Could 'What works in therapy' Work in Education?
Tim Murphey and David Barker
Tim Murphey is a professor at Dokkyo University, and an affiliate professor at Hawaii Pacific University and Teachers College, Tokyo. He has books with TESOL, OUP, CUP, Longman, Peter Lang, and Helbling Languages. E-mail: mits@dokkyo.ac.jp
David Barker, an associate professor at Nanzan University, Nagoya, is interested in learner autonomy and is currently doing research into the psychology of using English outside the classroom in an L1 environment. E-mail: barker@nanzan-u.ac.jp
Abstract
This exploratory article asks what language teachers might learn from meta analytic reviews of "what works" for clients in therapy. The research shows that 40% of their improvements and cures are attributed to extratherapeutic causes, 30% to relationships, 15% to expectations, and only 15% to the method or technique. Therapists can therefore do a better job when they learn to confirm the extratheraputic activities reported by clients as being successful and by developing better relationships with them. From the finding that 85% of the reported positive results do not involve the actual form or method or technique of treatment (and we suggest that this may be comparable in language learning), researchers question the importance placed on method. To acquire similar types of data in our field, we suggest an explanatory style analysis based upon the principles of attribution theory. We conclude that "what works in therapy" could already be working in education-we just need more research to find out.
Menu
Introduction
Background
Implications
Conclusions
References
Hubble et al (1999) report on meta-analytic reviews over the last 40 years summarizing what works in psychotherapy. These reviews have produced an amazingly clear picture of the field and suggested some very specific courses of action that therapists can take to improve their work. They provide what Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink (2005) calls "thin-slicing". Gladwell suggests that occasionally, we may find in the blink of an eye crucial pieces of information that give us more insight into something than we would normally achieve through years of laborious research. The meta-analyses conducted in the field of therapy seem, for some practitioners at least, to have provided such information. This leads us to wonder whether a similar approach might work in the field of language education. Are there meta-analytic reviews of teaching methodologies in our field? If they exist, do they go to the horse's mouth and attempt to find out what students found to be most effective after completing their courses of study? We know of only a few tangentially relevant studies that we will report on below. (Please let us know if you are aware of others).
Given the lack of this kind of data in second and foreign language teaching, we feel that it is worth looking at the work that has been done in therapy and, based on our common experiences of language teaching and learning, asking the question, "What parallels can we find between therapy and education?" As a starting point in our search for commonalities, we will use material from Miller et al. from their web page (circa, 1999) archived at (http://www.psychjourney.com/What%20Works%20In%20Therapy.htm) as published in Hubble et al. 1999. All indented text below is directly from the above web page. We will examine the conclusions these researchers seem to have reached and then discuss the parallels we believe can be drawn with language education.
What are the factors that determine outcomes in therapy?
Research points to the existence of four factors common to all forms of therapy despite theoretical orientation (dynamic, cognitive, etc.), mode (individual, group, couples, family, etc.), dosage (frequency and number of sessions), or specialty (problem type, professional discipline, etc.). In order of their relative contribution to change, these elements include: (1) extratherapeutic [40%]; (2) relationship [30%]; (3) placebo, hope, and/or expectancy [15%]; and (4) structure, model, and/or technique [15%]
The first of the findings is that clients and therapists report extratherapeutic factors (i.e. things that happened outside therapy sessions) as having accounted for 40% of the improvement. We wonder if teachers think or believe that as much as 40% of our students' gains in language proficiency could be attributed to what they do outside the classroom. In the case of the most successful learners, we feel that 40% is actually quite a conservative estimate. Bunts-Anderson (2004) suggests that, "Both nationally and internationally, researchers claim that L2 learners…continue to view their successful and unsuccessful learning outcomes as related to their interaction experiences outside the classroom" (p. 2). Perhaps some language teachers realize this as they set homework and attempt to get students to interact more with the target language outside of classes (e.g. Barker, 2004). Some teachers also seek to capitalize on these extracurricular learning experiences by using them as a source of topics for discussion in class.
