1 / 36

Motivation in a Homogenous IEP: The Big Picture

Motivation in a Homogenous IEP: The Big Picture. Lisa Levine, Paula Winke Michigan State University TESOL Conference March 23 , 2013. We will. 1.Give a brief overview of our research project: Changes at MSU's ELC Research questions Method Results Discussion

mili
Download Presentation

Motivation in a Homogenous IEP: The Big Picture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Motivation in a Homogenous IEP: The Big Picture Lisa Levine, Paula Winke Michigan State University TESOL Conference March 23, 2013

  2. We will 1.Give a brief overview of our research project: • Changes at MSU's ELC • Research questions • Method • Results • Discussion 2.. Talk about what our findings may mean for IEPslike ours at MSU 3. Q & A

  3. We won't be able to answer such questions as these (yet): • How can I increase my students' desire to learn English? • Why are there significant differences in attitudes toward learning English among students of different nationalities? • Why won't they stop playing games on their cell phones during class?

  4. Michigan State University English Language Center Intensive English Program

  5. Research Questions (Exploratory) 1. Are there any personal background characteristics, such as nationality or L1, that are associated with aspects of L2-learning motivation? 2. In addition, how does current living situation (English-speaking roommates, for example) relate to motivation?

  6. Materials • Anonymous Survey-Monkey administered survey, 4 versions: • Arabic • Chinese • English • Korean 48 L2-learning Motivation Questions 18 Background Questions

  7. Sample items (1 – 6 Likert scale) • When I am in class I volunteer as much as possible. • I am sure one day I will be able to speak English well. • Studying English is important to me to gain the approval of others. MOTIVATION

  8. Sample items (multiple choice) • What is your home country? • China • Korea • Saudi Arabia or other Arabic-speaking country BACKGROUND

  9. Outside of class, who do you spend most of your time with? • Native speakers of your first language • Native speakers of English • Native speakers of another language CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES

  10. Sample items (open-ended) • What is your major? • How old are you? • What other foreign languages have you studied?

  11. Survey items related to “Linguistic self-confidence” (Factor 1)

  12. Survey items related to “Ought-to L2 Self” (Factor 2)

  13. Survey items related to “Imagined L2 Self” (Factor 3)

  14. Survey items related to “Integrative attitude” (Factor 4)

  15. Survey items related to “Language-learning anxiety” (Factor 5)

  16. Survey items related to “Attitude Toward Native Speakers” (Factor 6) Q11. It’s easy to become friends with native English speakers on campus.

  17. Procedure 48 items 262 students 75 students 80 items • Survey creation in Spring 2012 • Survey given to new students in Fall 2012 • Pilot (beta) testing in Summer 2012 • Survey Monkey forms created after factor analysis on spring alpha test data

  18. Participants (Just who were these learners?)

  19. Data Analyses • 1.Exploratory factor analysis to see how the 48 motivation items group (or divide up) into different aspects (factors) of motivation • 2.Comparison of means on the factor scores (t tests and ANOVAs) by L1 group • 3.Regression (prediction) analysis to see which background variables (length of time in USA, age, gender) predict motivation

  20. How Factor Analysis Works Item 1 Factor 1 • After items are clustered together with other items that were answered in the same way, we can look at the items in the cluster and label the cluster—what is the theme of the cluster? L2 Self-Confidence • Items that don’t correlate with any larger factor (that don’t fit into a cluster) can be dropped from further analysis or discussion. • Factor analysis runs correlations among the answered items to see what items are related—that is, what questions tap into the same underlying construct. Item 2 Item 3 Factor 2 Item 4 Item 5 L2-Classroom Self Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10

  21. 6 Factors that Emerged from the Data Q10. This semester, I think I am good at learning English. (5 items) 1 L2 Self Confidence Q28. I should learn English or else people may think that I am a poor learner. (11 items) 2 Ought-to L2 Self Q16. I can imagine myself being a person known as a fluent speaker of English. (4 items) 3 Imagined L2 Self Q24. When I am in English class, I volunteer answers as much as possible. (5 items) 4 L2 Classroom Self Q12. I study English because close friends of mine think it is important. (2 items) 5 Peer/Family Influ. Q11. It’s easy to become friends with native English speakers on campus. (2 items) 6 Attitude twrd NSs Max. likelihood EFA. Each factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1. The items explained 47% of the questionnaire score variance.

