Accommodating Different Perceptive Learn PDF

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY JAPAN
STUDIES IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Individual Differences in Second Language

Acquisition
Number 94, August 2014

Temple University Japan
Studies in Applied Linguistics
Individual Differences in Second Language

Acquisition
Editors:
Natalie Barbieri, Kate St. Hilaire, & G. Clint Denison
Series Editor, David Beglar
Number 94, August 2014
© Copyright 2014
Temple University, Japan Campus
ii

Graduate College of Education
PROGRAMS
Master of Education Degree

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
Doctor of Education Degree

Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology
with specialization in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
FACULTY
David Beglar
Lance Burrows
Don Carroll
Donna Fujimoto
Noel Houck
Ron Martin
Tomoko Nemoto
Steven Ross
Correspondence should be addressed to:

Graduate College of Education
Azabu Building, Minami Azabu 2-8-12
Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0047
Tel: (03) 5441-9800
Fax: (03) 5441-9811
iii
Temple University Japan Studies in Applied Linguistics
1 Pronunciation Manual for the Sounds of American English, Fall 1984 (Vol. 1, No. 1)
2 Teaching the Grammatical Structures of English: A Manual for Teacher, Tokyo Ed., Spring 1985 (Vol. II, No. 1)
3 A Teachers’ Manual: Teaching the Grammatical Structures of English, Osaka Ed., Spring 1985 (Vol. II, No. 2)
4 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Tokyo, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 3)
5 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Osaka, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 4)
6 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Osaka, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 5)
7 Techniques in Teaching Pronunciation, Spring 1986 (Vol. III, No. 1)
8 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Fall 1987 (Vol. IV, No. 1)
9 Communicative Activities for Teaching the Grammatical Systems of English, Fall 1987 (Vol. IV, No. 2)
10 Strategic Interaction: Using Scenarios to Teach English as a Foreign Language, Fall 1988 Vol. V(1)
11 Classroom Activities for Teaching Listening and Speaking, Fall 1989 (Vol. VI, No. 1)
12 Communicative Grammar Activities, Spring 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 1)
13 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Fall 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 2)
14 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Fall 1991 (Vol. VIII, No. 1)
15 The Communicative Teaching of Pronunciation, Spring 1992 (Vol. IX, No. 1)
16 Activities for Literature in Language Teaching, Spring 1993 (Vol. X, No. 1
17 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Fall 1993 (Vol. X, No. 2)
18 Humanistic Techniques in the EFL Classroom, Spring 1994 (Vol. XI, No. 1)
19 Pronunciation Manual for the Sounds of American English, Spring 1994 (Vol. XI, No. 2)
20 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Spring 1995
21 Collaborative Projects in Language Learning, Summer 1995
22 Action Research, Summer 1996
23 Approaches to Grammar: Tasks for the Classroom, September 1996
24 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Spring 1997
25 Grammar Activities for the Classroom, April 1998
26 English as a Stressful Language: Teaching Suprasegmental Pronunciation to Japanese Learners, July 1998
27 Phonology: Pronunciation and Beyond, February 1999
28 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, February 2000
29 Activities for Teaching English Pronunciation, April 2000
30 Developing Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, July 2000
31 Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, November 2000
32 Consciousness-Raising and Communicative Grammar Activities, February 2001
33 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, February 2002
34 Approaches to Grammar: Tasks for the Classroom, May 2002
35 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, March 2003
36 Language Assessment, December 2003
37 The Development of Sound System Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, March 2004
38 Language Assessment, December 2003
39 I: Grammar Activities, March 2004; II: Materials for Teaching Pronunciation for the EFL Classroom, April 2004
40 Grammar Activities, May 2004
41 Teaching Vocabulary to Second Language Learners, June 2004
42 Activities for Building Confidence in English Pronunciation February 2006
43 The Next Great Leap: Using CALL in the Classroom, July 2006
44 Activities for Teaching Pronunciation Skills to Japanese Learners of English, November 2006
45 Bilingualism, November 2006
46 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, April 2007
47 An Anthology of Grammar Activities, April 2007
48 Classroom Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, May 2007
49 The English Sound System Theory and Practice, October 2007
50 Developing Teaching Materials for EFL Classrooms, March 2008
51 Speaking and Listening in the Classroom, August 2008
52 Communicative Pronunciation Activities and Syllabi, July 2009
53 Issues in Second Language Writing: From Theory to Practice, July 2009
54 Content-Based Foreign Language Instruction in Japan, July 2009
55 Developing Materials for English Language Instruction in Japan, October 2009
56 Applying the Pillars of SLA Theory, November 2009
57 Grammar: Communicative and Consciousness-Raising Activities, January 2010
58 Studies in Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Practice, January 2010
59 Vocabulary Acquisition and Teaching, April 2010
60 Grammar: Communicative and Consciousness-Raising Activities, November 2010
61 Echoes from the Past: Foreign Language Education in Japan, November 2010
62 Activities for Pronunciation, February 2011
63 Teaching English Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners, February 2011
64 Developing Learner Pragmatic Competence Through Instructional Intervention, March 2011
65 Communicative Activities for Teaching the English Sound System, March 2011
iv
66 Consciousness-Raising and Communicative Grammar Tasks for EFL/ESL Learners, March 2011
67 Vocabulary Teaching and Research, May 2011
68 Approaches for Teaching Vocabulary to Japanese EFL Learners, June 2011
69 Foreign Language Pedagogy in the Japanese Context, August 2011
70 Grammar Instruction for Japanese Learners of English, September 2011
71 Grammar Topics: Explanations and Teaching Activities, November 2011
72 Content-Based Instruction: Bringing Second Language Acquisition to the Foreign Language Classroom, November 2011
73 Issues in Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan, December 2011
74 Teaching the Sound System of English to Japanese Learners, May 2012
75 Vocabulary Instruction for Japanese Learners of English, June 2012
76 Classroom Research in Teaching the Sound System of English, June 2012
77 Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan, August 2012
78 Issues in Teaching, Learning, and Researching L2 Writing, August 2012
79 Developing Reading Skills and Strategies in a “Communicative” EFL Environment, August 2012
80 From Theory to Practice: Designing Courses Based on Beliefs about Language and Language Learning, January 2013
81 Studies in the Teaching of English Grammar, May 2013
82 Studies in Curriculum Development, May 2013
83 Teaching Materials for the Four Skills, June 2013
84 Teaching the Sound System of English, August 2013
85 Teaching Aspects of English Grammar, August 2013
86 Approaches to Teaching English to EFL Learners, August 2013
87 Qualitative Studies on Language Learners and Educators in Japanese Contexts, October 2013
88 Developing Pedagogical Materials for EFL Learners, October 2013
89 Communicative Vocabulary Teaching in Japanese Contexts, November 2013
90 Teaching the Sound System of English, May 2014
91 Developing and Validating Assessment Tasks, June 2014
92 Content-Based Instruction in the Japanese Context, July 2014
93 Applying Findings in Educational and Cognitive Psychology to the Teaching of Foreign Languages, August 2014
94 Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition, August 2014
v
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. vii

Natalie Barbieri, Kate St. Hilaire, & G. Clint Denison
The Use of Written Communication in Motivational Growth: A Pilot Study .............................................. 1

Natalie Barbieri
Bridging the Gap: Identity-Appropriate Materials for Low-Proficiency L2 Learners ................................ 10

Kate St. Hilaire
Developing Writing Self-Concept in the L2 Classroom ............................................................................. 17

G. Clint Denison
L2 Anxiety in Young Japanese Learners: Grade, Gender, and Classroom Dynamics ................................ 22
Michael Giordano
Self-Directed Learning in the Japanese Context ......................................................................................... 31

Tomoko Narumi
Accommodating Different Perspective Learning Styles ............................................................................. 34

Edward Rowe
Willingness to Communicate and Expectancy Value in an Oral English Class ......................................... 40

Saša Sakić
Neurobiological Sex Differences Related to Language Use and Learning ................................................. 50

Nicole Furuya

vi
Introduction
Second language acquisition (SLA) is a growing field. English language learning has importance in many
educational contexts, including both foreign and domestic domains. Contemporary SLA research makes use of
valuable data gathered from outer, related fields, such as psychology and neuroscience. Those involved in the field
strive to maintain a symbiosis between researchers and educators, so that the findings of research can be practically
applied in the classroom, and the events of real-world learning can continue to inspire future investigations.
Within this volume of the TUJ Studies in Applied Linguistics series, we have papers written by students in
the Osaka M.S.Ed. Program during the Summer 2014 semester. Papers were completed as part of the Individual
Differences in SLA class under the guidance and encouragement of Dr. Lance Burrows. These research reports offer
a wide variety of ideas and progressive research designs that can help teachers work with learners from a
multiplicity of backgrounds and proficiency levels. Several individual difference variables are covered including
motivation, identity, self-concept, foreign language anxiety, learning styles, willingness to communicate, and
gender.
The authors and editors hope that the papers in this volume provide support and guidance that you can use to
improve your own foreign language teaching skills, as well as offer useful information for daily classroom use.
Research into individual differences in SLA often falls short of providing practical, pedagogically sound classroom
applications. Our hope is that this volume helps to bridge that gap by connecting research and useful application.
Natalie Barbieri
Kate St. Hilaire
G. Clint Denison
August, 2014
Osaka, Japan
vii
The Use of Written Communication in Motivational Growth: A Pilot Study
Natalie Barbieri
The impact of globalization and international English affects many aspects of our lives, especially in countries
where English is a second language (L2). The necessity for English communication skills has made English a
Lingua Franca language for interaction purposes (Ushioda, 2012, 2103). Therefore, English has become an
important part of everyday contact, sometimes being the mediating factor for employment, salary, and job retention.
As the Japanese educational system has begun to incorporate English into earlier levels of instruction, the perception
about the importance of English is apparent (Ushioda, 2012, 2013). However, decisions about the language learning
framework and means of instruction have yet to take a concrete position in the Japanese education structure.
Within the elementary years, students learn English in a communicative context, usually free of grading and
assessment. Many researchers have noted the high levels of motivation experienced by elementary learners due to
the overall ‘fun’ and ‘playfulness’ of English in the classroom (Nishida, 2013). However, the perception of English
radically changes when students reach junior high and high school levels of language education. “High-school
education is typically characterized as ‘exam hell’, and the English that is studied is grammar-focused […] with
minimal attention paid to the development of communication skills” (Ushioda, 2012, p. 5). In this context,
motivation decreases markedly as many students realize the dichotomy between English for communication vs.
English for exams.
In university, the utilization of English undergoes changes often, and students realize the need of English as a
communicative language. However, due to the intense grammar and vocabulary stance of English in high school,
many students are not ready to communicate in an L2 context (Ushioda, 2012). Additionally, coupled with the fact
that many Japanese students see university education as solely a short stop between high school life and job
placement (Clark, 2010), little motivation is exhibited in the foreign language classroom (Berwick & Ross, 1989).
Hence, foreign language motivation in the Japanese educational context is a major problematic issue for teachers
and education providers (Ushioda, 2012).
Motivation
Motivation is a key predictor of success in second language acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005), accounting for
approximately 14% of variation in language achievement scores (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Throughout L2
research history, the concepts behind motivational research have evolved, but the importance of motivation in the
English language-learning environment has remained central. Motivation, especially in language learning, stems
from multiple sources, comprising of both internal characteristics and external rewards. Due to its broad scope over
a student’s educational life, it has become one of the most important factors in language acquisition research.
Students exhibit differential pathways of language motivation through their educational career, with many
starting as motivated learners and slowly fading towards demotivation over time (Koizumi & Matsuo, 1993).
Motivation moves along a continuum, and faces constant fluctuation due to complex interactions between classroom
experiences and motivational behaviors (de Bot et al., 2007; Nitta, 2012), making it difficult to control. As educators,
we face two strong opponents to language learning: not only must we stimulate student interest in learning, but we
must also inhibit the decrease in motivation that many students display over the English learning continuum.
However, as researchers have observed, certain experiences can trigger a favorable attitude toward L2 learning, and
small deviations can amplify rapidly toward overall positive attitudes of the English environment (Nitta, 2012). Thus,
the key question here is what steps can L2 educators take to strengthen motivation over time and prevent
demotivation?
For L2 educationalists, it is important to understand what learning English means for students, and how they
see English fitting into their personal system of values, goals, and identities. Leaners must grasp the idea that
English can fit into their society before dedicating time to language acquisition (McKenzie, 2008). This stance is
critical to help learners build their own sense of purpose for learning, one of the main intervening factors for
demotivation (Carpenter et al., 2009). As stated by Csizér and Kormos (2008), the “most important latent variables
influencing how much effort students [are] willing to invest in foreign language learning is their attitude toward
language, culture and speakers” (p. 176).
1
In the context of language learning, three important aspects of learner identity contribute to the motivational
factors students retain: the Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, and L2 Learning Experiences (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009).
These features comprise of the three main influences that attribute to students motivated learning behaviors (Csizér
& Kormos, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009). In the context of this study, L2 Learning Experiences is a major
predictor for the student’s motivational patterns.
Group Contact and International Exposure

Group Contact (GC), interactions or experiences with international persons, is used as the main contributing factor
for learner motivation in this study. This contact with the L2 culture leads to increased motivated learning behavior
(Clément & Kruidenier, 1983), more confident language use (Noels et al., 1996), the transformation of language
identity (Clement et al., 2001; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000) and linguistic change (Kerswill, 2006). Group Contact
gives students a clear and realistic vision of using English in intercultural interactions, in turn creating real-world
use of the L2 language (Sasaki, 2004; 2007). As motivation to learn a foreign language includes the motivation to
communicate with dissimilar others (Ting-Toomy, 1999), students can witness diverse perspectives and integrate
them into their own mindset. This heightened intercultural competence helps learners maintain interest in learning
communicative English and positive attitudes toward English skill learning (Hayashi, 2012).
Communication and understanding both contribute to international interest, and as discussed by Gardner
(1985), interest in an L2 culture leads learners to identify with that culture, creating and enhancing L2 motivation.
As described by Gardner and Lambert (1972) “an inquisitiveness and genuine interest in the people comprising a
cultural group […] or a desire to meet with and possibly associate with the group” (p. 14) deeply affects
motivational practice. Consequently, as learners continue to interconnect with L2 communities, the higher their
effort in language learning discourse (Yashima, 2012). Therefore, a main focus for L2 educators should promote
contact with international persons and cultural understanding.
For many students in Japan, study abroad experiences account for the main source of international exposure.
However, due to the high economic costs of studying abroad coupled with the low perception of benefits, many
students are unable to participate. Thus, for many learners, L2 contact is scarce. As educators, we must compile
ways to promote group contact and international exposure for our students in order to help them retain and establish
motivational behaviors.
In this research study, the use of written communication exchange between students and foreign persons is
the main predictor for motivational change overtime. As cited in recent studies, this strategy could help foster
motivation, a greater connection to the L2 environment, and positive predispositions toward the target language
community (Ushioda, 2013; Gardner, 1985; Giles & Byrne, 1982). The researcher had three main research
questions:
1. Does written communication with foreign individuals increase enjoyment of English?
2. Does written communication with foreign individuals heighten the practical needs for studying English (i.e.,
getting a job or higher salary)?
3. Does written communication with foreign individuals increase interest for foreign language and culture?
A survey (see the Appendix for the full survey) was administered to assess the students overall feelings towards
foreign cultures, individuals, and identities over two time periods—one before the intervention and one after. As
motivational increase, especially for students with high levels of demotivation in language learning, was the main
contributing factor for student improvement, the student population was divided into two groupings: low motivated
students and mid- to high-level motivated students. In many English language classrooms, low-level students are
often overlooked and disregarded by instructors, often leading to further motivational decrease. However, as
classrooms include students from various motivational levels, the use of activities and methodology that help
students from a wide range of language learning orientations is needed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore
not only the outcomes of group contact on class-wide samples, but also students who exhibit little to no classroom
initiative (the lower 20%).
2
Methods
Site
The study took place at a intermediate level public high school (approximately 800 students), located in the outskirts
of a large Japanese city. Although the city has seen an increasing number of non-Japanese visitors and residents,
students have few opportunities to have contact with them, especially with those whose native tongue is English.
The high school has less than five native English-speaking students enrolled, which limits daily use of, and contact
with, English in this educational setting.
Participants
The participants were 102, second- and third-year students in an elective English course focused on communicative
English. The sample consisted of 71 female and 31 male adolescents, ranging from 16-18 years old. The general
proficiency levels of the students vary considerably, with some students encompassing high levels of English and
others at only the beginning stages. The main instructor in this classroom setting is non-Japanese and there is limited
use of Japanese in the classroom. From the 102 students, 20 students were identified in the lower 20th percentile of
language ability. These students received low test scores, had low homework completion rates, and rarely used
English in the classroom. The motivational changes between these two populations are analyzed in this study.
Instrumentation
The design used was a quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design that lasted from May to June 2014. The students
were given a pretest one month into the course to assess levels of motivation. The one-month delay was used to help
students accommodate to the all-English environment and become familiar with the classroom structure. Following,
the students participated in a letter exchange. Each student was given 45 minutes to write a letter to a foreign person
they individually selected from a group of native English teachers that volunteered in a pen-pal service (n = 65). The
teacher checked the letters for grammatical and lexical errors, asked the students to make linguistic revisions if
needed, and then sent the letters to the foreign individual. After all reply letters were received at the school (one
month after the activity began), the letters were given to the students to read. Each student was given 30 minutes to
read the letter and ask clarifying questions about the meaning of words or grammatical structures. The posttest
measure was given after completion of the letter reading.
The pretest and posttest questionnaire was designed to measure three domains: Enjoyment, Instrumental
Motivation, and Interest in Foreign Language and Culture. As stated by previous researchers, these three
motivational aspects are key for overall English success and effort (Dörnyei, 1990; Hiromori, 2002; Schmidt et al.,
1996; Yashima, 2000; for a full discussion of these articles, see Hiromori, 2012). The students rated their relation to
the concepts on a 1 to 4 Likert scale, 1 = Not at all true of me; 2 = Mostly not true of me; 3 = Mostly true of me; 4 =
Very true of me).
The first survey construct (measured by questions 3 to 5), Enjoyment, the state of taking pleasure in
something, has frequently been combined with intrinsic motivational factors (Hiromori, 2012). Many researchers
have found that learners who have enjoyment motives tend to achieve higher learning outcomes overtime (Crookes
& Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 2003; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Miura, 2010; Smith, 2009). Instrumental Motivation,
the second construct (measured by questions 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9), entails pragmatic reasons for learning a language,
such as to get a better job (Gardner, 2010). This type of motivation can heighten learners overall attentiveness
towards language learning through the appearance of extrinsic gains. Test batteries have frequently included
instrumental orientations as a predictive variable in motivation/demotivation (see Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
(AMTB), Gardner, 1985a; Woodrow, 2008). Question 7 (English is easy to learn) was not included in the
Instrumental construct, as it did not fit the researcher’s definition. Interest in Foreign Language and Culture, the
final construct (measured by questions 10 to 20), has been conceptualized as being made up of several constructs in
the past, including Attitudes to Foreign Culture and International Interest. This factor is one of the most frequently
referenced in discussions of student motivation, especially in reference to long-term effects, and is considered to
represent a cardinal L2 motive. As language-learning motivation is traditionally seen to be comprised of
predispositions toward a target language community (Gardner, 1985; Giles & Byrne, 1982), this is an important
factor in learner achievement.
3
Results and Discussion
Enjoyment
Enjoyment, the means of taking pleasure from something, was measured by three survey questions:
I like English.
I want to study English.
I want to study English every day.
Overall, Enjoyment made moderate gains from time 1 to time 2 with the mean score increasing from 2.2 to 2.9 (see
Table 1). On average, students strongly endorsed Question 2, with 34 students rating themselves as a 4 at time 1, and
41 students at time 2. However, Question 3 received lower ratings, with 21 students choosing 4 at time 1, and 25 at
time 2.
Table 1. Enjoyment Descriptive Statistics for Full Population (Time 1-2)

M SD N
Enjoyment Time 1 2.19 4.99 102
Enjoyment Time 2 2.89 4.65 102
The results of the multivariate analysis indicated a significant effect, Wilks’ Λ = .93, p < .01 (see Table 2). However,
the implementation of the letter exchange seemed to only slightly affect the students’ motivational increase (about
7% of the variance) (see Table 2).
Table 2. ANOVA Results for Enjoyment Gains Scores Full Population (Time 1-2)
2
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df p Partial η
b
Wilks’ Lambda .93 7.32 1.00 101.00 .008 .07
As shown in Table 3, the student mean increased by nearly 5 points from time 1 to time 2. Additionally, the
letter exchange accounted for nearly 37% of the motivational change. The average rating for the three questions
increased from 2.1 to 2.5/4 from time 1 to time 2. Even though this increase was not exceptionally high, it suggests a
heightened level of enjoyment for English. As these students comprise the lowest performing students in the
classroom environment, enjoyment for English might have started low. Helping students realize the satisfaction and
gratification that English can potentially provide is an important step for better future performance
Table 3. Enjoyment Descriptive Statistics for Low Population (Time 1-2)

M SD N
Enjoyment Time 1 -5.23 9.08 20
Enjoyment Time 2 -.103 3.18 20
The low level students however increased at a significantly higher rate, Wilks’ Λ = .63, p < .01 (see Table 4).
Table 4. ANOVA Results for Enjoyment Gain Scores Low Students (Time 1-2)
2
b
Wilks Lambda .63 11.04 1.00 19.00 .004 .37
Instrumental Motivation
Instrumental Motivation consisted of five questions:
I think that English is an important language
I can use English in everyday situations.
I think English is useful.
I think English will help me find a job in the future.
I think knowing English will increase my salary in the future.
This domain had higher gains than Enjoyment, possibly due to the realization that English is a language for
communication (see Table 5). The letter exchange accounted for nearly 44% of the variance between time 1 and
time 2, supporting its overall effectiveness in instrumental measures.
4
Table 5. Instrumental Descriptive Statistics for Full Population (Time 1-2)
M SD N
Instrumental Time 1 2.22 1.97 102
Additionally, the change was significant, Wilks’ Λ = .57, p < .01 (see Table 6). One limitation to this
dimension of motivational importance is the students’ age range. In many studies, instrumental motivation is
measured with university level and older, as the importance of English in future domains is apparent in daily life.
This constraint might have affected the score range negatively.
Table 6. ANOVA Results for Instrumental Motivation Gain Scores Full Sample (Time 1-2)
2
b
Wilks Lambda .565 77.66 1.00 101.00 .000 .44
The low-level student population again achieved more substantial gains as compared to the whole group (see
Table 7).
Table 7. Instrumental Descriptive Statistics for Low Population (Time 1-2)

