Some strategies to motivating students to speak English

Posted by paksiraj in published article. Leave a Comment

published in Vidia Karya, 2004, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin.

1. Introduction
In this globalization era, the need for English to communicate with people from other countries is tremendous given the nature as the world language. This is one of many reasons why the Indonesian government has set up the policy to provide English teaching from early ages; from grade 4 or 5 in primary school. Though the inclusion of English in primary schools is only an ‘optional’ and local component of the school curriculum, this will prolong the period of English learning for the students, which used to start from the first year of junior high school. By doing so, it is expected that students will have more exposure to English which in turn will make them more capable of using English for communication.
The policy together with the emergence of many English courses and improved qualifications of the teachers absolutely helps the school to create students with capabilities to communicate in English. However, to same extent students’ speaking skills are still not as good as their abilities in grammar and reading. This is probably the result of too much emphasis on the teaching of grammatical items and reading while less time is given to the teaching of speaking, listening, as well as writing. Students are exposed to more grammar and reading comprehension (vocabulary) sessions since at the end of the program they are supposed to be evaluated by a set of tests which is really grammar and reading comprehension oriented, such as the English section in the university entrance examination test – books. Consequently, school and even college graduates are capable of solving a variety of grammatical problems or expressing themselves through writing, but they seem to have problems expressing themselves in speaking, in other words, they become passive users of English.
The communicative approach for the teaching of English which has been in operation for almost two decades in Indonesian National Education Curriculum does not seem to be effective in the sense that it has failed to help students develop their speaking skill. As a matter of fact, this failure may be caused by a number of factors, such as less supportive environment (both outside and inside the classroom), lack of qualified teaching staff, inappropriate syllabus, and students’ motivation to speak English, which is indeed the focus of this study. Their lack of motivation to engage in English speaking activity may be due to the fact that this skill will not be tested in the final exam. In other words, students do not see any immediate need for English speaking ability. This condition leads them to the study of English in the forms of memorizing English vocabulary for reading comprehension section and familiarizing themselves with necessary grammatical items. The reasons above have inspired us to write some strategies to improve students’ motivation to speak English.
2. Communicative Competence and Speaking Ability
Among the four language skills; listening, speaking, reading and writing to most people mastering the art of speaking is the most important aspects of learning a second language whose success is measure in terms of the ability to carry out a conversation in the language (Nunan, 2000). Communicative competence is believed to be the capacity to use language appropriately in communication on the basis of setting, the roles of the participants, and the nature of the transaction (Richards, 2000). Furthermore, Savignon (1983) offers five characteristics of communicative competence. First, communicative competence is not a static concept, but a dynamic one – it depends on the meaning negotiated between two or more people having a shared – symbolic systems. The next feature of communicative competence is its context – specific nature – in order to understand the context, possess related prior experience, and select appropriate registers and styles. Fourth, competence is not the same as performance; competence refers to a presumed underlying ability, while performance is the overt realization of that ability; competence is what one knows, but performance is what one does; competence is unobservable, while performance is observable; and competence can only be developed, maintained, and evaluated through performance. Finally, communicative competence is relative, not absolute, and it is dependent on the participants’ cooperation involved in the communication. Therefore, it makes sense to speak of degrees of communicative competence.
3. Motivation and Second Language Speaking
There are four main categories of variable associated with second language or foreign language learning; affective variables, cognitive variables, pedagogical variables, and environmental language – relevant variables (Gardner, 1990). The first category is concerned with individuals’ emotional or predisposition characteristics affecting their perceptions and impressions of the language learning context and their opinions of the language itself. Affective variables cover a variety of personality features i.e anxiety and empathy, attitudes and motivation, as well as some types of language learning styles and strategies. The second category refers to the intellectual and verbal skills that learners bring to the language learning situation; these skills help learners acquire and put in retention language material. Intelligence, language aptitude, and proficiency in native language belong to this category. The third category relates to those features of the language learning context involved in the sending of material to the language learners, such as teaching techniques and procedures, teaching aids, teaching materials, and teachers’ characteristics. The fourth category refers to the socio-cultural milieu where the language learning occurs, such as community-shared beliefs about language learning, and the chance to use or experience the language outside the classroom setting. This study will put emphasis on one of the component affective variables, that is, motivation.
Motivation plays a vital role in one’s success in doing something as in learning a second language or foreign language. Motivation greatly affects the degree to which learners take advantages of opportunities to use the language. Whether or not they will personally engage in any learning activity depends on to what extent they are interested or motivated since “motivation decides the extent of learners’ active personal involvement in learning” (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). Ur (1996) proposes motivated learners as those who are willing and eager to make effort in learning activities and to progress; the presence of motivation in learners will certainly affect the teaching and learning in terms of ease, pleasantness as well productivity.
Researchers in linguistics and psychology have made some distinctions concerning the type of motivation in second language learning. Gardner (1985) distinguishes integrate motivation from instrumental motivation in second language learning: the former refers to the desire to learn in order to integrate oneself with the target culture and the latter is concerned with the wish to learn the language for the sake of getting a better job or meet the language requirements (pass the test). He claims that integrate motivation is a crucial factor and more influential than instrumental motivation in language learning. According to Beebe (1988), the drive to be integrates with the target culture is closely related to Speech Accommodation Theory which states that language learners will gain benefit socially and communicatively from closer identification with the target group – the group that communicates in the target language.
Oxford and Shearin (1994) claims that the impacts of attitudes and motivation on language acquisition may vary depending on whether students are learning a second or a foreign language. For example, based on his research, Horwitz (1990) concluded that successful language learners in the Philippines have more predictive instrumental motivation than integrative motivation, while in English-speaking Canadian populations instrumental motivation is less influential than integrative motivation. Furthermore, Oxford, Talbott, and Halleck (1989) as cited by Scarcella and Oxford (1992) note that in an American university, ESL programs are successful because they are instrumentally motivated by career concerns rather than by a burning desire to get to know U. S citizens and culture. Therefore, it is important to consider to the role of geographical as well as geopolitical factors in shaping language attitude and language learning motivation (Dornyei and Clement, 2001).
Another distinction is made between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, both of play an important role in classroom motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the urge to be involved in the learning activity for its own sake, while extrinsic motivation is derived from internal incentives (Ur, 1996). Global intrinsic motivation comes from the learners’ previous attitudes towards the target language; is it worthwhile to learn the language?, or do they like the language and its cultural, political and ethnic associations?. It is obvious that attitudes towards the second language are closely related to motivation to L2 learning as described by Emmitt and Pollock (1998):
Negative attitudes towards the speakers of a language, the language and culture will be detrimental to the learning process. The learner who is positively predisposed towards the second language and culture is more motivated to become like its speakers and is likely to experience greater success that the learner with negative attitude towards the language and its speakers. The learners who feel positive about the language and speakers will actively seek interaction with the speakers, which is basic to language learning.

Brown (1987) classifies motivation in L2 learning into three types: global motivation, situational motivation, and task motivation. The first one is concerned with the learners’ overall orientations towards the learning the target language, the second one is related to the context where learning the target language takes place i.e. classroom and total environment. The third one is one has to do with how the learners approach the specific task in hand. Ur (1996) argues that though learners’ previous educational background and a great number of social factors strongly determine their global motivation, teachers’ attitude may also affect it either unconsciously or consciously through explicit information and persuasion. Furthermore, Ur suggests that teachers invest great efforts so that learners will be motivated in the task by making it as attractive as possible and encouraging them to participate in it, investing efforts and succeeding.
4. Strategies to Motivate Learners to Speak English