  22. 6 Factors that Emerged from the Data Each individual in the database got an average score on each of these 6 aspects (or factors) of motivation. 1 L2 Self Confidence 2 Ought-to L2 Self 3 Imagined L2 Self We then looked for differences in group averages on the factor scores. First, we looked to see if L1-background was associated with higher or lower scores on these motivation aspects (using ANOVAs). 4 L2 Classroom Self 5 Peer/Family Influ. 6 Attitude twrd NSs

  23. 6 Factors that Emerged from the Data L1-Arabic higher on this than any others. 1 L2 Self Confidence L1-Chinese higher on this than any others. 3 Imagined L2 Self L1-Chinese higher on this than any others. 4 L2 Classroom Self Trend: L1-Korean lower on this than others. 6 Attitude twrd NSs

  24. So what does this mean? Does this mean that L1 Arabic speakers have a higher L2-self image? And that L1-Chinese have a better view of their future-L2 selves and have a better view of themselves in the L2-classroom? And that L1-Koreans have a lower attitude toward NSs? Eeek! Maybe... Or probably not... (?)

  25. 6 Factors that Emerged from the Data Second, we looked to see if other, more interesting background characteristics were associated with higher or lower scores on these 6 motivation aspects (using independent samples t tests if we compared 2 groups; ANOVAs if 3 or more groups): • With your roommate(s), do you speak in your L1 or in English? • Outside of class, in which language do you mostly speak?(see your handout) 1 L2 Self Confidence 2 Ought-to L2 Self 3 Imagined L2 Self 4 L2 Classroom Self 5 Peer/Family Influ. 6 Attitude twrd NSs

  26. With your roommate(s), do you speak in your L1 or in English? • On average, for those with roommates or housemates, those who wrote they spoke in the target language (English) at home also indicated they had a higher "classroom self-image" (M=3.75) than those who spoke their L1 at home (M=3.56). This difference was significant, t(275) = 1.96, p = .05. But the effect is small. 6 Factors that Emerged from the Data 4 L2 Classroom Self

  27. We thought this was interesting, so we looked at WHO is speaking with roommates in English by L1 and gender...

  28. Outside of class, in which language do you mostly speak? • On average, those who wrote they spoke primarily in English outside of class indicated they had • a higher "L2 self image," • lower "ought-to self," • higher "peer-family awareness," and • higher "attitude toward NSs" than those who spoke their L1 outside of class. These differences were significant. 6 Factors that Emerged from the Data 1 L2 Self Confidence 2 Ought-to L2 Self 5 Peer/Family Influ. 6 Attitude twrd NSs

  29. We used regression (prediction) analysis to test this model of motivation… • Values are standardized coefficients (Betas). For age, the only significant predictor, B = -.107. Age -.162, p = .006 L2 Motivation (with all sixfactors weighted equally) Gender -.025, p = .699 Length of time in USA -.063, p = .288

  30. These are correlated variables… What is interesting to us is that there is, in general, less variation and a downward trend in motivation with age. • r = .20**

  31. Discussion The theory of motivation, that it consists of various factors such as Ideal L2-Self, Imagined L2-Self, and Ought-to L2-Self (theories by Dornyei, 2005; Csizer & Dornyei, 2005; Csizer & Kormos, 2008; Dornyei (Ed.), 2013) holds with our data. (In other words, these theories of L2-motivation make sense to us in relation to our data.) In particular, Csizer and Kormos (2009) stated this: "Our model [of L2-learning motivation] indicates that for our participants, motivated behavior is determined not only by language-related attitudes, but also by the views the students hold about the perceived importance of contact with foreigners" (p. 166).

  32. Discussion • In our study, we think students regulated their motivation by acting on their perceived importance of contact with host-country nationals (Americans on campus) and their perceived importance of speaking in English outside of class. • Higher indications of motivation were associated with • Living with native-English-speaking roommates • More positive attitudes toward or experiences with Americans on campus • More English-speaking outside of class

  33. Discussion This relates to research on study abroad & identity construction. More contact with host-country nationals and more communication in the targeted language (be it with host-country nationals or with other internationals) helps shape self-perception (identity construction), attitudes, classroom behaviors, motivation, and (as reported by others) L2-learning outcomes. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp.156- 171). Harlow: Pearson Education. Perez Vidal, C., & Howard, M. (2012). Study abroad and language acquisition. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 279-280. Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 58 – 73. Kinginger, C. (2011). National identity and language learning abroad: American students in the post-9/11 era. In C. Higgins (Ed.), Identity formation in globalizing contexts: Language learning in the new millennium (pp. 147–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  34. Q & A • Do our findings resonate with your experience at other IEPs? • How do you think these data could be used to help IEPs best meet student needs in the future? • What further research directions do you think our data suggest?

  35. Thank you! Lisa Levine: llevine@msu.edu Paula Winke: winke@msu.edu

More Related