M SD N
Instrumental Time 1 .87 1.52 20
The results of the multivariate analysis indicated a significant effect, Wilks’ Λ = .23, p < .01 (see Table 8).
Nearly 78% of the variance between time 1 and time 2 was due to the use of group contact (letter writing exchange).
The question with the highest overall score was question 1, with a mean near 4. This indicated that the students
thought of English as an important language, but they did not act upon it in their educational context.
Table 8. ANOVA Results for Instrumental Motivation Gain Scores Low Population (Time 1-2)
2
b
Wilks Lambda .225 65.36 1.00 19.00 .000 .78
Interest in Foreign Language and Culture

Yashima (2012) stated that motivation to learn a language develops from the need or want to communicate with
people from different cultures. As shown in Table 9, the student’s levels of interest increased from time 1 to time 2.
Table 9. IFLC Descriptive Statistics for Full Population (Time 1-2)

M SD N
IFLC Time 1 3.12 2.07 102
IFLC Time 2 3.79 2.19 102
This factor, however, had lower partial η2 statistics than previous constructs, with only 14% of the variance
possibly occurring from the international letter exchange (see Table 10). This construct, however, was rated variably
high in the pretest, and therefore pretest-posttest differential might have been difficult to detect and visualize. Yet,
substantial gains were found, with mean score increasing from 3.12 to 3.79. Additionally, statistical significance was
met, Wilks’ Λ = .865, p < .01.
Table 10. ANOVA Results for IFLC Gain Scores Full Population (Time 1-2)
2
b
Wilks Lambda .87 15.72 1.00 101.00 .000 .14
5
This factor had the largest increase for the low level students (.91 at time 1 to 2.75 at time 2; see Table 11).
Table 11. IFLC Descriptive Statistics Low Population (Time 1-2)

M SD N
IFLC Time 1 .91 1.04 20
IFLC Time 2 2.75 2.13 20
The standard deviations for the two factors were also large. The ANOVA results indicated statistical significance (p
< .01) (see Table 12). As these students started with a low level of overall interest in the foreign other, there was a
great deal of room for improvement. For many of the low performing individuals, connection with persons from
different cultures and language is rare, and only slight deviations away from the norm of contact might have targeted
their interest levels.
Table 12. ANOVA Results for IFLC Gain Scores Low Population (Time 1-2)
2
b
Wilks Lambda .415 26.82 1.00 19.00 .000 .59
Limitations
As with many survey studies, Likert scales restrict students from producing qualitative forms of data. The numbered
forms of data collection for this study required students to answer finitely, without room for providing further
elaboration. This method also has another constraint: the use of sentences to survey students on areas that require
elaboration. For the first construct, Enjoyment, the three questions used to identify the participants’ experience of
pleasure with English was slightly skewed, as enjoyment for language learning includes multiple variables,
including variables from the two other constructs surveyed, Instrumental Motivation and Interest in Foreign
Language and Cultures. This difference could account for the low statistical effect that Enjoyment had on overall
motivational increases. For future research, Enjoyment should be measured by more items and/or be combined with
other components.
Conclusion
As stated by Yashima (2012), “having first-hand contact with the target community [has] a powerful impact on the
motivation and affect of L2 learners as they develop” (p. 36). Real-life experiences of intercultural contact create a
new domain for L2 learners, strengthening multiple perspectives, cultural factors, and the use of the L2 to
communicate meaning. One major problem that many Japanese students face is the decontextualized aspect of
English. Many students learn English over multiple grade levels, yet rarely communicate in English with native
speakers. This instructional environment gives students little chance to imagine or visualize the target language
community, an important part of language motivation (Ushioda, 2012). Without this connection to meaningful
English, many students can lose motivation overtime.
The use of the letter exchange had a large impact on the students’ motivation. Not only did the students
increase their overall enjoyment of English, they also became conscientious of the use of English for external
reasons (instrumental motivation), and increased interest in L2 cultures and language. For each factor, the students
experienced significant motivational gains.
One key feature of this study was the use of group contact to strengthen linguistic effort and motivation for
low-level students. In each classroom, students who underperform are present, yet much of the language research
couples them with high achievers, leveling out potential dissimilarities. However, the analyses in this study were
designed to target the motivational trajectories of under-performing students. The use of group contact through
written communication significantly impacted language motivation, with low achievers even more so than students
who perform on average or above average. This could be due to the students having a new communicative
experience, an occurrence that many low performing students rarely encounter. In the Japanese school context,
high-level learners more readily have access to L2 communication, whether it be from seeking out foreign ‘others’
or because their teachers are more willing to nominate them for study abroad experiences. However, no matter the
context, motivational pathways and techniques to help students with little foreign language interest must be
examined.
6
Future Direction for Research and Considerations for Pedagogy
The use of outsider group contact, whether real or imaginative, should be an important aspect of an educational
curriculum for language achievement. As shown in this study, contact with an L2 individual increases motivation,
sometimes substantially. Due to the continuing threats of L2 demotivation in the language classroom (Kikuchi,
2013), steps must be implemented to hinder the demotivation process and strengthen motivation. Without
motivation, many students fall behind in their ability to use the target language. As noted by previous researchers,
using the L2 communicatively is needed to increase proficiency in the language (Yashima, 2013). In 2010, Nitta and
Asano described the use of ‘initial motivational states’ and the importance they have in the prediction of success in
classroom learning. As described in their research, the feelings that students have when they begin studying English
can create long-term effects on their desire to learn the language. As educators, we must understand the
overwhelming effects that motivation can play in the L2 environment, both in the beginning and throughout the
learning continuum, and help students with the long road of language use in life.
References
Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English still alive after
exam hell? JALT Journal, 11(2), 193-210.
Carpenter, C., Falout, J., Fukuda, T., Trovela, M., & Murphey, T. (2009). Helping students to repack for
remotivation and agency. In A.M. Stoke (Ed.) JALT 2008 conference proceedings (pp. 259-274). Tokyo:
JALT.
Clark, G. (2010). Saving Japan’s universities. Japan Times, Retrieved July 17, 2014 from http://www.
gregoryclark.net/jt/page75/page75.html
Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: The effects of ethnicity,
milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33, 273-291.
Clément, R., Noels, K. A., & Deneault, B. (2001). Interethnic contact, identity, and psychological adjustment: The
mediating and moderating roles of communication. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 559-577.
Csizér, K. & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behavior: A comparative
analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda
(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98-119). Bristol, England: Multicultural Matters.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R.W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41,
469-512.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7-21.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, 40, 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (Ed.) (2003). Attitudes, orientations and motivations in language learning. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation.
London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner R. C. (1985a). The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: Technical report (1895). Retrieved 9 November 2011
from http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model. New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn’t
effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 57-72.
Giles, H., & Byrne, J. L. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 3, 17-40.
Hayashi, H. (2013). Dual goal orientation in the Japanese context: A case study of two EFL learners. In M. T. Apple,
D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 75-92). Ontario, Canada:
Multilingual Matters.
7
Hiromori, T. (2002). Language learning motivation research: Some suggestions toward a new framework. Hokkaido
JACET Journal, 1, 19-31.
Hiromori, T. (2013). Motivational design for effective second language instruction. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva, &
T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 291-308). Ontario, Canada: Multilingual
Matters.
Kerswill, P. (2006). Migration and language. In K. Mattheier, U. Ammon, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An
international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 2271-2284). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter.
Kikuchi, K. (2013). Demotivators in the Japanese EFL Context. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.),
Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 206-224). Ontario, Canada: Multilingual Matters.
Koizumi, R., & Matsuo, K. (1993). A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in learning English among
Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 1-11.
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of
studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163.
McKenzie, R. M. (2008). The complex and rapidly changing sociolinguistic position of the English language in
Japan: A summary of English language contact and use. Japan Forum, 20(2), 267-286.
Miura, T. (2010). A retrospective survey of L2 learning motivational changes. JALT Journal, 32, 29-53.
Nishida, R. (2013). A comprehensive summary of empirical studies of motivation among Japanese elementary
school EFL learners. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in
Japan (pp. 93-109). Ontario, Canada: Multilingual Matters.
Nitta, R. (2012). Understanding motivational evolution in the EFL classroom: A longitudinal study from a dynamic
systems perspective. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in
Japan (pp. 268-290). Ontario, Canada: Multilingual Matters.
Nitta, R., & Asano, R. (2010). Understanding motivational changes in EFL classrooms. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.),
JALT2009 conference proceedings (pp. 186-196). Tokyo, Japan: JALT.
Noels, K., Pon, G., & Clément, R. (1996). Language identity, and adjustment. The role of linguistic self-confidence
in the acculturation process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 246-264.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J.
Lantolf (Ed.), Social theory and second language learning (pp. 155-177). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Z.
Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120-143). Bristol, England:
Multicultural Matters.
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning,
54, 525-582.
Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences of EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis. The Modern
Language Journal, 91, 602-620.
Schmidt, R. W., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external
connections. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 9-70).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Smith, L. J. (2009). Motivation and long-term language achievement: Understanding motivation to persist in
foreign language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD,
USA.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian
learners of English. A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self (pp. 66-97). Bristol, England: Multicultural Matters.
Ting-Toomy, S. (1999). Communication across cultures. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Ushioda, E. (2012). Motivation: L2 learning as a special case? In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.),
Psychology for language learning (pp. 58-73). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign motivation research in Japan: An ‘insider’ perspective from outside Japan. In M. T.
Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 1-14). Ontario, Canada:
Woodrow, L. J. (2008). Adaptive second language learning: The case of EAP students. Saarbrücken, Germany:
VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
8
Yashima, T. (2012). Willingness to communicate: Momentary volition that results in L2 behavior. In S. Mercer, S.
Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 119-135). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Yashima, T. (2000). Orientations and motivation in foreign language learning: A study of Japanese college students.
JACET Bulletin, 31, 121-133.
Appendix
1. I think that English is an important language.
私は英語は大切な言語だと思う。
2. I can use English in everyday situations.
私は日常生活で英語を使うことができる。
3. I like English.
私は英語が好きだ。
4. I want to study English.
私は英語を勉強したい。
5. I want to study English every day.
私は毎日英語を勉強したい。
6. I think English is useful.
私は英語は役立つと思う。
7. I think English is easy to learn.
私は英語は学びやすいと思う。
8. I think English will help me find a job in the future.
私は将来仕事を探す上で英語は助けになると思う。
9. I think knowing English will increase my salary in the future.
私は将来英語を知っていることで給料が上がると思う。
10. I want to study about other countries.
私はほかの国々について勉強したいと思う。
11. I want to study about other cultures.
私は他の文化を勉強したいと思う。
12. I think other countries are important to learn about.
私は他の国々を学ぶのは重要だと思う。
13. I want to visit other countries.
私は他の国々を訪れたいと思う。
14. I think other countries are interesting.
私は他の国は面白いと思う。
15. I think other countries have good cultures.
私は他の国々はいい文化を持っていると思う。
16. I like foreign people.
私は外国人が好きだ。
17. I want to talk with foreign people.
私は外国人と話をしたいと思う。
18. I think foreign people are kind.
私は外国人は親切だと思う。
19. I think foreign people are easy to talk to.
私は外国人は話しやすいと思う。
20. I think foreign people are interesting.
私は外国人は面白いと思う。
9
Bridging the Gap: Identity-Appropriate Materials for Low-Proficiency L2 Learners
Kate St. Hilaire
While intermediate- and high-proficiency second/foreign language learners in speaking classes might be able to
engage with materials that invoke their actual personhood, that is, their transportable identities (Richards, 2006),
low-proficiency learners are often left with collections of fictional and personally irrelevant worlds within which
they have no choice but to pretend to function. Pedagogical materials designed for beginner language learners
provide highly useful vocabulary and grammatical structures (e.g., the Cambridge Touchstone series for learners of
English and the 3-A Corporation Minna no Nihongo series for learners of Japanese). However, such materials frame
the language with inauthentic characters and situations, and create illusions of agency by allowing students to
choose from preselected options when attempting to express themselves. This furthers the distance between the
language learners and the target language (L2), in that the L2 is kept separate from their senses of self.
Individualized topic selection and the exploration of intellectually appropriate concepts are luxuries traditionally
reserved for intermediate and advanced language students. Even more advanced students, however, often work with
materials that are level-appropriate, rather than identity-appropriate. Dörnyei (2009) has emphasized that the ability
to conceptualize the self in relation to the L2 is the most critical component of language learning motivation. Thus,
the lack of identity invocation in beginner materials must be resolved if we wish to truly engage and motivate our
low-proficiency learners. In this paper, I discuss foreign language learning motivation, the role of identity in foreign
language learning, and the potentially detrimental effects of failing to attend to the identities of low-proficiency
learners. Ultimately I provide basic criteria for determining the identity-appropriateness of pedagogical materials,
and delineate suggestions for future research.
Literature Review
Integrative Motivation
Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) introduced the original notion of integrative motivation to describe the socially
driven desire to become a member of the L2 community. In the Socio-Educational Model (Gardner, 1985, 2001), the
concept of integrative motivation was broken into three contributing factors: integrativeness, motivation, and
attitudes toward the learning situation. Gardner and Lambert argued that language learners led by integrative
motivation are more likely to experience success, particularly when contrasted with instrumentally motivated
learners, who are driven by practical factors, such as career options or examination performance. They believed that
integratively motivated learners wanted to or already did identify with the L2 sociocultural group. Although this
dichotomy was highly functional within the bilingual context of francophone Canada, where the presence of the L2
community is more immediate and perceivable, its application in other learning situations has been limited (Ushioda,
2012).
The distinction, for example, between integrative and instrumental sources of motivation is arguably blurred
with overlap and contextual shifting. A learner of Japanese as a foreign language might aspire to pass the highest
level of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (i.e., instrumental motivation), with the hope that he might acquire
enough vocabulary and grammar in the process to finally be accepted into deeper Japanese social circles (i.e.,
integrative motivation). Such scenarios exemplify the complex nature of language learning motivation and the
according impracticality of sorting it into neat categories. English, in particular, has become such a massive
globalized linguistic entity that distinguishing between integrative and instrumental motivation has practically been
rendered impossible (Csizér & Kormos, 2009). Learners from countries around the world are navigating paths of
English learning constructed by social media, exchange programs, internships, music, film, and professional
development. It is no longer appropriate to draw a line between instrumentality and integrativeness, or argue the
comparative strength of their influences. Furthermore, foreign language (as opposed to second language) contexts
present learners with few opportunities to engage in authentic interaction with L2 communities, as no such local
social groups exist. Despite this, we can observe the emergence of highly motivated language learners, albeit their
desire to integrate with the target language community might be weak or nonexistent. Indeed, Yashima (2009)
commented that Japanese learners are often interested in interacting with native speakers (NSs) of English, yet “are
not particularly interested in identifying with them” (p. 145). It is clearly paramount to reconsider how foreign
language learners negotiate the relationship between their own identities and the L2.
10
International Posture
One of the more contemporary conceptualizations of the interplay between learner identity and foreign language is
the notion of international posture (Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004; Yashima & Zenuk-Nishide, 2008;
Yashima, 2009). While Gardner’s construct of integrative motivation, and its component integrativeness, was
designed to capture learner attitudes and orientations toward specific L2 communities, international posture as
presented by Yashima et al. (2004) focuses on learners’ relationships with the international community as a whole.
International posture is constructed without specific reference to an L2 group, thus rendering it highly appropriate
for learners of a global language such as English, and particularly relevant for those in ethno-linguistically
homogeneous contexts. This construct essentially focuses on the level of openness to other languages and cultures
within learners.
An increase in international posture should arguably be accompanied by a decrease in ethnocentricity in
thought. At some level it does reflect Gardner’s notion of integration into the L2 community, yet in this case the L2
community has expanded into the international community. Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide (2008) emphasized that the
international community need not be immediately tangible; in fact, learners can effectively engage with what the
authors title the imagined international community via platforms such as social media and multicultural research.
Yashima (2009) argued that international posture is a source of motivation for language learners, and ultimately
leads to success. However, this still does not provide us with a clear picture of the endpoint—that is, the object of
desire that drives learners to press forward even in the face of obstacles. For that, we must look not outside, to L2
groups or international communities, but inside the learners themselves.
The L2 Motivational Self System

In their article concerning longitudinal research on language learning motivation in Hungary, Dörnyei and Csizér
(2002) advocated a shift in focus from learner integration into real or imagined communities, to the internal
processes of their developing selves. Drawing inspiration from the concepts of possible selves (Markus & Nurius,
1986) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), Dörnyei and his associates began to redefine L2 motivation in
terms of future self-concepts (Dörnyei, 2009). In other words, regardless of various possible types of motivation
affecting L2 learners, they claimed that the ultimate motivating factor held is the future L2-related self-concept, or
the ideal L2 self. Dörnyei (2005, as cited in Dörnyei, 2009) thus developed the L2 Motivational Self System,
comprised of three components: (a) the Ideal L2 Self (i.e., the “L2-specific facet of one’s ‘ideal self’”, p. 29), (b) the
Ought-to L2 Self (i.e., what learners feel they must live up to or avoid), and (c) the L2 Learning Experience (i.e., the
situational circumstances that influence motivation). This vision of possible future identities as the source of L2
motivation is powerful in that it emphasizes the importance of long-term motivational trajectories, which underlie
lifelong autonomous learning (Ushioda, 2011a). Accordingly, the development of highly and consistently motivated
selves mandates attention to the invocation of our learners’ present identities in the foreign language classroom.
Identity in the Foreign Language Classroom

Learner identities in the foreign language classroom are unique in that they necessarily deviate in some manner from
those established in the L1. After all, language is the very tool by which we sculpt our selfhood. Therefore,
functioning in the L2 requires a reconstruction of our identities; recalling Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) notion that
learners must permit the L2 sociolinguistic community to enter themselves. However, adolescent and adult learners
do not enter the L2 classroom as malleable entities ready to be shaped into competent L2 users. As Ushioda argued
(2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2012), this is too often the assumption underlying second language research and pedagogical
applications. Ushioda (2011b) called for the consideration of the person rather than the language learner; in other
words, attention to and respect for the boundless collection of interests, experiences, skills, and perspectives that
each member brings to the classroom. She also drew attention to the inappropriateness of the causal relationship
emphasized in traditional motivation research, and instead advocated consideration of the symbiotic and reciprocal
relationship between individuals and what motivates them.
One method of attending to the identities of L2 learners is to invoke their transportable identities (Richards,
2006). Transportable identities refer to the previously mentioned collections of individual data (so to speak)
accumulated over a lifetime; that is, they are who our learners are outside of the L2 classroom. Research has
demonstrated the importance of creating learning environments that involve students’ transportable identities.
Ushioda (2011) summarized Legenhausen’s (1999) research on the conversational interaction of Danish learners of
11
English, in which there was a marked difference between the motivation and involvement of those whose learning
had been shaped in terms of grammatical instruction, and those who had been taught in ways that invoked their
identities. The latter group engaged in natural, meaningful conversation, while the former essentially regurgitated
dialogues from the textbook and asked conversationally unnatural questions. In her study of Japanese and Brazilian
English language learners, Paiva (2011) noted that a Brazilian girl with characteristically low L2 learning motivation
dedicated herself to English study due to her love of Michael Jackson. This component of her transportable identity
was so powerful that it overcame her general disinterest in studying English. This was arguably the present
component of her ideal L2 self, as well, considering she was motivated to study English in order to understand
Michael Jackson’s music. Therefore her ideal L2 self was the future version of her who was capable of
understanding Michael Jackson’s music in English.
On the other hand, failing to invoke the transportable identities of L2 learners can be detrimental to their
motivation and their ability to conceptualize their ideal L2 selves. Without some manner of identification with the
L2, learners have no tether to the language and float away from it, both metaphorically and literally. Even learners
who are intrinsically motivated need reason to maintain their persistence (Cowie & Sakui, 2011), or their motivation
fades. Put another way, the L2 learning experience facet of Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system (2009) would be
ridden with boredom and negativity, which would undoubtedly affect the ideal L2 self. Ushioda (2011) warned that
failure to respect the transportable identities of students could be truly hurtful. For example, if a student expresses
interest in the recent soccer game by saying, “I watch the game, it is so interesting for me,” that student is bringing
their transportable identity into the classroom. While embracing this is certainly positive, language teachers might
respond by saying, “You WATCHED the game, and it WAS so interesting for you… past tense, remember?” Now,
the potentially fruitful interaction between selfhood and the L2 has been reduced to an identity-threatening linguistic
error.
Foreign Language Anxiety