Knowing the importance of motivation for learners’ success in language learning, teachers should take into account a great deal of factors that may arouse learners’ motivation. This can be achieved through teaching materials and activities that can give excitement, challenge, and stimulation to learners. In other words, when the teacher presents the material uninterestingly or asks the students to perform boring and monotonous tasks, they will lose their motivation; and consequently they will be prevented from taking advantage of any learning opportunity. Therefore, the teaching of spoken language in the classroom is often perceived as a very difficult task for both the teachers and the students (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000).
A number of strategies can be used to motivate students to participate in the classroom speaking activities. Ur (1996) suggests using topic- and task-based activities. Concerning the topic, she claims that “a good topic is one to which learners can relate using their own experience and knowledge,” and that learners are grouped based on their ability prior to the discussion of the selected topic. According to her, a task based activities should be goal-oriented, requiring the group to achieve an objective usually expressed by an observable result. Comparing the two activities, she advises that oral fluency activities should be based on tasks because tasks create more talk, more even participation, and more enjoyment.
5. Strategies in Developing Learners’ Speaking Skill
As mentioned earlier, speaking skill, the ability to perform oral communication effectively, is concerned as the most important skill of all the four language skills. Therefore, learners’ ability to express themselves through speech needs to be developed by means of appropriate classroom activities. Successful classroom speaking activities are characterized by four components: more learners’ talk, participation, high motivation, and an acceptable language level (Ur, 1996). Furthermore, Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) argue that providing students with an authentic opportunity to express their individual views and apply their knowledge of L2 and foreign language is the most important characteristics of the classroom speaking activity.
According to Scarcella and Oxford (1992), the development of learners’ speaking ability is influenced by three factors: opportunity to interact with more proficient peers and native speakers, fluency and accuracy activities designed to develop their speaking ability, and strategy training. In relation to interaction opportunity, learners need to be introduced to various model speakers through films, visitors/guess speakers, team teaching, and peer teaching. Meaningful and interesting interaction can also be increased by means of paired and small group activities which can greatly multiply the number of chances to speak English. While fluency can be developed by giving learners opportunity to speak out their ideas in unstructured conversational situations, learners’ accuracy can be developed by interaction with more knowledgeable peers and native English speakers as well as certain conversation and group skills. As for the strategies of training of speaking, learners’ speaking skill can be developed by teaching them such strategies as taking turn talking, interrupting, asking for clarification, requesting repletion, slowing down the pace in conversation, and so on (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992).
Finally, Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) state that presenting speaking activities on a continuum from easier to more difficult tasks will certainly help the development of their speaking ability.
For young or beginning-level learners, the teacher may begin with guessing games that require only one-word answers and gradually increases the complexity so that the learners have the opportunity to express themselves using longer discourse units as soon as possible.

They further elaborate two classrooms activities and some important elements that teachers should consider while attempting to develop learners’ speaking skill. Two classroom activities are role-plays and group discussions and the crucial elements cover the use of target language outside the classroom, the use of learners’ input, appropriate feedback, and the analysis of authentic speech via written transcripts.

Promoting Learners' Speaking Ability by Socioaffective Strategies

Chou, Yen-Lin
yenlinch [at] usc.edu
The University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California, USA)

This paper aims to point out the efficiency of socioaffective strategies on Asian students' speaking competence. This paper outlines the level of strategy use by language learners and particularly emphasizes on the use of socioaffective strategies that language learners frequently overlook. By adapting the five phases of the CALLA instructional sequence (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994; Chamot et al., 1999, as cited in Chamot, 1999), the paper illustrates a useful way for language learners (especially Asian learners) and teachers to know how to make good use of soicoaffective strategies in promoting speaking ability.

Introduction

Language learning strategies are broadly conceptualized as cognitive, metacognitive, and socioaffective strategies (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Students consciously or unconsciously employ language learning strategies in language learning. Nevertheless, a number of research studies (Chamot & Küpper, 1989; Goh & Kwah, 1997) have discovered that students rarely utilize socioaffective strategies. These studies provide the evidence that learners overlook the efficiency of socioaffective strategies (Chamot & Küpper, 1989; Goh & Kwah, 1997).

All too often, language learners neglect the effectiveness of socioaffective strategies. Therefore, the integration of socioaffective strategies into classes should be taken into serious consideration. The paper stresses on those following issues:

• What effective applications can language teachers integrate socioaffective strategies into classes in order to promote Asian students' speaking ability?
• What useful implications can language learners and teachers employ when using language learning strategies in language learning?

The Efficiency of Socioaffective Strategies for Asian Students in the ESL Environment

Learning how to speak English fluently and accurately is always a grand task for Asian students who study abroad. Due to the significance of interaction between the instructor and students, students and students at U.S. education institutions, speaking competence can hardly be overvalued. However, because of the limitation of speaking competence and the influence by Confucianism, some Asian students are not inclined to express opinions in class; some appear conservative and uncomfortable, and seldom ask questions that they do not understand (Brice & Roseberry-Mackibbin, 1999; Lim, 2003). In other words, "influenced by Confucianism, students tend to value quietness, and be less opinioned" (Lim, 2003, p.1). Commonly, they rarely ask questions even though they do not understand the content that the instructor lectures, and they seldom express their own opinions (Lim, 2003). Lack of speaking competence prohibits the opportunities for Asian students to interact with the instructor and peers in the ESL classroom. Moreover, due to the difference between Asian and the United States' educational systems, Asian students are likely to express a conflict with peers and the instructor in the ESL classroom (Lacina, 2001).

Because the teaching and learning styles in the United States are student-centered, dynamic and lively way to learning and teaching, discussions and communications naturally occur in the classroom (Lacina, 2001). Without the target language speaking competence and strong motivation, Asian students have a propensity to talk to each other in their native language and murmur when encountering questions (Lim, 2003). These behaviors suggest Asian students have difficulties engaging in the classroom activities and discussions without the speaking competence and motivation. As a result, both language teachers and learners should take into account knowing how to use socioaffective strategies to advance learners' speaking ability and simultaneously help those learners actively engage in the classroom activities.

Researchers (O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, & Küpper, 1989, as cited in Chamot, 1993) have studied the results of language learning strategies that were taught to English as a second language (ESL) learners in numerous different tasks, including vocabulary, listening, and speaking tasks. The outcomes of the studies reveal that language learning strategies are primarily of benefit for the speaking task (Chamot, 1993). It is patently attainable for learners to accomplish the goal of communicative competence in the target L2 by language learning strategies. Additionally, Bialystock (1978) recognizes that when learners communicate in the target L2, they can consciously apply language learning strategies in order to deal with the difficulties they encounter.

As commonly accepted, socioaffective strategies are the strategies that help learners regulate and control emotions, motivations, and attitudes towards learning, as well as help learners learn through contact and interaction with others (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). For example, by means of soicoaffective strategies, language learners can lower anxiety by using some mental techniques and solve problems through teacher-student or peer interactions (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Therefore, socioaffective strategies can be regarded as a useful approach for Asian learners to accelerate their speaking competence and vigorously interact with native speakers and instructors in the ESL classroom.

Various researchers have devoted themselves to identifying the strategies used by students. Some Researchers (Chamot & Küpper, 1989) assert that the cognitive strategies are the most frequently used strategy. Meanwhile, learners apply far fewer metacognitive than cognitive strategies, and seldom employ socioaffective strategies. Some researchers (Goh & Kwah, 1997) report high use of metacognitive strategies and low use of socioaffective strategies; in other word, students regularly employ metacognitive strategies in language learning and rarely utilize socioaffective strategies. The previous research studies have shown a consistent perspective that language learners tend not to use socioaffective strategies in language learning.

Those previous research studies tell us that language learners are apt to use confined learning strategies and socioaffective strategies are frequently overlooked by learners. Consequently, the paper aims to provide Asian students and language teachers with an effective way to successfully promote speaking competence by means of socioaffective strategies.

Applications and Recommendations for Language Teachers and Learners

In order to help students recognize the power of socioaffective strategies, assist Asian students to improve their speaking competence, and stimulate Asian students' motivation to master their speaking competence, educators can constantly carry out the strategy research and integrate socioaffective strategies into class (Kinoshita, 2003). There are five phases that the teacher and learners can follow (adapted from the five phases of the CALLA instructional sequence, Chamot & O'Malley, 1994; Chamot et al., 1999, as cited in Chamot, 1999).

Firstly, the teacher needs to diagnose learners' level of strategy use. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Oxford, 1990, p.293-300) questionnaire can be utilized to determine learners' use of language learning strategies because questionnaires are "cost-effective and easy to administer" (McDonough, 2001, p.2). In these previous research studies, the results show that students seldom use socioaffective strategies. Therefore, the particular attention is needed for the teacher to notice whether learners neglect of utilizing socioaffective strategies.

Secondly, the teacher can offer learners knowledge to know the characteristics, effectiveness, and applications of socioaffective strategies. In this stage, it is essential for the teacher to present each strategy with a specific explanation and help learners know how to use each strategy in a given situation (Chamot, 1999). For example, the teacher can teach learners to try to relax when they are afraid of speaking English. Meanwhile, the teacher is supposed to "weave strategy into regular classroom events in a natural, and comfortable way" (Oxford, 1996, p.39, as cited in McDonough, 2001) and create the supportive and encouraging environment for language learners.

Thirdly, in order to offer hands-on practice for Asian students to use socioaffective strategies, collaborative works with classmates are effective in this phase (Chamot, 1999). The teacher assigns students into several small groups consisting of at least one native speaker. Learners in each group can exchange opinions of different cultures, share their learning experiences, as well as complete a certain task. Another application in this stage is to encourage Asian students to have an individual meeting with the teacher. During the meeting, the teacher can have relaxed conversations with Asian students and try to understand the difficulties they encounter while studying abroad. The teacher provides opportunities for Asian students to express their feelings in English and to practice their English-speaking skills that are the powerful ways in which to accomplish the use of socioaffective strategies.

