STUDENT MOTIVATION DURING FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION:

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT STUDENT MOTIVATION AND HOW?

by

Claire M. Hicks

A Dissertation Submitted in

Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

In Urban Education

at

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

May 2008

UMI Number: 3314422

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMI UMI Microform 3314422

Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway

PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

STUDENT MOTIVATION DURING FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION:

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT STUDENT'S MOTIVATION AND HOW?

by

Claire M. Hicks

A Dissertation Submitted in

Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

In Urban Education

at

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

May 2008

Gradual

11

ABSTRACT

STUDENT MOTIVATION DURING FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION: WHAT FACTORS AFFECT STUDENT MOTIVATION AND HOW?

by

Claire M. Hicks

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2008 Under the Supervision of Dr. Randall Ryder

Most foreign language (FL) teachers identify the ability to motivate students as

their main challenge. Second language (L2) scholars claim that motivation is a key factor

in language learning. Second language motivation research offers numerous theoretical

constructs that conceptualize and correlate motivation and achievement. Recent studies

have applied the theoretical framework of self-determination theory (SDT) to address the

relationship between FL teachers' communicative teaching approach and their students'

degree of motivation, engagement, and subsequent learning revealing valuable and

promising findings. Moreover, L2 scholars have raised the issue of the limitations of the

traditional quantitative research paradigm and the need to conduct classroom research in

the classroom rather than about the classroom (van Lier, 1988).

The present interpretive and descriptive qualitative study seeks: 1) to understand

and describe students' motivation during FL instruction namely, students' engagement as

it underlies motivation as defined by Connell and Wellborn (1991), from both the

students' and the researcher's perspectives, 2) to examine how students themselves

describe their learning experience in the FL classroom, and 3) to examine learning

i i i

outcomes, expressed in quantitative measures by teachers and in qualitative accounts by

students gathered through individual interviews and focus groups.

Findings identify the teacher as the key element affecting students' levels of

interest, enthusiasm, engagement, and motivation. Participants reveal specifics about the

second language instructional setting which are seldom available to teachers such as:

salient characteristics of what engages and motivates students and perceptions of what the

teacher does and says and what actually shapes students' behaviors. The interpretation of

the findings through the lens of Connell and Wellborn's (1991) motivational model

provides detailed and constructive pedagogical practices of utmost importance for FL

teachers. Additionally, this interpretation results in establishing links between

participants' learning and their motivation within the research context.

5-y-ZocQ

Major Professor Date

IV

© Copyright by Claire M. Hicks All Rights Reserved

/Acknowledgment

j his manuscript brings to an end an eventful and memorable journey, which

includes countless hours of work, and has been the source of personal satisfaction as

well as periods of serious doubt. M o s t importantly, this project would not have seen

the light of day without the involvement and the participation of numerous persons

who have in so many different ways played a part in its accomplishment. | cannot quite

f ind the right words, in L_nglish or in f r e n c h , to express my sincere grati tude and

appreciation to my committee members, my student-and teacher-participants, my

friends, and my family.

O i n c e the beginning, ] have claimed that j had the best committee on campus.

fj)r. F\yder, ]J)r. O'ccone, D r - ELckman, fj)r. 5 w a m ' n a t h a n , and Y)r. Jang , all o f these

quality professors have shared with me their talent, their knowledge, and their time,

which contributed to mu success. ~]~heu have openly challenged me to become a

critical thinker, an educated learner in mu field, an experienced field researcher, and a

better writer.

j his journey could not have happened without the special friendship of

Joanne, [a ige, j ammu, and J e n as well as the kind words of encouragement of mu

loyal students. ] express a very sincere thank uou to Jvathleen who demonstrated the

most kindness and generosity while sharing her expertise and experience all through

the writing of the 500 pages.

f r o m the other side of the / \ t l an t i c to here at home, the unconditional love and

support of my parents, my brother, mu sons, and my husband were key in remaining

focused, determined, and strong in overcoming the challenges and going the distance.

Jason allowed me to keep mu sense of humor while not taking things too seriously and

Spenser kindly played along with my unusual requests; merci lesgarcons. | inally,

from the bottom of my heart, | thank my very supportive and understanding husband,

I hi!, who embraced without question the spoa and the bad of this journey; after all,

this is our dissertation.

(x louXe& eX d kau&, ie -touA 3ia twv < t̂cwo3 m&vci, LXaixe.

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13

Motivation Research in the Field of Second Language 15

The Social Psychological Approach 16

The Cognitive-situated Approach 20

The Process-oriented Approach 24

The SDT-L2 Motivation Movement 28

Discussion about Limitations of Research Paradigm 30

Self-determination Theory and Student Engagement 33

Overview of Self-determination Theory 34

Motivational Model of Engagement 38

Promoting Self-determined Learning 41

Student Engagement Gains 41

High Quality Learning 42

Performance Gains 44

Autonomy-Supportive Teaching Style 46

Dynamics of the Language Classroom 48

Learner Identities 49

Affective Variables 51

Anxiety 51

Willingness to communicate 53

Students' personality 54

vii

Emotion 55

Learning Styles 55

Learning Strategies 56

Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning 57

Approaches, Methods, Principles 60

Overview of Language Teaching 60

Communicative Language Teaching Method: Definitions and Principles 65

Teacher Identities 68

Teacher's Beliefs about Language, Language Learning, and Language Teaching 69

L2 scholars' Perspectives on the Teacher's Role 71

Rationale and Research Questions 74

A Different Motivational Framework for L2 Motivation 75

Relationship between Student Learning and Motivation 78

Choice of a Research Paradigm 80

Research Questions 81

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 82

Goals of the Study and Approach 82

Profile of the researcher 84

Research Questions 88

Interpretive and Descriptive Approach 88

Research Setting 91

Sampling and Participants 93

Process of Selection 94

viii

Backgrounds of Participants 97

Teacher participants 98

Student participants 99

Data Collection 101

Observations 103

Individual Interviews 105

Focus Groups 108

Students Grades 110

Data Management I l l

Data Analysis 113

Quality Control 116

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 118

Factors Affecting Student Level of Motivation during Instruction 119

Teacher Personal Characteristics as Perceived by the Students 121

Teaching Style and Teacher's Approach 124

Classroom Atmosphere 126

Classroom Set-up 128

Delivery of the Instruction 130

Teacher's Reported Instructional Approaches 137

Pair Activities 139

Formation of Working Pairs 140

Matching of Working Partners 144

Teacher's Behaviors during Pair Activity 147

ix

Warm-up Activities 156

Teacher-Centered Activities 160

Typical Whole Class Activities 161

French 104 161

French 203 168

French 204 172

Whole Class Discussions 176

Narrative accounts 177

Participants comments 185

Participants Preferred Activities 208

French 104 209

French 203 211

French 204 213

Language of Instruction and Participation 215

Student Learning 224

Quantitative Aspect of Participants Learning Outcomes 225

Qualitative Aspect of Participants Learning Outcomes 233

Class 104 234

Marguerite 234

Marie 236

Ladislas 238

Charlotte 240

Class 203 241

x

Cecile 241

Sybille 243

Jacques 246

Amelie 247

Class 204 250

Elaine 250

Claire 252

Napoleon 255

Pierre 257

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 264

Role Played by the Foreign Language Teacher 265

FL Students' Motivation and the Motivational Model of Engagement 269

Autonomy Support 271

Structure 275

Involvement 279

Motivation and Learning 284

Implications for FL teachers 290

Directions for Future Research 296

Limitations of the study 301

REFERENCES 303

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE 319

APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 321

APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES //104. 323

XI

APPENDIX D: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES // 203..324

APPENDIX E: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES // 204. 325

CURRICULUM VITAE 326

xn

FIGURES

Figure 1. Gardner's conceptualization of the integrative motive as represented in Dornyei (2001) 18

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985) 19

Figure 3. Conceptualization of Dornyei & Otto's (1998) process model of L2 motivation 25

Figure 4. Ten commandments for motivating language learners (Dornyei & Csizer, 1998, p. 215) 27

Figure 5. A Motivational model of Context, Self, Action, and Outcomes

by Connell and Wellborn (1991) 39

Figure 6. Student demographics 92

Figure 7. Student-participants' profiles as French learners 100

Figure 8. Timeline of the study 103

Figure 9. Lists of codes for data analysis 114

Figure 10. Factors affecting students' level of motivation, interest,

enthusiasm, and engagement during instruction 120

Figure 11. Distribution of French 104 grade (2nd semester) 226

Figure 12. 104 Participants' individual grades 226

Figure 13. Distribution of French 203 grade (3rd semester) 227

Figure 14. 203 Participants' individual grades 227

Figure 15. Distribution of French 204 grade (4th semester) 228 Figure 16. 204 Participants' individual grades 228 Figure 17. Participants' grades by types of assessment 230

Figure 18. Participants learning goals, qualitative description of participants' learning, and semester grades 263

xiii

Figure 19. A Motivational model of Context, Self, Action, and Outcomes by Connell and Wellborn (1991) 269

Figure 20. Model connecting the teacher, the student, and student motivation during FL instruction 297

xiv

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Imagine 24 to 28 quiet and docile students trying to listen and concentrate while

focusing on the teacher who reads mostly from a boring textbook and gives ongoing

explanations about grammar structures, conjugations, and other linguistic aspects of the

language. When not lectured, these students work individually to complete numerous

grammar exercises involving recall of memorized rules, lists of nouns with their genders,

declensions, and meanings, or lists of irregular verbs conjugated in different tenses. After

these exercises comes correction, which is very stressful for these students. Anxious, they

wait their turn to be called on. They hope to answer correctly and wish secretly not to be

asked to stand by the teacher's desk, which happens on occasion. The discourse used in

this class is mainly an unexciting and unappealing monologue delivered in a tiresome

manner offering very limited interactions between teacher and students and between

students. In fact, students' impromptu participation is neither expected nor encouraged by

the teacher. She diligently and rigorously follows her lesson plan leaving no room for

unforeseen interruptions or surprising interventions by spontaneous and enthusiastic

students. As a student in this class, my main objective was to be a good and compliant

student and earn a good grade. Constantly feeling tense and at times apprehensive, my

only concern was homework, memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary words,

listening and following the teacher's directions, and most of all, providing correct

answers when asked. Within this learning environment, it never occurred to me (at the

time) that this class could have been different, neither stressful, nor boring but, in fact,

fun.

Now, imagine 15 to 20 students sitting close together, forming three rows directly

facing the teacher's desk, keeping their eyes constantly on the teacher. They carefully

listen and follow the teacher's instructions in order to provide answers recited out loud as

a group. The well-orchestrated lesson consists of a series of drills based on the repetition

of single words, short sentences, and questions followed by short answers. For example,

one by one, the teacher shows several index cards with drawings of a single object on

each. She then pronounces its name and gives the signal for students to repeat the word in

unison several times. It is easy and most of the students participate with loud voices and

enthusiasm. However, the students' challenge is to follow the pace of the group and make

sure not to be singled out by poor pronunciation. In that case, the 'spotted' student would

have to repeat the word by himself until the teacher is satisfied with the pronunciation.

Early in the academic year, these drills were somewhat fun and amusing because there

were easy and little work was required. However, this process quickly became repetitive,

unchallenging and even annoying. Furthermore, teacher-student interactions as well as

student-student interactions were in general non-existent, emphasizing the control of the

teacher over students who, like me, felt transformed into a pawn acting as an automaton.

These brief narratives respectively illustrate two different language learning

situations: 9l grade German class (4th year German) carefully taught following the

principles of the Grammar-Translation method1 and 9th grade English class (2nd year

English) conducted by a teacher who employed the Audio-Lingual method . Time has

passed since these experiences and memories have faded. However, having chosen to

become a language teacher myself, I have often looked back and reflected on these

1 This method is described in Chapter 2/ section 3. 2 This method is described in Chapter 2/ section 3.

3

language learning environments to realize the strong impact they had at the time on my

interest, my curiosity, and my enjoyment or rather the lack thereof. I am also aware of

their influence on my teaching. Ever since my very first steps as a French teacher, I have

been interested in understanding student motivation, especially during instruction and its

influence on student learning.

Foreign language (FL) instruction presents numerous challenges to teachers, not

the least of which are learners' linguistics backgrounds, preferred learning styles, and the

wide variety of available teaching approaches. Yet the most salient challenge commonly

identified by teachers is the need to motivate the learner. Since "it is universally accepted

that motivation plays a vital role in academic learning in general" (Dornyei, 2006, p. 50),

Ellis (1994) noted that FL teachers recognize the importance of motivation "both with

regard to the motivation that students bring to the language classroom ... and the

motivation that is generated inside the classroom through the choice of instructional

activities" (p.536). Foreign language teachers believe that motivation plays an essential

role in determining success or failure in language learning (Dornyei, 2001a, 2001b;

Dornyei & Csizer, 1998; van Lier, 1996) since it seems "only sensible to assume that

learning is most likely to occur when we want to learn" (Williams & Burden, 1997,

p. 111). In addition to this extreme importance given to motivation for learning a

language, the source of motivation is also seen as "very important in a practical sense to

teachers who want to stimulate students' motivation. Without knowing where the roots of

motivation lie, how can teachers water these roots" (Oxford & Shearin, 1994, p. 15). So,

it is no coincidence that there is an abundance of literature about language learning

motivation.

4

Prior to pursuing this discussion about language learning and motivation, it is

necessary to clarify two matters specific to language learning both of which are pertinent

to this study: (1) the difference between learning a language and learning other subjects

and (2) several key terms commonly used in the field of language learning.

It is commonly recognized that languages are "unlike any other subject taught in a

classroom" (Gardner, 1985, p. 146). Indeed, subjects like mathematics, science, history,

or music are "generally all part of the student's culture or cultural perspective at least"

(Gardner, 1985, p. 146). Conversely, a second language is a "salient characteristic of

another culture" (Gardner, 1985, p. 146), which explains that language learning "involves

far more than simply skills, or a system of rules, or a grammar; it involves .. .the adoption

of new social and cultural behaviours and ways of being" (Williams, 1994, p. 77). Thus,

language learning is "ultimately learning to be another social person" (Crookall &

Oxford, 1988, p. 136). Furthermore, in addition to the fact that language learning is

socially and culturally bound, language classrooms are different in many ways from any

other kinds of classrooms "in part, because language is both the object and the medium of

instruction" (Allwright & Bailey, 1991, p. 74). As a result, more than one language is

often spoken during instruction based on the situation. Chambers (1999), who examined

students' motivational perspectives on FL learning identified some issues unique to

foreign languages as a school subject. For example, the nature of FL instruction is skill-

oriented and involves many activities which focus on practice, training, and repetitions,

all of which can promote stress and anxiety in students. The complexity of a new coding

system and new terminology add to the challenge of memorization for learners.

Moreover, the rewards of language learning are generally long term and often difficult for

5

students to recognize during the early stages of their FL learning experiences. Given all

these facts, learning a language is different from learning any other subject, which gives

grounds to make "the distinction between problems of motivation relating to language

learning and those relating to learning in general" (Chambers, 1999, p. 7).

In the rich and varied field of second language (L2) learning, scholars employ

terms differently. For example, some make the distinction between 'second' and 'foreign'

language. In this study, I adopt the terminology common in the field of second language

(L2) as presented by Oxford (1990) and Gass and Selinker (2001). The native language

(NL) or (LI) refers to the first language learned as a child and known as the primary

language or mother tongue. The second language (L2) refers to any language learned

after learning the LI. The L2 is learned "in a classroom situation, as well as in more

'natural' exposure situations" (Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 5), such as in multilingual

countries or immigrants learning the language of their adopted country. The foreign

language (FL) refers to a nonnative language learned in the environment of one's native

language (e.g., French speakers learning English in France, Spanish speakers learning

French in Spain), most often within the context of the classroom (Gass & Selinker, 2001).

This "second versus foreign" distinction, often considered as confusing, is "usually

viewed in terms of where the language is learned and what social and communicative

functions the language serves there" (Oxford, 1990, p. 6). Thus, within the context of the

present study, FL instruction refers to the teaching of a foreign language in a classroom

and corresponds to a particular learning context of second language. Furthermore, the

term L2 is used in reference to second language in general (e. g., L2 scholars, L2 field,

L2 motivation).

6

For several decades now, motivation in language learning has been the focal point

of L2 scholars. Given that 'motivation to learn' is seen as a multifaceted and complex

concept and that language learning is socially and culturally bound, the concept of

'motivation to learn a language' becomes even more complex (Dornyei, 2001b). Through

the study of motivational determinants of second language acquisition and use, L2

researchers have developed a variety of theories and constructs. A review of this

literature reveals many powerful and compelling statements that illustrate and underline

the extreme importance of L2 motivation in terms of learning as Chambers (2001) stated:

"At the end, it is a question of motivation" (p. 1). As early as the mid-twentieth century,

Albert Markwardt (1948), a scholar in linguistics, was interested in understanding "the

motives impelling the individual, the class, and the nation to the study of modern

languages" (p. 161). More importantly, he thought that understanding these motives had

to be dealt with before the questions about aims and objectives of teaching itself. Corder

(1973) declared that "given motivation, it is inevitable that a human being will learn a

second language if he is exposed to the language data" (p. 8). Since Corder, this

forthright claim has been employed by other L2 scholars (Skehan, 1989; van Lier, 1996)

to support their argument that motivation is "a very important, if not the most important,

factor in language learning" (van Lier, 1996, p. 98) and that "achievement and motivation

are closely related" (p. 121). Discussing this connection between motivation and the

language learning process, Chomsky (1988) emphasized the importance of activating

students' motivation: "The truth of the matter is that about 99 percent of teaching is

making the students feel interested in the material. Then the other 1 percent has to do

with your methods" (p. 181). He further claimed that:

Learning does not achieve lasting results when you don't see any point to it.

Learning has to come from the inside; you have to want to learn. If you want to

learn; you'll learn no matter how bad the methods are. (p. 182)

Sir Christopher Ball (1995) embraced this viewpoint by asserting that "there are only

three things of importance to successful learning; motivation, motivation, and motivation

... any fool can teach students who want to learn" (p. 5). Otherwise simply stated by

Scarcella and Oxford (1992), "motivation decides the extent of active personal

engagement in learning" (p. 52). Given these aforementioned remarks and statements, it

leaves no doubt that "motivation is without question, the most complex and challenging

issue facing teachers today" (Scheidecker & Freeman, 1999, p. 116).

Though motivation, combined with appropriate curricula and good teaching is

collectively recognized as an essential element in student learning, it is often perceived as

indefinable and intangible. Dornyei (2001a), for example, questions the existence of

motivation itself suggesting it "is an abstract, hypothetical concept that we use to explain

why people think and behave as they do" (p. 1). From this perspective, a 'motivated'

student is enthusiastic and dedicated, demonstrates effort and determination, studies with

intensity, and has good reasons for learning. Conversely, an 'unmotivated' student shows

none of these signs but rather seems disconnected, not involved, not committed to the

class or to learning. As straightforward as these profiles of motivated and unmotivated

students are, the concept of motivation itself is not so simple and straightforward. Rather,

this concept is "composed of many different and overlapping factors .... These in turn will

differ in different situations and circumstances and also be subject to various external

3 Sir Christopher Ball made this claim in a paper presented at the North of England Education Conference in 1995.

influences such as parents, teachers and exams" (Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 111).

Nonetheless, there is a consensus among most researchers that motivation, by definition,

is understood as the processes that give human behavior its energy and direction. That is,

the choice of a particular activity, the effort expended on it, and the persistence with it. In

other words, motivation explains why people decide to do something, how hard they are

going to pursue it, and how long they are willing to sustain the activity. The driving force

underlying these processes has been the focal point of researchers who have expressed a

broad range of viewpoints on this matter while generating a variety of models and

theories of motivation. Given this fact, it is necessary to provide a well-defined and

informed description of motivation that fits the context and the purposes of the present

study, which will be provided in chapter two. The present section introduces a few

definitions developed by researchers who have greatly influenced the study of motivation

in general and language learning motivation in particular.

Within the field of psychology, the meaning of motivation depends mostly on the

particular theory of human nature chosen. For instance, Deci and Ryan (1985) grounded

their self-determination theory (SDT) in organismic theories, which "tend to view the

organism as active, that is, as being volitional and initiating behaviors" (p. 4). They

described motivation as an organism's response to a certain need, and, specifically, to

certain basic psychological needs which are innate to the human being. Thus, in order to

be motivated, individuals need to fulfill their psychological needs of autonomy (or self-

determination), competence, and relatedness4 (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Within the field of

L2 motivation, Gardner (1985), defined motivation in terms of language learning process:

Motivation ... refers to the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal

4 The three psychological needs and SDT are described and explained in detail in chapter 2.

9

of learning the language plus favourable attitudes towards learning the language.

That is, motivation to learn a second language is seen as referring to the extent

to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire

to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity, (p. 10)

He further underlined the necessity to have all three components -desire, want, and

effort— in order to experience motivation because "the individual may want to learn the

language and may enjoy the activity, but, if this is not linked with a striving to do so, then

it is not truly motivation" (Gardner, 1985, p. 11). The key tenet of this approach is that

the individual's attitudes towards the language and the community of speakers of that

language are of great importance "(primarily) as support for motivation" (Gardner, 1985,

p. 14). Breaking away from this explicit perspective, Scarcella and Oxford (1992) defined

motivation in terms of three external and behavioral characteristics (i.e., decision,

persistence, activity level) and an internal structure that includes four attitudinal factors

(i. e., interest, relevance, expectancy, and outcomes). Dornyei (1990,1994) viewed L2

motivation as an eclectic, multifaceted construct that includes components specific to

language learning, situational factors, and individual characteristics brought by the

learner to the learning task. He further defined motivation, in a general sense, as " the

dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates,

amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial

wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalised and (successfully or

unsuccessfully) acted out" (Dornyei & Otto, 1998, p. 65). Given these aforementioned

definitions and descriptions of motivation and claims about the importance of L2

10

motivation in terms of learning, it would be compelling to examine motivation as it

manifests itself in the FL classroom.

The aim of the present study is not to generate a new model of language learning

motivation but rather to seek a better understanding of student motivation as it is

manifested during FL5 instruction. To this end, student motivation is examined as it is

lived out in a 'real' language classroom, defined as "the gathering, for a given period of

time, of two or more persons (one of whom generally assumes the role of instructor) for

the purposes of language learning" (Van Lier, 1988, p. 47). Traditionally viewed as a

controlled learning environment under the leadership of the teacher, the language

classroom can now be seen as 'a place of communication' for students to practice

communicative skills needed to use outside the classroom in real interactive situations

(Tudor, 2001). Allwright and Bailey (1991) employed Gaies' metaphor comparing the

language classroom to a crucible and explained how the classroom is the "place where

teachers and learners come together and language learning, we hope, happens. It happens,

when it happens, as a result of the reactions among the elements that go into the crucible

- the teachers and the learners" (p. 18). Too often neglected as a place to conduct

research, the language classroom merits special attention. Van Lier (1988) highlighted

the "importance of'going into classrooms'" (p. xvi), which is a "contextually defined

setting" (p. 1) because there are "many unanswered questions about L2 classrooms" (p.

xvii). Sharing this viewpoint, Williams and Burden (1997) pointed out the need for

language teachers and learners to understand "the immediate physical environment of the

classroom and the nature of the personal interactions which occurs within it" (p. 198) as

this environment has "a profound influence upon whether, what and how any individual

5 The term FL was previously defined in this chapter.

11

learns a language" (p. 189). Indeed, the classroom comprises many varied factors needed

during instruction and embodies the day-to-day reality of teaching, which "reflects the

multifaceted interaction of students and teachers with one another, with methodology and

materials, and ... emerges from this meeting of different actors and different perceptions

of the nature and goals of learning and teaching" (Tudor, 2001, p. 30). Thus, given this

perspective of understanding language teaching as it is lived out in real classrooms, the

purpose of the present study is to explore student motivation during FL instruction.

Because motivation is an internal state, it is not easily observable in educational

settings. Motivated behavior, however, can be examined through engagement, which

refers to the behavioral intensity and emotional quality of students' involvement during

learning. It develops from experiences in which individuals' psychological needs for

autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner &

Belmont, 1993). To this end, engaged students express high effort, attention, and

persistence, as well as positive emotions such as interest, enthusiasm, and enjoyment.

Thus, engagement illustrates the observable manifestation of the quality of a student's

motivation and represents a useful concept for teachers (Reeve, 2002). Since engagement

has been clearly linked to motivation, studying engaged behavior represents a pertinent

and compelling way to examine students' motivation and students' learning outcomes in

the language learning context.

The inquiry of this study addresses three separate but complementary aspects of

student motivation pertinent to FL instruction and FL learning. First, the study examines

how students describe their learning experience in the FL classroom, including their

response to instructional approach as well as to the teacher's use of the textbooks and

12

other teaching aids that engage and motivate them during instruction. Second, the study

seeks to understand and describe, from the perspective of the researcher, how teachers

motivate and foster student engagement6 during FL instruction. Finally, the study

examines the students' learning outcomes that emerge from FL instruction. The students'

learning outcomes comprise the quantitative measures (i.e., written & oral tests, grades)

determined by teachers and the qualitative aspect representing what students perceive and

describe as learning. Thus, from these three lines of inquiry, connections between what

students have to say about their learning and their motivation, what takes place during

instruction in terms of student motivation and engagement, and the results of

conventional learning outcomes may be made evident.

6 As defined by Connell & Wellborn (1991).

13

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This study examined student motivation in the foreign language (FL) classroom

manifested as student engagement and student learning outcomes. Students learning

outcomes were determined by teachers' quantitative measures (i.e., written & oral tests,

grades) and students' qualitative responses in interviews and focus groups. This chapter

is designed to address the different aspects and issues involved in students' motivation

when learning a FL. It explores three bodies of research: (1) motivation in the field of

second language (L2); (2) a theory of motivation called self-determination theory (SDT);

and (3) the dynamics of the language classroom, that is, the interaction of teacher and

learner identity along with the instructional approach.

The first section introduces L2 motivation research by describing four conceptual

areas of scholarship: (a) Gardner's seminal work that conceptualized L2 motivation

through a socio-psychological framework; (b) several motivational models developed by

L2 scholars (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Dornyei, 1994;

Dornyei & Otto, 1998) in an attempt to broaden Gardner's approach to include other

constructs; (c) the SDT motivational framework in FL context; and (d) the issue of

limitations of the traditional quantitative research paradigm raised by some L2 scholars

(Syed, 2001; Ushioda, 2001; William et al., 2001).

The second section reports on the salient points of SDT and explains how in

educational settings this theoretical framework is linked to students' engagement and

positive learning outcomes (e.g., conceptual learning, intrinsic motivation, academic

achievement). In addition, Connell and Wellborn's (1991) motivational model, grounded

in one of the main assumptions of SDT, is used as a conceptual framework to interpret

14

findings of this study. This conceptualization of students' engagement, defined as the

observable manifestation of the quality of a student's motivation (Reeve, 2002) will

allow for an explicit examination of the distinct elements that play a role during formal

FL instruction.

The third section describes how students' L2 motivation should be linked to other

variables present in the language learning context. Language teaching is a complex and

dynamic activity in which the participants interact in the learning process. Tudor (2001)

argued that this "complexity of language teaching as it is lived out in the classroom"

(p. 1) is often underestimated and recommended exploring the dynamics of teaching

situations. Linked to the understanding of student's motivation during FL instruction,

these dynamics are affected by three crucial variables, namely learner identities,

communicative teaching approach, and teacher identities. Consequently, gleaned from

Tudor's (2001) vision of the language teaching-learning process, this section reports on

the dynamics of the language classroom by examining: (1) learner identities characterized

by learner individual differences and learner beliefs about language learning experiences

and achievements, (2) the communicative teaching approach (CLT) that represents the

dominant paradigm in language teaching and in particular, in the language classrooms

being observed in this study, and (3) teacher identities corresponding to teachers' beliefs,

attitudes and perceptions of the teaching situations.

The fourth and final section of this chapter provides the rationale of this study by

reviewing three concerns emerging from the literature about student motivation and

engagement in the FL classroom. First, L2 motivation research has by and large

combined '"attitudes and motivation' as a unit without either distinguishing between

15

them, or showing how they interrelate" (van Lier, 1996, p. 104). This fact incites to

consider "alternative ideas to motivation" (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991) and to employing

other motivational frameworks. Thus, given the purposes of the present study and the

valuable findings of recent studies applying self-determination theory in FL context, it is

necessary to expand its application in the FL classroom. Second, the relationship between

student learning and motivation has been strongly influenced by the integrative

orientation. This approach offers a limited view of how L2 motivation and language

learning are linked and justifies broadening this approach by employing, for example, the

theoretical framework of SDT. Third, the dominance of the quantitative research

paradigm used to conduct L2 motivation studies has raised issues of limitations among

several L2 scholars. Finally, the analysis of these three concerns logically leads to the

formulation of three research questions for the present study.

In summary, this review of literature is broken down into four sections: (1) an

overview of motivation research in the L2 field, (2) a description of SDT including

Connell & Wellborn's motivational model selected as conceptual framework to analyze

the data, (3) the dynamics in the language classroom with in particular learner identities,

communicative teaching approach, and teacher identities, and (4) rationale and research

questions.

Motivation Research in the Field of Second Language

For decades, language learning motivation has been the center of interest for

numerous L2 scholars. The inherent complexity of language and the language learning

process has generated a myriad of diverse theories and approaches by L2 scholars in

order to identify and study the motivational determinants of second language acquisition

16

(SLA). Robert Gardner established a theory of motivation considered to be the most

influential in the L2 field (Dornyei, 2001b). Gardner (1985) proposed that language

learning is a social psychological phenomenon. He focused on the role of learners'

attitudes and motivation in developing L2 achievement. Therefore, this description of L2

motivation research begins with an examination of Gardner's social psychological

approach. Following are reviews of two essential approaches by L2 scholars, namely the

cognitive-situated approach and the process-oriented approach that expanded and

furthered Gardner's work. Ending this examination (of L2 motivation research), reports

on recent studies applying SDT in the language learning context will demonstrate the

need for this motivational framework in understanding students' motivation during FL

instruction. Lastly, this section closes with a discussion that outlines the limitations found

within the traditional quantitative research paradigm. It will thus provide the rationale as

to the purpose of this study.

In sum, this review of L2 motivation research is organized into five conceptual

areas of scholarship: (1) the social psychological approach, (2) the cognitive-situated

approach, (3) the process-oriented approach, (4) the SDT-L2 motivation movement, and

(5) a discussion about the limitations within the quantitative research paradigm.

The Social Psychological Approach

Up until the late 1950s, it was accepted that learning a language involved only

intelligence and verbal ability. Concepts such as attitude, motivation, and anxiety were

ignored. This attitude about language learning was followed by a period of time during

which most research on L2 motivation focused on how students' perceptions of the L2, of

the L2 speakers, and of the L2 culture affected their desire to learn the language (Gardner

17

& Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997). For the

purposes of this study, the review of Gardner's motivation theory is limited to two

distinct areas: (1) the construct of integrative motive and (2) a general model of SLA

named the socio-educational model in which motivation plays the central concept.

One fundamental area of Gardner's work has been the construct of the integrative

motive, which developed from the concepts of orientation and motivation. Namely, he

established a distinction as well as a relationship between motivation and orientation.

Acting as the motivational agent, orientation "refers to a class of reasons for learning a

second language" (Gardner, 1985, p. 54) and materializes under two different forms:

integrative orientation, which represents a positive disposition toward the L2 group and a

desire to interact with members of the L2 community; and instrumental orientation,

which represents the learner's interest in learning a foreign language for its pragmatic and

utilitarian benefits. Motivation, unlike orientation, requires the learner to display a

combination of effort, desire to learn the language, and affect or attitude towards learning

the language. Gardner further stated that, defined in these terms, motivation has "a clear

link with the language learning process" (Gardner, 1985, p. 10). At an earlier stage of

inquiry, Gardner & Lambert (1972) claimed that L2 learners with integrative motivation

would expend greater motivational effort in learning, which would result in greater L2

competence. The integrative motive is an attitudinal/motivational configuration defined

by Gardner (1985) as a "motivation to learn a second language because of positive

feelings toward the community that speaks that language" (pp 82-83) and represents a

key element in L2 achievement. Consequently, integrative motive is made up of three

critical components: (1) integrativeness— that is, the integrative orientation—, (2) attitudes

18

towards the learning situation, and (3) motivation. Refer to Figure 1, which illustrates the

conceptualization of the integrative motive and further details the different elements of

the social psychological approach.

Integrative orientation

Interest in Foreign language

INTEGRATWENESS

ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE LEARNING

Evaluation of the L2 teacher

Evaluation of the L2 course

Attitudes towards L2 community

MOTIVATION

Desire to learn the L2

Motivational intensity (effort)

Attitudes towards Learning the L2

Figure 1. Gardner's conceptualization of the integrative motive as represented in Dornyei (2001)

Based on the conceptualization that the acquisition of a second language is a

social psychological phenomenon rather than an educational one, Gardner has developed

a socio-educational model of SLA in which motivation- in the form of integrative

motive - i s the cornerstone. This model focused on four categories of variables: (1) the

social milieu, (2) individual difference, (3) second language acquisition contexts, and (4)

outcomes. Cognitive and affective variables, (i.e., intelligence, language aptitude,

situational anxiety, and motivation) directly influence the learner's achievement in formal

and informal learning contexts. Gardner described his model, presented schematically in

Figure 2, as a "dynamic causal interplay of individual differences variables interacting

with environmental and acquisition contexts resulting in both linguistics and non-

19

linguistics outcomes" (1985, p. 165). In other words, this model embodies the

interactions of the cognitive and affective individual variables as they influence learners'

behaviors in the language learning environment.

SOCIAL MILIEU

Cultural beliefs

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Intelligence

Language aptitude

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION CONTEXTS

Motivation

Situational anxiety

Formal language training

Informal ^ language

experience

OUTCOMES

Linguistic

Non-linguistic

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the socio-educational model

(Gardner, 1985).

The work of Gardner and colleagues (Gardner & Maclntyre, 1993; Gardner et al.,

1997; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) has had a significant influence in the L2 motivation

field, although a number of limitations to this model have been raised by L2 scholars. Au

(1988), for example, questioned whether the data was adequately related to the dimension

being investigated (e.g., the integrative motive viewed by Gardner) and whether it was

clearly defined (e.g., the cultural belief). According to Au, the reported data may have led

to inaccurate and inexact results which make Gardner's hypotheses difficult to evaluate.

For instance, L2 researchers have examined the relationship between integrative motive

and language learning and concluded that the causal link between integrative motive and

20

L2 achievement received no confirmation of empirical evidence. It is also unclear from

many of Gardner's studies whether motivation is the result or the cause of successful

learning (Au, 1988). Furthermore, many L2 scholars identified two crucial limitations

in/within the socio-psychological approach: (1) the integrative-instrumental construct, by

its simplicity, does not "capture everything .. .about motivation" (Brown, 1990, p. 384);

and (2) the distinction between attitudes and motivation is "far from clear" based on the

fact that the difference between 'effort', 'desire', and 'interest' "is hardly transparent"

(Oiler, 1981,23).

To conclude, the social psychological approach proposed by Gardner

demonstrated the role of attitudes and motivation when learning a second language and

produced the socio-educational model. Still drawing considerable interest today, this

model has been the starting point from which L2 scholars have initiated their research.

The Cognitive-situated Approach

In the early 1990s, the emergence of new cognitive approaches in cognitive

psychology influenced L2 scholars to reassess motivation in SLA. As a result, researchers

focused on the motivational processes underlying classroom learning, thus "making

motivation research more 'education-friendly'" (Dornyei, 2001b, p. 104).

Amongst the first to react to this educational shift were Crookes and Schmidt

(1991) who wrote a position paper that asked for the "reopening of the research agenda"

(p. 469) in L2 motivation. This "reopening" would allow for a consideration of

alternative ideas to motivation. They argued that "work to date .. .has been almost

exclusively social psychological in approach, and it has failed to distinguish between

concepts of attitude, especially attitude toward the target language culture, and

21

motivation" (p. 501). Crookes and Schmidt's critique and analysis of Gardner's work

signified the need to address motivation, per se, and to establish connections between

approaches of motivation from the perspectives of psychology, mainstream education,

and L2 learning. To illustrate their argument, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) proposed a

review of the current conceptualizations of motivation by analyzing the connections

between motivation and L2 learning. They examined motivation at four different levels

(micro, classroom, syllabus/curriculum, and extracurricular) while providing empirical

evidence for each to be further developed in future research. For instance, at the

classroom level, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) claimed that the different stages of a lesson

(i.e. preliminaries, activities, teacher feedback, students' expectations of self and self-

evaluations, and instructional materials) are linked to students' 'interest' and have

important motivational effects. In particular, these scholars reported empirical findings

claiming greater motivational effects of certain practices during classroom activities: (1)

using of group work characterizing 'communicative approaches' allowing students to

interact with each other and preventing competitive and challenging environment; (2)

avoiding regular pattern of classroom routine by introducing changes, developing

curiosity and encouraging students to express their curiosity; and (3) offering activities

that match students' level of language ability to develop and maintain their interest.

Crookes and Schmidt (1991) closed their discussion by posing a series of research

questions (developed from Bunge, 1967, ppl93-194) which addressed general and

specific areas of L2 motivation.

Following this attempt to expand the examination of L2 motivation, Oxford and

Shearin (1994) claimed that "other psychological perspectives may yield fresh insights

22

for rethinking L2 learning motivation" (p. 12). They explored several theories in

mainstream motivational psychology (e. g., goal-setting theory, Piaget and Vygotsky's

theories) and issued, for each one, practical instructional techniques for L2 teachers to

implement in the language classroom. For example, they recommended that teachers

"make the L2 classroom a welcoming, positive place where psychological needs are met

and language anxiety is kept to a minimum" (Oxford & Shearin, 1994, p. 24).

Furthermore, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) and Oxford and Shearin (1994) pointed out

how researchers and teachers approached the term and concept of "motivation"

differently. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) called for a program of research that "will

develop from, and be congruent with the concept of motivation that teachers are

convinced is critical for SL success" (p. 502) while Oxford and Shearin (1994) stated that

"the source of motivation is very important in a practical sense to teachers who want to

stimulate students' motivation. Without knowing where the roots of motivation lie, how

can teachers water those roots" (p. 15)? These comments reinforce the need for the L2

motivation research agenda to change direction and become "well-grounded in the real

world domain of SL classroom" (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p. 470).

Opening Gardner's social psychological approach further, Dornyei (1994)

proposed that L2 motivation be viewed as "an eclectic, multifaceted construct" (Dornyei,

1994, p. 279) and established three levels of motivation to conceptualize a general

framework of L2 motivation: the language level, the learner level, and the learning

situation level. This framework can be briefly summarized as follows. First, the language

level encompasses various components of the integrative and instrumental motivational

subsystems. Second, the learner level comprises the learners characteristics involved in

23

the learning process. Third, the learning situation level includes the course-specific, the

teacher-specific , and the group-specific motivational components within the classroom

setting. Dornyei chose to separate the three motivational levels as they "seem to have a

vital effect on the overall motivation independently of each other" (Dornyei, 2001b,

p. 112). Consequently, the change of one parameter at one level while keeping the other

two dimensions constant might completely modify the overall motivation of the learner.

Furthermore, Dornyei (1994) drew on his own experience, as an educator and researcher,

findings in educational psychological research, and Oxford and Shearin's (1991) work to

establish an extensive list of strategies "not rock-solid golden rules, but rather

suggestions that may work with one teacher or group better than another" (1994, p. 280).

These strategies directly affect the three levels of Dornyei's L2 motivation framework

and most of them concern the learning situation level introduced above.

Completing this description of the cognitive-situated approach, Marion Williams

(1994) argued the need to focus on the learners themselves and to include "the factors

that are inside the learner: self-esteem, feelings of worth, self-efficacy, control, interest"

(p. 80). Taking a social constructivist view of motivation, Williams claimed that while

"each individual is motivated differently.... an individual's motivation is also subject to

social and contextual influences" (1994, p. 121). Consequently, she proposed a

comprehensive view of motivation that combines (1) factors outside the individual (e.g.,

teachers, feedback, context, situation, peers, learning situation) and (2) factors inside the

learner (e.g., self-esteem, perceived value of the activity, curiosity and interest, feelings

of mastery). As a result, this interactive perspective places the choice to act at the center

7 These motivational components will be further developed in the section on teacher identities of this review of literature.

24

of a complex dynamic interplay between internal and external factors. Williams further

claimed that the significance of the factors that influence motivation "will differ between

subject areas ... for example, foreign language learning is affected more by external

factors" (1994, p. 83). Williams' approach to motivation highlighted how a multitude of

internal and external factors influence and mediate learners' choices while at the same

time they affect each other.

In summary, the cognitive-situated approach represents a critical stage in the

research agenda of L2 motivation. It contributed to a renewed interest in the role of

motivation in L2 learning through the examination of several motivational constructs in

different branches of psychology. Consequently, this period became a forum for a

scholarly debate described by Oxford (1994) as a "'multilogue' that helps shape the

evolving theory of language learning motivation" (p. 514). Thus, motivational strategies,

based on a synthesis of motivation theories, have been offered by some L2 scholars for

FL teachers to implement during language instruction.

The Process-oriented Approach

Originated in the late 1990s, this period is led by Dornyei and colleagues who

offered more empirical evidence about the complexity of L2 motivation. Dornyei & Otto

(1998) argued for a dynamic view of motivation and the need to account for the changes

of motivation over time as they used the process-oriented approach. This approach can be

simply defined as a succession of stages and concrete subtasks taken by the individual

when motivated.

Effectively, Dornyei and Otto (1998) believed that "motivation is not so much a

relatively constant state but rather a more dynamic entity that changes over time, with the

level of effort invested in the pursuit of a particular goal oscillating between regular ups

and downs" (p. 4). Responding to this view of motivation, they constructed a model

based on the synthesis of the most important motivational conceptualizations to date and

included two main dimensions. Figure 3 is a simple illustration of Dornyei and Otto's

complex visualization of motivation.

MOTIVATIONAL INFLUENCES

Energy sources &

Motivational forces:

- cognitive, - affective

- situational factors or conditions.

ACTION SEQUENCE

Preactional Phase 'choice of motivation'

Actional Phase 'executive motivation'

Postactional Phase Retrospection evaluation

Figure 3. Conceptualization of Dornyei & Otto's (1998) process model of L2 motivation.

The first dimension or action sequence represents a continuum divided into three

main phases. First, the preactional phase corresponds to the choice motivation that leads

to the selection of the goal or the task to be engaged in. Second, the actional phase

corresponds to the executive motivation that maintains the initial generated motivation

and protects the learner from all possible distractions. Third, the postactional phase

entails the motivational retrospection allowing the learners to conduct a retrospective

26

evaluation of how the events went. On the other hand, the second dimension or

motivational influences comprises energy sources and motivational forces that underlie

and stimulate the action sequence, that is, the success or failure of the goal set by the

learner. These motivational influences encompass different major motivational concepts

and theories issued from the L2 field and mainstream psychology. In sum, through this

model, Dornyei and Otto illustrated the complexity of the motivational process, which

they described as a "broad array of mental processes and motivational conditions" that

"play essential roles in determining why students behave as they do" (1998, p. 25).

As the ultimate aim for L2 researchers is to understand why students behave the

way they do, Dornyei & Otto (1998) reaffirmed that their goal was to "construct a

framework which is based on sound theoretical foundations and which is at the same time

useful for practitioners" (p. 24). In fact, Dornyei (2001a), a long-time language teacher,

teacher trainer and researcher, implemented his process model of L2 motivation as a

theoretical basis for methodological applications and wrote a 'what-to-do' book on

motivation. First of its kind in the field of L2 language, this book exclusively discussed

motivational strategies that is, "methods and techniques to generate and maintain the

learners' motivation. Although a great deal has been written in the past about what

motivation is ..., very little has been said about how this theoretical knowledge can be

applied in the actual classroom" (Dornyei, 2001a, p. 2). In particular, 'appropriate teacher

behaviors and a good relationship with the students' are recognized as a necessary

condition to generate student's motivation. In fact, Dornyei and Csizer (1998)

specifically focused on the question of how to motivate language learners. They asked

200 Hungarian teachers of English to examine a selection of motivational strategies taken

27

from Domyei (1994). As part of the data analysis, the researchers ranked these strategies

according to the importance attached to them by the teachers and established a list often

motivational macrostrategies or "commandments for motivating language learners",

shown in Figure 5.

1. Set a personal example of your own behavior. 2. Create a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere in the classroom. 3. Present tasks properly. 4. Develop a good relationship with the learners. 5. Increase the learners' linguistic self-confidence. 6. Make the language classes interesting. 7. Promote learner autonomy. 8. Personalize the learning process. 9. Increase the learners' goal-orientedness.

10. Familiarize learners with the target language culture.

Figure 4. Ten commandments for motivating language learners (Dornyei & Csizer, 1998, p. 215).

Dornyei and Csizer further interpreted these commandments in light of Dornyei' s (1994)

motivational framework and realized that most of them corresponded to the 'teacher-

specific' motivational components within the Learning situation level. These findings

highlighted the "teacher's own behavior as the most important and, at the same time,

extremely underutilized, motivational factor in the classroom" (Dornyei, 2001b, p.120).

In summary, this process-oriented period has shed more light on different

motivational dimensions and has established new connections between variables already

identified in the L2 motivation field. Dornyei's and Gardner's research teams actively

extended their own agenda. Dornyei created the process model of L2 motivation,

developed motivational strategies, and engaged in ongoing review of emerging new

motivational themes (Dornyei, 2001a, 2001b; Dornyei & Otto, 1998; Cohen & Dornyei,

28

2002). Gardner expanded and reformulated his socio-educational model through the

examination of correlations among the attitude/motivation variables and the question of

how to conceptualize instrumental motivation within his socio-educational model

(Gardner, 2001; Gardner & Masgoret, 2003; Gardner et al., 1997).

The SDT-L2 Motivation Movement

This fourth period draws upon the cognitive-situated approach characterized by

the need to adopt new cognitive variables in the L2 motivation models and constructs. As

mentioned above, several L2 scholars have examined a variety of motivational constructs

to move away from the traditional social psychological approach. In a similar manner,

Noels and his colleagues specifically turned to the theoretical framework of SDT to

conduct empirical research into the L2 application of this motivation theory. In the line of

the cognitive-situated approach, these researchers pursued two main objectives: (1) to

relate the intrinsic/extrinsic motivation subtypes as outlined by Deci & Ryan (1985) to

the orientations developed in L2 research, and (2) to examine how the learners' level of

self-determination is affected by various classroom practices (Noels, Clement & Pelletier,

1999; Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000; Noels, 2001).

Both studies (Noels et al., 1999, 2000) used an extensive and well-defined

questionnaire relying on multiple scales to report on the four orientations - travel,

friends, knowledge of the language, and instrumental orientation - (Gardner & Lambert,

1972; Gardner, 1985), to assess different types of motivation, and to measure several

psychological variables. The participants were English native speakers learning French at

different level of language proficiency. They filled out the questionnaire during regular

class time in a no-time limit and no-pressure context with a guaranty for anonymity.

8 The SDT framework will be introduced in the following section of this review of literature.

29

Results showed that the SDT paradigm is useful to understand L2 motivation as extrinsic

and intrinsic subtypes can validly assess learner motivation. More specifically, it

suggested that the more students perceived their teachers as controlling and as failing to

provide instructive feedback, the less they were intrinsically motivated. Further

examining the environmental influences on learner self-determination, Noels (2001)

proposed several hypotheses to find out how the communicative style of the language

teacher might be associated with intrinsic and extrinsic orientations of English-speaking

university students learning Spanish. Findings emerging from the analysis of

questionnaires revealed a consistent pattern with the aforementioned studies as well as

with Deci and Ryan's (1985) theoretical formulation. Students clearly expressed that the

less they 'felt they had choices about learning, the less they felt they were learning the

language because it was fun or because it was valuable to them" (Noels, 2001, p. 135).

Also, the more students perceived their teacher as actively involved in their learning that

is, giving informative praise and encouragement to their efforts, the more students felt

competent in learning Spanish. Noels (2001) further noted that from students' perspective

it is crucial for teachers to show a personal commitment to students' learning progress.

This particular line of research, though rather new in its development, will be re

examined, later in this chapter, in the light of the description of the SDT framework and

its relevance to the issues of a better understanding of students' motivation during FL

instruction. In addition, an extensive description of SDT will allow for a rationale of a

specific model, branching from this theory of motivation, to be used as a theoretical

framework for the data analysis of this study.

Discussion about Limitations of Research Paradigm

As mentioned at the outset, several L2 scholars (Syed, 2001; Ushioda, 2001;

William et al., 2001) took the opportunity, within the field of L2 motivation research, to

challenge the dominant quantitative research paradigm. Adopting Crookes and Schmidt's

(1991) viewpoint, they engaged in a dialogue about the need for new methodologies to

move "away from exclusive reliance on self-report questionnaires and correlational

studies" and move "toward a research program that uses survey instruments along with

observational measures, ethnographic work" (p. 502). In strong agreement with these

recommendations, van Lier (1996) suggested breaking away from the traditional

paradigm and including ethnographic research, case studies, and action research, that is,

different research designs employed in qualitative inquiry.

For example, Syed (2001) determined to reach "beyond the surface level answers

given on questionnaires" (p. 134) used as instruments in quantitative studies, conducted a

qualitative study in an effort to examine why students engage in foreign and/or heritage

learning. His findings showed the importance that students placed on the teaching style

which directly impacts the learners' motivation and interest as illustrated in the

following:

The students liked the 'small group' feel of the class and how "I don't feel the

competitiveness" of the 'regular class'. They did not perceive the instructor as

particularly tough or demanding. All of them felt their needs were being

addressed in a very personal way and that they were getting a lot out of the class.

For some the progress was beyond expectation (Syed, 2001, p. 139).

31

Ushioda (2001) believed in the value of qualitative approach to provide the opportunity

to "cast a different light on the phenomena ... and to raise a different set of issues" (p.

96) and explored "aspects of motivation that are not easily accommodated within the

dominant research paradigm" (p. 96). The purpose of her study was to explore the

qualitative content of the learners' motivational thinking via "(a) the learners' own

working conceptions of their motivation, and (b) their perspectives in relation to aspects

of motivational evolution and experience over time" (Ushioda, 2001, p. 93). Ushioda

chose to approach motivation as a qualitative variable which is not viewed in terms of

"observable and measurable activity" (p. 96) but is viewed, in terms of "what patterns of

thinking and belief underlie such activity and shape students' engagement in the learning

process" (p. 96). Data from interviews of twenty young Irish adult learners of French

revealed definite changes in the temporal frame of reference that shaped the students'

thinking, particularly with regard to the evolving nature of goal-orientation in the

learners' motivational experience. Furthermore, Ushioda (2001) claimed that the "impact

of learning experience on motivation is thus mediated by selective patterns of thinking

and belief that focus learners' attention on the positive rather than the negative" (p. 119).

Another illustration of qualitative research of L2 motivation is Chambers' (1999)

four year project with secondary schools learners of German in the United Kingdom and

learners of English and French in Germany. Chambers employed a mixed method that

combined surveys and follow-up individual interviews to bring in-depth data to "get

inside the pupils' heads to access their views on what switches them on and off in the

language classroom" (1999, p. 54). He specifically focused on two central issues of L2

motivation: the perceived usefulness and the perceived enjoyment of a foreign language

32

course from the students' point of view. The findings described students' likes and

dislikes and confirmed that students learn when the subject of learning is useful and

enjoyable. Findings also revealed that the teacher represents the most influential factor of

students' language learning experiences as it "permeates almost every issue investigated

in this study relating to pupils' feelings about learning foreign languages and issues

relating to the 'in-school' foreign language learning experience" (Chambers, 1999,

p. 152). From these findings, Chambers offered suggestions and tools for FL teachers to

enhance the learning experience of their students. He recommended giving students a

more positive view of the utilitarian value of foreign languages and amending the

standard approaches to foreign language teaching. To this end, Chambers (1999)

explored activities, not viewed as the 'norm' in modern language classrooms, while

acknowledging their significance to bored and disengaged students.

As a final point on L2 motivation research, Gardner took the opportunity to

address criticism from teachers and other L2 scholars by recognizing that the teacher had

been ignored in his research on motivation in SLA. For the first time, Gardner (2001)

considered motivation from three perspectives: the student, the teacher, and the

researcher. Findings reported "that the major contributor to language learning motivation

is first and foremost the student, and secondarily the student's background and other

external factors such as the teacher" (p. 19). However, findings from the aforementioned

studies suggested that the teacher and the teaching style represent an important factor in

L2 motivation.

In conclusion, this literature review of L2 motivation closed with a discussion

about the importance of considering different research paradigms. Several L2 scholars

33

have approached the study of L2 motivation from an interpretive and contextual point of

view rather than an experimental and causal one, in agreement with van Lier's (1988).

Moreover, these qualitative studies provided an overall rich source of insights from the

FL learners' perspectives, which encourage the pursuit of their practice on a larger scale

to examine specific areas of L2 motivation.

To review, the first section of this chapter introduced five conceptual areas of

scholarship that outline L2 motivation research while focusing on the following: (a) the

social psychological approach proposed by Gardner and his associates to conceptualize

L2 motivation, (b) the cognitive-situated approach proposed by L2 scholars to expand

Gardner's approach and shed more light on motivational dimensions, (c) the process-

oriented approach offered by Dornyei to define L2 motivation in the form of dynamic,

changing, and cumulative processes (d) the recent attempt to incorporate the theoretical

framework of SDT to the language learning context to examine teachers' communicative

style from learners' perspective and assess academic motivation using the intrinsic and

extrinsic subtypes as outlined by Deci & Ryan (1985), and (e) the discussion about

including qualitative research to the dominant quantitative paradigm when exploring the

different aspects of L2 motivation.

Self-determination Theory and Student Engagement

The present study focuses on: (1) students' motivation and engagement in the FL

classroom; and (2) students' learning outcomes measured by course grades and students'

self-reported learning. These two central issues are examined from the perspective of

self-determination theory (SDT), the choice of which has been prompted by the existence

of two critical notions derived from this motivational theoretical framework.

34

First, extensive empirical evidence has linked the motivational processes as

identified in SDT to positive outcomes that individuals experience in a learning setting.

That is, student's motivation has been shown to increase academic outcomes, such as

high engagement and persistence (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997), conceptual learning

(Benware & Deci, 1984; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), intrinsic motivation (Deci, Schwartz,

Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981), and academic achievement (Miserandino, 1996). Second, the

concept of engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991), grounded from the dialectic

relationship assumption of SDT, is useful in educational settings since it "provides

teachers with an observable manifestation of the quality of a student's motivation"

(Reeve, 2002, p. 194). Consequently, this engagement model was chosen to interpret the

findings emerging from the data.

In order to understand how SDT informs student motivation and student learning

outcomes, this section offers an overview of SDT theoretical framework first, and a

detailed description of the motivational model of engagement (Connell and Wellborn,

1991) nested from self-determination theory. This model explains how the relationships

between the dimensions offered by the social context and the individual directly influence

outcomes (e.g., learning, achievement, and well-being). Lastly, this section gives an

account of empirical evidence that illustrates how SDT framework has proven to be

linked to student positive learning outcomes while explaining why this motivational

framework should be implemented to examine students' motivation in the FL classroom.

Overview of Self-determination Theory

Self-determination theory is a major theory of motivation and is built upon a set

of three assumptions about the nature of people and the factors that give impetus to action

35

(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Moreover, those researchers working within SDT consider

environmental factors that enhance or undermine the natural processes of self-motivation

(Ryan & Deci, 2000). This section presents an overview of SDT by providing a brief

description of the three assumptions underlying SDT and the three motivational agents

directly linked to social contexts.

The first assumption of SDT proposes that the basic psychological needs of

autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential for facilitating individuals' optimal

functioning in terms of motivation, growth, integrity, and well-being. According to SDT,

in order to be motivated, individuals need to fulfill their psychological needs, and each of

these needs is of equal importance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The following briefly describes

these three needs, which represent key notions in understanding SDT.

• Autonomy or self-determination represents the need for the individual alone to

decide what, when, where, and how to take part in an activity. When autonomous,

people decide their own behavior, select their desired outcomes and choose how

to achieve them (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

• Competence represents the need for the individual to seek out and put forth the

effort necessary to master optimal challenge9. Deci and Ryan (1985) described the

need for competence of an individual as his/her engagement in a task with a level

of difficulty and complexity that is exactly right for his/her current skills.

Therefore, competence is not an attained skill or capability, but rather a felt sense

of confidence and "effectance"10 in action.

9 As defined by Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura (1989). 10 As defined by White (1959).

• Relatedness represents the individual's need to belong and to establish close

emotional connections with others. It reflects the emotional desire to be connected

and to be involved in warm relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

These psychological needs have been identified as the source of every individual's self-

autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). That is, the extent to which individuals

fulfill their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness explains how proactive and

engaged or alternatively, passive and aliened they are.

Second, SDT states that the relationship between a person and his or her

environment is dialectic. That is, individuals act upon the environment out of a need to

seek out and affect changes as the environment supports individuals' interests or hinders

their needs to be fulfilled (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Consequently, this proactive exchange

and mutual influence between the person (e.g., students) and the environment (e.g.,

educational settings, FL classroom), known as the dialectic relationship, underlie the

important distinction between self-determined and controlled intentional behaviors.

Namely, self-determined or motivated behaviors are initiated and regulated through

choice as an expression of oneself whereas, controlled actions or behaviors result from

pressure and coercion imposed by the environment and do not represent true choice by

the individual (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Within the framework of SDT, the three psychological needs— autonomy,

competence, and relatedness—represent sources of motivation and are directly linked to

social contexts (e.g., the environment, external events, and relationships). The dialectic

relationship, in the form of proactive exchange and mutual influence between the person

and the environment, explains how the environment offers prescriptions (e.g., instruction,

37

recommendations), proscriptions (e.g., interdiction), and aspirations (e.g., hope) to well-

being (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Ryan and Deci (2000) claimed that social contexts

"supportive of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were to foster greater

internalization11 and integration12 than contexts that thwart satisfaction of these needs" (p.

76). Thus, in the case of the present study, the FL classroom has to support students'

being competent, related, and autonomous during learning activities in order to promote

their motivated actions and behaviors.

As a final point on social environments, empirical work has focused on school

context and social determinants of school motivation in connection with student

motivation, academic achievement, and school performance (Guay & Vallerand, 1997;

Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995; Vallerand et al., 1997). Such studies revealed that

students' perceptions of the social context had an influence on their sense of competence

and autonomy. For example, Guay and Vallerand's (1997) claim that "motivating

students starts with an understanding of the social context that fulfills students' needs for

competence and autonomy" (pp. 227-228) illustrates the indirect impact the social

context has on motivation. Consequently, this understanding would assist the promotion

of students' motivation and their subsequent achievement.

The third assumption of SDT recognizes different types of motivation, which are

grounded in different reasons or goals set by individuals and are responsible for initiating

behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsically motivated individuals engage in an activity

for the fun and enjoyment of it whereas extrinsically motivated individuals engage in an

activity for something other than the activity itself, such as the promise of a reward or an

11 Third assumption of SDT. 12 Third assumption of SDT.

38

external pressure. Furthermore, there is a link between being autonomous and

experiencing intrinsic motivation given that intrinsically motivated behaviors are self-

determined13 or autonomous as individuals follow their interests, seek challenges, and

make choices (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Motivational Model of Engagement

In reference to social contexts and their influence in motivating individuals,

Connell and Wellborn (1991) proposed a motivational model of engagement nested from

SDT, which is employed as a conceptual framework to interpret the findings of this

study. Because motivation is an internal state, it is in and of itself not an observable

phenomenon in educational settings. Motivated behavior, however, can be examined by

one's engagement, which expresses the manifestation of the quality of a student's

motivation (Reeve, 2002).

Connell (1990) and Connell and Wellborn (1991) introduced a general

motivational model of relations among context, self, action, and outcomes. This model

explains relationships among individuals' experience in the social context, their self-

system processes (as explained below), their patterns of actions, and the actual outcomes

of performance (e.g., grades and achievement test scores). For a visual representation of

this model, see Figure 5.

First assumption of SDT.

39

CONTEXT -• SELF -> ACTION -> OUTCOMES

( Autonomy V Support Engagement

vs. Disaffection

- cognitive - behavioral - emotional

Skills & Abilities

Personal Adjustment

Figure 5. A Motivational model of Context, Self, Action, and Outcomes by Connell and Wellborn (1991).

As the individual seeks to meet the needs for competence, autonomy, and

relatedness as identified by SDT, self-system processes develop out of the interactions

between the psychological needs and social context. According to this model, self-system

processes refer to appraisal processes defined by Connell and Wellborn (1991) as "of

how competent, autonomous, and related the individual feels within and across particular

contexts" (p. 52). Moreover, structure, autonomy support, and involvement represent the

three dimensions or aspects of the social surrounding, thought to be central to the

development of self-system processes. Thus, within the classroom context, structure,

autonomy support, and involvement represent the dimensions of teacher behavior

underlying the patterns of actions by students during learning activities. These

dimensions are outlined below to report on specific teacher behaviors known to foster the

fulfillment of each psychological need (Connell, 1990; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

40

• Autonomy-support refers to the communication of choice, room for initiative;

recognition of feelings and a sense that activities are connected to personal goals

and values.

• Structure refers to the amount and the clarity of information communicated, the

offering of skill-building, and the provision of optimal challenges and

information-rich performance feedback.

• Involvement refers to the quality of the interpersonal relationship with teachers

and peers and the person's willingness to dedicate psychological resources such

as time, interest, and attention to others.

Furthermore, this model addresses the connection between the self and action through the

constructs of engagement and disaffection. Indeed, these concepts are qualities of

motivated action that individuals show when they initiate and carry out activities, such as

learning in school, and comprise behavioral, cognitive, and emotional components

(Connell & Wellborn, 1991). As such, when the environment meets students' needs for

autonomy, competence, and relatedness, students show engagement; they are active,

constructive, persistent, and focused. In contrast, when students' needs are not met,

students are much more likely to experience disaffection; they are passive and express

negative emotions (e.g., anger, boredom, discouragement).

In sum, within the classroom context, the main issue is for teachers to create an

engagement-facilitating classroom climate that nurtures students' psychological needs

and provides three specific dimensions: (1) structure to satisfy the need for competence,

(2) autonomy support to satisfy the need for self-determination, and (3) interpersonal

involvement to satisfy the need for relatedness (Reeve, 2002).

41

Promoting Self-determined Learning

Numerous studies have shown that SDT is a solid theoretical approach to explain

the motivational process underlying student motivation, engagement, and learning (Deci

& Ryan, 1994; Miserandino, 1996). In particular, empirical evidence supports that

autonomous-motivated students thrive in educational settings and students benefit when

teachers support their autonomy (Reeve, 2002).

To illustrate how motivation, as defined by SDT, affects students' positive

functioning in school and its relation with the elements present during instruction in an

autonomy-supportive environment, this section presents a selection of important studies

that examined: (1) student engagement gains, (2) high-quality learning, (3) performance

gains, and (4) autonomy-supportive teaching style

Student Engagement Gains

As the benefits of highly-engaged students are recognized (Connell & Wellborn,

1991; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, and

Barch (2004) demonstrated how students' engagement can be enhanced when teachers

increase their autonomy support. They tested if teachers could incorporate the concept of

autonomy support into their motivating style as a way to promote their students'

engagement during instruction. Once they received a specific training, high school

teachers, with an average of 14.8 years of experience, were observed in their classroom

as they applied the newly-learned autonomy-supportive behaviors. During these

observations, students' engagement was assessed on five dependent measures, including

teachers' autonomy support, two measures of students' engagement (i.e., task

involvement and influence attempts), teachers' provision of structure and teachers'

42

provision of involvement. Findings reported that teachers were able to teach and motivate

their students in more autonomy-supportive ways as students reacted accordingly: the

more teachers used autonomy-supportive behaviors, the more students were engaged.

This result led to the conclusion "that student's engagement is sensitive to changes in

their teacher's motivating style" (Reeve & al., 2004, p. 165). These findings have

implications for educators dealing with the vital question: How can I motivate others?

Testing the linkages in Connell and Wellborn's model, Klem and Connell (2004)

specifically examined the connection between teacher support and engagement in relation

to academic success. Measuring teacher support and student engagement from the

perspectives of teachers and students, the researchers were able to provide "support for an

indirect link between student experience of support and academic performance through

student engagement" (Klem & Connell, 2004, p. 270). Findings further revealed several

patterns in terms of high and low levels of teacher support as a resource or a liability for

student engagement. For instance, elementary students reporting low levels of support

were twice as likely as the average student to be disaffected while middle school students

were almost three times more likely to report engagement if they experienced highly

supportive teachers. Finally, based on the overall results educational environments should

be more personalized allowing for students increased experiences of teacher support

(Klem & Connell, 2004).

High Quality Learning

Focusing on the quality of learning, Benware and Deci (1984) tested college

students to determine how much they could learn based on their positive or negative

orientation towards the reading requested of them. The active involvement group of

43

students read the material with the expectation of teaching it to another student (active

orientation), while the passive-involvement group read the same material with the

expectation to be tested on it (passive orientation). Three dependent measures were

assessed: intrinsic motivation, active/passive dimension, and learning. A series of

questions, categorized as "rote" or "conceptual", assessed learning. It included true/false,

fill in blanks, definitions, multiple choice, identifications, and explanations. Students in

the active-involvement condition expressed greater intrinsic motivation, had higher

conceptual learning scores, and perceived themselves to be more actively engaged in

their learning than students in the passive-involvement condition. Furthermore, students

expected to engage in active orientation perceived themselves to be active in the teaching

paradigm and very passive in the examination paradigm. Based on this appealing finding,

Benware and Deci argued that "given the fact that the aim of most educators is to

promote conceptual learning, educational climates and procedures that facilitate

motivated learning would seem of central importance" (1984, p. 764).

Using an experimental paradigm with fifth-grade students, Grolnick and Ryan

(1987) divided children into three different learning sets to read a preliminary grade-level

text. Two directed learning conditions: (1) one controlling that used control learning

through external incentive or pressure and (2) one non-controlling that afforded

autonomy with no pressure or external contingencies were contrasted with each other and

with a third non-directed, (3) spontaneous-learning context in which children were not

given an instruction to learn the reading material. In this particular group, the possible

learning taking place was incidental, that is, it was function of the subject's interest rather

than of external directions. Twofold, results showed that both intentional learning sets

44

were better at rote recall even though, a week later when retested children in the

controlling situation did not perform better than their counterparts. In contrast, both the

non-controlling and non-directed groups demonstrated better conceptual learning than the

controlling group. However, there were two limitations in this study. First, the

participants were only one age group; and secondly, only a single measure of conceptual

integration was used. Given these limitations, Grolnick and Ryan (1987) concluded that

conceptual learning may be optimized under conditions that facilitate active and

autonomous involvement on the part of the learner, which would explain how "forced

feeding" of material promotes short-term recall at the expense of conceptual learning.

Addressing the issue of external pressure on teachers and its impact on students'

achievement, Flink, Boggiano, and Barrett (1990) conducted a field experiment in fourth-

grade classrooms and hypothesized that pressured teachers exhibit more controlling

behaviors toward their students. Randomly assigned to pressure and non-pressure

conditions, pressured teachers were made responsible for students' performance on tests

whereas, teachers in the autonomous conditions had to help students learn how to solve

the problems. The results revealed performance impairment for children taught by

pressured teachers who used controlling strategies and failed to provide choice options.

On the other hand, students taught by autonomy-supportive teachers displayed higher

levels of competence and intrinsic motivation.

Performance Gains

Miserando (1996) selected third and fourth graders identified as above average in

ability, to examine the impact of perceived competence and autonomy on engagement

and performance in school. Once children self-reported these three dimensions, using a

45

composite of questionnaire measures, the researcher identified children uncertain of their

ability and children externally motivated. The researchers performed predictions of each

perceived action and emotion, and tallied grades. Consistent with Connell and Wellborn's

(1991) model, results suggested that "when either competence or autonomy is perceived

as unfulfilled, children report negative affect and withdrawal behaviors and ultimately

show a decline in performance" (Miserandino, 1996, p. 208). Furthermore, perceived

competence and autonomy predicted changes in grades from the beginning to the end of

the semester. Finally, it is also important to point out that children's perceptions of lack

of ability were in disagreement with their achievement scores. As a result, this study

uncovered the paradox of "how is it that otherwise capable child are uncertain of their

ability" (p. 210)?

Furrer and Skinner (2003) specifically examined the sense of relatedness as a self-

system resource in children's academic engagement and performance. This inquiry was

guided by four main goals, each connecting relatedness to a different variable namely,

classroom engagement and performance, unique contribution of relatedness to specific

social partners, age and gender, and profiles of relatedness to specific social partners. As

part of a longitudinal project, the study was: (1) conducted with students from third to

sixth-grade; (2) used self-report questionnaires from students and questionnaires for

teachers to report on students for data collection; and (3) recorded grade scores

combining verbal and math performance to be used as academic performance. In accord

with previous work on relationship representations (Connell & Wellborn, 1991), the

findings suggested that children's sense of relatedness plays an important role in their

academic motivation and performance. Indeed, children reporting a higher sense of

46

relatedness showed greater emotional and behavioral engagement in school and improved

more over time than children reporting a low sense of relatedness.

Autonomy-Supportive Teaching Style

When it comes to how autonomy-supportive teachers teach and motivate students

compared to their controlling counterparts, Reeve, Bolt, and Cai (1999) confirmed that

the former listen more, show a tendency to verbalize fewer directives, resist giving

solutions, and support the students' intrinsic motivation and internalization. These

teachers display a student-centered conversational approach and a flexible interpersonal

style offering students choices in an autonomous-supportive environment. Pursuing this

research agenda, Jang & Reeve (2001) built on previously identified teachers' behaviors,

established and validated by Reeve et al. (1999) and Flink et al. (1990) to identify

specifically what teachers do (instructional behaviors) and say (communication

statement). College students were randomly assigned to become a teacher or a student

and had to either 'teach' or 'be taught' how to solve a three-dimensional manipulative

puzzle. These newly 'educated' teachers were "to help the students learn 'in whatever

way (s)he saw fit" while students were "to learn how the puzzle worked and solve its

solutions" (Jang & Reeve, 2001, p.2). Intrinsic motivation and students' performance

were both assessed. The former was scored from the students' post-session questionnaires

whereas, the later was independently assessed by two raters scoring the number of

solutions participants successfully solved without the assistance of the teacher. Results

showed that instructional behaviors such as, listening and making time for independent

work, and providing opportunities to talk were more important than communication

statements. When students performed well, they most often felt competent. Furthermore,

47

teachers' behaviors directly underlie how students' perceived self-determination and

perceived competence were nurtured.

Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, and Barch (2004) demonstrated how veteran teachers,

after receiving proper training, could expand on their teaching's motivating style to teach

and motivate their students in more autonomy-supportive ways which, in return, resulted

in having their students more engaged. The authors of this study concluded "that

student's engagement is sensitive to changes in their teacher's motivating style" (Reeve

et al., 2004, p. 165). These findings have implications for educators willing to change

their teaching styles as they face the vital question: How can I motivate my students

during instruction? This particular issue is at the core of the present study seeking to

examine what FL teachers do and say during instruction and how it impacts students'

behaviors—especially, student engagement and motivation.

In summary, this section about SDT introduced its assumptions and motivational

agents autonomy, competence, and relatedness and explained how the educational

environment can and should support each of these dimensions proven to be important and

necessary for students to become engaged and motivated. Empirical evidence

demonstrated how motivation affects students' positive functioning in school by

reporting on engagement gains, high-quality learning, and performance gains. Taken

together, the empirical results from these studies coupled with the purposes of the present

study resulted in the choice to apply the engagement model proposed by Connell and

Wellborn (1991) as a conceptual framework to interpret the findings emerging from the

data of this study. Historically, this model was validated within elementary school

programs using cross-sectional data. As an extension to this application, this model will

48

be implemented within foreign language classrooms at the post-secondary level.

Additional details regarding this application will be specified in the section addressing

the rationale of the present study.

Dynamics of the Language Classroom

The purposes of this study are to examine students' learning outcomes and to

better understand foreign language (FL) learner motivation during language instruction.

To this end, it is necessary to address the various factors directly involved in the language

learning process as it takes place in the language classroom. Therefore, understanding

language learning begins by focusing on the participants involved in the teaching-

learning process, as well as on the different elements of the language classroom.

Language teaching is a complex and dynamic activity in which the participants

interact with one another and bring a variety of perceptions, beliefs, expectations, and

attitudes to the language classroom (Ehrman & Dornyei, 1998; Naiman & al., 1978;

Nunan, 1999; Scarcella & Oxford, 1991; Tudor, 2001). The interactions and relationships

between the participants as well as other elements of language teaching embody the

dynamics of the language classroom. Scarcella and Oxford (1991) proposed the Tapestry

Approach to language learning claiming that just as the weaver creates the tapestry, the

learner creates the second language. Within this approach, teaching is viewed as a

"dynamic, interactional process in which instructors constantly shape their teaching to the

developing needs of their students, and the learners actively negotiate the instruction"

(Scarcella & Oxford, 1991, p. viii). Furthermore, Nunan's (1999) statement that "no two

classes are ever the same" (p 156), frequently affirmed by FL teachers, can be explained

14 Learning outcomes are: (1) determined by teachers' quantitative measures and (2) expressed by students in qualitative terms.

49

as "the complex interpersonal chemistry between teacher and student and between

student and student" (p. 156). Taken together, these views of the language teaching-

learning process call for an examination of the dynamics of the language classroom. In

order to achieve the two primary goals of this study, it is necessary to report on three

critical variables that directly shape these dynamics: learner identities, communicative

language teaching (CLT), and teacher identities. Thus, this section explores: (1) learner

identities characterized by learners' individual differences and learners' beliefs about

language learning experiences and achievements; (2) CLT, which represents the current

and dominant paradigm in language teaching and particularly in the language classrooms

being observed in this study; and (3) teacher identities corresponding to teachers' beliefs,

attitudes and perceptions of teaching situations. To provide a clear synopsis to the reader,

these variables are presented as separate topics in three different sections. However, these

variables are such that both direct and indirect connections exist, yielding some overlap

between the sections.

Learner Identities

Typically, every student who enters the FL classroom brings a unique background

of knowledge, prior learning experiences, and attitudes toward the foreign language that

shapes his or her degree of willingness to take part in the instruction. Tudor (2001)

acknowledged the importance of "the uniqueness of each language learner" (p. 14) and

claimed that teachers cannot define their students as 'simply' students but rather as

"complex human beings who bring with them in the classroom their own individual

personality" (p. 14). As such, this complexity influences how students interact with

teachers as well as with what they do in the classroom. This uniqueness is characterized

50

by individual differences (ID) as well as by students' experience in language learning.

Individual differences studied in L2 learning can be classified as cognitive (e.g.,

intelligence, language aptitude, and memory) and affective (e.g., anxiety, motivation,

emotion, personality, and willingness to communicate: Ellis, 1994; 2004). Motivation is

the most studied of these characteristics, as previously reported. In addition to

motivation, the following general profile outlines the typical personal learner's

characteristics that are crucial in language learning.

The first L2 scholars that focused exclusively on the learner, using face-to-face

interviews and classroom observations were Naiman et al. (1978). They examined the

insights of the good language learner (GLL) in order to better understand the individual

differences and characteristics between successful and less successful learners, and to

identify the conscious learning strategies and techniques they employ. Naiman et al.

(1978) adopted a model that comprises five classes of variables in language learning,

including three independent variables: teaching, the learner, and the context and two

dependent variables: learning and outcome. Results showed that the complex interplay of

the variables contributed to successful learning or failure-to-learn by the language

learner, in that "personality characteristics, learning strategies, and accidental

circumstances appear to be influential to varying degrees and in different combinations

for success in language learning" (Naiman et al., 1978, p. 17). Several L2 scholars have

used the GLL study and its model as a guide or reference for their research in specializing

in one or more individual learner differences (Cotterall, 1999; Ehrman, Leaver, &

Oxford, 2003; Ellis, 1994, 2004; Oxford & al. (1991); Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Skehan,

1989, 1991).

51

Since the early 1980s, the study of differences between learners, abroad and far-

reaching subject, has identified numerous individual differences and demonstrated their

influence on learning outcomes. In order to remain relevant to this study, the review of

ID is limited to the most representative for describing the language learner during FL

instruction, which includes: (1) affective variables (i.e., anxiety, willingness to

communicate (WTC), personality, and emotion); (2) learning styles; and (3) learning

strategies. Lastly, ending this section on learner identities is an overview of learner's

beliefs about language learning experiences and achievements, which will complete the

outline of the language learner's profile.

Affective Variables

Given the fact that "modern language pedagogy places great emphasis on

communication" (Maclntyre, Baker, Clement & Donavan, 2002, p. 138), it is of interest

to study individual characteristics that influence learners' behaviors during

communication. Thus, anxiety, WTC, personality, and emotion represent affective

variables or states that are interrelated and linked to learners' beliefs about language

learning and general factors (e.g., age, sex). Taken together, these factors have been

found to affect language learning outcomes such as L2 proficiency, achievement, and rate

of acquisition (Ellis, 1994; 2004).

Anxiety.

As with motivation, the investigation of anxiety, including its description and role

in language learning has engendered interest by numerous L2 scholars, especially when it

comes to the relationship between anxiety and L2 proficiency (Gardner & al., 1997;

Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Maclntyre & Gardner, 1991; Maclntyre, 1995).

52

Language learners state that they often have a "mental block against learning a foreign

language" (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 125) and FL teachers feel strongly that anxiety

represents a major obstacle that they must overcome when learning another language.

These two factors set L2 classroom anxiety apart from anxiety expressed in other

learning situations. Responding to this difference in learning situations, Horwitz et al.

(1986) identified "foreign language anxiety as a conceptually distinct variable in foreign

language learning and interpreting it within the context of the existing theoretical and

empirical work on specific anxiety reactions" (p. 125). To this end, they developed the

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) based on the analysis of potential

sources of anxiety in the language classrooms, which assessed three components of L2

anxiety (i.e., communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation).

Horwitz et al.'s (1986) results and those of subsequent studies (Gardner et al., 1997;

Maclntyre & Gardner, 1991; Maclntyre, 1995; Maclntyre, Noels & Clement, 1997)

showed that language anxiety is negatively related to L2 achievement, namely, it is

associated with deficits in listening comprehension, impaired vocabulary learning,

reduced word production, and low test scores. More recently, while reviewing L2

learners' motivation, Ehrman et al. (2003) have found that "language learners who are

anxious about their performance are often less motivated to perform in ways that bring

active attention to themselves in the classroom" (p. 323). Thus, "L2 performance anxiety

is often highly related to motivation" (Ehrman et al., 2003, p. 323).

Finally, for purposes of this study, it is important to report examples of

pedagogical implications proposed by L2 scholars in an effort to help anxious students

learn to cope with the existing anxiety-provoking situation and make the learning context

53

less stressful. As recommended by Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, and Daley (1999), teachers first

and foremost should acknowledge their students' feelings as legitimate and then attempt

to lessen "these feelings of inadequacy, confusion, and failure by providing positive

experiences to counteract the anxiety" (p. 232). Furthermore, offering encouragement,

reassurance, positive reinforcement, and empathy would allow for students to build their

confidence in their FL abilities as it reduces the affective filter of the language classroom

(Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999).

Willingness to communicate.

Considered as a stable trait-like factor and a personality-based orientation toward

communication, willingness to communicate (WTC) is defined as the intention to initiate

communication. First to conceptualize WTC in an L2 situation, Maclntyre, Clement,

Dornyei and Noels (1998) constructed a pyramid that encompassed a range of linguistic,

communicative, and social psychological influences (e.g., motivation, intergroup issues,

social situation) on the decision to initiate L2 communication. At the base of the pyramid,

the personality of the learner and the intergroup climate15 set the stage for L2

communication. Most important, within this conceptual pyramid, WTC "exerts a more

direct influence on communication than does either anxiety or perceived communicative

competence" (Maclntyre, Baker, Clement, and Conrod, 2000, p. 371). This claim

provides explanation for when competent learners refuse to use the L2 and when other

learners struggle through their inconsistent and limited L2 competencies to communicate

and use the L2 in order to learn. The latter scenario illustrates a "preexisting behavioral

intention, a willingness to communicate in L2" (Maclntyre et al., 2000, p.382) as these

15 Defined by Maclntyre et al. (1998) along two complementary dimensions concerned with the structural characteristics of the community and their perceptual and affective correlates (p. 555).

54

learners are more determined in using the L2 than those who refuse entirely. In

conclusion, considered an individual difference variable affecting L2 acquisition, WTC

also represents a goal in L2 instruction, suggesting that "success will come to a student

who is more willing to initiate L2 communication" (Maclntyre et al., 2000, p. 382).

Students 'personality.

From the perspective of many FL teachers, students' personality plays a major

role in language learning success or failure (Ellis, 1994). L2 learners, as well, consider

this factor to be important. For example, results of the GLL study (Naiman et al., 1978)

reported that 31 percent of students viewed extraversion as helpful in acquiring oral

skills. According to McCrosbey and Daly (1987), the trait defined by Guilford (1959) as

"any distinguishable, relatively enduring way in which one individual differs from

another" (p. 13) underlies the core concepts of personality. Recent research in personality

trait theory led to the identification of five most basic and independent personality traits

(i. e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to

new experiences: Daly & Bippus, 1998; Maclntyre et al., 1998). The

extraversion/intro version distinction represents the dimension of personality that has

received the most attention by L2 scholars. Reviewing this research, Ellis (2004) reported

that "extraversion is viewed as a factor having a positive effect on the development of L2

basic interpersonal skills" (p. 541). Extraverted learners are likely to interact more with

other L2 speakers and are more fluent. However, they are not necessarily more accurate

in the L2, which supports the fact that fluency and accuracy are two separate dimensions

in second language proficiency (Ellis, 2004). As a final point, in the WTC model

55

proposed by Maclntyre et al. (1998), personality helps to set the context in which

language learning takes place.

Emotion.

To close this overview of selected affective variables, it is important to briefly

introduce the variable of emotion because it seems to play in understanding and effecting

motivation. Applying Tomkin's (1970) point that "emotion is continually present,

varying in type and intensity", Maclntyre (2002) claimed that "emotion has some impact

on everything we do; the stronger the emotion, the greater the impact" (p. 61). Moreover,

as emotions "often carry with them impulses to act in a particular way appropriate to the

emotion" (Maclntyre, 2002, p. 62), these impulses to act might place the L2 learners in

an unpleasant situation. For example, after feeling embarrassed for misspeaking, most L2

learners feel compelled to withdraw from the interaction even though it might not be in

their best interest. This behavior demonstrates how reason and emotion are separate

issues (Maclntyre, 2002). Lastly, revisiting the discussion by L2 scholars about

motivating L2 learners, Maclntyre (2002) proposed that the difference in learners'

motivational behaviors cannot solely be explained by their attitudes but rather "lies in the

emotions experienced during language learning (p. 63). To conclude, based on the recent

application of the psychological properties of emotion into the language learning

literature, L2 scholars need to further understand and explain how emotion affects

motivation.

Learning Styles

Noted by Ehrman et al. (2003), the literature on learning styles can also be found

under the terms learning style, cognitive style, personality type, sensory preference, and

56

modality. Defined as a mixture of cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements, learning

styles represent patterns of mental functions as well as patterns of attitudes and interests

that influence the choice of learning strategies by the learner (Oxford, Ehrman & Lavine,

1991). Since research in the FL field has identified a multitude of learning styles, this

examination is limited to the analytic vs. global dimensions and how they underlie other

dimensions.

The global learner, when unsure as to meaning of each word spoken, uses holistic

strategies, such as guessing, searching for the main idea, and engaging in social

conversation to develop a working meaning of the unfamiliar word. In contrast, the

analytic learner prefers strategies to break down each word and sentence into their basic

components and to analyze each structure in detail (Oxford & al., 1991). In reality, it is

more likely that the student's learning styles will fall on a continuum from truly

analytical to truly global with various forms in between.

Learning Strategies

Ehrman & al. (2003) explained that learning styles and learning strategies are

often seen as interrelated due to the fact that "styles are made manifest by learning

strategies" (p.315). In What Every Teacher Should Know, Rebecca Oxford (1990) defined

learning strategies as "specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster,

more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, more transferable to new situations"

(p.8). Widely recognized in L2 field, Oxford's work provided explanations of when and

which learning strategies to apply during FL instruction. Ehrman (1996) created

guidelines for teachers and students to choose and apply learning strategies. For instance,

the following statement supported the notion that learning strategies and learning styles

57

are interrelated: "Most goals can be reached by multiple routes. Choose learning

strategies for the demands of the learning task and consistent with the learner's style.

There is no cookbook of learning strategies" (Ehrman, 1996, p. 185). Indeed, several

factors (e.g., stage of learning, task requirements, teacher expectations, general learning

style, motivation level) influence learners as they choose their strategies. For example,

highly motivated learners will choose from a larger selection of appropriate strategies

than less motivated learners (Oxford, 1990). Consequently, learning strategies represent

another characteristic shaping the L2 learner's profile to take into account when

examining students' motivation during FL instruction.

Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning

An opening statement from an influential article by Horwitz (1988), "Americans

appear to hold strong beliefs about how languages are learned" (p. 283), demonstrates the

importance of introducing L2 learners' beliefs when investigating L2 learning. As an

illustration, it is common knowledge to hear that in order to acquire another language in

the United States, the individual needs to have a special 'gift' or else it will be a failure.

This indicates that FL teachers have the obligation to discover what their students believe

or know about their learning (Horwitz, 1988; Wenden, 1986).

Wenden (1986) specifically organized data collected from 25 interviews of adult

L2 learners at the post-secondary level, to classify L2 learners' knowledge about their

language learning. The classification of learners' statements led to the identification of

five dimensions, other than learning strategies, that individually characterize participants'

knowledge of their language learning as follows: (1) language, (2) language proficiency,

(3) outcome of strategies, (4) personal factors, and (5) beliefs about how best to approach

58

language learning. Based on these results, Wenden recommended that teachers provide

activities that "would allow students to examine their beliefs and their possible impact on

how they approach learning" (Wenden, 1986, p. 1999). Using the Beliefs About

Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) as the instrument to collect data from adult L2

learners enrolled in German, French, and Spanish classes, Horwitz (1988) chose to

"determine the prevalence of certain common beliefs about language learning among

groups of language learners" (p.284). Overall, the results showed similar patterns of

responses across the three language groups and revealed several areas of strong

consensus by participants about language learning's beliefs. For instance, the concept of a

hierarchy that organizes language learning difficulty and the concept of special abilities

for language learning are clearly recognized and supported by learners of each language.

With reference to learning and communication strategies, participants "agreed almost

unanimously (ninety-eight percent) that it is important to 'repeat and practice a lot'"

(Horwitz, 1988, p. 289). However, when it comes to participating in communicative

activities many students expressed concerns about becoming self-conscious, making

mistakes, and being immediately corrected or not. This topic of correctness, that is,

teachers choosing or not choosing to correct students' mistakes on the spot represents a

contributing factor to anxiety reactions by learners. Consequently, these results underline

the importance for FL teachers to explain the rationale of the activities proposed during

instruction so students can better participate in them. Also important to point out, these

results represent learners' beliefs at a specific time of their language learning experience.

As learners progress through the apprenticeship of the language, it is more likely that

59

their beliefs will evolve based on changes in curriculum and instructional practices that

they will experience (Horwitz, 1988).

Nunan (1999) recognized the importance of the "social and psychological

'baggage'" (Wright, 1987, p. 11) his students brought with them into his classroom in the

form of attitudes, prior learning experiences, and expectations for the future. To find out

more about his students, he monitored their changes in attitudes and expectations through

surveys, conversations, and journals. Students' narratives revealed valuable insights into

their reactions to the learning process. In particular, they indicated a "desire for some

'fun' oral interactive tasks" (Nunan, 1999, p. 160) to counterbalance the academic

writing requirements often perceived as 'boring'. This statement specifically illustrates

the challenge faced by FL teachers to address students' needs and interests while meeting

the objectives of the course. In addition, these narratives showed a diversity in students'

interests, although they showed "quite clearly that all students enjoy active, interactive

learning" (Nunan, 1999, p. 161).

In summary, based on the aforementioned studies examining L2 learners' beliefs

about language learning, it can be said that each learner has his or her individual

perspective on language teaching and learning. These beliefs directly and indirectly affect

learners' behaviors as well as their expectations about classroom behavior during

instruction. Thus, any study of L2 motivation must include an understanding of the

importance of L2 learners' beliefs in L2 motivation and L2 performance.

To conclude this section on learner identities, researchers in the L2 field have

recognized the necessity to pay closer attention to the characteristics of language learners

in order to help FL teachers when designing activities for their classroom. A better

60

understanding of the characteristics of ID can increase the success of teaching by

practitioners and enhance learner autonomy through targeted learning strategies (Ehrman

& al., 2003).

Approaches, Methods, Principles

The description of language teaching by Scarcella and Oxford (1991) as a

"dynamic, interactional process in which instructors constantly shape their teaching to the

developing needs of their students, and the learners actively negotiate the instruction" (p.

viii), calls for viewing the teaching methods employed by FL teachers as an important

element of FL instruction. For decades, the language teaching profession has been

engaged in the pursuit of some consensus about "the best way" (Omaggio, 1993) to teach

students a foreign language in a classroom. Grounded in different philosophical and

theoretical frameworks, many teaching approaches and methods have been developed in

an attempt to find the "the best way" to teach a FL.

The following section presents: (1) an overview of language teaching in order to

introduce several essential concepts and terms, as well as a brief summary of the main

teaching methods that have marked the field or are still in practice and (2) an outline of

the communicative language teaching (CLT) method including definitions, several

principles concerning communicative competence, and empirical evidence that links CLT

to/with the purposes of this study.

Overview of Language Teaching

Recognized as a science with general and universal proprieties, linguistics studies

the nature, the structure and the variation of language. It encompasses many branches

such as applied linguistics, which is the application of linguistic theory to language

61

acquisition. For instance, second language acquisition (SLA) is the study of how second

languages are learned. Indeed, the acquisition of a second language involves cognitive,

linguistic, affective, and sociocultural characteristics of learning, which explain its

complexity and why it cannot be captured by one single theory of language or

psychology (Ellis, 1990). Thus, SLA researchers have developed and proposed various

models and theories that provide insights into the nature of the language learning process

(Ellis, 1990; 1997; Krashen, 1982; VanPatten, 1993; 2002). Some of these insights have

led to the creation of teaching methods and techniques used in the language classroom by

FL teachers.

At the outset, it is necessary when discussing language teaching to briefly define

several commonly used terms. The following definitions are proposed by Omaggio

(1993) and Brown (2000) who grounded their perspectives within Anthony's (1963)

work stating that"... techniques carry out a method which is consistent with an

approach' (p. 64).

• Approach represents the assumptions, beliefs, and theories about the nature of

language and language learning, and teaching.

• Method is an overall procedural plan for presenting and teaching the language

based upon a selected approach. Thus, a teaching method has two aspects (i.e.

conceptual and operational) and as such it is "what lies behind a lesson plan -

what guides the teacher in deciding what activities are to be undertaken, and in

what order, in the course of a lesson" (Prabhu, 1992, p. 227). To cite Larsen-

Freeman's (2000), "methods link thoughts and actions because teaching is not

62

entirely about one or the other" (p. 1), where actions are the techniques and the

thoughts are the principles rooted in the chosen approach.

• Technique involves the strategies to implement the method and includes a wide

variety of specific exercises and activities used in the language classroom.

• Pedagogy encompasses the activities of instructing or teaching that impart

knowledge or skill. It represents the teachers' implementation of the lesson plan

through a selection of techniques and activities related to teaching and learning.

Pedagogy needs to be consistent with the method and approach chosen by FL

teachers.

Learning a language involves working on the four skills (i.e. writing, reading,

speaking, and listening) each of which is of equal importance to successfully learn the

language. To this end, FL teachers decide which language teaching method is best for

their classroom and which pedagogy is best for their students and their classroom.

Indeed, methods are decontextualized and describe a certain ideal based on certain beliefs

(Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The following presents a succinct description of several

influential methods (that have marked the field or are still in practice) as described by

Larsen-Freeman (2000).

• Grammar-translation method, considered the most traditional method, has its

roots in the traditional approach to the teaching of the classical languages, Latin

and Greek. For decades, the purpose of learning a language was to become

proficient in reading and appreciating foreign language literature while the teacher

was the only authority in the classroom. Consequently, the emphasis of this

method was placed on the written language to develop the reading and writing

63

skills rather than the spoken language. The techniques include memorizing lists of

words and sets of grammatical rules and paradigms, translating reading passages

into the native language, answering questions to demonstrate the understanding of

a reading passage, and writing compositions.

• Direct Method, in total opposition to the grammar-translation method, focuses on

the spoken language encouraging students to communicate in the target language.

To this end, within this method, "meaning is to be conveyed directly in the target

language through the use of demonstration and visual aids, with no recourse to the

students' native language" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 23). The techniques include

reading aloud, dictation of passages by teachers for students to listen and write

down, question and answer exercises, conversation practice, self-corrections by

students guided by teachers, and paragraph writing but no presence of vocabulary

lists or explanation of grammatical rules. The assumption about this method was

that "the correct way of using the language would be 'picked up' in passing"

(Yule, 1985, p. 153). Furthermore, the teacher-students relationship becomes a

partnership within the teaching—learning process.

• Audio-lingual Method, also an oral-based approach, exposes students to a

"systematic presentation of grammatical constructions of the L2, moving from the

simple to the more complex, often in the form of drills which the student had to

repeat' (Yule, 1985, p. 153). This method, grounded in the principles of

behavioral psychology, was thought to help learners acquire the sentence patterns

of the L2 through conditioning, reinforcement, and extensive practice. Thus, just

like an orchestra leader, the teacher directs and controls the language behavior of

64

students while providing a good model for imitation. The techniques involve

dialog memorizing, repetition drill, chain drill, question-and-answer drill, and

grammar game.

• Total Physical Response, developed to reduce the stress experienced by FL

students, is grounded in the principles of 'the Comprehension Approach'16

claiming that "the fastest, least stressful way to achieve understanding of any

target language is to follow directions uttered by the instructor (without native

language translation)" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 108). Students are imitators of

their teacher, who is the leader of all behavior, and are usually 'ready to speak'

after ten to twenty hours of instruction. The major technique of this method is the

use of commands to direct student behavior through a variety of activities such as

action sequence and role rehearsal.

• Communicative Language Teaching, the most recent approach to L2 teaching, is

based on a view that the "functions of language should be emphasized rather than

the forms of the language (i.e. correct grammatical or phonological structure)"

(Yule, 1985, p. 154). This method is further described in the following section.

To complete this overview of language teaching, it is necessary to highlight the

role played by teaching contexts, which vary widely. Thus, the environment determines

how teachers participate daily, as "many of their day-to-day decisions rely on practice

with very little theory" (Kleinsasser & Savignon, 1991, p. 298).

General approach to foreign language instruction focusing on the importance of listening comprehension.

65

Communicative Language Teaching Method: Definitions and Principles

Since the early 1980s, CLT in general has represented the dominant paradigm in

language learning: in particular, it is the method used in the three language classrooms,

observed for this study.

By definition, CLT assumes that language learners intend to acquire a language

for the specific purpose of using it to communicate with others. But what does it means to

teach communicatively? Sandra Savignon proposed a series of definitions used as

references in the FL teaching field. Communication is viewed as "a continuous process of

expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning" (Savignon, 1997, p. 14) while

communicative competence characterizes "the ability of language learners to interact with

other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to perform on discrete-

point test of grammatical knowledge" (Savignon, 1991, p. 264). As such, communicative

competence is "a dynamic rather than a static concept.... applies to both written and

spoken language, as well as to many other symbolic systems.... is context specific'''

(Savignon, 1997, pp. 14-15). Furthermore, there is "a theoretical difference between

competence and performance.... Competence is what one knows. Performance is what

one does" (Savignon, 1997, p. 15). In this approach, a communicative activity

corresponds to any activity in which conveying a meaning is primary, any activity in

which "there are both message expressers and message interpreters who are responsible

for communication" (VanPatten, 1998, p. 928). Maclntyre et al. (1998) defined authentic

communication in L2 as a complex system of interrelated variables that includes

"activities such as speaking up in class, reading L2newspapers, watching L2 television,

or utilizing a L2 on the job" (p. 547). Within CLT, communicative competence represents

66

the goal of language teaching: acquiring a language and communicating in it are

interdependent. The major principles and techniques of CLT can be summarized as

follows.

• The main goal of the CLT classroom is to promote students communication with

the support of linguistics forms, meanings, and functions. Given the fact that

"true communication is purposeful" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 129), participants

are actively engaged in negotiating meaning trying to make themselves

understood and trying to understand others. Language and communication are

dependent upon one another. Indeed, given that language is for communication

and communication is a process, "learners need knowledge of the forms and

meanings and functions" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 130) of the language in order

to demonstrate communicative competence.

• One of the teacher's major responsibilities is to establish situations, mainly in the

form of learning activities that promote communication among students who are

'communicators'. Acting as an adviser and a facilitator monitoring students'

questions and performance, the teacher takes notes of students' errors and

occasionally becomes a 'co-communicator'. In this setting, students are held more

responsible for their own learning while the teacher's role is not dominant.

• The use of authentic document is emphasized in order to expose students to

natural language and develop their sense of the real language outside the

classroom.

67

• Many activities are conducted in pairs or small groups to encourage students to

interact with one another and prompt communication. These activities include

language games, role play, scrambled sentences, and picture stories.

In terms of motivation, CLT is recognized to be the method of choice. It is

assumed that by learning to communicate, students will be more motivated to study a

foreign language. Indeed, through participation in the CLT activities, students "will feel

they are learning to do something useful with the language" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p.

130). Furthermore, the activities allow students to express their ideas and opinions and

interact with their classmates and the teacher.

Recently, a few studies have specifically looked at teachers' communicative style

in the language classroom in terms of motivation.

In an attempt to identify the components of L2 motivation for Egyptian adult

learning English, Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassabgy (1996) developed a detailed

questionnaire addressing different aspects involved in L2 instruction such as preferences

for instructional activities (e.g., active versus passive and individualistic versus

cooperative learning situations, communicative proficiency versus preparation for

exams). Researchers organized results into three basic dimensions of motivation for

learning foreign languages: Affect, Goal Orientation, and Expectancy. The affect

dimension, also labeled "enjoyment' or 'intrinsic motivation', characterizes learners

engaged in activities that they enjoy and do not experience anxiety. Findings further

revealed that "motivation, preference for learning strategies, and preference for

instructional activities and classroom structures are related" (Schmidt et al, 1996, p. 56).

For instance, students who scored high on affect, signifying enjoyment in the process of

68

learning, indicated a preference for activities allowing for active participation and

opportunities to improve their ability to communicate: these students welcome

communicative classes. On the other hand, students who scored low in enjoyment and

high in anxiety tend to reject group and pair work and other aspects of the communicative

classroom (Schmidt et al , 1996).

First to apply the motivations framework of SDT in L2 motivation field, Noels et

al.'s (1999) considered how students' perceptions of specific aspects of the teacher's

communicative style are related to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The results of data

by young Anglophone adults enrolled in a Canadian French immersion program attested

to the validity of the motivation distinction model by Deci and Ryan when it comes to

applying this model to the language learning context. Findings suggested that intrinsic

motivation is associated with the teacher's communicative style. Thus, the pattern of

perceptions of language teachers expressed by students is consistent with Deci and

Ryan's (1985) contention that "to the extent that teachers support autonomy and provide

informative feedback, the student's sense of self-determination and enjoyment can be

enhanced" (Noels et al, 1999, p. 30).

Teacher Identities

In the same way that learners are not 'simply' viewed as learners, teachers are not

'simply' teachers (Tudor, 2001). Teachers bring their unique background to the language

classroom, which influences their actions and behaviors during FL instruction. How

teachers interpret materials, make appropriate judgments and decisions in teaching, and

how they interact with learners represent important factors that ultimately create

classroom realities. Tudor (2001) maintained that teachers are "active participants in the

69

creation of classroom realities" acting "in the light of their own beliefs, attitudes, and

perceptions of the relevant teaching situation" (p. 17). Therefore, it can be said that

"teaching is a very personal activity" (Richard & Lockhard, 1994, p. 36) in which

teachers have the leadership.

Only recently has the L2 literature addressed and discussed the teacher's role as

an important facet of language teaching and the affect it has on what takes place in the

language classroom, including student motivation. Thus, this section examines specifics

about FL teachers that explain how they represent an important factor to consider in the

FL learning context by: (1) introducing teachers' belief systems, and (2) reporting on

several L2 scholars' perspectives on the teachers' role in relation to students' motivation.

Teacher's Beliefs about Language, Language Learning, and Language Teaching

At the outset, it is important to note that in a language classroom, language is both

the subject matter and the means by which this subject matter is learned. Thus, in

combination with the complexity and the multifaceted nature and role of language, it sets

language teaching aside from teaching any other subject for two main reasons. First, FL

teachers need to attain a sufficient level of proficiency in the language in order to teach

effectively in it. Second, they need to acquire additional teaching skills specific to

language teaching such as organizing and facilitating communicative interaction,

awareness of learners' errors and appropriate treatment of errors, using texts and

dialogues (Richards, 1998). Thus, FL teachers' belief systems about teaching comprise

beliefs and assumptions about language and language teaching.

For the past two decades, L2 scholars, especially those involved in teacher

training (Bailey & Nunan, 1996; Freeman, 1996; Richards, 1998), have focused on the

70

importance to understand teaching and classroom practice from the "inside" rather than

from the "outside in". Richards (1998), in particular, chose to listen to teachers' voices in

the form of personal experience narratives (however not teaching L2 students) collected

from conversations with teachers and observations for Cortazzi's (1991) study. He has

explained how teachers' belief systems lead to the development of rational principles or

teachers' maxims and how, consciously or unconsciously, teachers use these principles to

guide their pedagogical decisions (Richards, 1998). These results coincide with Woods's

(1996) claim that teachers' beliefs and assumptions about language, language learning,

and language teaching underlie their approaches to teaching the language.

Teachers' belief systems seem to derive from subjective and objective sources:

(1) teachers' own experience as language learners, (2) personality factors, (3) established

practice of a teaching institution, (4) educationally based or research-based principles, (5)

principles derived from an approach or method, and (6) experience of what works the

best (Richards & Lockhard, 1994). Teachers' maxims illustrate these dimensions

responsible for the development of rational principles guiding teachers' actions during

instruction. The following lists some of the maxims as reported by Richards (1998):

• The maxim of involvement: Follow the learners' interests to maintain student

involvement.

• The maxim of encouragement: Seek ways to encourage student learning.

• The maxim of accuracy: Work for accurate student output.

• The maxim of empowerment: Give the learners control.

Two of these maxims clearly reflect teachers' beliefs about learner's motivation and

engagement. The maxim of involvement directly relates to teachers' belief in learner-

71

centered activities rather than a teacher-centered classroom; thus, they opt for activity in

which students show interest, and use a style conducive to dialogue with students. The

maxim of encouragement suggests that teachers believe it is beneficial to allow time for

students to discuss and prepare in small groups before reporting to the whole class, to

promote student-student interactions, and to encourage an informal relationship with their

students (Richards, 1998).

Taken together, these beliefs and maxims are "stable sources of references, are

built up gradually over time, and relate to such dimensions of teaching as the teachers'

theory of language, the nature of language teaching, the role of the teacher, effective

teaching practices, and teacher-student relations" (Richards, 1998, pp.51-52). Hence,

teacher's beliefs about language, language learning, and language teaching are essential

elements of the FL classroom dynamics.

L2 scholars' Perspectives on the Teacher's Role

Since the 1990s, it has become more frequent to read about the teacher as a

dimension to consider in the teaching language process in relation to student motivation.

Effectively, when examining student motivation and/or communicative teaching style, L2

scholars overtly addressed and discussed the issue of the teacher while raising questions

and/or proposing comments, recommendations, and analysis. The following introduces a

selection of comments by L2 scholars, which are pertinent to the purposes of this study.

Reacting to the characterization of motivation in terms integrative vs.

instrumental orientation (Gardner, 1985), Dornyei (1994) established a general

framework of L2 motivation17, which integrated the teacher as a recognized/established

This framework was previously introduced in the first section of this chapter.

72

dimension. Composed of three levels18, this framework specifically organized L2

motivational components that are specific to learning situations (i.e., the course-specific,

teacher-specific, and group-specific) into one level. In particular, the teacher-specific

motivational components relate to the teacher-student relationship, teaching style

including task presentation and feedback, and teacher's personality. Furthermore,

Dornyei (1994) developed, for each categories of this framework, strategies and

recommendations to motivate language learners. The following lists examples of

strategies for language teachers to deal with teacher-specific motivational components as

reported by Dornyei (1994, p. 282):

• Try to be empathic, congruent and accepting.

• Adopt the role of a facilitator and develop a warm rapport with the students.

• Promote learner autonomy by providing real choices and sharing responsibility.

• Model student interest in L2 learning. Show your enthusiasm and commitment.

• Use positive and informative feedback; do not overreact to errors.

These strategies have been employed as starting points, coupled with other theoretical

foundations, to develop additional motivational strategies for language teachers to use as

means to generate and maintain learners' motivation (Dornyei, 2001a).

Focusing on the perceived usefulness and the perceived enjoyment of a FL

course, Chambers19 (1999) attempted to gain insights into factors that may influence

students' motivation. The results, from surveys and open questions, revealed that the

majority of students pointed to the teacher as the reason why they like or dislike the

language learned, why their language learning experience has improved or deteriorated.

18 Namely, the language level, the learner level, and the learning situation level. 19 Chambers (1999) was introduced in section 1 of this chapter.

73

Moreover, other instructional factors such as teaching method, textbook, and computer

available become unimportant if the teacher-student relationship is lacking. Chambers

(1999) concluded that the teacher is the 'key factor' who

Applying the SDT framework into the FL classroom, Noels et al. (1999) and

Noels (2001) investigated how L2 students perceived teachers' communicative style.

Results of both studies pointed to the teacher as the main factor affecting students' self-

perceptions of competence and autonomy in the language learning situation. Discussing

their results, Noels (2001) made several claims that explicitly described and explained the

link between teachers' behaviors and students' generalized feeling of autonomy and

competence. The following reports several examples of these claims:

• The more students perceived their teacher as controlling the less they felt learning

Spanish from their own accord. The less students felt having choices about

learning, the less they experienced having fun learning and valuing learning.

• The more students perceived their teachers being actively involved in their

learning (e.g., giving informative praise and encouragement to students for their

efforts), the more students felt competent in learning Spanish; teachers should

show that they are personally committed to students' learning progress.

• Greater perceptions of competence corresponded to/with students' feeling of

learning the language based on enjoyment and motivation; teachers must provide

positive and uncritical feedback and allow opportunities for independent learning.

These examples of students' perceptions in response to teachers' behaviors illustrate

Noels et al.'s claim that "the teacher appears to be a key person who affects these

perceptions" (1999, p. 26). Taken together, findings from the aforementioned studies

suggest that the teacher and the teaching style represent an important factor in L2

motivation.

In sum, teacher identities, as reported in this subsection, illustrated how "teaching

is realized only in teachers; it has no independent existence" (Richards, 1998, p. 81),

which explains the need to explore and understand teachers' attitudes and perceptions of

the teaching situation and "the way in which these influence teachers' classroom

behaviors" (Tudor, 2001, p. 16).

In summary, this section depicted a general description of the dynamics in the

language classroom to provide an informed representation of what is involved during FL

instruction. Adopting the point of view that language teaching is a complex and dynamic

activity entailing interactions and relationships between the participants and other

elements of the instruction, this section examined three essential variables in order to

understand the dynamics involved in the language classroom: (1) learner identities

characterized by learners' individual differences and learners' beliefs about language

learning experiences and achievements; (2) CLT, which represents the current and

dominant paradigm in language teaching and particularly the language classrooms being

observed in this study; and (3) teacher identities corresponding to teachers' beliefs,

attitudes and perceptions of teaching situations. These critical variables are recognized to

shape the dynamics of the foreign language classroom, to explain partly the complexity

of language learning and language teaching, and to affect student motivation.

Rationale and Research Questions

The present review of three bodies of research addresses different aspects and

issues involved in students' motivation when learning a FL. Three concerns emerge from

75

this review and represent critical issues to consider when seeking a better understanding

of students' motivation during FL instruction, all of which could affect students' learning

outcomes. These concerns are directly linked to the purposes of the present study and

need to be addressed. To this end, this section provides a rationale for this study by

focusing on: (1) the need for a different motivational framework to examine L2

motivation, (2) the importance of the relationship between student motivation and

learning as proposed by the SDT framework, and (3) the choice of a research approach

congruent to the focus of the investigation. In response to these points of interest, this

study proposes three separate but complementary research questions that will specifically

address issues of students' motivation during FL instruction and their learning outcomes.

A Different Motivational Framework for L2 Motivation

For decades, L2 motivation research has been dominated by the socio-

90

psychological approach . While many L2 scholars have recognized the value and

importance of this approach, they have also put forth two principal limitations, which

have clouded the understanding of L2 learning motivation. First, the combination of

'"attitudes and motivation' as a unit without either distinguishing between them, or

showing how they interrelate" (van Lier, 1996, p. 104) has prevented a consensus on an

operational definition of language learning motivation. Second, the integrative-

instrumental dichotomy, which most often identifies motivation in terms of long-term

goals and purposes, has excluded other approaches that consider different motivational

aspects such as the "here-and-now interest in the task, the joy of exploration or working

together, natural curiosity, and other factors operating in the immediate learning context"

(van Lier, 1996, p. 105). In this respect, the complexity of motivation to learn a FL and 20 This approach is described in the section 1 of this chapter.

76

the dynamic nature of the language cannot be explained through one dichotomy but

rather requires a more sophisticated and elaborate motivational construct, borrowed from

other areas of psychology, in order to examine students' motivation during FL

instruction.

Presently, Noels et al. (1999; 2000; 2001) have addressed this issue by applying

the framework of SDT to FL instructional settings. This paradigm viewed L2 motivation

as consisting of both intrinsic and extrinsic subtypes . It also assessed learners'

motivation in connection with their perceptions of specific aspects of teachers'

communicative style. How teachers interact with students is directly associated with their

motivational orientations (e.g., intrinsic, extrinsic motivation). For instance, the more

students identified their teachers as controlling and as failing to provide instructive

feedback, the less they were intrinsically motivated. Also, the more students perceived

their teacher as actively involved in their learning (giving informative praise and

encouragement to their efforts) the more students felt competent in learning the language.

Most importantly, these findings in the L2 domain are consistent with Deci & Ryan's

(1985) theoretical formulation of individuals' motivation validated in different areas of

education (Guay & Vallerand, 1997; Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995; Vallerand et al.,

1997). That is, the extent to which the educational environments are supportive of

students autonomy, competence, and relatedness fosters their motivational orientations

and explains how proactive and engaged or alternatively, passive and aliened they are.

Given these studies, it is essential that researchers in L2 motivation pursue this

agenda to provide additional empirical evidence supporting the application of the SDT

framework to the FL context and to further inform language learning motivation.

21 Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation as outlined by Deci & Ryan (1985).

77

Therefore, the first purpose of this study is to examine the different dimensions of FL

instruction that are conducive to promoting students' motivated actions and behaviors.

Thus, the questions become: 1) To what dimensions of classroom instruction are students

sensitive and receptive?, and 2) How do students become motivated by these dimensions?

Connell and Wellborn's engagement model22, grounded in the SDT framework,

represents a compelling and pertinent conceptual framework to interpret the findings

emerging from the data. First, this model conceptualizes student engagement as the

observable manifestation of the motivated actions and behaviors that students show when

they initiate and carry out activities. The distinctive characteristic of this model is to

explain relationships among individuals' experiences in the social context (e.g.,

classrooms, schools), their self-system processes , their patterns of actions (i.e.,

engagement and disaffection), and the actual outcomes of performance (e.g., grades and

achievement test scores). Second, according to this model, the dimensions of teacher

behavior, known as structure, autonomy-support, and involvement, underlie the patterns

of students' actions during learning activities. Consequently, how students perceive the

different instructional variables within the classroom as well as what teachers do and say

to facilitate students' engagement will be examined through the lens of this model.

Lastly, Connell and Wellborn's model of engagement has been validated in core

subjects within elementary, middle school, and high school programs (Furrer & Skinner,

2003; Reeve & al., 2004; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Presently, there is no substantial

body of research that has endorsed this model in L2 field to examine language learning

motivation. Thus, the importance of using this engagement model within the FL

Described above in section about SDT.. As explained in the section describing this engagement model. See Figure 4.

78

instructional context will be to explicitly establish how the combination of instructional

variables (e.g., teaching style, methods used, and role of textbook) meet students' needs

for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which in turn, engage them in motivated

actions.

Relationship between Student Learning and Motivation

A second issue that became apparent during the review of literature is the

relationship between students learning and motivation, which represents the ultimate

concern in the field of education—including language learning. Whereas most L2

researchers and teachers recognize the importance of motivation in students' success,

Gardner's social-psychological approach, which claims a strong influence from

integrative orientation24 on L2 learners' learning remains the dominant belief in the L2

field. Conversely, this view that links students' learning outcomes to students' attitudes

toward the L2 community, the L2 language, and learning the language is too narrow and

ignores other phenomena such as intrinsic motivation. At the same time, this view is too

broad and does not specify enough potential components and contributing factors of

motivation such as boredom, challenge, or attention (van Lier, 1996).

A great deal of literature has demonstrated the effects of educational settings (e.g.,

the general classroom) on motivational processes, as outlined in self-determination

theory, and in turn on students' learning outcomes. It established that students thrive in

autonomy-supportive environments25 and benefit from their autonomy-supportive

teachers. This, in turn promotes their engagement, conceptual learning, and academic

performance. That is, autonomy-supportive contexts that support students' three

Positive attitude toward the L2 community. Autonomy-supportive environments are introduced in section 2 of this chapter.

79

psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—facilitate students'

intrinsic motivation and promote higher quality, self-determined learning (Deci & Ryan,

1994; Deci et al, 1991; Reeve, 2002). Although, as important and significant as these

findings are in demonstrating the usefulness of SDT to explain students' motivation and

learning in educational settings, applying SDT to language learning settings is still in its

early stages of inquiry. Addressing this matter, Noels et al. (1999; 2001 )26 assessed the

relationship between FL students' motivational goals (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

as described by Deci and Ryan), FL teachers' communicative style, and various language

learning outcomes. The findings attested to the importance of students' perceptions of

their teachers' behaviors (e.g., controlling, critical, offering choices, providing

informative praise and encouragement) in terms of feeling autonomy and competence in

the language.

First and foremost, these results obtained in FL contexts led Noels et al. (1999) to

claim that "with its potential to be developed and maintained by the social environment,

motivation is one element that educators can develop to improve their students' L2

outcomes" (p. 31). Furthermore, because these results are in line with those studies

conducted in general educational settings (Benware & Deci, 1984; Furrer & Skinner,

2003; Miserando, 1996), they are of particular relevance to the present study. Thus, it is

necessary to expand the research done on SDT and its application in the FL classroom.

Results from this research can potentially further delineate the relationship between

97

students learning and motivation. For the purposes of this study, the engagement model

proposed by Connell and Wellborn (1991) will show how the application of SDT to the 26 These studies have been introduced twice throughout this chapter including the previous subsection. 27 This model is described in section 2 of this chapter (See Figure 4); it is also mentioned in the previous subsection.

80

FL classroom manifests itself. This model has demonstrated how, within the general

classroom, the dimensions of teacher behavior identified as structure, autonomy-support,

and involvement underlie the patterns of actions by students (engagement or disaffection)

during learning activities, which in turn affect their actual outcomes of performance.

Thus, the engagement model used as the conceptual framework in this study will guide

the exploration of the dimensions present in the FL classroom and how they influence L2

students' behaviors, actions, and learning outcomes.

Choice of a Research Paradigm

Throughout the review of L2 motivation research, which research approach

(quantitative vs. qualitative) to adopt was a recurring matter addressed by L2 scholars.

Since the 1990s, this matter raised interest within the L2 field as several scholars (Nunan,

2005; Ushioda, 1996; 2001; van Lier, 1996; Zyed, 2001) took the opportunity to

challenge the dominant quantitative research approach and proposed compelling

arguments to support the use of qualitative methodologies in examining specific areas of

language learning motivation.

As most motivational studies in language education are quantitative in nature,

some scholars have expressed reservations28, especially about whether the data in/of these

studies presented a large enough picture of the issue been investigated (van Lier, 1996).

This matter was also taken up in the field of educational psychology by scholars

(Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990; Noels, 2001) who conveyed similar sentiments. In

particular, they reported limitations of students' self-reported data and recommended in-

class studies and direct observations by researcher to limit inaccurate statements by

students as well as the introduction of biases.

28 This matter was addressed in the section 1 of this chapter.

81

Silverman (2001) further argued that purely quantitative data cannot measure and

cannot provide a 'deeper' understanding of the areas of social reality and that "a

dependence on purely quantitative methods may neglect the social and cultural

construction of the 'variables' which quantitative research seeks to correlate" (p.29).

Therefore, classroom research should be conducted in the classroom rather than about the

classroom (van Lier, 1988).

Thus, given the aforementioned remarks by scholars about research

methodologies and the focus of the present study, a qualitative approach is employed to

collect and analyze the data. This matter will further be developed in the methodology

chapter.

Research Questions

In consideration of the reviewed literature, the inquiry of the present study

focuses on three separate but complementary research questions:

1) What do foreign language students report about the instructional approach and

teachers' use of textbooks and other teaching aids to engage and motivate them

during instruction?

2) What is it that foreign language teachers say and do (i.e., specific instructional

behaviors/approach) to motivate students, and in turn promote students'

engagement during the course of formal instruction?

3) In this research context, how does foreign language teaching affect students'

quantitative and qualitative learning outcomes?

82

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research design of the present study in accordance with

the research questions as well as with the paradigm chosen to conduct the study. Each

component of the design is introduced in a sequence to trace the different stages of the

study from its conceptualization to the writing of the narrative. Thus, a detailed account

of all aspects of the process demonstrates the rigor with which the study was conducted

as well as its trustworthiness. First, given the importance of the role of the researcher in

qualitative studies, it is necessary to introduce my position as the researcher. This

description includes personal experiences, purposes, and beliefs, which allowed this

study to emerge. In the following section, I provide the research questions and introduce

the main characteristics of a basic interpretive and descriptive qualitative study (Merriam,

2002) grounded in the interpretivist paradigm proposed by Denzin (2001). Finally, this

chapter reports how the research was conducted by describing: 1) the research setting, 2)

the selection process of participants and their backgrounds, 3) the data collection, 4) the

data management and analysis, and 5) the quality control.

Goals of the Study and Approach

The goal of this study is to gain insights into the process responsible for creating a

classroom environment, which allows for student engagement, representing and

illustrating student motivation during FL instruction. Surprisingly enough, as much as L2

scholars have emphasized the importance of the role of motivation in language learning

and examined motivation as a separate entity, only a few studies (Noels, 2001; Noels et

al., 2000) directly addressed student motivation as it occurs during FL instruction. Thus,

in accordance with van Lier's (1996) suggestion to approach L2 motivation research from

83

a different perspective, I seek to uncover the different motivational aspects that explain

the "here-and-now interest in the task, the joy of exploration or working together, natural

curiosity, and other factors operating in the immediate learning context" (van Lier, 1996,

p. 105). Especially, what is responsible for students' attitudes, behaviors, and thoughts

during FL instruction? In other words, what affects their motivation and how? Examining

these questions is of the utmost importance. Further, examining them from the viewpoints

of the students (the emic perspective) and the viewpoints of the researcher (the etic

perspective) justifies conducting a naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and is

essential to further the research about student motivation.

I selected a nondirective and qualitative approach to reach out to and listen to

students as they narrated their own experiences as FL learners, to understand and to

capture the context in which students and teacher interact and evolve (Patton, 2002).

Given that qualitative research is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of methods

and methodologies and that research questions should drive data collection techniques

and analysis, I viewed the characteristics of a basic interpretive and descriptive

qualitative research design (Merriam, 2002) as the most pertinent and suitable one for the

purposes and context of the present study. Taking the role of the study's instrument and

using an inductive data analysis, I sought to discover and understand FL students'

learning experiences in terms of their motivation as lived during instruction. Attempting

to uncover the meanings that inform and structure students' experiences (Denzin, 2001), I

reported a rich and descriptive account of the findings, which I further discussed using

90

Connell's (1990) motivational model as frame of reference.

This model was introduced in the review of literature.

84

Profile of the researcher

One principal characteristic of qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative

research, is the role of the researcher. Positioned as an observer, as a listener, and as the

person who analyzes and interprets the data, the researcher is often seen as the person

who brings with him his own biases and judgments. Thus, I report the highlights of my

experiences as a language learner and a language teacher. These varied experiences

triggered my interest in FL students' motivation during instruction and led to my own

motivation to conduct the present study. Furthermore, I choose to disclose my profile of

researcher in order to provide an open and genuine representation of how I approached

my role, which in turn, builds a foundation that gives credibility to my viewpoints.

As mentioned at the beginning of this dissertation, I was a student in the French

schooling system and studied German as first foreign language30 from 6* grade through

senior year and English as second foreign language starting in 8th grade. Overall, my

recollections of the learning environments which I have experienced are filled with

memories of boring and stressful times, with the exception of my very first German

course. It was taught by an enthusiastic and understanding teacher who interacted with

the students and made the class interesting while proposing fun activities. From my

subsequent experiences, I remember teachers who showed little interest and compassion

for their students and were typically strict and intransigent, focusing solely on lecturing

and staying on schedule with their lesson plans. They placed an emphasis on learning

grammar and long lists of vocabulary supplemented with many homework exercises,

quizzes, and tests. Most importantly, in these classrooms, students were given very few

occasions to actually speak the language.

30 In the French school system, it is common to learn two foreign languages.

85

On a positive note, I also recall my first trip to Germany during 9th grade (4th year

of German) as a very interesting and enlightening experience. I lived with a family for

three weeks as part of a student exchange program. It only took me one day to discover

how different German sounded and was spoken by the German people. This experience

was an eye-opener in terms of what it means to learn a language. I realized how

unprepared I was to understand and speak the language when placed in authentic

situations. Thus, I came back from this trip full of excitement and hope about learning the

language. However, this enthusiasm lasted only a few weeks before I reverted to my

previous state of mind. Furthermore, later in my junior year, I decided to drop English31

altogether due to frustration, discouragement, and even hopelessness. I had realized that

no matter how hard I was working I kept falling behind not able to perform at the

required level and felt totally incompetent and shut out.

Ten years ago, facing unusual circumstances and equipped with only the French

equivalent of Doctor of Dental Science, I began teaching my native language in the

United States. Right away, I enjoyed my new occupation and I also became aware of how

my experiences as a language learner influenced my teaching and my approach to it.

Fundamentally, I wanted to create a learning environment for my students, which was

completely different from that which I had experienced in France as a FL learner.

Consequently, I placed a lot of emphasis on understanding and interpreting students'

actions and behaviors in class not in terms of discipline but rather, in terms of their

interest, engagement, motivation, or lack of thereof. My biggest challenge was being able

to seize students' attention and develop their interest so in turn, it would trigger their

engagement in the different classroom activities. This task is even more pertinent and

31 As my second foreign language, English was considered an elective subject.

86

important to undertake in the case of students who show limited signs of curiosity and

enthusiasm and various signs of boredom and indifference. It became a rule of mine that

within a class period, I had to engage every single student in at least one activity by

providing various types of activities (offering different styles, content, and format). In

fact, during instruction, students go through a continuing and recurring process of

discovering, understanding, interpreting, and using the language as they experience

different degrees of satisfaction, enjoyment and success as well as frustration, anxiety,

and setbacks. These reactions and emotions expressed by students in different ways

translate into actions and behaviors, which represent and illustrate varied forms of their

engagement and motivation (Connell & Wellborn, 1991).

In accordance with many FL teachers and L2 scholars (Chambers, 2001; Dornyei,

2001, 2006; Dornyei & Csizer, 1998; Ellis, 1994; van Lier, 1996), I view motivation as a

very important factor to consider in the language learning process32. Yet, I also recognize

the challenge faced by FL teachers (including myself) to motivate students or, rather, to

activate their motivation, which represents the key element of teaching as claimed by

Chomsky: "The truth of the matter is that about 99 percent of teaching is making the

students feel interested in the material. Then the other 1 percent has to do with your

methods" (1988, p. 181). And ironically, the complexity and challenges attached to

language teaching can simply be encapsulated by Chambers' words: "in the end, it is a

question of motivation" (2001, p. 1). Over the years, my initial curiosity in student

motivation has grown into an even stronger interest as I progressed throughout my

Masters and Ph.D. coursework and continued teaching at the secondary and post-

secondary levels. This matter became the focus of my assignments in the form of an

32 See Chapter 2.

87

extensive literature search and finally developed into three research questions for the

present study.

As passionate and driven as I have become about teaching my native language

and about developing special interest in FL student motivation, I entered the field of

investigation with the intent to display a discreet and sensitive attitude. Aware of the

possible negative assumptions attached to my presence in the classrooms, my goal was to

make the whole experience as unobtrusive possible for students as well as for teachers.

Specifically, I did not want to be viewed as another authority figure assigned to assess or

judge them but, rather, I wanted to be viewed as neutral and not impacting their

wellbeing as students or as individuals. At the same time, I also believed in not remaining

'invisible' or impersonal during this period of data collection. Thus, I always walked into

classrooms with a friendly demeanor and positive attitude and engaged in informal short

conversations with students whenever the occasion presented itself. As a result, I

established cordial relationships with the participants as well as several non-participant

students. For example, on several occasions, I had been invited by students to join their

conversations in the hall or in the classroom before or after class. Even now that the data

collection is completed, I occasionally encounter a former participant at the library or the

coffee shop and we engage in conversations on different topics. These examples of how I

connected with students illustrate my approach to doing research. Explicitly, I believe in

the critical role of researcher-participants relationships during data collection. That is,

conducting qualitative research implies forming some close relationships as for example,

"trusting and respectful relationships enabled participants to openly share personal and

emerging perceptions of their group learning experiences" (Busier & Pigeon, 1999,

88

pp. 5-6). In my case, this assertion proved to be true. When it was time to sit down with

each participant, we were not strangers to each other for we already had established a

connection. Interviewees showed noticeable signs of being comfortable and at ease (e.g.,

some took their shoes off, some sat cross-legged on their chairs) as they discussed their

experiences as FL learners with me.

Thus, motivated by my personal language learning and teaching experiences and

aspirations as a researcher and informed by the literature, I have developed three research

questions to examine specific aspects of the issue of student motivation during FL

instruction.

Research Questions

The inquiry of the present study focuses on three separate but complementary

questions:

1) What do foreign language students report about the instructional approach and

teachers' use of textbooks and other teaching aids to engage and motivate them

during instruction?

2) What is it that foreign language teachers say and do (i.e., specific instructional

approach) to motivate students, and in turn promote students' engagement during

the course of formal instruction?

3) In this research context, how does foreign language teaching affect students'

quantitative and qualitative learning outcomes?

Interpretive and Descriptive Approach

As reviewed in the literature, language learning motivation has been mostly

examined from the outside of the language classroom in an attempt to understand

89

motivation "that students bring to the language classroom" (Ellis, 1994, p. 535).

However, I view as important to address the motivation "that is generated inside the

classroom" (Ellis, 1994, p. 536) and agree with scholars who emphasize the need to

examine classroom contexts. For instance, Richards (1998) claimed the importance to

"understand teaching from the 'inside' rather than from the 'outside in'" (p. 49) while

Kleinsasser and Savignon (1991) highlighted the necessity for FL educators to "know the

current conditions of classrooms" (p. 292). It is with this approach that I stepped inside

FL classrooms to observe and describe the context in which teacher and students interact

and evolve. I also listened to students' voices as they described their experiences,

expressed their feelings, and interpreted their behaviors and perceptions.

My intent was to capture the lived experience of students and their stories as

learners during French instruction. Case by case, I wanted to extract the meaning of these

experiences. Thus, I choose not to frame the inquiry within a separate theoretical

perspective but rather, I turned to the meaning of experiences by the persons who

experience them, which explains my choice of an interpretive approach. Specifically, I

choose a basic interpretive approach (Merriam, 2002) after Denzin (2001) and Geertz

(1973) interpretivist paradigm. This paradigm depicts interpretation as act of making

sense out of a social interaction and attempts to "make the world of lived experience

visible to the reader" (Denzin, 2001, p. 34). The following reports the main

characteristics of a basic interpretive and descriptive qualitative study as described by

Merriam (2002, p. 6) and how I see them pertinent to the purposes and context of the

present study.

The researcher as the instrument seeks to understand a phenomenon, a process,

and perspectives of the people involved. He further focuses on "understanding

how participants make meaning of a situation or a phenomenon" (Merriam, 2002,

p.6) - 1 sought to discover and understand FL students' learning experiences in

terms of their motivation as lived during French instruction. The research

questions focus on how something happens; that is, how the social experience

within the language classroom is organized by the teacher, is perceived by the

students, and is constructed by the interactions between individuals (Denzin,

2001).

Several sources of data - 1 conducted observations, in-depth individual

interviews, and focus groups to gather descriptive, extensive, and insightful data.

Inductive data analysis - 1 identified themes and patterns emerging from the data

and established tables and concept maps to organize and make sense of what I

observed in the classrooms and heard from the participants.

Rich and descriptive account of the findings to be interpreted and discussed using

references to the literature that framed the study at the first place - Using 'thick

description' (Geertz, 1973), I attempted to bring lived experiences before the

readers. I further attempted to explain and interpret what was happening during

instruction in terms of students' engagement and how participants were reporting

their experiences as FL learners in terms of their motivation. In others words, I

analyzed layers of description and interpretation in order to extract the essence of

these experiences and understand its meanings.

91

From this interpretive perspective, researchers questioned "how is social experience, or a

sequence of social interaction, organized, perceived, and constructed by interacting

individuals" (Denzin, 2001, p. 44). In other words, interpretation explains how something

takes place and what experience holds for those in the situation being studied.

Interpretation refers to the attempt of explaining meaning, and allows the researcher to

"penetrate the surface" (Langer, 1998) and reach the center of the experiences being

described (Geertz, 1973). As a result, "once experiences have been interpreted, their

meanings can be understood" (Denzin, 2001, p. 119).

Furthermore, compared to an act of imagination and logic by Peshkin (2000) and

viewed as an art by Denzin (1994), the process of interpretation is contextualized in

'thick description' (Geertz, 1973). That is, it is necessary to bring lived experience before

the reader by means of description that "goes beyond mere fact and surface

appearances.... presents details, context, emotions and the webs of social relationships

that join persons to one another" (Denzin, 2001, p. 100). Another important characteristic

of thick description is to render the voices, feelings, actions, and meanings of interacting

individuals perceptible and visible. Additionally, description is interpretive as Geertz

(1973) claimed that a good description is one that "takes us into the heart of that of which

it is interpretation" based of the fact that "thick description creates the conditions for

thick interpretation" (Denzin, 2001, p. 117).

Research Setting

The present study was conducted during the entire fall semester of 2006 in a large

Midwestern urban university in the U.S with approximately 28,500 undergraduate and

graduate students. This institution includes a French department with 459 undergraduate

92

students and 31 graduate students. The demographics of the French department are

reported in Figure 6. Within this department, first, second, third, and fourth semesters

French courses are traditionally been taught by Teaching Assistants (TA) enrolled in the

French Masters or the French translation graduate programs. While working under the

supervision of a faculty member, TAs (eight in total) are fully responsible for the work

involved in teaching first through fourth semester French courses.

Fre

nch

Ent

ire

Dep

artm

ent

Inst

itut

ion

Total

28,356

Total

486

UG

23,640

Grad

4,716

M

46%

F

54%

Ethnicity in % White

80

Undergrads

Major

34

Minor

10

SI*

86

S2

45

S3

56

Afri-Ame 6.6

S4

27

Ame-Ind

0.008

Latino

3.8

Asian

4.2

Grads

French Masters

31

* Sl= 1st semester; S2= 2nd semester; S3= 3rd semester; S4= 4th semester

Figure 6. Student demographics.

A few years ago, I was a TA in this French department while completing

coursework for the Masters in combination with the Teaching Certificate in French

grades 9-12. For two years, I taught first and fourth semester French courses and also

coordinated and taught an advanced immersion weekend in French. Thus, I knew several

faculty members, the teaching methods used (for the first, second, third, and fourth

semesters) and the format of the programs. Furthermore, I kept in touch after the

completion of my assistantship with my former supervisor who is still responsible for the

TA program today. Because of his position, he was my primary contact in the French

93

department allowing me to establish the connection with the TAs I would eventually

work with. As a result of my experience in the French department, I was on familiar

ground and felt at ease in launching my study when the time came to get in touch with the

TAs. My presence and work within this department were done independently and have no

connection to the French department or to its rules and regulations. This fact was clearly

explained in the informed consent signed by the TAs and their students who became

participants in my study. Lastly, prior to enter the field of investigation, I fulfilled the

requirements imposed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university. I

obtained the authorization to conduct my study, which implied I would follow the

described protocol and each participant would sign an approved informed consent.

Sampling and Participants

Qualitative researchers agree that the process of participants' selection represents

a crucial step in the research design (Creswell, 1998). Indeed, how sampling is conducted

will affect the data analysis (Patton, 2002). The purposes of the present study along with

the approach chosen to conduct the study justified & purposeful ox purposive sampling

that focuses on "selecting information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the

questions under study" (Patton, 2002, p. 230). The main inquiry of the study was to

examine specifically student motivation as it is lived out in a 'real' language classroom

where teacher and students interact with one another as instruction takes place. Foreign

language instruction involves developing the four skills of language learning (i.e.,

listening, speaking, writing, and reading), which represent at the post-secondary level the

focal point of the first four semesters of that language. Moreover, beginners in language

learning face different challenges and obstacles that are specific to the discovery of the

94

new language as well as what language learning really entails. Thus, the first semester of

language learning when compared to the other semesters can be viewed as unpredictable

or arbitrary in terms of how students react to their first experience as FL learners.

Therefore, I opted for a selection of students enrolled in the second, third, and fourth

semester of French. My intent was to capture a rather broad representation of individual

experiences across this selected pool of students. Practical issues, however, had to be

also taken under consideration.

Process of Selection

The selection process of participants was twofold: 1) selection of three TAs

among the eight TAs teaching the first four semesters of French; and 2) selection of four

students from each of these three chosen French courses for a total of twelve student

participants. This selection process involved several stages, which are organized in a

timeline of the study (See Figure 8). It is also important to specify that, independently of

the selection process, TAs and students willingly made the choice to participate or not

participate in the study. Furthermore, as stated in the informed consent, once they became

participants they could withdraw from the study at anytime without any repercussions.