The aforementioned interaction would likely cause the learner to experience foreign language anxiety (FLA). FLA is
considered separately from other forms of anxiety because of its idiosyncratic nature and significantly high rate of
occurrence (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Horwitz et al. explained that the foreign language classroom
provoked anxiety via the disruption of learners’ worldviews, self-perceptions, and ability to meaningfully construct
and present their identities. Disparity between the L1 self and its effective manifestation in the L2 reality is a natural
feature of foreign language learning. Lack of control over not only self-expression, but also over methods of
evaluation and assessment, undoubtedly contributes to FLA. Horwitz et al. argued that adolescents and adults are
particularly susceptible to FLA because they are accustomed to high levels of control and comprehensible
expression in their L1. Therefore, entering the figurative linguistic childhood that is elementary L2 education can be
embarrassing, frustrating, and demotivating.
The Problem
Reviewing the research on L2 learning motivation, identity, and foreign language anxiety affords certain
conclusions. First of all, the motivational systems of learners are complex and cannot be easily categorized, and
should not be considered as analyzable components detached from the learners. Motivation is deeply rooted in
self-concept and identity—not only in their present states, but also in their potential future manifestations as well,
and the interplay between these multiple selves. It is therefore imperative to teach foreign languages with
identity-wielding people in mind, rather than language-learning receptacles. Failure to do so can be demotivating
and damage the ideal L2 self-images of the learners. Lastly, losing their sense of identity can cause
learners—particularly low-proficiency adolescents and adults (due to their limited capacity for L2 expression)—to
experience detrimental anxiety and demotivation in response to language learning. Indeed, Brown, Robson, and
Rosenkjar (2001) found that low-proficiency learners experienced greater feelings of inferiority, nervousness, and
anxiety. Furthermore, Segalowitz, Gatbonton, and Trofimovich (2009) presented a significant correlation between
low-proficiency learners and the belief that identity was strongly tied to language.
The problem is the phenomenon of presenting low-proficiency adolescent and adult learners—that is, those
most susceptible to feeling demotivated and threatened by L2 learning—with shallow materials that rarely
acknowledge the transportable identities to which they are so attached. If the present identities of L2 learners are to
serve as the anchor from which they can build the ‘bridge’ to the ideal L2 self (Dörnyei, 2005, cited in Dörnyei,
2009), ignoring those realities heavily damages the only foundations low-proficiency learners have.
12
Elementary-level materials are often centered on fictional characters (especially those hailing from the L2
community), images and audio of native speakers with whom L2 learners cannot easily relate (Murphey & Arao, as
cited in Yashima, 2009), and predetermined dialogues that are conceptually uninspiring and promote
“pseudo-communication” (Ushioda, 2011, p. 14). Although materials designed for low-proficiency learners are
likely created with the intention to provide considerable scaffolding, they effectively patronize intellectually mature
learners by pairing simple language with (overly) simple concepts. This is a major issue deserving of serious
attention, because these practices lay a foundation of disconnect between language learners and the L2. Countless
learners are beginning their L2 experience with the message that the L2 is something different from themselves,
which renders the development of a longitudinally motivating ideal L2 self difficult and perhaps (for some)
impossible.
The Solution
Criteria for Identifying Identity-Appropriate Materials
It seems that the most effective way to tackle this problem is to define basic criteria with which educators can
analyze the identity-appropriateness of their materials and/or activities. I present my current outline of these criteria,
supporting each with examples, possible applications, and ideas from the relevant literature. Due to the lack of an
available control group in my current teaching situation, I could not provide quantitative data to support the use of
these criteria. However, I include references to observations I made in class during the implementation of
identity-appropriate materials. In future research, I will use pre- and post-treatment questionnaires and interviews to
measure the motivation and anxiety levels of two groups of low-proficiency EFL students.
I will measure the foreign language anxiety of the students using a Japanese translation of the Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz et al., 1986), which was created by Yashima, Noels, Shizuka,
Takeuchi, Yamane, and Yoshizawa (2009). Motivation will be measured using a Japanese version of Noels, Pelletier,
Clément, and Vallerand’s (2000) Language Learning Orientations Scale–Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation,
and Amotivation Subscales (LLOS–EA), also created by Yashima et al. (2009). Students will then be divided
randomly into two groups, of which one will be instructed using identity-appropriate materials (deemed so by the
criteria), while the other will use the standard classroom materials. These criteria can be considered individually, and
are not presented in any significant sequence.
Do the Materials Attend to the Realities of L1 Use?

Although the issue certainly is not limited to beginner materials, there is a particular tendency to seemingly ignore
the realities of learners’ L1 use. If language is indeed a tool for communication—that is, a means rather than an
end—we must consider the ways in which students employ that tool when they use their L1. After all,
high-proficiency learners are characterized by the automatized nature of their L2 use; in other words, they have the
cognitive space to focus on meaning instead of attending to form. This suggests that learners begin to employ the L2
for personally relevant purposes as their proficiency increases. The question we should be asking is, why reserve this
practice for intermediate and advanced learners? Why are junior high and high school students asking each other,
Which do you prefer, bread or rice?, when the reality is that they would not use their L1 to express or gather such
information? Would two junior high school students actually ask one another, Do you have five CDs? There are
salient disconnects between what students want to use language for and the language featured in instruction.
Although the conceptual and linguistic simplicity might have been designed to provide students with mastery
experiences to enhance self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), it is highly questionable whether students value the outcome
enough to sense any level of personal growth or identity establishment (see Eccles & Wigfield, 2002 for more on
values). It is of paramount importance to choose materials that attend to the realities of learners’ L1 use, or to adapt
materials so that they fit this criterion. This is the most efficient method of invoking the transportable identities of
learners, “stimulat[ing]…a much higher level of personal involvement, effort and investment,” (Ushioda, 2011b, p.
205).
Do the Materials Overcome Content Limitations Set by Proficiency Level?

As mentioned previously in this paper, materials designed for low-proficiency learners often pair simplistic language
with simplistic content, which is an entirely unnecessary practice. In order to involve learners and establish a
connection between their current identities and the L2, we cannot allow their proficiency level to dictate the
intellectual depth of their interactions. This is a demeaning practice that demotivates adolescent and adult learners
13
who are already struggling with their comparatively infantile capacity for verbal expression in the L2. Of course, the
foundational patterns have their rightful place—the point is that we can go deeper without linguistically
overwhelming the students. A common dialogue found in beginner texts reads, “Do you have any brothers or
sisters?” with the listener responding, “Yes, I have one older brother”, and so forth. This is entirely appropriate for a
beginner level course as a conversation starter. It is inauthentic and uninteresting to force a full ‘conversation’ based
on these types of questions. We can supplement these basic exchanges by adding questions such as “What do you
like about him/her?” or “What annoys you about him/her?” Both of these questions can be answered in the present
tense following canonical word order, and therefore are within range of low-proficiency expression. The major
difference is that these questions speak to the ‘person-in-context’ (Ushioda, 2009), in that they delve deeper into our
transportable identities. Learners can travel beyond yes or no and counting single digits, to reflecting on their
relationships with their family members as they exist outside of the classroom. This shift in depth allows learners to
prioritize self-expression over language practice (Ushioda, 2011). When language is severely limited, supplementing
simple language with pictures representing complex ideas can also help to bridge the gap between intellectual
maturity and L2 proficiency levels.
Do the Materials Uphold the Agency of the Learners?

Horwitz et al. (1986) emphasized the anxiety-inducing shock that many adolescent and adult L2 learners experience
when their control over self-expression is drastically reduced. Low-proficiency learners must often squeeze their
entire spatial and temporal beings through a bottleneck of A or B-type questions. Learners with no interest in sports
engage in dialogues, choosing either “I like baseball more than soccer” or “I like soccer more than baseball.”
Beginner textbooks are littered with role-play dialogues in which students adopt the part of Ben or Sally, having
never heard of such names and feeling no connection to them. These practices reinforce the imbalance of power and
agency in favor of the text, the instructor, and NSs of the L2. Effective materials should uphold the agency of the
learners, regardless of their proficiency levels. Horwitz et al. (1986) emphasized the ability of adolescents and adults
to act with intelligence, social awareness, and cultural sensitivity. Such awareness grants learners a level of control
in communicative situations that is easily lost when “the range of communicative choices and authenticity is
restricted” (p. 128) by low proficiency in the L2. Allowing learners to exercise command over the L2 can be a
critical step in creating a positive relationship with the language, in that the power distribution mimics that which
exists between the learners and their L1. Importantly, control does not necessarily equate to complete freedom, as
some learners—especially those with low proficiencies—might want a certain level of restriction or guidance
(Reinders & Lázaro, 2011). However, it does mean that materials extend beyond simple dichotomies and allow
learners to explore a variety of comprehensible options. Again, this can involve pictures or audio when L2 abilities
are strongly limited.
An Example of Identity-Appropriate Material

An example of a simple worksheet I created using these criteria is in Appendix A. I used this with a high school
conversational English class of 44 Japanese female adolescents aged 16 to 17. Their proficiency level is
low—approximately matching that of typical 12 or 13 year-olds in public school. Accordingly, their FLA is
noticeably high and their low motivation is equally salient. The target language for the unit was the question, Which
do you prefer? and the response, This one. How about you? The textbook for the class included an activity featuring
a chart of different fruits and vegetables, which the students were supposed to talk about in pairs. I decided to apply
the criteria for identity-appropriateness to define new materials for these target structures.
The materials provided clearly did not attend to the realities of the learners’ L1 use. These students enjoyed
talking about clothes, pop music, sports, and their lives post-graduation. I chose to work with the last option, and
compiled a selection of photographs depicting various future lifestyles (e.g., alone and content, traveling, working,
dating, spending time with friends). I chose photographs of Asian women so the learners would feel more connected
to the subjects, especially because the pictures were supposed to represent their future selves. I did this with the hope
of establishing realistic connections to the L2 (as suggested by Yashima, 2009), and providing the learners with a
basic foundation upon which to start formulating an ideal L2 self. Murphey and Arao (2001, as cited in Yashima,
2009) commented that observing relatable others could serve as the bridge between learners’ present and ideal L2
selves. Al-Shehri (2009) found that being able to visualize the ideal L2 self was strongly connected to the L2
self-image; giving learners visual suggestions might help them eventually form their own images.
14
The activity helped learners overcome their linguistic limitations with the use of pictures. The language
involved was simple, while the concepts represented (i.e., their potential paths in life after high school) were
complex and reminiscent of a conversation they might likely have in their L1. They were able to engage with their
future selves and perhaps begin to develop ideal L2 selves within the scope of their current abilities (Ushioda, 2011).
Lastly, the materials/activity upheld the agency of the learners in that they provided some guidance so as to avoid
inducing anxiety, while providing six choices of possible future lifestyles to ensure a certain level of freedom.
Students were free to make their own choice concerning an issue of personal relevance, and were able to finish an
activity of depth in English that they might have previously thought impossible considering their proficiency level.
After students engaged in this activity, we created a bar graph as a class on the blackboard, using the vocabulary for
basic colors, numbers, and the target structures indicated on the worksheet. The students were noticeably interested
and engaged for the full class period, which was a significant contrast to their usual demeanor. At the end of the
class, the students were given five minutes to talk with their friends about their answers in Japanese. There were
follow-up questions that they could not yet articulate in English, so I allowed them to ask these questions in the L1
at the end. Students continued to talk about the activity after class ended, and I observed a few students discussing
their preferences during lunch. Although the activity could certainly be improved, the divide between their in- and
out-of-class self-concepts was temporarily lifted, which I considered a success.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to review the relevant research on L2 learning motivation, learner identities, and FLA,
and to apply this information in the creation of criteria for analyzing the identity-appropriateness of materials,
particularly those designed for low-proficiency learners. In order to develop and maintain a lifelong desire to learn
English, students need to enhance their international posture (in regard to imagined or real international
communities) and clearly conceptualize their ideal L2 selves. However, before any of that is possible, educators
must create learning environments in which beginner students can draw meaningful connections between themselves
and the L2. Recognizing the potential interplay between the two is the critical first step to defining an L2-related
ideal self and situating oneself within the international context. To help learners develop this integral foundational
relationship, we as educators must carefully select materials that are identity-appropriate, or amend existing
materials to fit these standards. Using three basic criteria—(a) Do the materials attend to the realities of L1 use?, (b)
Do the materials overcome content limitations set by proficiency level?, and (c) Do the materials uphold the agency
of the learner?—we can determine whether pedagogical materials will exacerbate the senses of inferiority and
anxiety experienced by so many intellectually mature low-proficiency learners, or allow them to begin the fruitful
journey toward the development of motivating, ideal L2 selves.
References
Al-Shehri, A. S. (2009). Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self, imagination and visual style.
In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 164-171). Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
191-215.
Brown, J. D., Robson, G., & Rosenkjar, P. R. (2001). Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and language
proficiency of Japanese students. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language
acquisition (pp. 361-398). Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Cowie, N., & Sakui, K. (2011). Crucial but neglected: English as a foreign language teachers’ perspectives on
learner motivation. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language
learning (pp. 212-228). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behavior: A comparative
analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E.
Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98-119). Bristol, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal
nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421-462.
15
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
109-132.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation.
London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher, and the researcher. Texas Papers in
Foreign Language Education, 6, 1-18.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal
of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Paiva, V. L. M. de O. e. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in second language acquisition from the
perspective of complex adaptive systems. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and
autonomy in language learning (pp. 57-72). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Reinders, H., & Lázaro, N. (2011). Beliefs, identity and motivation in implementing autonomy: The teacher’s
perspective. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language
learning (pp. 125-142). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77.
Segalowitz, N., Gatbonton, E., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Links between ethnolinguistic affiliation, self-related
motivation and second language fluency: Are they mediated by psycholinguistic variables? In Z. Dörnyei &
E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 172-192). Bristol, England:
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E.
Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011a). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity,
motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 11-24). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011b). Language learning motivation, self, and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210.
Ushioda, E. (2012). Motivation: L2 learning as a special case? In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.),
Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory, and practice (pp. 58-73). London,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Z. Dörnyei & E.
Matters.
Yashima, T., Noels, K. A., Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yamane, S., & Yoshizawa, K. (2009). The interplay of
classroom anxiety, intrinsic motivation, and gender in the Japanese EFL context. Foreign Language
Education Research, 17, 41-64.
Yashima, T., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and L2
communication: Creating an imagined international community. System, 36, 566-585.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). Influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to
communicate and L2 communication. Language Learning, 54, 119-152.
16
Developing Writing Self-Concept in the L2 Classroom
G. Clint Denison
If you find yourself teaching an English as a foreign language (EFL) writing class where the students have no desire
to write, low writing self-concept might be one explanation for this phenomenon. Perhaps because of the
difficult-to-target nature of the construct, there is a paucity of research published on practical activities or types of
instruction that could improve students’ self-concepts in second language (L2) classrooms. It is hoped that this paper
elucidates the necessity for developing self-concept while helping to bridge the gap and provide some practical,
implementable, and pedagogically sound activities and techniques that could help to improve writing self-concept.
Developing self-concept in students is a difficult, long-term goal, but it is a challenge worth accepting because as
Mercer (2011b) suggested, self-concept is especially important in foreign language learning due to the heightened
role of self-presentation. Students are frequently required to write or talk about themselves in a group setting,
presenting their inner selves in a vulnerable way.
Writing self-concept might be important in particular because it is a distinctly large hurdle that affects many
students. Even highly motivated students who are proficient in the L2 sometimes give up before they can write
anything substantial. I believe that this is often not a proficiency problem, but that students feel that writing well in
the L2 is something they simply cannot do. This puts them into a vicious cycle of negatively evaluating themselves
because they do not write well, and not writing well because these negative evaluations are affecting their output.
However, if teachers make the effort to help students build self-concept in writing classes it might help to break this
cycle and get them over this hurdle. Self-concept has been shown to be closely associated with language learning
outcomes (Erten & Burden, 2014), so efforts to increase the self-concept of students have long-term benefits.
However, this leads us to a necessary question. If self-concept is so important, why focus on a specific
domain such as writing self-concept? Why not try to develop overall self-concept instead? The reason is that a
focused approach is the most realistic way we can expect to improve students’ self-concepts. Brunner and his
colleagues (2010) suggested that self-concept is highly subject-specific and strongly separated across domains.
Developing self-concept in one domain might not result in improved self-concept in others. In addition, O’Mara et al.
(2006) found that interventions designed to target specific self-concept domains were more effective at increasing
individuals’ sense of self-concept in those domains than non-targeted approaches. In other words, trying to increase
self-concept in a focused way, within a particular domain, will be more effective than taking a broad, general
approach. Targeting specific domains independently is a more realistic approach when the end goal is to develop a
holistic sense of L2 self-concept (Mercer, 2011b). In this paper I take such a targeted approach, first discussing the
construct of self-concept before discussing specific ways that teachers can help to develop students’ writing
self-concept in the L2 classroom.
Self-Concept
Mercer (2011b) defined L2 self-concept as an individual’s self-descriptions of competence and evaluative feelings
about themselves as a foreign language learner. It is complex, multidimensional, and dynamic (Mercer, 2011a). It
differs from other constructs of self in the way it combines both cognitive evaluations of competence and affective
evaluations of the self at a general level. Mercer (2011b) postulated that part of the reason L2 self-concept has been
under-researched is because of the difficulty in separating it from definitions of other constructs of self. Indeed,
there is significant overlap between the constructs of self-efficacy, self-concept, self-esteem, and identity so it is best
to imagine them as intertwined rather than entirely separate and independent of each other.
Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) is similar to self-concept in that they both involve affective and
cognitive evaluations. However, self-efficacy is more focused on expectancy evaluations of performing a task in a
specific context (Mercer, 2011b). On the other hand, self-concept is less dependent on context and does not contain
the specificity that self-efficacy does (Mercer, 2011b). However both self-efficacy and self-concept are closely
related. Self-efficacy can be visualized as existing inside of self-concept at its core. Because it is less
context-dependent, self-concept extends beyond self-efficacy, taking the cognitive evaluations of competence
stemming from self-efficacy and tying them to the general affective beliefs that learners have about themselves
(Mercer, 2011b).
17
Identity is in close interplay with self-concept and represents how the individual relates their self-concept to
the outside world in a specific social context (Mercer, 2011b). Self-esteem is the most affective of the constructs and
deals with how the individual feels about their worth as a person. It is much broader in scope than self-concept.
Hopefully this quick overview has helped to elucidate these closely related constructs. For a more detailed
explanation, see Mercer (2011b, pp. 13-19).
Marsh (1986) proposed an internal/external frame of reference model for how learners make comparisons
and develop self-concept. The external frame of reference contains comparisons of ourselves with peers and those
around us. It is also based on factors such as grades and feedback. The internal frame of reference is where we make
comparisons across our own different self-concepts. For example, comparing one’s self-concept as a first language
writer to their self-concept as a L2 writer. Dickhäuser (2005) suggested that external comparisons might be more
powerful than internal comparisons in developing self-concepts for math and verbal skills. More research is needed
to determine how this might affect L2 learning (Mercer, 2011b), but it is probable that both internal and external
comparisons have a large effect on how L2 learners develop their self-concept.
Mercer (2011b) pointed out that self-concept might account for the varying and dynamic nature of students’
motivation, willingness to engage and communicate, goal setting, strategy use, and attitudes toward the L2. The
construct is worth targeting because by increasing students’ sense of self-concept we are both increasing their
motivation to learn and use the L2 and helping them to feel better about themselves as a language learner. Helping
students to feel better about themselves as L2 learners has a greater motivational effect than focusing on improving
self-efficacy alone.
Improving Writing Self-Concept

The following sections detail several techniques and two writing projects that could be used to increase writing
self-concept in an L2 classroom. It should be noted that while they can all be used in isolation, they are designed to
complement each other. Using a combination of these techniques and projects will probably result in a greater
increase in students’ writing self-concept than if they were used separately.
Use Personally Relevant Writing Topics

Mercer (2011b) suggested that for teachers to help learners develop their self-concept, they have to attend to both
the cognitive and affective dimensions of learning. In regards to the affective dimension, it is imperative that
teachers maintain a generally positive motivational atmosphere for development of self-concept to occur. One basic
way to increase motivation is by using materials that are personally relevant to students (Dörnyei, 2001), so a careful
selection of topics could form the basis for developing self-concept in a writing class.
Probably the best way to ensure that the topics are personally relevant to students would be to use a survey to
ascertain what students specifically wish to write about. However, this is not always a feasible option, so the teacher
should have appealing topics, which highlight the students’ own experiences, ready to go. A selection of such topics
is displayed in in Table 1. While these topics were imagined for use in writing, they could easily be adapted for use
in conversations as well.
Table 1. A Selection of Personally Relevant Writing Topics

Past Present Future
A day that is important to me My favorite place A place I want to visit
My best vacation My hobby My dream job
My worst vacation Describe your family My plans for the future
An experience that I will The best time of the year My plans for next weekend
never forget
A happy memory The person I respect the most My New Year’s resolution
What I did last weekend My most important possession Where would you take an exchange
student coming for a homestay?
The key here is that the topics need to focus on the experiences and desires of the students. The teacher
should try to create a writing environment where students can bring their transportable identities into the classroom.
Transportable identities can be invoked during interaction and involve referencing one’s identities that exist outside
the immediate situation (Richards, 2006; Ushioda, 2011), such as one’s identity as an avid basketball player or
pianist. Richards (2006) suggested that engaging student and teacher transportable identities in the classroom has
18
several benefits such as higher levels of personal involvement and investment from students. Allowing students to
invoke their transportable identities in their writing could result in increased motivation and effort levels. This
increased engagement creates a situation where students’ self-concepts can develop more effectively.
Use Writing Graphs and Writing Checklists

Graphs and checklists can be a highly effective way to motivate students and develop self-concept. They are useful
when setting specific short- and long-term goals, which has a positive effect on motivation (Dörnyei, 2001). They
also provide a sense of progress, and make mastery experiences highly visible to the learner. These mastery
experiences are considered to be the most important factor in developing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), which itself
is a key factor in developing self-concept (Mercer, 2011b). Not only can graphs and checklists be motivating, but
they also allow students to see individual development. This focus on individual progress draws the learners’
attention inward and encourages them to make comparisons based on their own progress. In other words, one way of
developing self-concept is emphasize to a student how he or she is making individual progress. The focus should be
on the process rather than the product (Mercer, 2011b). Graphs and checklists can help to accomplish this goal.
Some types of graphs and checklists that teachers might consider using are word count graphs, vocabulary
checklists, and phrase checklists. A word count graph could be used to track the total number of words a student has
written throughout a course. Vocabulary and phrase checklists could be used to give students a target list of
language that can be checked off as it is used. For beginning students it is probably best to base the vocabulary list
on the General Service List (GSL) (West, 1953). The GSL contains the most frequent 2,000 English words, so these
vocabulary items are the most useful for students. This could be supplemented with relevant vocabulary from the
students’ textbooks. For phrase lists, it is probably best for the teacher to base the list on the phrases and grammar
that has previously appeared in students’ textbooks. This ensures that students are familiar with the phrases to at
least some degree and can also assist in the review of these phrases. It is recommended that students keep these
checklists and graphs together in a file or notebook along with their writing to make comparisons and graphing
easier.
Project 1: Write a Letter to Your Future Self