Fourthly, giving Asian students chances to evaluate the usefulness of socioaffective strategies is critical in this phase (Chamot, 1999). The teacher can apply group or individual interviews, questionnaire, and open-ended questions for Asian learners to express their feelings towards using socioaffective strategies (Chamot, 1999). For example, the teacher can ask Asian learners "Do you think talking to native speakers can improve your English speaking competence?" Therefore, both students and the teacher can evaluate whether socioaffective strategies affirmatively influence Asian students' speaking competence and motivation or not.

Finally, the optimal goal of language learning strategies is to guide students to become better, autonomous, and confident learners (Chamot, 1999). In order to encourage students to depend more on themselves instead of the teacher, the teacher needs to ask students to use those effective socioaffective strategies in the classroom contexts and in daily life as well. Obviously, it takes time for learners to know how to successfully incorporate socioaffective strategies in language learning. Language teachers need to give language learning strategy instruction patiently, and learners are required to use the strategy consistently. It is hoped that learners can utilize socioaffective strategies whenever they speak English even without the teachers' supervision.

Implications for Language Teachers and Learners

First, a practical implication is that Asian students are supposed to know how to use a wide variety of language learning strategies, as well as understand how to use language learning strategies flexibly. Language learners tend to use confined and fixed language learning strategies (Fedderholdt, 1998). In language learning, it is indispensable for learners to reflect on their own learning process, and habitually estimate whether the use of language learning strategies is effective for improving their language proficiency or not (Fedderholdt, 1998). From previous research studies (Chamot & Küpper, 1989; Goh & Kwah, 1997), it is undoubted that learners overlook the efficiency of socioaffective strategies. Consequently, language learners are supposed to put particular attention to noticing whether they disregard the use of socioaffective strategies. Meanwhile, language teachers should concentrate on integrating language learning strategy training in class and explain the effectiveness of each strategy (Chamot, 1999). Every student has potential to become a successful learner and achieve the success of language tasks when obtaining the knowledge of acting wisely in choosing which strategies to integrate.

Second, another implication is that applying language learning strategies in the language classrooms should be treated as a long-term instruction. There is no positive variation between learners' speaking competence and the use of socioaffective strategies in a short period of the treatment. The successful acquisition of the speaking competence can be achieved only on condition that language teachers give the strategy use instruction patiently, and learners employ socioaffective strategies continuously.

Finally yet importantly, special efforts should be concentrated on helping improve Asian students' motivation to learn English-speaking competence. Language teachers can provide Asian students with practical practice and reinforcement of the use of socioaffective strategies (Kinoshita, 2003), such as co-operating with classmates and teachers. These activities increase learners' motivation and efforts to master English-speaking competence. Language learners can integrate socioaffective strategies not only in the classroom contexts but also in everyday life (Chamot, 1999). Looking for opportunities to have conversations with native speakers, encouraging oneself with a reward when performing well in speaking English, and asking questions in English can effectively help learners to stimulate their motivation to master English-speaking competence.

Conclusion

For promoting English ability, receiving higher education, and developing the international perspectives, the population of Asian students has increased steadily in American colleges and universities recently. It is clear that Asian students bear much anxiety and pressure while studying abroad (Parr et al., 1992). According to plenty of research studies (Parr et al., 1992), international students with better language proficiency can adjust to the foreign environment more easily. Therefore, how to advance learners' language proficiency has always been a major mission in the profession of TESOL.

From this article, it is obvious that socioaffective strategies can be considered as an effective approach to accelerate Asian learners' speaking competence as well as their learning motivation. Both language teachers and learners are supposed to evaluate whether socioaffective strategies are being overlooked or not. Moreover, socioaffective strategies should be fully integrated into classroom contexts and everyday learning. Only when Asian students know who to make good use of socioaffective strategies in both the ESL classroom environment and everyday life can they improve the speaking competence and motivation.

References

• Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-83.
• Brice, A. & Roseberry-Mckibbin, C. (1999). Turning frustration into success for English language learners. Educational Leadership, 56(7), 53-55.
• Chamot, A. & Küpper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
• Chamot, A. (1993). Student responses to learning strategy instruction in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 308-320.
• Chamot, A. (1999). Learning strategy instruction in the English classroom. Retrieved June 2, 1999, from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/99/jun/chamot
• Fedderholdt, K. (1998). Using diaries to develop language learning strategies. Retrieved April 20, 1998 from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/98/apr/
• Goh, C., & Kwah, P.F. (1997). Chinese ESL students' learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 39-53.
• Kinoshita, C. (2003). Integrating language learning strategy instruction into ESL/EFL lessons. The Internet TESL Journal, 11(4), 1-6. Retrieved April 10, 2003, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kinoshita-Strategy.html
• Lacina, J. (2001). Cultural kickboxing in the ESL classroom: Encouraging active participation. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(10), 1-3. Retrieved October 6, 2001, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lacina-Kickboxing
• Lim, H.Y. (2003). Successful classroom discussions with adult Korean ESL/FL learners. The Internet TESL Journal, 11(5), 1-3. Retrieved May 12, 2003, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lim-AdultKoreans.html
• McDonough, K. (2001). Promoting self-regulation in foreign language learners. Clearing House, 74(6), 323-326.
• O'Malley, M. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
• Parr, G., Bradley, L., & Bingi, R. (1992). Concerns and feelings of international students. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 20-25.

---

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 9, September 2004
http://iteslj.org/

---

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Chou-Socioaffective.html

This article is © Copyright 2000 Pilgrims Ltd. The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction

SPEAK EASY
How to ease Students into oral Production
secondary and adult
Jane Arnold
University of Seville, Spain

Menu:

1.Speaking in the language classroom
2.Foreign language learning, identity and anxiety
3. Pronunciation and speaking
4. Disposition
5. Speaking eaier: an affective matter
6.Voice
7. Listening
8. Speaking takes time
9. Creating an atmosphere for speaking
10. Put meaning into speaking
11. Appendix
12. References


Imagine being in Chicago in the 1920’s, during the Prohibition era. You might find yourself on a dark street, at the back door of a building, a Speak-easy. Inside there would be drinking and gambling. But not everyone can get inside. To get the door to open you have to “speak easy”, to say a password. However, one might suspect a further meaning for the term and imagine that inside the Speak-easy, once a person has had some of the then forbidden drinks, it might be easier to speak.

Speaking in the language classroom

Our foreign language classrooms are a long way from this scene but we are also concerned with speaking. But what exactly is this activity that we often take so much for granted yet find so difficult when learning to do it in a foreign language? Speaking is using background and linguistic knowledge to create an oral message that will be meaningful for the intended audience (Chastain 1988). It is taking thoughts and putting them into words and saying them, with much of this process being done unconsciously. There are, of course, special characteristics that distinguish oral production, speech, from written production. Speaking is not writing that we say aloud. It is greatly conditioned by the time factor: it involves language produced spontaneously with false starts, repetitions, self-corrections and, under normal circumstances, it disappears, leaving no record but traces in memory. Another important distinction is that it is directed at a specific audience in a face-to-face situation where we can make use of the here-and-now and we can get immediate feedback from the listener(s).

The speaking skill is so central to our thinking about language learning that when we refer to speaking a language we often mean knowing a language. For example, we might hear some one say “Ask Olga to help you with your translation of Tolstoy – she speaks Russian”, where what is really mean is knowing the language and the skill of speaking is not involved at all. You can, of course, know a language but not actually be able to speak it, just as you could know the rules for playing football but not be able to put that knowledge to practical use by playing the game yourself.

Bygate (1987:5) points out that speaking involves two different types of skills – basic, lower level motor-perceptive skills, such as how to produce phonemes or use irregular verb forms, and the decisions and strategies used in communication such as what to say, how to say it (considering the conditioning factors of the context as is dealt with in pragmatics) and what to do if problems arise to negotiate meaning.

In the classroom a wide variety of activities pass for speaking. On the one hand we have an exchange such as this:

Teacher: Roberto, what did you do yesterday?
Student: I goed to Málaga with my cousin to meet Antonio Banderas.
Teacher: No, you went to Málaga. María, what did you do yesterday?

This is an example of what I would call “Test Speak”. Here the teacher is only concerned with practicing grammar and has missed an extraordinary opportunity to develop communication on a topic which emerged and which would be of great interest to the class. Kundu describes the situation in many classrooms: “Most of the time we talk in class, hardly ever giving our students a chance to talk, except when we occasionally ask them questions. Even on such occasions, because we insist on answers in full sentences and penalize them for their mistakes, they are always on the defensive” (Kundu in Lynch 1996:109).

