00

0.00 0.50 1.00

.000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000

0.00 0.50 1.00

0.00 0.50 1.00

… … …

Means: Intercept Slope

1.54 –0.01

1.53 –0.02

–.005 –.001

.003 .003

1.48 –0.07

1.63 0.06

.003 .782

Variances: Intercept Slope

0.15 0.02

0.15 0.02

–.006 –.002

.002 .002

0.12 0.00

0.21 0.09

.001 .350

Notes: a This is the standardized ML estimate of the parameter. b This is the mean of the bootstrap estimates of the parameter. c This is the difference between the bootstrap mean estimate and the ML estimate. d This is the standard error of the bias value. e This is the lower bound of the confidence interval within which the estimate lies with a 90 per cent probability. f This is the upper bound of the confidence interval within which the estimate lies with a 90 per cent probability. g This indicates whether the estimate is significant.

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

ML parameter estimatea



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

107

change. Given that the trajectory identified at the group level is one of stability, this means that the same stability can also be found at the individual level. As both the estimate of the variance of the slope and the estimate of the mean of the slope are insubstantial, a ‘no change, equal trajectory’ model where both the mean and the variance of the slope were fixed to zero was fit to the data in order to test whether it is justifiable to contend that there is complete stability in the primary school children’s endorsement of instrumental reasons for learning English at both the group and the individual level. This ‘no change, equal trajectory’ model is not significantly worse than the default model (∆χ2p=.228). In actual fact, it represents a somewhat better fit to the data than either the default model or the partial scalar invariance model (χ2/df=1.73, CFI=.988, rmsea=.040, pclose=.793, Bollen–Stine bootstrap p=.030). This supports the contention that across the sample there is surprising stability with regard to how motivated the primary school children are to learn English for instrumental reasons and, what is more, that this surprising stability can be traced back to the individual level. It is not the case that the stability identified at the group level masks heavy fluctuations at the individual level, with some individuals developing a greater appreciation for instrumental reasons for learning English and others moving in the opposite direction, thereby creating an ‘illusion’ of stability at the group level. As was the case with regard to learners’ endorsement of intrinsic reasons for learning English, the primary school children actually develop in the same way and in the same direction, the only difference being that most of them experience a motivational drop in the former while in the latter they do not seem to experience any motivational change at all. Let us now turn to the third orientation investigated in this study – learners’ lingua franca orientation – and assess what the motivational trajectory for this orientation looks like.

5.4 Extrinsic–lingua franca orientation As was the case for the instrumental orientation scale, leaving one of the slope regression weight parameters unconstrained caused problems of identification. Hence, a linear growth curve with the slope regression weights constrained to 0, 0.5 and 1.0 was specified. Furthermore, measurement invariance could not be as successfully established for the lingua franca orientation as for the other orientations and the motivation construct as a whole. While configural invariance and

108

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

metric invariance could be established without any problems, both models representing a perfect fit to the data, scalar invariance proved to be more problematic. As for the other two orientations, full scalar invariance is not forthcoming. Releasing the equality constraint on the most variant intercept reveals a partial scalar invariance model which is still significantly worse than the default model (see Appendix). The difference in CFI (–.014) is also higher than the cut-off point suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (see Vandenberg and Lance, 2000, pp. 45–6). Despite indications that certain differences exist with regard to the primary school children’s response to this scale across time, a longitudinal mean comparison will be undertaken on the basis of the partial scalar invariance model. This seems justified in light of the fact that the model as such still represents a good fit to the data (see Appendix) and the difference in CFI is smaller than .02, which would definitely argue against an acceptance of the partial scalar invariance model. Nevertheless, the ensuing results will have to be interpreted with some caution. Figure 5.4 depicts the ML estimates of the partial scalar invariance model. Table 5.5 provides the ML and bootstrap estimates of the bootstrap analysis. For this latter analysis, cases with missing values were removed. Therefore, the ML estimates in Figure 5.4 and Table 5.5 may differ somewhat. A look at Figure 5.4 and Table 5.5 will suffice to show that lingua francarelated reasons for learning English constitute a strong motivator for the primary school children when they start learning English in 3rd grade. The mean on this orientation in 3rd grade is 2.18 (see Table 5.5). Consequently, lingua franca-related reasons for learning English are on a par with intrinsic reasons, which constitute an equally strong motivator for the 3rd graders. So far, the results of the LGC analysis are in line with the descriptive statistics outlined in Table 5.1. The descriptive statistics also suggest that there is complete stability at the group level in terms of learners’ endorsement of lingua franca-related reasons for learning English across the years. In the LGC analysis, matters look somewhat different. When partial measurement invariance across time is ensured, it turns out that learners’ endorsement of lingua franca-related reasons for learning English slightly increases by 0.11 across a time period of two years so that, by the time the learners are in 5th grade, the mean on this orientation is 2.29, thereby making lingua franca-related reasons for learning English the strongest motivator. While being significant, this increase is definitely not sizeable (r=.15).



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

109

So far the motivational trajectory has been very much the same for all the children in the sample. Let us next investigate whether the increase in the appreciation of English for lingua franca-related reasons is also something that is more or less unanimously experienced by the primary school children. The bootstrap analysis indicates that the variance of both the intercept and the slope factors is significant. Hence, there are significant individual differences both in terms of how strongly the learners are originally motivated to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons and in terms of the rate or pattern of change in this respect. When it comes to learning English for lingua francarelated reasons, then, different learners go through different motivational trajectories. .11 .14 0, .63

0, .40

e1

e2 1 0

many

e13

0, .75

everywhere

Lingua Franca_3

0, .28

e5

1 .45

e6

1 0

get to know

.99

.17

0, .51

e3

1 .16

1.00

0, .16

.16

everywhere

1.00

.99

0, .19

0

e14

1

Lingua Franca_4

0, .24

e7

1 .16

many

.77

0, .71

e9

1 .28

e10

1 0

get to know

everywhere

1.00

0

e11

1 .16

many

.77

0, .62

0, .18

1 .11

get to know

.99

.77 0

Lingua Franca_5 1

1

.00 1.00

1.00

ICEPT

.50

1.00

1.00

SLOPE .1

0

.2

1, .

6,

20

1 2.

Partial Scalar Invariance Unstandardized estimates chi-square=60.626 df=28 p-value=.000 Chi-square/df=2.165 Cfi=.974 rmsea=.048 pclose=.556

Figure 5.4  Second-order LGC model lingua franca orientation (n=508)

0, .14

e15

110

Table 5.5  Bootstrap estimates LGC model lingua franca orientation (n=452) Mean bootstrap parameter estimateb

Biasc

SE-Biasd

Lower boundse

Upper boundsf

Pg

Unstandardized regression weights: Lingua franca_3   Slope Lingua franca_4   Slope Lingua franca_5   Slope

0.00 0.50 1.00

0.00 0.50 1.00

.000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000

0.00 0.50 1.00

0.00 0.50 1.00

… … …

Means: Intercept Slope

2.19 0.11

2.18 0.11

–.004 .002

.003 .003

2.14 0.04

2.25 0.18

.004 .012

Variances: Intercept Slope

0.17 0.19

0.17 0.18

.002 –.006

.002 .004

0.13 0.09

0.22 0.31

.009 .005

Notes: a This is the standardized ML estimate of the parameter. b This is the mean of the bootstrap estimates of the parameter. c This is the difference between the bootstrap mean estimate and the ML estimate. d This is the standard error of the bias value. e This is the lower bound of the confidence interval within which the estimate lies with a 90 per cent probability. f This is the upper bound of the confidence interval within which the estimate lies with a 90 per cent probability. g This indicates whether the estimate is significant.

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

ML parameter estimatea



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

111

Given these individual differences, it seems worthwhile to look at the developmental trajectory of different subgroups. The following paragraphs will report on the results of a series of multigroup comparisons carried out in order to shed some light on the existing individual differences with regard to initial level of and change in learners’ lingua franca orientation. The first multigroup comparison that follows examines girls and boys separately, while the second multigroup comparison compares multilingual and monolingual children with each other. Table 5.6 provides an overview of the bootstrap parameter estimates and confidence intervals broken down by gender. The fit indices indicate that the partial scalar invariance model, on which the analysis is based, constitutes a perfect fit to the data. It becomes apparent from the table that girls and boys differ from each other both at the group and at the individual level. At the group level, boys start out with a slightly lower motivation to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons (m intercept = 2.16) than the girls (m intercept = 2.22). On top of this, they do not exhibit significant change in this respect and their motivation to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons remains stable. The girls, on the other hand, become significantly keener on learning English for lingua franca-related reasons as time goes by. Accordingly, by the time they are in 5th grade, the girls in this sample are considerably more motivated to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons than the boys. At the individual level, the girls turn out to be much more homogeneous in their motivational trajectory than the boys. While there is significant variation among both girls and boys in terms of how much they initially claim to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons, there is no significant variation among girls with respect to the growth curve identified at the group level. In other words, the vast majority of the girls in the sample exhibit a significant increase in their motivation to learn English because it is a lingua franca that permits worldwide interaction. It is not the case that some girls exhibit an increase while others remain stable and yet others exhibit a decrease. It is also not the case that some girls exhibit a much more pronounced increase than others but almost all of them develop in much the same direction at much the same speed. Among the boys, however, there are significant fluctuations at the individual level. Consequently, the stability in their lingua franca orientation displayed at the group level hides considerable ups and downs at the individual level. Evidently, some of the boys experience an increase in the extent to which they want to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons, others a decrease, and yet others neither. Figure 5.5 illustrates these different developmental

112

Table 5.6  Bootstrap estimates LGC model lingua franca orientation by gender

ML parameter estimate

Unstandardized regression weights: Lingua franca_3   Slope Lingua franca _4   Slope Lingua franca _5   Slope

F 0.00 0.50 1.00

M 0.00 0.50 1.00

F 0.00 0.50 1.00

M 0.00 0.50 1.00

F .000 .000 .000

M .000 .000 .000

F .000 .000 .000

M .000 .000 .000

F 0.00 0.50 1.00

M 0.00 0.50 1.00

F M 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00

F … … …

M … … …

Means: Intercept Slope

F 2.22 0.17

M 2.15 0.04

F 2.22 0.17

M 2.16 0.04

F –.001 –.002

M .001 .001

F .004 .004

M .004 .004

F 2.14 0.08

M 2.08 -0.06

F M F 2.30 2.24 .012 0.28 0.13 .011

M .010 .477

Variances: Intercept Slope

F 0.12 0.11

M 0.22 0.23

F 0.12 0.11

M 0.22 0.22

F M F .000 –.002 .002 –.002 –.008 .006

M .003 .006

F 0.07 -0.01

M 0.17 0.13

F M F 0.17 0.30 .010 0.25 0.39 .151

M .005 .003

Notes: Girls n=222, Boys n=230 F= female, M= male

Mean bootstrap parameter estimate

Bias

SE-Bias

Lower bounds

Upper bounds

p

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Gender (χ2/df= 1.36, CFI=.979, rmsea=.028, pclose=.996, Bollen–Stine p=.139)