Having students write letters to themselves to be read at a later date is an activity that can significantly impact
self-concept. In this activity, students imagine themselves in the future, having aged some number of years, and
write a letter to that future self. The letter should describe what the student is like now and how that compares to
what they expect to become. While the letter should not be limited to language learning, the teacher should ensure
that the students use the project to consider how they will use the L2 in the future. If students can define a clear and
vivid future L2 self-concept, it can impact their current self-concept as well (Dörnyei, 2005). This activity serves to
not only strengthen the self-concept of learners, but to motivate them through the creating of an ideal L2 self to
strive for (Dörnyei, 2005).
Ideally, this activity would be conducted in a long term way. After the students had written their letters, the
teacher would collect them to keep for an extended period of time. When the letters were finally handed back to
students, they could reflect on what they had imagined and what had actually happened. One way would be to do
this on a yearly basis, writing the letters at the start of the year and reflecting on them at the end. Another way would
be to write them upon entry into a school and reflecting on them upon graduation. This accomplishes several things.
First, learners can compare their previous L2 work with their current proficiency level and have a clear example of
progression, which is necessary to develop self-concept (Mercer, 2011b). In the event that progression is not obvious
to the learner, the teacher should assist and highlight some of the less salient aspects of progression, such as lexical
variety, which students might not notice. If it is clear that progression has not occurred the activity might highlight
specific aspects that the student should concentrate on developing. Second, reflection encourages learners to revisit
and reimagine their future L2 self. This can help them develop a more detailed ideal L2 self, which will positively
influence self-concept (Dörnyei, 2005).
Project 2: Develop a Character and Write Entries in His or Her Diary

In this project, students create a character and write entries in their diaries as if they were that character. While this
project takes a considerable amount of time to complete, it has the potential to provide students with a creative and
fun writing outlet that helps to improve their writing self-concept, develop identity, and improve proficiency. There
are two main stages to the project.
19
In the first stage the students should take time to imagine and develop a character. Students have the freedom
to develop the character to their liking. The only restriction is that the character must exist in a country or
community where they speak the target language as an L2. This serves to encourage students to consider situations
where the target language might be used. During this stage students can be asked to produce several small pieces of
writing to help flesh out the characteristics of the newly imagined character. This is where the opportunity to
develop students’ self-concept presents itself. Due to the requirement that the character must exist in a target
language community, the students must effectively create an L2 self for that character. If the students can create an
imagined future L2 self for their characters, it might begin to influence their own future L2 self. At the very least, it
requires students to consider how people in other countries or in such a situation might behave. This is similar to
Feuer’s (2011) study, in which students were able to develop their own actual identities by creating characters that
lived in an imagined community. While identity and self-concept are not the same and develop differently (Mercer,
2011b), there is considerable interplay between the two constructs so it is possible that self-concept develops
similarly.
In the second stage students begin to develop the characters’ stories through diary entries. The diary entries
should be written as frequently as is deemed reasonable for the class. As mentioned above, the diaries should be kept
together to make comparison easy for the students. Teachers can even consider getting students to use diary books to
write in. If the students have access to computers, using a blog or E-mail are other possible venues for completing
this project. As the entries build in the diary, the teacher should make comments on content and progress to
encourage internal comparisons and build self-concept (Marsh, 1986). The medium of a diary breaks down a large
writing project and lets students attack it in an incremental way. If students were required to write everything at once
it could be daunting, but writing a diary entry by entry is more accessible for lower proficiency students and
provides them opportunities to build mastery experiences. These mastery experiences help to build self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977), which in turn helps to develop their self-concept (Mercer, 2011b).
There are several ways to decide the actual topics that should be covered within the diaries. One way is for
the teacher to give the students autonomy to choose all topics for their character’s entries. This autonomy can be
motivating for students (Dörnyei, 2001), but it might be difficult for less creative students or those with writer’s
block. Another way is for the teacher to use topics such as those listed in Table 1. This presents students with the
opportunity to write about things that are imagined to be relevant to their character. This can be both an interesting
and engaging foundation from which to write the diary. Some combination of student-chosen and teacher-chosen
topics is also a possibility.
When the diary is finally complete, the students will have produced a significant and tangible product that
will help them feel a genuine sense of success. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the project, because it
goes beyond the highly localized motivational benefits that increases in self-efficacy can provide. Producing
something significant, such as this diary, might help learners to feel better about themselves as language learners as
a whole. It provides proof that they can use the L2 in a meaningful way.
Conclusion
It is my hope that this paper accomplishes two things. First, it is intended to highlight the importance of considering
students’ sense of self-concept in the L2 classroom. Teachers often focus their efforts on motivating students in
highly specific ways. This might motivate students to complete a given task, but often it falls short of helping
students to feel more positive about themselves as language learners. If teachers can keep the development of
students’ self-concept in mind it will engender a deeper and further-reaching sense of motivation.
Second, I hope that the classroom applications and projects discussed here provide teachers with practical
and accessible ways to develop writing self-concept in the L2 classroom. Developing self-concept has to be
approached in a long-term way and the techniques and projects detailed here might give teachers the tools to start
down that path. Also, while I have focused on L2 writing self-concept here, it is hoped that the applications provided
inspire techniques for developing self-concept across other L2 domains as well.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
191-214.
20
Brunner, M., Keller, U., Dierendonck, C., Reichert, M., Ugen, S., Fischbach, A., & Martin, R. (2010). The structure
of academic self-concepts revisited: The nested Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(4), 964-981.
Dickhäuser, O. (2005). A fresh look: Testing the internal/external frame of reference model with frame-specific
academic self-concepts. Educational Research, 47(3), 279-290.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erten, I. H., & Burden, R. L. (2014). The relationship between academic self-concept, attributions, and L2
achievement. System, 42, 391-401.
Feuer, A. (2011). Developing foreign language skills, competence and identity through a collaborative creative
writing project. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(2), 125-139.
Marsh, H. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American
Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 129-149.
Mercer, S. (2011a). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System, 39, 335-346.
Mercer, S. (2011b). Towards an understanding of language learner self-concept. New York, NY: Springer.
Mercer, S. (2012). Self-concept: Situating the self. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for
language learning: Insights from research, theory, and practice (pp. 10-25). London, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
O’Mara, A., Marsh, H., Craven, R., & Debus, R. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A
synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 181-206.
Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London, England: Longman, Green & Co.
21
L2 Anxiety in Young Japanese Learners: Grade, Gender, and Classroom Dynamics
Michael Giordano
Over the course of the last year, I have had the unique opportunity to teach English to both elementary school and
junior high school students in Japan. The inspiration for this study came from a perceived lack of foreign language
speaking anxiety and higher willingness to communicate (WTC) amongst Japanese elementary school students when
compared with junior high school students in the same school district. A questionnaire, based on Horwitz, Horwitz,
and Cope’s (1986) foreign language classroom anxiety survey (FLCAS), was designed, translated, and given to the
fifth and sixth grade students at two elementary schools and the first, second, and third grade students at one junior
high school in Japan (N = 542). The questionnaire concerned the types of activities that students perceive as more or
less anxiety producing. The items concerned students’ perception of whole class, pair, and small group activities. It
also touched on English class specific anxiety and anxiety caused by one-on-one interaction with the English
teacher.
Literature Review
Foreign language anxiety has been exhaustively researched over the past 30 years. MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012)
contend that foreign language learning anxiety is “feelings of worry and negative, fear-related emotions associated
with learning or using a language that is not an individual’s mother tongue” (p. 103). It is different from general or
trait anxiety as it concerns more wide spread feelings of worry in various or all situations. Foreign language anxiety
is a state or situational type of anxiety that occurs only in the context of second/foreign language (L2). It can occur
in any of the four skills—reading, writing, speaking, or listening—and at any time in the learning process—input
stage, processing stage, or output stage (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994).
The Effects and Causes of Foreign Language Anxiety

High L2 anxiety might result in physiological, behavioral, and cognitive effects in learners. Common physiological
responses are sweating, increased heartbeat, or inability to actually hear sounds (MacIntyre, 1995). Behavioral
effects might include avoidance, over-studying, forgetting materials or textbooks, or sleeping in class. Lastly,
forgetfulness, freezing up, and imitations on short-term and long-term memory might be the cognitive effects of L2
anxiety (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012).
High levels of foreign language anxiety are often correlated with lower levels of perceived L2 ability, lower
motivation (Lui & Huang, 2011; Ushioda, 2012), lower willingness to communicate (Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels,
1994), and lower self-efficacy (Ushioda, 2012). Debilitating levels of anxiety can lead to over-studying, lower levels
of achievement (Dewaele, 2007), lower L2 grades, and higher likelihood of dropping out of a language course
(Dewaele, 2009). High levels of anxiety can also affect self-confidence. Clément’s (1980) Theory of Linguistic
Self-Confidence predicts students’ perception of L2 ability correlates negatively with their foreign language anxiety.
The more anxious a learner is in an L2 learning situation, the lower his or her self-confidence is likely to be.
Matsuda and Gobel (2004) and Léger and Storch (2009) observed exactly this situation in their anxiety studies. As
the study progressed, students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) and self-confidence increased as their anxiety
decreased.
There seems to be some debate within the fields of SLA and educational psychology as to what exactly
causes foreign language anxiety. Horwitz et al. (1986) proposed that communication anxiety, test anxiety, and fear
of negative evaluation are the main constructs at work. However, many other researchers believe it is not so simple.
Some feel that test anxiety does not even belong on the list due to it being more general or trait-like (Matsuda &
Gobel, 2004). Fear of negative evaluation (Aida, 1994; Aydin, 2008; Liu & Huang, 2011; Shabani, 2012; Yang,
2012), speaking in front of one’s peers (Koch & Terrell, 1991; Mak, 2011), self-perception of L2 ability, and low
self-confidence (Léger & Storch, 2009; Matsuda & Gobel, 2004; Yang, 2012; Yim, 2014) all seem to be well
documented causes of foreign language anxiety. The above researchers suggest these additional causes of L2
anxiety: fear of failing class, negative attitudes toward the class, discomfort speaking with native speakers, being
corrected while speaking, classroom dynamics and activities (Horwitz, 2001), not being allowed to use the L1 in
class, and not being given appropriate planning time. Additionally, Gregersen and Horwitz (2002) suggested that
anxiety might also be caused by perfectionism due to a high concern for errors inherent in that personality construct.
22
Gender and Grades Research
In the present study, I explore foreign language anxiety as it relates to school grade and gender. There has not been
extensive research in SLA on anxiety in children and young learners. The majority of studies have been done with
university students. However, there are a few gender studies worth looking at before delving into the present study.
The effects of gender on foreign language anxiety are not settled in the literature. Many studies have
concluded that females tend to have higher levels of foreign language anxiety (Abu-Rabia, 2004; Ezzi, 2012;
Machide, 2001; Park & French, 2013) whereas other studies have determined that males have higher levels of
foreign language speaking anxiety (Kitano, 2001; Na, 2007). Shabani (2012) reported no significant difference in
anxiety levels between males and females. These differing results might be explainable by instrument usage or
interference by other factors.
There has been even less research devoted to anxiety differences between grades for young learners.
MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, and Donovan (2002) is one of the few studies that address this topic. Their study of
seventh, eighth, and ninth grade students found that the anxiety and WTC levels of young men remained stable over
the three grades, whereas the female participants’ WTC levels increased and anxiety levels decreased in the 8th and
9th grades.
Methods
Research Questions
This study came together rather quickly based on informal observations of student classroom behavior. I could not
explain why elementary school (ES) students seemed much more eager to communicate in the classroom than their
recently graduated peers in the junior high school (JHS). I came to the conclusion that anxiety might be playing a
role in the junior high school students’ WTC in different dynamics. It seemed counter-intuitive that the junior high
school students, with almost certainly increased language ability, more knowledge of vocabulary and grammar, and
higher linguistic self-confidence, should be more nervous and less willing to communicate in the classroom. Three
research questions guide this study:
1. How does the classroom activity dynamic affect students’ anxiety level? Which dynamics (whole class, small
groups, or pairs) affect student anxiety the most/least?
2. Does student grade level play a role in overall anxiety level?
3. How does student gender correlate with overall anxiety level?
Participants
The questionnaire was administered to students at four schools, one junior high school and three elementary schools
in the Osaka city public school district. Over 700 questionnaires were distributed throughout the 26 different classes.
However, only 542 student responses (268 males, 269 females, and 5 no-gender responses) from two elementary
schools and one junior high school were included in this study due to time constraints. The students ranged in age
within grades and classes but the overall range was between 10-14 years old.
The students were asked at the beginning of class to assist the teacher by taking this questionnaire. In an
attempt to make sure that the students answered the questions as honestly as possible, they were asked not to write
their names on the questionnaire. This was done to preclude any possible bias on the part of the researcher as well as
to instill confidence in the students that their answers would be anonymous and would not be held against them in
any way. The hope was that students would feel more comfortable answering questions without attempting to
predict how the researcher wanted the questions answered.
Instrumentation
The questionnaire used in this study was an adaptation of Horwitz et al. (1986) foreign language class anxiety
survey (FLCAS). Some questions in the FLCAS were removed and many others were edited to focus on situations
with which elementary school and junior high school students are familiar. It consisted of 14 items designed to
separate different classroom dynamics; whole class, small groups, and pairs. Items 1 through 3 concerned the
anxiety caused by using English in front of the whole class. Items 4 through 6 dealt with anxiety caused by pair
dynamics. Items 7 and 8 concerned how students feel when working in small groups. Items 9 through 11 concerned
general school anxiety compared with foreign language anxiety. Items 12 through 14 addressed students perceived
anxiety levels when confronted with situations of English use outside of the classroom (Table 1).
23
The questionnaire was based on a four-point Likert scale. The students were asked to circle an appropriate
response to the question or statement that best represented their feelings (A = Not at all, B = Not much, C = A little,
D = Very much). A four-point scale was used in an attempt to keep the questionnaire simple enough that all students
in JHS and ES could successfully complete it while allowing for some flexibility in the responses.
After the English version was finished, it was translated into Japanese. Then the draft of the Japanese version
of the questionnaire was given to six Japanese educators who checked the accuracy of the translation as well as
suitability of the language used. Because the questionnaire was to be given to fifth and sixth grade students, the
difficult level of the Japanese used needed to be controlled. The educators gave helpful feedback on the language to
appear in the final version in addition to some suggestions for making the questions easier to understand for their
particular students. Their suggestions were carefully considered and included where appropriate.
A number of other data were collected as well. Students were asked to indicate their age, grade in school, and
gender. They were also asked to identify if they studied English outside of school, if they enjoyed learning English,
and if they had taken a popular standardized test called Eigokentei (英語検定). This information was collected for
possible additional analyses, however the only variables analyzed in the present study were grade and gender. See
Appendix A and Appendix B for English and Japanese versions of the questionnaire.
Procedure
The procedure for administering the questionnaire was the same in all classes and grade levels. Students were given
the Japanese version of the questionnaire, asked to answer it honestly, and informed that they need not write their
name. The students were told that the questionnaire was for the researcher’s study and no one other than the
researcher would see the raw data. They were given 10 minutes to answer all of the items on the pages. Although it
was uncommon, there were several instances in which the students did not realize that the questionnaire was double
sided. This led to some incomplete questionnaires, which were eventually removed from the study during the coding
phase. After all of the questionnaires were collected, each questionnaire was given an identification number and the
data was coded for statistical analysis.
Table 1. “How Do Classroom Activities Make You Feel?” Anxiety Questionnaire

Item Question M SD
1 Do you feel nervous when you speak English in front of the class? 2.77 .97
2 Do you feel anxious when your English teacher calls on you to speak in the 2.61 .95
class?
3 Are you afraid that your classmates will laugh at you if you make a mistake in 2.36 1.05
English?
4 Do you feel nervous talking to a partner in English? 1.89 .92
5 Do you feel more worried talking to a partner than the whole class in English? 1.71 .81
6 Do you feel more anxious talking to a small group than to a partner in English? 2.11 .96
7 Do you feel nervous using English in small groups? 2.05 .92
8 Do you feel more nervous in small groups than in the whole class? 1.76 .80
9 Do you feel more worried in English class than other classes? 2.03 .94
10 Do you feel more worried in English than in math class? 1.94 .94
11 Do you feel more worried in English than in P.E. class? 1.89 .97
12 Do you think that speaking to your English teacher (Japanese teacher or native 2.17 .91
English teacher) outside of the classroom is easier than in the classroom?
13 Would you feel worried talking to your English teacher (Japanese or native 2.53 1.03
English teacher) at the train station?
14 Do you feel anxious talking to your English teacher (Japanese or native English 2.28 .98
teacher one-on-one in the hallway?
Note. Likert scale 1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = A little, 4 = Very much
Results
Analysis
The data were analyzed using Winsteps version 3.80 and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.
Winsteps was used to conduct a Rasch analysis of the instrument to determine the reliability of the items and the
participant responses. It was also used to conduct a fit analysis of the responses to determine how well the students
24
answered the questionnaire (Apple, 2013). These data were used primarily to answer research question 1 by
determining which classroom dynamic and activities made students feel more or less anxious. In order to address
research questions 2 and 3, SPSS was used to conduct an ANOVA to determine if school grade or gender played a
significant role in the reported anxiety levels.
Reliability Analysis
The reliability analysis was conducted using Winsteps (Linacre, 2014). The questionnaire had a Rasch person
reliability of .87 and a Rasch item reliability of .99 (Table 2). Person reliability refers to the likelihood that the same
test takers could reproduce the same results if they took a different test measuring the same constructs. Item
reliability refers to the likelihood that different test takers could reproduce the same results with the same
questionnaire. This shows that the questionnaire was behaving quite well in general.
Table 2. Rasch Reliability Statistics

Count M SD Reliability
Person 542 30.2 9.3 .87
Item 14 1166.2 168.4 .99
Note. Person Count = total number input, actual number of responses varied depending on if students
answered the question.
Fit Analysis
The item infit deals with item behavior when compared with how the majority of people answered the question. If
an item were causing confusion in the test takers, the Rasch analysis would catch that a particular item was not
behaving as predicted and the number would fall outside of the acceptable range, 0.6 and 1.4 for low-stakes Likert
scale items (Wright, Linacre, Gustafson, & Martin-Lof, 1994). The fit analysis showed that the majority of the items
in this questionnaire fell within the acceptable range, with the exception of Item 12, which was slightly higher at
1.58 (Table 3).
Table 3. Rasch Descriptive Statistics for Item Behavior

Total Infit Infit Outfit Outfit
Item score Measure SE MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD Item description
5 927 1.08 0.07 1.02 0.4 1.04 0.5 Pair vs Whole class
8 954 0.86 0.07 0.9 -1.5 0.92 -0.9 Group vs Whole class
4 1022 0.62 0.07 0.88 -1.9 0.83 -2.3 Pair Alone
11 1025 0.54 0.07 1.17 2.6 1.24 2.9 English vs PE
10 1054 0.44 0.07 0.94 -1.1 1.01 0.2 English vs Math
9 1101 0.24 0.06 0.83 -3.0 0.80 -3.1 English vs Other classes
7 1115 0.18 0.06 0.72 -5.1 0.70 -4.7 Group Alone
6 1146 0.10 0.06 0.99 -0.2 0.99 -0.2 Group vs Pair
12 1178 -0.13 0.06 1.58 8.3 1.96 9.9 Outside vs Inside Classroom
14 1239 -0.34 0.06 0.98 -0.3 0.98 -0.3 In the Hallway
3 1279 -0.44 0.06 1.19 3.0 1.25 3.7 Class negative judgment
13 1372 -0.87 0.06 1.24 3.7 1.24 3.5 Teacher outside school
2 1414 -0.97 0.06 0.72 -5.2 0.73 -4.6 Teacher calls on you
1 1501 -1.32 0.06 0.75 -4.5 0.79 -3.5 Speaking in front of whole class
Note. Items organized from easiest to most difficult to endorse (MEASURE). MNSQ = Mean Squared. ZSTD =
Standardized z-score.
Research Question 1
The data from the Rasch analysis were used to determine the severity of anxiety that the activity produces within the
participants (N = 542). The higher the score, the more anxiety producing that situation was deemed. The least
anxiety producing activity was Item 5: Do you feel more worried talking to a partner than the whole class in
25
English? The vast majority of participants, 85%, believed that pair work was less anxiety producing than talking in
front of the whole class. The second least anxiety producing dynamic was small group work vs. whole class: Do you
feel more nervous in small groups than in the whole class? Again, 85% of the participants felt that group work was
less anxiety producing than working or speaking in front of the class. The third least anxiety-producing situation was
represented by Item 4: Do you feel nervous talking to a partner in English? The results indicated that 74% of the
participants felt that one-on-one pair dynamics did not make them very nervous.
Participants’ responses to Item 7 were slightly surprising. This question asked, Do you feel nervous using
English in small groups? Only 67% of them felt that small group work caused them no or very little anxiety. When
compared to Item 4 percentages, the pair dynamic question, it seems that pair work is less anxiety producing than
group work. However, Item 6 attempted to test this directly. While the responses were relatively spread out among
the Likert scale, it seems that students believe that small groups are less anxiety producing than pairs, but just barely.
Further statistical analysis is required to see if this difference is statistically significant or just an unusual pattern in
the data. This is discussed more in the discussion section. One thing that was very clear from the data was that 60%
and 57% of participants, respectively, felt that speaking in front of the class (Item 1) and being called on by the
teacher in the class (Item 2) were anxiety-producing situations.
Research Question 2
An ANOVA was done in SPSS to address whether or not there was a significant difference in anxiety scores as a
result of the participants’ grades in school. The data from students in elementary school grade 5 (n = 153),
elementary school grade 6 (n = 152), junior high school grade 1 (n = 104), junior high school grade 2 (n = 97), and
junior high school grade 3 (n = 37) were analyzed and it was discovered that student grades and anxiety scores were
not significantly different, F(1.099) = 3.59, p = .356, to each other. According to this data, student grade level does
not seem to be a predictive factor of these students’ anxiety levels.
Research Question 3
To answer research question 3, another ANOVA was run. It was determined that the gender difference between
participants was significant, F(7.74) = 25.15, p = .006, with females reporting slightly higher overall anxiety means
(Table 4). Regardless of the small effect size, partial η2 = .014, gender seems to be related to differences in anxiety
means on this questionnaire.
Table 4: Gender and Anxiety Raw Score Means