Another possibility is “Talk TO” speaking. In this case, we have the teacher talking to the class – giving a lecture, explaining grammar points. This may be useful as it provides students with information and with language input, but to develop the skill of speaking in the second language, we need not just “talking TO” but also “talking WITH”. It is this, establishing opportunities for true interaction, “Real Speak”, that should be the focus for developing speaking in the foreign language classroom. Frank and Rinvolucri (1991:6) stress the importance of bringing in this type of speaking, which is not always a part of the coursebook:

If we consider the students in our classes to be more interesting than the rather cardboard characters found in the traditional coursebook, it follows that a real need exists for activities where the students are invited to speak to each other and express their ideas... Practicing structures in this very personal series of contexts is much more emotionally real than practising them in the make-believe world of a textbook..

Foreign language learning, identity and anxiety

One way that foreign language learning differs from other subject matters such as history or mathematics is that it is connected much more strongly to the learner’s identity. Williams (1994:77) affirms that “there is no question that learning a foreign language is different to learning other subjects. This is mainly because of the social nature of such a venture. Language, after all, belongs to a person’s whole social being; it is part of one’s identity” and, regarding speaking, this is crucial because language “is used to convey this identity to other people”. Our self-image becomes more vulnerable when our expression is reduced to infantilized levels. This situation inevitably leads to anxiety.

Many researchers have pointed out that the skill producing most anxiety is speaking (MacIntyre and Gardner 1991). Thus it would seem that in a second or foreign language context speaking is definitely NOT easy. This anxiety comes in part from a lack of confidence in our general linguistic knowledge but if only this factor were involved, all skills would be affected equally. What distinguishes speaking is the public nature of the skill, the embarrassment suffered from exposing our language imperfections in front of others. The possibility of negative affective feedback from the teacher can increase the anxiety significantly.

Pronunciation and speaking

Oral production, as we have seen, is open to peer scrutiny, but so would be written production which is, for example, put up around the classroom after a writing activity. In both case, imperfection is evident to those who are exposed to our linguistic production, be they listeners or readers. I would venture to say, though, that even if written production were exhibited with the errors corrected in intimidating bright red ink, it would still be less anxiety-provoking than speaking. It seems that, even more than our difficulties with grammar or semantics, it is often our concern with pronunciation that makes it difficult for us to speak..

The relationship of pronunciation and speaking is obvious; we cannot speak a language without pronouncing it. However, in work with speaking in the classroom, pronunciation is not always given sufficient prominence, leading to numerous difficulties for speaking. Referring to pronunciation problems of language learners, Morley (1994:67) points out that “it is well documented that speakers with poor intelligibility have long-range difficulties in developing into confident and effective oral communicators; some never do”. Indeed, our pronunciation can produce communication static both cognitively – creating an obstacle to our listeners’ comprehension – and affectively – leaving us with inhibiting feelings about interaction. Of all the aspects related to the speaking skill, pronunciation appears to have the closest link to our self-concept, whether we have positive or negative feelings about hearing ourselves sound “foreign”. According to Beebe (1978:3), “the very act of pronouncing, not just the words we transmit, is an essential part of what we communicate about ourselves as people”.

The importance of the identity/pronunciation relationship can be seen not only in the anxiety that is produced when students are not able to pronounce well. It is also true that many students, especially adolescents, with excellent, even nearly native pronunciation skills, confess to making an effort to pronounce poorly in order not to seem “strange” to their classmates. At least as regards pronunciation, the critical age of puberty in language learning could have to do at least as much with psycho-social factors as with neurological limitations. On this matter Stevick (1996) refers to Krashen, who provided evidence that acquiring a good accent in a foreign language has less to do with neurological factors and more with social aspects relating to the individual at the time of puberty. Hill (1970) pointed out how our pronunciation relates to several aspects of our identity in some cultures. In these cases it follows that identity factors will make it much harder for adults to acquire good pronunciation.

Interestingly, Guiora found that one predictor of good pronunciation had nothing to do directly with things more usually associated with phonetic ability, such as a good ear for sounds. In his research (Guiora et al 1972a and 1972b) he concluded that one factor that correlated to accurate pronunciation was empathy. When learners are able to “put themselves into someone else’s shoes” – which involves appreciating the identity of another person – it seems that this facilitates a temporary narrowing of the ego boundaries (Ehrman 1999), the limits we establish between what is “us” and “not us”, making it easier to hear ourselves – and have others hear us – sounding “foreign”.

Disposition towards speaking

Whether with basic pronunciation aspects or with higher level components of speaking, practice in pre-communicative and communicative activities (Littlewood 1992) in the classroom is important for any degree of fluency to develop. However, practice depends on willingness to speak. Students have three main alternatives regarding speaking: to withdraw and refuse to speak, to speak because the teacher requires it and to speak because they really want to. Chomsky (1988:181) emphasizes that “the truth of the matter is that about 99 percent of teaching is making the students feel interested in the material”; in this case, we could say, teaching for fluency in speaking relies largely on making students “feel interested” in speaking. One of our main functions, then, in working with speaking is to encourage more students to choose the third option, to speak because they want to. However, as we have seen, speaking a foreign language can be hard. So how can we make it easier?

Speaking easier: an affective matter

A series of studies by Guiora and his colleagues (Guiora et al 1972a) provided one possible solution which might sound attractive but which has some obvious difficulties for broad implementation. They found that pronunciation improved by giving subjects an optimal amount of alcohol, which lowered inhibitions yet did not affect cognitive control. In a later study (Guiora et al 1980) valium was used but with inconclusive results; what was shown was that the person administering the test made a significant difference for the learners. As Brown (1994) suggests, from the days of these early studies, language teaching methdology has increasingly sought to mitigate the effects of learner inhibitions and defense mechanisms by creating classrooms where language learners feel comfortable enough to take the risks involved in speaking. Lynch (1996:113) recognizes the importance of the classroom climate for developing successful skills in communication: “Learners are not neutral pawns in the teacher’s game, but individuals with positive and negative feelings about themselves and others. One of the skills of teaching is knowing how to create a positive atmosphere”.

Making speaking easier seems to have more to do with the affective side of the learning process than with the cognitive. Stevick (1996:154) sees no magic cure for speaking anxiety but he narrates a change in his own teaching as it evolved. In his early years, like many young teachers, he focused mainly on linguistic content. As he came to maturity as a teaching professional, he found that at the beginning of a course it is more important to focus on students’ attitudes. Instead of asking himself “What have they learned?”, he would start out wondering “How are they learning?”. He was putting the affective horse before the cognitive cart. In a landmark comment Stevick (1980:4) has provided what for many has been a key understanding about the language learning process: “Success [in language teaching] depends less on materials, techniques and linguistic analyses and more on what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom”, in other words, the affective factors.

Voice

Looking at some specific ways to make speaking easier, on the most basic level we might consider first of all the main channel for pronunciation, the voice. As Maley (2000:vii) has said, “we are our voices. Our individual voiceprints are every bit as distinctive as, and a great deal more public than our fingerprints... Others judge us by them. It is through our voices that we tell others who – and how – we are” (emphasis added). Teachers are not far behind singers, actors, news broadcasters in their need for awareness of voice. Maley (2000:vii) states that “by developing a confident, natural speaking voice, which can sustain prolonged use, we have the capacity to change our relationships with our students”, and this can affect the results in our classrooms since “through better understanding and control of our own voices, we can share the benefits of voicework with our students. This has the double benefit of making them both more confident and more motivated to learn”.

To begin to work with students on voice Rinvolucri (in Maley 2000) suggests having them do the following activity to develop awareness of their voice. Have students fill out the questionnaire and then compare their answers with others.



MY VOICE
How many different ways have I listened to my own voice?
On a tape recording?
On a video film?
In my own head as I speak?
On an answering machine?
With a microphone?
Any others?
Am I a fast or slow speaker of my own language?
When do I speak faster? And when slower?
Do I tend to to speak softly or loudly?
When I speak in English do I change the speed or the loudness?
What is different about my voice when I speak in English?
Is my voice different at different times of the day?
Has anyone every commented on how my voice sounds to them?
Who is my favorite voice? (actor, singer, friend...)
What is it that makes their voice attractive to me?
(adapted from Rinvolucri in Maley 2000)


Further awareness work could be done with video. Select a short section of a film with interesting voices and have students only listen to it and try to discover as much as possible about the speakers just from their voices. Are they young or old? How are they feeling? What kind of relationship do they have? Then they can watch the video to see if their mental pictures were appropriate. They can also decide if what Underhill (1999:134) refers to as speakers first voice (their words) and second voice (tone, volume, speed, body language, gestures...) are communicating the same message.