Overall, however, we feel that the focus in language teaching, particularly in situations where students have limited opportunities to use the target language outside the classroom, has traditionally been on what the students are doing in the classroom. For example, Murphey (1985) found that Swiss Youth were in contact with between one and two hours of English Language Music (ELM) a day in the 1980's and yet few teachers were using this potentially rich resource in classes and confirming their students' use of ELM. If we accept the idea of the importance of extra-curricular factors on how the learners will eventually perceive their language learning experience, then maybe it is time for us to start asking ourselves, "How can we confirm, augment, and encourage our students' uses of and contact with the target language outside the classroom?"
Following closely behind extra-therapeutic factors in the meta-analytic reviews of therapy is 'relationships' at 30%. Again, we suggest that this would probably be a conservative figure in education. When we talk to students about their approach to learning a language, many mention the positive or negative influence of a teacher and / or class members, which points to the importance of the teacher and the relationships students form in classes mainly through the teacher's sensitivity to group dynamic processes (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003). Courses in teaching methodology and practice abound, but where are the courses that teach teachers how to build strong positive relationships with their students and facilitate the development of such relationships among the students themselves? Even the most effective teaching methodologies may have little impact on learners whose affective filters are high due to poor relationship building.
Furthermore, Kalaja (12/16/06, personal email communication) states,
We had over 100 freshmen, English majors/minors, draw a picture of themselves as learners of English. It's quite impressive (and puzzling) that after some 9 years of formal teaching of EFL (and being the top of this lot, having been accepted to our program), with one or two exceptions, there's no indication whatsoever of teachers in the drawings: books, yes, tv programs (not dubbed in Finnish), yes, pop music, yes, friends, yes, computers/internet, yes, travel, yes BUT teachers, no, NO! We'll be reporting on this study in a book chapter soon! (Kalaja , Dufva, & Alanen, in progress)
It seems that many students still interpret language learning as a solitary task and the teacher's role is not seen as important for many learners.
15% of improvement was attributed to hope and expectancy. In education, of course, the role of expectations is well documented, (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Cotton, 1989) and all learners come to our classes with at least some hope and pre-existing expectations. Reading the literature more closely we find that Snyder et al. (1999) describe hope as modes of thinking, as agency thinking, the determination to meet certain goals, and pathways thinking, the ability to imagine possible routes to these goals. For those with previous experience of foreign language learning, these may be based on past successes and/or failures, whilst for others, they may be based on received knowledge or societal attitudes. How do language teachers manage student hope and agency? How do things like placement tests in large institutions affect students' expectations of a successful outcome? If 15% of the factors that determine outcomes in language learning are concerned with hope and agency thinking, then perhaps this too is an area that deserves closer attention in our field. Agency thinking may be simply another way of thinking and talking about autonomy (Murphey, in press).
Readers who have been keeping count will have noted that we have now accounted for 85% of the factors that clients in therapy perceived as having been important in bringing about improvement and cure. This, of course, leaves us with only 15% to attribute to the structure, model, or technique of the therapy itself. If a similar figure were to be found in language education, this would be extremely shocking to teachers and researchers who put so much stock in the method. But is it really so unrealistic? Kumaravadivelu (2003) advises us to go beyond methods and look at macro teaching strategies. Hawkins (2005) suggests "the need for a shift in the teacher's role: from designing lessons to designing ecologies" (p. 79). The fact that different teachers are able to achieve the same successes using very different approaches, methods and materials suggests that in language learning as in therapy, these are not major factors in determining eventual outcomes.
Mark Clarke and his colleagues (Clarke et al 1998; Clarke, 2003) have been on the trail of some common denominators, and their research suggests that teachers using different methodologies might have similar success provided that they present a coherent pedagogy, set rules and boundaries, and respect individuals. Grammar translation, TPR, and extensive reading, as incomparable as they may seem, might be appealing to different students and motivating them to study and thus engendering language acquisition because of the individual fit to students at certain moments in their lives. Clarke and his team have found that students tend to buy into a teacher's belief system, especially when teachers are good relationship builders, and even begin using their words when the teaching is coherent. This seems to tie in well what the meta-analyses of therapy are finding as well:
Research on the four common factors makes clear that various therapeutic techniques . . . are better viewed as different means of empowering one or more of the factors responsible for treatment outcome rather than unique to a specific treatment model.