Gender N Anxiety Mean
Male 268 2.08
Female 269 2.25
Discussion and Limitations

In some respects, the results reported in this study were not extremely surprising. Few people like speaking in front
of large groups of people, and even fewer like doing that in their L2. This study seems to show that the same can be
said for children as well. This was exhibited in how the questions were rated by the participants. A high total score
(Table 2) demonstrates that participants felt this situation was more anxiety producing; pair and small group
classroom dynamics were preferred by the majority of students. Additionally, pair activities seem to also be less
anxiety producing than group activities. It is not surprising that students’ preferences would lean toward the small
group dynamic as the same result was seen in Cao and Philp’s (2006) willingness to communicate study. The
addition of another item on the test comparing pair dynamics and group dynamics would be necessary to narrow the
participants’ preference.
What were slightly surprising were the participants’ responses to the questions dealing with comparisons
between English and other subjects (Items 9-11). More than a third of students (34%) reported that English does not
make them worried at all when compared to other classes. Also, 38% of participants felt that English was not at all
anxiety producing when compared to math class. Lastly, 43% felt that English was not more anxiety producing than
P.E. class. It is possible that these are the students who really like English. It could also be possible that other classes
in elementary school and junior high school are causing students more stress and anxiety than learning a foreign
language. Generally it is assumed that foreign language learning is a stressful and anxiety producing situation. It
would be interesting to gather more information about the participants’ anxiety in other classes to more accurately
address the construct of foreign language classroom anxiety versus general school anxiety.
26
One of the limitations of this study is the inequality in the grade distributions. Unfortunately due to time
constraints inherent when dealing with hundreds of students in multiple public schools, face time with classes was
limited. Questionnaire distribution could not be done for many of the third grade junior high school classes because
of in-school testing and a variety of other time sensitive factors. An additional limitation of this study is the number
of items in the questionnaire. Having only three items testing for each sub-construct might not be enough to really
separate the items in the data, despite acceptable fit statistics and separation data from the Rasch analysis. It might
be valuable for future versions of this instrument to include more questions comparing pair and small group anxiety
instead of some of the other sub-constructs. Additionally, the small effect size associated with the gender analysis
creates limitation. This could mean that there are other unexplored factors contributing to the difference that went
unnoticed in the present study. Lastly, colleting some qualitative data concerning the participants thought processes
and reasoning would have been very helpful. When designing the questionnaire, the idea of adding space for reasons
and justifications was considered. However, since the scope of the study was already quite large, coding and
analyzing that qualitative data would have been impossible in the time frame. Also, having an additional writing task
on the questionnaire might have caused fatigue in elementary school students. The attention span of 10-year-olds
can be rather short. However, in a few rare cases, participants did offer their reasoning behind their responses. In one
case, a male participant circled two different responses and indicated in Japanese that his anxiety level would change
depending on the gender of his partner. Future researchers might find that collecting both quantitative and
qualitative data is helpful in explaining the behavior and anxiety levels of their participants.
Conclusion and Practical Implications

In the end, the analysis did not find that grade plays a significant role in student anxiety levels. However, the data
did show that gender plays a significant role in these students’ foreign language anxiety. The questionnaire also
showed that these students feel that pair and small group dynamics are less anxiety producing that whole class
dynamics. A lot of additional data were collected during the course of this project and it will be interesting to
approach the data from a different perspective in the future. That being said, it is important to remember that this
study was limited to a homogeneous population of Japanese EFL learners. One should be careful generalizing the
statistical results of this study as they might not be representative of other situations.
Lastly, I would like to offer some practical advice to teachers for identifying and dealing with high foreign
anxiety students in an EFL classroom. It is necessary to identify if one’s students are suffering from foreign
language anxiety in the first place. Luckily there are several well-tested instruments available for use or adaptation:
the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986); the
Input-Processing-Output Questionnaire (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994); the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale
(FLRAS) (Saito, Horwitz, & Garza, 1999); the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) (Elkhafaifi,
2005); and the Second Language Writing Anxiety Test (SLWAT) (Cheng, 2002).
If it turns out that anxiety is at play in the L2 classroom, what can teachers do to help their students? First,
teachers should establish good rapport. Learning students’ names and hobbies can help students realize that the
teacher actually cares about them. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make and uphold rules that ensure that the
classroom as a safe place where students can feel free to participate. Teachers should also make time to be available
outside of class for students who do not wish to talk in front of other students. Also, do not be afraid of the L1. Mak
(2011) found that students were more anxious when forbidden to use the L1 in the classroom. Focusing on fluency
development can help students automatize essential language so that it is more readily available in future situations.
That might reduce stress when communicating and improve self-efficacy. More frequent exposure to the target
language might allow students to get used to language and lower anxiety. This was the case for Chan and Wu’s
(2004) study, which showed that students who took additional private lessons outside of school had better
self-perception of their own ability and thus, lower anxiety. Lastly, do not ignore the effect that the culture can have
on students WTC and anxiety (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998). Park and French (2013) suggest that
their female Korean students suffered from higher anxiety than the males in the communication language teaching
course primarily because of the male dominated cultural domain of Korea. Obviously this is not an exhaustive list of
strategies to deal with foreign language anxiety, however it is a start.
27
References
Abu-Rabia, S. (2004). Teachers’ role, learners’ gender differences, and FL anxiety among seventh-grade students
studying English as a FL. Educational Psychology, 24, 711-721.
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of
students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155-168.
Apple, M. T. (2013). Using Rasch analysis to create and evaluate a measurement instrument for foreign language
classroom speaking anxiety. JALT Journal, 35(1), 5-28.
Aydin, S. (2008). An investigation on the language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation among Turkish EFL
learners. Asian EFL Journal, 422-444.
Cao, Y., & Philip, J., (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: a comparison of behavior in
whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480-493.
Chan, D. Y, & Wu, G., (2004). A study of foreign language anxiety of EFL elementary school students in Taipei
County. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 17(2), 287–320.
Cheng, Y. S. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35,
647-656.
Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H. Giles, W. P.
Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford,
England: Pergamon.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation and the foreign language classroom: A study of
Hungarians learning English. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.
Dewaele, J. M. (2007). Predicting language learners’ grades in the L1, L2, L3 and L4: The effect of some
psychological and sociocognitive variables. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(3), 169-197.
Dewaele, J. M. (2009). Why do some young learners drop foreign languages? A focus on learner-internal variables.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(6), 635-649.
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern
Ezzi, N. A. A. (2012). The impact of gender on the foreign language anxiety of the Yemeni university students.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(2), 65-75.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and nonanxious. The
Modern Language Journal, 86, 562-570.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85,
549-566.
Koch, A. S., & Terrell, T. D. (1991). Affective reactions of foreign language students to natural approach activities
and teaching techniques. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and
research to classroom implications (pp. 109-126). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Léger, D. D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate
in an L2 classroom. System, 37(2), 269-285.
Linacre, J. M. (2014). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program (Version 3.80.0) [Computer software].
Chicago: Winsteps.com.
Machide, S. (2001). Anxiety in Japanese-language class oral examinations. Sekai no Nihongo Kyoiku, 11, 115-138.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The
Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A., (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to
communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French
immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537-564.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in
a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the
second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305.
28
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language
learning. In S., Mercer, S., Ryan, & M., Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from
research, theory, and practice (pp. 103-118). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39, 202-214.
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language classroom. System,
32, 21-36.
Na, Z. (2007). A study of high school students’ English learning anxiety. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(3), 22-34.
Park, G. P., & French, B. F. (2013). Gender differences in the foreign language classroom anxiety scale. System, 41,
462-471.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal,
83, 202-218.
Shabani, M. B. (2012). Levels and sources of language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation among Iranian EFL
learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2378-2383.
Ushioda, E. (2012). Motivation: L2 learning as a special case? In S., Mercer, S., Ryan, & M., Williams (Eds.),
Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafson, J. E., & Martin-Lof, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch
Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370. Retrieved July 15, 2014 from http://rasch.org/rmt/ rmt83b.htm
Yang, H. C. (2012). Language anxiety: From the classroom to the community. English Teaching and Learning,
36(4), 1-36.
Yim, S. Y. (2014). An anxiety model for EFL young learners: A path analysis. System, 42, 344-354.
Appendix A: English Version
How do classroom activities make you feel?

Do you study English outside of Do you like learning What Eiken level have you
Age Grade Sex school? (circle one) English? (circle one) passed? (circle one)
Male / Usually / Sometimes / Yes ( Kyuu)
Female Yes No Never No

Please read each question and circle A, B, C, or D
1. Do you feel nervous when you speak English in front of the class? [Whole class]
2. Do you feel anxious when your English teacher calls on you to speak in the class? [Whole class]
3. Are you afraid that your classmates will laugh at you if you make a mistake in English? [Whole Class]
4. Do you feel nervous talking to a partner in English? [Partner]
5. Do you feel more worried talking to a partner than the whole class in English? [Partner vs Class]
6. Do you feel more anxious talking to a small group than to a partner in English? [Group vs Partner]
7. Do you feel nervous using English in small groups? [Group]
8. Do you feel more nervous in small groups than in the whole class? [Group vs Class]
9. Do you feel more worried in English class than other classes? [English vs. other classes]
10. Do you feel more anxious in English class than math class? [Other classes]
11. Do you feel more worried in English than in P.E. class? [Other classes vs. English]
12. Do you think that speaking to your English teacher (Japanese teacher or native English teacher) outside of the classroom is
easier than in the classroom? [Outside vs inside classroom]
13. Would you feel worried talking to your English teacher (Japanese teacher or native English teacher) at the train station?
[Outside anxiety]
14. Do you feel anxious talking to your English teacher (Japanese teacher or native English teacher) one-on-one in the hallway?
[Outside the class]
29
Appendix B: Japanese Version
あなたは英語の授業活動についてどう感じますか?
年齢学年性別学校以外で英語を勉強英語の勉強は好きですか？英検何級を持って
していますか？（どちらかに）いますか？
（どちらかに○）
好きな方持っている（級)
男・女はい・いいえまあまあ持ってない
ぜんぜん
問題を読んで、A, B, C, D のどれかに○を付けてください。
1. 英語の授業中、皆の前で英語を話すと、きんちょうしますか？
2. 英語の授業中、先生に英語を話すように言われると不安になりますか？
3. 英語でミスをしたら、クラスメイトに笑われるのではないかと不安に思いますか？
4. パートナーと英語で話すことは、きんちょうしますか
5. クラス全体の前で英語を話す時と、パートナーと英語を話す時を比べると、パートナーと話す方がきんちょうし
ますか？
6. パートナーの前で英語を話す時と、小グルプ（３−５人）の中で英語を話す時を比べると、小グルプの中で話す方
がきんちょうしますか？
7. 小グループ（３－５人）の中で英語を話すことは、きんちょうしますか？
8. クラス全体の前で英語を話す時と、小グループ（３－５人）の中で英語を話す時を比べると、小グループの中で
英語を話す方がきんちょうしますか？
9. 他の教科よりも英語の授業の方がきんちょうしますか？
10. 英語の授業と算数・数学の授業を比べると、英語の授業の方が不安になりますか？
11. 英語の授業と体育の授業を比べると、英語の授業方が不安になりますか？
12. 授業中に英語の先生（日本人の先生・外国人の先生）と英語で話すより、授業以外（休けい時間・ほうかご）で
英語で話す方が簡単に感じますか？
13. 駅で英語の先生（日本人の先生・外国人の先生）に話しかけるのは、きんちょうしますか？
14. 英語の先生（日本人の先生・外国人の先生）と、ろうかで英語で話すのは、きんちょうしますか？
30
Self-Directed Learning in the Japanese Context
Tomoko Narumi
Many students at junior or senior high schools in Japan are demotivated in English class and exhibit low
performance levels. A teacher-oriented curriculum provides explicit instruction to classes consisting of high
numbers of students; however, students’ levels of second language ability vary. Some students struggle to learn
English in class. They consider English difficult to understand, so they avoid studying it. Consequently, the English
levels of these students stay low, which further discourages them from studying. Nowlan (1979) claimed that in
large class, some students are not proactive, are satisfied with the limited exposure that they have, and do not focus
during study. If low-level learners were to work on their English learning outside of the classroom and spend more
time and effort in L2 learning, they would better understand what they learned in class. A sense of understanding of
English is essential for learning. Learners are motivated when they understand what they are learning, try to learn
more, and reach a higher level of comprehension as a result. Low-level learners do not have as successful a learning
experience as high-level learners. Because each student has different learning styles, strengths, and weaknesses, they
should adopt an individual learning approach to promote and enhance their L2 learning.
Self-Directed Learning
As an approach to implement independent learning outside of the classroom, self-directed learning (SDL)
encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning. Knowles (1975) defined SDL as a process in which
each learner takes responsibility (with or without another’s help) by identifying their learning needs, setting goals,
discovering learning resources, selecting and employing learning strategies, and assessing learning outcomes.
Learners can set their own learning plan based on their learning style. It is logical to assume that learners who set
their own plan can develop their skills more effectively because their learning preferences (e.g., field dependent vs.
field independent) serves as the foundation, making the entire process more enjoyable. SDL helps learners increase
their ability to learn and improve their L2 proficiency. For example, learners can start extensive reading to increase
their fluency. Learners choose books that interest them and set their own reading schedules. Learners might enjoy
reading enough to make it a habit and thus it contributes fluency development. An increased amount of reading
provides learners with skills that can help them perform better on activities and assignments related to reading.
SDL allows learners to be responsible for their studies and fosters a positive attitude toward personal learning
and growth. If learners actively make decisions about their own learning from the beginning of SDL, and follow the
learning schedule, they can complete a sufficient amount of study, which leads to improved comprehension and
potentially the ability to apply their knowledge in real-world scenarios. Higher levels of understanding also improve
the learner’s confidence. SDL can elicit learners’ intrinsic motivation, which Maslow (1970) considers superior to
extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is crucial in achieving personal goals. Brown (2007) claimed that if the
students in a classroom setting have an opportunity to use the target language for their personal achievement and
autonomy, they will have a greater chance of succeeding than those who depend on extrinsic motivation. Brown
(2007) also suggested that a school curriculum should include learner-centered instruction, and allow students to set
their learning goals and incorporate their own learning plans and tasks as much as possible. These steps lead to the
development of higher self-esteem and greater possibilities for self-actualization. Thus, fostering learners’
responsibility for their own study largely influences their L2 learning and their attitudes towards it.
The Current Situation for Japanese Students

I have worked with many students who are demotivated to learn English and their L2 proficiency fails to improve
despite studying English at school for years. Low-proficiency learners have an especially negative attitude toward
English class and do not fully engage in tasks. Examination of a typical Japanese English as a foreign language
(EFL) classroom quickly reveals the underlying catalysts of these problems. There is little interaction between
teacher and students; thus, it can be boring, and some students refuse to participate in learning. As students are
lacking in sufficient learning, they struggle to understand what they are learning in class. They then have no choice
but to attend cram school, where they study English in similarly dull scenarios and are further demotivated. Their
interest in English and their personal abilities both decrease, while the performance demands increase with age (e.g.,
high school and university entrance examinations). This forceful external source of motivation to do well in a
subject they hate causes them to lose even more motivation. Indeed, several approaches exist to aim to increase
students’ language proficiency, such as learning strategies and skills, but low motivated students cannot initiate their
31
learning in the same way as effective leaners to enhance their language ability. Incorporating SDL into their learning
would help these low-level learners become aware of their own ability, and encourage them to study what they are
lacking. It also provides a learning approach that suits them as individuals, which is very different from the blanket
approach observable in classrooms.
Improving L2 Learning with Self-Directed Learning

The first step to implement SDL is to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses, and use the information to
determine what areas students need to work on, how to study, and the amount of time to spend studying. As Griffiths
(2012) stated, by knowing a students’ language learning style, teachers can offer students learning strategies and
materials suitable for their own learning style preferences. Teachers can help low-level students identify how they
deal with their L2 grammar learning in class and compare this with students’ individual differences. Teachers can
provide tests to identify students’ learning styles, language-learning abilities, and their current L2 competencies.
According to Wong and Nunan (2011), learning style, which refers to an individual’s natural and preferred way of
processing information and skills in learning, is considered a stable trait. Individuals deploy their learning style
irrespective of the subject or skill being learned. We can use tests such as the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1989) to understand learners’ strategy use preference. There are a variety ways of
characterizing styles. Identifying basic factors such as field independent versus field dependent is a foundation for
other specific language learning factors. Taking a personality test or language aptitude test not only assesses the
students’ learning style, but it is also enjoyable to work on. Assessing students’ current L2 competence is also
essential for discovering where to begin learning an L2. After personal information is collected, the teachers and
students assess the test results and discuss whether the students agree or disagree with them. There might be a gap
between the students’ self-perception and the real self. Teachers should guide students to be aware of their actual
learning style and ability if there are too many differences that interfere with their learning.
Next, the teacher and students can incorporate strategies based on SDL into students’ L2 learning to improve
their performance in class, according to the collected individual data. Goal setting, planning a learning schedule, and
choosing learning skills are useful strategies for implementing a students’ action plan. At school settings, it is
difficult for teachers to do this with each student. Ideally, school should provide more counselors or teaching
assistants to implement this approach. The long-term goal for the students is to understand what they learn in class
and actively engage in tasks in the class. To achieve the goal, low-level students need to study English outside of the
classroom. Students also need a short-term goal. For example, if a student does not understand the target language in
chapter seven because he or she does not have sufficient vocabulary knowledge to understand the content of the
chapter, his or her short-term goal could be to learn the unknown words in chapter seven. Students should choose
strategies to learn the meaning of new words so they can understand the connection between those words and the
context. If he or she is strong with phonetic input for new information, he or she can write the target words and
simultaneously say them aloud. Applying students’ strengths to their learning will help them process information
more efficiently. The student should decide when, how long, and how often he or she plans to perform the writing
and saying aloud exercise. A clear step with a realistic goal should be laid out for the students to make their learning
efficient. Dörnyei (2001) stated that goals regulate the amount of effort learners expend and promote persistence
until the goal is achieved. As students accumulate learning experiences by following a clear learning path, they will
enhance their L2 ability through continuous learning.
Assuming that students come to class with knowledge of the vocabulary they have been studying, they are
likely to understand the class and might have a more positive attitude. The teacher should be creative about how he
or she leads the class and teaches grammar features. In a typical grammar class at a Japanese school, the teacher
leads the class by providing explicit instruction, asking some questions, and having the students answer them, which
does not involve many interactions, leading the students to get bored easily. A better method would be to make
opportunities for the students to use the target grammar features through interactions with other students. The more
the students use the target language, the more they learn. For example, students need to answer questions about the
target grammar features and work in pairs. Group work creates interaction among students, which can involve
exchanging feedback, and might help others with certain weaknesses. Tasks involving interaction require student
participation. Low-level learners might initially avoid this type of activity, but if they follow SDL, they can be ready
to participate in the activity because of the extra study done outside of the classroom. I believe that even if the
students do not fully understand the grammar features, they might be more confident to complete the task because
they have put in the time and effort to prepare for class.
Lastly, students need to evaluate and reflect on what they have learned to motivate them to use the skills for
their future L2 learning. McCarthy (2013) suggested that learners answer guided questions concerning what they
32
noticed about themselves as language learners, what they did well in their learning, and which of the skills they
learned was effective in their learning. Nation (2009) suggested that comprehension tests including a variety of
forms and focuses are useful to measure learners’ achievement. Students can write learning journals or reports about
their self-evaluation and learning progress. Ideally, teachers should have one-on-one meetings with students on a
regular basis to discuss the effects of SDL. Through discussion, students are given feedback and adjust their learning
schedule or strategies if necessary. Students might even pick up on tips from their peers of similar proficiencies.
Examples of specific points to be discussed include time management, learning strategies, goal setting, and resource
selection. The essential part of reflection is to analyze students’ SDL approaches and modify them according to their
progress. SDL can be challenging for low-level learners at first because it requires learners’ to initiate the very
learning that they have been avoiding. Those who need help in learning should meet their teacher or learning advisor
regularly until they establish their own learning approach. Reporting learning behavior, teacher-review, and
peer-review helps students to become aware of their learning patterns, habits, and progress. I would suggest learners
write a reflective report for analysis and to use when making adjustments in their learning plan. McCarthy (2013)
stated that reflection allows students to see their progress in detail, and strengthening their reflection abilities will
encourage them to become more critical about their learning.
Conclusion
SDL guides students to actively engage in their L2 learning. Because SDL considers students’ individual differences,
students can discover learning styles and strategies that suit them and encourage them to study on their own. SDL
allows students to take control over their studying so that students positively engage in study outside of the
classroom. The self-learning experiences provided by SDL increase students’ confidence and self-awareness in L2
learning. In addition, SDL provides support to learners, featuring external help as an essential component. Students
can take advantage of help from teachers or high-level learners via interaction or feedback. One potential weakness
of SDL is its inherent unfamiliarity. McCarthy (2013) stated that some students were confused while reflecting on
changes in themselves because they have never considered their own values and beliefs in the learning process. I
believe it is difficult for students to incorporate SDL into their learning without assistance from teachers or
high-level learners. Students should receive sufficient support from educators and their peers to get accustomed to
learning via SDL. Japanese students, especially those of low proficiency, could potentially accomplish their learning
goals and improve their competency by taking advantage of SDL.
References
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY:
Pearson Education.
Press.
Griffiths, C. (2012). Learning styles: Traversing the quagmire. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.),
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & principles in language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, T. (2014). Renegotiating the TOEIC: A self-directed learning approach. The Language Teacher, 38,
11-15.
McCarthy, T. (2013). Levels of reflection: The mirror, the microscope and the binoculars. International Journal of
Self-Directed Learning, 10, 1-22.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nowlan, A. G. P. (2008). Motivation and learner autonomy: Activities to encourage independent study. The Internet
TESL Journal, 16. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Nowlan-Autonomy.html
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury
House/Harper Collins.
Pemberton, R., & Cooker, L. (2012). Self-directed learning: Concepts, practice, and a novel research methodology.
In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research,
theory, and practice (pp. 201-219). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wong, L. L. C., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39,
144-163.
33
Accommodating Different Perceptive Learning Styles
Edward Rowe
There are many factors to consider when teaching English in a university class. How many students are there? What
are the class objectives? Which materials or texts are most effective? What is the gender make-up of the class?
Sometimes teachers automatically bring their own preferred style of teaching into the classroom with little regard for
the needs or different learning styles of the students. Sometimes students adjust and survive or struggle and receive
lackluster grades, become demotivated and quit. What are some strategies to fit the various needs of our students?
How can you fit the basic perceptive learning style of the class to fit the needs of our students? I hope to give
examples of why teachers should try to expand their teaching styles to fit the needs of the students and describe
learning activities based upon perceptual learning style.
Class Introduction
The purpose of the curriculum was I was developing curriculum for a class in American culture for a university class
of second-year females. Originally, the class was based around a textbook with various elements of American
culture and films. For example, one section of the original text discussed baseball. The teacher showed the movie
Major League (Smith & Ward, 1989) with the associated baseball chapter. While the focus of the class was a
1,000-word English research paper due at the end of the term. The paper was the main assignment of the class but it
was described as a culture not writing class.
I decided to focus on different time periods during the 20th century with a film dedicated to a different time
period and theme. I wanted to base the class around visual learning with film’s that would generate the most interest
from my audience. Dörnyei (2001) wrote about motivating students by sparking interest with relevance to the
learner’s needs or preferences. Since my class is all female, I decided to choose five films with a specific focus and
concept that would appeal to a female class either by the main character(s), music or fashion. There are also various
culturally relevant themes in the films I hoped to discuss and elaborate about those in class. I chose the following
five movies and their related themes:
1. The Cotton Club (Evans & Coppola, 1984): It showed examples of racial segregation and how it changed
from the 1920s to 1930s. It takes place during The Great Depression and prohibition. It has extended
scenes of jazz music and dance with examples of early 1900s dress. It also shows an example of the North
American mafia.
2. Grease (Carr, Stigwood, & Kleiser, 1978): It shows high school life, music and dance during the 1950s.
There are examples of dress and music from the 1950s. It has two types of characters my students can
identify with. The main character is smart, innocent, and sweet. The Pink Ladies are tough, cynical, and
the bad girls of the school.
3. Dirty Dancing (Gottlieb & Ardolino, 1987): This movie takes place in the 1960s. It shows the female
lead’s maturity from a girl into a women, class hierarchy with a romance between the rich daughter of a
doctor and a staff dancer from the hotel. You can also see examples of 60s music, fashion, and dance. The
top of abortion is also inferred.
4. The Help (Barnathan, Columbus, Green, & Taylor, 2011): This film takes place in the 1960s but focuses
on the South and its archaic segregation laws of African-Americans and white. Segregation is contrasted
from The Cotton Club and New York in the 1930s. Racial segregation for such unimaginable things like
bathroom still existed. Its main characters were all African-American and Caucasian females.
5. The Simpsons Movie (Brooks, Groening, Jean, Sakai, Scully, & Silverman, 2007): This movie shows the
typical relationships of an American family in the 1990s. It also involves environmental issues, while
remaining slightly lighter than The Help.
What kinds of learning styles are best for a class of young Japanese women? While the main focus is on perceptual
visual learning, I hoped to use activities that accommodate the different learning styles in the class. I also hope the
students can better understand elements of American culture, choose a topic for their writing assignment, and enjoy
the class.
34
Literature Review
Peacock (2001) defined learning style as the “natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing and processing a
second language” (p. 1). Cornett (1983) wrote that learning styles “are the overall patterns that give general direction
to learning behavior” (p. 641). Oxford and Allen (as cited in Dörnyei & Skehan, 2008) wrote that learning styles
have six characteristics related to second language learning: cognitive, executive, affective, social, physiological,
and behavioral. These styles and characteristics exist for most lessons but it is difficult to determine which are most
effective. Most teachers and students have varied preferences. Reid (1987) wrote about the existence of over 21
learning styles. Each article and author seemed to have a different opinion about the classification and organization
of the different learning styles. Some of the most common and researched were the perceptual learning styles. Dunn
and Dunn (as cited in Reid, 1987) broke down perceptual learning into four groups: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and
tactile. These four can be classified into separate typical English teaching activities. Visual learning could be related
to reading, presentations, or videos. Auditory could be listening to a lecture or TO CDs. Kinesthetic could be a
physical activity such as children playing head-should-knees-toes, while tactile could be any kind of creative
hand-on activity such as making Christmas or greeting cards in the target language. It might be possible to
accommodate a variety of perceptual learning styles in class while watching film, traditionally conceptualized as a
visual activity.
Learner-Teacher Style Incompatibility

