Learners’ Motivation of Studying English and Contrastive Teaching Methodology
Boryana T. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova, Bulgaria
B. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova has been teaching English for many years. Her main research interests and publications are in the fields of contrastive linguistics (French ↔ English ↔ Bulgarian), analyses results implementation in FLT and, more specifically, in contrastive teaching methodology. She defended a PhD thesis on French and English preterit and perfect (contrastive study) in 2010. She works at Todor Kableshkov University of Transport, Sofia, Bulgaria. E-mail: boryana@vtu.bg
Menu
Introduction
Essence of motivation and its components
Appropriate measures and approaches. Why is CT relevant?
Conclusion
References
Enhancing learners’ motivation has always been a crucial issue in FLT as it represents an underlying factor, among others, as to success or failure, concentration, assiduous work or lack of enthusiasm and interest in taught matters. Contrastive teaching (CT) approach, along with other methods, contributes to motivation improvement as a result of favourable impact of most CT components on the great variety of motivation parameters. Current paper aims at revealing tight connections between CT approach and motivation boosting. Evidences will derive from previous research in CT and motivation spheres as well as from our work largely based so far on some categories’ (English ↔ French) contrast. CT influences beneficially various motivation components due to examined CT methodology features, such as vividness, innovativeness, inductiveness, capacity to procure knowledge transfer.
Motivation is most often described as “a psychological trait which leads people to achieve some goal” (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (1998: 219-220)). Goals in language learning can be supposedly as varied as learners, depending on their personal values. The way they pursue objectives is related to motivation’s various components and learners’ individual strength of motivation regarding each one of these parameters. However, typical trends in motivation can be observed, fact which allows us to study it.
Motivation can be generally subdivided into intrinsic (e.g. sense of achievement, satisfaction in language learning, adequate language use) and extrinsic (e.g. obtaining prizes, higher position, a certificate, a better job) types (Ibid.); it cannot be stated though which one is more powerful, motivation types strength depending on environments and individuals. To Gardner 1985 (quoted in ibid: 222) motivation is strongly connected with success. Most of teaching experience has also proved it. The better learners cope with material, the more motivated they are to improve their knowledge and skills. Thus, motivation and achievement, mutually interfering, are components of an uninterrupted cycle.
Motivation is also partitioned into instrumental and integrative types, notions introduced by Gardner and Lambert 1972 (quoted by Ngeow (1998: 2)), instrumental motivation being related to “learner’s desire to learn a language for utilitarian purposes” and integrative one, to “the desire to learn a language to integrate successfully into the target language community” (Ngeow 1998: 2). To help build the idea of how broadly both motivation kinds may be analyzed and how many parameters they may include, we shall quote a number of questions addressed to learners and used in Vaezi (2008: 56) to measure integrative and instrumental motivation. Integrative motives as to studying English were assessed by statements, such as:
- “I study English to be more at ease with other people who speak English;
- to meet and converse with more and varied people;
- to better understand and appreciate English art and literature;
- to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups;
- to know the life of the English-speaking nations”, etc.
Instrumental motivation, on the other hand, was evaluated by means of another group of questions, amongst which,
- “I’ll need it for my future career;
- it will make me a more knowledgeable person;
- it will someday be useful in getting a good job; (…)
- I will be able to search for information and materials in English on the Internet;
- I will learn more about what’s happening in the world;
- language learning often gives me a feeling of success” (italics in statements are ours), etc.
It is evident that motivation consists of numerous exponents (a lot more could be added to cited ones, depending on various situations, environments and personal characteristics). What matters to teachers and lecturers is to acquire adequate understanding of their students’ motivation in the purpose of positively affecting it by various approaches’ implementation, CT being one of them.
To Oxford and Shearin 1994 (ref. in Ngeow (1998: 2) and also in Hussin et al. (2000: 2)) there exist six influencing motivation factors, and namely: attitudes (feelings towards target language), beliefs about self (how successful learners expect themselves to be), goals (how distinct and relevant they are), involvement (conscious learning activity), environmental support (positive attitude and assistance on the part of teachers, peers and milieu) and personal attributes (age, previous knowledge, etc.).
In Bligh (1971) and Sass (1989)’s view (ref. in Davis (1999: 1)), influencing motivation factors belong to (we are not citing factors coinciding with previously mentioned ones): interest, realization of usefulness, patience and persistence.