As voice carries pronunciation, it can be useful to deal with it directly in the language classroom and learners generally find voice exercises fun. They can choose a favorite word in English and in pairs try to say it to each other in different ways. The teacher can announce the changes: an emotion (happy, angry...) or other variation (loud, fast...). Working with video, they can watch a short conversation, transcribe it or use a prepared transcription and then imitate the way the actors speak, trying to match their voices as closely as possible. Focusing on trying to imitate the voice they have heard may make them be less worried about making mistakes with their pronunciation, leading to more natural sounding English.

Listening

A second step in making speaking easier is has to do with listening. Speaking is, except in special cases, such as making speeches, an interactive process and, as such, it is imposssible to separate speaking from listening. Even though our main concern may be promoting speaking we might remember Epictetus’ advice: “Nature gave us one tongue and two ears so we could hear twice as much as we speak”. Tannen (1989:12) notes that “conversation is not a matter of two (or more) people alternatively taking the role of speaker and listener but rather that both speaking and listening include elements and traces of the other”. To encourage speaking, be a good listener. As teachers it can be very helpful for us to practice active listening. Active listening encourages us to do the following: empathize with the speaker, listen with attention to what the speaker says (both the verbal and nonverbal language), show understanding nonverbally, respond nonjudgementally, echoing in different words what you hear or sense, stay with the speaker, keeping yourself out. We avoid agreeing or disagreeing, offering opinions or advice, interrupting the speaker’s flow of thought.

To bring home to students the importance of listening for speaking, Hadfield (1992) suggests this activity. Have students do a role-play in pairs. Each gets a card with detailed instructions. Student A is to tell B about his/her problems with his/her flatmates. B doesn’t listen, looking out the window, avoiding eye contact, etc. Then the pairs get a new set of cards. This time A tells about another problem but now B is an active listener, paying close attention, giving verbal and nonverbal feedback. Afterwards, students discuss how they felt in each situation. This activity makes evident what research (Blubaugh 1969; Höweler 1972, cited in Stevick 1976) has shown, that agressive or unfriendly listener behavior influences fluency in speaking in a negative manner.

Speaking takes time

A third consideration for facilitating speaking is to have patience. Many theorists (Krashen 1982) and teaching methods (Total Physical Response, Silent Way) have stressed the importance of letting speaking emerge when the learner is ready, just as when learning our first language we spoke only after we had had a good deal of exposure to the language and felt ready to speak. Underhill suggests leaving time for students to use the “inner workbench”, to process language internally before having to “go public”. Working with pronunciation, he proposes relying on students’ ability to retain internal images of sounds. The teacher says a word or phrase, learners let it echo in their minds for a few seconds in the voice of the speaker, then in their own voice, then they say it silently, then finally aloud (Underhill 1994:114).

In this respect, a technique from Cooperative Learning called “think-pair-share” is helpful (Kagan 1992). Students are asked to do something individually (write down as many things as you know about Australia, think of two ways to bring about a more peaceful world), then they talk about the topic with a partner and only after having had time to think alone and to talk in pairs do they share some of their ideas with the whole group. With this opportunity for previous preparation, they know what they want to say, have practiced it and thus speaking is easier.

Creating an atmosphere for speaking

A fourth way to facilitate speaking is with its concern for creating an atmosphere of support and interdependence. In this respect, Cooperative Learning is an approach to general education which, when applied in language teaching, can greatly benefit the development of speaking. As learners work together and get to know each other better, speaking is less intimidating. Many of the types of activities of Cooperative Learning are effective preparation for real interaction, and they have built-in mechanisms to solve some common communication problems in a FL classrom. In Talking Chips, for example, each person in a small group discussion task has a set of chips (or slips of paper) and for the given task when someone wants to talk he or she must put a chip in the center. The same person cannot talk again until everyone has contributed a chip and a comment so this prevents students from remaining silent and avoids conversational monopoly. Casal (2001) gives each student a set of chips with specific types of responses they can make, using each only once:


EXPRESS A DOUBT
ANSWER A QUESTION
ASK A QUESTION
GIVE AN IDEA
ASK FOR CLARIFICATION
CLARIFY AN IDEA
RESPOND TO AN IDEA
SUMMARIZE
ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION
SAY SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT SOMEONE’S IDEA

Learners would have been shown several ways to make the different responses and in this activity they would have the opportunity to develop important convesation sub-skills.

Put meaning into speaking

It is now commonly recognized that emphasizing personal meaning provides great support for language learning. When learners merely repeat phrases in a mechanical way which is unconnected to their present reality (a role-play where Student A works in a pet shop and Student B comes in to buy a goldfish), there is no real engagement with the language and, therefore, little deep learning. This type of activity does not encourage students to speak as they are very quick to sense the falseness of the situation and its irrelevance for them. So another way to make speaking easier is to make it meaningful to students so they will want to talk. Humanistic language teaching (see Moskowitz 1978) has inspired a number of resource books (Rinvolucri 1984; Davis, Garside and Rinvolucri 1998; Puchta and Schratz 1993; Hadfield 1992, for example) which can help teachers find ways to supplement their course books with activities designed to start from the learners’ experience and to let them express their own meanings.

To make learning more relevant, the dogme movement in language teaching advises using as the basis for the language classroom the reality of the participants and their concerns and interests. This is somewhat more demanding on the teacher in the beginning but it opens up much more productive possibilities for interaction than those generally provided by textbooks. Reflecting on teaching listening comprehension, one methodology student at the University of Seville wrote the following in his course journal:

Less use of tape-recorders must be encouraged and more improvising in the TL. One of our professors last year used to tell us a personal anecdote in order to make the class more relaxing, interesting. It was obvious that the class enjoyed it.

Similarly, offering learners the possibility of speaking from where they are as individuals can make a great difference in their willingness to speak and their fluency. As Rinvolucri (2001) says, language is a question of being and in general course books at most lead students to “have” the language, not “be” in it. If we search for ways to make personal what is done in the classroom, make it come alive, students will be able to “be” in the target language. This importance of personal relevance can also be seen in oral examination situations where students asked to speak on a topic which doesn’t interest them generally do poorer than when speaking about something they feel involved with.

Conclusions

A check list of some of the things we can do to make speaking easy might include, among others, the following suggestions:

Let students begin to speak when they are ready. Then give them a chance to speak – less teacher talk that is obtrusive and unnecessary and more room for student talk. Similarly, let students have time to process what they want to say before having to speak in front of others.
Aim for an appropriate level of difficulty and risk with speaking activities.
Don’t insist on perfect pronunciation, complete sentences, near native grammar. Leave most accuracy work for other moments.
After any pre-communicative exercises needed to prepare learners, be sure to focus on real communication tasks, not excuses for language practice.
Expect learners to be successful. Teachers expectations can have great influence, positively or negatively, on learners.
When students speak, listen to the person, not only to the language.

With measures such as these, we can help our students to find the password to get the door leading to communication to open up for them; we can help them to “speak easy”.


APPENDIX

Practical steps towards facilitation: The way you speak

Can you begin to notice more about the way you speak to your class? Start by noticing your words. Do you say more than you need? Do you repeat yourself? Can you be succinct? Try to notice this at the moment you do it, not just in retrospect.
For a few days notice features of your speech other than your words. For example observe the tone of your voice, including intonation, timbre, softness, harshness. Notice the volume at which you speak, and also how fast you typically speak. What causes this? How do the tone, volume and speed compare with the way you speak in the staffroom? And with your family? And with your friends?
And what do you tend to do with silences? Fill them? Avoid them? Enjoy them? Worry that the class will get out of control during them? I find it helpful to look on silences and pauses as part of the words, rather than as something separate. In general what other messages are carried by the way you speak?
I find it useful to distinguish between my first voice (my choice of words) and my second voice (everything else including my volume, tone, speed, body language, gesture, transmission of feelings). Then I can ask myself helpfully provocative questions such as "Do my first voice and second voice say the same thing?" and "If not, what is the effect on my students?" "Which is the one I really mean, and which is the one they really listen to?" Can you try to monitor both your first and second voice? If you can, try to notice when they say the same thing, and when they give different messages.
From time to time during the day, when giving explanations or instructions in your class, make some subtle changes just to confirm to yourself that you have choices in addition to your habits. You could experiment with any of these: Be a bit more succinct, then stop and listen. Notice if you get carried away with the delightful sound of your own voice! Leave a few short pauses during which you listen and observe. Deliberately lengthen your existing pauses by just a second or so. Be behind your voice so that you speak with the force and warmth of your full presence. Speak just a little more softly than usual. These are just examples, but better still, experiment with small changes of your own. (adapted from Adrian Underhill 1999 in J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)