As mentioned earlier, I was able to access the field of investigation through the

coordinator of the TA program. Our most important decision was to choose whom I was

going to observe. Together, we agreed on several criteria that would define the teaching

histories of the TAs to best fit the goals of the study: (1) they had to be in their second

year of teaching in the French department, (2) they had to be well adjusted to their

current situations as TAs as well as graduate student, and (3) they had to have had some

teaching experience prior to their current position. Applying these criteria narrowed down

95

the potential number of participants to exactly three whom I contacted by e-mail a few

days before the semester (Fall 2006) began. In this e-mail, I briefly introduced myself and

asked them to meet with me so I could explain the project in person. I also attached my

dissertation prospectus for additional information. My intent was to provide them with

enough information without having to reveal every aspect of the study. That is, my goal

was to observe the interactions and dynamics in the classroom during the 50 minutes of

French instruction. Furthermore, if sufficiently informed, these teachers do not have to

guess the purpose of my presence in their classrooms, which might affect their demeanor

and attitudes while teaching. Most importantly, I wanted these teachers to feel at ease and

understand that the goal of the study was in no way to assess their teaching or to judge

them as individuals. My concern was for them to remain true to their teaching style.

The first individual meeting with two of the TAs went beyond my expectations.

They showed interest, read the informed consent, and asked additional questions. We

discussed teaching and speaking French, living and studying in the U.S., as well as plans

and goals for the future. They decided to participate in my study and we immediately

decided on a date for my first observation in their classrooms. The meeting with the third

TA though cordial, went differently in terms of the questions raised: he was interested by

the idea but, at the same time, was very concerned about his responsibility to his students.

To the best of my knowledge and abilities, I explained in detail the role of the IRB

including the informed consent for participants and I also reported on the meeting I had

with his supervisor. By the end of our conversation, he was willing to participate but first,

he wanted to have the occasion to speak with his supervisor. Although, he had some

reservations about certain aspects of participating, I left confident after reiterating that I

96

was available in case he had more questions. I followed up each of these meeting by

sending a thank you e-mail. A week passed before I heard from the third teacher who let

me know that he had signed the consent and was ready to set up a date for my first

observation in his classroom.

I launched the selection process of students' participants during my first visit to

each language level classroom. The levels are referred to hereafter as second semester

(S2), third semester (S3), and fourth semester (S4) and are respectfully taught by the

three TAs named: Teacher 1, Teacher 2, and Teacher 3.1 had previously scheduled this

first observation and explained to each teacher how I was planning on introducing

myself. At the beginning of class, teachers very briefly announced my presence and that I

would be addressing the class for a few minutes before the period ends. I explained to

students in simple terms the purposes of my presence in the classroom and what it meant

to be a participant in the study. Participants would: 1) be interviewed to discuss personal

experiences of language learning, 2) participate in a focus group with other participants to

discuss together specific aspects of language instruction, and 3) provide the semester

grade for this class as well as other assignment grades. I also went over specifics of the

informed consent and, more specifically, the issue of keeping the data confidential

because the process was not anonymous. Once students decided to participate, they chose

a fictitious name, to be used during the data collection, the data analysis and the writing.

Finally, I gave one copy of the consent to each student and told them that they could

reach me by e-mail or phone.

Students' reactions after my project presentation varied from one classroom to the

next. For instance, in S2, four enthusiastic students immediately approached me with a

97

signed consent form, at which point I asked them for a pseudonym and an e-mail address.

Conversely, the majority of students in S3 seemed reserved and hesitant before and after

class. In fact, after three observed class periods, no one had approached me. So, I made

one very quick announcement before class (after checking with the teacher) to place a

second 'call'. In addition, I simply engaged in trivial conversations with several students,

before and/or after class in an attempt to have them participate in the study. This

approach was successful. Three students told me that they did not realized that they had

to come forward so early in the semester. For the third classroom (S4), I had mixed

reactions from students. Several were interested but were concerned with the time factor

as they already had busy schedules. I also turned down two students who were auditing

the class since they were not required to do any homework or take the tests. Accepting

this auditor constraint would have introduced additional 'variation' to consider in the data

analysis. Overall the selection of participants went smoothly and was fruitful. Within less

than three weeks into the field of investigation, I had twelve participants (4 in each

classroom) waiting for me to set up a time for our individual interview.

Backgrounds of Participants

In order to understand and obtain the best picture possible about the variables

involved in this study, it is necessary to provide background information about each

participant. First, a brief narrative of each teacher provides specifics about their teaching

experience in the language classroom, their credentials and language(s) learned. Second,

a table (see Figure 7) introduces selected facts about student-participants in order to

provide a brief profile of their status as French learner. Furthermore, it is necessary to

reiterate that as stipulated in both informed consents, teachers and students chose to

98

participate on their own free will and could pull back at anytime without any

repercussions.

Teacher participants.

As previously explained, the three teacher-participants were graduate teaching

assistants in the French department and as of the beginning of the present study, they

were in the second year of their Masters program.

Teacher 1

For this American-born woman, the journey learning French and discovering the

French culture started during her sophomore year in high school in first semester French

class. It continued with several trips to France, a bachelor degree with a major in French

and a minor in Linguistics and two years of teaching experience as an English teaching

assistant in French middle school. Enrolled in a French translation graduate program

during the current project, she was in her second year of teaching second semester French

at the post-secondary level. Her goal is to work as a French translator before going back

to school in a PhD program.

Teacher 2

Born and reared in Ghana (Africa), this male instructor is fluent in French,

English and his local dialect. Holding a bachelor's degree in French from a university in

Ghana and an American Masters in French literature, he is currently completing a degree

in French translation and a Masters in information science while teaching third semester

French for the third time in the university harboring the present study. His teaching

experience includes several years of teaching French at the post-secondary level in Ghana

and in the United States.

99

Teacher 3

French native and fluent in English, this woman has several degrees from French

universities: a double Masters in English and philosophy, a degree in English translation,

the French equivalent of a teaching certificate in English, and several graduate courses in

American literature. Now a graduate student in this American university, the instructor

was teaching fourth semester French for the third time during the course of the study. Her

previous teaching experience includes two years of teaching English in French schools,

and two years of teaching French in a New Zealand high school. She was recently

accepted in a well-known American university PhD program.

Student participants.

A purposeful sampling led to the selection of three distinct French classrooms in

an attempt to obtain a representation of French learners best fitting the purposes of the

study as participants. The following table (Figure 7) introduces selected facts about

student-participants to provide their profiles as French learners.

100

Students Participants

Ladislas S2

Freshman Marguerite

S2 Sophomore

Marie S2

Freshman Charlotte

S2 Freshman

Cecile S3

Sophomore

Amelie S3

Freshman

Jacques S3

Sophomore Sybille

S3 Junior

Elaine S4

Sophomore

Napoleon S4

Freshman Pierre

S4 Junior

Claire S4

Sophomore

Currently enrolled in:

2nd semester French

2nd semester French

2nd semester French

2nd semester French

3rd semester French

3rd semester French

3rd semester French

Learn Spanish 3rd semester

French/ Learn Spanish and

Chinese. 4th semester

French/ Learned Latin in high school 4th semester

French/ Learn Chinese

4th semester French

4th semester French/

Learn Chinese.

Major & Minor (opuorul)

Undecided Minor in French?

American Signe Language

Interpreting

Undecided

English

English Minor in French or

linguistics

Undecided French major or

minor?

Spanish Minor in linguistics?

Linguistics Minor in Spanish?

International studies

Undecided

Journalism Minor in French?

Undecided

Background as French learner

6 years of French starting in middle school/ French AP as a senior/ Did not do well on the AP test/ Tested in 2nd semester on placement test. 3 years of French in high school/ Was in another institution for 1st

semester French. Grandmother & aunt from Canada spoke French. 6 years of French starting in middle school/ Had choice between French & Spanish. 4 years in high school. Has a French cousin and helps her father write French letters. Started French in 8th grade/ 3 years in high school (not during senior year)/ Placed in third semester as Freshman, dropped out and started again this semester. Started French in 6th grade & continued through high school/ AP class as senior. Tested in 3rd semester on placement test. Started French last year as a Freshman/ Had no previous experience in any other languages. Started French last year as a Sophomore/ No previous experience in French.

Started French last year as a Freshman/ Skip 3rd semester due summer experience in France.

5 years of French starting in 8th

grade/ tested in 4th semester on placement test. Started in 8th grade & 4 years in high school (graduated in 2002)/ only 2nd

semester of French at the post-secondary level. Started French in middle school and continued through high school.

Figure 7. Student-participants' profiles as French learners.

101

Data Collection

In order to collect descriptive, extensive and insightful data, I chose to conduct

classroom observations, in-depth individual interviews, and focus groups as means of

data collection. These various methods reveal different empirical realities. Thus, direct

observations give the opportunity for the researcher to have a more comprehensive view

of the setting being studied and "to move beyond the selective perspective selections of

others" (Patton, 2002, p. 264). Interviews collect understandings of the participants who

report their perspectives and constructed meanings about their lived experiences (Patton,

2002). Lastly, focus groups compared to individual interviews allow access to additional

information due to the interactions formed within the group a phenomenon Carey (1994)

as cited in Morgan (1996), termed 'the group effect'. Effectively, the discussion in focus

group represents more than the sum of individual interviews due to the fact "that the

participants query each other and explain themselves to each other" (Morgan, 1996, p.

139). Taken together, these three distinct methods allowed the gathering of different

types of qualitative data, which constructed a more accurate and complete representation

of the problem investigated.

Before entering the field, I outlined the distribution of the data collection

throughout the course of the semester based on the goals of my inquiry and my views as a

researcher. I was also aware that once the study was begun, I would have to make a few

adjustments due to different variables involved, which were out of my control (e.g., the

syllabus of each French course, the class and work schedules of the participants). To

start, I decided to wait for the second week of the semester before my first visit in each

classroom. Teachers and students had to become acquainted with another and had to go

102

over different issues linked to the beginning of a new semester. Next, because I had to

consider practical issues related to the study, I aligned the three different class schedules

and syllabi in order to create a common schedule of observations. It is important to

mention that in terms of my interest, my ultimate goal was to observe a variety of

instructional situations in order to obtain an extensive representation of the instructors'

teaching repertoire combined with students' behaviors and actions. I wanted to take

account of possibly all the factors and influences present in the three classroom contexts

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As a result, I had to remain informed, via syllabus and

communication with teachers, of the overall content of each class period. Given these

facts, I visited each classroom an average of four times for every three-week period for a

total of twelve observations.

Before further describing the data collection process, I introduce a complete

detailed timeline which includes the different stages and events of the study (Figure 8).

Timeline of the study during the course of the Fall Semester 2006 (16weeks)

Prior to the semester and Is1 week into the semester

• Meeting with coordinator/supervisor of the TA program to decide on criteria for TAs' selection —» 3 TAs are selected.

• 1st contact by e-mail with the selected TAs likely to become participants to request a meeting.

• 1st individual meeting with each TA to explain the study and ask for their participation.

• TAs agree to participate and become teacher-participants. • Set-up of the date for 1st observation.

2"'1 to 4lh week into the semester

• 1st observation in each classroom (S2, S3, and S4): addressed students to explain my presence in the classroom and ask for their participation in my study.

• Waiting-period for students answers: - Briefly addressed a second time

students in classroom S3. - Talked individually to several students.

• Goal reached: 12 student-participants/ 4 in each classroom.

103

• Decided on a classroom observations schedule based on content of the syllabus, courses schedules, test days or other obligations not related to instruction per se: as a result, average of 4 observations in each classroom for every three-week period. • Stayed in constant contact with teachers during the course of the semester through e-

mail to announce my visits or exchange information about instruction content.

About mid-semester and shorth a Tier

• Contact student-participants by e-mail or/and in person to set-up individual interviews and focus-groups. • Established a schedule

based on students' availability.

• 12 interviews over the course of 2 weeks. • Worked on time conflicts

to set-up 2 focus groups of 6 students each.

• 2 focus groups within 2 week interval after the interviews were completed.

• Continued observations during that period however, not as often because of scheduling conflict with interviews.

B\ the end of the semester

• Completed observations for a total of 12 observations in each classroom. • Had recording of interviews and focus groups transcribed. • Gave student participants the transcript of their interview to read and mark with annotations and/or comments if necessary. • Asked teachers for a short biography of their teaching experience and a complete compilation of quizzes, tests, and finals of the semester. • Ask participants to send their grades via e-mail once they would be posted on D2L 33

Figure 8. Timeline of the study.

Observations

Given that my inquiry was to uncover and understand a specific phenomenon

experienced by French students, it was essential to discover the context in which these

students behave and interacted in their natural setting by means of naturalistic or direct

observations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). I observed regular periods of French

instruction as it naturally occurs and unfolds in the classroom. Clearly explained by

3 D2L, also known as blackboard, is an internal system within the university website put in place for students and teachers to communicate on line.

104

Patton (2002), these direct observations have several advantages, which in my case,

allowed: 1) (to carry out) an open, discovery-oriented, and inductive approach to the

French classrooms and their actors on order to attain a holistic perspective of students

experiencing motivation during French instruction, 2) to acknowledge things that may not

be noticed by teachers and students as well as things that did not happen, and 3) to have

the "opportunity to move beyond the selective perceptions of others" (Patton, 2002,

p. 264) that is, the perceptions of the interviewed student participants.

A direct consequence of conducting naturalistic observations is for the researcher

to introduce interferences into the environment, which in turn could place constraints on

the potential research outcomes. My intent was to minimize the alterations of the

'natural' classroom environment caused by my presence. These "effects of observation

on the activity being observed" (Edwards & Westgate, 1999, p. 327) are known as the

'observer's paradox'. This issue is particularly important in language classroom due to

the anxiety and the self-consciousness known to be experienced by the majority of FL

students when it is time to participate and speak out loud in a small group or in front of

the class. From my first observation forward, I adopted a discreet and considerate attitude

to avoid attracting negative attention. At the same time, however, I remained close

enough to students because I wanted to be able to hear everyone and see facial

expressions, small gestures, and physical demeanors. For instance, during small group

activities, it was important to know if students were speaking in French and English

indicating if they were on task or not. As a result, I did not sit in the far back of the

classrooms but, rather, I joined the semi-circle of students at one end or the other, or sat

slightly back filling in a gap; I always made sure not to be in anyone's way. As time went

105

by, finding my place became easier and in many instances, students who were already

sitting at their desk would make room for me inviting me to 'squeeze in'. Furthermore,

the frequency of my visits (once or twice a week) caused students to become accustomed

to my presence; they always greeted me and often engaged in small talk in English or in

French about the class, French culture, or just anything related to the context of the

moment. I saw each of these instances as an opportunity to become part of the group. On

several occasions, during pair and small group activities, I was approached by the nearest

students who asked for my expertise or feedback. I always acknowledged these demands

in the form of short verbal answers, head movements, hand gestures, or just eye contact

always with a friendly demeanor. I must also point out that at times, Teachers 1 & 3 have

directly invited me to provide my input, as a French person, on a specific issue related to

French language or/and French culture. Overall, I felt my presence in the classrooms was

well received by students. I never seen, heard, or sensed any signs of discontent or

frustration. As I watched the instruction progress and evolve during each 50 minute

period, I wrote down every detail pertaining to behaviors, actions, reactions, and

interactions taking place as well as any emergent events.

Individual Interviews

As valuable as observations in natural settings are, they do not reveal what

participants feel, intend to do, and think: observations are limited in terms of reaching the

other person's perspective. Conducting individual in-depth interview allows for the

researcher to "find out what is and on someone else's mind, to gather their stories"

(Patton, 2002, p. 341). Face to face interviewing represents what Gubrium and Holstein

(1997) call an active, 'meaning-making process' during which interviewer and

interviewee have the opportunity to communicate directly through exchanges of

questions and replies. As a result, interviews are conversational and offer flexibility for

both parties to immediately question and clarify in case of confusion, misunderstanding,

or need for additional details and descriptions.

Before reporting on the interview process I carried out, I must highlight that my

role as the interviewer was critical including each stage leading to the actual interview

time. My main objective was to have participants open their world as French learners

allowing me to collect quality information. Thus, I sought to establish trusting and

respectful relationships with the participants so they could "openly share personal and

emerging perceptions of their group learning experiences" (Busier & Pigeon, 1999,

p. 5-6). From my very first step into the classroom settings, I positioned myself not as a

stranger who only inspired authority and concern but, rather, as a visitor with a friendly

face and attitude. As I previously explained when reporting on classroom observations, I

seized every opportunity and situation I saw fit to establish rapport with student-

participants in order to develop a "relational act of honest and reciprocal dialogue"

(Busier & Pigeon, 1999, p. 6). Several weeks into the semester, I had connected (on a

personal level), to different degrees, with each of the twelve student-participants.

Though, once established these relationships further evolved, as Darlington and Scott

(2002) asserted that rapports are "not 'established' once and for all" (p. 54), but, rather,

"the researcher-participant relationship is subject to continuing negotiation and

reworking" (p. 54). In my case, by the time I sat face to face with each student-

participant, our rapport had become open and friendly. Students showed definite signs of

interest in the study as well as genuine signs of enthusiasm for being interviewed.

107

The central characteristic of the interview process is the management of the

interview (itself) including the use of an interview guide34, which provides enough

structure without diminishing the advantages of the in-depth aspect of the interview. My

intent was to facilitate the flow of the conversation while offering adequate guidance to

the interviewees through open-ended questions specifically focusing on the 'hows'. I

wanted students themselves to describe and explain their motivation as they narrated their

experiences as French learners during this current semester. Thus, the interview guide

addressed several areas of concerns regarding participants' current experience in French

learning and directly related to their motivation (e. g., oral participation, in class reading

activities, testing in general).

As reported in the timeline of the study, I waited for the second half of the

semester to conduct the interviews. The rationale behind this decision was grounded in

the completion of two important objectives pertinent to the choice of conducting a

nondirective and qualitative study. First, I wanted to spend enough time in each

classroom in order to have: 1) a feel for the teaching and learning environment, 2) a good

representation of the interactions between teacher and students as well as among students,

and 3) a good illustration of specific behaviors by student-participants. Taken together,

these facts gave me enough information about what was happening during instruction in

order to compose the questions of the interview guide. Second, as I just explained above,

I wanted to have enough time prior to the interviews in order to develop sound individual

relationships with the participants in addition of being accepted by students as a group.

Shortly before mid-semester, I sent a collective e-mail message asking student-

participants to let me know of time periods during which they were available. A series of

34 The interview guide is reported in Appendix A.

108

individual exchanges by e-mail and in person followed until I achieved the full

scheduling of the twelve interviews. Those took place on campus in the privacy of the

conference room of the French department, which provided good conditions for tape-

recording. I approached each interviewee with the same demeanor and attitude following

the same protocol. I employed the same interview guide (See Appendix A), same type of

recording, same room, and I gave the same explanations and recommendations prior to

turning the tape-recorder on. Furthermore, even though participants had previously

signed the informed consent allowing me to tape-record, I asked them again and specified

that they could interrupt this interview at any time and even call it off if necessary.

Participants had a positive attitude, showed signs of enthusiasm and were willing to share

their stories. Most of the interviews were approximately an hour in length with the

exception of one that lasted 45 minutes and two lasted an hour and fifteen minutes. After

I had turned the tape-recorder off, I explained that I would be given them the transcript of

their interview to read carefully. I asked them to make annotations on what they thought

did not represent accurately their point of view or could be misunderstood and/or

misinterpreted. I also encouraged them to add comments and/or reflections. Each audio-

recording was transcribed in the most confidential and professional conditions by a third

party.

Focus Groups

Within the whole process of data collection, I viewed focus group as a means to

acquire a more extensive representation on the problem been investigated, which allowed

for a broader perspective during the analysis of the data. As third method of data

collection, focus groups share many advantages of in-depth interviews to collect

qualitative data about "opinions and feelings, and meanings associated with various

phenomena (Basch, 1987, p. 434 cited in Darlington & Scott, 2002, p. 61). In addition,

some participants feel more at ease within a group, to describe their experiences as they

listen and relate to others, than they would conversing alone with the researcher. As with

in-depth interviews, the researcher is responsible for regulating the structure of the focus

group since he is the moderator who decides on the degree of involvement and control

during the discussion. There are in particular "two senses in which a group can be more

structured.. .with regard to asking questions ... and with regard to managing group

dynamics" (Morgan, 1996, p. 145).

The main source of strength for focus groups relies on the interactions in the

group known as the 'group effect' (Carey, 1994)35. Under the guidance of the researcher,

the group discussion generates stories and opinions by participants, which in return, elicit

additional reactions and comments from these same participants. This process of sharing

and comparing experiences and ideas "often has a 'Yes', but. . . ' quality to it" (Morgan,

1997, p. 21) that produces a valuable source of insights into complex behaviors and

motivations (Morgan, 1997). In my case, the main purpose of the focus group was to

have student-participants share and compare their experiences during instruction

regarding: 1) certain (teaching) activities, 2) personal interactions within the classroom

(between teacher and students and among classmates), and 3) common and specific

practices by teachers. All of these issues pertained to the key question of what affects

student motivation during FL instruction. Specifically, the aim of the data collection

during focus groups was grounded in two distinct observations resulting from the data

already collected: 1) specific and recurrent behaviors and reactions by students in

35 As cited in Morgan (1996).

110

classrooms, and 2) students' comments on motivation during our face to face interviews.

My goal was to provide a forum for participants to discuss and explore these issues in

order to gain new insights and perspectives. Thus, to facilitate this task, I developed a

question guide (See Appendix B) that openly addressed the two aforementioned

observations.

Due to the number of student-participants, I decided to conduct two focus groups

with the intent to compose both groups with participants of the three different courses. In

practice, the split of students was solely based on scheduling issues yet, both groups were

heterogeneous. However, at the last minute, since two participants did not show up,

group 2 was only composed of five students instead of the original seven. Taking place in

the same room as the individual interviews, each group discussion lasted approximately

an hour and a half and was taped-recorded. Prior to launching the discussion, I clearly

reiterated that every participant was responsible for keeping confidential everything that

was to be said in the room and how they had the option to leave at anytime without

suffering any consequences. Both audio-recordings were transcribed by the same third

party who applied the same confidential and professional conditions to the transcriptions

of the interviews.

Students Grades

Part of the inquiry of the present study was to examine students learning

outcomes emerging from FL instruction. One form of learning outcomes corresponds to

the quantitative measures (i.e., written & oral tests, grades) determined by teachers. Thus,

in accordance with the protocol approved by the IRB, being a participant in the study

meant that students were to provide their semester grades. During my initial introduction

I l l

to students, I explained that these grades would always be used in a confidential manner

under a fictitious name (just as the rest of the data). I discussed again this issue with each

student when we met face to face for the interview. Having previously addressed this

matter with the teachers, I was informed of the nature and the number of grades as well as

the fact that each student had access to the grades on line via D2L. Given this

information, I established a chart to organize the grades I chose to collect in each of the

three courses. Thus, I told students that I would be sending them by e-mail a detailed

chart36 to fill out once the grades are available on line. Everyone understood and agreed

to comply with my request.

Data Management

In an attempt to conduct the data analysis in the most effective conditions, I

especially took care over the data management during the data collection and thereafter.

As specified by Miles and Huberman (1994), there is no firm boundary between data

management and data analysis, which are "integrally related" (p. 45). Thus, right from

the beginning, I established a system to handle effectively the multiple pages of raw field

notes and remain consistent and true during the process of data management. To this end,

I made the point to transcribe and transform, within 36 hours of an observation, the 10 to

15 pages of poorly handwritten fieldnotes in English and French into 4 to 6 pages of a

typed and well-organized transcript. It entailed formatting, annotating, and organizing

this data into four distinct sections: 1) a log to introduce basic information about the class

period and note atypical anecdotes while in the field, 2) a summary of the activities and

exercises, 3) the data per se, and 4) my analytic, observational, and methodological

See Appendixes C, D, and E.

112

comments. This process of data transformation corresponds to the very first step of data

analysis.

Soon after each interview and focus group, I listened to its audio-recording prior

to sending it via e-mail to a third party for transcription. Transcriptions were typed

following my instructions to be verbatim and include pauses and laughs. Fictitious names

were used in order to keep the participants' identity confidential. Upon the receipt of each

transcript, I verified its authenticity by listening to the recording of the corresponding

individual interview or focus group and made the necessary corrections. Finally, I gave

participants their transcript to read and to annotate as they saw fit. Everyone agreed and

offered feedback either in written or in person.

For practical and confidential purposes, I organized the transcripts by sources of

data in separate binders that I safely kept in my home office with the rest of my research

work for this project. Finally, managing the data meant keeping a sense of the overall

project while reflecting on each piece of data and keeping in mind the research questions

at all time. As previously mentioned, the process of data collection took place over a

period of a semester37. Progressing through the different stages of fieldwork, I used the

process of transformation described above to reflect on what I had observed and finalized

my questions for the interview guide. I further used facts and information from individual

interviews to compose the questions for the focus groups in order to complement the data

already collected. As a result, it was critical to have every piece of data well documented

and organized allowing me easy access and handling.

See the timeline in Figure 8.

113

Data Analysis

As I proceeded compiling pages of transcripts during the course of the data

collection, I realized that "the challenge of qualitative analysis lies in making sense of

massive amount of data" (Patton, 2002, p. 432). My first decision was to analyze the data

from the interviews and focus groups before moving on to that of the observations. My

rationale for this choice was to discover, understand, and take into account the

participants' perspectives prior to examining data from my observations. My analytical

approach includes several analytic moves proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 9)

and other suggestions by qualitative researchers (O'Leary, 2004; Patton, 2002; Walcott,

1994) as well as my own judgment and creativity. For instance, I purposely focused on

coding the data for content analysis adopting Miles and Huberman's (1994) viewpoint

that "coding is analysis" (p. 56). The following describes the main steps I carefully

executed in a sequence:

• Because the data comes from two different sources (student participants and

myself), I established two lists of codes: 1) the codes of list A categorize

participants' thoughts and views on their behaviors and their experiences as

French learners including their learning, and 2) the codes of list B categorize the

different instructional activities and exercises and the different behaviors and

interactions as manifested by students and teachers during instruction

(see Figure 9). For practical purposes, I assigned a color to each code to facilitate

the search and retrieval of sections of field notes.

114

List \ : codes for inter\icns & focus groups

• Activities that motivate the most

• Activities that are liked the least • Relationships within the

classroom • Perception of feeling stupid • Perception of what others think

(fear of making a mistake) • Level of language

comprehension • Mental block • Suggestions for T to adapt &

improve in order to make class more interesting & fun

• Learning and grades • Role of the teacher (in any

circumstances)

Common codes for internet* s. focus groups & observations

• Positive students attitudes & demeanor showing signs to be: engaged, concentrated, on task, interested, having fun

• Negative students attitudes & demeanor showing signs to be: bored, tired, off track, perplexed, disengaged

• Classroom atmosphere and environment / How it feels at the time • Classroom set-up • Long period of silence • Use of English during instruction

Figure 9. Lists of codes for data analysis.

• I sifted through every page of the transcripts coding, underlying, and annotating

the margins with comments, reflections, and brief summaries while using the

corresponding colors to the codes.

List B: codes for observations

• Teacher behaviors, commands, and explanations

• Interactions between students • Interactions between teacher &

students • Description of the different

activities • Text comprehension and

analysis activities • Warm-up activities • Listening activities for 2nd

semester class • Various comments &

speculations about students state ofmindatthetime

115

• I identified themes and patterns - that is, the "different ways in which the data

relate to each other" (Darlington & Scott, 2002, p. 145), commonalities and

differences, and recognized relationships between variables such as students'

behaviors, classroom environment, and teachers' demeanors.

• I created several types of visual representations (e.g., maps, tables, and flow

charts) of the main themes to display and organize their characteristics as they

emerged from the data. As part of the data analysis, these data-displays help "to

understand what is happening and to do something - either analyze further and

take action - based on that understanding" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11).

They also allowed exploring the interconnections among themes.

• Using a second set of the same transcripts of the observations, I physically cut

them out by themes, which I regrouped across all the observations within the

same classroom prior to pasting them together. Finally, I categorized these themes

across the three classrooms.

• I linked the themes and patterns to the research questions and engaged in the

interpretation to reach meaningful understanding. Thus, I progressively brought

together findings that cover the consistencies found in the raw field notes.

• I considered these findings and their characteristics from the lens of Connell's

(1990) motivational model. This process further refined participants' experiences

as French learners to reveal conclusions/inferences in terms of their engagement

and motivation.

A few data displays are presented in chapter 4.

116

This analysis treated every single event documented as a unique entity with its own

meaning and its own set of relationships within the context explored and yet at the same

time, is "thought of as a window into the whole" (Patton, 2002, p.60).

Quality Control

As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, it was of the outmost importance to

conduct this study with rigor and integrity. Thus, I was particularly attentive and diligent

in carrying out every step of this study from its conceptualization to the writing of the

narrative. The detailed description of the whole process reported in this chapter depicts an

accurate picture of what really took place during the period of data collection as well as

data analysis. Above all, the trustworthiness of this study can be demonstrated through

the account of several practices that I executed. First, I carried out data triangulation by

conducting classroom observations, individual interviews, and focus groups. Data

triangulation provides "cross-data validity checks" (Patton, 2002, p. 248) as "each

method reveals different aspects of empirical reality" (Denzin, 1989, p. 25). Thus, the

three sources of data allowed me a) to monitor the process under examination from more

than one perspective and b) to validate the overall collected data by establishing parallels

and searching for connections between what I observed during instruction and what

participants told me about their experiences as French learners. Second, during the course

of the interviews, I frequently practiced member checks. That is, I summarized

interviewees' statements in my own words or simply rephrased their statements in order

to confirm my understanding of their stories. This practice allowed me: a) to avoid

misunderstandings or misinterpretations on my part and b) to probe participants so they

would further develop their answers as they had more time to reflect on the matter

117

discussed. The third way of ensuring the credibility of the study was to keep my own

research journal about my 'trips' in the field from my first meeting with the TA's

coordinator in the French Department on. It gave me the opportunity to reflect and

comment in a free form style about what I had seen and heard. These unstructured

reflections and comments were effective in terms of keeping track of every event I

experienced and every aspect of the research setting I witnessed. This form of data was

very helpful when time came to reconstruct participants' stories and provide details.

Finally, the trustworthiness of this study is further established through my work sessions

with a post-secondary French teacher who recently obtained a Ph.D. in Applied

Linguistics. She read and commented on every memo and visual representation I created

as part of the analysis to categorize, characterize, and connect together the facts and

elements of the data. I also asked feedback on these documents from one committee

member who is a French teacher as well as from the 'methodology' committee person.

In summary, the purpose of this chapter was to describe the research design of the

present study. Thus, I successively explained my background and position as the

researcher, introduced the research questions and the main characteristics of the selected

research paradigm, and provided a detailed account of: 1) the research setting, 2) the

selection process of participants and their backgrounds, 3) the data collection, 4) the data

management and analysis, and 5) the quality control. In the following chapter, I report the

findings in the form of rich and thick descriptions of the participants' experiences as

French learners and interpretations of these experiences.

118

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

This chapter reports the findings of the present study while answering each

research question in an attempt 1) to bring participants' lived experiences as French

learners during instruction visible to the readers and 2) to extract the meaning of these

experiences conveyed by students and observed by myself (the researcher). The goal of

this study was to gain insights into the process responsible for creating a classroom

environment, which allows for student engagement and student motivation. To

accomplish this task, students' testimonies and perspectives were placed at the forefront

to illustrate and interpret their experiences. This choice was motivated by my belief to

focus on and highlight students' voices when examining their motivation during FL

instruction. Specifically, the inquiry of the study addressed the following aspects of

student motivation pertinent to FL instruction and FL learning by means of three research

questions:

1) What do foreign language students report about the instructional approach as well

as in teachers' use of textbooks and other teaching aids to engage and motivate

them during instruction?

2) What is it that foreign language teachers say and do (i.e., specific instructional

approach) in order to motivate students, and in turn promote students'

engagement during the course of formal instruction?

3) In this research context, how does foreign language teaching affect students'

quantitative and qualitative learning outcomes?

Given these considerations, I chose to discuss the findings in several steps. First,

I introduced the main themes that emerge from participants' interviews and focus groups

119

and affect their level of motivation, interest, enthusiasm, and engagement during

instruction. Second, I opted for the "progressive focusing" concept proposed by Wolcott

(1994) to answer questions 1 and 2 in the form of a descriptive account combined with

my own interpretation. That is, I alternated between statements by participants about their

views of what occurred during instruction and the particulars of classroom activities

"starting with a close-in view and gradually backing away to include more context"

(Wolcott, 1994, p. 18). This approach allowed me to provide a broad representation of

students' experiences while integrating specifics and reflections. Third, I addressed the

issue of learning by a) providing participants grades including the distribution of the

semester grades for each class and b) giving an account of their personal learning

objectives for the semester and assessment of their learning (at mid-semester) including

suggestions and comments about their own situation.

Factors Affecting Student Level of Motivation during Instruction

Throughout the various stages of data analysis (e.g., coding, identifications of

themes and patterns, connections between these themes and the research questions), it

became apparent that students' levels of motivation, interest, enthusiasm, and

engagement during instruction were affected by various factors. Whether related to the

teacher or linked to students' individual characteristics, these factors (displayed in Figure

10) are subjective in nature because they are grounded in the researcher's perception of

participants' behaviors as well as in the participants' own perceptions of their

experiences.

120

Factors & elements related to the Factors & \ariahles linked to teacher

-

• Personal characteristics:

students' personal characteristics

• Personality & attitude - Attitude/demeanor/ behaviors j i • Daily mood - Level of patience/ availability/ ; • Impact of previous experiences as -Accept mistakes/choice of wording , ' French learner

• Atmosphere in the classroom: ! • Level of language comprehension: - level of comfort/ being a fun class ] . having the option to use English or - classroom set-up only French spoken at all time

• Relationships within the classroom: • Perception of feeling stupid, foolish, - How T* relates & connects with STs* ! or ridiculous? - How T facilitates the involvement • Perception of how the others will

among STs I ( judge & think of their performance • Delivery of the instruction: ;

- Organization of the class - Feedback & corrections - Comments & encouragements - Type of activities proposed ! - Choice of topics discussed I

• Accomplishment during activities & ability to speak

• Intrinsic motivation • Outside classroom practice of the

language • Grades received during the semester

* T = T= teacher; STs= students

Figure 10. Factors affecting students' level of motivation, interest, enthusiasm, and engagement during instruction.

From the classroom atmosphere and the relationships within the classroom to the

choice of activities and topics discussed and the delivery of comments and

encouragements, the teacher affects students' behaviors and actions during instruction.

The consensus found among participants' stories (of their experiences as French learners)

demonstrates that the teacher is the key element associated with FL instruction and

student level of interest, enthusiasm, engagement, and motivation. The following section

introduces a detailed series of participants' testimonies that validate this statement. It also

illustrates specific situations that occurred during instruction within the three different

classrooms in order to bring out the lived experiences of these students. To accomplish

this task, I organized the section around the factors appearing to be the most significant

for participants in terms of their engagement and motivation namely, teacher personal

characteristics and style, teaching style and teacher's approach, classroom atmosphere

and classroom set-up, and delivery of the lesson. The classroom atmosphere consists of

the environment, the ambiance, and the feel in the classroom as created by the teacher

and perceived by students. The classroom set-up refers to the overall physical space in

the classroom namely the desks and chair arrangement. Henceforth, both terms will be

used as such.

Teacher Personal Characteristics as Perceived by the Students

Without exception, participants were receptive to their teachers' personal

characteristics. Demeanor, attitude, the levels of enthusiasm, energy, availability, and

openness, all affected the level of learners in varying degrees during instruction.

Marguerite who was majoring in American Sign Language interpretation was

particularly receptive to the personal connection her teacher made with the students:

She makes more of a personal connection ... She jokes. She'll explain things if

we want to know - if we ask her how to say something in slang, in French, she'll

answer us. She won't ignore us. She'll indulge us when we come up with

fanatical stories, when all she's asking us is something simple, she'll explain how

to say things correctly. She doesn't try to stunt our creativity in the class. She'd

rather hear something funny than, you know, the standard. So it really helps that

she's open to letting us kind of goof around, but still be focused.

122

When asked about the importance of the teacher's attitude and demeanor, Pierre

immediately described the current situation with his sociology professor, with whom he

has difficulty understanding and remaining engaged during class because, as stated:

He got an accent (from India) but he talks monotone, he is standing up there and

he just talks and talks and talks straight.. .he keeps going and going. He's like,

"You understand now? You understand? Okay, good." I mean all of a sudden

we're on a different thing. .. .a professor like that is harder to engage with more as

a professor that's upbeat or a professor that I guess is more energetic, etcetera.

Describing his French teacher, Pierre plainly said "I think she comes in a good mood and

upbeat and she tries to make things more interesting". Also sensitive to this particular

characteristic of a teacher, Napoleon wished that his teacher would make the class a little

more personal and take examples from her life and speak in French about them.

Consequently, he believed that "it's easy to disengage from the conversation to kind pull

back if you don't know the person (the teacher) very well". Expanding on his position,

Napoleon depicted his French teacher as:

She's very nice. I don't doubt that she's a nice person. But I find that I'm not

talking to a person, I'm talking to almost a computer that just regurgitates an

answer, the correct answer. And not something from her personal life.

He also would like to see "more of a relationship between the topic taught and students

and teacher. It doesn't have to be too personal... just use different topics". Sybille made

a similar comment about her teacher, claiming that as a person, she liked him but as a

teacher, "he's not so good. [Laugh]. He's very concerned with getting done what needs to

be done; that, he doesn't really make it fun at all". For example, she explained how her

teacher said to the class to come to him if they don't understand. However, Sybille

indicated that she was not very receptive with this comment:

He said "if you don't understand something, let me know. Go to my office,

whatever." But, I just don't really feel.. .He's never made it seem like that

personable. He just doesn't have that same personable demeanor that a lot of my

other language teachers have had.

Agreeing with her classmate, Cecile described her teacher as "not approachable in so

many ways ... not available or rather not understanding". In addition, because the class

was small, she was expecting the teacher to be "a little more individualized. Especially

because he's a TA, he's not a professor... so, I would expect this teacher to be a little

more fun". Conversely, Amelie, a classmate of Cecile and Sybille, had positive

comments about her teacher's approach during whole class activities. She described him

as "really good, because the first day he was, 'Okay don't be worried you're going to do

fine,' - he's always been friendly ~ he's not very judgmental. He always smiles and he

just tries to get you to participate". Amelie further explained how her teacher told

students to ask him questions if needed and to "not get discouraged if you don't

understand something right away". However, when facing a challenging situation herself,

she admitted being unsure about how to address her teacher, "I might be having

problems, but, it's hard to put into a question. I just don't know what I'd want to say, if I

wanted to ask him something". Jacques agreed with his classmate and made the point

that: "that's not actually going to happen. [Laugh] That's probably one of the most

difficult things to get around within the class as far as participation".

Lastly, the teacher's body language was also identified by Ladislas as a way to

motivate and get interest. She explained that "sometimes I can guess what she (the

teacher) is saying just from what her expression on her face is saying. Sometimes it

helps".

Taken together, these comments point out the importance of how students

perceive their teachers at a personal level. In particular, the issue of the teacher's

availability emerged as critical for participants who felt uncomfortable asking questions

in class. For instance, Teacher 2 indicated that he was available to provide additional

information if needed. However, the participants perceived this message as generic and

impersonal. They did not feel connected to their teacher and therefore, felt reluctant to

ask questions for clarifications.

Teaching Style and Teacher's Approach

Hanging on to the wonderful memories of her "fabulous, great French teacher" in

high school, Cecile has frequently been discouraged this semester by her teacher's

personality and teaching style. She struggled with the lack of organization during class

but mostly, with her teacher's demeanor: "the teacher's attitude does affect me. Because,

I've answered a question wrong in class before and I felt like my answer was ignored.

Our teacher didn't... 'That's not correct but, how can we make it correct?' Instead, he

was, you know, well...". Recalling a similar situation during a teacher-centered activity,

Marie shared the frustration she experienced when the teacher directly addressed her:

Well, the other day, I didn't understand exactly what she asked, partially because

I didn't hear her and I was about to, you know, ask her 'Repeat the question'. Not

necessarily rephrase it but, just repeat it. And before I even got a chance to say

125

anything it was like a split [snapping fingers] second, the entire class answered

the question for me, and that actually made me a little bit angry.

Aware of the constraints imposed by the syllabus, Sybille nonetheless, did not approve of

her teacher's choice of activities and to a greater extent, his approach to implementing

these activities. She further disapproved of how the teacher would "just kind of like I'm

gonna lecture you, put up this overhead, you can discuss it for a few minutes. And then,

we're going to move on". Not only did Sybille not feel connected to her teacher, she also

did "not like the class. It's no fun", and claimed that "it really depends on the teacher's

enthusiasm and the teacher's personal attitude towards the class". She also felt "really

rushed" and had the feeling that "he had this check list to do and we're not moving fast

enough". Conversely, Elaine particularly valued her teacher's approach and behaviors

during teacher-centered activities:

She encourages us to speak as much as we can; that's a good thing. One of the

things I've learned is, if she doesn't give you an immediate reaction to what

you say, you continue to talk. That can sometimes be uncomfortable at first,

because you thought you finished saying your idea, but then it's like she's

expecting more, so you continue to babble on. Sometimes that can be good or

sometimes it can be bad if you have nothing to say; that forces you to elaborate

more on what you're saying, and it forces you to kind of make it up as you go

along, which is a skill I'd like to be better at.

Marguerite reported a similar practice by her teacher when students were facing a

challenging situation: "she'll kind of ease it out of us. She's encouraging us to keep

126

thinking". Marguerite greatly appreciated that her teacher provided suggestions and

encouragement and did not "make us feel stupid".

As for Claire, she especially liked that her teacher was "very straight forward"

and explained exactly what she expected from students. From homework requirement to

posting homework on line and correcting students in class, Claire portrayed her teacher as

"on top of things", which she really liked.

Classroom Atmosphere

As previously stated, the atmosphere in the classroom has been identified by all

participants as the major factor affecting their level of engagement and motivation. They

collectively defined classroom atmosphere as "the comfortability between people"

(Ladislas), "how comfortable you feel with the group" (Amelie) that is, "how the students

relate to the teacher, the teacher to the students, the students to each other" (Sybille).

Therefore, the classroom atmosphere is, by and large, determined by the teacher's

attributes and teaching style. For instance, Elaine appreciated what she described as "a

laid back and kind of relaxed atmosphere where we can feel free to joke around and have

some fun with everything". She further compared previous experiences with this semester

(Fall 2006) stating that "my past French classes haven't been as engaging as this one and

I haven't gotten along as well with other people. So in this one, I feel like I get along with

pretty much everyone". Charlotte was particularly responsive to her teacher's demeanor,

which, in her opinion, greatly influenced the classroom atmosphere:

She is really lively and upbeat. So that keeps us lively and upbeat. And she's

enthusiastic about the language and about the class. That keeps us interested. This

class is a very fun class. I like that; she (the teacher) jokes around with us. She's

127

not afraid to just start talking with us and having a conversation, like a normal

person. She makes the class fun with that.

As for Jacques, despite having a strong intrinsic motivation (he told me), he

acknowledged that in certain instances he would be most likely affected by, among other

things, the classroom atmosphere and energy:

How the class is as a whole is engaging in the activity. If there are long periods of

silence, and things are moving very slowly. It's much easier to just stop being so

engaged and just sit in the back.

In fact, during teacher-centered activities, this class went through long periods of silence

while Teacher 2 was giving explanations, restating and rephrasing explanations, and just

waiting for students to volunteer their answers. In these instances, Jacques described that

he was really affected by the class atmosphere, which compelled him to participate more:

I relate to the guy. I feel bad when the class is just boring and everything. I don't

want to watch him suffer and I don't wanna suffer myself and be bored [laugh].

So that helps motivate me in the moment. This is terrible. It's just getting boring

and I'll look at that poor guy. You know?

Sitting in the same class as Jacques, Sybille also mentioned that "no one really reacts to

anything in that class. It's all just like dead". Contrary to Jacques, this atmosphere was

not conducive to participation:

Why should I be the only one participating? I'll just sit and be like everyone else.

Although I've been in a lot of language classes and they're all pretty much lively.

[Laugh] I mean, there are a lot of different activities that you're doing. You're

moving around, talking to different people, doing different things. But in this

class, I think it's just a lot of- [brief pause].

Sybille paused for a moment to reflect on this particular point and resumed her

explanations to stress that she was "very affected by the atmosphere of that room and its

surroundings". She added "if I don't feel like I'm in a surrounding where I can just shout

out the answer or whatever, then, I'm very quiet".

In conclusion, Claire's claim summarizes all participants' view on this issue: "I think that

atmosphere is a big thing in the classroom. It's the most important".

Classroom Set-up

Commenting on students' participation, Jacques pointed out the impact of the

classroom set-up by comparing his previous semester of French with the current set-up

endorsed by the teacher:

In first and second semester, we actually had all of the desks and chairs more in a

circular arrangement. So, that you could see and interact with all the other

students. This year all of the attention is focused on the professor. So now in this

semester, I don't know everybody's name. I haven't spoken with many of the

people at all, maybe three or four... .1 believe with the other arrangement, it just

gives you more opportunity to relate with all the students and make it easier to

talk to them. So, just easier to participate in general.

Sybille, a classmate, expressed a similar point of view on this topic and described her

rationale about the importance of the classroom set-up along with the teacher's

involvement:

Sitting in a row, facing the teacher who is just lecturing everyone on overhead or

on a blackboard or something like that. That's when people tend to not pay

attention. We could sit there and listen to someone talk and then you just don't

pay attention. Especially if you're in the back of the room where you can just

do whatever you want to do. And if you're not paying attention, just smile and

nod every now and then. No one really cares. [Laugh] But if you're in a small

group where everyone is facing each other, everyone is forced to look at each

other, make eye contact with each other, talk to each other. Then, you're a lot

more motivated to participate because people can then see that you're not doing

anything, that you're not paying attention. I like to be made feel more part of the

group, it is more encouraging to actually participate than just have that

atmosphere of this class: sit down, do your work, whatever.

