Influencing Second Language Learning -
Motivation & Acculturation
by Chia Suan Chong
In the last blog post of this series, we compared the likelihood of language learning success between two learners, Liliana the student, and Jochan the department manager. Starting with an exploration of reasons why one might pick Jochan as the learner most likely to be acquire proficiency in the language, we looked at the biologically-determined personality factors that might contribute to Jochan’s success.
It was however clear through such exploration that attributing
language learning failure to a learner’s personality might not only be
unhelpful, but also presumptuous, as it neglects the influence of
external factors, such as one’s experience of language learning or of
the target culture.
Liliana might have been afraid of making mistakes when learning English, but a positive classroom experience with teachers and classmates reassuring her that mistakes are good and are necessary to her learning process could lead to a change in her attitude towards mistakes. More importantly, her love for the target culture would indicate a high level of motivation to learn the language, and some might argue that if a learner is motivated, they would overcome any personality factor that might hinder their success.
However, the definition of motivation in language learning has
differed quite significantly in the last few decades. In the early days,
motivation was often equated with meeting needs, exemplified by
Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs. Behaviourists believed that when
basic biological needs were met, behaviours were reinforced, and such
conditioning meant that external reward systems were most effective in
motivating learners (Williams and Burden, 1997).
Resisting this early trend were the social constructivists, who
preferred to take into account the culture of a community and society,
and one’s experience of the world. They believed that motivation
differed among individuals and that people reacted to external factors
in different ways.
Integrative versus Instrumental Motivation
Gardner and Lambert (1972) purported that integrative motivation,
where languages are learnt for assimilation and identification with the
society of the target language, results in higher proficiency than instrumental motivation, where language learning is carried out to achieve certain goals.
This basically seems to suggest that if Liliana came to study at an English university and needed English to become part of the British society, she is more likely to be successful than Jochan, who needs English to get a promotion.
Based on personality factors, integrative motivation
puts learners in control of their learning efforts, while instrumental
motivation is dependent on external pressures and therefore claimed to
be less effective. This view has been challenged, the success of
English-learning in India being given as an example of an instrumental
orientation being effective in second language learning (Brown, 1994).
However, the distinction between the two types of motivation ignores
the fact that integration can facilitate instrumental goals either
through goodwill achieved in relevant social communities, or through the
language practice such integration offers. Even in the case of English
as a Lingua Franca (ELF), the integration into the networks of ELF users
intertwines with instrumental goals.
Although Brown (ibid) himself concedes that motivation is rarely
exclusively instrumental or integrative, studies into motivation
continues to be categorical. A good example of this is Graham (1984, in
Brown, 1994), who makes a distinction between integrative motivation and assimilative motivation,
claiming that assimilative motivation references the desire to ‘lose
oneself’ and to become an indistinguishable part of the target language
group. This extreme notion does not address the fact that assimilating
into target language group might in fact be one of the individual’s many
identities, and does not necessarily require the ‘losing of oneself’.
Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation
In Deci’s (1975) theories, intrinsically-motivated learners engage in learning for its own sake, while others are motivated extrinsically
by external rewards. Again, one could lead to the other. Although this
theory can be credited for encouraging teachers to appeal to the
interests of the students, the attention of the learner, or the lack
thereof, is made responsible for success in second language learning.
Acculturation
Introducing social variables into the mix, Schumann’s (1976)
acculturation model consisted of social and affective variables denoting
social and psychological distance of the learner from the target culture.
A bad second language learning situation was when the
learners belonged to a community that had negative attitudes towards the
target language group, with whom they did not share social
institutions, values or beliefs. A bad second language learning
situation can also occur when the learners’ community was more concerned
with preservation than assimilation, or if the learner’s stay in the
target community was short.
This apparently common-sensical view that if Jochan had bad
experiences with the English and the Americans, and if Jochan’s group of
friends also felt the same way about those two cultures, Jochan would
be less motivated to learn English and be less likely to succeed at it.
In Schumann’s research (1978), he seems to attribute his subject’s
pidginized English to the kind of large social distances that Jochan
faces and suggests that language learning failure might be due to a
subsequent lack of effort on the part of his subject.
However, this presupposes that if Jochan had positive attitudes
towards the target group, the ‘native speakers’ would in return be
willing to accommodate Jochan’s attempts at assimilation, thus making
him accountable for his own failure.
Schumann’s (ibid) suggestion that the giving up of one’s own values
would enable the adoption of the target culture and success in second
language learning was also criticised by Block (2007), who argues that
the maintenance of the learner’s native language and identity does not
preclude positive attitudes towards the target language.
In an era when English has cemented its position as the global lingua
franca, especially in the world of business and travel, perhaps the
target language group and target culture extends beyond that of the
generic British/American/Australian, and one must inevitably consider
the target communities that learners will be using English with, and the
experiences that they have of relating to such communities.
The issue of learner identity and the communities of practice that
learners involve themselves in is a complex one, and the language
learner might find themselves in situations and social scenarios that
might not be within their control. The next blog post of this series
will continue to examine this dynamic nature of the language learning
experience.
Block, D. (2007) Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Brown, D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Deci, E. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Gardner, R. and W. Lambert. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Maslow, A.H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’. Psychological Review, 50, pp: 370-396.
Schumann, J. (1976) ‘Social distance as a factor in second language acquisition’. Language Learning, 26(2): 135-143.
Schumann, J. (1978) The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Williams, M. and R. Burden. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: CUP.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário