Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

Introduction

In any educational institutions where enhancement of knowledge and skills takes place,

the importance of English as a global language being used in interpersonal communication is

strongly emphasized. For many decades up to present, English is the medium of communication

and teaching instruction inside the classroom especially in the discussion of the major subject

areas from basic education up to tertiary level in the Philippines. Moreover, being able to

communicate across cultural boundaries with the use of the said language is a great advantage.

Indeed, English is known as the dollar language for it is also employed in world business

transactions.

One way for English language to be developed gradually among learners is by

maximizing oral interaction in the classroom. Oral interaction is the discussion constructed by

the student and his or her peer together. In addition, the level of oral interaction performance of

the students within the classroom is influenced by various factors. Students‟ motivation and

linguistic self-confidence are perhaps some of those factors that can be identified. By these, it

can be said that, in order to maximize the level of oral interaction performance occurring inside

the classroom among students and the teacher, there is a need also to boost up these two.

Molberg (2010) showed that motivation and linguistic self-confidence do have an impact on oral

interaction in that pupils‟ motivation and linguistic self-confidence are linked to the output they

produce.
 2

Recent study in the University of Hong Kong found that highly confident students are

more accurate in their speech production, and are also better at communicative and discussion

skills (Helen, 2013). However, MacIntyre and Doucette (2010) said that the willingness to

communicate (WTC) can be conceptualized as a readiness to speak in the second language(L2)

at a particular time with a specific person, and as such, is the final psychological step to the

initiation of L2 communication. It suggests that one‟s background is can be accounted with

regards to one‟s willingness to communicate or participate in oral interactions occurring inside

the classroom as well.

Peng (2007) stated that willingness to communicate in a second language (L2 WTC) has

recently become an important concept across disciplines of second language acquisition (SLA)

and communication. It has been proposed that pedagogic goals should be to increase learners‟ L2

WTC to facilitate language learning. Thus, to maximize L2 learning among students, the aim of

teaching profession must be to strengthen approaches of teachers in teaching the language which

may include providing motivation to the learners.

The classroom has been notably investigated over the decades as a place where all sorts

of knowledge come into play, particularly in oral interaction. Knowledge created by and derived

from discursive practices, both by the teacher and the students, has been one of the concerns of

oral interaction studies. This educational practice, grounded on socio-inter-actionist strand of

discourse analysis, has seen the classroom discourse as a mirror for the social nature of school

and its function to socialize verbal interaction (Figueiredo, 2006), and to see how teachers and

students‟ interaction reflect their communicative intentions as to overcome their difficulties of

 3

relationships, maintain a cooperative learning and, thus, negotiate their images (Tavares, 2006;

Consolo and Vani, 2006).

In this study, investigating the consequence of motivation and linguistic self-confidence

on classroom oral interaction will be the utmost aim. Another aim of conducting this study is to

determine the participants‟ perceptions on setting and topic as motivating factor in oral

interaction, their self-assessment of linguistic self-confidence, and frequency of their engagement

in classroom oral interaction. Through this study‟s findings, not only future researchers who will

gain the benefit, but also the people engaged in education particularly the teachers and learners.

Theoretical Framework

This section presents and discusses theoretical perspectives relevant to this study. These

include the importance of oral interaction and predictors for oral interaction in the classroom,

relevant motivational categories which may have an effect on oral interaction, as well as theories

regarding linguistic self-confidence, and an explanation of how these perspectives will be put to

use in the analysis and discussion part of this study.

Distinction between Integrative Motivation and Instrumental Motivation

Gardner and Lambert (1959), as cited in Hashimoto (2002), developed an approach to

motivation which has influenced various studies in L2 motivation to the present day. They made

the distinction between integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. In their definition,

integrative motivation is the positive attitude toward target language group and a willingness to

integrate into that target language community, whereas instrumental motivation refers to

practical reasons for learning a language, such as to gain social recognition or to get a better job.
 4

By this distinction of Gardner and Lambert (1959) on the said types of motivation in language

learning, sufficient justifications can be provided regarding motivation preference of the

participants.

Expectancy Theory

Pintrich (2003) defines expectancy components as “beliefs about one‟s ability to control,

perform, or accomplish a task” (p.8). Mazouzi (2013) explained that what learners believe they

are capable of doing, how much control they believe they have on their performance, and the

belief of how well they can do well all contribute in motivating learners to start, control and keep

up a certain pattern of behavior. Learners are most likely to achieve highly through selecting

what activity to perform, using the necessary abilities, and engagement and determination in the

task if they hold strong beliefs about their capabilities and control over them (Pintrich, 2003).

This hypothesis may support claims of the participants regarding their strength on their

tendency to act in a certain way dependent on the strength of their expectation. This construct is

related to motivation since when an individual sets an expectation, the act will be followed by a

given outcome.

Theory of Linguistic Self- Confidence

Researches on socio- psychological approaches on second language motivation include

Richard Clement‟s theory of Linguistic Self- confidence. According to Orio (2012), Dornyei

(2005) explained that self-confidence is the belief that a person has the ability to produce results,

accomplish goals, or perform tasks competently. Dornyei (2005) added that in context where

different communities live together, linguistic self-confidence derived from the quality and

quantity of the contact between the members of the L1 and L2 communities is a major
 5

motivational factor in learning the other community‟s language, and determines the learners

future desire for intercultural communication and the extent of identification with the L2 group.

Linguistic self-confidence means that if the learners feel confident being in contact with

members of the L2, they will be more motivated and willing to communicate with the second

language speakers. Therefore, self-confidence is a variable that affects motivation and second

language acquisition. Dornyei (2005) further pointed out that self-confidence construct is also

valid in foreign language learning contexts where, although learners are not in contact with the

L2 native people, they receive input of the culture through the media.

This construct supports that Linguistic self-confidence as a variable in this research has a

connection with motivation. What is essential in stating this theory is that it strengthens the

importance of linguistic self-confidence among second language learners and the channels

affecting their learning process?

The Input Hypothesis

According to Griffiths (2004), Krashen (1976) took off almost the total opposite of the

formal grammar-translation relating theories studied in the second language acquisition.

Challenging the rule-driven theories of the grammar-translation method, the audio-lingual

behaviorists theories that language can be taught as a system of habits, as well as the idea of

learners being able to consciously control their own learning, Krashen (1976) proposed his five

hypotheses. As summarized by Griffiths (2004), the five hypotheses proposed by Krashen are the

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the

Input Hypothesis and lastly, the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen explained the difference

between the acquisition and learning in the acquisition learning. The Natural Order Hypothesis

claims that grammatical structures of a language are acquired in a predictable order. The Monitor
 6

Hypothesis maintain that conscious learning is of very little value to an adult language learner,

and can only be useful under certain conditions as a monitor or editor. The Input Hypothesis

believes that language is acquired by understanding input which is a little beyond the current

level of competence (comprehensible input). Lastly, the Affective Filter Hypothesis expounds

that a learner‟s emotions and attitudes can act as filters which slow down the acquisition of

language. Griffiths (2004) also added that when the affective filter is high, it can block language

development.

The hypotheses stated above determine how motivation and willingness of the learners to

acquire a second language play a crucial role in language acquisition. This theory firmly supports

the aim of the study to detect whether motivation and linguistic self-confidence have

consequences to the learners‟ oral interactions inside the classroom.

The Role of Interaction Hypothesis

The Interaction Hypothesis of Long (1980) advances two major claims about the role of

interaction in L2 acquisition. First is that, comprehensible input is necessary for L2 acquisition.

Second is that, modifications to the interactional structure of conversations which take place in

the process of negotiating a communication problem help to make input comprehensible to a L2

learner. Interaction in this case is given emphasis dependent on the individuals surrounding the

participants. Because this study gives consideration on the teaching approach, possible situations

where the teacher obliged the learners to come up with an output may support the investigation

on motivation and linguistic self-confidence. Like Krashen‟s hypothesis, Long‟s Interaction

Hypothesis makes this study determine how motivation and the willingness of the learners to

acquire a second language play a vital part in language development.

 7

According to Allwright (1984), as cited in Khadidja (2010), it is important to keep

learners active in the classroom, which means reducing the amount of teacher talk and increasing

the learners‟ talk time. Naturally, they will talk to each other through pairs or groups where each

learner gets his time to talk. Teachers usually seek to move on from getting learners talking to

each other to the more complex problems of getting them communicating, and that is the result

of what is called the communicative approach.

This allows the present study to explain answers or responses of the participants to some

questions related to the extent of the learners‟ responses to motivation, specifically the classroom

setting or the situation given and controlled by the teacher.

Teacher-Learner Interaction

As cited in Khadidja (2010), this type of inter action as Coulthard (1977) mentions, has

received a great deal from teachers in a wide range of disciplines. It happens between the teacher

and one learner or many other learners, that is to say, a teacher takes a part in such interaction.

He negotiates with his students the content of the course, asks questions, uses students‟ ideas,

lectures, gives directions, criticizes or justifies student talk responses. On the other hand, the

students will benefit by drawing on the experience of their teachers on how well to interact in the

manner that is most effective.

With teacher-learner interaction, the present study can provide justifications as to how the

participants respond to the behavior of the teacher in conducting lessons. This can determine

what motivates the participants, whether the topic or the situation created by the teacher.
 8

The Role of Feedback

According to Mackey (2007),“Through interaction that involves feedback, the attention

of the learners are paid to the form of errors and are pushed to create modification.” In order for

interaction to develop speaking skill, learners must notice the errors and recognize them for

correction. In addition, Mackey (2007) suggests two forms of feedback, the explicit and implicit

feedback. Explicit feedback is defined as any feedback that states overtly that learners do not use

the second language correctly in their speech; it is also called also meta-linguistic feedback

because teachers provide the learners with the linguistic form of their errors. Implicit feedback

refers to the corrective feedback that includes requests for clarification or recasts, in other words,

teachers rephrase the learners‟ utterance by changing one or more sentence components.

