Treasuring the Un-motivated: A Humanistic Approach

Louis Butto, Japan

Louis Butto is a teacher at Hyogo Prefectural University, Japan, as well as several others. Current interests include the psychology of learning, and especially the role of affect. E-mail: louisbutto@yahoo.com

Walking around the first days of class, I wonder how can I effectively leave an impact on these people’s lives. Not that I am great, but that they have come here to learn something, in this case, English. Some of them are chatting in their native tongue, some are quiet, and many are apprehensive of this foreign teacher. “How will I be able to communicate?” “Why am I here?” “I was never good at English.” ”I want to sleep.”

Let me cut to the chase: There has been a supposed divide on using the L1 in class. It has been argued that the student’s native language (especially if the class is homogeneous) should never be used. Reasons given include dependency on their language, poverty of input (i.e. lack of opportunity to use the L2), and so on. These reasons make sense, especially for those students who are motivated to study English. Then, there are those who feel it is natural to use the L1 to assist in language instruction. (For a pragmatic view of the issue, see Nation, 2003. For another view in Japan, see Cole, 1998)

From my experience in teaching, I feel we can’t be so inflexible in our approach. It really depends on the group of students we are teaching. If they are highly motivated, then I would argue that we should only use the target language. But in reality, many of our university classes are full of students taking the language for a requirement. Some of them have moderate interest, but some have given up learning because of their experience in secondary school for whatever reason. In any case, it is this latter group that I would like to focus on in this paper.

My general approach, at the beginning of the term, is to mix the L1 with the target language. Of course, this depends on the teacher’s ability in the L1. One way to look at this is to consider Krashen’s affective filter. He states, “A strong affective filter (e.g. high anxiety) will prevent input from reaching those parts of the brain that do language acquisition.” (Krashen, 2004) Although Krashen seems to be out of favor these days, I don’t think anybody would argue that we need more anxiety in the classroom. Furthermore, many other researchers have written on the debilitating affects that high-anxiety can have on language acquisition (Horwitz, 1986; Oxford, 1999; Dornyei, 2005). It is not uncommon to find students recoiling in fear from the teacher when they can’t understand. Consequently, I generally try to get to know each student as a human being often mixing languages to build trust in the process. I have built this into the regular structured class activities. So for the teacher, it is helpful to study what they are interested in - their music, their TV shows, their movies, the trends, etc. Without this, avenues for discussion are limited in the beginning. The point, and this is important, is to build a relationship between the teacher and the student, where they feel a desire to communicate. The significance of the relationship between teacher and student is elaborated on by a number of researchers. The great language educator Earl Stevick said, quoting another, “Elliott, who taught composition to his fellow Americans, told his colleagues that ‘your job as an English teacher is to get the students to use language your way in large part as a result of wanting to, not having to, be together with you.’” (Stevick, 1996) Furthermore, Dornyei (2001) said, “Teachers who share warm, personal interactions with their students, who responds to their concerns in an empathetic manner and who succeed in establishing relationships of mutual trust and respect with the learners, are more likely to inspire them in academic matters than those who have no personal ties with the learners.” Naturally, motivation involves a number of issues, but I think these quotes reflect the big role that a teacher plays.

The next step, is that I start asking them questions in English, accepting their gestures or replies in their native tongue, and even sometimes interjecting my language with theirs. This could correspond to an initial silent period. (Asher, 2000)

Then, as the relationships continue, I begin to use more and more English, and when they respond in their native language, (because often they have understood by now and want to respond) I try to appear confused, as if I don’t know what they are saying, and implore them to explain in English, because I really want to know, and my ability in their language is not so good. Then, they feel a real need to communicate with me and will make efforts to explain themselves in English, even if it is broken and they use a dictionary.

This gradual processes continues throughout the whole term, so that by the end, I am primarily using English. This is similar to Asher’s thoughts (2000), “ Hence, if a person wants to acquire another language without stress, the sequence should be first, acquire comprehension of the target language, and as comprehension becomes more and more sophisticated, there will be a point at which the individual spontaneously is ready to produce the language.” Can we quantify language gain by the end of the term, or in successive years? Maybe. But what we have gained, is genuine communication, which seems to be the purpose of language. Naturally, it is my hope that their linguistic competency will have increased. And hopefully, they will see the necessity to study the target language - to share their humanity. I hope, with this paper, I have encouraged some thought on the issues contained within.

References

Asher, J.J. (2000). Learning another language through actions. Los Gatos, CA.: Sky Oaks Productions, Inc.

Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms. {Electronic version}. The Language Teacher, Vol. 22, No. 12. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from
http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/dec/cole.html

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M.B., Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 125-132.

Krashen, S. (2004). Applying the comprehension hypothesis: Some suggestions. Paper presented at the 13th International Symposium and book fair on language teaching, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from
www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_paper/eta_paper.pdf

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 5, Issue 2. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from
www.asian-efl-journal.com/june_2003_PN.php

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner, In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 58-67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Stevick, E. W. (1996). Memory, meaning & method. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Please check the Expert Teacher course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.