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

113

60.0

Frequency

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 .0

–2.00 –1.50 –1.00 –.50

.00

.50

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Difference individual values extrinsic lingua franca orientation 3rd–5th grade boys Figure 5.5 Individual differences development of lingua franca orientation boys (n=230)

trajectories. It is a graphic depiction of the difference score of each individual’s values on the lingua franca scale in 5th grade and in 3rd grade. It is evident that there is a sizeable group of boys (19 per cent) who remain stable in their appreciation of lingua franca-related reasons for learning English (difference score = 0). Apart from these there is almost an equal number of boys who experience an increase (45 per cent) and a decrease (36 per cent) in their desire to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons, but only few of them experience major changes (9.8 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively have a difference score greater than ±1). Let us next look at the development of monolingual and multilingual children. Table 5.7 illustrates that there are differences in monolingual and multilingual children’s motivational trajectories at both the group and the individual level. In 3rd grade the monolingual and multilingual children equally strongly embrace lingua franca-related reasons for learning English even though the multilingual children score slightly higher on this dimension (see Table 5.7). Over a time span of two years, the multilingual children’s motivation to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons becomes significantly stronger (m

114

Table 5.7  Bootstrap estimates LGC model lingua franca orientation by language background

ML parameter estimate

Unstandardized regression weights: Lingua franca_3   Slope Lingua franca_4   Slope Lingua franca_5   Slope

Mono 0.00 0.50 1.00

Means: Intercept Slope

Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi 2.18 2.25 2.18 2.25 .005 .004 .003 .006 2.10 2.09 2.24 2.38 .014 .015 0.07 0.26 0.07 0.26 –.005 .004 .003 .007 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.41 .078 .019

Variances: Intercept Slope

Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi 0.19 0.07 0.19 0.06 –.004 –.009 .002 .004 0.15 0.00 0.24 0.18 .004 .208 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.09 –.001 .001 .005 .005 0.10 0.00 0.33 0.22 .007 .141

Notes: monolinguals n=367, multilinguals n=81 Mono= monolinguals, Multi= multilinguals

Mean bootstrap parameter estimate

Bias

SE-Bias

Lower bounds

Upper bounds

p

Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi Mono Multi 0.00 0.00 0.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 … … 0.50 0.50 0.50 .000 .000 .000 .000 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 … … 1.00 1.00 1.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 … …

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Language background (χ2/df= 1.78, CFI=.956, rmsea=.042, pclose=.851, Bollen–Stine p=.025)



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

115

slope=0.26, p=.019) while that of the monolingual children does not change significantly (m slope=0.07, p=.078). This means that by the time they are in 5th grade the multilingual children are considerably keener on learning English because it allows them to interact with people from all over the world than the monolingual children. When looking at the individual level, we can glean from Table 5.7 that the variances of the intercept and slope factors are significant for the monolingual children while neither is significant for the multilingual children. Consequently, the multilingual children constitute a much more homogeneous group than the monolingual children, a fact that might be related to the small size of this subgroup (n=81). The fact that the multilingual children in this sample are homogeneous both in terms of their initial appreciation of the study of English for lingua francarelated reasons and in terms of their motivational trajectory implies that they are all very motivated to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons from the start and that they all develop an even keener appreciation of learning English for lingua franca-related reasons as time goes by. The monolingual children, on the contrary, differ significantly from one another with regard to both their initial endorsement of lingua franca-related reasons for learning English and their motivational development. Hence, the stability identified in their appreciation of English for its potential to facilitate international interactions at the group level does not reflect stability in this respect at the individual level. There are children in this group whose lingua franca orientation does remain stable and children whose lingua franca orientation does not remain stable. Figure 5.6 provides an overview of these individual differences in the group of monolingual children. The appreciation of English for lingua franca-related reasons remains stable for a sizeable proportion of the monolingual children (21 per cent have a difference score of 0). The number of children exhibiting an increase and the number of children exhibiting a decrease in this respect is about the same and most of the monolingual children do not massively change in terms of their desire to learn English because it allows them to communicate with people from all over the world (64.5 per cent have a difference score which does not exceed ±1).

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

116

80.0

Frequency

60.0

40.0

20.0

.0

–3.00 –2.50 –2.00 –1.50 –1.00 –.50 .00

.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Difference individual values lingua franca orientation 3rd–5th grade monolinguals Figure 5.6  Individual differences development of lingua franca orientation monolinguals (n=367)

5.5 Summary and conclusions Summary The findings presented in this chapter yield the same picture as the previous analysis of the primary school children’s motivational trajectory across a time span of one year (see Heinzmann, 2010b, pp. 113–19). First, and perhaps most importantly, the results illustrate that the primary school children are strongly motivated to learn English for a variety of reasons and, notwithstanding a certain measure of motivational decline, they remain motivated throughout the period investigated. When asked about why they learn English, the primary school children indicate that they mostly learn English because it allows them to establish ties and interact with people from all over the world and because they enjoy it. While both are equally strong motivators in 3rd grade, the intrinsic enjoyment of English and its study abates noticeably as time goes by. Contrary to this, the lingua franca orientation gains in importance somewhat. This turns lingua franca-related reasons for learning English into the most powerful motivator. The fact that this is the strongest motivator for the learners suggests that they are aware of the status of English as an international language and its capability to