Also considering the classroom set-up as an important factor, Pierre favored the semi

circle setting because it allows students to get to know one another better. It also makes

working in pairs and small groups easier as he explained:

It's more fun; I'm more likely to participate better and do it.. .if I know the person

I'm talking to more; I have an understanding for them or something like that then,

it makes it easier to participate with them. .. .Last semester (students remained

sitting in rows) there were like three people I would always sit with. This

semester, I know more about the people in the class and I get along with a lot of

people.. .I'm happier.

In summary, participants' preference of the semi-circle set-up is well stated by

Charlotte: "you can see everyone and you can see the teacher so, it's a lot easier to

130

interact and to talk amongst ourselves and with the teacher". Consequently, it encourages

students to be and remain engaged in the activity.

Delivery of the Instruction

The teacher's instructional delivery is an important element (of the instruction)

that was extensively discussed by participants. It comprises the organization of the class

including the choice of activities and topics discussed as well as feedback, corrections,

comments and encouragements given by the teacher. Taken together, this description

corresponds to what I call teaching. Henceforth, this term will be used as such. For

example, Pierre explained his issues with the teacher's actual role when it comes to

teaching: "she doesn't teach you. You just have to come to class and know it". During

our interview, he struggled to describe his views on the approach imposed by the syllabus

and the teacher's role to implement the syllabus. He took his textbook out of his

backpack and showed me examples in order to clarify what he meant by not teaching:

i n

Well sometimes, I feel, with the Structures part , like subjunctive or whatever it

is that we're doing. I feel we come to class and all of a sudden ... we just go right

into doing these examples. If I understand it it's fine but if I don't understand it

then I'm just trying to do examples and I don't even know what I'm doing. It

doesn't teach grammar. It's just practice. I'd rather have someone sit down and

actually teach me the rules to the grammar: "This is the exception and this is what

you're supposed to do in this situation." and stuff like that instead of me ... just

picking it off as we go along sort to speak.

In each chapter, there is a section designed to address one or two grammatical points relevant to the topic of the chapter. It is called Structures.

131

Pierre expressed some frustration about the way the homework schedule was organized.

Students were expected to come prepared to class having read assigned sections of the

textbook in order for them to learn or just review (depending on students' prior

knowledge) grammatical structures. Pierre did the reading. However, he needed to have

the explanations in a different language that is, "in a different form of English somehow

to walk me through it because (he) is not a big English grammar person and was never

good at that". This approach to learning material affected his level of engagement and

interest in class because "if I don't understand it, like if I read through this and I'm kind

of interested but I am wondering this one comparing nouns". While explaining, Pierre

was showing me the specifics in the textbook adding that "we just go into different

examples, more examples ... but, that doesn't really explain it. That's just another use of

it. It doesn't really clarify it and it gets kind of frustrating". Further, Pierre mentioned the

review sessions on grammatical structures before a chapter test and ironically noted that

the teacher is "more likely to explain it to you right during class as opposed to the

specific day on the syllabus where it says 'Today is structure day'". Marie shared a

similar viewpoint about her teacher's approach. She liked her teacher as a person because

"she is entertaining'. However, Marie also thought that "we (the class as a group) go too

far off subject where we just waste time joking sometimes". Yet, she rather liked that the

teacher "teaches" and spends more time in class going over homework assignments. As

Marie explained further, she showed signs of frustration and discouragement:

We're supposed to correct them (homework exercises) ourselves, but it's kind of,

well big deal, you can mark something wrong easily, but do you necessarily

understand why it's wrong? No. Well in my case no, sometimes. I wish we'd go

132

over that. And yes, you can ask questions, but sometimes you feel like there's no

time to, or just -1 don't want to feel stupid in class, just feel like everybody else

knows what the hell they're doing and I have no idea.

This particular issue about the timing and the link between the lesson taught,

homework assignments, and homework corrections represents a real source of confusion,

frustration, and discouragement for most of the participants. Discussing this matter,

participants shared their dissatisfaction about this particular practice imposed by the

syllabus and implemented by their teachers. The following excerpt from one of the focus

groups illustrates participants' concerns and frustrations about the situation:

Nap: One thing I really don't like about the way that the course is set up is how we have to turn in the homework before the lesson is taught. Claire: Yeah. Sybille: Yes. Amelie: So, we lost a day because of the snow day. And then we spent more time finishing the last chapter. So we had one day of lecture of chapter nine and we're supposed to turn in chapter nine the next day. So it's like, well you haven't really taught us chapter nine. So, is it still due? He (the teacher) is like, yeah. And, there's no room to play with the syllabus. Everything is due on that day and you can't change it. Nap: It's the important stuff that's not covered, like the structures. Sybille: Yeah, exactly. Nap: It's not in time for you to do the homework: you have to have the homework in before she can teach the lesson about how to do it. Claire: Yeah, and it's kind of frustrating because the answers are in the back of the workbook and she expects us to go over our work and correct it. Claire: But for this past one, the past conditional and conditional, I have just been completely in a giant fog and I'm not getting it at all. So I'll be going through this and I don't know how to do it and I'm just guessing. And then I'll be correcting it and I'll have to correct every single one. And then we have to turn in the workbook and then she teaches it. And I think it'd be a lot more helpful if we had it taught to us and then we could practice it. As opposed to us muddling our way through the book. Nap: It's like building a house before you draw the blueprint. I mean. Claire: Exactly. Researcher: Okay. And does that affect you? how you 're going to be in class, the way this is organized? Nap: Well, yeah. If you don't know what it is that's being taught.

133

In sum, this issue of internal organization of the syllabus directly affects how students

prepare for class and behave during instruction. Depending on the difficulty of the topic

studied and their prior knowledge, participants' views were different. In the case of

Sybille, she recognized that she was really affected by this organization to the point of

"lacking motivation" in pursuing her effort from the previous two semesters of French.

To explain her behavior, she pointed out that "if you don't understand it (the content of

the lesson), you're expected to look it up outside of class ... because it's not gone over in

class. It's what you should be doing, but I don't [Laugh]".

Another aspect of teaching has been addressed by participants that is, immediate

feedback by teachers during whole class activities. Several viewed this practice as very

positive and productive as Elaine explained:

A lot of the time when we read the lecture, she poses 'Avez-vous compris'40

questions to the whole class, instead of just speaking to our partner, and I think

speaking with her (the teacher) it's easier, because she can correct my grammar,

or correct what I say. Whereas if I'm speaking with a partner I could say

something completely wrong and no one would know, and I like having the

feedback from her about my speaking. That's what I like the most. I think that

helps me a lot.

Claire explained her preference for whole class activities over working with a partner

because of immediate feedback given by the teacher:

I just feel a little more comfortable with it, especially when there's a teacher there

to correct you if you're wrong.... she'll correct you and she won't let you go if

40 This corresponds to a textbook activity offering purposeful questions to assist with the comprehension of a reading.

134

you're speaking in class and you say something wrong or use the wrong word, she

won't let it go until you actually use the right word. And I like that a lot.

Jacques and Cecile reported similarly about their teacher's expectations from

students in connection with his teaching style. Cecile claimed that, when talking to

classmates, "we all feel like he's not a good teacher" because "he really jumps around and

he doesn't clarify what he is saying". She stated that students' misunderstandings were

due to their lack of language comprehension and the lack of organization by the teacher.

The teacher had good intentions when presenting the outline at the outset of the class

period but "it's kind of ridiculous because he doesn't stick to it". She illustrated this

statement with examples of confusion during teacher's explanations and inconsistencies

between what he said before and during activities. In fact, Cecile felt that "he's kind

teaching on a whim. Sure he has this prepared lesson plan, but most of the time I don't

think he sticks to it". As for Jacques, he explained students' lack of understanding not

only because of language difficulties but "because sometimes you don't really know what

he wants to do or what he's looking for. I mean there's a little bit of ambiguity there".

Sybille pointed out how this teacher conveyed information. For instance, during pair

activity, he would interrupt and say: "for tomorrow, I want you to do this, but he'll just

say it once and then move on. And most people are like did he just say we need to do

that? [Laugh]". Additionally, this piece of information was given only in French, which

created even more confusion among students.

To sum up, these comments and reflections about the delivery of instruction are

very valuable and informative. Participants have clearly expressed their views on

particular aspects of teaching and the organization of the instruction. They disliked the

set-up for homework as it was stipulated in the syllabus and the way their teachers chose

to incorporate it in their teaching, which Napoleon summarized with "it's like building a

house before you draw the blueprint". From one lesson to the next, the method in place

affected participants differently depending on prior knowledge and how they perceived

the difficulty of the material being introduced. Thus, they would have preferred to first

learn the grammatical and other language structures in the classroom and then put the

lesson into practice. Several participants mentioned that this is college and more is

required from students, such as independent work and readings with the assistance of

their books. However, at the same time, they expected to have the teacher explain the

content of the lesson prior to being assigned homework exercises. This approach would

raise their level of understanding of the structures to learn and, ultimately, it would

develop and maintain their levels of interest and engagement in class. Furthermore, most

participants preferred immediate feedback given by their teacher. They did not want to

carry on a conversation in incorrect French but rather, they wanted their mistakes to be

identified and corrected, on the spot, by the teacher who had the competence and not by

their peers whom they did not trust. Finally, how teachers actually conducted the

instruction also impacted students' engagement. When students became confused by the

lack of organization or/and clarity in the explanations, that confusion translated into

misinterpretations and misunderstandings of what was expected by the teacher. This

phenomenon becomes a larger issue in FL classes because language represents both the

means to instruction as well as the content of the instruction. Thus, it makes it a priority

for teachers to be particularly clear in their explanations of the lesson and their

expectations of students.

136

To end this first section on the teacher personal characteristics, several points

must be made. Participants collectively pointed out that the teacher is the key element

influencing their level of interest, enthusiasm, engagement and motivation during

instruction. They explained how the teacher's personality, attitude, and behaviors

influence, to varying degrees, the instruction. That is, factors such as teacher's personal

characteristics, teaching style and teacher's approach, classroom atmosphere and

classroom set-up, and delivery of the instruction directly affect students' level of interest,

enthusiasm, engagement and motivation. When looking at all of the participants'

comments about these factors, it appears that what the teacher does or does not do during

instruction is as important as how the teacher does it.

Furthermore, while discussing these factors affecting motivation, participants

reported that classroom atmosphere was the most important. In addition to the description

provided at the outset of this section, it also emerged that participants included the

teacher's ability to make the class fun as part of the classroom atmosphere. In fact, they

unanimously agreed that having fun in class was essential for them to be engaged and

motivated. For instance, Charlotte claimed the class atmosphere as number one factor of

motivation and explained that "the teacher and the students all play into that. Our teacher

is a lot of fun and we can joke around with her... [laugh] the classmates make it fun so it

makes me want to go back". Marie also stressed the teacher's personality (as the most

important element affecting her motivation) describing her teacher as a person who likes

the class and what she is doing "and because of that they (the students) really get into the

class .. .She is funny and is really into the material that she's teaching, that passion almost

gets transferred to you. .. .that's what really pulls me". Or in Sybille's words, "I think the

137

teacher's attitude about it (teaching) and the teacher's enthusiasm play a big part in

motivating me". This semester, "the atmosphere of the room .. .is very discouraging for

participation". In the case of Cecile, she sadly declared that "there's no fun in my class. I

think our teacher's a bit intimidating... he's so not fun. So, the lack of these things, what

would motivate me, is actually what ruins my class experience. Because there's none of

that". As for Pierre, he simply said: "if it's not fun, I don't really like to do stuff. This

consensus among participants underlines the importance of the teacher's role. Hence,

what teachers say and do directly affects how students behave during instruction as well

as how they feel about the class. This observation is fully developed in the next section.

Teacher's Reported Instructional Approaches

Throughout the data analysis process, I realized how much questions one and two

intersected to become an overarching statement. That is, what FL students reported in the

instructional approach as engaging and motivating corresponded with what FL teachers

said and did during formal instruction. As a reminder, these questions are:

1) What do foreign language students report about the instructional approach and

teachers' use of textbooks and other teaching aids to engage and motivate them

during instruction?

2) What is it that foreign language teachers say and do (i.e., specific instructional

approach) to motivate students, and in turn promote students' engagement during the

course of formal instruction?

Consequently, I focused on the aforementioned overarching statement to present the

findings for both questions as one whole and single issue. To this end, I described and

138

interpreted side by side what teachers said and did to engage and motivate their students

and what students reported as engaging and motivating during instruction.

Furthermore, it turns out that the factors introduced in the first section of the

findings (e.g., teacher personal characteristics and traits, teaching style and teacher's

approach, and classroom atmosphere) have already offered partial answers to both

questions by providing solid ground in several areas affecting students' engagement and

motivation. I have chosen to report and organize the findings in the form of instructional

situations that include the type of activities, the teacher's approach, and students' actions.

That is, I described and discussed several instructional situations as they would occur

during the French class periods that I observed. To accomplish this task, I have organized

the data in the following manner. First, I selected several instructional situations pertinent

to language teaching and perceived by students as important in terms of their level of

engagement and motivation. The instructional situation, as defined in the present study, is

the instructional activity itself linked to the directives applied by the teacher. Second, I

examined the students' words and perspectives as well as their behaviors and actions

recorded during classroom observations in order to present both perspectives. Third, I

applied the 'progressive focusing' by Walcott (1994) in an attempt to bring out a

personable and plausible story narrating students' lived experiences. To this end, this

section specifically addresses the following instructional activities: a) pair activities

including warm-ups, b) teacher-centered activities (typical whole class activities

including discussions and comprehension of texts), c) participants' preferred activities for

each class, and d) the choice and use of the language of instruction and participation,

which represents an important issue in understanding FL students' motivation.

139

Pair Activities

Grouping students in pairs for class activities is a common practice of FL teachers

who use the communicative approach. The three teachers in this study were no exception.

Most activities in the textbooks which they used were to be conducted in pairs or small

groups. When asked about their preference of types of activities to motivate them,

participants reported a slight inclination for pair activities. Jacques mostly appreciated

"having conversations with classmates, it's more open-ended". Elaine enjoyed talking

with a partner because "it's less pressure on me, I feel more relaxed when I don't have to

speak in front of everyone". Napoleon stressed the fact that with a partner "you have to

speak and therefore, your speaking skills become more fluent". Marie liked "working

with other people and sometimes clarifying directions in English, it helps me". Charlotte

considered pair work as "so interactive and it helps you talk more and understand more ...

it's easier to communicate with each other". As for Pierre, he just uttered "I like the

partner stuff more than anything". Conversely, these participants have also expressed

some reservations about working in pairs which are reported below.

There are various kinds of pair and small group activities based on content,

creativity, and time involved, as well as students' level of language proficiency and the

difficulty of the language. Furthermore, regardless of the content and the goal of the

activity, pair work is influenced by several variables that correspond to the characteristics

of pair activity itself and that play a role in students' levels of engagement and

motivation. Specifically, three critical characteristics responsible for students to either

like or dislike pair activities emerged from students' comments and from my field notes

as: 1) how classmates get together to form pairs and become working partners, 2) how

partners match up to work together, and 3) teacher's behaviors, actions, and demeanor

during the course of the activity. Thus, I chose to provide a representation of pair

activities, as validated by excerpts of field notes and participants' comments, by

reporting: a) the formation of pairs, the matching of working partners, and the teacher's

behaviors and b) a descriptive account of warm-up activities, a specific type of pair

activity used to launch a language class.

Formation of Working Pairs

The formation of pairs among classmates depended on the classroom set-up and

the teacher. As previously explained by participants, the classroom set-up affected how

students interacted with one another and felt within the classroom. Consequently, the

better students knew each other, the more comfortable they felt working with a classmate.

In Pierre's words, "if I know the person I'm talking more, or I have an understanding for

them ... then, it makes it easier to participate with them.. .it's more fun and I'm likely to

participate better". These connections and interactions among students developed over

time as illustrated by Pierre's comments: "you learn or you know more about the people

in your class or you may become friends with somebody you weren't friends with".

From my viewpoint, when it came time for students to work with a partner, I saw

two different types of scenarios taking place: a) individual desks organized in semi

circles in 104 and 20441 and b) a traditional set-up in 203 where tables and chairs were

arranged in straight rows, which prohibited students from seeing many of their

classmates. In many instances, Teachers 1 and 342 used similar approaches and behaviors

41 As defined in Chapter 3, the study was conducted in three French classes: French 104, French 203, and French 204. Hereafter, in order to be consistent, I use: class 104, class 203, and class 204. 42 Also defined in Chapter 3,1 have assigned a label to each teacher: Teacher 1 in class 104, Teacher 2 in class 203, and Teacher 3 in class 204.

141

when teaching. In 104 and 204, students most often turned to their classmates on their left

or their right to form a pair and quickly started the task. At times, because of the desk

arrangement, some students would move their desk or would sit at another desk in order

to get together with a classmate. Both teachers always supervised this transition and

occasionally intervened in the organization of the pairs and small groups. On occasion,

Teacher 3 tended to introduce the activity, gave students the signal to start, and then

would not specify if they should work in pairs or alone. In that case, some students

worked by themselves while others decided to work with a partner, and the teacher rarely

intervened. In any case, students were never reluctant to be proactive in forming pairs and

small groups. In addition, both teachers encouraged their students to work with different

partners in order to be exposed to different points of view. Once, I observed the following

in 104 class:

New transition and new activity: T43 wants STs to work with another partner; she asks STs if they want her to choose partners for them or if they would choose themselves. STs decide to pick their own partner; several of them move to different seats.

In contrast, the second scenario, linked to the classroom set-up (203), led to

different interactions or rather, very limited interactions among students when it was time

to form working pairs. Indeed, Teacher 2 frequently invited students to work with a

partner and even to seek for a different partner. Yet, students would most often ignore

this suggestion and would instead work with their immediate neighbor or just remain by

themselves. The following excerpts of my field notes illustrate several of these instances:

Observation 1: - 1st activity: picture on the overhead [...] T asks STs to work in pairs to brainstorm for 3 minutes and generate answers. STs don't react and work by themselves. [...]

431 used abbreviations in my field notes: T is for teacher, ST for student, and STs for students.

142

- Later in the period, T explains to STs what to do, suggesting working in pairs or small groups. This time, several STs move to form pairs; they work quietly together and whisper.

Observation 2: - T describes the warm-up activity, invites STs to form pairs. Because of the sitting arrangement, STs have to move closer together (this is done with hesitation); one ST chooses at this point to stay alone. [...] Later in the same period, during another pair activity, the same ST (who sits alone) still works by himself; after about 3minutes, T goes to him telling that he should take advantage to work with a partner rather than staying by himself. ST chooses to remain alone.

Observation 7: - As STs form pairs and slowing get on task, a ST by himself hesitates, looks around him, and finally decides to join a pair of STs already on task. There is no visible sign of acceptance by these 2 STs who just remain involved in what they were doing. - Later, T asks STs to form 2 groups to conduct an activity; as T reads out loud each sentence on the overhead, STs slowly move to form 2 groups; it is difficult for each ST to really face and be close to other STs within the group due to the configuration of the room; STs don't seem willing to move enough nor to rearrange the tables and chairs in order to get closer together. Within their groups, STs get on task, working individually at first and T comments: - 'Consultez les autres membres du groupe. Dites ce que vous pensez. Consultez les autres membres du groupe44. Okay? [...] T continues his comments: 'Travaillez ensemble. Je veux voir du travail collectif45'. He does not follow up on his comments and ignore the fact that in one group STs just work by themselves and do not communicate with each other.

- Reflecting afterwards on this particular issue, I wrote that day: Today, the class was overall interactive. However, when T recommends to STs working in groups, I still feel a resistance or rather, STs don't seem to see the purpose of working with a partner and working with a different partner for different activities. It still does not come naturally. Sometimes, I see hesitation by STs to join a group or ask a question and often they do not follow through with an action. Thas not and does not guide or assist STs in this enterprise. He tells them that they should do it but, does not ease the process of forming working pairs; I have the impression that many STs still (this is past mid-semester) don't know their classmates names or just who they are. As a result, they behave somewhat as if they are strangers to each other; they really

"Check with the other members of the group. Tell them what you think. Consult the other members of the group". 45 "Work together. I want to see collective work".

143

only know 1 or 2 STs right next to them with whom, I believe, they have developed a connection and some type of relationship46.

My reflections about the limited interactions among students in this classroom

were confirmed by participants during our interviews. For instance, Sybille designated

the set-up of the room as "the biggest problem" explaining that "the environment of that

room plays a really big part in how we interact with the teacher and interact with each

other". At the same time, she pointed to the teacher as responsible for making students

feeling part of the group which "is more encouraging to participate" instead of the current

atmosphere "sit down, do your work, whatever". Jacques highlighted the fact that this

semester, "all the attention is focused on the professor.. .1 don't know everybody's name.

I haven't spoken with many of the people at all, maybe three or four". Agreeing with her

classmates, Cecile also did not know the names of students on the opposite side of the

room stating that "they just have their partners and they just seem to be really content

with themselves". Finally, Jacques compared this semester with prior language classes

arguing that "with the other arrangement (desks in a semi-circle), it just gives you more

opportunity to relate with all the other students and makes it easier to talk to them".

Taken together, participants' perspectives and my observations demonstrate the

importance of teacher's role in the process of pair formation. A few points emerged as

critical in that they shaped the dynamics of working pairs. Participants emphasized the

importance of feeling comfortable within the classroom and knowing their classmates

well enough so the working relationship is valuable and constructive. Within the

researched context, it was apparent that placed in uncomfortable and unappealing

situations, students would rather choose to work by themselves than pursue working with

46 Notes written in italic correspond to my personal interpretations based on what I was observing at the time.

a partner. Ultimately, the teacher was viewed as the key element in creating the

classroom atmosphere and how students will interact and work with each other as

explained by Sybille:

We never really got to know each other as a class.. .1 only know the people who

sit around me. The other side of the room, I have no idea who they are. With

our teacher it's .. .you know, "I'm here, I'm going to teach you and you're going

to learn" type of thing. "You're the class, I'm the teacher." But, when you're

made to feel like part of a group, then you're going to act as part of a group.

Sybille's perception of her teacher's attitude demonstrates the impact of the teacher on

students when it comes to their engagement and motivation even in the situation of pair

work. This particular aspect of the teacher's role will be revisited in the section on

teacher-centered activities.

Matching of Working Partners

The second variable affecting pair activity is represented by the working partner

as an individual. Participants agreed about the role played by the working partner in

affecting their level of motivation during pair work. Personality, level of interest and

motivation in the class, level of language proficiency, as well as personal preferences

entered into the equation responsible for the success of this partnership. Especially, the

differences in understanding and speaking abilities between both students in a pair can

become an issue and impede the working relationship as Elaine explained:

I always enjoy working with someone who is at my level or a little bit above,

because it challenges you. Whereas, working with someone who has a lower

ability can help you because if you know exactly what you're talking about and

you can explain it to them, you know you really do know the subject. So it also

challenges you to have to explain it to them .. .but, overall I prefer to work with

somebody who has the ability that's at mine or greater than mine level.

Reporting a similar point of view, Napoleon explained how he preferred working with

someone who had a higher level of proficiency because "I can learn from them. I pick

things all the time when I'm talking .. .I'm constantly making mental notes". Being

teamed with someone of lower ability can sometimes be "frustrating depending on how

much" of a difference there is. At the same time, he also viewed working with classmates

"not 'up to my level'" as a way to "teach them something maybe", which "kind of boost

your self-esteem because you can pass something along ...you can teach just by

example". In the case of Cecile (203), up until the day of this interview, she was used to

work with her usual partner, her closest neighbor. She explained how because of her

partner knowing less French than her, "I don't think that we help each other very well. I

don't think that we learn from each other very well". However, sitting by herself today

(the day of the interview), Cecile made the decision to find another partner with whom

she interacted differently: "She had all the answers to my questions. What does this word

mean... do we need to do this right now? She knew what was going on. So that was

beneficial to me actually". She further claimed that "maybe switching around partners

would be a good idea for people like me that don't understand things as well as other

people". As for Marguerite, she liked working in small groups better even though, she

also made the following point:

I don't like group work when I'm stuck with one or two people that aren't sure

how to speak, and don't understand what you're saying. I like the group, you

146

know - that's, the ideal group is when the other two people know kind of the gist

of what's going on. You can help each other out, but when you have to convert

completely back to English with someone, it just kind of ruins the whole vibe -

She then, reported what happened two weeks ago:

I got partnered with someone ... two or three activities in a row, and it was just

driving me nuts, because I couldn't - some of the activities are fun. She (the

teacher) makes them fun. She doesn't make us talk about dry topics, but when

you can't relate an idea to someone else and they don't know how to form an idea

to relate to you, it just sucks the fun right out of it, and it sucks the motivation out.

I just feel deadpan at that point.

Several participants also raised the issue of the working partner's motivation and

personality. Sybille emphasized that:

Other people in the group should have that same motivation you have because it's

really frustrating.. .you're supposed to speak only French and then, you're with

this partner who is just sitting there, going I don't know what's going on. But then

if you're with someone who's really serious about it and is like all right, let's get

down to work. Then, you're a little more motivated to do it.

They also viewed important to be able to relate to their partner and to develop a good

working relationship so they could bounce ideas off each other and remain on task. As for

Claire, she explained how most of the time, she "tried to be motivated and tried to stay on

task" however, when working with someone who is not paying attention and lets her do

the work, "it can be especially frustrating".

147

Taken together, these comments illustrate the issues faced by teachers when it

comes to organizing pair and small group activities. Indeed, participants expressed the

importance of their working partnership in generating and sustaining their interest and

motivation during the course of the activity. Otherwise said by Sybille: "I think it really

depends on the attitude of the partners that you're with and how they work together".

Even for students having the best intentions to work well with their partners, pairing with

the wrong person led to a total loss of interest and motivation to the point of causing

frustration as stated by Marguerite, "it's so frustrating when you're with someone who

just like is bump on a log, let's never think of anything, it just kills me". These reflections

on this matter lead to the critical question of whom should decide and form the working

pairs. The teacher or students themselves? From Sybille's perspective:

It's good when you can pick your partner because once you get into this semester

and you get a feel for the other people in the room, you know who actually is

there to want to speak French and who is there to get the credit and get outta

there.

Teacher's Behaviors during Pair Activity

The third and final important point to make about pair activities is that teachers'

behaviors and demeanors impact how the pair work unfolds and ultimately, affects

students' interest and motivation. Again, I saw many similarities in the way in which

Teachers 1 and 3 interacted with their students. They were actively involved in the whole

process of the instructional activity, which included explaining the purpose and content

of the activity, overseeing the formation of pairs among students, and being vigilant and

available while students worked with their partners. The following passages from my

field notes give an overall picture of how pair work was conducted and how students

behaved and reacted in 104 and 204:

Class 104/ Observation 2: - Introducing the next pair activity: T gives detailed explanations while showing the exercise in the book; she articulates well; slows down a little her way of speaking; keeps eye contact with STs looking for possible questions and signs; uses gestures to illustrate what she is saying; and finally asks if they have questions about this exercise. No question. 5 minutes to work with a partner. - STs on task; to start, many work individually next to their partner rather than really working together. They search through the book for answers, I hear some English. Progressively, STs address their partner using soft voices. - STs next to me hesitate; they show signs that they don't understand what they need to do. T stops at their desk and explains again in details pointing to the book and walks away .. .Ladislas comments: "at first, I didn't understand either" and starts filling out the 1st box of the table. - T walks to another group, gets to their level and explains the objective of the activity; moves to another group, listens, oversees, praises but does not intervene. - T asks STs if they are finished, if there are ready to correct: Oui? No reaction by STs. T gives 2 additional minutes to finish. - One ST calls her for a question: T explains as she points to the book and makes different gestures to describe the action. The level of noise becomes louder as the activity lasts.

Class 204/ Observation 1: -11.13 am, T wraps this up and moves on to the next activity: explanations in French, pair activity. - Rapidly, STs turn to their neighbors to form pairs and quickly start the task. I don't notice anyone being reluctant to start working. - T circulates in the room, starting with the first pair on one side of the semicircle. She checks on what STs do, making sure they are at the right page of the book, the right exercise, and what they need to start with; her comments are in French. [...] - Once the T finished going around the room, she seats on the edge of her desk facing STs; she gives one more minute for STs to work and finally at 11.20, she repeats several times: "on s'arrete, on s'arrete". [Let's stop, let's stop]. - STS are involved in their work and don't react right away when asked.

Class 204/ Observation 3: - New transition: T shows the picture of an upscale restaurant in the textbook while telling a few cultural differences between France and US regarding the experience of going to a restaurant and leaving a tip. STs are attentive, some ask for additional information.

149

- T briefly presents a few scenarios and choice of vocab when in a restaurant and gives 5 minutes for students to practice and set up their own scenario as one ST plays the waiter and the other the customer. - Within 5 seconds, STs are in action and the room is buzzing again as everyone participates. - As usual, T circulates in the room; she looks and listens most often from a distance. As everyone is involved, many are loud while playing their roles. The pair on my right asks me for a word; I answer (only in French); we have a short dialogue as they start to laugh about the situation. - Now, 3 pairs are off task and I start to hear some English. T realizes this, stops the activity, and calls for demonstration of the scenarios played in several steps in order to include as many STs as possible.

Class 104/ Observation 10: - T uses two lists of vocabulary words (established during the previous whole class activity) to explain what STs are going to do next with a partner. She explains while pointing to the screen and demonstrating with her own body: - T: Vous allez dessiner une personne dans une position. Apres, vous allez decrire la position a votre partenaire en utilisant les parties du corps et les verbes (des 2 listes sur le tableau) et le partenaire fait la position. Vous allez dessiner qqchose. II faut etre imaginatif mais qqchose pas trop compliquee'.47

- T circulates, looks at the drawings which generate smiles and laughs by some. Then, T starts to form the pairs but, realizes that some STs have already seen the drawings of their neighbors. - She stops, gets everyone attention and says: 'le dessin doit etre secret! [the sketch has to be secret], decides to reform the pairs, and gives signal to start the second part of the activity. - Immediately, STs stand up, move to find their partner, and start interacting with them. It looks like a lot of fun. STs slowly and carefully describe the position and guide their partner when the position is incorrect. I see enthusiasm, persistence (some will repeat several times before their partner gets it right), very good participation by everyone. The class is loud and buzzing. - Standing on side of the room, T oversees from a distance, does not participate, smiles, and even laughs. - After a few minutes, T stops: 'J'ai vu beaucoup de choses bizzares. C'est bien! STs return to their seats winding down.

Unlike 104 and 204, the dynamics in 203 were very different. Teacher 2 kept

more distance from his students when working in pairs. Most often, he would explain the

47 You draw one person in one specific position. Then, you describe the position to your partner using the different parts of the body and verbs from lists on the board and your partner will take the position described. So, you draw something. You must be creative but rather not too complicated. 481 saw a lot of strange things. Very good!

150

activity, direct students to work in pairs, and then, remain very discreet while watching

students from the other side of his desk looking over papers or just wait. In addition,

Teacher 2 routinely interrupted students as they were focusing on their tasks to explain

something irrelevant to the present activity. The following narratives illustrate well this

teacher's actions and behaviors:

Observation 3: -10.35. Signal for 6 minutes to work in pair to prepare the next exercise. T reinforces the fact that it is important to work with a partner and class time is their only opportunity to work with someone else. STs don't react to this comment and just choose their usual partner; they are quiet; slow to start, no exchange between STs during the 1st minute. It's quieter than during the previous pair work. - T quickly walks through the two main aisles of the classroom looking at STs from a distance; he does not intervene and comes back to his desk. The room is very quiet; finally, I hear a few hesitant whispers in French. - T quietly writes on the board (it's not related to the undergoing activity); one ST reads and tries to understand what it is, she is not focused on the activity and the text anymore. - One ST calls the T, they briefly whisper together. T interrupts the class to comment on how several STs have already prepared this exercise at home, which is good because they can gain some time. He gives them an additional 2 minutes but stops after 30 seconds for collective correction.

Observation 4: - up / down; levez-vous / asseyez-vous; T gives several commands to STs to demonstrate the use of the imperative tense. STs comply, some show surprised looks. T stops after the 4th command, asks STs if they recognize the tense used, and directs STs to the book to pursue his lesson while asking STs for their input about the matter. - He gives explanations about a book exercise to do with a partner. STs get on task; T moves around the room adding one explanation or a comment at a time always speaking in French at his regular pace. - A ST by himself hesitates and finally joins a pair already on task. STs are on task, and for the 1st time today, the class is becoming a little loud. However, some STs don't look sure about what they really need to do; in fact, several work by themselves. As STs progress through the exercise, they become more involved, few laughs and smiles. - 2 STs call T over for assistance: T does not provide direct answer and asks STs to wait for the correction with the whole class. - Back to his desk, T asks STs if they are finished and moves on to the 1st

sentence without waiting for an answer back.

151

Observation 8: Last transition of the period: Je vous propose 'Maintenant a vous'49 page 82. T is running against the time: 6 minutes left until the end of the period. T realizes that there is not enough time to do the whole exercise so he adapts to the situation: - T: 'Essayez de faire #1 jusqu'a #5 et puis, on va corriger5 .' I see now less enthusiasm by STs than during the previous activity; less exchanges; many work by themselves and write quietly instead of working in group (however, not specify by T, this time). - After a minute or so, T interrupts and with basically no word of transition, switches topic to explain specifics about the homework [always speaking at the same quick pace]. He directs STs to page 94 to explain that Monday they will conduct a little interview of him and some one else (but does not know yet whom) about their childhood; so STs need to prepare questions for this interview. T: Est-ce que vous comprenez5 ? No reaction. Je vais demander a un collegue de venir lundi. Alors travaillez! - Many STs look somewhat confused by this intervention of the T. A ST asks: Pour quand? Lundi! {for when? Monday!) STs get back on task but I don't know how productive they are and if they talk about the exercise they are supposed to finish or about what the T just explained.

Observation 11: Transition. T wants to form 3 groups to work on the next activity; STs very passive are slow to react and form the groups. T: 'Bon! Qu'est-ce que vous allez faire?'53

- T explains, divides the task into three types of assignments, one for each group; he gives a handout to use as guide during the activity. - T: 'Vous avez 5 minutes pour proposer des activites. Vous comprenez? Allez! 5 minutes. Vous pouvez utiliser le dictionnaire'. - STs get slowly in motion and get on task... - After 30 seconds, T interrupts to make a remark about the grades of the oral exam. STs do not react {do they choose to ignore the comment or did they not understand the comment?). - T is standing by the desk, handling papers and stuff; he does not oversee STs working and suddenly says: 'Vous avez une minute'. [You have one minute] As usual, this signal does not match to the 5 minutes signal given earlier.

During these observations in the three classrooms, several questions came to mind

about certain teachers' actions and behaviors. I have noticed inconsistencies between

49 Specific section of the chapter to put into practice the grammatical structure previously explained. 50 Try to do #1 to #5 and then, we will correct. 51 Do you understand? 521 will ask a colleague to come on Monday. Okay, work! 53 Well! What are you going to do?

You have 5 minutes to propose activities. Do you understand? Go! 5 minutes, you can use the dictionary.

152

what teachers said and what they actually did regarding the timing of the activity. As a

result, I asked participants and Sybille was the most vocal on this issue:

Sybille: I think that's one of the biggest complaints that I have with the class I'm in now is our teacher will say okay, I'm gonna give you five minutes to do with partner like A through D activities. And then, three minutes later, he'll start like talking and going over it. You really didn't get time to look through it. You have to process it and think up your own answer before you're moving on to the next thing. Which makes the transition from doing one activity to the other, you're just frustrated. Researcher: Frustrated. Sybille: Because you didn't get to really understand the last thing before moving on to the next one. Nap: I've been in situations where the teacher has moved on to a completely different topic and I'm still thinking about the past topic. So, when she asks a question, I'm responding to the set of materials she was talking about before. And then I feel stupid. Because [laugh] nobody, not even the teacher knows what I'm talking about. Researcher: Okay. Cecile? You want to add something? Cecile: Yeah! He'll be like you have four minutes to do this and then he'll give us maybe like two or three but he'll be talking through it. That is the worst! I would rather he just not give us any time to do it, if he was just going to keep talking. Researcher: And for you Elaine? Elaine: Ah, no, most of the time we're part of the way through and she'll say 'vous avez fini' and if we're not she'll just say well it's not a big deal. We'll just correct it anyways. Elaine: I mean, so even if we say no, she'll say Vest pas grave, on va corriger55...' we'll discontinue. Not a big deal... Marie: Sometimes I feel like everybody's done and I am not finished yet. 'Cause I also just like to be thorough and I don't want to be misrepresented with something I say... I sometimes just agree that I'm finished because I don't want to hold up the entire class. You know, like everyone knows who isn't finished, and that it's kind of like they're just staring at you like come on, moron. [Laugh] [...] Marguerite: Marie and I were partners today and we had a thing where she (the teacher) said are you finished and sometimes she doesn't actually wait for us to answer. She just goes 'vous avez fini56?' and we're like ah! And she's like okay, let's move on. Res: Okay. I have also seen the teacher intervening to talk about something that's not even related to the activity. Or the teacher will continue giving more explanations about what you 're supposed to do even though you have already started. Are we aware of this? Does that matter?

"Don't worry, we will correct..." "Are you finished?"

153

Charlotte: I don't think she's ever really done that. She might go into more explanation than we need, but if we're working on it she might come around and try to help us, but I don't think she'll just start talking about something else in the middle of... Res: When the teacher comes to your group and help, is this a good thing to do? Charlotte: Sometimes you don't need it, but I think if we do it's good that she's there. Marie: The gesture is nice. Marguerite: I'm less nervous when we can ask her questions when she walks around and she asks each group if we have any questions about what we're answering or when she's right there when we ask her different vocabulary words that we're not familiar with. That really helps because then you're not so nervous, 'she knows that it's a word that you didn't know and she helped along with it. Cecile: My teacher doesn't do that. Res: Okay, so what does he do? Cecile: He doesn't do anything. I don't know what he does. [Laugh.] Either he's talking or he's probably shuffling through your papers or I don't know. But he never asks if we need help with anything or he walks around but he won't volunteer any help. Res: Okay. Does that bother you? Does that get in the way of you working on that activity? Cecile: Oh yeah. It takes up time. Because at first I'll like look up and try to listen to see if I can get what he's saying. And usually I don't. Then I've already missed that time on the assignment. And then he'll ask if we're done and then just go right into correcting it.

These insightful comments show how students are receptive to their teachers' actions and

behaviors even when it comes to matter not directly related to teaching per se. During this

exchange, I could sense Cecile's frustration when she was reflecting on the lack of

support and guidance by her teacher during pair activities. She also explained how she

coped with the issue about the time allowed when working in pairs:

I don't pay attention to his time scale. Today, he said he was going to give us

eight minutes for something and he gave us over ten. And then sometimes,

he'll like, you know, "I'll give you four minutes for this." And we could totally

use more time. So I feel, it's just whenever he gets bored.

154

Sybille highlighted this practice by her teacher as "another big problem" because he

assigned activities and "never gives us enough time to finish them .. .I'll give you five

minutes. But three minutes later, he's going 'Okay, what did you guys all say?' Well, we

didn't finish"! Amelie explained that by doing this "it shows that we (the students) should

be working faster.. ..That he wants to keep us moving". She further added "sometimes

it's frustrating if you seriously want to answer all the questions and he cuts you off before

you can. It's frustrating, but he also has to get along, I don't know". As reported earlier,

Sybille felt rushed during pair work and stated: "that's a problem too because if you are

having those days where you just have these brain farts, then you can't work that fast".

When the teacher interrupted them, students felt put off and confused, which led to blank

faces and periods of silence before someone volunteered to answer.

In summary, it emerges from these narratives that students are sensitive to their

teachers' behaviors during pair work. Throughout the course of the activity, students'

interest, engagement, and motivation are affected by: 1) how teachers introduce the

activity, 2) what teachers do or do not do during the activity itself, and 3) how teachers

manage the timing of the activity. Among the three teachers, their behaviors and actions

illustrated two separate types of approach to pair work. On the one hand, Teachers 1 and

3 continually showed signs of remaining close to their students by: 1) being concerned

with their understanding of the content and the task to accomplish, 2) being attentive to

their needs and progress during the activity, 3) being available for questions, and 4)

showing enthusiasm while offering encouragements for their work. At the same time,

they did not just give the direct answers but rather, allowed for students to be involved in

the process of finding the answer for themselves. In these classes, students frequently

155

displayed signs of interest in the task and having fun. As for Teacher 2, his demeanor and

personality were responsible for creating a certain distance with students. He was always

very professional and eager to do well while focusing on following his outline of the

class period. This teacher did not attempt to develop interactions with students beyond

the necessary explanations, the solicited questions and required answers of students. In

fact, several of his actions often sent mixed signals to students when he was: 1) not

following through with his directives such as changing the length of the activity without

warning, 2) providing unclear and complicated explanations, and 3) interrupting students

as they became active and engaged with their work partner in order to give them

additional information about a topic irrelevant to the present work. In this class, students

often showed signs of hesitation and/or passivity. In many instances, their reactions and

demeanors were difficult to capture and interpret. They could be signs of

misunderstanding, perplexity, disinterest, boredom, and/or discouragement. Thus, this

teacher's actions were frequently responsible for creating a classroom atmosphere that

prevented students from becoming engaged and having fun during pair work or disrupted

students' positive and lively interactions during the course of their collaboration.

As a final point, teachers' behaviors and actions during pair work are as important

as the other two characteristics previously introduced (formation of working pairs and

matching of working partners). Taken together, they are responsible for the successful (or

not so successful) partnerships during pair activities, which in turn, influence students'

motivation for this type of activity.

156

Warm-up Activities

Teachers 1 and 2 routinely began the class period with a warm-up activity, which

was welcomed by participants. Sybille claimed that it "kind of get everyone in the right

mind, like now we're switching over to French". Claire explained that coming from a

math or science class, "it's important to get your focus on that subject" or in Marie's

words "it gets you in gear for French". Ladislas, a singer, compared language learning to

music or art: "for me, I always have to warm-up before I sing anything.... It's the same

for French; you have to get your brain prepared". Cecile above all enjoyed this activity

because "it's fun with my partner, speaking in my Franglan. It's a good time and we

don't talk about boring things". But, at the same time, Sybille and Amelie regretted that

their teacher never gave them enough time to do the warm-up:

He'll say all right, now I want you all to talk about this. Then we all turn to our

partner and go, and then he interrupts us, goes and adds in, I mean, we never

really get the chance to warm up. It's never really enough time for anybody to

really being able to process.

In addition to the time limitation, Sybille and Amelie also disliked the way their teacher

conducted this activity because they had to stand up by their chair and talk to the person

next to them as in the following:

- T: Bon ! Alors! Levez-vous classe. Aujourd'hui, nous sommes tjs au chapitre 5. [...] - T: Allez58, vous avez 4 minutes de conversation pour parler avec un camarade. Choisissez 2 ou 3 choses de votre enfance; je vous ai propose un modele; vous pouvez suivre le modele (T points to the screen the different elements necessary to construct sentences).

57 Okay! Stand up class. Today, we are still in chapter5. 58 Well, you have 4 minutes to speak with a classmate. Choose 2 or 3 things from your childhood; I proposed a model which you can follow.

157

- Students turn to their close neighbor and get on task; quickly the classroom becomes loud [group of 3 behind me burst laughing]. Overall many students smile and laugh. - T circulates, approaches several pairs, listens but does not participate or interrupts STs. - After barely 3 minutes, he just says: 'Tres bien59; asseyez-vous... les enfants aiment jouer n'est-ce pas? not expecting any students' responses. Without saying another word, the teacher immediately introduces the next activity.

On another day, he talked about his Thanksgiving Day and asked students to do the same:

- T invites STs to stand up, as usual, for the warm-up; he explains in details, reading from the screen, what he has specifically prepared and what STs should be talking about with their partners: what did you do for Thanksgiving? Meanwhile, STs quietly stand up, wait and listen. - T: 'C'est clair? Allez parlez'. [Is it clear? Speak now] - During the warm-up, T distributes a handout, and briefly listens to a few STs. STs have a slow start to engage in a conversation with their partner; soft voices but one (actually annoying with nervous laughs). As the exchange progresses, I start to see smiles, a few laughs, some hand gestures, and voices become louder; STs speak more. - Without warning and after only about 3 minutes, T interrupts: 'Tres bien! Merci beaucoup et asseyez-vous!' [Very well! Thank you very much and sit down] He then briefly explains a grammatical structure while using an example (he certainly overheard during the warm-up) and writes it on the board.

The necessity to stand up for this activity was not well received by Amelie who thought

that "it's stupid to stand; we always have a partner that we sit next to, so why can't we

just stay sitting and talk". Plain-spoken, Sybille simply stated that "it's kind of a pain in

the ass, really".

In 104, warm-ups were part of the typical lesson plans and generally had the same

format:

- Standing by the overhead, T quickly writes, on a transparency, 3 sentences including a blank in each. The content of sentences is directly related to the new vocabulary that STs had to look over before coming to class.

Very well; sit down ... children like to play, right?