It is undisputable that factors, in some way contributing to motivation, not only its constituents, are numerous and rather varied. They all should be taken into account while planning remedial actions to promote learners’ involvement in studying.
To perform remedial work as to motivation and its numerous parameters some widely applicable in most learning contexts principles should be applied.
We consider enhancing intrinsic motivation must be usually more powerful than extrinsic one, though the latter may also prevail in specific cases. To achieve this competency motivation, curiosity and autonomy (Stipek 1988 in Renchler (1992: 10)) should be strengthened. Competency motivation corresponds to learners’ desire to enhance their linguistic competence, thus gaining the sense of achievement; curiosity is related to individuals’ inherent need to learn about new events, and autonomy matches learners’ personal determination to participate in learning process (ref. ibid.).
These motivation components, we believe, can be fostered and cultivated through some underlying principles’ implementation, amongst which: personalization allowing learners to “realize that … the teacher responds to them as people, not just as language learners” (Rost (2006: 2)), vividness and tangibility while teaching, visual aids use, inductive teaching approach (ref. ibid: 3). Essential imperatives we will add are also “frequent, early, positive feedback”, appropriate to learners’ level tasks, “neither too easy nor too difficult”, teaching enthusiasm and “genuine interest in students and what they learn”, variety of teaching methods (ref. Davis (1999: 1, 3)), transfer of acquired knowledge in situations apart from classroom ones (ref. Ngeow 1998, Hussin et al. (2000: 3)), innovative methodology (ref. Hussin et al. (2000: 7)).
How is CT methodology relevant to above-mentioned motivation raising factors? Following paragraphs will be devoted to revealing and supporting tight connections between underlying CT components and presented motivation ones.
To James (1980: 154) “Contrastive teaching” involves presenting to the learner at the same time all the terms in a linguistic system of L2 which, as a system, contrasts with the corresponding L1 system.” To perform this is rather idealistic and we may say even impossible. In our view categories belonging to various language levels and which are of special interest to both, learners and lecturer, which involve hardships while mastering and represent sources of interference errors in learners’ interlanguage, must be predominantly contrastively presented for two basic reasons – lack of teaching time and possibly occurring boredom stemming from a too frequently used teaching technique (in case CT becomes one).
CT usually begins by performing error analysis, most often by means of Corder (1981: 36-44) algorithm application (Ref. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2010 as to error analysis in learners’ acquisition of English preterit and perfect). Mentioned algorithm is meant to discover negative language transfer (or interference), though instances of positive transfer are sometimes conspicuous. Once found out interference (as well as positive transfer, in our opinion) should be motivated within the framework of studied equivalences between categories in languages contrasted in the course of CT. Quite often interference errors derive from similar (or even identical) structures in contrasted languages, though characterized with differing meanings and uses. Due to inner translation, often unconscious, accompanying FL learning and typical to any utterance formation in any FL (Lyudskanov 1969), language transformations (ref. Chomsky 1965) go along with unconscious NL to FL1, FL1 to FL2 or NL to FL2 transfer of rules and structures. FL teaching though inherently involves transformations and is based on brain’s capacity of performing them. This is where (at transfer) most often CT methodology must be implemented, at “critical” structurally converging and meaningfully diverging language issues. However, we believe, CT should also benefit from converging forms and values at the same time, in order to more convincingly reveal some hardships presenting meanings and uses. Thus, for example, we reckon similarities in structure and meaning of English and French deverbal (-ing and –ed (en); -ant and p. passé) adjectives could be used to further learners’ understanding of these frequently confused in English categories and, consequently, to reduce errors in their use (ref. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2012). To sum up, CT methodology is called upon to reveal similarities (congruencies) and differences (divergences) in structures and values, to draw learners’ attention to them and through appropriate examples and activities to contribute to errors reduction or why not eradication (ref. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2010, 2011 as to CT stages). Good explanation, satisfactory understanding on the part of learners of structures/meanings connection in contrasted languages and acquired knowledge suitable implementation into classroom work and in real-life situations represent the essence of CT.
How is CT supposed to enhance already mentioned motivation parameters? To what extent is it related to so crucial to motivation components personalization, vividness and tangibility, inductivity, variety in teaching approaches, transfer of acquired knowledge and innovative methodology?
CT relates to personalization as error analysis procedures do not uniquely concern larger groups interlanguage measuring; error analysis is supposed to be also individual, this applying to remedial interference procedures.