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

117

help them achieve the goal of international communication. Whether English is indeed perceived in this way by the primary school children will be investigated in Chapter 7. Moreover, the fact that there is actually an increase in the appreciation of English as a means of intercultural communication might suggest that the primary school children develop a keener awareness of the existence of a larger world surrounding them and the status of English as the global lingua franca in this world as they grow older. It may also represent the beginning of a gradual shift from intrinsic to more utilitarian reasons for learning English – a shift that was also found in a longitudinal study in a primary school context in Hungary (Nikolov, 1999, pp. 42–5). That communication-related reasons for learning English constitute the most powerful motivator for these young learners is in line with previous research findings in the Swiss context and elsewhere (see Grin et al., 2006, p. 56; Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 1993; Schaer and Bader, 2003, p. 25; Stöckli, 2004, pp. 58–9). Languages, above all other things, are a means of communication. It is not surprising, therefore, that they are also learned, above all other things, because they enable people to communicate with each other. Throughout the learning period investigated, the instrumental usefulness of English for understanding song texts, computer games or the internet clearly constitutes the least powerful motivator for the learners. This may seem somewhat surprising in the face of the widespread assumption that the status of English as the language of international youth culture and technology will attract children and adolescents to the language and make it easier for them to learn it. This assumption has been prominently invoked as an argument in favour of introducing English into the primary school curriculum (see Bildungsplanung Zentralschweiz, 2003; Edthofer, 2004, pp. 11–12; Stotz, 2008, pp. 3–4). Clearly though, research findings tell a different story. As a matter of fact, the finding that instrumental reasons for learning English are comparatively unimportant for the primary school children ties in with previous research carried out in primary and secondary schools not only in Switzerland (see Grin et al., 2006, p. 56; Nikolov, 1999, pp. 42–6; Schaer and Bader, 2003, p. 25; Stöckli, 2004, pp. 58–9). In Nikolov’s (1999, p. 46) longitudinal study of primary school children in Hungary, for example, instrumental motives started to emerge around the age of 11–12 but remained somewhat vague and general. It seems, consequently, that research findings undermine the discourse of the attraction of English based on its status as a language of youth culture and technology that was prominently invoked in support of the introduction of primary school English. This supports Daniel Stotz’s (2008,

118

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

pp. 13–14) contention that the political discourse surrounding FL instruction in primary schools, while referring to the wishes and motivations of the learners, often does not quite match with their actual wishes and motivations (Stotz, 2008, pp. 4, 6–7, 13–14). As mentioned earlier, the findings presented in this chapter point to relatively little motivational decline over a time span of two years. The only noticeable decrease in learners’ motivation to learn English concerns their intrinsic enjoyment of the language and the lessons. That the primary school children lose a certain measure of their initial enthusiasm about the language and the English lessons as they move from 3rd to 5th grade seems to be only natural. After all, when they started learning English in 3rd grade this was their first experience of FL instruction in the school setting. Furthermore, they were the first cohort in Central Switzerland to be taught in English in primary school. It is likely that everything was new and exciting for them during the first couple of months (for a similar argumentation see Mihaljevic Djigunovic and Lopriore Lucilla, 2011, pp. 44–5). Obviously, excitement and enthusiasm about something novel cannot be sustained forever. It seems plausible that the initial enthusiasm wears off somewhat as the lessons become more of a routine and as learners realize that learning a language is not just fun but also hard work (for a similar argumentation see Grin et al., 2006, pp. 55, 59). In light of this, the drop in their intrinsic enjoyment does not seem to be particularly worrisome. It is also possible that the study of English becomes progressively more demanding and work-intensive in higher grades. This might also explain why the children report putting in more effort in higher grades. On the other hand, the finding that there is a noticeable abatement in the children’s intrinsic enjoyment of the language after only two years of instruction may also be somewhat alarming as it resonates with much previous research and may be indicative of the beginning of the well documented downward trend in motivation found among teenagers. The present analysis suggests otherwise, however, as the children’s motivation to learn English seems to have stabilized after an initial drop occurring between 3rd and 4th grade. Apart from the drop in intrinsic orientation just discussed, the learners’ motivation to learn English could be shown to be surprisingly stable. It should be clear by now, however, that stability over a large group of learners does not necessarily reflect stability at the individual level. The findings pertaining to the individual level also point to a notable measure of stability in this respect, though. The analysis reveals that most primary school children go through the same motivational trajectory. Their appreciation of English for its instrumental



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

119

usefulness stays the same throughout the period investigated, while the intrinsic pleasure in learning the language abates somewhat. Across individuals, the primary school children only differ with regard to how their motivation to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons develops: not everyone develops a keener appreciation for learning English for lingua franca-related reasons. It is primarily the girls and the multilingual children who become keener to learn English because it allows them to communicate with people from all over the world. That the multilingual children start out with a somewhat stronger motivation to learn English for lingua franca-related reasons and develop an even stronger desire to learn English for these reasons over the years might point to a greater awareness of the international status of English on the part of these children as well as a greater openness towards or appreciation of foreign countries and people. This stronger international focus or maybe even awareness of the multilingual children might be related to their bi- or multicultural identity, as most of the bi- and multilingual children also identified as bi- or multinationals. If we direct our attention to the primary school children’s motivation more globally, the analysis reveals that there is a significant drop in their motivation to learn English across the time span studied. This drop is not massive, however, and it can be solely traced back to the drop in learners’ intrinsic enjoyment of the language (classes), an experience shared by most of the children in the sample. The fact that the drop in learners’ overall motivation is less pronounced than the drop in their intrinsic enjoyment is attributable to the slight increase in learners’ lingua franca orientation. In sum, it seems that the primary school children’s motivation to learn English is surprisingly stable with few substantial ups and downs. This is not to say that there are no changes. It is simply to say that these young learners’ motivational development does not seem to be a roller-coaster ride with frequent and pronounced ups and downs. Most of the identified changes are minor and could be expected based on previous research (see Andermann et al., 1999, pp. 131–2; Bieri and Forrer, 2001, pp. 7–9, 21–30, 56; Buff, 1999, pp. 10–18; Grin et al., 2006, pp. 55, 59; Stöckli, 2004, pp. 67–8, 105–6). Indeed, it would be rather unnatural if no changes whatsoever were found.