Reid (as cited in Peacock, 2001) developed two major theories about language learning styles:
1. Students have their own learning styles, strengths, and weaknesses.
2. If a teachers learning style and a student’s style don’t match their student’s learning could fail or it could
be demotivating.
The problem is sometimes the styles of the teacher and the learner do not match. Reid (1987) noted in several
studies the problems of mismatches between a student’s and a teacher’s learning style. It can foster negative
attitudes by students towards the class and teacher’s towards to the student. Felder (1995) wrote that mismatches
could cause teachers to be more hostile towards students and question their own ability. Dunn and Griggs (as cited
in Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2010) referred to the effects of the same teaching style for different students as “the
biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for
some and terrible for others” (p.103). Peacock’s (2001) study found 72% of the students surveyed were unsatisfied
when their teacher’s learning style differed from their learning style. An even high percentage wrote that their
learning was affected when their teacher’s style differed from their learning style. Reid (1987) wrote that neither
teachers nor students understood the difficulty, frustration, or failure in learning doesn’t necessarily connect to the
material but could be connected by a difference in learning style. She also wrote that some teachers are too set in
their styles and teachers have to understand that their teaching styles are not always the best. I have noticed this as a
problem with other teachers and am sometimes guilty of such a practice. It is often easier to teach in your set ways
with little thought of the variety of student’s different learning styles or what is most beneficial for them.
Student Learning Style Preferences

Sometimes students find the right style or adjust what they study. Domino’s (1970) research on learning style found
that students taught in their favorite learning style did better on many class factors including, test scores and attitude.
He also wrote of the importance of the combination of student learning and teacher instruction styles.
While Witkin et al. (as cited in Reid, 1987) found that students who switched their majors during their
academic careers often did so to fields that fit their learning style. It is difficult for learners to change their preferred
style of learning but they can be adjusted. Reid (as cited in Peacock, 2001) wrote that learning styles usually don’t
change because of a variance in the teacher’s learning style but can be adapted because they are formed by habit
rather than biologically. She also theorized that a wide range of learning styles would improve learning. Ehrman (as
cited in Peacock, 2001) wrote that some students could, while others can’t change learning styles. It might be easier
for a teacher to adjust or broaden their style of teaching than to expect their students to adjust to their styles. Peacock
(2001) wrote that to get the best results out of students and to get students to work harder, it is ideal to match
teaching and student learning style. One contrasting opinion was from Davidman (1981), who wrote that the
education serves both society and the individual and thus impossible for teachers to accommodate the individual
needs of students. His study also often gave contradicting results of different surveys on learning styles, showing the
variances in individual’s learning styles. Cronbach and Snow (as cited in Reid, 1987) wrote that adjusting teaching
35
to learner styles won’t help and can be negative to a student’s learning. Regardless, it is the responsibility of the
instructor to meet the needs of students regardless of teaching environment.
The question is which learning style is most effective for students and how educators can determine it, but
research has shown mixed results in regards to these questions. Through their research on U.S. schoolchildren, Dunn
and Dunn (as cited in Reid, 1987) found visual, kinesthetic, and tactile as the self-reported most popular styles,
while auditory was the least popular. Reid’s (1987) study showed a preference by ESL students for kinesthetic and
tactile learning styles. This study had interesting variables. She wrote that student’s with TOEFL scores on level
with native speakers had learning styles similar to those favored by native speakers. Kinesthetic and tactile were the
most popular for ESL students studying overseas but who had spent more than 3 years in the United States changed
their preference to auditory learning. Korean students showed the largest preference for visual learning, significantly
more than American or Japanese students, although the visual learning style was focused on reading. Japanese
students were the least favorable of the auditory learning style. However, Reid also wrote that Japanese speakers
showed the largest variance in preference and didn’t identify with a learning style. This contrasted with Hyland’s
studies (as cited in Peacock, 2001), which showed Japanese learners favored auditory and tactile styles. Kinsella and
Stebbins (as cited in Peacock, 2001) also wrote that students’ styles varied among culture. This is something to
consider as teachers and students in second language teaching situations are often from different cultures. Glick (as
cited in Reid, 1987) noted the differences of visual learning on individuals of industrialized and non-industrialized
societies. Peacock’s (2001) study found the most popular styles to be kinesthetic and auditory, however visual
learning was also associated with reading and not video or film. Al-Sheri (2009) wrote that visual leaners are more
reliant on their audio-visual channels; that is, visually stimulating information is more beneficial for them to retain
and comprehend information. Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou’s (2010) study found visual learning to be one of the
most preferred styles of Greek students. While students’ preferences seemed to vary, teachers’ styles seemed to be
constant. Hodges (as cited in Reid, 1987) classified approximately 90% of traditional classroom instruction as
auditory learning. Auditory learning might be the status quo of teaching but teachers should utilize the benefits of
various learning styles besides lecturing.
Learning Style Strategies

One interesting idea written by Oxford and Chu (as cited in Peacock, 2001) was that we imitate the teaching styles
of our most effective teacher, but that might somewhat depend on the type of class the taught and why it was
effective. It might be more beneficial to combine a variety of your favorite teachers’ styles. Felder (1995) also wrote
of necessity of a balanced teaching style. Peacock (2001) suggested using a variety of learning styles, many of
which I have tried to implement or will implement in my class. These include videos for visual learners, oral
explanations in class for auditory learners, role-plays for kinesthetic learners, and physical activities for tactile
learners. Peacock also advocated using more than one learning style for each class.
Dörnyei and Skehan (2008) wrote that all styles can make contributions and it is incorrect to refer to styles as
having different levels of effectiveness. One style shouldn’t be seen as superior to another. It is also important to
approach learning styles with a certain level of flexibility. One of Reid’s (1987) suggestions was to help students
find and understand their own learning style, while Gonzalez (as cited in Reid, 1987) recommended teachers design
activities to focus on learning styles that foster student interaction. Reid also talks about the risk of stereotyping
groups by learning styles. Corbett and Smith (1984) wrote about the dangers of using learner style identification
questionnaires: as the variables are often limited, students’ self-evaluations aren’t accurate, and sometimes the
students have adjusted their style for so long that their results change, not their preferred style. In their study, they
tried to examine second language learning style preferences using the Elsie exercise but their results were varied and
inconclusive. As many researchers suggested, it might be best to try and use several learning styles to satisfy the
various learning styles of the students.
Ideal Self and Visual Style

One additional hypothesis was the connection of visual learning with an increase in a learner’s ideal self and
motivation. Shehri (2009) suggested a connection between the ideal self and visual style and the hypothesis that
visual learners should theoretically have a strong ideal self. The ideal self is your visualized image of yourself doing
a desired activity. Learners’ ideal selves might include imagining themselves speaking English to peers or in an
actual English environment. This would aid a student’s visual learning and improve their motivation. Shehri’s
36
(2009) hypothesis about the ideal self and visual style could connect to my students with the film’s strong female
characters.
The main female character in The Cotton Club (Evans & Coppola, 1984) is a good example. In the beginning
of the film, she is the girlfriend of the main antagonistic but later opens up her own club and gradually becomes
independent of male influence. Another female character of mixed race rejects the affections of the most talented
dancer in the club until her career reaches its peak. This portrayal in the early 1900’s is unique and a strong
foundation for my young Japanese students to identify with. The female lead in Grease (Carr, Stigwood, & Kleiser,
1978) rejects the male character until he partially conforms to her characters traits. There are also two female types
to identify with: the innocent good girl and the leather jacket wearing bad girls. The lead character in Dirty Dancing
(Gottlieb & Ardolino, 1987) is a young female who learns about love and the insignificance of class structure as she
grows from a girl to a woman. The Help (Barnathan, Columbus, Green, & Taylor, 2011) also takes place in the
1960’s and its main characters are both Caucasian and African-American females. In fact all male characters are
either in minor or supporting roles. Finally, in The Simpsons Movie (Brooks et al., 2007), the two most intelligent
and competent characters in the film are the mother, Marge Simpson and the daughter, Lisa Simpson. According to
Sheri’s (2009) hypothesis, the various female characters in the movies can be beneficial to young female students to
imagine their ideal selves as they visualize themselves as American females speaking or singing English. It would
also benefit their motivation to study.
Examples of Various Learning Styles

I hoped the students would identify with the female characters in the class and I wanted to create activities that
would benefits the various learning strengths of the students. The class was structured around visual learning style
with film, with a final research paper as one of the objectives of the class. I wanted to mix all four sensory learning
styles to both fit the potential learning styles of all the students and to help them understand the films better and time
periods better. The purpose of the activities is to help the students understand the characters, sequence of events,
movie’s dialogue, and costumes. The only restriction was time. Each film took two classes, which left only one extra
class per film to interject the various activities. I also showed each film with Japanese subtitles. The student’s level
would limit their understanding of dialogue at natural speed. The point of the film was the themes described above
not to understand the films in natural speed.
Visual Learning
Obviously the films are geared towards visual learning. Each film had a series of comprehensive questions involving
the story and chronological events of the story. The exercises also asked for a description of the main characters and
which character the student’s identified with. The point of the exercises was to help student’s understand the content
and characters of the film.
Auditory Learning
Each film involved a pre and post discussion, auditory style, of the characters, story, key points, and student’s
reaction to each film’s half. All the films were divided into two sections. Grease (Carr, Stigwood, & Kleiser, 1978)
had a fill-in music listening activity with the song Summer Lovin’ from the movie. The same kind of activity is
planned for Dirty Dancing (Gottlieb & Ardolino, 1987). We also had a shadowing activity utilizing an all-female
scene from Grease.
Kinesthetic Learning
The Cotton Club (Evans & Coppola, 1984) had an activity introducing segregation. Grease (Carr, Stigwood, &
Kleiser, 1978) had a script scene enactment. I am also planning a dance instruction scene with one or two dances
from the 1960’s. During The Help (Barnathan, Columbus, Green, & Taylor, 2011), the activity will contrast the
relationships between maids and their head of households in the south.
Tactile Learning
Students designed some costumes replicating the clothes from The Cotton Club (Evans & Coppola, 1984) and
Grease (Carr, Stigwood, & Kleiser, 1978). I am planning for students to create their own animated character to
include with the Simpsons’ family.
37
Problems
Though the class is a little over half finished, I have noted some difficulties that I will consider for future classes.
The class is called Advanced English Seminar but the students are only in their second year. I expected students to
be at least the same level as the communication class I taught last year at the same university. Unfortunately, most of
the students are lower. The first film was also a difficult choice. The Cotton Club (Evans & Coppola, 1984) had too
many characters to follow and was too violent for an all-female class. Most students noted they had difficulty
understanding the story and it was “too violent.” One student also commented she had difficult following the
characters in Grease (Carr, Stigwood, & Kleiser, 1978) though she was in the minority. She might not be a strong
visual learner. This also could indicate a difference of style among the students in my class.
Another difficulty has been the inconsistent attendance. One student missed the first four classes thus missing
all of The Cotton Club (Evans & Coppola, 1984) and half of Grease (Carr, Stigwood, & Kleiser, 1978). Other
students have missed parts of both films. This made the impact of the tactile and kinesthetic activities less effective
since the students have missed important elements of the films.
Discussion and Conclusion

I have attempted to describe and compare the different styles of perceptual learning. It is often difficult to choose a
learning that fits a large class as learning style seemed to vary from person to person, especially with Japanese
students. Most researchers have pointed out the benefits of a student learning in their preferred learning style. My
task was to combine a class about American culture with film and tie in activities of visual, auditory, kinesthetic,
and tactile activities that would benefit my students. The class is over half-finished and the results from the students
have been mostly positive. Most of the students seem to have enjoyed parts of the film and have learned from the
activities. I tried to mix activities that appeal to my young female university both with the film’s protagonists and
various activities related to each film.
This class will continue mixing the different activities of perceptual learning for the rest of this term. I hope
the student’s reactions to my current and future classroom activities will help my planning for similar type of classes
in the future. I hope other instructors don’t limit their teaching to one style and are open to finding the best mix to
satisfy the needs of the students.
References
Al-Shehri, A. (2009). Motivation and vision: The relation between the Ideal L2 Self, imagination, and visual style.
In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identities and the L2 Self (pp. 164-172). Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Andreou, E., Andreou, G., & Vlachos, F. (2008). Learning styles and performance in second language tasks. TESOL
Quarterly, 42(4), 665-675.
Brooks, J. L., Groening, M., Jean, A., Sakai, R., Scully, M. (Producers), & Silverman, D. (Director). (2007). The
Simpsons movie [Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.
Carr, A., Stigwood, R. (Producers), & Kleiser, R. (Director). (1978). Grease [Motion picture]. United States:
Paramount Pictures.
Corbett, S., & Smith, F. (1984). Identifying student learning styles: Proceed with caution. The Modern Language
Journal, 68, 212-221.
Cornett, C. E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles. Arlington, VA: Phi Delta Kappa
International.
Davidman, L. (1981). Learning style: The myth, the panacea, the wisdom. Phi Delta Kappa International, 62(9),
641-645.
Domino, G. (1971). Interactive effects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(5), 427-431.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2008) Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). New York, NY: Blackwell
Publishing.
Evans, R. (Producer), & Coppola, F. F. (Director). (1984). The cotton club [Motion picture]. United States: Zoetrope
Studios.
38
Felder, R., & Henriques, E. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign
Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
Gottlieb, L. (Producer), & Ardolino, E. (Director). (1987). Dirty dancing [Motion picture]. United States: Vestron
Pictures.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Psaltou-Joycey A., & Kantaridou Z. (2010). Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university
students. ScienceDirect, 39, 103-112.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 88-112.
Smith, I. (Producer), & Ward, D. S. (1989). Major league [Motion picture]. United States: Mirage Enterprises.
39
Willingness to Communicate and Expectancy Value in an Oral English Class
Saša Sakić
After at least six years of English secondary education, predominantly through intensive study practices such as
intensive reading and focus on forms, most Japanese learners enter university relatively demotivated (Kelly, 2005)
and unable to use English for communicative purposes. Japanese students experience a peak of motivation in the last
year of high school but a decrease upon entering university (Miura, 2010). This indicates that the motivation of most
Japanese learners is based on extrinsic goals and when that goal—passing the entrance exam—is achieved, many do
not feel the need to continue learning.
In spite of the fact that English classes (taught by both native English-speaking and Japanese instructors) are
part of almost all learners’ university graduation requirements, many teachers have been unsuccessful in increasing
their learners’ motivation to study English, and numerous learners do not manage to reach the level of proficiency
one would expect after 10 years of study. In my attempts to tackle this problem I have organized my oral English
classes in such a way that not only opportunities for learning are created but also an active attempt has been made to
increase the learners’ motivation and enjoyment to study English and foster the ability to use English for meaningful
communicative purposes.
Learners in Japan are often not given the opportunity to apply their knowledge and to reap the benefits of
practice (DeKeyser, 2007), and it is for this reason I have tried to create many opportunities for my learners to
practice English speaking and interaction in class. Producing output facilitates acquisition as it allows learners to
notice gaps, test hypotheses about the L2 and to engage in metacognitive talk (Swain, 2005). According to Long
(1996), interaction spawns “negotiation for meaning”, facilitating “acquisition because it connects input, internal
learning capabilities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (pp. 451-452). I encourage and
give my learners the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about themselves and their classmates and
have made an active attempt to connect with them on a personal level through four one-on-one conversations with
each student in the first 8 weeks of the semester. These are both important steps in the creation of basic motivational
conditions (Dörnyei, 2001).
Willingness to Communicate and Expectancy-Value Theory