CT is also characterized with vividness and tangibility due to numerous exemplifying utterances and texts it involves (original and translated ones, containing interference errors or not). Fans (diagrams) of equivalences are presented; contrasted structures and these ones contributing to their meaning explanation are appropriately shown on screens (by means of multimedia projector) and colourfully underlined. Structures can be manipulated, exchanged, displaced, transformed, etc. to reveal above-mentioned structure/meaning connection in a really attractive and memorable way.
CT methodology involves inductive approach rather than deductive one as learners are frequently asked elicitation questions; they are helped to reach to conclusions as to structure/meaning connections in contrasted languages and as to contrasted forms use, on their own, on the basis of presented by teacher or lecturer materials.
CT is intended to promote knowledge transfer as a result of numerous consolidating activities it should comprise to reinforce and stabilize already assimilated by learners connections. It is at the same time innovative and leads to teaching methods variety as CT does not belong, for the time being, to really often used classroom approaches and techniques.
To conclude, having presented basic motivation components as well as underlying CT principles, we firmly believe CT methodology implementation must enhance learners’ motivation to participate in teaching/learning process. It is expected to do so as in case it is properly conducted and carried out by enthusiastic teachers and lecturers, this approach, due to its innovativeness, variety, vividness and inductivity, will attract learners’ interest and attention and, this way, will promote their intrinsic language studying motivation.
Bligh, D. A. 1971: What’s the Use of Lecturing? Devon, England: Teaching Cervices Centre, University of Exeter.
Chomsky, N. 1965: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A. (In French: Aspects de la théorie syntaxique. Editions du Seuil, 1971)
Corder, S. P. 1981: Error Analysis and Interlanguage. OUP.
Davis, B. G. 1999: MOTIVATING STUDENTS. From: Tools for Teaching.
www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/facdev/guidebk/teachtip/motiv.htm
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics 1998. A Handbook for Language Teaching. Edited by K. Johnson, H. Johnson. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Oxford.
Gardner, R. C. 1985: Social Psychology and Second Language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. 1972: Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Hussin, S., Maarof, N. and D’Cruz, J. V. 2000: Sustaining an Interest in Learning English and Increasing the Motivation to Learn English: an Enrichment Program. The Millennium MICELT 2000, 3RD Malaysia International Conference for English Language Teaching, Melaka. The Internet TESL Journal. At:
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Hussin-Motivation/
James, C. 1980: Contrastive Analysis. Longman Ltd.
Lyudskanov, A. 1969. Людсканов: Принципът на функционалните еквиваленти – основа на теорията и практиката на превода. В: Изкуството на превода. София.
Ngeow, K. Y. 1998: Motivation and Transfer in Language Learning. ERIC Digest. At: http://www.kidsource.com/education/motivation.lang.learn.html
Oxford, R. and Shearin, J. 1994: Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
Renchler, R. 1992: Student Motivation, School Culture, and Academic Achievement What School Leaders Can Do. In : TRENDS & ISSUES. ERIC. ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT.
Rost, M. 2006: Generating Student Motivation. Pearson Education, Inc.
Ruzhekova-Rogozherova, B. 2010. Рогожерова. The preterite and perfect in French and English. Contrastive study. (PhD thesis, in Bulgarian). Sofia.
Ruzhekova-Rogozherova, B. 2011. Ружекова-Рогожерова. Contrastive Analysis and Contrastive Teaching of English Preterit and Perfect to Students with French as FL1 (in Bulgarian). In: Foreign Language Teaching. No 5, pp.42-64. Sofia: Национално издателство за образование и наука „Аз Буки”. Министерство на образованието, младежта и науката.
Ruzhekova-Rogozherova, B. 2012: ENGLISH DEVERBAL ADJECTIVES AND HOW TO TEACH THEM. ESTABLISHING CONTRAST WITH FRENCH CATEGORIES. E-magazine LiterNet, № 2 (147).
Sass, E. J. 1989: “Motivation in the College Classroom: What students Tell Us.” Teaching of Psychology, 16(2), 86-88.
Stipek, D. J. 1988: Motivation to Learn: From Theory to Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Vaezi, Z. 2008: Language Learning Motivation among Iranian Undergraduate Students. World Applied Sciences Journal 5 (1): 54-61. IDOSI Publications.
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
|