Theoretical implications The stability found with regard to the primary school children’s motivational dispositions identified in this study suggests that younger children’s language learning motivation may fluctuate less than assumed by many scholars. Because

120

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

motivation is by definition a dynamic concept, the changes identified here are nothing out of the ordinary. The analysis presented here yields no evidence for the assumption that young children’s motivation is somehow less stable than that of adolescents or adults. Longitudinal research into the motivational development of even younger children could shed more light on how fluctuating younger children’s motivational dispositions are and when they start to stabilize. What must be borne in mind when considering the motivational stability identified in this study, however, is that the longitudinal analysis focuses on more generalizable motivational dimensions at the macro-level (trait motivation)5.6 which were assessed once a year. Consequently, an entire school year lies between the different data collections. Obviously, a lot of ups and downs may have gone unnoticed during this time. Furthermore, generalizable motivational dimensions, such as motivational orientations, are expected to be more resistant to change than more specific motivational dimensions (state motivation),5.7 such as motivational reactions to specific tasks or the teacher, for example (see Dörnyei, 1994a, pp. 280–1; Gardner et al., 2004, pp. 17–19, 28–31). It can be assumed that more pronounced ups and downs in learners’ motivational trajectories would have been found if attention had been directed at more specific motivational dimensions at the micro-level (such as task motivation). The fact that learners’ motivational dispositions at a macro level can be characterized as surprisingly stable raises questions about the relationship between more generalizable and more specific aspects of motivation, or, put differently, between trait and state motivation. If motivational dispositions at a more global level remain more or less stable despite the fact that learners go through a series of more dynamic motivational reactions in specific classroom situations, how much of an effect do these more situation-specific motivational dispositions ultimately have on the long-term perspectives of the learners and vice versa? How many uninteresting, boring or frustratingly difficult tasks does it take for a learner to give up on his or her long-term objective to learn the language for a variety of reasons? Or how many frustrating experiences does it take to considerably dampen learners’ overall enjoyment of the language lessons? Can the existence of more abstract and global long-term goals potentially serve as a kind of insulation from specific demotivating experiences? Or, turning this around, can specific positive learning experiences in the classroom contribute to the development of motivating long-term goals? Dörnyei (see Dörnyei and Otto, 1998; Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011) argues that general and more stable aspects of motivation may show few overlaps with



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

121

classroom-specific motivation. This possibility raises another set of questions about the importance and relevance of different aspects of motivation. Which aspects of motivation (generalizable or specific) are better able to predict continued learning efforts? And is this different for different stages in the learning process (as suggested by Dörnyei, 2003, pp. 17–20) and different groups of learners? Longitudinal research combining a macro- and micro-approach to motivational change would be valuable as it might be able to shed some light on the interaction between more generalizable and situation-specific aspects of motivation as well as the relative importance of each for the ongoing learning process.

Practical implications Any study dealing with instructed FL learning naturally touches to some extent upon methodological and didactic issues. Even though the present study is not primarily concerned with didactics, the results, nevertheless, raise some didactic issues and perspectives. The practical suggestions made here and in the following chapters should by no means be understood as hard and solid rules about what to do in the classroom but rather as tentative explorations and suggestions that seem to be worth considering on the basis of the empirical data of this study. The results of the longitudinal analysis are encouraging as they illustrate that English instruction in Swiss primary schools mostly manages to lay or maintain a good motivational foundation for future language learning, which is one of the aims of FL instruction in primary schools. Nevertheless, there is a minority of children who are not motivated to learn English. While it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to be motivated and excited, teachers should still make an effort to work on the motivational dispositions of those children in their classroom who display less favourable motivational states. What could be done in this respect will be elaborated on later (see Chapter 8). It seems wise, however, also to refrain from unrealistic expectations in this respect. The stability found in the primary school children’s motivational orientations seems to suggest that their general motivational dispositions may already be rather firmly established and that, hence, increasing the general motivation of children will require time and hard work. Teachers should bear in mind that more general motivational dispositions are unlikely to change rapidly and easily.

122

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

The fact that the primary school children report learning English most of all because it allows them to get in contact and interact with people from all over the world suggests that it would be profitable for the English lessons to take a communicatively-oriented approach to language learning where the focus is on the build-up of an ability to interact with TL speakers. Given that the anticipated interactants are spread all over the world, many interactions in English will probably not be face-to-face and, hence, involve writing (chat, e-mails, blogs, etc.). Consequently, it seems reasonable that the build-up of an ability to interact with TL speakers should focus on both the written and oral mode. Furthermore, the fact that the children principally learn English because of its status as an international language also implies that English instruction should not exclusively focus on (traditional) native speaker varieties and native speaker countries but could fruitfully employ a more international approach where non-native speaker varieties and cultural frames of reference are integrated into the English curriculum, as suggested by many lingua franca and World Englishes scholars (see, among others, Baker, 2009; Cogo and Dewey, 2006; Dewey, 2007; Erling, 2004; Hino, 2009; Jenkins, 2000, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2006, 2007; McKay, 2010). Obviously, this requires an acceptance of different native and non-native varieties of English as legitimate linguistic codes by the teachers. If we want to prepare learners to be able to interact in English with people from many different backgrounds we need to teach them how to negotiate differences and how to be flexible about interactional expectations and norms. One way to foster such flexibility is to raise learners’ awareness for the existence of different varieties of English and to familiarize them with different varieties of English. This means that the language input (teacher input and textbook input) should not be restricted to native speaker varieties but include a large array of English varieties (including World Englishes and lingua franca interactions) as suggested by Baker (2009), Canagarajah (2002), Dewey (2007), Erling (2004), Hino (2009), Kirkpatrick (2006, 2007), McKay (2010) and Sifakis (2007) among others. Such an approach is certainly useful when it comes to the receptive skills of learners. As far as learners’ productive skills are concerned, they cannot be expected to master the vast variety of Englishes in the world today. What can be done to prepare learners to productively engage with a variety of different interlocutors, however, is to equip them with a set of communication strategies that empirical research has shown to be used and to work in lingua franca



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Motivational Dispositions

123

interactions, such as a focus on meaning rather than form, a certain willingness to let linguistic idiosyncrasies pass, the use of repetition and overexplicitness, and rephrasing (see, among others, Canagarajah, 2002, 2006; Dewey, 2007; Erling, 2004; Firth, 1996; McKay, 2010; Mauranen, 2006b).