When we look at teachers who are achieving successful outcomes, maybe the question we should be asking is not "What are they doing?" but rather "How is what they are doing affecting the factors (the other 85%) that make student learning possible?"
What do experienced practitioners do?
Incidentally, these meta-analytic reviews of therapy also happen to fit the way experienced clinicians actually practice according to Miller et al. (op. cit). Surveys conducted over the last several decades have consistently found, for example, that clinicians tend to identify less with any one approach the longer they have been in the field. Rather, experienced therapists tend to pick and choose from a variety of approaches in an effort to tailor treatment to the makeup and characteristics of the individual client.
Can we say the same of language teaching professionals? We believe that more experienced teachers do acquire a wide array of methods and techniques, and we also feel that they tend to be much more focused on what is happening with the learners than concerned about what they have planned to do at the beginning of the lesson or course. Unfortunately, however, experience is no guarantee of quality in language education if that experience is gained mainly in an environment where the 'clients' are captive. Therapists do not survive professionally without client satisfaction. The same cannot be said of many language teaching situations. This means that language professionals need to accept an even higher degree of responsibility for making sure that we continue to develop our knowledge and remain open to new approaches and ideas. But most of all we need to go to the horses mouth and hear what students think (Murphey, 2002).
How can we apply this knowledge?
Therapists can immediately begin translating the research into their clinical work by mindfully and purposefully working to:
Enhance the factors across theories that account for successful outcomes
Use the client's theory of change to guide choice of technique and integration of various therapy models
Obtain valid and reliable feedback regarding the client's experience of the process and outcome of treatment
Can we apply these principles to language teaching? Firstly, we can certainly ask if we can "enhance the factors across theories that account for successful outcomes" or indeed, whether we even know what these factors are. Finding out about students' beliefs and learning preferences can be an early classroom activity that informs teachers and builds students' metacognition. But given that learning is a dynamic process, both teachers and learners will need to return to this constantly. The third principle can be developed through such things as regular class and individual feedback, action journals (Hansen, 1998; Murphey, 1993), as well as through the use of language learning histories (discussed below).
Becoming More Change Focused in Therapy
Unlike diagnoses--static characterizations connoting a measure of constancy, even permanence in clients' presenting complaints--the magnitude, severity, and frequency of problems are in flux, constantly changing. Whatever the cause, clinicians empower the contribution of extra-therapeutic events when they listen for, invite, and then use the description of such fluctuations as a guide to therapeutic activity. In particular, exploring what is different about better versus worse days...
Unlike diagnoses also, one's self-confidence, motivation, and openness to learning are in flux and may frequently change; they are co-constructed. Teachers can empower the contribution of extracurricular events when they "listen for, invite, and then use" the descriptions of such interests and motivations as a guide to pedagogical activity. In particular, what are the things that excite and motivate students outside the classroom? How do they approach learning in the real world? In order to learn these things, teachers need to make concerted efforts as we strive for student-centeredness and student- or relationship-driven teaching (Rogers & Renard, 1999).
In addition to becoming more "change-focused", therapists can also enhance the contribution of extratherapeutic factors by
Potentiating any and all change for the future
. . . a crucial step in enhancing the effect of extratherapeutic factors is helping clients see any changes--as well as the maintenance of those changes--as a consequence of their own efforts . . .
Murphey (2001), for example, describes a video process in which students are videoed weekly having five-minute semi spontaneous conversations with their peers for a semester and then comparing their first and last videos and transcriptions of them. Students know at the beginning of the semester they will have to report the changes and improvements they have made over the semester. The videoing actually helps them see concretely any changes in their conversational abilities, including vocabulary, fluency, grammar, conversational techniques and gambits. Many report that these changes are due to their preparation for the videoing topics, the transcriptions and analyses outside of classes, and their practicing of the techniques with friends, family, and classmates extracurricularly. These comments are often put anonymously in a classroom newsletter and given to all students to consider and to model when they wish (Murphey 1993).