158

- STs have to complete the blanks with a partner. [3minutes] Many grab their books to check different pages and whisper in French. They are focused, interact with their partner and seem productive while not very loud. Few laughs. - T asks with a very enthusiastic voice if STs are finished; oui? oui?

She wants STs to be enthusiastic. STs are ready to share their answers, sound animated and eager to participate.

- She stands by the overhead, goes over each sentence addressing the whole group at once. Collective answers. 3 STs, not participating, look concentrated. - Quick short answers by several STs. Once, T interrupts the flow, asking a ST to develop her answer pursuing a short conversation [about movie, what's the title? Did you like it? Where did you go?]. Back to the next sentence to finish.

T asks a ST to turn lights back on (signal for transition to the next activity).

For Mary, the warm-up activity not only "gets you ready for French", but it also

takes the form of a "quick review" that tells you "well, I got this".

The aforementioned descriptive accounts provided an overall representation of

how warm-up activities were practiced in the researched context. There was a consensus

among participants about the importance of warm-ups in developing focus and interest in

the class period and in helping them to 'get ready for French'. In addition, the role played

by the teacher emerged as decisive in encouraging students' engagement and interest in

these activities.

In summary, the excerpts of field notes reported above provide an overall picture

of what took place during pair work in the three researched classes. They illustrated how

interactions unfolded among students as well as between students and teachers. From

warm-up activities and book activities to the writing of a dialogue or a short story and

discussions about readings, the majority of participants liked working with a partner.

They reported several positive aspects of pair work in terms of their attitude, interest, and

engagement. First, they emphasized the feeling of being more relaxed and less self-

conscious when speaking with their work partner, which in turn eased communication.

159

Second, students spoke more as they felt more comfortable. Third, it gave them the

opportunity to speak English when necessary. Despite these positive characteristics of

pair work, many participants expressed two major concerns that directly affected their

level of engagement in the task. First, they were very receptive to their partners' attitude,

level of interest, and level of proficiency. As a result, the matching of working partners

was very important in determining the success or failure of the working relationships.

Specifically, how students worked together and related to each other clearly contributed

to their interest and engagement in the task or rather their indifference and

disengagement. Second, teachers' behaviors played a critical role in affecting students'

behaviors throughout the different stages of pair work. Within the researched context,

two different categories of teachers' behaviors were identified. On the one hand, two

teachers were actively involved in the whole process of the activity: 1) they provided

adequate explanations and directions, 2) they were available for questions and support,

and 3) they carefully monitored the formation of working pairs, students' progress and

students' possible struggles. Participants from these classes viewed this approach as very

positive to keep them engaged and interested in the task. On the other hand, the third

teacher remained distant and showed limited signs of involvement in students' work once

he had explained and assigned the activity. In addition, he frequently interrupted students

to discuss unrelated matters and often did not allow enough time for students to complete

their work. Thus, students in this class frequently showed signs of confusion,

indifference, and limited interest in the activities.

In conclusion, students' behaviors during pair work were clearly shaped by

several interrelated factors, which were either linked to students' individual

characteristics or to the teacher. Specifically, the attitude, the level of interest in the

activity, and the level of proficiency of each student influenced, to different degrees, the

quality of the interactions within each pair. Additionally, the teacher's role materialized

in the form of behaviors and actions emerged as critical during the overall course of pair

activity. The following section expands on other activities implemented in FL

classrooms.

Teacher-Centered Activities

Within communicative language classrooms60, FL teachers conduct teacher-

centered activities as well as individual, pair, and small groups work during instruction.

By definition, there is no room in this particular instructional setting for typical lectures

with total teacher-centeredness (involving little to no students' participation). In the

present research context, a teacher-centered activity corresponds to a whole class activity

led by the teacher who addresses students either individually or as a group in an attempt

to engage them in participating and interacting with her and/or their classmates.

Consequently, the teacher's style and personal characteristics play an important role in

how these activities unfold as well as how students react and behave. This section focus

on two types of teacher-centered activities commonly practiced in the three classrooms

researched: a) typical and routine activities such as lessons about grammatical structures

and new vocabulary, corrections of exercises, and listening activities and b) whole class

discussions involving comprehension of texts and other prior work by students. Thus, I

reported several narratives from field notes to illustrate how this type of activity was

conducted in each class and selected excerpts of participants' stories and comments to

guide the following discussion.

60 Introduced in Chapter 2, section 3: 'Dynamics of the Language Classroom'.

161

Typical Whole Class Activities

During the course of a class period, FL teachers alternate between individual, pair

and whole class activities based on the content of the syllabus, the use of the textbook,

the level of proficiency of students, as well as their teaching style and personality. In the

present case, the typical whole class activities can be organized into three separate

categories: 1) collective corrections of pair and individual work discussing and

explaining answers, reported by student, under the guidance of the teacher, 2) lessons on

specific grammatical structure or vocabulary words with or without a collective exercise

to apply the newly taught element, and 3) listening activities exclusive to 104. The

teaching method and style I observed during these activities varied from one teacher to

the other, which prompted different types of reactions and behaviors by students and

illustrated their engagement and motivation. In order to situate the reader in each

classroom, I selected several whole class activities that I viewed as the most

representative to illustrate what teachers said and did in combination with how students

reacted and behaved. I complemented these descriptive accounts with the participants'

own views of their experiences. Lastly, to facilitate the understanding, I organized this

section on typical and routine whole class activities into three sub-sections, representing

each class researched.

French 104.

Standing by the overhead, Teacher 1 introduced a new activity about chores to do

in the house and asked students to list different chores:

- She writes each answer, encourages everyone to contribute, acknowledges good answers, at time, and demands to be more specific; once, she asks STs to speak louder so everyone could hear.

162

- During this activity, T faces STs, waits for their signal when they are ready to give an answer. She is friendly, often smiling, has an encouraging voice, uses gestures and looks directly at STs inviting them to participate. - Next, T uses this vocabulary to ask questions while using a particular grammatical structure; as she provides explanations, she probes STs on what they understand in order to find out their prior knowledge and its limitation. - During this time, some STs copy what is on the overhead; I see eye contact from everyone but one, who seems disconnected and not on task for the past few minutes. However, she raises her hand and gives an answer, which is correct. - As always, T speaks only in French; provides long and detailed explanations; asks STs to create their own sentences employing these new structures and vocabulary words.

On another occasion, this teacher explained the use of the passe compose and the

imparfait as past tenses; it represents a challenging grammatical issue to teach and to

learn. The lesson was based on a text from which students needed to analyze the

conjugated verbs.

- Standing by the overhead with a new transparency, T refers STs to a book page. She gives detailed directions of what to do while demonstrating on the overhead; STs comply and are ready to listen to T reading the new story. - When explaining, T slows down her speech, articulates well, looks at STs making sure they understand and as she pursues, she invites them to participate and interject their answers about the right tense to use (the imparfait or the passe compose) depending on the situation and the context of the story. - T starts reading one sentence at a time while STs silently mark in their textbook their choice of tense based on their assessment of the options given by the T and the rules of grammar. She progresses at a moderate pace (numbering each sentence of the story) and gives time for STs to mark their answers.

STs are concentrated, on track; I don't see anyone showing signs of falling behind. They look at T write, and seem to be thinking.

- Once the story is finished, T reads the 1st sentence again and looks for a volunteer to explain his/her choice of tense. T approves and praises. She adds a few words in English to restate previous explanations. - As the correction continues, STs give several collective answers; in the case of a wrong answer, T makes a little noise to get STs attention who quickly react and change the answer. - A ST asks T to repeat the last answer, other STs help as T listens and approves with a head movement.

163

In the next excerpt, students were completing a cultural activity on French

holidays and celebrations; the teacher called students to start the corrections even though

they were not finished:

- T: "on vous aidera" [we will help you]. She turns to the first pair on the left side (this time, she follows the order of the semi-circle formed by STs). - Pair #1: ST has a very soft voice; T asks ST to speak louder and faster, approves, and repeats louder the sentences. - Pair #2: strong and loud answer, ST reads fast what she had prepared with her partner. - Pair #3: ST hesitates to start, reads with a soft voice. T approves, restates and praises. - Pair #4: needs assistance. T says that she will help; she explains some facts about the specific tradition, engages ST in a discussion as she makes suggestions but does not give a direct answer. She makes gestures and explains slowly. - Pair #5: ST reads with a soft voice. Using this answer, T probes the whole class to engage everyone in a short discussion about fire works.

On occasion and as alternative, this teacher chose to adapt textbook activities into

a teacher-centered activity. The following example reports an activity, which is part of a

unit on clothing:

T turns to the board, writes three words, and explains: -T: 'Vous allez prendre une feuille et vous allez mettre : homme/ femme/ unisex. Ici, nous avons 3 categories.'61

T runs an example to make sure everyone understands. - T sits on the desk facing STs, holds the book on her laps; gives the name of a piece of clothing one at a time while looking at STs: using facial expressions or gestures, she encourages STs to answer.

- Une chemise de nuit. [a nightgown] ST hesitates. - Regardez le livre. {look in the book] -Oh! Femme. Many laugh. - Okay. T nods, smiles, looks directly at STs, sometimes stares at STs when waiting for an answer or a signal. - Voila. - Qu'est-ce que la difference entre un smoking et un costume?62

- Ou est-ce qu'on porte un costume?63 ST: au travail.

"Take a sheet of paper and write: man, woman, and unisex. So, we have 3 categories". What the difference between a smoking and a suit? Where do you wear a suit? At work

164

- Ou est-ce qu'on porte un smoking? ST: un mariage.

T is very patient and shows a lot of understanding during this activity. She continues with several other pieces of clothing using the same demeanor and approach with STs.

Finally, it is necessary to provide an example of a listening activity, which

represented a large part of the first and second semesters syllabus in order to develop

students' listening skills. Each chapter of the textbook began with a listening unit that

included several pre-listening activities in order to set up the context of the dialogue and

introduce the new vocabulary. Once these activities were completed, the teacher followed

the different steps proposed in the book in order to facilitate students' comprehension of

the dialogue:

- 1st time: T asks STs to close their eyes while listening in order to listen well. At the beginning, a few STs look at the book and finally close their eyes. By the end of the story, several STs laugh as they understood the content. A few STs immediately ask in English for 2 expressions in French to summarize the moral of the story. T hesitates and turns to me for an answer which she writes on the board. - T asks for one general question: how many people in the story; collective answer from several STs.

- 2" time: STs listen while looking at 4 pictures summarizing the story; they need to put these pictures in the chronological order of the story. During this second listening, STs are concentrated, some smile and again laugh at the end. T is sitting at her desk. - Correction time: picture one by one; everyone gives me the impression to understand the main facts of the story; STs are on task; several collective answers. No one is left behind or is showing signs of struggling with the comprehension. This is a good flow of participation with no period of silence.

- 3rd time: Listen and recognize the true and false statements. STs are focused, mark their book or notebook. T sits on the edge of the desk looking at STs with attention. Once the CD over, STs share their answer with a partner. - T gives 2 additional minutes to finish. One calls her for a question: T explains as she points to the book and makes different gestures to describe the action. The level of noise becomes louder as the activity continues.

Where do you wear a smoking? At a wedding.

165

Time for correction: T explains in details what they need to do, starting from this side of the room, proceeding in order and one ST per pair answers. - 1 s t ST gives a wrong answer; many immediately react to show their disagreement. T asks the ST to read the sentence again and then says: True or false? while turning to the rest of the class for their verdict about the answer proposed. The correction continues; now one ST hesitates; T plays the game also hesitates, wonders and demands for other STs' opinions but T does not provide the correct answer. She further suggests to listening carefully next time she plays the CD. Follow several correct and quick answers; then, comes a new challenge which provokes an exchange between several STs who explain what they have understood; T mediates.

- 4th time: Complete the sentences with the proper endings from the story. - T now sits by the boom-box to stop the CD after each sentence and turns to ST for their answer. She praises 2 volunteers at once and continues playing the story to the next sentence. - ST are still focused, write, same 3 STs volunteer answers. One hesitates, T replays the passage to help. 11.50: 2 STs pack their stuff, T writes a verb on the board, probes STs for their knowledge about the tense and form of conjugated verb, she quickly resumes playing the CD. Now some STs become distracted, T realizes that and stops saying that they will finish tomorrow during the lab period. - Finally, she mentions that she will send an e-mail with the homework and apologizes for running over the time.

While observing, I was under the impression that students understood the dialogue fairly

well. However, Marie expressed a serious concern about this type of activity. To explain

the situation she was experiencing, Marie referred to her prior experience in high school

when her teacher barely spoke French or offered real French dialogues to which students

could listen. As a result, her insufficient understanding of the language and limited

progress in this area during the semester became an important obstacle to her motivation

and interest in this activity as well as a source of frustration as she conveyed:

She (the teacher) asks questions about the conversation... what goes on. That just

doesn't motivate me, because I don't understand anything and then I just kind of

zone out and don't really pay attention. Because I just figure, I don't get it, and by

166

the time it takes me to understand whatever's being said, everyone else is already

going to know, thus we won't play it anymore times, the track, you know. So, I

wouldn't even have a chance.

Mary was the only participant from 104 to mention listening activities as her least

favorite. She highlighted her difficulty understanding as a major impediment in becoming

engaged or developing any kind of interest in this activity. This issue of understanding or

not understanding the target65 language during instruction will be addressed in the

section on whole class discussions.

To conclude, I have observed overall positive and productive interactions between

Teacher 1 and her students. This teacher displayed signs of enthusiasm and energy as

well as signs of patience, understanding, and caring. She did not allow her students to

remain silent or passive during these activities. On the contrary, she made sure to involve

each and every one by: 1) acknowledging every answer and accepting mistakes as well as

creative comments, 2) continually encouraging students to produce input in the form of a

sound, a spelling, a phrase, a full sentence or a dialogue with her, 3) taking the time to

repeat and/or rephrase explanations as needed, 4) providing a variety of clues and

patiently waiting for students to process the information, or 5) just by listening. This

behavior and demeanor were well illustrated by Marguerite:

When we're all sitting there, she can tell that we're thinking but, we're too

nervous just not confident to say it out loud; she'll start us off with, she'll give us

the first letter or something. Or she'll say, it's like this. She'll kind of ease it out

The target language corresponds to the language taught in the class. In the case of the study, the target language is French.

167

of us. She'll say, "Okay, wait." Then, she'll go back and say, "Now this - how

about I say this? Does this make any more sense?"

When faced with the challenge of understanding, Ladislas pointed out the constructive

method of rephrasing the questions in different ways so it would give students a better

chance to use their prior knowledge. In the case of wrong answers, Marguerite

particularly appreciated her teacher's attitude:

She's better at this than some other teachers. Because some teachers go, "Well

that's wrong." Then, you're instantly like, "Oh great, I'm an idiot." That's the

mode you go into. So when she says, "Well that's not exactly what I was thinking,

but its close and you're on the right track." That's a lot nicer than, "You're

wrong." Because that shuts you off, but she's encouraging us to keep thinking,

instead of saying, "Well you suck at this. You're done." It's better to hear, you

are being inquisitive, you are thinking along the right track. It's nicer to hear that

than shutting us off... I've done that before, where I say the wrong verb or

something, and she goes, "Well no that's not exactly right, but you're doing

good." It's nice to hear that, it kind of lifts you right back up.

Marguerite further explained how the teacher approached and managed an activity was

"extremely important" in order for her to be interested and motivated in that activity to

the point that "it's probably more important than just whatever the activity is". If the

teacher were to have a bad day and said:

"No you're wrong, that's stupid" then, I wouldn't be motivated that day, I might

not be motivated to do anything the next day. If I'm thinking, "Oh well, I'm an

idiot because I got this wrong the other day". I might not want to answer more.

168

She (her current teacher) doesn't do that. She doesn't shut us off. She keeps us

running on trying to figure things out. It's kind of fun with her to do that. She

doesn't make us feel stupid. It's just kind of fun.

Ladislas also highlighted the importance of her teacher's body language and facial

expressions in captivating her interest and giving unspoken clues. Indeed, Teacher 1 was

an energetic and enthusiastic person with an encouraging attitude. Marguerite, Marie,

Charlotte, and Ladislas agreed on the very positive impact of how their teacher conducted

an activity and delivered a lesson. That is, it directly affected their level of interest and

motivation not only at the time of the activity but also, for the rest of the period and even

for the following class period. Their views confirmed the impressions I sensed during the

hours spent in this classroom.

French 203.

As part of his routine, Teacher 2 most often opened a class period by placing an

outline of the lesson plan on the overhead to introduce its content and the different

activities. When starting a new chapter book, he would present a detailed outline and

illustrate with a few examples.

For the first excerpt, Teacher 2 was in the process of introducing chapter 4 whose

main focus was using the past tense (the passe compose and the imparfait) to discuss

one's childhood. He directly addressed the whole class asking general questions about

what students thought in connection with childhood. As students started to provide

answers, the teacher wrote them on the board in an attempt to connect them and form a

type of a concept map:

169

T tries to engage STs to participate: 3 STs offer one word at a time. Others are quiet and remain quiet. T encourages for more; restates the question; proposes one answer; adds gestures and facial expressions; gives additional answers.

/ am not sure of what STs are thinking and if they really understand; many seem passive and disconnected from what the Tattempts to do to engage and encourage them to participate and become active in the process.

After a minute or two of no reaction by STs, T directs them to a page of the book and begins to conduct an exercise addressing the class as one group. STs are supposed to have read the text before coming to class (as T reminds them). - T attempts to create a dynamic way to engage everyone; he reads the definition for STs to find the proper word of vocabulary; he repeats, sometimes rephrases the sentence from the book; a few STs answer with different levels of intensity: they hesitate and have weak voices. T repeats the answer, praises, and moves on reading the next definition and so on.

This activity does not generate much enthusiasm from STs. It is really hard to tell their frames of mind. Are they just bored by the topic, the type of activity? Or, are they overwhelmed by the language barrier?

On another day, students were working with a partner to create a short story based

on a picture in the book. The teacher had asked students to take 10 minutes to write a

creative and funny story, which would be read out loud to the rest of the class. At first,

students showed signs of hesitation and then, became progressively involved speaking

softly, smiling and laughing at times. The teacher interrupted the activity before the ten

minutes were up:

- T: 'Qui commence? Je veux entendre toutes les histoires. Tout le monde va presenter son histoire.'66

#1: Tiny voice, difficult for me to recognize the words and make sense of it. T praises: "Bien, tres bien" and smiles.

/ am not sure that STs understood. They don't react; some continue to work on their stories; no facial expression.

#2: Voice a little louder. More audible. At the end, T probes for more info. #3: Better reading and loud enough. T praises while smiling "Bien, tres bien". Silence. STs stopped volunteering. T asks for more: "J'aime les histoires, j'aime beaucoup les histories" .

Who starts? I want to hear every story. Everyone will present his story.

170

The room is completely quiet during readings; only a few comments by the T. Other STs don't show any signs of understanding the stories, paying attention, or have any kind of interest in this activity; they keep looking at their papers or theirs books; no one looks at the person who is reading.

#4: little confusion about who is reading next. Finally, Sybille reads with a soft and hesitant voice. T praises: Bien! - T asks the class: "Qui a ecrit la meilleure histoire? Quelle histoire vous aimez le plus?"68

No answer or reaction from STs. T moves on to the next activity.

For the third example, students were working in pairs to complete a book activity

on the passe compose and the imparfait. They were on task sharing information and

searching through the book. The teacher called for collective corrections:

T: "Maintenant, je vais lire la phrase dans la 2eme colonne et vous allez me dire a quoi cela correspond".69

#1: Collective answer by 4 STs. Same routine for sentences # 2, 3, 4; good flow of interactions between T and STs. It moves at a good pace with no period of silence.

• / can tell that there is a better unspoken understanding between STs and T (this is observation 8). Or rather, I feel that STs are now better used to their teacher's expectations and approach in conducting the class. They have become comfortable with his method and way to interact. As a result, STs give the impression to be more at ease; there is less down time trying to understand what needs to be done. * This comment is also related to the type of activity. In a matching activity, there are always information given to guide STs in choosing an answer and confirm what they have understood (even if it is not much).

• T faces STs, standing by the first table in the middle of the room, book open on the table; he uses a lot of gestures with arms, hands, and upper body as well as facial expressions and 'eye movements'; he nods to show his agreement with STs or approves correct answers. Firm voice with medium intensity, on and off little laugh {it sounds more like a nervous laugh than a real laugh, not sure).

Once the exercise is finished, T praises everyone: Tres bien!

I like stories. I like stories a lot. Who wrote the best story? Which story did you like the most? Now, I will read the sentence in the second column and you will tell me to which tense it corresponds.

171

In conclusion, despite a noticeable evolution in the students' overall behaviors

during the course of the semester, there was a huge contrast between their behaviors and

attitudes during pair and whole class activities. For instance, during the two to four

minutes of daily warm-ups, students would speak with loud voices and gestures, smile

and laugh. As a result, the classroom was buzzing. Then, the teacher would abruptly

interrupt these exchanges and move on to a teacher-centered activity and it felt as if

something had been broken. From that point on, it did not matter what the teacher did to

engage his students, the class was doomed to long silences. In fact, at times, I felt

awkward and uncomfortable being an interloper. These particular situations during

teacher-centered activities will be revisited in the following section on whole class

discussions where participants explained what they themselves experienced.

Moreover, similarly as with pair work, the teacher's demeanor and personality

were for the most part responsible for creating the particularly awkward atmosphere

during typical teacher-centered activities: students and teachers gave the impression of

being estranged from another. Participants' perceptions of their teacher and his teaching

style partially explain this classroom atmosphere: Sybille felt "rushed", Cecile thought he

was 'kind of teaching on a whim', and Jacques explained that "sometimes he can be a

little hard to understand" and as a result "some of what he says gets lost in between him

and the students". As for Amelie, she believed that "it has to do with the class as a whole

.... You can't blame it on the teacher". Yet, she added "he talks all in French, so it's not

really clear".

172

French 204.

That particular day was dedicated to reviewing the main elements of the chapter

prior to the test. Teacher 3 distributed a worksheet with several exercises for students to

complete individually and correct with the whole class. Once students had completed two

exercises, the teacher called for corrections:

As STs give answers, T selects words or expressions to write on the board; she approves, praises, encourages STs to gives more details about the topic; she probes for more details about the grammatical aspect while providing additional examples and information. Her voice remains at the same intensity, soft and regular. She keeps the same positive demeanor, more enthusiastic and encouraging at times, pushing STs to participate actively in these reviews. During this particular exercise, T takes the opportunity to review conjugation of a couple of verbs. She requests explanations, writes more on the board. When a ST commits an error, she guides him or her through steps to find the correct answer but she does not directly provide the answer; STs need to be involved in the process. The last sentence to translate is long; as a result, T breaks it in several chunks asking a different ST for each section and follows the same routine. STs are quiet but engaged and seem involved as they process their own answers. They check with what they wrote, correct if necessary, and on and off a ST asks T to repeat the answer or inquires clarifications of the answer.

This is a good working session with multiple exchanges and interactions between T and STs as well as between STs. STs are not shy to volunteer their answers and ask for additional feedback. I did not see signs of struggles or discouragement.

During another observation, the teacher asked students to discuss, in pairs, the

pros and cons of going to a new school. This activity was a follow-up to prior reading and

text comprehension. After several minutes, she formed two columns on the board to note

the advantages and disadvantages and called for students' attention:

-T: Alors! Qu'est-ce que vous avez trouve?70

With the 1st answer, T writes the main points. More interactions build on. T stands 71

by the board and looks directly at STs: 'Quoi d'autre? Comment/ Pourquoi?

So, what did you find? What else? How? Why?

She probes STs with these questions; at times, she slightly bends forward to STs as a sign to invite them to speak. She tries to keep a balance between the advantages and disadvantages to have as many of each. When listening to a ST, T focuses on him/her, repeats some words, and makes different facial expressions as signs of encouragement.

- Once T seems satisfied with the variety of answers, she chooses a topic from the list (now on the board) "oublier sa culture d'origine"72 and directs STs to discuss this topic in applying it to their personal situation.

In this third excerpt, Teacher 3 opened the class period by engaging students in a

small talk about Halloween and what costumes they intended to wear on that day (which

was the following day). The conversation started slowly and progressively, and several

students became enthusiastic when talking about their plans for a party. Eventually, the

teacher shared her story, laughed, and moved on to the grammar topic of the current

chapter:

- T: 'Okay! Nous allons revenir a notre grammaire avec le futur simple et le futur anterieur V T moves back to the board, points to 'deguiser' (word she wrote earlier) and asks someone to conjugate this verb in the futur simple. 'Se deguiser en danseuse'7 . A ST volunteers; T writes the different forms on the board while saying: - T: 'Vous avez Pinfinitif et vous ajoutez les terminaisons'.75

T asks for a 2nd verb to conjugate all together, one person at a time, demanding the spelling for each ending. T is turned halfway to the board and halfway to STs; she also adds arm gestures to encourage STs continuing speaking. Once she is satisfied with STs explanations showing their understanding of these tenses, she directs them to a book exercise to complete with a partner. [...] T is now sitting on the edge of the desk facing STs. - "On va corriger! lere phrase!" - A ST gives the form of the verb and T redirects:

77

- "Tu peux lire toute la phrase, s'il te plait?"

72 Forget one's culture of origin. 73 We are resuming grammar with futur simple and futur anterieur tenses. 74 To be disguised as a dancer. 75 You take the infinitive form and add the endings. 76 We will start the corrections. 1st sentence! 77 Can you read the whole sentence, please?

- "Alors attention a l'orthographe. Tu verras, 2 R Important". T writes the word on the board. Corrections move on; good flow of participation and interactions between STs andT. - Oui? -- Tu feras. - Alors la, un seul R! - [name]? (Napoleon) - Tu obtiendras! - Bien! A ST hesitates, another raises a hand. -Oui? [name]? He first hesitates and gives the answer. T writes the whole answer on the board. - Okay! Maintenant, cela devient un peu plus complique. Vous devez choisir entre futur simple et futur anterieur.7

T reads step by step from the book, explains, and probes STs for additional information about the use of each tense; many participate and say what they know and T completes the gaps on the topic: - T: Qu'est-ce que vous allez dire? Oui? Pourquoi?80

A ST: "Avec 'quand' on utilise seulement le futur simple?"81 and she pursues her question/explanation in English comparing the use of both tenses between English and French. T allows ST to speak in English and, herself, gives a couple of examples in English corresponding to the French form and adds: - "Faites l'exercise et puis on verra"82. STs start working in pairs; T goes to the ST who just asked the question and obviously (I could not hear what was said) continues the explanation and then moves on to another pair. [...] - T: "Alors, on va corriger". STs immediately volunteer. - T: "Vous voulez que je l'ecrive ou ca va?"83

- Oui, s'il vous plait! - D'accord! There is a good flow of answers by STs and T comments in between; she probes for spelling or meaning; when one ST hesitates, she turns to other STs for assistance.

Watch for the spelling. Now, it becomes a little more complicated. You need to choose between the future simple and the futur

anterieur. 80 What are you going to say? Yes! Why? 81 With 'quand' you only use the futur simple? 82 Do the exercise and then you will see. 83 Do you want me to write the answer? 84 Yes, please!

175

6 STs have participate one or twice during the correction of the sentences. Others look concentrated and attentive to what is happening even though, they don't intervene. At the end, T recaps the uses of both tenses. - "J'ai prepare des exercices pour vous"85 (handouts). She hands them out. - "Vous faites A. Vous devez choisir entre present, futur et passe et rappelez-vous ce que nous avons dit sur 'quand'. Vous faites A, je vous donne 2 minutes. Vous faites tout seul, si possible".

That particular class period was very challenging in terms of content for the teacher to

explain and for the students to understand and as such, it is a good illustration of this

teacher's approach and style during most instructional activities in this class. She

provided explanations and examples, listened to students, and got them involved in the

explanations. Students seemed to be interested in the topic, and they remained engaged:

many participated and none showed signs of being overwhelmed or discouraged or

disengaged. At all times, this teacher gave the impression of being very attentive to

students' understanding as she constantly sought more input from them. She did not

simply accept a short version of an answer. Elaine particularly appreciated this approach

to "keep encouraging people to keep speaking, instead of just stopping right after the

answer". In addition, Elaine liked the encouragement and positive comments from her

instructor when she did well. It played a positive role in her continued engagement and

her willingness to speak more.

In many ways, Teacher 3 approached typical whole class activities with the same

demeanor as she approached pair work and any other instructional activities for that

matter. Most often enthusiastic and dynamic and always professional, this teacher was

perceptive and attentive to her students' reactions and needs. One of her techniques was

851 prepared exercises for you. 86 You start with A. You have to choose between the present, the future, and past tenses. Remember what we said about 'quand'. I give you 2 minutes. You work by yourself, if possible.

176

to provide frequent encouragement using body language and follow-up questions as she

often probed students to discover their prior knowledge on the matter been discussed

and/or examined. Furthermore, regardless of the difficulty and types of instructional

material, she always attempted to establish relevance between the material and students.

Thus, she captured their interest and attention, which helped to generate participation

because the students were more inclined to share their experiences and points of view on

a topic that had engaged them.

Whole Class Discussions

Most often, whole class discussions are introduced as the result of or the follow-

up to previous activities such as reading and comprehension of texts as well as themes

discussed during the course of a chapter. As carried out in 203 and 204, the process,

which led to text comprehension usually comprised several steps: 1) students read and

discovered the text by themselves prior to coming to class, 2) in pairs, small groups, or

individually, they attempted to answer a series of questions written to help with the

comprehension of the story, 3) students shared and discussed their answers with the

whole class, and lastly 4) the teacher proposed additional questions and activities leading

to a whole class discussion in order to reach a higher level of comprehension and

reflection about the text. Although the overall approach to this activity was similar in

both classes (i.e., using textbook activities as homework to prepare ahead or as in class

activities), the outcomes were very different because of how this activity was conducted

by each teacher. In 104, whole class discussions were organized slightly differently in

order to adapt to the lower proficiency level which limited students' expression of their

ideas and arguments. This particular type of activity was challenging (and often the most

177

challenging of all the types of activities) for students to understand as they tried to remain

engaged and for teachers to conduct as they managed the complexity of the task and dealt

with students' struggles. Thus, I have selected several descriptive accounts to provide an

authentic and factual representation of what whole class discussion entailed in the

researched context. I have further addressed the issue of student' participation during

whole class discussions in an attempt to understand their behaviors in connection with

their interest, engagement, and motivation. To this end, I employed participants' own

words to report their perspectives and underline their voices on this matter. Consequently,

this section is a discussion intended to shed light on students' behaviors and motivation

during whole class discussions and is grounded in narrative accounts from field notes of

each class and in participants' commentaries.

Narrative accounts.

On the day of my fourth observation in 204, the entire class period focused on

reading, comprehension, and discussion of a text. At the outset, Teacher 3 briefly

summarized the context of the story. She, then, directed students to the first activity

"vous avez compris?"87, which comprised 10 sentences corresponding to true or false

statements about the story of the text. Students worked individually for several minutes

before the teacher called for a collective correction:

T moves to sit on the edge of the desk holding her book open, facing STs. - T: 'Alors la lere phrase'. T reads the 1st sentence and asks: Vrai ou faux? [true or false?] Elaine raises her hand, T calls: ...! (Elaine) - ST offers an extensive answer, speaks in low volume making it difficult to distinguish every word she says which makes the understanding more difficult even for me. So I can imagine that it has to be hard for most STs. - T: oui, c'est bien! She restates the main points of the answer and concludes that it's false.

87"Did you understand?"

- T pursues the correction using the same strategy. #2 After reading the sentence from the book, there is a silent wait:

STs do not react and T allows this time for STs to think or rather does not have a choice. She makes facial expressions trying to detect who wants to speak, maybe she has a tendency to look more often over STs who volunteer and participate the most often. This is the impression I have.

A ST proposes an answer: c'est vrai. [It's true] -T: C'est vrai, pourquoi? Qu'est-ce que tu vois dans le texte? ST reads the passage. - Oui. Tout a fait. T summarizes in one sentence what the ST just read from the text. #3 Silence. - T decides to call on someone: John? John: "Je pense que c'est vrai parce que89....". long answer including the excerpts from the text. -T: Oui, tres bien. A votre avis, pourquoi?90 And she restates the point from the text she wants STs to discuss in more depth, now. 'Pourquoi a votre avis?

The classroom is quiet, very quiet. It feels almost strange and uncomfortable observing because of the challenge faced by STs. T does not appear particularly affected by STs passive behavior. Her strategy is to rephrase/restate differently the sentences of the book and STs statements: she uses simpler sentences and common vocabulary words hoping that STs will better understand.

- A ST asks: Repetez la question s'il vous plait?91

Oui, and T repeats. Elaine answers and T moves on fast to the next sentence. #4 -T: C'est vrai ou faux? [True or false] Elaine? C'est vrai! [It's true] Oui! Et tu vois 9a ou? [Where do you see this?] ST reads the passage from the text. T: Oui, tres bien. T elaborates on the content; slowly, she searches for her words (words to explain in a sampler manner), shows signs of hesitation; she does not keep eye contact with STs but, looks at the ceiling, the window on her left or the book. This is not her usual behavior: she usually makes eye contact with STs and keeps it.

T's behavior today leads to believe that she is not at ease as usual; she shows signs of hesitation in her explanations or rather her approach to explain the difficulty of the text.

8S "It's true, why? What do you see in the text?" 89 "I think it's true because..." 90 "Yes. Very good. In your opinion, why?" 91 "Could you repeat the question, please?"

179

#5 New ST (silent up until now) answers. T does not acknowledge the answer but instead asks: Est-ce que vous comprenez l'ecole etrangere? 9

Another ST: l'ecole francaise. [French school] T: oui! ST: done la reponse est fausse93. (which is the opposite of what he had previously said)

T did not directly give the correct answer but rather had another ST do it. I am not sure that every ST understood the point just made by the teacher.

94 #6 New ST answers (quiet up until now): Je pense e'est faux parce qu'il a dit ST hesitates and says something very difficult to understand; T ads: tu peux repeter! [Could you repeat] ST hesitates again and with difficulty puts together an improper sentence said in a low intensity. - T: Oui, la phrase est fausse. Pourquoi?95 No answer. T gives a short explanation and ads: Okay. Tout le monde suit?96

- As the T is ready to move to the next sentence, a ST interjects: 'Est-ce que je peux demander qqchose sur la question d'avant?' -T: oui! ST reads a passage of the text, stops and smiles and says: e'est faux, revealing his own surprise that he now understands the sentence. T smiles and nods in agreement.

What happened is that this ST was not sure of his answer and was ready to disagree with the T's comment but then, reading the passage one more time, he understood better and realized that he was taking the wrong approach. Again, T did not impose the correct answer but played the role of the facilitator.

#7 For the past two sentences, there is now more interactions among a small groups of STs (5). There is less silence in between answers and comments as these STs react faster to intervene. Up until now, 7 STs have participated in this activity. (16 STs are present today) #8 T reads the sentence, closes the book, and looks around the room with different facial expressions to invite STs to answer. - Many STs don't make eye contact with T in this activity; they keep their eyes on the book; some take notes. T often moves her left arm in an attempt to invite and engage in an exchange.

New long silence. The atmosphere goes through waves and we are back to a low after a high of several interactions between STs and T.

92 "Do you understand 'foreign school'." 93 "So, the answer is false." 94 " I believe it's false because he said ..." 95 'Yes, the sentence is false. Why?" 96 "Everyone follows?" 97 "Could I ask something about the previous question?"

180

Finally, T gives a quick answer to the last question and wraps up the activity.

In the next example, Teacher 1 (104) invited students to summarize a text

previously introduced in class. Writing a few questions on the transparency to guide

students in their discussion, she gave the signal to work in pair for a few minutes.

STs are on task, not as loud as earlier; most of them read the text silently. Limited verbal exchanges for this activity. Actually, only one pair speaks and discusses the text without reading from the book. T stands back by the board, looking at STs; she changes side and remains silent.

After only a few minutes, T calls for collective correction: - 'Bien! Qui sont les personages principaux?98

She writes answers on the transparency as they come; looks in the other direction waiting for additional comments. Short silence. A ST with a very soft voice (difficult to understand) asks about a certain character in the story. It creates confusion for the T who tries to find out more from STs but without success. Other STs are attentive and look concentrated but don't participate. T pursues, describes another character of the story, and asks for his name. A ST reacts and checks in the book: Oh! Mr. Eaton! - During this exchange, T turns the overhead on and off because it makes too much noise and several STs have a low intensity voice (tiny voice). - T is very considerate; she makes the effort to adapt to STs. She allows time for STs to think before demanding an answer; she does not rush; she kindly restates STs' statements or sentences louder and error free in an attempt to facilitate STs' understanding. - T: 'Finallement, quelle est la lecon de l'histoire en general?" STs don't react; by now, several show signs of been overwhelmed and puzzled; they don't understand. Only 4 STs have actively participated during this activity discussing the text. For the past few minutes, the classroom has become very quiet. - T creates other questions as sub questions of the large question. She guides STs to show and tell what they have understood. - T wraps up the end of the story herself, asks if they would know how to tell the moral of this story; she quickly changes to English and suggests a saying 'not to judge a book by its cover'. Several STs nod their head in signs of agreement but, most of the STs at this point, look disconnected and overwhelmed by this activity too challenging I believe.

"Okay. Who are the main characters?" "Finally, what is the moral of the story, in general?"

181

On another occasion, Teacher 1 asked students to form small groups in order to

summarize the lyrics of a song that they have discovered and learned during the previous

lab period.

- T places a new transparency on the overhead and writes 2 main questions while asking: 'Quel est le theme general? Okay? Pas besoin d'ecrire, simplement parlez; juste resumez la chanson.' T counts STs and forms 3 groups of three and one pair. During this activity, groups are going through different moods. Everyone seems to be on task and participates; there are ups and downs in terms of noise based on STs' participation within their groups. STs of one group seem more relaxed and not as much into the activity as the others. May be they are totally off task.

Time for whole class corrections: T stands by the overhead; STs immediately offer many answers; they cite excerpts from the lyrics: first about the girls and then about the guys. T encourages additional answers and mentions the clip that they previously watched during the lab period. T: 'Quoi d'autre? Vous vous souvenez dans le clip?101

Et les garcons??? More answers come quickly. - T recalls the story from the clip (mentioning specific passages from the clip) and invites STs to continue participating and add details. - T: 'Et l'element comique du clip?'102

Again, T recalls parts of the clips to help STs remember and formulate answers. This second question is more complicated: STs are quiet; they show signs of being focused but look challenged. So, T guides them step by step to retrace and describe the situation as they saw it in the clip but, no one answers; total silence for 1 or 2 minutes. T suddenly decides to stop:

1H3

'Est-ce que Ton a le temps pour ... as she checks the clock. Oui!

In 203, whole class discussions turned out to be challenging situations for me to

observe and take notes on. I selected several short passages to report in order to best

describe the classroom atmosphere during these particular circumstances: - T moves on to introduce a new text to read and discuss. He holds the

What is the main theme of the song? No need to write. Just speak, just summarize the song". 100

101 "What else? Do you remember the video clip?" 102 "And the funny part of the clip?"

"Do we have the time for..."

182

textbook facing STs, points to the text in order for STs to follow with their books. He introduces a totally different set of questions (different from the brainstorming that took place during the previous activity). - Very few answers from STs (same 2 ST as earlier). T writes answers on the board, turns back to STs, and tries to engage them speaking and using physical cues... - Due to the lack of time today (fire drill), T picks up the pace (STs are supposed to have read the text prior to coming to class). T gives them only 2 minutes to review before asking comprehension questions. - T resumes his explanations and asks the same question in different forms, rephrasing with the intent to make it clearer for STs to understand. Silence, long silence.

- T makes the decision to move to the next page of the book and starts a new activity using a different text. (T follows in order the activities & exercises of the textbook). - Again, using the same method, T explains STs what to do, suggesting working in pairs or small groups. This time, several STs move to form pairs, they work quietly, whisper. The pair behind speaks in English helping each other to understand what it is about. T interrupts to provide more explanations, always in French. I believe as up until now, T has said maybe 2 words in English. STs look lost; they keep looking back and forth between their book and the T. - T explains how they need to use the context of the story to help themselves understand. - T stops and asks for the 4 specific answers from the book (this is a matching exercise); 2 STs respond, one good, one bad answer. T rephrases, moves to the next line, 2 different answers; T restates the correct one. Again, most STs seem wondering about the whole stuff, and look overwhelmed. I sense most STs disconnected and having trouble to keep up with the teacher's explanations and being able to formulate an answer.

In another instance, Teacher 2 launched the comprehension of text and discussion by: 1)

providing some geographical background information about the story, 2) by asking

students to read the text out loud two sentences at a time, and 3) by having students work

in pairs to answer four specific questions from the book. During this pair activity,

students were quiet, looked concentrated while doubtful, and spoke to their partners using

very soft voices. I heard from the pair sitting next to me "je ne comprends pas"104 as the

partner tried to explain something in French but stopped and shook his head. Before the 5

"I don't understand".

183

minute indicator expired, the teacher interrupted students asking them to report their

answers to the rest of the class:

- First, he points to the cover of the book asking STs for their interpretation of the picture. One ST answers; T agrees and moves on to the 4 specific questions of the exercise. - Class very quiet; answers come one at a time, most often with an uncertain voice. T keeps probing, encourages STs with facial and body language using a soft voice and displays enthusiasm trying hard to encourage STs to react and participate. He writes each answer on the board. Few words for each answer, few STs participate. - T moves on to the next step of the comprehension: STs are quiet, long silence. Many look perplexed, keep looking at the text, (several look at the clock). T continues to speak, trying to help STs with the comprehension, the silence persists [I am afraid that STs might hear my pen on the paper].

At this moment, I am not sure if STs are engaged and struggling to either understand or express what they want to say OR if they just gave up and just wait for the period to end. The current atmosphere is making me feel uncomfortable.

- T varies his explanations, offers examples, starts again, and writes words on the board. This new approach results in one ST offering an answer. T goes on with a particular word, physically demonstrates the meaning of the word. 2 STs venture an explanation. - At this time, T asks STs if they checked words in the dictionary at home as they are supposed to prepare for the class. No answer, silence persists. - T moves on to the next question in the book, and explains how words look identical in English and French, however they may have different meaning. T warns STs. - Silence persists; a ST asks if she can answer in English but T refuses. Another ST gives a short answer in French. T quickly acknowledges and moves on to the next activity.

My comments and reflections on that day were in these exact words: The observations in this classroom have become painful and difficult to endure. On occasion, I feel the frustration of the teacher and understand his battle attempting to have students become alive and participate in the whole class discussion. At the same time, I feel for the students and I realize that what the teacher has put in place based on his approach and demeanor just does not work. Students look overwhelmed by the difficulty of language as well as by the content, and just surprised. Or may be, their lack of reactions is a sign of boredom. And then, when finally STs start to engage in some exchanges, the teacher quickly interrupts and moves on to something else without transition.

184

But mostly, I feel uncomfortable witnessing this intense struggle of the students and the teacher as the silence is deafening.

Reviewing and comparing each of these narratives about whole class discussions

raises two essential points about students' behaviors, which illustrate the manifestation or

lack of their engagement and motivation. Before pursuing my interpretation, I need to

disclose my personal curiosity and appeal in this type of activity as a researcher but also

as a French teacher with experience. The first point addresses the dynamics of the whole

class during these discussions. As a regular observer in these three classes, I quickly

noticed important differences within the dynamics of each classroom when compared to

what was happening during pair activities for instance. These differences are shown in: a)

the interactions between teacher and students as well as amongst students; b) the way

students behaved and reacted: that is, they displayed fewer signs of confidence when

speaking and fewer indications of their interest and enjoyment in the activity; c) the

manner in which the teacher taught, becoming more serious while focusing on the right

thing to say in order to trigger students' responses; and lastly d) the overall classroom

atmosphere wherein I felt uncomfortable at times (more so in 203). Furthermore, these

observable changes varied from one class to another and to a lesser extent, varied among

whole class discussions conducted by the same teacher. Focusing on 203 and 204, where

this type of activity was commonly practiced, I noted important variations in students'

behaviors and actions even though these discussions were part of textbook activities

presented in a similar format. It seemed that in 203, students were considerably more

challenged in a negative manner than those in 204. Most often, students in 203 showed

very few signs of positive emotions and appeared to be passive bystanders as few of them

actually participated in the discussion with the teacher. Finally, this first point about

185

whole class discussion leads directly into the second point: that, it was worth asking

participants for their explanations and interpretations of how they experienced this type

of activity.

Participants comments.

Individual interviews as well as participants' exchanges during focus groups were

very fruitful in providing explanations as to why students behaved the way they did

during whole class discussions and other teacher-centered activities and how they were

motivated during these instances. As the researcher who observed numerous instructional

situations, I had several crucial questions for the participants: what makes you participate

or not participate? But mostly, why do you remain quiet? Is it just by personal choice and

attitude or because of something else? Then, what is the something else? From the

viewpoint of FL teachers, this notion of students' participation is critical because it is

viewed as an indication of students' abilities to understand and to express themselves in

the target language. It is also evidence of students' interest, engagement, and motivation

as well.

The analysis of participants' comments revealed that for half of them, whole class

discussions in combination with text comprehension were their least motivating

activities. This assertion can be illustrated by Jacques who claimed that "when the

professor will ask the whole class a question, it's pretty hard for me to motivate myself to

volunteer to say something", Pierre who described the whole class discussion about the

readings as the "day that always motivates me the least", and Sybille who clearly disliked

"big group discussion where everyone can shout something out whenever they want to".