6

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions While the previous chapter looked at primary school children’s motivational development, this chapter is devoted to an analysis of their attitudinal dispositions with regard to English as a school subject and how they change across a time period of two years (3rd grade to 5th grade). Once again the examination will start out with a descriptive analysis in order to uncover how the children feel about the TL as such, about representative TL groups and about certain characteristics of a globalized world. These descriptive analyses will be followed by LGC and autoregressive model analyses that identify and discuss significant changes with regard to the attitudinal dispositions outlined in the descriptive section.

6.1 Attitudes towards TL groups Table 6.1 illustrates what the primary school children think about two representative English TL countries – the USA and England – and their respective inhabitants. Once again the table is broken down into the three different measurement occasions and into the different answer categories provided in the questionnaire. The answer category with the highest percentage has been highlighted. The last columns indicate the means and standard deviations. The values of the means can range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (exactly). The first thing that should be mentioned in relation to Table 6.1 is that the primary school children’s attitudes towards these representative TL countries and TL speakers are favourable overall, as a look at the means of the attitudes towards specific national groups scale will testify. The large majority of the children think that the USA and England are great countries and that Americans and the English are kind people (‘exactly’ and ‘quite right’ answer categories taken together). It is also obvious, however, that the USA and Americans

126

the USA is a great country.

35% 34% 42% 35% 37% 36% 20% 17% 17% 11% 12% 5% 1.9/1.0 1.9/1.0 2.2/0.9

England is a great country.

53% 50% 48% 33% 35% 36% 9% 10% 11% 5%

6%

5% 2.3/0.9 2.3/0.9 2.3/0.8

Americans are nice.

29% 28% 29% 42% 45% 48% 20% 20% 18% 9%

8%

5% 1.9/0.9 1.9/0.9 2.0/0.8

the English are nice.

46% 41% 39% 40% 44% 45% 8% 11% 11% 5%

5%

4% 2.3/0.8 2.2/0.8 2.2/0.8

5th grade

4th grade

3rd grade

Mean/SD (whole scale) 5th grade

4th grade

Mean/SD (per item) 3rd grade

5th grade

4th grade

‘not at all’ (0) 3rd grade

5th grade

4th grade

‘not really’ (1) 3rd grade

5th grade

4th grade

3rd grade

‘quite right’ (2) 5th grade

4th grade

I imagine that …

3rd grade

‘exactly’ (3)

2.1/0.7 2.1/0.7 2.2/0.7

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Table 6.1  Attitudes towards English TL groups across the years (n=487)



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions

127

are evaluated differently from England and the English. Evidently, learners’ attitudes towards the USA are less favourable than their attitudes towards England, and their attitudes towards Americans are less favourable than their attitudes towards the English. In 3rd and 4th grade roughly a third of the pupils are negatively disposed towards both the USA and its citizens (‘not really’ and ‘not at all’ categories taken together), while only every sixth child is negatively disposed towards England and its citizens. By 5th grade the perception of the USA and Americans on the one hand and England and the English on the other hand has become more similar. More specifically, the children’s evaluation of the USA and Americans has become more favourable, even though it is still slightly less favourable than their evaluation of England and the English. This points to some changes in learners’ attitudes towards TL groups, which brings us to the issue of stability. The fact that the children’s attitudes towards the USA and Americans have apparently become more favourable makes it clear that their language attitudes are not completely stable and that there is some change. Obviously, complete stability is not something that could be reasonably expected. People do change their minds about things as time goes by. If we look at the means of the attitudes towards specific national groups scale across the three years, however, it will become apparent that there is very little overall change. As far as the children’s attitudes towards England and the English are concerned, no major changes for the better or the worse are apparent and the children’s attitudes towards this group are surprisingly stable. Obviously, this finding has to be accepted with some caution as the apparent stability across the entire sample may mask substantial fluctuations at the individual level or changes in terms of conceptual understanding or answering pattern. Once again, second-order LGC models were employed to control for these factors and find out if there are significant changes in learners’ attitudes towards specific national groups both at the group and the individual level. These models presented some problems, however. Despite the fact that the residuals of same items were allowed to be correlated across the three measurement occasions, and despite the fact that all these residual correlations were significant, the model still failed to represent a good fit to the data. The modification indices made clear that there are quite substantial error correlations between different items within the scale within measurement occasions. Furthermore, one of the items in the attitudes towards specific national groups scale, namely the item referring to the USA, is not a particularly good indicator of the underlying construct, although the standardized loading of this

–.01

the English

England

1.00

0, .22

1

e16

1.32

Attitudes national_3

0, .08

1

1 –.17

e7 1 –.81

0

the English

England

Americans

.89

1.00 0, .15

0

e17 1.00

1.00

ICEPT

1

1.00

0, .50

1.32

Attitudes national_4 .00

0, .37

e9

0, .07

e11 1

1 –.09

e12

.89

the English

1.00

0

1.32

Attitudes national_5 .91

13

,.

34

2.

Partial Scalar Invariance Unstandardized estimates chi-square=28.299 df=24 p-value=.248 Chi-square/df=1.179 Cfi=.997 rmsea=.019 pclose=.990

1.00

SLOPE

Figure 6.1  Second-order LGC model attitudes towards English TL groups without USA (n=508)

0, .41

e14

1 –.81

0

England

Americans

05

1 –.81

0

0, .42

e6

1

.00

Americans

.89 0 1

0, .16

e18

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

1

0, .58

e4

,.

0, .08

e2

.17

.11

06

0, .35

.12

–.