Because the comments in the newsletters are from students' near peer role models (Murphey & Arao 2001), the comments tend to have a bigger impact than advice that comes from the teacher. In solution-focused brief therapy, such peers are referred to as "expert consultants" (Selekman 1996, p. 171). Indeed, "the client is the expert within the solution focused model" (Miller et al, 1996), something autonomy researchers in language education usually hope to convince their students of. The students' improvements, and the maintenance of these improvements, are thus "a consequence of their own efforts" (op. cit) in these extracurricular activities. The newsletters are simply tools for publicizing potential extracurricular activities (pathways thinking) that work so that more students might engage in them. The videoing allows students and teachers to become "change-focused."
Tapping into the client's world outside of therapy
. . . This natural tendency to seek out many sources of help can be facilitated by the therapist simply listening for and then being curious about what happens in the client's life that is helpful as well as actively encouraging clients to explore and utilize resources in their community.
For example, in the videoing methodology described above, some students reported in their action logs that they were watching their videoed conversations with friends and family. Such comments were put in newsletters for the whole class to consider and the practice became pervasive and exciting to many students. Later some students reported sharing their class newsletters with students from other universities and this too became an exciting opportunity for classroom pedagogy to benefit from that 40% of extracurricular influence and opening up new agency pathways .
The possibility of meta-analyses in language education
We would like to propose that one possible source of data in the language learning field could be the present and future collections of language learning histories (LLHs) of learners around the world (Tanner & Deacon 2005, Murphey, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 2005, 2006; Oxford & Green, 1996; see also the collection at Menezes data base in Brazil). These LLHs are full of explanations and attributions for students' successes and failures, excitement and boredom with study, what works and doesn't work for them. In other words, they are very similar to the data from the therapy studies.
As Murphey, Chen, and Chen (2005a) state:
First person narratives of language learners have recently been given more attention for the rich information that they might provide concerning the ups and downs and the intricacies of personal investment in language learning (see, Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000) the special edition of the HKJAL 7(2) 2002; among others). Research is showing that the social construction in action (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001) of learners' imagined communities (Norton, 2001; Pavlenko & Norton, forthcoming) can nourish investments in learning (Norton, 2000) and the building of new identities as L2 users (Cook 1999).
Lantolf & Pavlenko (2001) describe sociocultural theory, and more specifically activity theory, and how it allows us to see how valuable an individual's personal history of their learning trajectories and circumstances might be to researchers collecting data on successful language learning displaying agency:
The general theory conceives learners first and foremost as individuals whose formation as thinking and learning beings depends crucially on the concrete circumstances of their specific histories as language learners and as members of the communities of practice to which they belong and to which they aspire. The general theory maintains that human beings develop specifically human ways of behaving (socially, physically, and psychologically) as a consequence of the mediational means (artifacts and social relations) made accessible to them or by them. (p. 155)
Previous Pedagogical Applications
Murphey et al,'s (2005) work with the LLHs of Japanese (n=84) and Taiwanese (n=58) students revealed the beneficial aspects of asking students to reflect on their own 'experiences of language learning'. The Japanese LLHs have been collected and published in seven short booklets to be read by students in the same class and in subsequent classes (Murphey, 1998a, 1998b, 2005a, 2005b, 2006). Each person's LLH was seen as uniquely constructed by events, desires, decisions, strategies, beliefs, actions, and particular perceptions. Each involved unique trajectories and patterns of investment and de-investment, i.e. things that motivated them and de-motivated them. Writing their histories allowed students to reflect on these forces and to become aware of their own part in making their histories. We contend that this metacognitive awareness allowed some of them to then take more control of future learning and to more completely own the learning process and to become more self-regulated and autonomous.
Murphey (1999) argued that LLHs are also intensely relevant, level-appropriate narratives for students near the same level to read. They present a variety of strategies, beliefs, and attitudes that can be easily modeled because they are written by near peers. Thus, LLHs benefit not only the writers, but also readers, both younger and older. Teachers also can learn how to teach more appropriately from reading their students' LLHs (similar to therapists being better able to advise clients after knowing their particular histories and what they attribute success to). Junior and senior high school teachers reading collections written by university students can also get insight into students' evaluations of their pedagogical efforts.