She also admitted "I'll just sit there practicing my Chinese characters", which

186

demonstrated signs of total disengagement. As for Claire, she simply stated "that's the

hardest thing for me [laugh]". Overall, during this activity, participants were perceptive

and sensitive, in varying degrees, to different factors. Whether linked to the teacher or to

students' personal characteristics, these factors trigger and explain students' behaviors.

This finding brings to mind the factors identified and described earlier in the first section

of this chapter that directly affect students' level of motivation during instruction (see

Figure 10). Many of these 'motivating' factors in combination with others are responsible

for encouraging students to speak in front of the class or rather, to remain quiet. The

following discussion introduces these factors as they emerged from participants' stories

and comments and also provides grounds for understanding students' decisions to

participate, or not, during whole class discussions and other teacher-centered activities as

well as understanding students' levels of engagement and motivation.

Pierre's statement "Lectures105 days are always rough days for me" and Cecile's

remark "I find that I participate a lot more in small group. But I don't respond well when

we're all exchanging answers" captures precisely the feelings and views expressed by

most participants regarding the discussions about text comprehension. It also confirms

my own perceptions that I often experienced during observations on those days. When

asked about the periods of silence during certain teacher-centered activities, participants

offered varied explanations to justify their non-participation and ultimately their

engagement and motivation. Regardless of their level of language proficiency and their

success in the class, they generally pointed out reasons grounded in their perceptions of

how they felt and how they assessed the situation at the time. These reasons were subject

5 In each chapter, there is a section comprised of a text and a set of activities purposely created to guide and assist students with the comprehension of this text.

187

to variations and influences and as such, they were directly or indirectly affected by

teachers' roles and input during the activity. Throughout their testimonies, participants

described the challenges they faced (during whole class activities) and offered their

interpretations of these situations as they explained their behaviors. "I don't understand

what's going on" (Pierre). "I don't want to say something wrong .. .and completely botch

a sentence" (Cecile). "It can be uncomfortable because you get nervous and you don't

know what to say.. Just speaking in front of everyone can be nerve racking" (Elaine). "I

don't feel confident at all...I just have no clue what he (the teacher) has said" (Cecile). "I

sometimes feel like I could know the answer, but I don't want to raise it and get the

wrong one" (Claire).

I have organized these commentaries into six main scenarios that explain why

students remained silent during whole class discussions and how the silence ultimately

affected their motivation. Thus, the remainder of the present discussion addresses these

scenarios and situations reported by participants as responsible for their lack of

participation: 1) lack of language comprehension (or misunderstanding) and/or

misinterpretation of the language, 2) difficulty to formulate the answers in French

including experiencing mental block, 3) feelings of self-consciousness and lack of

confidence, 4) mood and state of mind of the day, 5) (express) concerns for dominating

the discussion, and 6) perceptions of teacher's behaviors and demeanor.

In the first scenario, participants genuinely did not understand the teacher and

what was asked or, in Napoleon's words: "I'm at a loss. She (the teacher) asks me a

question, I know what the words are but I don't know what she means by saying those

words. Or I don't know what the words are". Whatever the reasons for not understanding

188

the language (e.g., readings or topics for discussion are too challenging, students'

inadequate prior knowledge, students insufficiently prepared), the consequences of these

situations are central to explaining students engagement and motivation. It is a fact that

being able to understand the language represented an ongoing challenge that participants

faced during instruction and more so, during whole class discussions. As a result, how

they understood the language directly affected their participation and ultimately their

motivation. At first, the lack of language understanding generated feelings of frustration

and discouragement and then, in some instances, it drove students to disengage from the

activity, or worse, from the rest of the class period. In both group discussions,

participants were eager to tell their stories and became even more passionate once they

realized how much they all had similar experiences. The following reports highlights of

these exchanges:

Marguerite: A lot of times, I'm kind of the first person to answer. But, when I don't understand, I can't move on. It just frustrates me that I can't understand. Then somebody gives the answer and I have no idea why. I'm stuck because, I'm just frustrated with the fact that there's one or two words that just completely derail me from the thought. Charlotte: When I don't understand the sentence and someone answers, it's like how did they get that? I do get confused. Because it seems like everyone got it except for me or maybe two people didn't get it but everybody else did. So it's like you don't want to stop it because everyone's moving forward. It does annoy me sometimes when I'm like, "How did you get that? Where was that in the text?" Marie: I'm the same way as Marguerite and Charlotte. It was previously said that people just get it and I'm still stuck on it because maybe one or two words will throw me off the question. I might look it up. You know, then the activity's over. [Laugh] Marguerite: Sometimes you can catch up and if I'm sitting next to someone who seems like they got it, I ask them, just quietly, "Okay, what was that?" Researcher: Cecile? Cecile: I get caught up translating in my head, trying to figure what's going on. And sometimes I'll just stop paying attention to class and work on my vocab or work on the questions for tomorrow or I'll just will forget about the rest of class.

189

Researcher: So you totally disengaged. Cecile: Yeah.

Sybille believed that "the readings are a little above our abilities... a lot of lectures are

very difficult" which can be good or bad because "if you have the motivation it's

good.. .it pushes you to take out the dictionary and look up words". However, despite her

strong interest in languages and her major in linguistics, Sybille did not really like French

and this French class in particular. Admitting laziness, she acknowledged that she did not

put the necessary effort into this class, which contrasted with the time she spent "flipping

through a dictionary" for her translation course in Spanish. She added that "the teacher's

attitude about it plays a big part... and the teacher's enthusiasm". Pierre also reported

being challenged by these readings "I have a hard time understanding it and reading

French. We go through and I feel we're expected to know every detail and answer these

specific questions, even stuff- that's hard for me." He further explained his approach to

preparing for the readings prior to coming to class:

When I read this stuff, I try not to use the dictionary other than the little words

they put at the bottom because you can't use the dictionary on the exam or

anytime we're going to be tested we can't pull out our French dictionary. So, I

guess that's maybe why I don't understand it as well. I guess I don't have a really

good strategy this year to do the reading.

In addition, Pierre said that the subject matter probably affects his interest in these French

readings because "in English, if it's something that's boring to read I'm not motivated to

read it".

Another aspect of language comprehension is represented by the

misunderstanding of words or the question and the misinterpretation of ideas in the

190

reading. In the case of Napoleon, he explained how at times, he has realized that he

misread the text "when the question came, it was asking about an aspect you don't

remember ever reading about. So you're like racking your brain or re-reading the sections

trying to find the answer to the question". In that instance, he wished that the teacher

would "give a hint as to what section it's close to or have someone say something that

they remember about the text: 'Do you remember this part? Did anybody read this?

What about this section? Did you find it interesting'?" This particular issue of language

comprehension will be further developed in the section about language of instruction.

In the second scenario, participants had understood the teacher and knew the

answer but, they just could not formulate it in French. Asked to explain her situation,

Elaine stated:

I'm running through my head different ways of phrasing it, trying to - think about

it a little bit to get me started ... I am concentrated and don't raise my hand

because I can't even get myself started to say something, and so I'm just sitting

there trying to come up with a way to phrase it.

Elaine also recognized that overall, challenges give her more motivation to try and figure

it out because "it's part of my personality". As a result, when challenged, she continues

"to think about it in my head or will ask a question" and does not give up. Furthermore,

most participants reported experiencing situations where they lost the ability to say any

word in French at a particular moment in the discussion or the activity. They called this

phenomenon mental block, or tip-of-the-tongue sensation (Marguerite) and even mind

fart (Sybille), which they collectively defined as: "you know it (the word or words in

French), but you just don't.. .It's just like a blank, your head" (Marguerite) or "just

191

everything, all your thought just go out the door. Just kind of left there" (Marie). Elaine

experienced a mental block when:

I have the answer in English and then I work on translating it into French. I start

off and I get half of the sentence and then I can't finish it.. .And so then I try and

think of another way to say it in French. And then I make a dead end there.. .1

keep running into dead ends not able to finish exactly what I want to say.

Marie experienced the mental block when "maybe there's more pressure on you to

answer". In that case, she just lost "all thought and can't think of the answer" when in

fact she knows that she should know it. Amelie explained how sometimes, while working

with her partner, they would both "have this mental block" and stare at the questions in

the book just thinking "what's going on"? She continued explaining "since he (the

teacher) doesn't give us that much time to work on it, he'll start talking about it.. .once he

does, I'm like, oh I knew that. Now I understand it". In her case, mental block occurred

when she did not know how to make the first step: "I should begin at answering the

question, make sure that I start with a verb, should I conjugate it, should I put in the past

or does it have to be in?" Ladislas stated that:

When I have a mental block, it seems like everyone else around me is having the

same problem because there's no talking. And that's what makes it so hard to

think. Because if someone where talking, then I would be able to pick up words

and I'd be able to.. .1 don't know.

To sum up, this phenomenon of mental block represents one more critical matter for

students to cope with when they face the whole class. For students who had a tendency to

feel stupid or foolish, experiencing mental block was more likely to drive them to avoid

192

participation all together.

In the third scenario, participants, with the exception of Sybille, claimed to be

self-conscious when they needed to speak in front of their classmates. As individuals,

participants were concerned about several factors directly linked to their personal traits

and their perceptions of how others (classmates and teacher) viewed them. For instance,

the thought of feeling stupid or foolish and the idea of being judged by their peers were

clearly expressed and openly discussed during both focus groups. Many participants did

not want to be wrong believing that when they spoke, "it has to be acceptable" by their

classmates' standards. Some declared being shy, which made it hard for them to speak

in front of a group regardless of the subject matter or the class. Grounded in participants'

personality as well as in their prior experiences as French learners, these beliefs and

perceptions were completely legitimate and real to participants who felt, to varying

degrees, insecure, hesitant, and uncomfortable speaking in front of the class. The

following passage from focus groups captures important points on this issue:

Napoleon: If I do say my answer and it's wrong, I feel a little bit stupid actually. Claire: Well, it's the same with me. If I think I have the answer right, then it turns out I'm wrong, I just go like oh great, that's exciting. [Laugh] And I don't wanna say anything. Because, I feel like the whole room is staring at you, almost. Ladislas: Right. In class, for me, at the very beginning it was really hard just because I wasn't used to speaking in class. In prior French classes we never had to speak the language. Which is dumb. But, I've become a lot more comfortable. And I think a lot has to do with my professor or TA. Amelie: Okay. I think at the beginning of the semester it was difficult for me because I'd get the same feeling like if I'm wrong then I'm gonna sound really stupid. Elaine: I would say I always have a tinge of nervousness during class, just speaking another language can be nervous at first. But, once I get going, I get over that feeling and so, I find the more I force myself to talk, the more I lose my nervousness and then I just keep going. But it's always hard to get started.

193

Charlotte: I don't like speaking in front of people. I mean sitting in a group isn't too bad. Sometimes, I won't talk if I think I don't know what I'm talking about or if I don't know the answer. So, getting in front of people is always harder for me. Marguerite: I get nervous sometimes in the activities where we talk about the text if I don't know exactly what I'm talking about. Researcher: But when you 're facing the whole class, what really stops you from saying, "Okay. I'm raising my hand and I'm giving my answer. " Marie: I guess my apprehension about answering. I just don't like being wrong. I feel like ... obviously I don't have a full grip on the language as I do in English and I wouldn't be able to explain myself as thoroughly. Res: But everybody's in the same situation. I mean as far as everybody's learning. So, what's the worse that can happen to you if you 're wrong? Marie: Nothing I guess. But it's all in your head. Cecile: I think it's important for other people to make mistakes too. But, who should make the first mistake and then, who should continue those mistakes? Because, you know, no one wants to do that.

Participants of the other group discussion also viewed the notion of feeling stupid or

ridiculous as a critical obstacle that gets in the way of their participation in class

discussions. As the researcher, I was determined to understand what exactly they meant

by feeling stupid in this particular setting but most importantly, to understand how this

feeling affected them. For instance, participants reacted to Elaine's comment: "for me

when I can't figure it out, that gives me more motivation to try. It's just part of my

personality":

Marie: I am like exact opposite. [Laughter] Marie: If I'm lost on something and we're moving ahead in class, if I'm falling behind, I usually just say screw it and jump to where we are so I don't fall even further behind. But if it's just like a particular word that I'm not really sure about, I'll look that up on my own at home. Researcher: Okay. Marie: It's not where my motivation comes from. [Laughter] Marguerite: It depends on how stupid I feel. Researcher: The word stupid. What do you mean? I don't mean to be condescending here. I'm trying to figure out. You feel stupid or some say that you don 'tfeel intelligent enough... Marguerite: It's kind of how foolish I feel maybe or unintelligent. If she (the teacher) asks me a question in class and I genuinely do not know it, and it seems

194

like everyone else is getting it and if she would just move on to somebody else, I would be angry. [Laugh] I'd be angry. Marguerite: I'd be frustrated and I'd say screw it, you know for the rest of the class. And I wouldn't want to deal with anymore French. Our teacher hasn't been like that most of the year. A lot of the times, she'll just keep hinting at us or she'll start out the sentence for us or re-explain it hopefully in a way we understand. But if I feel stupid or foolish or ridiculous, I just stop because I don't want to feel ridiculous in front of the class. I don't know how else to say it. Marguerite: Other than stupid. Res: You stop for the moment, for the activity and you 're going to pick up later with the next activity? Or would you totally disconnect for the rest of the period like Cecile told us she kind of does. Marguerite: It depends on how stupid I feel. If it's something mild like it was just one or two words that I don't understand, then I understand them like relatively quickly. Okay, I'll move on. But if it's something that I just have no idea what topic we're on and everybody else is flying by, I just kind of zone out and. Res: Okay. Marguerite: Look at my nails. [Laughter]

While sharing their thoughts and experiences, participants came to an important

realization. That is, they were making assumptions about what other students in the

class might think of them when, in reality, these other students faced exactly the same

challenges as they did:

Amelie: I guess my thinking's changed because I don't think other people notice that I've made a mistake. Like yesterday I said the wrong verb and I know I said the wrong verb. But he (the teacher) automatically said no and then, he said the right one to me and you could barely tell that I was wrong. Res: Okay. Sybille, would you like to add something? Sybille: I don't think that the thought of making mistakes has ever stopped me from participating. If I have no idea then I'm not gonna participate just because I don't know what to say. Sybille: But I think that the thought of what if I make a mistake isn't really something intimidating because how else you are gonna learn the language if you don't make a mistake? Res: How does that really affect your engagement and your participation and your motivation during class? Amelie: I don't think that feeling stupid effects my motivation but just simply participation. My behavior will be affected because most likely I will not participate as much. Ladislas: I agree with that. That makes a lot of sense. [Laugh]

195

Pursuing this exchange about the challenges of speaking in front of the class, participants

came back to the notion that other students know more and speak better than them:

Napoleon: When I listen to their grammar structure, how they form their verbs and, just overall speaking the language. I know that it's better than what I can do because I don't [pause] conjugate the verbs correctly all the time or know what all the words mean. And, I know some other people do. [Laugh] Claire: Well, it's intimidating especially if these people are really good speakers. I feel sometimes that I'm not very good at speaking 'cause I tend to make a lot of mistakes. Which I guess mistakes can be good if you realize that you're making them. But ah [laugh], it's intimidating especially, when people going blah-blah-blah and I'm kind of sitting here stumbling over which verb to use.

Napoleon added the fact that being a freshman in a fourth semester class, he felt that he

always needed to "remain at a certain level, speaking proficiency wise". Consequently,

when making mistakes, he felt that: "I'm not at that level and I shouldn't be in that class

and other people are judging me". At this point in the conversation, Amelie made a very

valuable and astute remark:

Amelie: I think now in this focus group, it seems like everybody feels the same way I feel. Everybody thinks they seem stupid, so why does anybody feel stupid? Ladislas: I don't feel stupid. [Laughter] Amelie: Okay, with the exception of you. [Laughter] Ladislas: No, just joking. Napoleon: Maybe, we judge other people? Maybe that's what we're basing it off on. Ladislas: Perhaps. Nap: If we judge other people and they just... Res: Do you? Amelie: I don't, I don't judge people. Lad: I know I do. Amelie: I don't think I judge people because I'm so afraid of being judged and especially in French class. Ladislas: You make it sound like French class is like evil. Sybille: I'm in a lot of language classes, so I'm kind of over the feeling stupid thing. It's a major part of my life. Yeah [laugh] Once you get past that... you just are able to accept that you're gonna make mistakes, you're gonna get corrected. Other people are gonna make mistakes. It's just part of learning a language.

196

Nap: I agree with what you're saying as far as people who .. .if you see somebody who's speaking better you kind of want to shy away from them. Researcher: Okay, Cecile? Cecile : I sat by this girl and she didn't know much French and then, she stopped coming to class. So I started sitting by this other girl who I thought had a really excellent command of the language. It turns out she just has a really good accent. [Laugh] And she can babble really well. So she doesn't really - she knows more than I do but she's still doesn't - and I thought that she was like perfect. But she is not. [Laugh]

Another illustration of this perception that participants have of their classmates comes

from Marie who mentioned a conversation with her classmates one day, before the

teacher came in. She explained how they were asking each other and wondering about

what everyone understood during class. Marie's story and comments provoked certain

reactions:

Marie: Does anybody get what's going on? ... and everyone goes like no. But, there's this illusion that they all know the hell they're doing. So, I guess because there's this illusion of different levels of comprehension, that obviously it affects the way you feel: you're down here and they're up here (the rest of the class) and you can't help but feel well I must be ... [Laughter] You must feel like you're just not as intelligent than they are 'cause everyone else gets it and your just kind of like, whatever. But the fact is that they just know how to bullshit and, in French. [Laughter] Cecile: Oh! I just wonder, so you know, in my class it's the same. We'll be like what's going on and no one will be .. oh we've done this and no one's like whatever. But at the same time, it looks and feels like during class they know exactly what's going on. So I don't get it. I mean what does that mean? Researcher: Well tell me what does that mean? Cecile: I mean are they looking at us and thinking that we are flying by too? Res: Who are they? The teacher? Cecile: No! The rest of the class. Cecile: 'Cause if they say they don't know what's going on, but, it looks and feels like they do, and we say we don't know what's going on, then maybe it looks like we know what's going on. I mean, it's just... Researcher: Do you have this feeling Elaine in your classroom? Elaine: Sometimes yeah. I think some people are good at hiding the fact that they just don't get it and a lot of the time they just don't care that they don't get it. So they just go on with it. Elaine: But, actually I don't know. For the most part, my class can be pretty honest about the fact that they don't understand. I mean we've had one day where

197

a girl just flat out said she does not understand and then walked out of the classroom. Cecile: Did she come back? Elaine: She came back.. .not on that day.

Hearing these opinions and personal thoughts was very insightful in that it

illuminated how participants perceived what took place during class discussions and why

they reacted the way they did. It emerged from these excerpts that students were very

sensitive to what their classmates think of them, which explains why they felt stupid,

foolish, or unintelligent. Marguerite like Mary and Cecile stated how they would easily

disengage during these discussions when feeling overwhelmed or worse when feeling

judged by their classmates for not meeting their standards. Mary pointed out the

distinction she made between being judged solely by her peers during pair activities and

being judged by the teacher during whole class activities: "I hold the professor's opinion

of how I'm doing higher than what my peers think, because obviously my peers don't

grade me, my professor does". Expanding on her reasoning, Mary claimed that when

working with the class as one group, she did not like to be called on "because I know I'm

not going to understand or just mess up the answer, because I kind of get nervous,

because everyone's looking at me". But, she also accepted the fact that she had "to be

somewhat confident" in order to give an answer. Napoleon added that "I think that we're

more comfortable talking in front of people we know rather than complete strangers,

regardless of the situation. Like in a closer intimate setting, you might feel you get to

know the person better". Thus, similar to pair work, the interactions among students play

198

an important role in the success of teacher-centered activities in general. In addition, the

teacher's role106 and the classroom set-up are implicated in developing these interactions.

Taken together, these comments reveal valuable and constructive insights which

explain how and why participants experienced these negative feelings during class

discussions. Although participants were students involved in three different learning

settings under the leadership of three different teachers, they had for the most part similar

experiences and expressed similar interpretations of these experiences. Most often, when

faced with the challenge of overcoming self-consciousness and foolishness and regardless

of their levels of language proficiency, participants would disconnect for part of the

activity and, in some cases, totally disengage for the rest of the class period.

The fourth scenario to justify participants' behaviors during whole class

discussions introduced the importance of their states of mind and moods of the day.

Pierre mentioned "outside factors that could come into play - my mood and stuff,

factors that he encapsulated with "I come in with baggage". On those 'bad' days, he

thought that "it's harder to get in the mindset to focus and concentrate on that". Offering

a similar justification, Claire affirmed that "there are some classes where I'm just tired

and I don't want to speak" whereas Sybille had "on and off days" when she felt like

participating and then, she did not. As for Marguerite, she also had days when she came

to class "in a bad mood, not wanted to talk". However, she shared her experience from

the previous Friday when she came to class cranky:

I was just having one of those days where I just didn't want to do anything. And

she (the teacher) was just being so funny, and so engaging and asking all these

106 The point about the teacher's role in this type of activity is addressed in a later section as part of the sixth, and last, scenario introduced in the present discussion.

199

questions. She just made it entertaining to be in the room. So you couldn't help

but want to be there, and want to participate in that. She was doing that really

well, and I just had to get out of my mood and participate.

This positive impact by this teacher on Marguerite that day was validated by Charlotte's

comments about her participation: "I don't talk much in class but, this class is easier to

talk in, so I do talk. I've been talking a little bit more". To convince me further of her

sincerity, she eagerly stated "I don't miss many classes at all". Jacques who found "the

learning of the language itself very rewarding" described the exact opposite situation in

his classroom. He explained that whole class activities are made of "long periods of

silence and things are moving very slowly", which made it "easier to just stop being so

engaged and just sit back".

In the fifth scenario, several participants mentioned the fact that they did not

want to monopolize the floor or in Jacques' words: "I don't wanna be in the habit of

answering all the time". Claire did not want to be "the same person who's volunteering

and raising my hand every three seconds". She mentioned other classes she sat in where:

There's always somebody who answers all the time and raises their hand

immediately. I get really frustrated too, because there's sometimes where I want to

think about the answer or I need a couple seconds. And then, there's somebody

who raises their hand immediately, it's just kind of like, okay, great. [Laugh]

Elaine believed in getting other students a chance to answer: "I feel if I had already

answered a question or two that I should leave it to other people to answer it... So, if I

know the response, I'm just waiting to see if someone else will respond".

200

These considerations demonstrate well the notion that students need time to think

and process information given by the teacher or classmates. On several occasions,

participants mentioned the importance of having enough time to think through for

themselves in order to come up with an answer. Pierre reported instances when "she (the

teacher) gives everybody five minutes to answer but someone else already answered it

and then, I didn't get it fast enough in my head so I can't really participate in that

respect". As for Elaine, once her teacher asked a question, she used the periods of silence

to think and come up with an answer:

A lot of the times, there's not somebody eager to answer right away or there's not

somebody quick to jump on the question. So that gives people time to think over

the question in their head. That's normally what I'm doing after she (the teacher)

poses a question unless I can answer quickly. Some of the time I can, some of the

time I can't. So, while I take advantage of that silence and try and think of

something and then raise my hand if I had thought of something. Or else wait

until someone else does. A lot of the time, if someone else brings up an idea, then

I can work off their idea.

These comments demonstrate that students go through stages of thinking before they are

able to produce an answer. Many participants appreciated when their teachers allowed for

a determined period of time of reflection in order for them to prepare an answer without

being interrupted and bothered by other students. Conversely, some participants

previously explained how at times, they were waiting for their classmates' input to trigger

their thinking which, in turn, helped to compose an answer. These rather conflicting

201

remarks demonstrate the complexity of what students experience while positioning

themselves to participate in whole class activities.

The sixth and last scenario points to the teacher's approach and teaching style as

responsible for participants' engagement. The arguments and explanations presented in

the description of the five previous scenarios mostly addressed participants' individual

characteristics. However, it happens that the teacher also plays a key role in the matter of

students' participation and non-participation. Indeed, participants were very receptive to

many aspects of the instruction including the classroom atmosphere, interactions among

classmates, and interactions with the teacher. In addition, as previously discussed,

students were clearly affected by their level of language comprehension, which is, to

some degree, linked to the instruction and, therefore, to the teacher. Taken together, these

various considerations emphasize the teacher's role. Thus, one can question what did

teachers do or not do in order to facilitate students' language comprehension and to

encourage and elicit their participation.

Throughout the group discussions, participants expressed sound and compelling

views about their teachers while describing their teaching style and demeanors during

whole class discussions. The majority of them spoke of their teachers using mostly

constructive and positive comments, although some included disapproving aspects of

their behaviors. Conversely, Sybille and Cecile depicted a rather critical picture of the

instruction conducted by their teachers. Sybille was very clear when she stated "I like my

teacher as a person, as a teacher I think he's not so good". She believed that in teaching

"all depends on how the teacher wants to do it" meaning that "a lot of it really depends on

the teacher's enthusiasm and the teacher's personal attitude towards the class". Sybille's

202

teacher was "very concerned with getting things done and what needed to be done". She

described, "he's just like I'm gonna lecture you, put up this overhead, you can discuss it

for a few minutes. And then we're gonna move on". Sybille added that she did not feel

connected to her teacher and admitted: "I just don't like the class. It's no fun". Amelie, a

student in the same class, recognized that there was an underlying problem with students'

behaviors during whole class discussions but, she thought that:

It has to do with the classroom as a whole. Because there have been times where

I've noticed he (the teacher) will have us all separated (working in pairs) and it

gets really loud in the class. And then, once he has us come back as one class to

discuss together, nobody talks.

Amelie did not have an explanation as to why there was such a difference in dynamics in

the classroom between these two settings. However, she affirmed that "you can't blame it

on the teacher". Cecile was also affected by her teacher's attitude. Having answered a

question wrong in the past, she felt "like the answer was ignored". Since then, she has

developed "this fear that what ever I say might be ignored so I don't respond in class". In

that instance, the issue for Cecile was not being wrong but, rather, not being corrected by

her teacher. She was expecting feedback such as "well, that's not correct but, how can we

make it correct" and instead, the reaction was "you know, well...". Since that incident,

she became "afraid to speak". In addition, during the discussion of the readings she often

had "no clue" about what he had said. She always came to class having read the text;

however her ability to comprehend was a frequent problem, which the teacher did not

address well in her opinion:

203

He just poses a question to the class and we all sit there in silence, in silence...

I just feel my teacher is very unhelpful and I don't even know how to address:

"Can you go back to this question". But, I just don't. I don't feel it's very

welcome or that he would be helpful. Actually, I don't think that I would be able

to explain my confusion in French.

Cecile wished that the teacher would ask for specifics such as "did you understand

everything? Do you have any questions on it? Do you want us to look it over in class?

You know, was it difficult"? Regarding text comprehension, Marguerite emphasized that

even though students were supposed to come to class having read and prepared the text

on their own, her teacher should dedicate time to address the challenges emerging from

the language comprehension. Explicitly, she had a few suggestions of her own:

We had a time where she (the teacher) said, are there any parts of this that you

really don't understand? It would be really nice to be able to go and say, "Well

there are these three sentences, which I am completely lost about. It would be nice

to do that because she really just jumps right in and says, okay so - what

happened? Some of us are deer in headlights with that. I understand it was about

a boy who played hockey, and his mother did something, and -1 can't fully

comprehend the text yet. I can get the gist of what's going on, but I can't get the

exact story. So it would be nice to be able to ask her about certain parts, or to

read part of it in class. Like, readjust the basic, not read the whole thing, because

it was long. But, get the basic story line going. That would help.

Marguerite's point was to make sure that students understand the language prior to

actually discussing the content of the text. Claire and Elaine, also facing challenging

readings in fourth semester class, suggested going through the text "making sure that we

all have the basic idea of it at least". In addition, Elaine proposed:

If we went through each paragraph and just explained what was going on, rather

than asking comprehension questions; just giving the outline of exactly what they

were talking about, going through that first. So we know this paragraph is about

this, this paragraph is about this. Just - understanding what's going on and then

once we understand the article move on to comprehension and opinion questions.

Further commenting on discussions about readings, Claire and Napoleon found helpful

the way their teachers managed the broad questions from the textbook used to evaluate

students' comprehension. She addressed the difficulty of the general question by

presenting students with sub-questions and using more familiar wording in an attempt to

minimize the difficulties and students' frustration. Claire explained how this approach

worked really well because it corresponded to what she liked to do: "break it apart, down

into smaller pieces and then I can eventually piece it all together to understand it as the

whole. I think that works really well especially with the language as a whole". Napoleon

pointed out that this approach "is good. It's used a lot in other classes, English for

instance. Sometimes, people don't know how to interpret what they're reading". Taken

together, these comments and explanations demonstrate how critical the teacher's role is

in helping students comprehend the materials. Indeed, for students' participation to be

beneficial and fruitful to themselves and their peers, they need to understand the texts

they are reading, their teachers' guidance, and their peers' opinions. This particular

matter will be revisited in the section below addressing the language of instruction.

205

Another important point to report about teachers is how participants perceived

their teachers as individuals as well as instructors. Several participants explained their

views based on their prior experiences as French learners. Charlotte, Amelie, Napoleon,

Claire, and Cecile explained how their former teachers were "really good at connecting

with students" and were inclined to incorporate their own experiences into their teaching.

These students viewed this teaching approach as very positive and helpful in terms of

getting them interested and motivated. Now, referring to their current French teacher,

Claire and Napoleon explained:

Claire: I think she's a good teacher. I learned a lot this semester. But I feel that she's kind of, well, it is a lecture. She's just standing there and she's just talking to us. She's like we're gonna do this, and this, and we're all gonna be great woo who. She doesn't really go outside of that. We're taking everything straight from the book because that's what we're working on. Napoleon: She does her job. Claire: Yeah, she does her job and I don't have any complaints about her teaching style because I think she does like a different various types of things to teach us, like vocabulary and grammar and stuff. But it's just like she's the teacher, we're the students and .. .Do you get what I'm saying? Napoleon: I know what you're saying. It's very impersonal. Claire: Yeah.

Ladislas reacted to these comments saying that at the beginning of the semester, her

teacher was the same way with book and lecture but:

Now that she realized that we're all crazy, she opens up a lot. I don't know if it's

just the connection that the chemistry in the room has, but we have a great class.

We have fun with it and we're talking French ... It's fun.

This notion of feeling connected to the teacher is critical in that it affects not only the

teacher-student relationship but also student-to-student interactions and ultimately the

classroom atmosphere all together. For instance, Charlotte explained how she enjoyed

whole class discussion as much as pair work because "it's very open and free, because of

206

the teacher. She's really open to what we have to say. It's not restricted. She doesn't

really make you raise your hand. You're not singled out". Charlotte also pointed out how

this situation was different at the beginning of the semester when classmates were not as

comfortable with each other. It has evolved because of the teacher and by now "we're all

friends, by now we're a lot closer than we were in the beginning". A similar

transformation occurred in the other two classrooms but not to the same extent. For

instance, Jacques mentioned how by mid-semester, he felt more comfortable than at the

beginning of the semester and as a result participated more.

The classroom atmosphere and interactions among the different parties in 104

were different under the leadership of this particular teacher. Indeed, Marguerite,

Charlotte, Ladislas, and Mary portrayed their teacher as entertaining, funny, friendly,

lively, and enthusiastic. She "jokes, makes the class engaging, makes more of a personal

connection, can speak French very well, seems to know what she's doing, and she

doesn't ignore us". This very representative and expressive quote illustrates the

importance given to the teacher's role through her personal characteristics, demeanor,

and teaching approach. These participants recognized her method of inviting students to

participate during whole class activities as effective. That is, she gave students the choice

to be a 'volontaire' or a 'victime', which is viewed by Marguerite as:

Really helpful because if someone wants to answer then it's put right out there.

She (the teacher) has a really good way of making sure we all have to answer

sometimes, but she lets those of us who want to really participate. Because

there are some people who are naturally shy, and who don't always want to

answer, but they're comfortable with answering a few times, and some of us want

to answer a bunch of times. So, it's nice that she doesn't try to make us all fit into

one standard.

Of particular interest for the present discussion is Jacques's explanation of his

behavior during whole class discussions. Describing himself as shy, he appreciated the

fact that his teacher usually did not call on students but rather encouraged their

participation to be on a voluntary basis, which made it "easy for people who don't want

to participate, not to participate" and as a result, did not make "the students dread the

class or feel uncomfortable". However, this method came with an important downfall,

long periods of silence where the teacher was "standing up there and asking questions

and then getting all those stares". In these instances, Jacques was "really annoyed

because that just gets very boring". As a result, he tried "to participate more" as he "was

sick of the long silences and felt bad because he (the teacher) was trying to get people

involved in speaking and it wasn't happening all the time. It was just kind of awkward".

Jacques further recognized that he was "relating to him (the teacher) on a better level or

at least on a certain level that got (him) to participate more". He explained how he

wanted to break the long silence and how with practice it became easier because "once

you've done it a couple times, you know nothing bad is going to happen and it just takes

some getting used to speaking in front of other people in general". Thus, because of these

particular circumstances, Jacques participated more as his motivation increased.

In summary, various explanations were offered in an attempt to understand

students' behaviors during whole class discussions. That is, what makes them participate

or, rather, why do they remain silent? Emerging from descriptive accounts and

participants' testimonies, the findings provided sound and valuable observations and

208

justification for students' behaviors as well as interpretations of those behaviors.

Specifically, these findings reveal various factors that are either linked to students'

personal characteristics or to the teachers and provide information explaining why

participants behaved and reacted as they did during these activities. These factors have

been reported in the form of scenarios that described specific situations as experienced by

participants. For example, there were times when participants genuinely did not

understand the materials or understood but, either did not know the answer to the

questions or were not able to formulate their answers. In these instances, either their level

of language proficiency was too low and the content discussed had become too

challenging and they needed more time to translate to make sense of what had been said,

or students just did not come to class prepared. In many circumstances, participants were

self-conscious and very concerned with their teachers' and peers' judgments. Indeed,

how they felt in the classroom, how they connected and interacted with their teachers and

peers, and how they perceived themselves in the overall classroom atmosphere were most

influential in determining students' behaviors during whole class discussions.

In conclusion, a few key issues emerged from the present discussion, as the

source for most behaviors and reactions by students: the ongoing challenge of language

comprehension during whole class discussions, the overall approach and demeanor of the

teachers, and students' personalities.

Participants Preferred Activities

Among the various characteristics setting FL classes apart from other classes is

the opportunity for teachers to propose endless types of activities based on their own

personality and creativity, their students' level of proficiency, and the time available in

209

class. During my multiple visits in the three classrooms I was exposed to a large array of

activities, which generated different types of reactions by students and by teachers. In this

section, I purposefully bring to light one specific activity from each classroom, which I

perceived as a good illustration of student engagement and motivation during instruction.

My choice was based on what I had observed in class, my interpretations, and

participants' reflections on the activities that motivates them the most during instruction.

French 104

It was a challenge to pick only one activity that illustrated the best student

engagement and motivated behaviors. Indeed, students in this class showed signs of

engagement and motivation during numerous activities, namely, creating a story or a

dialogue to act out in front of classmates, circulating in the class and engaging in verbal

interactions with different classmates, games such as Jeopardy for review, and

participating in a fashion show. Participants themselves explained how they enjoyed

these 'interactive and creative' activities. For instance, Marie described her teacher's

behaviors in combination with her own actions and thoughts during an activity about

clothing:

She brought a bag of her random clothes and she threw them on and she was

doing, like, a runway walk. Just being goofy .. .she'd point, what's this and

we'd say it in French. I liked that. It was goofy and it was a fun activity and I

understood the material. I could participate, I shouted out whatever she was

pointing to. It felt fun. I mean we were all having a good time, the entire class.

To illustrate this participant's remark, I decided to present an example of what I call a

'mind and body' activity where students actually stand up, move around the classroom to

210

speak with different classmates. Very motivated by this type of activity, Ladislas

explained that "when I actually get up and start moving around the classroom, my brain

starts working more because I'm actively thinking". She further added "it motivates me

because it doesn't mean that I have to use the grammar all the time, which is the worst. I

hate grammar". The following passage of my field notes describes how this activity was

conducted:

- New activity for STs: T provides detailed explanations. It's a game demanding an active participation from each ST. T writes on the board an example of what and how they will question their classmates while standing and interacting with them individually. The recommendation is to interview at least 5 classmates however, the more the better. Each ST answering yes will sign the sheet. Using an example, T restates the need to use the imparfait when asking the question (the tense they are reviewing). She writes an example of a question while probing STs about the proper forms of this verb in the imparfait.

- Distribution of a sheet with a table filled with verbs in the infinitive form (24 boxes to fill out).

- Immediately, STs stand up and look for a classmate to interact with. They play the game and say 'bonjour' before asking their question. STs are enthusiast, seem relaxed; many are loud, some laughter; they give me the impression to have fun.

- One ST asks T; another one shows signs of hesitation, alone, waiting for a ST to be available. Some STs are more proactive than others; I see many interactions; no English heard;

- One ST comes to me with a question; I answer and sign my box. - Finally, T stops everyone, claps in her hands because STs don't react right away

as they continue the game. T moves her arms in the air for STs to stop and go back to their seats.

- Brief comments by T: she promises candies for the next class; she praises everyone and is extremely pleased with how the activity turned out. To finish, she asks for STs who had the most marked boxes. The reserved and quiet ST had collected the most signatures and showed signs of enjoying being in this position.

This particular account illustrates what often took place in this classroom: the interactions

between teacher and students as well as among students. Additionally, students'

motivation in this activity is demonstrated via their actions, behaviors, and post-activity

comments.

211

French 203

From participants' behaviors and comments during and after this class, it was

difficult to pinpoint which activity was their favorite. I chose an activity that took place

during two class periods: singing a classic French song from the 70s. Both times, the

teacher chose to end the class period singing with his students. On Monday, with five

minutes left in the period, he turned to students asking them why they were tired and sad

and then introduced an 'interesting activity' (his own words) explaining that "we are

going to sing for the last 5 minutes of the period and we will be continuing next

Wednesday":

- T places the lyrics of the song on the overhead saying that he will send them by e-mail: Champs Ely sees by Joe Dassin. - Immediately, T reads the first two lines, asks questions about the tenses. (He apologizes for the poor conditions with the overhead today, too small and hard to focus). - Then, without transition, he starts singing with a soft voice and immediately invites STs to sing with him (he also apologizes for his voice because he has a sore throat today). Important to note, there is no music to accompany. - T starts first 2 lines, STs timidly repeat and progressively their voices gain strength and volume; by the middle of the song, I had the impression that everyone was singing. - Time is up; T abruptly interrupts and tells STs that they will start with the song as warm-up on Wed.

On Wednesday, the teacher reserved more time at the end of the period to resume singing

this same song:

- Before singing, T directs STs to read the lyrics, recognize the different tenses used, and identify them (passe compose or imparfait or autre chose). Two STs move from the back of the classroom to the front to be able to read the text on the screen. [...] - Once the identification of tense of the first verse is completed, T stops and decides to sing. T turns the CD player on saying:

212

- "Lundi, j'etais malade and ma voix etait mauvaise, je m'excuse. Aujourd'hui, j 'ai le CD. Une collegue m'a prete le CD et je suis tres content.Voila, ecoutez!"107

- During the listening, STs are concentrated, read from the screen; several move their head with the music; I see lips moving; others have perplexed and serious faces. Once finished, T asks: - "Vous avez aime? Cela vous plait? Maintenant, nous allons chanter. C'est tres bien de chanter pour la prononciation. C'est une bonne facon d'apprendre une langue. J'aime beaucoup les chansons. On ne va pas danser!"108

The last comment provokes laughter from most STs: this is a sign that they listen and understand. - T starts the song again. Good participation in particular during the refrain (easier and simpler). Some STs are more involved than others [from just moving the lips to real full singing]. T leads with one hand like a maestro. Time is up for today: - 'Vous avez des questions? Pour demain, vous devez lire le texte. Venez preparer. Au revoir'109.

As this activity unfolded, I saw students react skeptically. Eventually, though, most of

them warmed up to the idea of singing and progressively became more involved and

ultimately showed signs of active participation and enjoyment. For example, Amelie

highlighted that "singing was exciting because it was different" and changed from the

textbook, which had a tendency to be dull and uninspiring. She explained that by bringing

the music in, the teacher "actually asked us to sing along. So, we got new vocabulary

from there, we worked on our pronunciation, reading". She also regretted that this type of

activity was an exception in this classroom in comparison with her high school French

class where "we would watch a movie and then .. .talk about different vocabulary that

you wouldn't see in a textbook. That was always much more interesting." Amelie really

wished to see more cultural and interactive activities happening in class this semester.

"On Monday, I was sick and as a result, my voice was bad, I apologize. Today, I have the CD. A colleague lent me the CD and I am very happy. Here, listen! 108 "Did you like the song? Now, we are going to sing. It's very good to sing for pronunciation purposes. It's a good way to learn a language. I love songs. We are not going to dance". 109 "Do you have questions? For tomorrow, you need to read the text. Come prepared. See you".

213

French 204

Participants in French 204 unanimously mentioned the note card game as their

preference. It was intended for students to put into practice and review vocabulary words

and their definitions. Three times during the semester, I had the chance to observe this

particular and long activity (about 20 minutes) I call the 'definitions game'. My notes

depict a detailed representation of how this activity unfolded while I was there:

- T distributes to each ST one index card with a written word from the vocabulary of the chapter to review. STs are to give the definition of their word (that they keep hidden from the other STs) for the rest of the class to guess. STs know what they need to do; they had the activity before and T does not explain again. - T gives a minute or two for STs to think about their definition. Several STs check a page or two in their books. - T starts by giving her own definition. 3 STs offer a word but none is correct. T restates her definition several times using words previously learned in class; STs are concentrated and propose words very close in meaning. They become very involved and perplexed eager to find the correct word. They ask specific questions, several smile and wonder. - Finally, a ST (Elaine) finds the word 'douleur' [pain]. - T: 'Bien! Oui! A toi!!!' [Good! Yes! Your turn!!!]

Without exception, STs look very concentrated and engaged during this activity. They also show signs of interest and enjoyment as they participate and listen to the definitions given by their peers.

They focus on the ST speaking at the time. On and off, T assists the ST who gives the definition by asking different questions to guide the other STs. STs, themselves, ask questions to obtain clues about the word (a noun, verb...); they look through the book for assistance. - At one point, STs are stuck; T approaches ST with the card to check the word and redirects STs about the definition. Many try but no success; STs become very perplexed, they laugh and wonder about this word. They don't give up; au contraire, it has become a bigger challenge. Finally, 'intimide', Oui!!! [intimidated, yes] Everyone laughs! - During this activity, T mediates, rephrases, and guides. She asks for synonyms, probes for additional clarifications from ST with the card; as a result, often a short exchange takes place between 2/3/4 STs searching for the correct word. T praises STs for their definition and for finding the words corresponding to definitions.

214

- There is a good flow in STs participation: it creates a chain of interactions between STs. A couple of time, the flow is interrupted but it starts again and continues until everyone has participated. - Several answers generate laughs, smiles and even misunderstanding: once, two words are very close in spelling and pronunciation. Then, T takes the opportunity to explain the differences in form and meaning always using French, no English allowed. T does not pressure to move fast during this activity; she gives each ST the same attention and allows time to think and speak.

On that day, I made the following comments in my field log: STs are patient, don't show signs of impatience but rather keep a good attitude and seem to understand. They certainly must relate to this type of situation: having difficulties to express what you really want to say. I don't sense any pressure, impatience, or mocking from the group. STs remain focused and interested all the way to the last word. I can tell that they enjoyed this activity from the beginning to the end as I heard much laughter.

During the interviews, participants in this class had positive words about this activity. For

instance, Napoleon reported that this note card activity was the only one to which he

"really pays attention". He also shared that "to be honest with you, I really don't find

many of the activities very motivating". As part of this activity, he liked the idea of using

circumlocution to provide a word definition. Claire viewed this 'flash card' activity as a

very good type of review:

I think that helps us all especially if we get a word we don't know we have to go

and we have to think about how we're going to define this. And then to all of us

who are listening, we'll have to listen to a definition that's obviously not

textbook. It's coming from somebody and I think that really helps us too.

Pierre liked this activity because it allowed students "to guess the word even if sometimes

the other person gets it". However, he also pointed out a down side: when another

vocabulary word is being introduced and he has not "processed the first word yet". As a

result, he would fell behind and "kind lose track of where we (the class as group) are".

215

Fortunately, it did not happen often. Nonetheless, this activity was selected by

participants to be their favorite one.

Taken together these aforementioned activities, based on my observations and

participants' comments, were participants' preferences because of the interest, the

enthusiasm, the engagement, and the motivation they aroused in students. Regardless of

the activity, the teacher, or students' level of proficiency, several characteristics of the

activities emerged as key factors to engage and to motivate students. For instance,

students seemed very receptive to their teacher's behaviors and actions such as: a)

showing enthusiasm, interest, and enjoyment in teaching as well as in their students' well

being; b) allowing for initiative, creativity, and ample input from students; c) offering

choices through a flexible framework of the activity; and d) proposing various types of

material that students can relate to, have fun with, and understand fairly easily. Further

discussion on this topic will resume in a section below.