.08

e1

.11

128

.07



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions

129

indicator variable on the latent construct is higher than the .30 cut-off criterion for item inclusion in the scales (see section 4.4). Deleting this item from the scale results in an exceedingly better model which represents a perfect fit to the data (χ2=.200, CFI=.997, rmsea=.023, pclose=.963). The resulting model is also ‘less messy’ in the sense that there are no substantial error correlations between items of the same scale that need to be taken into account. The following analyses of change will be based on this second model. It is worth pointing out that an analysis of the first model yielded the same results. Both configural and full metric invariance could be established without any problems for this model (see Appendix). The full scalar invariance model was considerably worse than both the configural and metric invariance models in terms of the pragmatic fit indices and in terms of the χ2 statistics, however. Therefore, partial scalar invariance was tested for and the partial scalar invariance model represents a perfect fit to the data (see Appendix). Thus, the means can legitimately be compared across the years. The results of this comparison are graphically depicted in Figure 6.1. The estimates in the diagram are the ML estimates. The ML estimates, bootstrap estimates and associated confidence intervals of the bootstrap analysis are displayed in Table 6.2. The Bollen–Stine bootstrap p of this model is 0.22, indicating a perfect fit of the model to the data. The mean of the intercept (2.33 on a scale ranging from 0 to 3) reveals that the primary school children start out with very positive attitudes towards England as well as the English and Americans. The reader may have noticed that this mean is somewhat different from the mean reported in Table 6.1. This is due to the fact that the mean of the LGC model is an implied rather than an observed mean, which takes measurement error and measurement variance into account. The mean of the slope indicates that the mean of the attitudes towards specific national groups scale has decreased by 0.06 over the measurement period, illustrating that by the time the learners are in 5th grade their attitudes have become significantly but only slightly less favourable. This can serve as yet another illustration of how a simple mean comparison can be misleading, as a comparison of the observed means in Table 6.1 would actually suggest a slight increase in favourability rather than a slight decrease. As is evident from Figure 6.1, there is no correlation between the intercept and the slope factors. This means that the extent to which attitudes towards Americans, England and the English become less favourable as time goes by is not related to how favourable they originally are.

130

ML parameter estimate

Mean bootstrap parameter estimate

Bias

SE-Bias

Lower bounds

Upper bounds

P

Unstandardized regression weights: Attitudes_3   Slope Attitudes_4   Slope Attitudes_5   Slope

0.00 1.03 1.00

0.00 1.36 1.00

.000 .334 .000

.000 .100 .000

0.00 0.41 1.00

0.00 3.43 1.00

… .009 …

Means: Intercept Slope

2.33 -0.06

2.32 -0.06

–.005 –.001

.003 .002

2.28 –0.12

2.41 –0.16

.003 .006

Variances: Intercept Slope

0.14 0.05

0.13 0.05

.001 .006

.002 .003

0.09 0.01

0.17 0.15

.011 .028

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

Table 6.2  Bootstrap estimates LGC model attitudes towards English TL groups without USA (n=448)



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions

131

The significant variance associated with the intercept and slope factors indicates that there are significant individual differences with regard to how positively the primary school children are disposed towards these groups in the beginning and how much or how fast their attitudes change. The amount of variation in the latter is minor, however. It seems, therefore, that there is no substantial amount of change in the learners’ attitudes towards English-speaking groups and countries and that this is true of most learners. In order to test this, two different models were fit to the data. First, a model where the mean of the slope factor was fixed to zero, implying that there is no change in learners’ attitudes towards specific national groups,6.1 and, second, another model where not only the mean of the slope but also the variance of the slope was fixed to zero,6.2 implying that all the children exhibit the same change trajectory. The first model specifying that there is no change at the group level is not significantly worse than the default model (∆χ2p=.082) and can, therefore, be accepted. The second model which specifies that there are also no individual differences regarding the development of attitudinal dispositions represents a significantly worse fit to the data than the default model (∆χ2p=.016) but the difference in CFI (-0.07) is small enough to justify an acceptance of this model, particularly in light of the fact that the model still represents a perfect fit to the data (χ2/df=1.57, CFI=.990, rmsea=.036, pclose=.874, Bollen–Stine bootstrap p=.085). We can, consequently, argue that the primary school children’s attitudes towards selected English-speaking TL groups remain stable over the course of two years and that this general tendency reflects a homogeneous development among individual learners. In short, the vast majority of the children seem to hold steadfast to their initial attitudes towards England, Americans and the English with no apparent ups and downs. While the primary school children apparently do not change their opinion about these groups over the course of two years and while this is primarily true for all the learners, they do, nevertheless, start out with different views on these TL speakers and countries as the significant variance of the intercept factor shows.

132

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

6.2 Attitudes towards a globalized world So far, surprisingly little change could be noted with regard to the primary school children’s language attitudes. This section will examine if the same kind of stability can also be observed in learners’ attitudes towards aspects of a globalized world. Unlike learners’ attitudes towards selected English-speaking countries and English speakers, their attitudes towards aspects of a globalized world were investigated by means of an additional questionnaire, which was distributed twice – once in 4th grade and once in 5th grade. It needs to be borne in mind that in 4th grade this additional questionnaire was distributed in six school classes only (n=105). It follows from this that the longitudinal analysis of learners’ attitudes towards aspects of a globalized world is based on a rather small sample, which limits the generalizability of the results. Given that there are only two measurements of learners’ attitudes towards a globalized world, their stability was investigated by means of autoregressive models. Due to the proportionally high loss of informants (19 per cent) that would have resulted from the elimination of cases with missing values for the bootstrap analyses, missing values were imputed using the Bayesian imputation method in AMOS and five distinct datasets were generated. Table 6.3 summarizes the descriptive results regarding learners’ attitudes towards a globalized world. It is broken down into the two different measurement occasions and the different answer categories. As before, the answer category with the highest percentage is highlighted. The mean (which can range from 0 to 3) and the standard deviation of the individual items and the scale can be found in the last two columns. First of all, let us have a look at how much the primary school children are at ease with characteristics of a globalized world such as intercultural contact, the use of modern communication technology, the spread of a global pop-culture, the availability of global information and the use of a common lingua franca. The high means on the attitudes towards a globalized world scale and the individual items illustrate that the learners seem to cherish these aspects of a globalized world and feel positively about them. About 90 per cent of the children like to be informed about what is going on in the world and about 70 per cent are interested in what is happening abroad. This is indicative of an interest in other countries. That the learners are interested in foreign countries is also evidenced by the fact that 80 per cent of them claim that they find other countries and people interesting.