References

Beebe, L. 1978. Teaching pronunciation: Why we should be. Idiom, 9, 2-3.
Blubaugh, J. A. 1969. Effects of positive and negative audience feedback on selected variables of speech behavior. Speech Monographs, 36, 131-7.
Brown, H. D. 1994. Principles of Language Teaching and Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Casal, S. 2001. Real communication in the English classroom. Paper presented at the TESOL-Spain conference, Seville, March 30-April 1.
Chastain, K. 1988. Developing Second-Language Skills. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, N. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davis, P., B. Garside and M. Rinvolucri. 1998. Ways of Doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. 1999. Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguities. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frank, C. and M. Rinvolucri. 1991. Grammar in Action Again: Awareness Activities for Language Learning. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Guiora, A, R.C. Brannon and C. Y. Dull. 1972b. Empathy and second language learning. Language Learning, 22, 111-130.
Guiora, A., W. R. Acton, R. Erard and F. W. Strickland. 1980. The effects of benzodiazepine (valium) on permeability of ego boundaries. Language Learning 30, 351-363.
Guiora, A., B. Beit-Hallami, R. C. Brannon, C. Y. Dull y T. Scovel. 1972a. The effects of experimentally induced changes in ego states on pronunciation ability in second language: An exploratory study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 13, 5, 421-28.
Hadfield, J. 1992. Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, J. 1970. Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance revisited. Language Learning, 20, 237-248.
Höweler, M. 1972. Diversity of word usage as a stress indicator in an interview situation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1, 3, 243-8.
Kagan, S. 1992. Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Littlewood, W. 1992. Teaching Oral Communication: A Methodological Framework. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lynch, T. 1996. Communication in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P. and R. C. Gardner. 1991. Investigating language class anxiety using the focused essay technique. Modern Language Journal, 75 (3), 296-304.
Maley, A. 2000. The Language Teacher’s Voice. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Morley, J. 1994. A multidimensional curriculum design for speech-pronunciation instruction. In J. Morley (ed.) Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Moskowitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class: A Sourcebook on Humanistic Techniques. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Puchta, H. and M. Schratz. 1993. Teaching Teenagers. Canterbury and Harlow: Pilgrims Longman.
Rinvolucri, M. 1984. Grammar Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. 2001. Humanizing textbooks. Paper presented at the CEP conference: El ser humano y el elemento afectivo, Malaga, September 10-13, 2001.
Stevick, E. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Stevick, E. 1980. Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Stevick, E. 1996. Memory, Meaning & Method (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Stevick, E. 1998. Working with Teaching Methods: What’s at Stake. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Underhill, A. 1994. Sound Foundations. Oxford: Heinemann.
Underhill, A. 1999. Facilitation in language teaching. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, M. 1994. Motivation in foreign and second language learning: An interactive perspe

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html

http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_1/aspects.html

Motivation as a Contributing Factor in Second Language Acquisition

Jacqueline Norris-Holt
jacquijapan [at] hotmail.com
Aichi Shukutoku High School (Nagoya, Japan)

Integrative Motivation

Motivation has been identified as the learner's orientation with regard to the goal of learning a second language (Crookes and Schmidt 1991). It is thought that students who are most successful when learning a target language are those who like the people that speak the language, admire the culture and have a desire to become familiar with or even integrate into the society in which the language is used (Falk 1978). This form of motivation is known as integrative motivation. When someone becomes a resident in a new community that uses the target language in its social interactions, integrative motivation is a key component in assisting the learner to develop some level of proficiency in the language. It becomes a necessity, in order to operate socially in the community and become one of its members. It is also theorised that "integrative motivation typically underlies successful acquisition of a wide range of registers and a nativelike pronunciation" (Finegan 1999:568).

In an EFL setting such as Japan it is important to consider the actual meaning of the term "integrative." As Benson (1991) suggests, a more appropriate approach to the concept of integrative motivation in the EFL context would be the idea that it represents the desire of the individual to become bilingual, while at the same time becoming bicultural. This occurs through the addition of another language and culture to the learner's own cultural identity. As Japan is predominantly a monocultural society, opportunities to use the target (L2) language in daily verbal exchanges are relatively restricted. There is also limited potential for integrating into the target language community.

Instrumental Motivation

In contrast to integrative motivation is the form of motivation referred to as instrumental motivation. This is generally characterised by the desire to obtain something practical or concrete from the study of a second language (Hudson 2000). With instrumental motivation the purpose of language acquisition is more utilitarian, such as meeting the requirements for school or university graduation, applying for a job, requesting higher pay based on language ability, reading technical material, translation work or achieving higher social status. Instrumental motivation is often characteristic of second language acquisition, where little or no social integration of the learner into a community using the target language takes place, or in some instances is even desired.

Integrative vs Instrumental Motivation

While both integrative and instrumental motivation are essential elements of success, it is integrative motivation which has been found to sustain long-term success when learning a second language (Taylor, Meynard and Rheault 1977; Ellis 1997; Crookes et al 1991). In some of the early research conducted by Gardner and Lambert integrative motivation was viewed as being of more importance in a formal learning environment than instrumental motivation (Ellis 1997). In later studies, integrative motivation has continued to be emphasised, although now the importance of instrumental motivation is also stressed. However, it is important to note that instrumental motivation has only been acknowledged as a significant factor in some research, whereas integrative motivation is continually linked to successful second language acquisition. It has been found that generally students select instrumental reasons more frequently than integrative reasons for the study of language. Those who do support an integrative approach to language study are usually more highly motivated and overall more successful in language learning.

One area where instrumental motivation can prove to be successful is in the situation where the learner is provided with no opportunity to use the target language and therefore, no chance to interact with members of the target group. Lukmani (1972) found that an instrumental orientation was more important than an integrative orientation in non-westernized female learners of L2 English in Bombay. The social situation helps to determine both what kind of orientation learners have and what kind is most important for language learning. Braj Kachru (1977, cited in Brown 2000) also points out that in India, where English has become an international language, it is not uncommon for second language learners to be successful with instrumental purposes being the underlying reason for study.

Brown (2000) makes the point that both integrative and instrumental motivation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Learners rarely select one form of motivation when learning a second language, but rather a combination of both orientations. He cites the example of international students residing in the United States, learning English for academic purposes while at the same time wishing to become integrated with the people and culture of the country.

Motivation is an important factor in L2 achievement. For this reason it is important to identify both the type and combination of motivation that assists in the successful acquisition of a second language. At the same time it is necessary to view motivation as one of a number of variables in an intricate model of interrelated individual and situational factors which are unique to each language learner.

Suggestions for Teachers

In order to make the language learning process a more motivating experience instructors need to put a great deal of thought into developing programs which maintain student interest and have obtainable short term goals. At university level this may include, as suggested by Berwick et al. (1989), any number of foreign exchange programs with other universities, overseas "homestay" programs, or any other activities which may help to motivate students to improve their target language proficiency. At the secondary school level, and especially in the senior years, this task may prove more difficult. With the focus of study being directed toward university entrance students may have little desire or indeed motivation to improve language proficiency. For the foreign language teacher this may result in a certain level of frustration due to the general lack of interest and commitment by some students. Teachers need to create interesting lessons in which the students attention is gained. This can sometimes be accomplished by the use of teaching strategies which are not often called upon by other teachers in mainstream subject areas. Encouraging students to become more active participants in a lesson can sometimes assist them to see a purpose for improving their communication skills in the target language. Successful communication using the target language should result in students feeling some sense of accomplishment. Research in the area suggests L2 achievement strongly affects learner motivation (Strong 1983, cited in Ellis 1997).

ASPECTS OF LEARNING ESP AT UNIVERSITY Galina K

Galina Kavaliauskienė

Universitas Studiorum Polona Vilnensis

Aguonų 22, LT-2002 Vilnius, Lithuania

Introduction

This paper discusses the findings of the research into the aspects of learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at Universitas Studiorum Polana Vilnensis.

The investigations were carried out over a period of three academic years - from 1998 to 2001. Research involved gathering data on learners’ views on their learning needs and expectations, on encountered difficulties in learning at university, on the ranking of preferences for language skills, i.e. the degree of importance of proficiency in different areas of language, and collecting and analysing learners’ self-assessment data throughout the course.

The techniques of gathering data included different types of questionnaires administered to learners at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the courses.

