General Background on Motivation
Abstract
This study treated the relationship Foreign Language Learning (FLL) has with both class interaction and lack of motivation in a university education course where English is taught as a foreign language. The setting was the University of Abderrahmane Mira , Béjaia taking the case of first year LMD students during the second semester’s examinations (i.e. the end of the academic year 2005). The time was carefully chosen given the possibility to compare the students’ motivation during two semesters of study under a new system which began the same year. Our questioning put focus on the students’ presence in the classroom and the type of interaction that existed in order to find out the reasons of lack of motivation if any. In other words, lack of motivation in EFL classes is more likely to occur when there is an interaction problem within the group learners belong to. Four objectives we aimed to reach would be explained below in this investigation for which we established two hypotheses. All is related to the motivation degree and its relation to the interaction (with classmates and teachers) and teaching methods; which can either foster or not interaction. We used the questionnaire as an instrument for data collection with statistically-based software (SPSS) and a quantitative method. Results showed that our hypotheses were verified to some extent although most students did not reveal negative attitudes to the teachers’ personality. There was a noticeable criticism to the teaching methods and the curriculum. Some of the participants criticised the group they belong to and others the teachers but their rate was low compared to the curriculum. As a result, teaching methods, course content, the teacher’s personality and attitudes, and interaction among the students (i.e. to the group dynamics) showed to be the main factors which could either enhance or impede the students’ motivation.
Introduction
During at least the last six decades, there was a propagation of teaching methods in the field of foreign languages. Their vital aim and elementary objective has been to ensure a methodical and efficient learning of the target language they are exposed to. These methods focus mainly on the resources to be used, on the aspects of the language to be learned and the skills that the foreign language learners are expected to learn. However, in spite of the considerable amount of research undertaken on the field of FLL, little remains known about the role of educational psychology in determining the success or failure of the learners. The word that is basically advanced is motivation. It seems that one of the undergrounds in succeeding in FLL is much a matter of motivation before being its linguistic or didactic nature (i.e. teaching methods and the available material). In this, Chomsky says that: “The truth of the matter is that about 99 per cent of teaching is making students interested in the material ” (Chomsky, 1989: In Arnold and Brown, 1999: 13 ). Thus, in this work, we aim at determining the level of motivation students have, attributing it to the language classroom where learners are face to face their classmates and their teacher. That is, we need to test the importance of the classroom atmosphere as well as the teaching methods and techniques in elevating or reducing the level of interest when learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL).
Literature Review
General Background on Motivation
Over the past three decades, a considerable body of research has been, directed toward the role of such affective variables as attitudes, motivation and anxiety (Gardner, Day and MacIntyre, 1992: 197). Learners’ motivation unflaggingly stands out as an important subject that receives much attention for its resilience in teaching/ learning enterprise. Relating to this, numerous studies (e.g. Clement, Dornyei and Noels, 1994) come a surge in interest on the role of motivation in this area. Hence, findings have demonstrated that achievement in language learning is related to measures of attitudes and motivation (Clèment, Gardner, and Smythe 1977, 1980; Gardner and Lambert 1959,1972; Gardner and Smythe 1981; Gliksman 1981) (Cited in Upshur, 1985). However, all the great deal of research done on the subject field of motivation, still debates in delimiting a short-cut definition are on. This is because the concept of motivation is a mystifying and a multifactorial one. Lamberth, McCullers and Mellgren (1976: 243) spell out that some psychologists have called for the deletion of the term motivation from the psychological literature. In the coming paragraphs, we, at least provide the reader with a trial of defining it as provided by authors in the field though the task seems difficult.
To begin with, motivation is an internal state i.e. a want or a need that causes us to act, or it is a condition that activates behaviour and gives it direction as Franken (1994) defines it as: “The arousal, direction, and persistence of behaviour”(In Brown, 1994). Further, one of the definitions of motivation in language learning describes it in terms of the learner’s overall goal or orientation. There is what we call task motivation where the interest felt by the learner in performing different learning tasks (Ellis, 1999: 300g). Moreover, motivation has four major characteristics: what directs our actions, initiation of taking action, pursuing the actions intently, and persisting longer in those things that causes it (Sternberg, 1995).
For the reader not to be much confused and to gain more insight into the concern of the present article, we consider it convenient to point out that motivation can be interpreted in terms of negative or positive emotions. In other words, if negative feelings and emotions are more likely to prevail on the learning experience, we say that a lack or an absence of motivation might exist; a problematic case which we intend to investigate in our present study. Contrariwise, if positive feelings and emotions characterise the learning experience, a high motivation is more likely to be generated. Our focus is to tackle this possibly occurring negative feeling with a another variable; that is classroom interaction. Taking the previous Sternberg’s view, we can relate the four characteristics of motivation to interaction. This phenomenon can direct our actions (whether to get integrated in the group or not), interaction can help the learner whether to initiate the action or not (depending if it is positive or negative), it can also lead either to pursue the action or stop it, and finally it may lead the learner carry on taking the same action. Arnold and Brown state that a foreign language learner is motivated to avoid pain generated by such negative emotions as anger, sadness, disgust, shame, anxiety, stress and depression on the one hand, and to seek out pleasure brought about by positive emotions like high self-esteem, enjoyment, love, surprise and empathy on the other. Such feelings and emotions are more likely to emerge from the classroom interaction. They also determine the kind of the classroom climate or environment. For more clarification, motivation is attributed to interaction and teaching methods; things that constitute the core of our coming sub-section.