40%

69%

10%

10%

3%

0% 2.3/0.8 2.1/ 0.5

41%

34%

29%

34%

18%

26%

12%

5% 2.0/1.0 2.0/0.9

43%

24%

32%

45%

12%

26%

12%

5% 2.1/1.0 1.9/0.8

49%

48%

27%

36%

19%

8%

5%

9% 2.2/0.9 2.2/0.9

45%

38%

34%

47%

10%

10%

10%

5% 2.1/1.0 2.2/0.9

51%

34%

30%

43%

16%

19%

3%

3% 2.3/0.9 2.1/0.8

5th grade

5th grade

22%

Mean/SD (whole scale) 4th grade

4th grade

5th grade

5th grade

47%

4th grade

4th grade

Mean/SD (per item)

5th grade

I enjoy listening to English music. I find it a good idea if people around the world learn English so that they can communicate with each other. I find other countries and people interesting.

‘not at all’ (0)

4th grade

I like e-mail and internet because it enables me to establish contacts with people from all over the world. I am interested in what is happening abroad. (reversed)

‘not really’ (1)

5th grade

I like to be informed about what is going on in the world.

‘quite right’ (2)

4th grade

‘exactly’ (3)

2.2/0.6 2.1/0.5

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions

Table 6.3  Attitudes towards a globalized world across the years (n=93)

133

134

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

The primary school children also appreciate the means of intercultural communication provided by modern communication technology. This is evident in their approval of e-mail and internet as a means of establishing ties across the world. Roughly 70 per cent of the children claim to like e-mail and internet because it allows them to establish contacts with people from all over the world. Their appreciation of means of intercultural communication is also apparent in their support for the study of a common lingua franca. Roughly 80 per cent of the children find it a good idea if people all around the world learn English so that they can communicate with each other. Once again a cursory look at the means in 4th and 5th grade suggests that across the entire sample there is surprisingly little change with regard to learners’ attitudes towards the characteristics of a globalized world assessed. On the whole, there is a slight, but definitely not massive decrease in favourability. When looking at the individual items we can see that the children’s interest in foreign countries and people and their eagerness to be informed about what is going on in the world seems to decline somewhat, while their support for the study of a common lingua franca to facilitate communication across the world seems to increase somewhat. The following paragraphs will examine if the same kind of stability can be found when measurement variance and measurement error are controlled for. Partial scalar invariance could be established for the attitudes towards a globalized world scale. The configural invariance model represented a perfect fit to the data (see Appendix). Full metric invariance cannot be assumed to exist as the metric invariance model yields a significantly worse fit than the configural invariance model. Deleting the equality constraints on the loadings of the two most variant items yields the partial metric invariance model, which presents a slightly better fit to the data than the configural invariance model (see Appendix). The same is true of the partial scalar invariance model (see Appendix). The ML parameter estimates for this partial scalar invariance model can be found in Figure 6.2. The combined bootstrap results of the five imputed datasets can be found in Table 6.4. The latent sample mean on the attitudes towards a globalized world scale is 2.28 in 4th grade. This is slightly higher than the observed mean reported in Table 6.3 and illustrates that the 4th graders’ attitudes towards aspects of a globalized world are overwhelmingly positive. In 5th grade the mean has dropped to 2.14.6.3 Hence, the autoregressive model analysis confirms the findings of the simple mean comparison. At the group level there is a drop in the favourability of learners’ attitudes towards a globalized world. Nevertheless, the primary school children remain positively disposed towards characteristics

e3 .44

e4 .11

E-mail & Internet

informed

.67

.34

e10 .32

.32

.57

English Music .19

e6

.63 Lingua Franca .40

.57 .74

e7

.63 English Music .40

e8

e14

.25

Figure 6.2  Autoregressive model attitudes towards a globalized world (n=105)

.25

.70 Lingua Franca .48

e15

.20 News

.45 e18 .54 Interest in other countries .29

e16

135

Partial Scalar Invariance Standardized estimates chi-square=53.243 df=56 p-value=.580 Chi-square/df=.951 Cfi=1.000 rmsea=.000 pclose=.918

.06

Attitudes global_5

.77 Interest in other countries .59

e12

E-mail & Internet

informed

News

Attitudes global_4 .44

e11

The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions

e2

.23



.28

136

Table 6.4  Bootstrap estimates autoregressive model attitudes towards a globalized world (n=105)

Standardized regression weights: Attitudes global_5    Attitudes global_4 Means: Attitudes global_4 Intercepts: Attitudes global_5

Bias

.73

.72

2.28

2.28

.001 – .006

1.00

1.00

.003 – .014

SE-Bias

–.008 – –.002 .003 – .005

Lower Upper bounds bounds

p

.61

.81

.007 – .015

.003 – .004

2.20

2.35

.010 – .020

.006 – .013

0.81

1.21

.010 – .012

Young Language Learners’ Motivation and Attitudes

ML parameter Mean bootstrap estimate parameter estimate



The (In)stability of Primary School Children’s Attitudinal Dispositions

137

of a globalized world. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test illustrates that this drop in favourability is significant and of medium size (n=105, z=-4.42, p