Willingness to Communicate
As mentioned above, my classes are very interactive and learners must be ready to partake in activities that focus on
the communication of meaning. The decision to speak or not has an impact on their performance in class as well as
on their overall language learning success. In other words, learners must possess a willingness to communicate
(WTC) in order to become successful language learners. The ultimate effect of WTC is the improvement in overall
L2 proficiency (Kang, 2005). As WTC is a cause of increased L2 use (Hashimoto, 2002), it contributes to an
increase in fluency, the development of L2 communicative competence, and all other opportunities for learning
associated with interaction and output production.
MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei and Noels (1998) define second language WTC as the readiness to enter into
conversation at a particular time with a person or persons, using a second language. Early WTC research focused on
first language (L1) speakers and showed that L1 WTC is a personality variable. MacIntyre and Charos (1996)
applied the WTC model to L2 settings and showed that personality and social context were related to the frequency
of second language use and WTC. MacIntyre et al. (1998) found that WTC is not transferable from L1 to L2, and
this was justified by the difference in L2 users’ perceived communicative competence and social factors influencing
L2 use, which they have schematized in a pyramid model (see Figure 1).
The model MacIntyre et al. (1998) created shows that learners’ L2 use is influenced by an interaction of
personal, societal, and affective variables. They distinguished these variables in terms of their situational (Layers I,
II, and III) and enduring (Layers IV, V, and VI) influences on L2 WTC. Going from the bottom to the top of the
model, one moves from more stable influences to the most immediate situational momentary influences on L2
communication.
40
Figure 1: The heuristic pyramid model of variables influencing WTC (MacIntyre et al.1998, p. 547)
When one thinks of a student who is unwilling to communicate one tends to think of an unmotivated student
or a student with low proficiency, which is not necessarily the case. Young (1999) found that even experienced
learners who are highly motivated for learning might simultaneously be very anxious about communicating and not
willing to communicate. According to Matsuoka (2008), in the Japanese socio-cultural context, certain cultural
norms like valuing reticence might prevent some English learners from actively verbalizing their thoughts. When
teachers notice this, they must intervene, as WTC is too important for language development and unwillingness to
communicate cannot be ignored. Many researchers and teachers agree that the teacher should help to increase
learners’ WTC as research has shown that teachers and teachers’ variables weigh most heavily against students’
reticence and WTC (Lee & Ng, 2009).
Expectancy-Value Theory
The expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995), which emerged from cognitive psychology (Mori, 2004),
considers motivation to be a function of the expectancy for success in a given task and the value the individual
associates with success in that task. If the expected outcome of a task is positive and also highly valued, then a
learner will be very motivated. On the other hand, if the learner expects to complete a task poorly or the expectations
are not highly valued, motivation will be low.
According to Eccles et al. (1983), expectancy for success is determined by how students interpret past events,
and how they perceive attitudes and expectations of others in a particular task. This suggests that expectancy is tied
to Bandura’s (1997) model of self-efficacy and attributions of one’s success (Weiner, 1986). Self-efficacy refers to
the beliefs a person has of their own abilities to “organize and execute the courses of action required to produce
given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Self-efficacy influences how much effort people expand and how long
they continue to pursue tasks when they are confronted with difficulty.
As stated in Eccles and Wigfield (1995), the value that is associated with success is made up of four
components: Attainment Value, Intrinsic Value, Extrinsic Utility Value, and Cost. Attainment Value is the
individual's perception of importance of success in a task, Intrinsic Value refers to enjoyment that task brings, and
Extrinsic Utility Value refers to the usefulness of the task. Cost is the perceived negative consequences of engaging
in the task, such as the required effort, time, and perceived anxiety. These include not only the effort required for the
task but also perceived emotional states such as anxiety. Cost refers to extended effort, time and emotional
expenditures.
Both Mori (2002) in a study with Japanese university students and Nishino (2005) in a study with Japanese
high school students confirmed that motivation is multidimensional, and that intrinsic value plays an important role
41
in extensive reading. Reuel (2013) found in a study with Japanese elementary school students that importance
(attainment) value and enjoyment (intrinsic) value played an important role, but that most of the learners were
neutral to the use (extrinsic utility) value of English. In other words, most of the learners did not see English as
something that can be used, which could be a reason why both Kelly (2005) and Miura (2010) found that, when
those same students 10 years later entered university, their motivation dropped. For many students, after years of
intensive grammatical instruction, both the intrinsic and importance value of English drop dramatically once the
university entrance exams are completed.
The Teaching Context

In the following section I first give a short description of the institution followed by a description of the course and
the students.
The Institution
The institution is a private nonsecular and coeducational university based in Osaka prefecture, consisting of 11
schools, 44 departments, and an approximate student body of 30,000. The institution has an affiliation with many
other educational institutions: four junior colleges, a distance learning division, technical college, nursing school,
senior high school, junior high school and kindergarten.
The Course
The course is a required oral English course in the economics department of the university, for which the students
receive credit on successful completion. The course aims to improve the students’ basic oral communication skills
and develop fluency in basic conversation by interacting with each other and the teacher. As the main focus of this
course is oral communication, I have incorporated a variety of interaction activities in the lessons. For about 50% of
the class time the learners work together on Interaction Files (IF) requiring active participation and meaningful
communication, and encompass 30% of the students’ final course grade. For the IFs’, students plan and implement
communication activities, and reflect on their progress. Students submit four IFs at four different points in the course,
allowing the instructor to consistently monitor their progress. The other 50% of class time is dedicated to incidental
focus on form, teaching from the student book, and instruction of learning strategies. Homework, which is checked
every lesson by the teacher and peer-corrected, is 10% of their final grade. The homework consists mostly of
reading graded readers, writing book reports, and exercises in the student workbook. The reading of 10 graded
readers and 10 book reports is another 10% of the students’ final course grade. The other 50% of the course grade
include the oral midterm exam (25%) in which the students talk with me in pairs about themselves (e.g., part-time
job, hobbies) and the written final exam (25%).
The Students
The students in this course are 30 first year economics majors divided into two classes based on a TOEIC test taken
one week prior to class commencement. The students in class A scored in the lower range on the TOEIC test, and
are considered to be lower proficiency students, while the students in class B performed better on the TOEIC test
and are higher proficiency learners.
Class A Students
Class A meets once a week on Wednesdays from 9:00 am to 10:30 am. There are 16 students in the class, of which
nine are male and seven female. Despite the fact that it is a very early class there have so far only been four students
absent once. The students are generally active participants in all the interaction activities they are supposed to do in
class, do not speak much Japanese in class, and they seem to enjoy all the interaction as there is a lot of laughter
during interaction and they seem relaxed and happy. Based on the answers they write down on the IFs, I can see that
they usually do take the interaction activities seriously, as the quality of their answers is generally good. During
one-on-one interviews, which I conducted with each student four times, they were very cheerful and willing to speak.
They were also willing to talk to me during their midterm oral exam and had an average of 93 out of 100.
This group of students however, does have some minor issues when it comes to homework and other course
requirements that are not associated with interaction. Even though I make sure that every student takes a picture
every week of a PPT slide that shows the homework for next week, every week there are at least four students who
have not finished their homework and claim that they did not know what the homework was. The effort many of
42
them put in completing their written book reports is low and therefore the quality is not high. Students were shown
well-written book report examples, and expectations were explained, but effort is minimal.
Class B Students
Class B meets once a week on Wednesdays from 2:50 pm to 4:20 pm. This class consists of 14 students of which
two are girls, and 12 are boys. There are few absences and students regularly complete homework tasks. However,
in contrast with class A, class B students are not eager to communicate and display little interest in interaction. They
speak very softly, constantly need to be reminded not to speak Japanese, and are unwilling to start conversations
with their classmates. During the one-on-one interviews many students were unwilling to talk to me, and seemed shy.
They were however willing to talk to me during the midterm oral exam and it was very clear that they put a lot of
effort in the preparation of that conversation, in which they did very well as the class average was 95 out of 100.
The Problem
As is very clear from the description of the two classes above, there are major differences between class A and B. As
interaction is important in educational settings, and for learning in general, class B might encounter difficulties in
improving their communicative behavior. Based on their unwillingness to participate in interaction and the lack of
enjoyment during interaction activities, I felt that the students did not value conversation in English. Perhaps class B
student’s value reading more, as reading is important for TOEIC results, thus impacting their future career. Or
perhaps class B students have a low expectancy of their speaking abilities and a higher expectancy of their reading
abilities, therefore preferring to focus on the latter. The aim of this study is to investigate, by means of a
questionnaire, (a) class A and class B’s WTC (b) their values towards reading and speaking, and (c) their expectancy
for reading and speaking.
The Questionnaire
The data for this study was collected using a three-part questionnaire, translated from English to Japanese for
student ease and understanding. The purpose of the questionnaire was explained to the students, with particular
reference to honesty in their answers, anonymity of their responses, and that the results would not have any effect on
their grades.
A total of eight items were presented, two referring to students’ willingness to engage in communication in a
non-educational environment, and six to the students’ willingness to communicate in tasks during class time. Of the
six items that referred WTC during class time, four items referred to general WTC in the classroom while two items
referred to tasks that were directly linked to routine classroom activities. The focus of the questionnaire focused
exclusively on speaking. The students were asked to indicate on a four-point Likert scale how often they would want
to engage in the type of communication described (1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Often, 4 = Always). The
questionnaire was an adaptation of MacIntyre, Baker, Clément and Conrod’s (2001) questionnaire used with
Canadian junior high school students. All the references to French were replaced with English.
Value
A total of 16 items were presented of which eight referred to reading and eight referred to speaking. Students were
asked to indicate on a four-point Likert scale if they disagree or agree with a statement (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 =
Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree). The items used for this part were loosely based on a questionnaire used by
Chen and Sheu (2005) in their research of Taiwanese students’ motivation for learning English.
Expectancy
A total of 16 items were presented of which eight referred to reading and eight referred to speaking. Here the
students were also asked to indicate on a four-point Likert scale if they disagree or agree with a statement (1 =
Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree). The items that referred to speaking were created for
this questionnaire, while the items that referred to reading were based on a questionnaire used by Burrows (2012) to
measure learners’ self-efficacy for reading.
43
Results
The results were collected and average answers were calculated per class to see the differences between class A and
class B. The results of the questionnaire were also analyzed in an ANOVA analysis, which showed that there were
no significant differences between the results collected in class A and the results collected in class B. I have been
teaching these two groups for almost three months and have observed clear differences between the two classes and
my interpretation of the results does indicate that there are some differences. Therefore I will focus on those
differences, which might not be significant, but still observable.
On four of the eight items, both classes had almost the same score. However there was a clear difference in how the
classes responded to the question’s referring to communication not related to coursework and communication
related to coursework.
Table 1. WTC Not Related to Coursework

Questions Class A Average Class B Average
How likely are you to say ‘Hello’ to the teacher when you 3.5 2.7
see him?
A foreigner walks into the classroom you are in, how likely 3.2 2.6
are you to have a conversation with him?
Table 1 shows the average of the answers in class A and class B on the questions related to communication
that is not related to any coursework or any course requirement. The table shows that on average the students in
class A are more willing to communicate than the class B learners when communication is not related to
coursework.
Table 2. WTC During Class Time when Linked to Assessment

How likely are you to perform with a partner in front of the 2.1 2.6
class for 5 minutes?
How likely are you to describe the main plot of your book 2.0 2.5
in front of the class for 5 minutes?
Table 2 shows the average of the answers in class A and class B on the questions related to communication
that is related to coursework and for which the learners receive a grade. Class A students display more WTC in
situations where the communication serves another purpose than merely meeting course requirements, while class B
is less willing to interact in those situations but more willing in situations where communication is graded and
contributes towards their final grade.
Value
On 14 of the 16 items both classes had similar scores. However, the average scores on two of the items were more
than 0.5 (average) apart.
Table 3. Value of Speaking

Leaning to speak English is important for me because it 3.7 3.0
will increase my chance to get a better job.
Speaking English is the best way for me to learn English. 3.7 3.0
Table 3 shows that class B students generally did not consider speaking to be that important for their future as
class A students did. The table also showed that the students in class B were not convinced of the fact that speaking
English is the best way to learn English.
44
Expectancy
The expectancy part of the questionnaire also did not show big differences and on 14 of the 16 questions the answers
were similar. However, even though the answers were similar, class B students scored lower on average for the
statements related to speaking expectancy, and higher on average for the reading questions. For class A this was the
opposite. The average scores on two of the items were more than 0.5 (average) apart, and showed a clear difference
between the two classes.
Table 4. Statements Rated Very Differently by Class A and Class B

I can be more successful in speaking than reading 3.0 2.4
English.
I can read and understand graded readers that are 2 levels 1.9 2.5
higher than the level I am reading now in six months.
Table 4 shows that class B students are not as confident when it comes to speaking, and do not think they
could be more successful in speaking than reading. Class A students on the other hand generally feel that they can be
more successful in speaking than reading. Class B students also expect that they will improve their reading skills
during the course and are confident that their reading ability will increase in six months.
Discussion
As the results show, the students in class B are less willing to communicate in situations that are not contributing to
their final grade. There are many possible reasons for this. One of the reasons could be the fact that they experience
anxiety when speaking in English, which would be in line with Young’s (1999) findings, who found that learners
who are motivated can also be unwilling to communicate. Judging by attendance, homework records, and grades,
these students appear motivated, therefore speaking anxiety could be an explanation for their avoidance of
communication.
Another reason for the class B students’ relatively low WTC, value, and expectancy of speaking in English
could be the fact that they have practiced speaking much less in high school than the students in class A. As the
students in class B had a better TOEIC score and are considered to be the better students, it is very likely that they
spent more time preparing to pass the university entrance examinations and tests such as TOEIC or EIKEN, which
almost exclusively focus on reading. As Lee and Ng (2009) found, teachers can influence learners’ WTC, indicating
that their high school environment might have been predominately focused on university testing, with little
application to speaking. Consequently, and directly related to the prior reason, is the possibility that the students in
class B have lower feelings of self-efficacy for speaking. As past events affect future success (Eccles et al., 1983),
their prior lack of success might have negatively affected their overall ability to communicate in English.
As Reuel (2013) showed, Japanese elementary students find English important and fun, but do not feel that
English can be used. The class B students might have lacked in development of the extrinsic utility value of
speaking English and lost their enjoyment (intrinsic) value in secondary education. The students in class A on the
other hand, might have managed to maintain their intrinsic value as to develop their use (extrinsic utility) value of
English. The students in class A on the other hand, do not feel that they can improve their reading during the course,
even though the reading of 10 graded readers is one of the course requirements. As they scored lower on the TOEIC
test, where there is a focus on reading, they might expect to perform poorly in future-reading tasks as well.
Solutions for the Problem

In this section I present two solutions for the problems in class B, but which could also be used in class A to increase
their motivation and extrinsic utility value of English. I also present my thoughts on the way the learners are
categorized as higher and lower proficiency students and placed in Oral English classes.
Solution 1: International Posture/Global Awareness

For many L2 learners, the development of communicative relationships with other people is the major motivation to
learn an L2 (MacIntyre, 2007), which could be the reason why international posture is connected to WTC (Yashima,
2002, 2004). As research suggests that an international orientation increases WTC, teachers should focus on this in
their lessons (Aubrey, 2010). An increase in international posture would also increase the learners’ value of
45
speaking in English, and in turn expectancy of success as their output increases. I will try to increase my learners’
international orientation in the following three ways.
First, I will choose a part of the world and give a short presentation about a country or a city, the culture of
the people of that country, and try to impress my students with nice visuals every week. I will make an interaction
worksheet for the presentation, which would allow the learners to think deeply about the culture and exchange ideas
in groups. Finally, I would initiate a class wide discussion, focusing on stereotypes, individualism/collectivism, and
current events from the news. This relatively short activity would allow for interaction and raise the learners’
awareness of the world around them. Second, I will try to include an activity in my lessons that focuses on
successful Japanese L2 English speakers. There are many Japanese athletes, especially soccer players, models, and
entertainers, who are able to speak English. I think that by showing learners how other Japanese people perform in
an international setting, and how they communicate in English, would be beneficial for them. Thirdly, as I also teach
at a Language Institute in the same university, where many students are motivated, have a high level of proficiency,
and are willing to help, I will try to introduce these successful students to my oral English students by asking them
to come to our class and share their experiences abroad and how English has influenced their lives.
Solution 2: Reduce Anxiety/Build Confidence

There could be many reasons for anxiety to manifest itself in the language classroom, such as low expectancy in task
performance, and negative judgment from peers or teachers. A decrease in anxiety could increase the learners’
confidence, expectancy, and increase the learners’ WTC. I will try to decrease my leaners’ anxiety and build their
confidence in the following ways.
First, I will give my students more planning time for the IF interviews, and allow them to work together
during their preparation. The IF for next week could be handed to the learners one week earlier so that they can
prepare themselves at home. Some of the parts of the IF require the learners to come up with original questions, and
by allowing them to work together in this stage they could become less anxious. I will also include more questions
in the IFs that focus on the students’ perceived strengths and weaknesses. Until now, after each IF the students had
to reflect on their own language use. I am planning to include a part that requires the learners to reflect on the
positive aspects of their partners’ language use. When the pairs exchange this information, positive critique from
their classmates could build their confidence and increase their perceived speaking ability. As this could decrease
anxiety and increase WTC, it could also increase the learners’ expectancy of success.
Second, as these learners are motivated by grades I will try to use this by separating the interaction files from
four IFs, into 12 smaller IFs which they have to submit before the end of each lesson. This will increase the learners’
opportunities for success as they will receive 12 separate grades instead of only four grades. I will also include an
additional form of assessment to each interaction file, using the same grading rubric that was used to assess the
midterm oral exam. This will require a lot of planning, but I will observe each pair on five different occasions during
interaction, and give them a separate grade for that. By doing this, I feel it will become more clear to the students
that more communication will result in a higher grade, which they will be reminded of every week. Initially this will
not decrease anxiety, but in the long run after many successes, the students will become more confident and less
anxious.
TOEIC as a Placement Test

I do not feel that the TOEIC test is an appropriate test for placement for oral English classes, as I do not think that
that test measures communicative abilities. ETS, the maker of the test, claims that the TOEIC test correlates with
other oral proficiency tests, which I do not believe. I cannot understand how a multiple-choice paper or computer
test can measure a person’s communicative proficiency. Takahashi (2012) noted that the fact that ETS started
TOEIC Speaking and Writing Test can be seen as a sign of the tests’ shortcomings as a measurement of
communicative proficiency. The Speaking and Writing test is however less popular and the Reading and Listening
test remains as the most popular test to measure English ability in Japan. The TOEIC test only measures the
receptive skills of reading and listening and should be used only to measure those abilities. The TOEIC test does not
provide enough information to place students based on that score in a high-level or low-level oral English class. As
my students with lower TOEIC scores were more willing to communicate, their grades for the oral midterm exam
were almost identical to the students with higher TOEIC scores.
According to Takahashi (2012), who points to research conducted by Hirai (2002), the TOEIC test is not
effective to place a group of students whose English proficiency is low, as the test is not capable in distinguishing
46
high proficient learners from low-proficient learners. A test that directly measures communicative competence
should be used as a placement test for oral English classes. This could be a standardized test such as TOEFL, or a
test specially made to be used as a placement test for oral English classes.
Conclusion
In this paper, I focused on two groups of students in an oral English course and their respective levels of WTC. The
group with a higher TOEIC score (group B) has been experiencing problems seemingly tied to the fact that most
class time is dedicated to interaction. Meanwhile, the group with a lower TOEIC score (group A) has not been
experiencing the same problems. The results of the questionnaire show some differences, indicating a disparity
between the two groups. This paper offered two sets of solutions and criticized the way the groups were separated
into a lower-level and higher-level class.
As I feel that interaction facilitates learning, the focus in my classes will continue to be on interaction. I will
start incorporating the solutions into my lessons as quickly as possible as they could help my learners interact more
and thus learn more. I feel that the solutions described above could help the students by increasing their WTC,
expectancy of success, and all four components of value. I have already started implementing some of the solutions
described in the sections above for both class A and class B, such as the separation of the IFs into smaller files.
Many of the solutions described above will be used in both classes as I feel that they will help both groups of
students to increase their WTC.
References
Aubrey, S. (2011). Facilitating interaction in East Asian EFL classrooms: Increasing students’ willingness to
communicate. Language Education in Asia, 2(2), 237-245.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Burrows, L. (2012). The effects of extensive reading and reading strategies on reading self-efficacy. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan.
Chen, I.J., & Sheu, P. H. (2005). Applying the expectancy-value theory to foreign language learning motivation: A
case study on Takming college students. Journal of National Taipei Teaching College, 8(1), 201-218.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Press.
Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies,
values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological
and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents' achievement task values
and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: the Japanese
ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29-70.
Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33,
277–292.
Kelly, M. (2005). Motivation, the Japanese freshman university student and foreign language acquisition. JALT
Hokkaido Journal, 9, 32-47.
Lee, W., & Ng, S. (2009). Reducing student reticence through teacher interaction strategy. ELT Journal, 64(7),
302-313.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia
(Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes and affect as predictors of second language
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in
a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and
language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
47
Matsuoka, R. (2008). Communication apprehension among Japanese college students. Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 37-48.
Miura, T. (2010). A retrospective survey of L2 learning motivational changes. JALT Journal, 32(1), 29-53.
Mori, S. (2002). Redefining motivation to read in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 91-110.
Mori, S. (2004). Significant motivational predictors of the amount of reading by EFL learners in Japan. RELC, 35(1),
63-81.
Reuel, M. R. (2013). The foreign language learning value beliefs of Japanese elementary school students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). New York, NY: Routledge.
Takahashi, J. (2011). An overview of the issues on incorporating the TOEIC test into the university English
curricula in Japan. Retrieved from http://repository.tama.ac.jp/modules/xoonips/detail.php?id=AA
12419269-20120331-101 on June 16, 2014.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. Modern
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K., (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to
communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119-152.
Young, D. J. (Ed.), (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a
low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Appendix A: Willingness to Communicate Inside the Classroom Questionnaire

Directions: This questionnaire is composed of statements concerning your feelings about communication in class, in English.
Please indicate how willing you are to speak in English in the classroom (and in the future) using the scale 1-4 listed below.
1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Often 4 = Always