Frameworks for meta analyses
Kalaja (2002, 2003, 2004) and her colleagues research with LLHs proposes attribution theory and the Discoursive Action Model (DAM) as potential frameworks in which such meta analyses might be undertaken. She reports that although attribution theory has been around for decades, it was not until 1989 that Skehan suggested it was worth using it in the context of L2. Researchers only started using it another decade later, notably Williams and Burden (1999), Williams et al. (2002a 20002b, 2004) who focused specifically on the explanations that learners or their teachers provide for successes or failures in L2 learning.
Kalaja goes on to describe the Discursive Action Model, suggesting that it may allow researchers to look more closely at the explanations that learners provide than attribution theory. We admit needing to study both of these and others before embarking on the large-scale research project that we have in mind. We also see potential in Seligman's (1990) analysis of attributes as being optimistic or pessimistic with the three qualities of pervasive, permanent, and personal. Seligman contends that people can actually learn to attribute successes to pervasive, permanent, and personal reasons, while optimistically attributing failures to non-pervasive, non-permanent and non-personal reasons.
We have taken only brief summaries from the meta analytic reviews in therapy and we have raised mostly questions as to their possible application in the field of second and foreign language pedagogy. Some will rightly argue that there are great differences between therapy and education, while others may see all of life as education and therapy, successful or unsuccessful. We believe simply that it sometimes helps to explore related fields and to look for analogous structures to better understand our own field. We see as especially propitious the call for meta-analyses of student voices as we try to find out more about what works for them.
One way to hear students' (clients') voices in this regard might be analyses of students' language learning histories and the application of attribution theory to understand to what they attribute their learning successes and failures (, Barker, Carpenter, Deacon, Kindt, Murphey, & Stevenson, in progress). Kalaja and her co-researchers, as well as the researchers she cites, have already started us off in this direction. However, it could be done on a broader scale with a common data base of language learning histories. We have access to about 250 Japanese LLHs and 84 Taiwanese LLHs in English and there are many more in other languages in Vera Menezes's LLH Data-base in Brazil.
Finally, it occurs to us that perhaps our title is slightly off. It would be better to ask, "Could what works in therapy already be working in education?"
Barker, D. 2004. Encouraging students to take their language learning outside the classroom. JALT Hokkaido Journal, Vol 8 pp.79-86,
Bunts-Anderson, K. 2004. Teachers' conceptions of language learning: out-of-class interactions. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003.
Clarke, M., Davis, A., Rhodes, L., & Baker, E. (1998). Principles of collaboration in school-university partnerships. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3)592-600.
Clarke, M. (2003). A Place to Stand: Essays for Educators in Troubled Times. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (of particular importance for this article is chapter 5, Coherence: Aligning thought and action in teaching)
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33 (2) 185-209.
Cotton K. (1989 November). Expectations and Student Outcomes. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS) Regional Educational Laboratory Accessed December 9, 2006 http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.html
Dornyei, Z. & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown, & Co.
Hansen, J. (1998). When learners evaluate. Portsmouth, NJH: Heinemann
Hawkins, M. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly 39 (1) 59-82.
Hubble, M., Duncan, B. & Miller, S. (Eds.) (1999). The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy. American Psychological Association.
Kalaja, P. 2002. Attribution, or causal explanations, revisited: from cognitive entities to discursive constructions. In V. Kohonen & P. Kaikkonen (eds.) Quo vadis, foreign language education? Tampere: University of Tampere, pp. 165-175.
Kalaja, P. 2003. Research on student beliefs about SLA within a discursive approach. In P. Kalaja & A.M.F. Barcelos (eds.) Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches. Dordrecht: Springer, 87-108.
Kalaja, P. 2004. "'So maybe Freddie (Mercury) and his bandmates really are to blame': explaining success (or failure) in learning EFL". In Future Perspectives in Foreign Language Education, K. Mkinen, P. Kaikkonen and V. Kohonen (eds), 123-132. Oulu: Yliopistopaino
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond method: Marcostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press
Lantolf , J. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctvity theory: understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen, (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141-158). London: Pearson Education.