Through this Mackey‟s the role of feedback, this study can support the responses of the

participants as to how they asses the development of their classroom oral interaction

performance.

Conceptual Framework

In this study, motivation, linguistic self-confidence, and oral interaction of the students

are the major variables. The first variable, motivation, is explained in terms of three important

components, namely, setting, topic, and teaching approach. The data from these components lead

to determining the respondents‟ motivation and its factors. The second variable intends to

identify the respondents‟ level of linguistic self-confidence and the third one describes their

extent of engagement in classroom interaction.

 9

The said variables relate to the main variable of the study, which refers to the

consequence of the first two variables on the last one. The schematic diagram below presents

how the variables interplay in the study.

Motivation
o Setting Linguistic
o Topic Self-confidence
o Teaching Approach

Oral Interaction in
Classroom

Figure 1. A Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study

Statement of the Problem

This study sought answers to the following questions.

1. What are the participants‟ perceptions on setting, topic, and teaching approach as

motivating factors in oral interaction?

2. How do the participants assess their linguistic self-confidence?

3. How frequent do the participants engage in oral interaction?

4. What are the consequences of motivation and linguistic self- confidence on oral

interaction?
 10

Significance of the Study

This study may benefit the following:

Students.They may enhance their linguistic self-confidence and the frequency of interaction

inside the classroom assuming that this study will find out that motivation has impact on

students‟ interaction level.

Teachers.Knowing that students‟ linguistic self-confidence and interaction could be boosted by

motivating the students, teachers can put more emphasis on building-up motivation of students

so that they will engage in more interactions inside the classroom.

Parents.Since parents are often responsible in influencing their children‟s decision and interest

they might be considered good agents for building the intrinsic motivation of their children so

that they will frequently interact in the classroom.

Future Researchers.This might serve as one of the scaffolds and references if related to their

study. They may also dig deeper into the variables of this study using other methods and setting.

Scope and Limitations

This study was conducted at Mindanao State University-Integrated Laboratory School in

the first semester of academic year 2016-2017. This study is limited only to investigating the

influence of motivation and linguistic self-confidence on classroom oral interaction of six (6)

Grade 10 students. This study investigated the perception of the participants on setting, topic,

and teaching approach as motivations and the participants‟ linguistic self-confidence through

semi-structured interview and a survey checklist answered by the participants.

This study also presented the frequency of the participants‟ oral interaction inside the

classroom using a researcher-made observation tool during the participants‟ English class
 11

sessions for 25 days. The researchers used an interview guide during the interview where most

questions were drawn from the survey checklist and some questions were adopted from Molberg

(2010).

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined conceptually and operationally for better understanding:

Classroom Interaction- pertains to the interaction as the process referring to „face-to-

face‟ interaction. It can be either verbal, channeled through spoken words, or non-verbal,

channeled through touch, proximity, eye-contact, facial expressions or gesturing (Zuheer, 2008).

In this study interaction is defined as the exchange of information such as stating facts and

opinions verbally inside the classroom among students and between students and teacher.

Confidence- is defined as having a firm trust in one‟s ability, and a sense of reliance and

certainty(Wesson, 2005). In this study, confidence is operationally defined as the students‟

courage to interact in the classroom with the use of English language.

Linguistic Self-confidence- refers to the self-perceptions of communicative competence

or self-assessments of L2 proficiency (Clément, Gardner and Smythe, 1976). It is being defined

in this study as how do the participants reflect or assess their linguistic self-confidence in

participating to classroom interaction.

 12

Motivation- is a “mental engine that subsumes effort, want / will and task enjoyment

(Gardner 1985; Dörnyei 2001).In this study, it refers to the participants desires to interact inside

the classroom or the factors that pushes them to do so the interaction.

Oral Interaction- refers to the discussion jointly constructed by the pupil and his or her

peers and there are many ways in which oral interaction may be beneficial in the classroom (Ellis

2008; Molberg 2010). In this study, oral interaction is defined as the exchange of ideas, facts,

and experiences facilitated by the teacher that occurs verbally.

Setting-is defined as the place and conditions in which something happens or exists

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary).In this study, setting is defined as the classroom situation wherein

the interaction among the learners takes place.

Topic-refers to someone or something that people talk or write about (Merriam-Webster

Dictionary). It is defined in this study as the subject matter of the learners‟ interaction whether

between student(s) and another student(s) or between student(s) and the teacher.

Normal Classroom Set up-In this study, it refers to the regular classroom sessions which

may include simple discussions or activities that majorly involve the students. The seat plan of

the students is observed and so as the typical process of conducting a class lecture.