Speaking in class in English
1 How willing are you to speak in English in class in a small group when discussing the interaction file
1 2 3 4
questions?
2 How likely are you to say “Hello” to the teacher when you see him in class? 1 2 3 4
3 A foreigner walks into the classroom you are in, how likely are you to have a conversation if he/she
1 2 3 4
starts to talk to you?
4 When you are confused about a task you must complete, how likely are you to confirm your
1 2 3 4
homework assignment with your teacher in English?
5 How likely are you to talk to a classmate in English when the teacher asks you to practice a
1 2 3 4
conversation with a partner?
6 How likely are you to participate in a role-play activity with a partner in front of the class for 5
1 2 3 4
minutes?
7 How likely are you to describe the main plot of your favorite book in front of the class for 5 minutes? 1 2 3 4
8 How likely are you to play a monopoly game in English in a group of 6 students? 1 2 3 4
48
Appendix B: Value Questionnaire
Directions: This questionnaire is composed of statements concerning how important you think reading or speaking in English are.
Please use the following scale to answer the questions. Choose the number that best describes how you feel about the statements.
All of the items refer to speaking and reading in English.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree
1 Learning to speak in English is more important for me than learning to read in English. 1 2 3 4
2 Learning to speak in English is important for me because it will increase my chance to get a better
1 2 3 4
job.
3 Learning to speak in English is important for me because it will increase my chance to establish
1 2 3 4
friendships with foreigners.
4 Being able to speak in English is very important for me. 1 2 3 4
5 Speaking in English in class will help me pass the course and get the credits for the class. 1 2 3 4
6 Speaking in English is the best way for me to learn English. 1 2 3 4
7 The speaking skills I learn in this course will be useful outside of class and for my future. 1 2 3 4
8 Practicing speaking in class is very important for me. 1 2 3 4
9 Learning to read in English is more important for me than learning to speak in English. 1 2 3 4
10 Learning to read in English is important for me because it will increase my chance to get a better job. 1 2 3 4
11 Learning to read in English is important for me because it will increase my chances to establish 1 2 3 4
friendships with foreigners.
12 Being able to read in English is very important for me. 1 2 3 4
13 Reading graded readers will help me pass the course and get the credit for this class. 1 2 3 4
14 Reading in English is the best way for me to learn English. 1 2 3 4
15 The reading skills I learn in this course will be useful outside of class and for my future. 1 2 3 4
16 Reading graded readers is very important for me. 1 2 3 4
Appendix C: Expectancy Questionnaire

Directions: This questionnaire is composed of statements concerning your perceived ability, concerning to what degree you
expect you can accomplish these goals in English. Please use the following scale to answer the questions. Choose the number that
best describes how you feel about the statements. All of the items refer to speaking and reading in English.
1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
1 I can be more successful in speaking in English than reading in English. 1 2 3 4

2 I can introduce myself and talk about my hobbies to a foreigner I just met. (If he asks?) 1 2 3 4
3 I can perform well on the mid-term oral exam in this class. 1 2 3 4
4 I can talk for 5 minutes in front of the class about the last graded reader I read. 1 2 3 4
5 I can verbally explain to a foreigner how to get to Kinki University from Nagase station in English. 1 2 3 4
6 I can speak well enough to get a full score on Interaction File 4. 1 2 3 4
7 I can order a meal at a fast food restaurant in English. 1 2 3 4
8 I can orally describe the main character of my favorite movie in English. (i.e., Name, job, age) 1 2 3 4
9 I can be more successful in reading in English than speaking in English. 1 2 3 4
10 In six months, I will be able to read and understand graded readers that are 2 levels higher than the 1 2 3 4
level I am reading now.
11 I can read and understand any graded reader at the same level as I’m reading now. 1 2 3 4
12 I can read and understand the items on a menu in English at a fast food restaurant.
1 2 3 4
13 I can read and understand the specific details of a one-page magazine article written in English
related to one of my hobbies. (i.e., fashion, sports, music, movies etc.) 1 2 3 4
14 I can read and understand the reading sections of my smart choice workbook. 1 2 3 4
15 I can read and understand a movie synopsis of a movie in my favorite genre. 1 2 3 4
16 I can read and understand the lyrics of a song written in English. 1 2 3 4
49
Neurobiological Sex Differences Related to Language Use and Learning
Nicole Furuya
There has been quite a bit written in popular culture pitting the two sexes’ various capabilities in language use and
learning against one another. Although these ideas are often warped by the media or for turning a profit, I was
interested in learning about the scientific research behind these articles and books. Did males and females
significantly use and learn language differently? How were they different? What were the underlying causes behind
these differences? It turns out that differences between males and females for language use and learning is a murky
and sensitive subject, with contradicting research results every few years. In this paper, I attempt to explain how and
why language and sex differences is a difficult subject to get to the bottom of, what some of them are, pedagogical
implications, and in-class techniques to overcome the differences presented.
First and foremost, there is a confusion of terms. In the hard sciences (e.g., medicine, biology, and neurology)
the term sex differences concern the biological systems that one is born with, stemming from the XY or XX
chromosomes and the subsequently formed hormonal and reproductive systems. Oftentimes, the terms gender and
sex are used interchangeably. However, in the social sciences and humanities (e.g., sociology, linguistics, and
second language acquisition), sex is only used for the aforementioned physical definition, while “gender” is used for
constructs of masculinity and femininity with regards to the social, cultural, and historical expectations. These ideas
are also different from gender in the language itself, such as in pronouns (he, she) or nouns (i.e., in Spanish; el gato
[masculine] or la luna [feminine]). Therefore, just searching in library databases becomes complicated, as one
search results in biological differences, expression of masculinity or femininity differences, or grammatical gender
differences. There should be better clarification about these terms for research and discussion purposes.
Another interesting related research field is the expression of gender and the effects of gender expectations in
language choice and use. For example, differences in the same languages between different genders (e.g., use of
sentence ending wa used by females or zo used by males in Japanese), differences in the amount of tag questions and
interruptions used, various expressions of power relationships or imbalances in language use, and so on (Norton &
Pavlenko, 2004). Several of these studies raise interesting ideas and promote fascinating discussions. Language
choice and use vary greatly on context and situation, as gender expression through language might be drastically
different depending on interlocutors, proficiency, conversational subject, male to female ratio, and so on (Norton &
Pavlenko, 2004). Although I only perfunctorily read a few of these studies, many seem to be lacking hard,
quantifiable data to analyze. Therefore, it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions. Without data and conclusions, it
is nearly impossible to arrive at pedagogical implications. Also, many of these ideas are also still hotly debated and
divisive in the second language acquisition (SLA) and feminist fields of study. So, for the purposes of this research
paper, I have focused on what I refer to as sex differences relating to biology, and how they affect SLA as there is
hard data from which we might draw conclusions, and the ideas are less divisive and less dynamic.
First I discuss the biological differences that affect language learning. Although there are many cognitive
differences pertaining to L1 (first language) and L2 (second language) acquisition, all language is still learned,
processed, and stored in the same areas of the brain (Schnelle, 2010), which is where I have focused this paper on. I
explore the neurological sex differences related to language use and learning. I should note that there have been
other sex differences found in brain biology relating to overall size and mass, differences in amygdala, grey and
white matter, all 11 parts of the limbic system, hormone production and reception, and more. However, the
implications and effects related to language use and learning are non-existent or still under deep debate (Luders &
Toga, 2010), and therefore these neurological structures and systems have not been included in this paper. I should
also mention that although there are some sex differences, female and male brains operate and are structured the
same. Nothing is more similar to a male brain as a female brain. I do not mean to imply with this paper that there are
huge differences in use and structures between male and female brains, which relate to some pop-cultural,
oversimplification, and overgeneralization of the research. I only want to explore what these small differences are,
and how they relate to SLA. After discussing the neurological sex differences related to language use and learning, I
discuss the pedagogical implications.
50
Left and Right Hemispheric Differences
The right hemisphere of the brain is associated with empathy, creativity, imagination, music, feelings, and the
general, overall, big pictures (Schnelle, 2010). The left hemisphere is associated with math, language, analytical
ability, logic, precision, facts, and the details of a particular picture (Schnelle, 2010). In order to study sex
differences in the right and left hemispheres, Ingalhalikar et al. (2013) took 949 fMRI of healthy males (N = 428)
and females (N = 521), aged 8-22 year olds. The males were found to have greater enhanced modularity, transitivity,
and within-one-hemisphere (intra-hemispheric) connectivity. Modularity is associated with how well a neural
network is delineated into sub-networks, transitivity is associated with connectivity of a region within its neighbors,
and intra-hemispheric connectivity is associated with amount of and speed of connections made in one hemisphere
(Ingalhalikar et al., 2013). Females were found to have greater between-two- hemispheres (inter-hemispheric)
connectivity and cross-module participation. Inter-hemispheric activity is associated with amount and speed of
connections made between both hemispheres (left to right), while cross-module participation refers to amount and
speed of connections made between different areas of the brain (front to back).
What this suggests is that female brains are predisposed to processing information using different cognitive
models simultaneously. Females are more likely to process emotional, paralinguistic, social, as well as decode audio
language information concurrently, utilizing analytical and intuitive processing models (Ingalhalikar et al., 2013).
Females might have increased skills at multitasking, because of this ability to process and make more connections
between both hemispheres simultaneously. Male left and right hemispheres have greater intra-hemisphere
connectivity. This implies that males process various segments of information separately and more deeply, while
women make more connections between given information and various other knowledge or information. For
example, a female hears someone’s utterance and processes the speaker’s emotional state, body language, and social
relationship, as well as decode the linguistic information more than a male would. A male hears the same utterance,
and more deeply processes the linguistic information and facts in the utterance, or they more deeply process social
or emotional information. This is not to say males have no inter-hemispheric abilities or females no
intra-hemispheric abilities, but simply that differences in performance across gender has been observed.
These inter- and intra-hemispheric differences might also help explain why women have been shown to more
often use language-learning strategies in general (Boonkongsaen, 2014). They have been observed using more social,
cognitive, analytical, and other strategies in order to process language. The reliance on these strategies can help
them process language faster using both hemispheres. Conversely, females might use language learning strategies
more often in order to compensate for less deeper processing of language and information.
The sex differences in the two-hemisphere use also affect semantic and phonetic verbal fluency. Sex
differences have been observed in clustering and switching during semantic and phonetic verbal fluency tests (Weiss
et. al, 2006). Women have been found to switch more often between categories in phonemic fluency tests, while
men showed a trend toward a larger cluster size (Weiss et al., 2006). For example, if the participants were given a
task to name things starting with the letter F, then females participants would make lists more along the lines of
“February, fantastic, fish” while male participants would make lists more in the manner of “fish, frog, fox.” The
female participants ended up generating larger lists, which might be due to the stronger inter-hemispheric and
cross-modal connectivity. Rende et al. (2002, as cited in Weiss, 2006) suggested that letter fluency performance
relies on the phonological loop of the working memory, whereas category fluency relies on the visuospatial
sketchpad, therefore enabling participants to effectively implement visualization strategies. Therefore the male’s
innate stronger right hemisphere makes them stronger at recalling words with visual representations (words with a
strong visual image such as a fish), and their greater intra-hemispheric connectivity allows them to create larger
categories of these words. Females’ greater innate reliance on the left hemisphere allows them access to various
categories and information with less reliance on visual information (few and fantastic have a more abstract
visualization than a fish might), and greater inter-hemispheric connectivity allows them more connections between
different and seemingly unrelated information and knowledge.
To summarize, significant sex differences have been found in the left and right hemispheres relating to the
degree of simultaneously processing verbal, emotional, paralinguistic, and social information. Significant sex
differences have also been found relating to strategy use, schemata organization, size and variety of vocabulary, use
of the visuospatial sketchpad, and use of the phonological loop.
51
Hippocampi Differences
There are two hippocampi, one located inside the right hemisphere and one inside the left. They are part of the
limbic system, which provides the neural basis for emotions and long-term memory (Schnelle, 2010). One of the
main functions of the hippocampi is the creation of new memories. These memories include declarative, episodic,
emotional, and autobiographical memories, but not procedural or implicit memories (Schnelle, 2010). An example is
the creation of knowledge about spelling or conjugations, but not the creation of the feeling that you have seen a
word somewhere before. Along with the creation of memories and therefore knowledge, the hippocampi also have
stress receptors (receiving the stress hormones cortisol and glucocortoids). During times of stress, when these
neurochemicals are over-produced, the hippocampi might not be able to process these stress hormones as rapidly as
they receive them, which impairs the hippocampi’ normal functions and makes it more difficult to create new
memories. For example, during an L2 test, production of stress hormones might be increased and affect the
test-takers’ ability to create new memories, and they might not be able to remember any of the test questions
afterwards.
The hippocampi in males are 80% larger and have more neurons than those in females (Luders & Toga,
2010). Males also have a faster rate of regeneration of and repair to damaged hippocampi neurons (neurogenesis).
This difference in hippocampi size and neurogenesis between the sexes has been hypothesized to explain why males
tend to perform better under stressful conditions than females do. Males might more efficiently process the stress
hormones, which leads to a decrease in impairment, and also contributes to the sustainment of new memory creation.
Studies have shown that the differences in test taking in similarly proficient students are correlated to sex
(Boonkongsaen, 2014). It has also been hypothesized that as a way to cope with the rise in cortisol and
glucocorotoids, females might rely more on learning strategies when stressed.
The second difference in hippocampi is related to the two hemispheres. The right side is associated with
empathy, creativity, imagination, music, feelings, and the general, overall, big pictures. The left side is associated
with math, language, analytical ability, logic, precision, facts, and the details of a particular picture. Therefore, the
hippocampus located inside the left hemisphere is associated with memories and knowledge relating to math, logic,
and facts, while the hippocampus in the right side is associated with accessing memories and knowledge relating to
feelings, creativity, and general pictures. Males tend to use the right side hippocampus (feelings, creativity,
emotions) while females tend to use the left side more (logic, facts, math) (Luders & Toga, 2010). This is in contrast
to popularly held beliefs that males would use logic and math processing systems with language more. This sex
difference can help explain why females as young as 20-months old have been found to have better word fluency
than their male counterparts. Word fluency can refer to rote memorization, production skills, reception skills,
recollection under testing situations, and during communicative competence. This could also be another reason why
females tend to use language-learning strategies more, as they are a more logical way to process and understand
language. To summarize, sex differences in the hippocampi use affect language abilities concerning test-taking
performance under stress, creation of new memories while under stress, use of strategies, and word fluency.
Corpus Callosum
The last major brain difference between the sexes relating to language occurs in the corpus callosum. The corpus
callosum (CC) is located under the frontal cortex, connects the left and right hemisphere, and is responsible for
activity and connections between the right and left hemispheres (Ingalhalikar et al., 2013). The CC has been
associated with verbal memory capacity, semantic encoding, and ambidextrous abilities. Although the abilities of
and processes carried out by CC are still being researched and are under contention, there seems to be a strong
language connection because people with dyslexia have smaller and less developed CC, and musicians’ CC have
larger overall volume (Ingalhalikar et al., 2013).
With regards to differences in the sexes, females tend to have a larger CC than males, when controlling for
overall brain size, which tends to be larger in males (Aredekani, 2012). Aredekani performed 319 fMRI’s on 119
males and 197 females, used multiple regression analysis to statistically control for brain size and age, and found
significantly larger CC in females (p < .03). Although the implications for how this affects brain use and speed is
under debate, many researchers currently believe this contributes to female superior intra-hemispheric abilities.
52
L2/FL Pedagogical and Classroom Implications
The main language use and learning neurological differences between males and females are the simultaneous
processing of verbal, emotional, paralinguistic, and social information abilities, strategy use, organization of and
amount of vocabulary in schemata, use of visuospatial sketchpad and phonological loop, test-taking performance
under stress, creation of new memories while under stress, and word fluency. In order to help male students
according to these neurological-based language use differences, I suggest using more extensive listening and
dicto-gloss activities. Extensive listening are all types of listening activities that allow learners to receive tons of
comprehensible and enjoyable listening input. These listening activities can include student-directed listening to
music, teacher-directed dictations, group or class read-alouds, pre-recorded dialogues or stories, DVDs or CDs, and
many more activities (Renandya, 2012). Extensive listening can be classified along Nation’s (2009a) four-strand
theory as part of fluency development, or can be meaning-focused input. Extensive listening has been shown to
improve word recognitions skills, improve processing language at normal rate, can enhance bottom-up processing,
and lead to deeper comprehension (Renandya, 2012). Dicto-gloss activities, where learners listen to a short text
twice while taking notes, and then try to reconstruct it in groups, can be classified as part of the language-focused
learning strand (Nation, 2009a). Dicto-gloss activities develop listeners’ ability to recognize common word
combinations, hear words in context and in unfamiliar collocations, become more familiar with grammatical points
and words, and top-down inferencing (Nation, 2009a). Both if these activities should help develop the phonological
loop and word fluency in males.
In order to help female students according to neurological-based language use differences, I suggest using
more writing activities for females. Because females have superior inter-hemispheric connectivity as well as
cross-modal activity, females are able to innately receive and process language well. However, females perform
worse under stress and have a weaker visuospatial sketchpad than males. Therefore, females should practice more
productive skills, as these tend to be more stressful than receptive skills and require use of the visuospatial sketchpad.
Writing activities for females can include ten-minute writing (where learners try to write as much as they can in ten
minutes), spelling quizzes, and picture composition (where the teacher shows a series of pictures and learners then
try to answer questions or write compositions) (Nation, 2009b). By concentrating on writing activities, this can
improve the visuospatial sketchpad, and by giving a time limit and quizzes, female students can practice producing
written language under pressure of stress, which should eventually lead to better performances under stress. Lastly,
by giving them visual aids from which to write, it makes females process information from one source rather than
multiple sources, which could help them process more deeply and multi-process less.
One tricky point concerns how to address the needs of both men and women while in a co-ed class. One
obvious solution would be to split the class into men and women. Another solution might be not split the class, and
alternate activities, where during one class time the whole class does activities (e.g., ten-minute writing) aimed at
improving weakness in women, while the next week the whole class completes activities (e.g., dicto-gloss) aimed at
improving weakness in the men. One last suggestion for co-ed classes are cooperative learning techniques and
activities. Cooperative learning can offer many ways for men and women to aid one another. For example, teachers
could have women help men learn to use a variety of learning strategies by modeling their use, or men could help
women perform better under pressure by interviewing or debating with them. By fostering feelings of positive
inter-dependence—that all students have different strengths that they can contribute and help each other with—can
make all students feel like a valuable and useful part of the class. Cooperative learning techniques and activities
could help students and teachers avoid any feelings that one sex is naturally better than the other at languages, and
promote feelings that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.
In conclusion, in this paper I aimed to illuminate what the neurological differences between the sexes are,
how those differences relate to language use and learning, and how we might better aid our students while taking
these differences into account. Neurological differences can contribute too, but do not dictate language-learning
abilities, and the field is rapidly developing.
References
Boonkongsaen, N. (2014). The effects of gender, reading anxiety, and language learning experience on Thai
science-oriented students’ use of reading strategies. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 10, 24-35.
53
Fringsa, L., Wagnera, K., Unterrainerc, J., Spreerb, J., Halsbandc, U., & Schulze-Bonhagea, A. (2006).
Gender-related differences in lateralization of hippocampal activation and cognitive strategy. Neuroreport,
17(4), 417-421.
Ingalhalikar, M., Smith, A., Parker, D., Satterhwaite, T., Elliott, M., Ruparel, K., Hakonarson, H., Gur, R. E., Gur, R.
C., & Verma, R. (2013). Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Neuroscience,
111(2), 823-828.
Luders, E., & Toga, A. (2010). Sex differences in brain anatomy. Progress in Brain Research, 186, 3-12.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009a). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009b). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Norton, B., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Addressing gender in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 504-514.
Renandya, W. (2012). Materials and methods for extensive listening. 59th TEFLIN Conference, 6-8 Nov. 2012,
Surabaya, Indonesia.
Schnelle, H. (2010). Language in the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, E., Ragland, J. D., Brensinger, C. M., Bilker, W. B., Deisenhammer, E. A., & Delazer, M. (2006). Sex
differences in clustering and switching in verbal fluency tasks. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 12, 502-509.
54

Accommodating Different Perceptive Learn PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accommodating Different Perceptive Learn PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY JAPAN

STUDIES IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Individual Differences in Second Language

Number 94, August 2014

Individual Differences in Second Language

Series Editor, David Beglar

Number 94, August 2014

Temple University, Japan Campus

Master of Education Degree

Doctor of Education Degree

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Studies in Applied Linguistics

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. vii

The Use of Written Communication in Motivational Growth: A Pilot Study .............................................. 1

Bridging the Gap: Identity-Appropriate Materials for Low-Proficiency L2 Learners ................................ 10

Developing Writing Self-Concept in the L2 Classroom ............................................................................. 17

Self-Directed Learning in the Japanese Context ......................................................................................... 31

Accommodating Different Perspective Learning Styles ............................................................................. 34

Willingness to Communicate and Expectancy Value in an Oral English Class ......................................... 40

Neurobiological Sex Differences Related to Language Use and Learning ................................................. 50

Group Contact and International Exposure

Table 1. Enjoyment Descriptive Statistics for Full Population (Time 1-2)

Table 3. Enjoyment Descriptive Statistics for Low Population (Time 1-2)

Table 7. Instrumental Descriptive Statistics for Low Population (Time 1-2)

Interest in Foreign Language and Culture

Table 9. IFLC Descriptive Statistics for Full Population (Time 1-2)

Table 11. IFLC Descriptive Statistics Low Population (Time 1-2)

Kate St. Hilaire

The L2 Motivational Self System

Identity in the Foreign Language Classroom

Foreign Language Anxiety

Do the Materials Attend to the Realities of L1 Use?

Do the Materials Overcome Content Limitations Set by Proficiency Level?

Do the Materials Uphold the Agency of the Learners?

An Example of Identity-Appropriate Material

Improving Writing Self-Concept

Use Personally Relevant Writing Topics

Table 1. A Selection of Personally Relevant Writing Topics

Use Writing Graphs and Writing Checklists

Project 1: Write a Letter to Your Future Self

Project 2: Develop a Character and Write Entries in His or Her Diary

The Effects and Causes of Foreign Language Anxiety

Table 1. “How Do Classroom Activities Make You Feel?” Anxiety Questionnaire

Table 2. Rasch Reliability Statistics

Table 3. Rasch Descriptive Statistics for Item Behavior

Table 4: Gender and Anxiety Raw Score Means

Discussion and Limitations

Conclusion and Practical Implications

Appendix A: English Version

How do classroom activities make you feel?

The Current Situation for Japanese Students

Improving L2 Learning with Self-Directed Learning

Learner-Teacher Style Incompatibility

Student Learning Style Preferences

Learning Style Strategies

Ideal Self and Visual Style

Examples of Various Learning Styles

Discussion and Conclusion

Willingness to Communicate and Expectancy-Value Theory

The Teaching Context

Table 1. WTC Not Related to Coursework

Table 2. WTC During Class Time when Linked to Assessment

Table 3. Value of Speaking