1. 2. Motivation and Interaction
As previously stated, many studies identify this process of motivation as an internal drive which pushes learners to accomplish a given task to achieve an already planned objective. Yet, motivation per se is a fluid of state that increases or decreases hinging on situation-specific factors, more specifically on classroom-related factors (Jukunen, 1989). In this case, Clement et al (1994:418) postulate that “increasing classroom relevance of the motivation research is certainly a worthwhile objective”. Accordingly, concepts like subject matter, presentation skills, methods of teaching and more importantly learner’s interaction become focal factors affecting motivation in the classroom.
Backing up this point, Dornyei (1994) denotes three components that are associated to classroom-specific factors; course specific, group specific and teacher specific. Simply stating, the first one holds the point from the teaching method to materials to syllabus. The second component embraces the learners group and finally the third one involves the teacher. With all fairness, we can say that the two categories (group specific and teacher specific) argue the intrusion of a humanistic variable, namely, interaction .Hence;the aim of this overview is to unveil the effect of this variable on learners’ motivation in the classroom.
Classroom is the real arena of human interaction; it serves as a small and complicated community group in which a student interacts both with his peers and his teacher (Pica, 1992 In Kral, 1999: 59). Its complexity resides in the different personalities, motives and expectations that exist at play. Accordingly, in order to foster an interactive atmosphere that generates high motivation, ‘we need an ambiance and relations among individuals [peers and teachers] that promote a desire interaction” (Rivers, 1987:9). As a logical consequence, the type of interaction results in the level of motivation (whether low or high).
Teacher-student interaction is a focal dimension that affects the learners’ level of motivation. In this case, Chambers (1999) in his longitudinal study of motivation of British learners point out that the teacher factor is a lot more important than learning environment, textbook, etc. Thus, we can explain this interaction and its relationship with motivation through empathy and genuine interaction. The first dimension involves the caring quality of the teacher. Hence, a teacher who is friendly, genuine in dialogue and expresses high immediacy tends to generate positive feelings in learners, which in turn bolsters high motivation. Relating to this, Arnold and Brown (1999), in their definition of motivation, state that this latter and emotions are two intertwined dimensions. That is, if the positive feelings and emotions characterise the interaction, a high motivation is more likely to be generated and vice versa. In this case, Thomas (1991) states that “Feelings and attitudes can make for smooth interaction and successful learning, or can lead to a conflict and a total breakdown of [motivation]”. Yet, a teacher is an aloof figure that is merely going through the motions of teaching heedless of the students may engender negative feelings such as shyness, anxiety and anger. Hence, this negative interaction tapers off the students’ motivation. The point here is that if the nature of teacher- student interaction exemplifies empathy, it is more likely to affect positively their motivation.
The genuine interaction is the common theme that is expected in student-teacher interaction. This entails the teacher to be “active listeners, positive in error correction facilitator and stimulator genuine interaction”. Succinctly stated, he should interact not only asking students to things for the sake of it. In this situation, the learner will be more aware of the his teacher‘s positive and actual involvement which results in high motivation. However, if the teacher, for instance, is very offensive in his way of correcting errors while interacting, he is more likely to inhibit the learner’s desire for learning.
Peer-mediation or group interaction unflaggingly plays a focal role in the process of motivation. Many researchers believe that this interaction develops a great understanding of others diverse social, interpersonal adjustments and learning needs, and more importantly learner’s motivation. Among these researchers, Johnson and Johnson who pinpoint that interaction “promotes considerable great effort to achieve productivity, intrinsic motivation, achievement motivation and continuity motivation in to learning” (cited in Gillies, Ashman and Terwel, 2008). Furthermore, they add that the quality of the relationship that exists in this interaction such as interpersonal liking, esprit-de-corps and social support has a profound effect on students’ motivation. More precisely, the more positive the relationship among them, the greater commitment to the group, feeling of responsibility and “motivation and persistence toward the goal achievement”. Deutsch (1994) explain this phenomenon through the process called “social interdependence”. That is, interaction exerts in learners a positive interdependence since they perceive that they can reach their goals if and only other individuals with whom they interactively linked also reach their goal. Therefore, they promote each other motivation. Yet, this interaction may also impede the motivation if it implies a more competitive and negative individualistic efforts or what Johnson and Johnson ( 2008) refers to as “ rugged individualism”. That is, learners perceive that they can obtain their goals if and only other individuals with whom they competitively linked lose. Accordingly, some learners who are involved in this interaction will certainly feel the pressure of their peers which certainly decreases their motivation. Besides, this type of interaction may also hold some non-humanistic characteristics (such as bullying, teasing, etc) that taper off the target learners’ self-esteem. When this occurs, their motivation automatically lowers down.
In a nutshell, we can say that interaction and motivation are interrelated; a positive interaction can increase motivation and vice versa. In other words, if it generates positive interpersonal relationship, feelings and healthy attitudes, this exerts a high motivation. Whereas, an interaction that is characterized by irrational beliefs, dog-eat-dog relationship and negative emotions is more likely to deplete motivation.