The aim of research was to consider the issues of learning English on a university level and explore the ways of improving the quality of learning.

Research Background

It is common knowledge that although students spend 8 years studying English as a school subject, this is not sufficient for them to achieve an intermediate level of proficiency in language.

The data on the proficiency of newcomers to USPV gathered over four years were presented in the previous paper (Kavaliauskienė, 2002) The findings can be summarised as follows: 44 per cent of newcomers to USPV are false beginners and minimal users; 24 per cent are very limited users, 27 per cent are limited users, and 5 per cent are at post-elementary level.

The knowledge and usage of English that school leavers possess gives rise to concern. Students find it very hard to cope with learning ESP basically because of lack of the General English skills. The ESP course introduces learners to English for economics, i.e. the kind of language they will face in their future profession. Learners have to master terms used in economics, to be able to understand formal professional texts and authentic recordings of lectures and produce formal pieces in writing as well as to be able to make professional presentations and participate in discussions on contemporary economic issues.

The natural question that occurs is why school leavers do not possess adequate language skills, and an attempt has been made to tackle this question.

Learners’ Experience at School

Students’ experience of learning English at achool was investigated formally - through administering a questionnaire - and talking to students informally outside classroom hours. The questionnaire referred to learners’ perceptions about studying English as a school subject as well as to their attitudes to learning it and experience they had before entering university. There have been 23 respondents, and the findings are presented in percentage in the Table 1.

Examining the learners’ answers in the Table 1, some interesting conclusions can be drawn. More than two thirds of students enjoyed learning English, and 86% liked their teachers. Although 71% of students learned phrases and communicative language skills, 86% of them had never had a chance to use English outside the classroom. A vast majority of students liked English and wanted to learn it, but 43% were too shy to practise it with their peers. Staggering 86% were not stimulated by their classes. This factor is particularly disturbing, since motivation in learning is a major point for success. Although schoolchildren not only learned vocabulary and grammar rules, but their classes did not focus on oral skills (57%). In some schools there were up to 22 learners in language groups. A simple calculation shows that in large classes the student’s talking time would be limited to 2 minutes in 45 minute class provided there was no teacher’s talking time which is unrealistic. In reality, there is a substantial gap between teacher’s and students’ talking time in secondary schools – teachers use up half of the classroom time for instruction in a foreign language class. Even given an opportunity to use a target language in pair or small group work, a vast majority of schoolchildren feel insecure and use a mother tongue instead. The lack of speaking practice deprives learners of developing adequate orall skills.

TABLE 1. Learners’ experience of learning English at school.

Questions	Yes	No
The classes did not focus on oral skills	57%	43%
You only learned grammar rules	43%	57%
You only learned vocabulary	-	100%
You learned phrases and communication skills	71%	29%
You were too shy to talk to your friends in English	43%	57%
You were not stimulated by classes	86%	14%
You were not stimulated by classes	71%	29%
You never had a chance to speak out of class	86%	14%
You liked your teacher of English	86%	14%
You had 3 4 5 classes per week	86% -4 lessons	14% -3 lessons
The number of students in your class	86% - 12 stud.	14% - 22 stud.
You liked English and wanted to learn it	57%	57%
You learned enough to pass your exam	72%	28%
You think you are ‘bad’ at languages	57%	43%
Your experience of learning English is positive	72%	28%

The issues discussed in this section are not only problematic in Polish schools. They are common in schools, where teaching is conducted in either Lithuanian or Russian. English education in this country has been persistently inefficient - producing students equipped with a minimal command of English. A major reason seems to be an examination-orientated teaching. In their English classes learners carry out various tasks that are included in the exam papers, e.g. multiple choice or gap-filling exercises for checking reading comprehension skills; learning to conduct dialogues on certain topics or performing role-plays, all of which are quite often irrelevant to real life communication tasks. The reality of exam-orientated education places the emphasis on learners’ preparation for tests and examinations instead of highlighting the long-term English learning for further life-long needs, i.e. for studies, a future job, international communication, etc.

Learners’ Priorities in Studying English

To obtain a clearer idea of learners’ priorities in different aspects of language learning, the respondents were requested to indicate how important it was for them to become proficient in various areas of language use. The questionnaire administered at the University of East Anglia (Kenning, 2001) has been adapted for this purpose. The respondents were asked to prioritize the importance of different skills in certain areas. The data are presented in the Table 2. For comparison, the first and second year students’ ratings (unimportant, important and essential) are given in the same column. All the figures in columns show the number of students who ticked appropriate answers. The questionnaire was administered to the first year students after the first term of doing ESP at university, and to the second year students after three terms of ESP, i.e. before the final exam. It is of interest to compare how learners’ attitudes change in the course of studies.

The Table is divided into six sections (numbered 2.1 to 2.6 for convenience of analysis), which cover different language skills and applications.

TABLE 2 Language skills and areas of their application.

2.1

READING	UNIMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	IMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	ESSENTIAL 1st year 2nd year
ESP texts	1 -	2 5	5 4
Newspapers	- 1	6 6	2 2
Magazines	3 2	4 6	1 1
Books	2 1	5 6	1 2

2.2

SPEAKING	UNIMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	IMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	ESSENTIAL 1st year 2nd year
Presentations	5 1	- 5	3 3
Formal conversations	- 3	4 3	4 2
Informal conversations	1 -	5 7	2 2
WRITING	UNIMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	IMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	ESSENTIAL 1st year 2nd year
Summaries	- 5	7 4	1 -
Formal letters	1 1	2 7	5 1
e-mails	5 1	1 7	2 1

2.4

LISTENING TO	UNIMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	IMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	ESSENTIAL 1st year 2nd year
Lectures	4 -	2 8	2 1
TV/Radio	3 1	3 5	2 3
English speakers	1 -	6 5	1 4

2.5

TRANSLATING	UNIMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	IMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	ESSENTIAL 1st year 2nd year
From English	2 -	2 8	5 1
Into English	2 1	4 5	3 3

2.6

OTHER USAGE	UNIMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	IMPORTANT 1st year 2nd year	ESSENTIAL 1st year 2nd year
For telephoning	3 -	5 9	- -
For studies	1 -	5 7	2 2
For traveling	2 -	5 6	1 3
For exams	1 -	4 7	3 2
Grammar	- 2	2 5	6 2

Let us examine the data in the Table 2 closely. Professional reading (ESP texts) is a priority for both groups, while presentations are out of favour with the first year students. The second year students, who have already had some experience in making presentations in the classroom during the ESP course, are well aware of the importance of being able to speak in front of their peers, and in public in the future.

Majority of the first year students are also unaware of the significance of electronic communication (e-mail), and they place more emphasis on formal letters, which is a consequence of the English training at school: writing a formal letter is one of exam tasks.

The issue of translation, both from and into English, is appreciated by all learners. For them, translation remains the main tool of comprehension. It implies that students are unable to grasp the meaning without translating from their mother tongue. Only proficient users of foreign language stop translating in using either productive or receptive skills. The examination-orientated learning remains a preference to nearly all students: only one person out of seventeen – and the best student, as a matter of fact, too – marked the exam question as unimportant.

Grammar also remains important or even essential to majority (88% of learners); listening to native speakers of English – to 94%, and to radio/TV – to 76%. An ability to participate in formal and informal conversations is marked by 76% of students. The second year students unanimously ranked telephoning skills as important while only two thirds of the first year students consider them important.

Finally, the important aspect in ESP learning remains an ability to understand lectures in subject matter. For obvious reasons, the second year learners – they have had a two-term experience of listening to recorded lectures on economics matters – ticked this item as their priority, while half of the fist year students considered this item as irrelevant.

It would be interesting to rank preferences of all learners (by adding fist and second year students’ responses) in descending order of importance. To make the data easily perceptible the percentage approach has been used. The last column presents the sum of the first and second columns’ data. Thus, at least six items on the list are interpreted as important or essential. Quantitatively, other items are not far away.

TABLE 3 Skills in descending order of importance.

Skills	Important	Essential	Important or Essential
Reading ESP texts	42%	53%	95%
Reading newspapers	71%	24%	95%
Speaking informally	71%	24%	95%
Preparing for exams	65%	30%	95%
Listening to speakers	65%	30%	95%
For studies	70%	25%	95%
For travelling	65%	23%	88%
Grammar	41%	47%	88%
Writing formal letters	41%	47%	88%
Translation	35%	47%	82%
Telephoning	82%	-	82%
Listening to lectures	59%	18%	77%
Making presentations	30%	35%	65%

Ordering various aspects of proficiency by averaging responses presents a really interesting picture. The top rating of 95 per cent is given to reading ESP texts and newspapers, speaking informally, listening to native speakers, using English for studies and preparing for exams. Writing formal letters, learning grammar and using English for travelling is the learners’ second priority (88 per cent), which is closely followed by necessity of telephoning skills and translation. However, the very important skills of understanding professional lectures and making presentations are at the bottom of the list, although majority of students realize their importance for future career prospects.