Menezes, Vera: LLH Data-base Accessed December 13, 2006 http://www.veramenezes.com/amfale.htm
Miller, S., Barry L. Duncan, B., and Dr. Mark A. Hubble M. (circa 1999) What Works In Therapy? Accessed December 10, 2006 at http://www.psychjourney.com/What%20Works%20In%20Therapy.htm
Miller, S., Hubble, M., and Duncan, B. (1996). Handbook of solution-focused therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphey, T. (1985). ESP for Youth: Teaching for Peak Relevance Using International Pop Music. TESOL Newsletter, p. 13. Dec.
Murphey, T. (1993). Why don't teachers learn what learners learn? Taking the guesswork out with Action Logging. English Teaching Forum Washington DC USIS. pp. 6-10.
Murphey, T. (1998). Motivating students with near peer role models. In B. Visgatis (Ed.) On JALT97: Trends & Transitions pp. 201-206.
Murphey, T. (1999). Publishing Students' Language Learning Histories: For them, their peers, and their teachers. Between the Keys (the newsletter of the Materials Writers SIG of JALT) VII, no.2 p. 8-11, 14
Murphey, T. (2001). Videoing conversations for self evalutation in Japan. In J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.) Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching. pp. 179-196. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Murphey, T. (2002). From the horse's mouth: Advice from second-semester Japanese university students to JHS/HS English teachers in Japan. Learning Learning, 9 (1), 2-10.
Murphey, T. (in press). One Flying Motivational Earworm for Teachers: "Listen, Confirm, and Use Whatever My Students Say". Independence: Newslette of the IATEFL Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group.
Murphey, T. & Arao, H. (2001). Changing reported beliefs through near peer role modeling. TESL-EJ. 5(3)1-15.
Murphey, T; Chen, J; & Chen, L. (2005). Learners' constructions of identities and imagined communities. In P. Benson & D. Nunan, (eds.). Learners' Stories: Difference and Diversity in Language Learning. pp. 83-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphey, T. & Woo, L. (1998). Videoing student conversations: educational video's diamond in the rough. The Language Teacher 22 (8), pp. 21-24, 30.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. London: Longman/Person Education.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In Breen, M. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159-171). London: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R. & Green, J. (1996). Language learning histories: learners and teachers helping each other understand learning styles and strategies. TESOL Journal 5 (1) 20-23.
Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 155-178.
Rogers S. & Renard, L. (1999). Relationship-driven teaching. Educational Leadership September. Pp.34-37 ASCD.
Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore. (1968/1992). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Selekman, M. (1996). Solution -focused therapy with children. New York: The Guilford Press.
Seligman, M. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books.
Skehan, P. 1989. Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Arnold.
Tanner, P. & Deacon, B. (2005). My English History. Nagoya City University: Kinkos
Williams, M. 2004. Motivation in foreign language learning. In M. Baynham, A. Deigman & G. White (eds.) Applied Linguistics at the interface. Selected papers from the British Associaion for Applied Linguistics, University of Leeds, September 2003. London: Equinox Publishing, 167-180.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. 1999. Students' developing conceptions of themselves as language learners. The Modern Language Journal 83: 19-201.
Williams, M., Burden, R.L. & Al-Baharna, S. 2002a. Making sense of success and failure: The role of the individual in motivation theory. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (eds.) Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, 171-184.
Williams, M., Burden, R. & Lanvers, U. 2002b. 'French is the language of love and stuff': student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British Educational Research Journal 28: 503-528.
Institutional publications of LLHs edited by Murphey
Murphey, T. (ed) (1997) Language Learning HistoriesI. Nagoya: South Mountain Press (40 Students)
Murphey, T. (ed) (1998b) Language Learning HistoriesII. Nagoya: South Mountain Press (43 students)
Murphey, T. (ed) (2005a Jan.) Language Learning HistoriesIII. Dokkyo: South Mountain Press (33 students)
Murphey, T. (ed) (2005b, Dec.) Language Learning Histories IV a, b, c.(three booklets for three classes) Dokkyo: Kitakai Press. (16, 18, 22, in three classes)
Murphey, T. (ed) (2006.) Language Learning Histories V. Soka: Kitakai Press.(27 students)
Please check the Skills of Teacher Training course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Expert Teacher course at Pilgrims website.
|