It should be emphasized that our interpretation is presented for a rather small sample of respondents and statistically can be considered reliable within the probability of 0.95 and 3σ error range. However, the significance of the findings lies in raising learners’ awareness to the life-long learning process and formulating English learning priorities for their future career.

Learners’ Difficulties in Learning English

The reliable information about learners’ difficulties in learning can be obtained from students’ self-evaluation and self-assessment.

In our settings, various self-analysis techniques have been applied. Further on, the findings from the conducted surveys are to be discussed.

The first survey involves documented questionnaires aimed to investigate how students rank learning problems that they encounter in different ESP areas. The second technique involves learners’ self-assessment and rating their own performance, and it will be discussed in the following section.

A documented survey of students’ major difficulties in ESP has been similar to one designed by P. Medgyes (1994) and modified to suit our settings. There were 23 respondents who participated in the survey and were requested to identify their ESP problem areas. The data are shown in the Table 4.

TABLE 4. Difficulties in using ESP (after P. Medgyes).

Skills	The most difficult	Average	The least difficult
ESP vocabulary	1 4%	18 74%	5 22%
Speaking	6 26%	12 52%	5 22%
Listening	4 17%	10 44%	9 39%
Writing	10 44%	12 52%	1 4%
Reading	1 4%	14 61%	8 35%
Grammar	12 52%	9 39%	2 9%
Oral fluency	16 70%	7 30%	-
Fear of mistakes	7 30%	13 57%	3 13%

Skills	The most difficult	Average	The least difficult
Tenses	6 26%	17 74%	-
Word order	11 48%	10 44%	8%
Prepositions	6 26%	17 74%	-

There are two figures in all three columns of this table. The first one gives the number of students, and the second – the percentage of respondents who ticked appropriate answers. The frequency of occurring difficulties is ranked on the triple scale – the most difficult, average and the least difficult.

Similarly as in the previous section, it is worthy to rank the responses in order of significance. The ranking has been conducted and presented in the Table 5.

TABLE 5. Ranking the significance of common problematic areas.

Language area	The most difficult
Oral fluency	70%
Grammar	52%
Word order	48%
ESP Writing	44%

Language area	The average
ESP vocabulary	79%
Tenses	74%
Prepositions	74%
ESP Reading	61%
Fear of mistakes	57%
Speaking	52%
Listening	44%

Language area	The least difficult
ESP Listening	39%
ESP Reading	35%

Oral fluency remains the most difficult area for a vast majority of learners. Oral fluency implies the ability to speak about any topic without preparation. The same fact was highlighted elsewhere (Medgyes, 1994). Grammar in general and word order in particular are the important areas of language learning and cause difficulty for our respondents. The skill of writing is another problematic area because learners have already had some practice in writing summaries, essays or preparing formal presentations.

The language areas of average difficulty are ranked closely: ESP vocabulary, tenses, and prepositions are problematic to nearly three fourths of our students. Speaking skill is a priority to over half of the learners. ESP reading is not considered easy to almost two thirds of learners. Generally students do not attach much importance to reading, since a vast majority are sure they know how to read. However, students do not seem to have been taught the reading sub-skills like skimming and scanning and prefer to translate ESP passages word for word. Such an approach does reading slow and boring. The flaws in reading skills are easy for learners to conceal, because learners do all the reading as home assignments, and the speed of reading has never been checked in class due to the shortage of time. Only comprehension of reading the ESP materials has been checked on a regular basis by different means - through vocabulary tasks, comprehension questions or creative assignments, all of which clearly revealed learners’ difficulties in coping with professional materials.

The psychological aspect of language learning – the fear of mistakes, which hinders learners’ learning – has also been incorporated in the survey. It received as many as 57 per cent of responses. This implies that more than half of learners are intimidated by having to perform in front of their peers. The causes of performance fears are very individual and quite often have deep roots in the previous unsuccessful experience of language learning. Moreover, shy and unconfident learners focus on form and correctness in producing language and are aware of their deviations from the established norms of English, but unable to generate appropriate pieces. Psychologically, the fear of mistakes is a fear of losing face, and this feature typically is of mature adult learners (Rivers, 1992). Such ‘learners are concerned with how they are judged by others. They are very cautious about making errors in what they say, for making errors would be a public display of ignorance’ (Shumin, 1997).

The least difficult areas of language skills to the third of respondents are listening and reading, 39% and 35%, respectively. Typically, learners complain that native speakers ‘speak too fast’. The explanation lies in learners’ perception of non-stop authentic speech – they are unable to process information as fast as they do it in their native language. Special training has been applied to develop students’ listening skills, which explains the relatively low percentage.

The interpretation of the presented data is quite apparent: learners are aware of what skills are the most important in ESP, and their rating of difficulties is quite realistic.

Learners’ Self-Assessment and Self-Grading

There have been two parts to thus part of investigation. In the first part, the findings have been obtained in a non-documented form through tutoring, which allows learners to speak to teacher individually face-to-face and creates a relaxed atmosphere. In the second part, respondents were requested to grade their ‘anticipated’ performance in their final test or exam, which has been done in writing.

During the first part of self-assessment some revealing data on learners’ attitudes to studies at university have been obtained. The third of students admitted being lazy, failing to attend lectures without good cause and not doing any homework, basically because they considered lectures not compulsory. About half of students gave as an excuse for not carrying out assignments their work commitments. However, a failure to get credits in the first semester seems to be an effective factor to make students change their attitudes to studies on a university level.

In the second part of investigation, learners’ graded their ‘anticipated’ performance in all language areas. The data have been compared with their actual performance. The findings are presented in the Table 6.

TABLE 6. Students’ self-grading data vs. teacher’s grading in tests or final exams.

Language area	The same mark	Ms > Mt by 1 point	Ms > Mt by 2 points
Listening	22%	78%	-
Speaking	22%	56%	22%
ESP vocabulary	60%	22%	18%
Grammar	60%	20%	20%

The abbreviation Ms means marks given to themselves by students, and Mt given by a teacher in appropriate language areas, respectively.

The general overview of the data shows that learners tend to overestimate their performance in listening and speaking skills by one point, and only 22 per cent of stidents give themselves the same mark as a teacher. However, it is important to highlight that one point difference is not really significant, because just 2 wrong answers in a test of 20 items lose one point in a mark. Thus, the interpretation of the data in the Table 6 is very straightforward – learners are quite realistic about their future performance.

Students’ self-estimation is based on how confident they are before taking a test or exam. This sense of self-esteem is a very viable factor in the process of learning and should always be encouraged. It has been noticed that unconfident learners do themselves injustice – they usually perform worse that their more self-confident peers.

Conclusions

It is tempting to use these specific concrete results for decision-making – to make recommendations for changes in how teaching and learning should be carried out. Unfortunately, there is no ‘the best way’ that suits everybody.

Small amounts of data, carefully analysed, can be beneficial in terms of interpretation. The data presented here are from a dynamic study of different groups of learners over three academic years. Although statistically there have been small samples in all groups for drawing reliable statistic correlations, nevertheless, some reliable conclusions can be drawn.

First, responses of individual learners are related to their learning attitudes and aptitudes. Second, an essential part of the learning process is monitoring, or to be exact, monitoring the progress of each learner individually throughout the academic year. Examining each learner’s attitudes, difficulties and production in different language areas allows to cater for their needs and foster proficiency in the ESP. Third, consciousness-raising in students to ways of mastering language skills is a valid part of pedagogic strategy. It implies encouraging learners initiative and taking over responsibility for their own learning. Given space, time and clear directions learners are bound to succeed.

References

1. Kavaliauskienė, G. (2002). ‘Issues of Teaching English at USVP’. (to be published)
2. Kenning, M. M. (2001). ‘Language learning Interests at University’, Language Learning Journal, 23, pp. 48 – 57.
3. Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-Native Teacher. Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Hong Kong. p.34.
4. Rivers, W. M. (1992). Communicating Naturally in a Second Language, Theory and Practice in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
5. Shumin, K. (1997). ‘Factors to Consider: Developing Adult EFL students’ Speaking Abilities’. English Teaching Forum, 25(3), pp 2-7.
6. Associated Professor Galina Kavaliauskiene
7. Has been teaching ESP at Universitas Studiorum Polona Vilnensis since 1997
8. Main research interests: Learner Autonomy, Self-Assessment, Multilingualism