Language of Instruction and Participation

It has been mentioned throughout the present findings that participants'

comprehension during instruction plays a critical role in their engagement and

motivation. This conclusion arises from students' explanations as well as from my

observations. Students' and teachers' attitudes towards speaking only French in class also

represent an important factor to consider when understanding students' motivation. In

fact, the choice of language of instruction for teachers and language of participation for

students initially emerged from my conversations with each participant. In varying

degrees, they all cited the lack of understanding as a crucial factor that inhibited their

participation in an activity and thwarted their motivation for the remainder of the activity

216

and eventually led them to totally disengage for the rest of the class period. Most

participants established a connection between their ability to understand and the rules put

in place by teachers to speak only French or to be allowed to use English strategically.

They expressed various opinions and perspectives based on their past and present

experiences as French learners.

At the outset of this discussion, it is necessary to address the extent of students'

language comprehension in terms of their interest, engagement, and motivation. Without

exception, participants emphasized the importance of understanding their teachers and

classmates in combination with understanding the material introduced during instruction.

For instance, Marguerite reported that the previous day, during the listening activity, she

was completely unsure about something and believed that she was the only one. But, "it

turned out that half of the class didn't know what was going on either". It happened that I

was observing on that day and I saw students becoming more and more confused as they

progressed through the exercise. Eventually, the teacher became aware of her students'

struggles and made the decision to re-explain and start again from the very beginning.

This second explanation was very welcomed by students who smiled and even laughed at

the complete state of confusion they had just experienced. Marie expanded on her

"downfall, the listening thing and being talked to in French". She recalled her high school

French teachers who mainly focused on reading and writing, "not speaking French in

class, really". And this semester, "all my professor does, is only speaking French. There

is no speaking English; it's completely different from my high school experience. So I

really don't have much experience with speaking French, and understanding it that well".

Consequently, Marie never really filled in this gap but rather, built on her frustration

217

causing her to lose motivation "because it seems like everyone else in the class

understands it fine and ... it's like I can understand it if I hear it a couple of times. But, I

don't get that opportunity really". Asked about how she was doing at this point in the

semester, she did not report any progress in her ability to understand. When challenged

by her teacher or the activity, she chose to "kind of zone out and not really pay attention".

Cecile, without hesitation, indicated that "understanding something is motivating to me

[laugh]. It makes me keep going. What motivates me the least is not understanding a lot

of the things that we are learning or trying to learn. And it's discouraging". In addition,

her lack of confidence often increased her problems understanding the teacher and what

had been asked. In challenging situations, Cecile's level of interest and motivation would

sink "really, really low" as she wished that the teacher "could speak a little English".

Pierre also made the connection between his level of language comprehension and level

of motivation and engagement: "when I know it pretty well I guess I'm more motivated

to participate more. But when I don't know it, it's hard to be motivated to participate". At

times, his lack of understanding generated frustration, which on occasion turned into

more frustration. Or, in Pierre's words, "if it's not making sense and whatever method is

being taught at the moment then, I guess it's like: how am I going to understand

anything? And I kind of just shut off. As for Claire, recalling her very poor experience

from the previous French semester, she blamed her lack of understanding as well as her

way of dealing with it. She realized that, in addition to being more concentrated, she

needed to change her approach when challenged with language comprehension issues:

If I don't understand it, I have to pick everything apart and if I stick with it long

enough, I'll eventually... to the point where I understand it, then I'm interested in

218

it again. And then I'll feel a lot better because I actually worked to regain

understanding in it.

Ladislas experienced situations where she had difficulties translating what her teacher

was saying. She did not "catch everything that she (the teacher) is asking. I may know the

answer and I may know how to say it back, but I don't know what she is asking to begin

with. So, that can be a problem". She later added "I'm more engaged in class when I can

comprehend what's happening". Napoleon claimed the importance of his teacher's

method of explanation because it affected his level of understanding:

If she's teaching in the style where she's just skipping over things, I do have a

tendency to kind of just tune it out. Or if like something comes up that I know, I'll

be like, "Oh, I know this." If it's not explained thoroughly, I sometimes feel

frustrated or feel stupid for asking a question. Because I've been there too where

everybody else in the room understood it but me. [Laugh.]

Taken together, these comments demonstrate how critical it is for students to comprehend

what takes place in class in order for them to be engaged and motivated as well as to

remain engaged and motivated. From students' personal characteristics and perceptions

in class to teachers' style and behaviors, several factors are linked, to varying degrees, to

the process of understanding. In addition, for several participants, their likes and dislikes

of the different activities (e.g., pair and small group activities, teacher-centered activities,

whole class discussion) were related to their understanding.

At this point in the discussion, I will revisit the subject of pair activities. Several

participants indicated that one benefit of working with a partner was having the chance to

speak in English when faced with language comprehension challenges. As previously

219

explained, Marie struggled with general oral communication. As a result, she liked

working with a partner because it allowed "clarifying directions in English". She would

confirm what she understood and then move on to the exercise: "you know, it's that

simple, just a few exchanges of English words and I got it". Overall, Marie believed in

the need of using English "for clarifications on an exercise. I don't see why you can't say

it in French and then be, 'Okay, so this is what you guys are doing, you understand?'

'Okay, great' in English". Instead, when struggling with language comprehension, Mary

gave up thinking "well I'm just going to get explained to again in French .. .1 feel stupid

and obviously, she (the teacher) is not going to say it in English.. ..I guess that's her

teaching style". Cecile also believed that a few words of English were beneficial, which

explained her preference for pair and small group activities. She would ask her partner

for assistance "What does this word means? And they would say in English, 'Oh, that

means, I think .. .and that's beneficial to me. But we're only supposed to speak in French.

We're breaking the rule [Laugh]". She specifically liked warm-up activities because "in

the four minutes that we have to speak freely in French I have fun with my partner,

speaking in my 'Franglan'". But at the same time, "if our teacher walks past, I'll stop

talking because I don't want him to hear me saying anything in English".

Participants' views on the language of instruction include mixed feelings between

a complete immersion experience and having the option of using English when judged

necessary by the student. These comments together form a continuum whose main points

can be summarized by Napoleon:

It's kind of a double edged sword. Where on one hand if you're really struggling

and you have no idea of how to get your point across or ask a question that you

need to have answered in order to understand what's going on, then you have to

say it in English, I think you should be able to. However on the other hand, when

you're in a French speaking country, they don't speak English .. .1 mean English

isn't gonna get you anywhere. So you're gonna have to work around it. But

sometimes, I feel it's just necessary (to speak in English) to prevent aggravation.

Claire described the situation in her class as:

A really good balance to speak English and French because it's kind of an

unwritten law that if we have to say something in class, we have to speak in

French. And 95% of the time we're all speaking in French. But, if we're really

honestly genuinely confused about something, she (the teacher) will let us speak

in English. And then she'll explain it in English if we're really confused. But

then, we'll work on it in French.

Claire and Elaine considered this approach really helpful, in particular to know that you

have access to English when facing a tough challenge. Elaine confirmed that this option

was not been abused by students nor did she feel pressure by her teacher if she were to

speak in English. Marguerite and Charlotte described similar situations in their class. At

the beginning of the semester, students were told to speak French and to use

circumlocution as often as possible in order to express themselves when searching for

French words or giving explanations in French. For the most part, students complied with

this rule as Charlotte explained:

We try our hardest to put the words and the sentences in French. And if we don't

know it, then of course she (the teacher) will help us. But it's not like we speak in

English whenever we can. Because we know we're supposed to speak in French.

221

It meant a lot for Marguerite to be able to revert to English because "there isn't this giant

pressure that you're going to say it in the wrong tense and completely screw up". She

believed that "the option to revert to English if we're extremely confused is not a

hindrance to my desire to speak French" but rather, "it's nice ... so we can get the real

message across in French. We're not just translating word for word". Charlotte specified

that "most of the time she (the teacher) will remind us like try, 'en francais'110. She'll say

it". Conversely, Cecile stated that "we are not allowed to speak any English in class

whatsoever". On several occasions, I saw Teacher 2 reacting strongly when he

heard students speaking English during pair work. Once, he convincingly stated: "En

francais s'il vous plait? L'anglais est banni. Si vous avez commence a parler en anglais,

c'est que vous avez fini"111. Sybille who was nonchalant simply stated "you just kind of

get used to it". That is, speaking only in French with no possibility of using English.

Cecile further commented on her experience in these conditions:

It would be really nice to be able to speak a little bit of English. Because then, I

feel like I would be able to ask questions, ask to clarify things or learn something

that has been on my mind that I haven't been able to find out about or just to I

don't know, clarify.

As she started to become passionate discussing this issue, Cecile imagined what would

happen if she could use English: "everything. Whatever you guys use it for, I would like

to be able to use it for as well. But I don't have that opportunity". If suddenly, rules were

to change in her class so she could speak a little of English with her teacher, she declared:

"that would motivate me more in class. I would love to be able to just clarify or just get a

110 In French. 111 In French please! English is banned. If you started speaking in English that means that you have finished (the exercise).

little help with translation or, whatever". In Claire's opinion, there was one more

situation when students should be allowed to use English: during the comprehension and

discussion of texts about topics difficult to grasp even in English. In these instances, she

explained that "sometimes, it can seem a little awkward .. .when somebody's trying to

explain something that they don't understand. And then, they have to in French". As a

result, "the teacher may not understand what they (students) are trying to explain". Thus,

it is justified in Claire's opinion that students "could try to say it in English... If there's

something that a student is really completely stuck on and does not understand. I think

they should be able to explain what they're not understanding in English". Thus, "if we

used a little bit of English just to get us into it.... we can get the basic idea if we're not

getting it and then we can go to French". Claire believed:

Once everyone just has a basic idea, the whole mental block that we put up for

ourselves is really gone. Because I think that's the biggest problem most of the

time, is just a block that everyone has in their head. And they either try to work

around it or they're like, "This is hard. And it's always gonna be hard."

Ultimately, the option for the students as well as for the teacher to speak a little English

would reduce students' chances to develop "a whole mental block" and consequently,

they would engage in the discussion and most likely remain engaged.

Finally, a few participants linked the language of instruction to learning. For

instance, Marie rationalized her need to rely on English: "I guess to me I just learn better

when I'm confronted with the word and I know what it means, that's how I learn".

Conversely, Amelie made the connection between only speaking French and learning.

Experiencing a no English policy this semester, she claimed that:

223

It's so much better knowing that you're not supposed to speak English. That way

you don't have something to fall back on. It forces you to think in French and

speak French and try to communicate in a way to get your point across. In my

high school we spoke English. All the teachers rarely spoke in French. So it was

pretty pointless now looking at it.

This notion will be addressed in the section on qualitative aspects of learning.

In conclusion, within the three researched classrooms, there were two different

types of settings regarding the language of instruction and participation. One teacher was

strict and adamant about having French as the only language used in his classroom,

allowing for very rare occasions to speak a little English when judged (by him)

absolutely necessary (e.g., information about a coming test or homework changes in the

syllabus). In the other settings, both teachers strongly recommended and implemented

French as the language of instruction and participation. However, they tolerated some use

of English by students when genuinely placed in challenging situations. The majority of

participants viewed the option of using some English as beneficial in terms of their

understanding and ultimately in terms of their engagement and motivation.

To conclude this second section, a review of the major findings must be made. I

addressed research questions one and two together in order to describe and interpret side-

by-side what teachers said and did to engage and motivate their students and what

students reported as engaging and motivating during instruction. How participants

perceived their teachers' approaches and styles had a critical impact on their own

behaviors in class. Thus, regardless of the types of instructional activity, they reported

being very receptive and sensitive to their teachers' behaviors, attitudes, and actions.

224

Especially, participants were affected by: 1) how teachers connected and interacted with

students and provided encouragements, guidance, as well as appropriate feedback, 2) how

teachers introduced and managed activities, remained involved during these activities,

and oversaw students' progress, and 3) how teachers made students feel at ease. In

addition, teachers' behaviors and actions shaped the classroom atmosphere which, in

turn, facilitated or thwarted students' engagement and participation in class and is

responsible for students to have fun during instruction. Taken together, these findings

point to the teacher as the key element affecting students' levels of interest, enthusiasm,

engagement, and motivation.

Student Learning

The third section of the findings addresses the issue of learning through the

following question:

In this research context, how does foreign language teaching affect students'

quantitative and qualitative learning outcomes?

This question is most often addressed from a quantitative point of view as traditional

assessments such as grades and/or standardized tests. A unique aspect of the present

study is that it addresses the qualitative aspect of learning as reported by students

themselves in addition to their quantitative learning outcomes determined by teachers.

During individual interviews participants were asked to assess and describe their learning

as they experienced it during the semester. This section introduces both aspects of the

participants' learning by: a) providing and examining the semester grades including the

grades of the different types of assessment that compose the semester grade, b) giving a

detailed description of participants' learning experiences including their interpretation

and comments about their own learning, and c) placing both types of learning evaluation

side-by-side in order to establish a descriptive profile of participants as French learners.

Quantitative Aspect of Participants Learning Outcomes

As explained in Chapter 3, grades were collected via e-mail once the semester

was finished. In an attempt to provide an accurate and educated representation of

participants' learning, I asked them for a complete report of their semester grades as it

was explained in their class syllabus. Due to the differences in language proficiency

between the three classes, semester grades were broken down slightly differently in each

class. Learning a language involves working on the four skills (i. e., reading, speaking,

listening, and writing), each of which is of equal importance in successfully learning the

language. Consequently, language learning on the whole should assess these four skills.

In the case of the current study, the three teachers implemented the syllabus given by

their supervisor who decided on the type and choice of assessment of the four areas of

language learning.

Having a small number of participants in this study does not allow for a

presentation of traditional statistical results (e.g., average, mean, and variance). However,

it allows for a full disclosure of the complete semester assessment of each student

participant as displayed in the following figures: a) Figures 11,13, and 15 show the

distribution of the semester grade for each French class and b) Figures 12,14, and 16

display the participants' earned grades for the semester in the form of individual graphs.

Class 104

Final Exam

11 '"im!^^^^^^^*"w^

Oral Exams Written

10% Tests

15%

Participation

Attendance

4 0 %

Figure 11. Distribution of French 104 grade (2nd semester).

C h a r l o t t e

P a r t & A t t e n d *

H o m e w o r k O r a l E x a m s W r i t t e n E x a m s

F i n a l E x a m S E M E S T E R

I — - a d i s l - a s

1 0 0

9 5

S O

8 5

S O

7 5

T-O

6 5

S O F ^ a r t S .

A t t e n d * H o m e w o r k O r a l E z x a m s W r i t t e n T e s t s F i n a l l E E x a m S E f t / I E S I fc"^

l \ / l «a r-gj u e r i * e

i o o O S

s o

s s

s o

7 5

v o

e s

R a r t " 5 . A t t e n c d * H o m e w o r R O r a l E x a m s W r i t t e n T e s t s F i n a l E x s

I N / l a r i e

1 0 0

9 5

9 0

8 5

eo 7-S

7 0

6 5

6 0 P a r t St

A t t e n d * r - l o m e w o r k O r a l E x a m s W r i t t e n T e s t s F i n a l E x a m S E M E S T E R

Figure 12. 104 Participants' individual grades.

Class 203

227

Fina l E x a m 1 5 %

R e d a c t i o n s 1 5 %

Homework " " 1 0 % O r a l E x a m s

1 5 %

Part i ci p a t i o n A t t e n d a n c e

3 0 %

Written Tes t s 1 5 %

Figure 13. Distribution of French 203 grade (3rd semester).

J a c q u e s

T O O -r

9 5

S O

8 5

a o

7 5

7 0

6 5

6 0 F * a r t S i H o m e w o r k R e d a c t i o n s O r a l W r i t t e n F i n a l E x a m S

A t t e n d * E x a m s t e s t s

C e c i l e

•i o o

9 5

QO

8 5

S O

7 5

"7-0

6 5

S O r ^ M r t S . I — l o m e w o r K R e d a c t i o n s O r a l

A t t e n d *

y ^ - n r i e l i e

-1 0 0 a s &o

8 5

S O

7 - 5

T - O

F ^ a r t S . I — l o m e w o r k R e d a c t i o n s * O r a l B < £ A t t e n d *

W r i t t e n F i r " T e s t s

-1 0 0 - , Q S -9 0 -

8 5 -

B O -

" 7 5 -

7 0 -

6 5 -

e o -

S y b i l l e

* " ^ L - r " ^ ~ ~ -

^ V / " ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ * * ' T-.

^ V X ' * * ^ " ^^^*^*~"""#^ >v y r ^

> t /

^V. .r' ^^ /̂̂

P a r t S i A t t e n d "

H o m e w o r k R e d a c t i o n s * O r a l E x a m s W r i t t e n T e s t s

F i n a l E x a m S E M E S T E R

Figure 14. 203 Participants' individual grades.

Class 204

R1 n s 1 EL x a m

R ^ H a ^ H n ™ ^^g^^^^^^^^tm^ 1 s% ^EBi n i l M o m o w o r^

,,,llll'tl'|''''Tir)aiil'lii|||||HMBBM^^M 1 ° % O r a l E x a m s

1 5 %

P a r t i c i p a t i o n A t t » n d a n e e

S ^ f e . 3 0 %

W r i t t e n

1 5 %

Figure 15. Distribution of French 204 grade (4th semester).

1 OO 9 5 9 0 8 5 8 0 7*5 7 0 6 5 6 0

F t a r t S . r H o m e w o r k F? A t t e n d *

O r a l E x a m s W r i t t e n F e r i a l E x a m SE3VIE£S" rF*E= T e s t s

C l a i r e

-i o o 9 5 9 0 -jS. 8 5 S O 7 - 5 7"0 6 5 -ISi

F * a r t & H o n A t t e n d *

r l < F % e c l a c t i o n s C 3 r a l F=>c£ W r i t t e n F i n a l E x a m SE3V!EES"rF«EE

N a p o l e o n

6 5 6 0

F » i e i - i - e

9 0 8 5 S O 7*5 7"0 6 5 l.;'.V;;

F a r t & H o m e w o r k R e d a c t i o n s O r a l E x a r A t t e n d -

W r i t t e n FHn " T e s t s

Figure 16. 204 Participants' individual grades.

I also chose to display the results by types of evaluation for the whole group of

participants as in Figure 17. My intent was to offer another visual representation of

participants' assessments allowing for additional interpretation of the quantitative aspect

of participants' learning outcomes.

W r i t t e n T e s t s G r a d e s

100 95 90 85 80 75 TO 65 eo

Olar lo t t&s ic l i s lAdarguer i t ^ / l a r ie J a c q u e ^ m e l i e Cec i l e Syb i l l e B a i n e Q a i r e N a p o l e o r H e r r e

230

Oral Exams Grades

100 -, — — — — - — s r 1

8 0 • — •

7 5 - — _ — — — —

7 0 „ . . ~ -

65 ~ •—•

60 4 , , , , , , _ _ _ _ , , , ,_ ,. , , | Charlotte LadislasMarguerite Marie Jacques Amelie Cecile Sybille Baine Claire Napoleon Pierre

Figure 17. Participants' grades by types of assessment.

Looking at these results from the traditional viewpoint of assessment and grading

in the field of education, participants did well in their respective French classes: there

were four As, six Bs, one B-, and one C. Data contained in the twelve line-graphs

(Figures 12, 14, 16) that represent their individual performances engender several

remarks. With the exception of Marie and Elaine, participants' lines-graphs show definite

variations within each of the different assessment categories which compose the semester

grade. Indeed, at one of end of the spectrum, Marie's and Elaine's line-graphs reveal a

very limited range in their different scores. That is, these lines almost form a straight line:

Marie's numbers hover around the 85% mark whereas Elaine's grades are consistently

above the 95% line, including the total semester grade of 98%. On the other end of the

spectrum are Napoleon, Claire, Sybille, Pierre, and Cecile, whose lines display major

variations in their graded components shaping several important peaks. In between these

two extremes lie Marguerite, Ladislas, and Jacques whose results show more uniform

lines with only a small peak or two. This distribution of students' total semester grades

allowed me to identify their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, most of the participants

231

were able to evaluate fairly accurately their own abilities and skills as will be reported in

the following section on qualitative learning outcomes.

Looking at these results as a whole requires additional points to be made. First,

the oral exam grades112 are highest for all of the participants but Marie. In her case, this

grade is her second best. I have also noted that for half of the participants there is a

noticeable difference between their high oral exam grades and their semester grades.

Marguerite's and Napoleon's numbers illustrate this fact the best: Marguerite earned a

98% for the oral exam and an 85.4% for the semester, and, Napoleon earned a 92.55% for

the oral exam and a 76.14% for the semester.

i n

Second, participants did not perform as well on the written tests . Having a very

similar format, the written tests and the final exam are an attempt to assess students'

written abilities like text comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and writing skills. In

short, each written chapter test is meant to evaluate students once a book chapter is

completed whereas the final exam is a comprehensive assessment of the entire term and

takes place at the end of the semester. Half of the participants improved their written

performances in the final exam while four students went down slightly and two remained

at the same level. Cecile improved the most in this area with an increase of 18%,

followed by Amelie who improved by 10%. Only two participants reached the threshold

of 90%: Elaine who earned excellent grades in each category and Jacques who performed

well in most areas with the exception of attendance and participation. The pattern formed

by the participants' written tests grades is very similar to the one formed by the final

exam grades with the exception of Cecile's. Furthermore, in the same way I earlier

112 This grade corresponds to the average of oral exams #1 and #2 which students had during the semester. 113 This includes the final exam.

232

compared the oral exam and the semester grades with the oral exam grades being the

highest, I compared written tests grades to semester grades. In that instance, the semester

grades were the highest. It is Cecile, Ladislas, Claire, Napoleon, Pierre, and to a lesser

degree Charlotte whose grades in those two assessment categories fell into this grouping.

The third point about these grades examined as a whole, (rather than through

their separate graded components) addresses how the different assessment categories

which compose the semester grade can individually affect this grade. In the case of five

students who struggled with the written tests (including the final exam), going to class

and doing the homework allowed them either to maintain a B or earn an A. The opposite

situation is present with Charlotte, Marie, and Marguerite (104 class). Indeed, their low

attendance in class sectioned by a low participation and attendance grade pulled down

their semester grade or, at the very least, did not allow them to earn a better grade. This

past remark is surprising. As much as participants in 104 claimed to like their teacher and

their class, Marie and Marguerite earned the lowest grades for attendance and

participation across all three classes researched. Also worth mentioning is that in 104 the

attendance and participation grade represents up to 40 percent of the total semester grade

which, emphasizes to the students the importance of coming to class and participating

during instruction. In addition, this grade is slightly different among the three classes

because of how often each meets. French 104 meets five times a week —one period is in

the lab and counts as a regular class—while French 203 and French 204 only meet three

times a week. The particular requirement to come every day to class might represent a

challenge for some students.

233

Qualitative Aspect of Participants Learning Outcomes

Aside from the standardized assessments introduced above, it is of utmost

importance to discover students' learning as described and interpreted by them. Thus, the

objective of this section is to present a qualitative account of participants' learning

including their perspectives and interpretations. A significant part of the interviews

focused on participants' learning experiences to address how they described and assessed

their learning from the beginning of the semester114. They shared facts and thoughts about

their learning and brought their own interpretations into the complex process of learning

using their experiences as French learners (as well as learners in general). I chose to

report these findings in the form of twelve individual narratives, one for each participant.

To be clear and consistent, I used questions from the interviews as the same guiding

thread for each narrative. First, I provided a detailed background of each participant as

French learner including: 1) their strengths and weaknesses in the language, 2) their

sources of motivation for the class, and 3) their objectives and learning goals for the

present semester. Second, I reported participants' comments about their progresses, their

views about testing and grades in general, as well as their reactions about grades received

earlier in the semester. Third, I approached the critical question about how, taken

together, these perceptions about their learning affect participants in class; rather how

they affect their levels of interest, engagement, and motivation during instruction.

Finally, I organized these narratives by class.

2/3 of the semester had passed at the time of the interview.

Class 104

Marguerite.

Marguerite was a sophomore majoring in American Sign Language (ASL)

interpreting. She enjoyed language class in general and liked speaking French believing

that she was "decently good at it". Taking a French class was not an academic

requirement but rather, rooted in her desire to speak French. However, because the ASL

interpreting program was very competitive she needed to maintain a high grade point

average. Marguerite evaluated herself as a good reader with "a decently strong accent"

and did not particularly like grammar and verb tenses. Her long term learning goals were

to be "able to talk to a friend in French about last week-end .. .to converse with someone

at lunch .. .to tell my friend what was going on ... to say that same thing in French". To

some degree, she felt that she was now better at carrying a conversation in French and

therefore she claimed that she had learned this semester. She also reported an

improvement in using different verb tenses: "It's clicking in my head now.... I feel now I

can differentiate between, the far future and the near future". Marguerite needed enough

time for the lessons and explanations "to sink in... we (the teacher and the students) are

not rushing past it... we're really focusing on". She compared her current progress in

learning grammatical structures with her learning in prior French classes where she got

"the general gist of it (the grammatical item), but didn't really know how to use it".

Marguerite has reached a higher level of proficiency and described that whereas she used

to speak "jumbled French" and barely made her point, now she can "do that correctly".

She can speak French "with a certain level using the grammar and - the future, and all

those tenses" and is able to use the French language as well outside the classroom to talk

235

or chat online with a friend. Marguerite interpreted these accomplishments as "a sign that

I'm doing better, that I can say that and say it correctly", also viewed these

accomplishments as learning progress.

However, Marguerite was dreading the first test. While taking it, she realized that

her prior knowledge was very helpful in that it allowed her to "maneuver around certain

things" and provide answers. She was excited to receive a B because she was "quite

nervous about getting something lower" thinking she "had done horribly". Consequently,

this first good grade affected Marguerite's behavior in class positively because it relieved

a lot of tension and allowed her to remain engaged and to participate in class. In her own

words, "when you see that you're succeeding in something it's its own motivator ... I

wasn't discouraged about what I was doing in class".

Furthermore, Marguerite recalled how sad and bored she was in previous classes

where she had to do only busy work imposed by the teacher: "Read the book. Do this

activity. Turn it in by the end of class". In comparison, this semester, she did "enjoy that

we (the students) do not do that in class". Marguerite wanted "to interact. That's the big

motivator, the interaction, not just sitting and listening". In fact, Marguerite believed that

speaking and interacting with someone was the way to "really learn a language". She

further explained that "there have to be both interactions ... with the teacher and with the

classmates - one or the other doesn't work". Thus, she was pleased this semester to have

the opportunity to interact with everyone in the classroom. She also mentioned the

importance of the guidance and the help given by the teacher to prepare for a test because

"what we get tested on is what we should really be knowing anyway. So when we focus

on that, we know more French, we move forward instead of falling behind". Finally,

Marguerite pointed out the difference between language learning and learning other

subjects.

In sum, Marguerite made the connection between having good grades, having fun,

and staying motivated in class as she stated: "I have to balance the amount of fun I have

with how hard I work. I took the class for fun, but if my grade point suffers, I'm not

having fun anymore". For Marguerite, the class was "fun, entertaining, and free".

Marie.

Marie believed it was important to learn "different languages other than your

native tongue". She thought "French sounded beautiful" and enjoyed the French culture.

She discovered the French language as an eighth grader and took four levels in high

school. As an incoming freshman, Marie tested into the second semester. While

describing her source of motivation for this class, she sounded as if she had given up:

When I began it was -1 suppose my motivation was [pause] I don't know to

excel, to learn more, to get my credits for all the high school work, but now I

just kind of don't even have any motivation anywhere to do it.

This feeling of genuine discouragement was the result of Marie's overall lack of oral

comprehension in class. While she reported reading and writing including grammar as

her strengths, listening was her weak point. This semester's rule of 'only French spoken

in class' was overwhelming for Marie who was accustomed to hearing mostly English

and speaking little French in her prior French classes. Thus, she never really adjusted to

this new learning environment, which generated frustration and considerably decreased

her initial level of motivation for taking this class as well as, to some degree, her

willingness to participate and motivation during class.

In an assessment of her language development, Marie doubted that she had made

any progress in oral comprehension. She also pointed out not having "the best hearing"

and explained:

I just have all these factors working against me. Plus the frustration - it's so

much work outside of class... because of the time that all my other classes take

up, I don't have time to focus on the out of class work. Plus I'm not really

furthering myself in the French language.

She also admitted that "it's pretty much my own fault". Furthermore, Marie explained

that it was difficult to make the distinction between what she had learned this semester

and her prior knowledge: "I'm not sure how much I've really expanded". She has

learned a few new grammatical structures but, for the most part, she described her

learning for this semester as a review of prior knowledge, which she viewed as positive:

I start remembering better and being able to utilize that information that I've

learned.... I'd have to agree that I do use what I have learned a little more and

know maybe different ways to utilize it in different circumstances... I mean,

I'm obviously going to take something with me from the class and, I can't say

that I haven't learned anything, [pause]

Asked about the first test, Marie simply said "that sucked" because she was

overwhelmed with it: the test was too long and she did not have time to finish; she

skipped parts; she guessed the answers for the listening parts after giving it one try but

had no idea about the story. But, in all fairness, she did not study specifically for the test.

Surprisingly, she got 79%/C and "didn't feel too bad". She even felt better because she

"didn't have the lowest grade, so everyone else must be doing similar". It was important

for Marie to compare herself with the rest of the group because she often felt stupid and

not as good as the others during class. As an immediate reaction, Marie decided to study

more which she did not really do. For this class, Marie was not driven by grades but

rather, by her interest level which explained why she lost interest in the class earlier in

the semester. Though her result on the first test slightly boosted her motivation for a short

while, it was not enough to counteract the obstacles she continually faced in class,

particularly her oral comprehension.

In conclusion, Marie was overwhelmed by the new and different learning

environment of this French class and had difficulties overcoming this challenging

learning situation. Consequently, her motivation for the class as well as during class

suffered. Regardless of the challenge, Marie described the class as "fun, challenging, and

unique".

Ladislas.

In middle school, Ladislas was inspired by her "great and fun" French teacher so

that she fell in love with the French language and culture. As a junior in high school, she

went to France where she had a "cool experience". Invited by her host family to visit

again, Ladislas felt that she had "an obligation towards them" to pursue learning French

so she would "not be completely lost" but rather, "more confident in French writing and

speaking in particular".

Describing herself as "a smart person", Ladislas liked to participate in class. She

wanted to practice and speak up to answer questions because:

It makes me feel like I'm learning something .... I love talking to people and

mostly learning about other people and other people' s stories. So I think that if I

239

learned French and if I connected it more with other people, that's what will keep

me going in French.

Conversely, Ladislas stated that she hated tests in general and was not doing well on

French tests this semester in addition to being "horrible when it comes to grammar".

Reflecting on her language skills, she reported a discrepancy between what she felt she

was learning and the actual results of written tests:

I could, I interpreted for myself that I was learning more. Because it has become a

lot easier to speak in French in class. I've become less stressed about raising

my hand and answering a question. But lately, I've become, I don't know,

dismotivated because of the test grades. They show that I'm not making so

much progress. So I'm just sort of bummed about that. Because that's really

what's counts in the world.

With the exception of the first test, she worked hard to prepare for tests but she also

wondered if she should not study more every night. Ladislas felt "disillusioned" because

she truly believed that she was learning this semester in comparison to prior French

classes. Specifically, she had become more confident about her ability to speak:

I've improved greatly on speaking. In high school if I wanted to speak up in class

I wouldn't because I was nervous. Now I've become a lot more comfortable just

sort of like throwing it all out there and seeing if what I've said makes any sense.

In past class periods, I wouldn't speak up so much. I would mumble a lot. Now

I've become more assertive. I pronunciate things much more clearly I think.

Ladislas justified this improvement by the fact that her teacher only spoke French and she

was forced to speak French back, which was not the case in prior classes.

240

In summary, Ladislas was in a state of conflict. She reported signs of her

improvement and accomplishment during class and was highly motivated by the prospect

of returning to France and becoming more fluent. However, she could not explain why

her test results did not mirror her efforts and her progress during class. Ultimately,

regardless of her initial intrinsic motivation and long term goals to learn French, her poor

written performance was disappointing and affected, to some degree, her attitude during

class. She felt "less intelligent and less motivated to participate" but she still did. Asked

about how she was approaching the rest of the semester, Ladislas simply said: "just

continuing what I'm doing now if not more. The big thing that keeps me motivated is my

friend in the class ... We joke around in French all the time". For Ladislas, French class

was about "culture, grammar, and confusion".

Charlotte.

After nine years of Spanish in grade school and four years of French in high

school, Charlotte chose to continue French in college because she really liked the

language and also found "very interesting to see the parallels between English and

French". As a freshman, Charlotte was an English major. Taking French was for personal

interest and for fun and yet, learning French would probably be very helpful for her

career. She described the present class as "a lot of fun", which was a very important

aspect of the class in terms of her motivation. Charlotte described herself as a "really

horrible studier" but "an okay test taker" and she was not driven by grades. The class in

general, not so much the grades, would make her "want to work harder". She claimed to

be "good at conjugating verbs and knowing tenses" and reported grammatical structures

such as prepositions and pronouns (e.g., direct and indirect objects) as her areas of

241

weaknesses for which she has "gotten better but I'm still not great with them". Regarding

her progress for the semester, she acknowledged that she improved overall:

We're going over this same, not the same things, but most of the same things that

we (the students) did before (in previous French class), and I'm progressing more

learning the little details and getting those down better. I think I'm doing well.

On the subject of the first test, Charlotte recognized that she probably did not study

enough and knew that "it wasn't going to be that good". The test was difficult and she

was not surprised to receive a C, which did not really upset her because Charlotte did not

make "a big deal" of test results. However, she made the decision to study a little more

for the second test. (She received a B minus).

For Charlotte, it was of utmost importance to have fun and to like what she was

doing in class in order for her to be motivated and stay motivated. She truly liked this

class that she described as "fun, interesting, and exciting". Of course, she would like to

have had a good grade but "if the class is fun and if I'm doing well enough in the class

that's okay with me". (She received a B minus for the semester).

Class 203

Cecile.

With three years of French in high school (excluding senior year), Cecile tested

into the third semester as a freshman. However, after two years away from French, she

resumed her French studies as a sophomore because she felt "like I'm missing out". Very

ambitious, Cecile planned on graduating in three years with an English major. Thus, she

admitted that she was essentially motivated to earn the retro active credits 5 because she

"worked so hard on it (French) in high school". Thus, she was driven to get the minimum

semester grade required, an 83%, but was not limiting herself to that minimum grade.

Discussing how she was doing this semester, Cecile explained that "from my learning

style, I need a really organized class ... I need to prepare ahead of time. Because I don't

learn languages as well". She added "when I know exactly what's happening in class the

next day and I can prepare, that helps me become more engaged in the activities because

I can participate more". However, she also acknowledged that students are "expected to

come to class having read the different sections from the chapter. But then, it would be

beneficial to go over it in class. Instead of just, moving on to something else". This

approach did not please Cecile who used the example of learning new vocabulary to

explain: "if we're not learning those words in class and repeating them and speaking

them, then I don't feel like A) I'm learning it or B) that I need to learn it. Because it's not

emphasized". Frustrated, she was straightforward in summarizing her teacher's attitude:

"read this and learn and we're going to put it on the test, but we're not going to go over it

at all in class". This teaching approach, in opposition to her learning style, hindered

Cecile's engagement during teacher-centered activities. She preferred working in small

groups claiming that she learned more and participated more.

Cecile failed the first test and basically blamed her teacher's lack of proper

communication (for that result). Often, she had difficulties understanding her teacher and

his explanations. In that instance, she misunderstood the information he gave only in

French and, as a result, she was not prepared on the day of the test. She chose not to be

115 As undergrads, students who earned a minimum of a B (83%) in the second, third, or fourth semester receive credits for the previous semesters. In the case of Cecile, in addition to the credits for the third semester, she would also receive credits for the first and second semesters French.

243

affected by this grade and continued to study as if nothing happened. When asked to

assess her learning this semester, Cecile reported: "I think I've learned some words. I

learned today116 how to ask questions. [Pause.] I came to class today and I understood

more than I have ever when he (the teacher) was speaking. I do feel I'm understanding

more".

Cecile's teacher's approach during instruction was not a good match for her

learning style. She needed structure and clarity of the explanations and directions during

instruction. It was also very important for Cecile to understand her teacher and to

participate in class, which in turn was motivating. She recalled one day when she was

very proud of herself because "no one was responding and I knew it (the answer) because

I had gone over the vocab". Thus, it felt "good that I knew that" and she was "more

motivated that day". This particular behavior on that day is an illustration of how Cecile

was receptive to each of her small accomplishment as well as set-back taking place

during class. She also acknowledged that after two years without speaking French, she

"needed to warm-up to the class a lot" as she was "working really hard" to be successful.

(Earning exactly 83% as semester grade, Cecile received the retro credits). Cecile's three

words to describe her French class were "dull, painful, and frustrating".

Sybille.

As a linguistics major, Sybille was an experienced language learner. She took four

years of Spanish in high school and started French the previous year as a sophomore.

Now a junior, she was currently enrolled in the third French semester, in a 300 level

Spanish course, and in the first Chinese semester as well. Sybille explained that she spent

the past summer in Argentina where she experienced a total immersion in Spanish and

It corresponds to the day of the interview.

244

she 'kind of forgot the French". As a result, she stated: "I have to go back ... and re-teach

myself some of the things and really separate the Spanish from the French, which is my

biggest problem". Sybille viewed this semester as "a matter of tying up the loose ends

and making it (French language) a little more fluent and flow a little better". She drew

her motivation from her personal interest in learning French as well as from her grades.

She admitted that without the 'Participation and Attendance' grade, which represented

30% of the semester grade she would not attend class as frequently as she did.

Sybille described herself as "good at languages". She could easily read French

and get the meaning because of her knowledge of Spanish and her knowledge of basic

language systems from linguistics. Yet, she admitted that "I'm not the best student in the

class because I'm very lazy. But I can understand a lot more than a lot of people". In fact,

she reported listening as her strength claiming that "in class I can understand almost all of

what he (the teacher) says". She also felt confident in her ability to speak. Conversely,

writing was "terrible because of the way French writing is ... it all sounds the same but

could be spelled like six different ways". Sybille had a rather negative outlook on her

learning this semester: "I feel like I've gone back a little to be honest. I think I've gotten

worse". But she could not pinpoint the reason why and hesitated before mentioning her

lack of motivation. A more logical explanation would be that she had "forgotten a lot of

vocabulary" over the summer break. In fact, she was experiencing the challenge of

learning two languages simultaneously with a tendency to "to lean more towards

Spanish" because she used it more. Sybille also believed that students did not "get

enough grammar". She wished that her current French teacher would provide more

occasions to review verb tenses in class as a whole group instead of having students

245

"flipping to the back of the book to look up, the chart on how to conjugate the verbs

because we don't go over grammar". Sybille's way of learning was by "repetition. Just

keep going over it and then it'll stick". However, her teacher "did not really do that". She

expanded her views on what was missing during instruction and would facilitate learning

in making "sure that everyone's on the same page":

There's not enough interaction or enough of just going over the basics. I mean

just take five, ten minutes in the beginning like, "Now we're doing the imperfect."

Let's just take ten minutes to review how to do the basics.

Sybille received a B for the first test. She felt good about it and even better, when

she realized that it was "above the class average, one of the highest" grade and yet, she

immediately added:

That's also the problem though. If I don't try that hard, and I can still get one of

the higher grades in the class, then I'm not so motivated anymore. [Laugh] If I

don't put forth that much effort, because I can honestly say that in this class, my

heart is just not in it. I don't try. I don't do what I should do.

In fact, during this semester Sybille focused on her Chinese and Spanish classes and gave

it "that extra effort and it pays off. But she did not care much for this French class and

yet, she could "still pull off a B". Sybille could not explicate "what it is about this class. I

just can't get into it". However, on several occasions during the interview, she

emphasized the lack of fun in class, the lack of personal connection with the teacher, and

how she did not like the classroom atmosphere. It seemed that, taken together, these

factors overrode Sybille's skills and abilities as a language learner as well as her

willingness to really apply herself in this class.

246

In conclusion, Sybille acknowledged her nonchalant attitude towards the class and

stated "I am not getting much out of it because I'm not putting much into it". She could

easily pull off an A but she did not "really have the drive or the desire to do it". She

received As in the previous two semesters of French.

Jacques.

Jacques was majoring in Spanish with a possible minor in linguistics. As an

incoming freshman, he enrolled in his first French class "by accident". After two

semesters, he did not want to stop taking French because he "was making progress

toward something". For the present semester, Jacques mostly wanted "to continue

becoming more adept in reading, writing, speaking French". He pointed out the fact that

"it's interesting actually listening to the language being spoken by people who can

speak". He also found "very rewarding to be able to put ideas together".

From Jacques's perspective, learning French meant continuing to expand one's

ability to use the language. Jacques clarified this viewpoint: "when I read something

interesting in French and I really understand it, then wow! I learned something ... I

moved forward when I am able to express myself better in the language". These

accomplishments meant of lot for Jacques who also was participating more in class since

the beginning of the semester. Assessing further his learning for the semester, Jacques

acknowledged that he definitely has improved "mostly through expanding the

expressions that I know, the vocabulary, and trying to internalize a lot of structures". As a

result, he was getting better at being "able to just do it without thinking in English and

then trying to translate it". Jacques's goal was to have "as little recourse to English as

possible". Furthermore, facing the challenge of learning two languages, Jacques viewed

247

the fact that he was putting more time into Spanish as a weakness because he "was

interested in that first" and it was "taking away from French". But he could not help this

situation.

Discussing grades and tests, Jacques reported having "a very complex relationship

with grades". He was very concerned about getting good grades. As a result, prior to each

test, he specifically focused on what was going to be on the test instead of "just pursuing

whatever areas in French I think I need the most to work on". He further admitted that he

had "some moral qualms about just going after grades as far as learning goes. I don't like

that". Additionally, because of unusual circumstances, Jacques did not take the first test

or a make-up test. His teacher, who was cooperative, put pressure on him to catch up on

his own, which he did by working hard. Yet, he remained positive and focused on

enjoying the class believing that "when you enjoy something, it's usually easier to

motivate yourself.

In conclusion, I would portray Jacques as a language learner with a positive and

proactive attitude. He did not limit his learning to his oral participation in class. Learning

French also included opportunities outside of class to speak and to interact in French with

friends or to read on his own. For Jacques, another important element of instruction was

to "have fun in class and have a good time and be interested".

Amelie.

Amelie was a freshman who started learning French in sixth grade and every year

since she has been in a French class. Placed into the third semester, she was not going to

major in French even though, she was hoping "to become fluent some day". Amelie had

already made the decision to study abroad in France, a little bit over a year from now.

248

This commitment was her source of motivation as she had "to work up to it". For this

semester, she planned on improving her writing skills, her comprehension, and "just

getting better" including working on enhancing her accent.

Amelie started the semester "so scared" because of being in her first year of

college, everything was new and she did not know what to expect. In high school, she

was always very quiet in all the classes but now, in French, she was "trying to talk more

and participate". At this point in the semester, she was pleased to report that her oral

participation went beyond her initial goal of "at least try and talk twice during a class

period". When asked to assess her learning for the semester, Amelie hesitated: "it's kind

of a hard question, because it's somewhat - a lot of it is review for me. It's like, tiny bits

I'm building onto what I already know". She conceded that she was "okay - at talking ....

I think my participation has improved". She viewed her oral comprehension as an area of

improvement as well because she did not "get lost in class very much when he (the

teacher) is talking". Amelie also expressed some discouragement about her overall skills

as a French learner: "after taking French for so long, I think I should be better than what I

am". Furthermore, she was surprised by the limited amount of writing activities and

assignments in this class. She would like to see more writing activities, not necessarily in

class, and "more time to correct sentence formation and stuff like that". Amelie believed

that this way: "he (the teacher) can see where I'm at and help me to write better.. ..I just

wish there were more times when he could check our writing".

Disappointed by her result on the first test (79%), Amelie explained that she was

surprised by its content. She was expecting more reading and writing instead of the

"picky vocabulary that you had to do". In addition, the test was not "prepared as good as

it could have been. He (the teacher) made it seem like it wasn't going to be that big of a

deal". However, "he didn't really say what the test would be like. I think most people

didn't know what to expect". Amelie was driven by the need to get good grades. Thus,

her poor performance on the first test put some pressure on how she acted in class: "that

makes it hard because when you might just want to sit and then enjoy the class, but you

have to think, well no, I do need to get good grades". She elaborated on the link between

the importance of grades and class's enjoyment:

It's unreasonable to think, oh don't think about the grades. But everything in

society, you have to have good grades, you need good grades, and it's unfair for

teachers to say, "I just want you to enjoy the class." I always laugh at that,

because if you just say that why don't you just give everybody A's, so then we

can actually enjoy the class.

On the eve of the second test, at the time of our interview, Amelie was confident. They

had been reviewing in class "this whole week for the exam". She applied the experience

of the first test to prepare differently as she knew what to expect (she received an 87%).

In conclusion, Amelie's motivation was driven by two main goals: studying

abroad in France and becoming fluent in French. Thus, she was "trying hard" in the class

and "honestly" wanted to improve while at the same time, she wanted "to do well" grade

wise. Yet, Amelie's big disappointment was that "even though, I feel good about my

knowledge on the material in class I never do as well on the tests as I would hope for".

Nonetheless, she described the class as "interesting, fun, and easy".

250

Class 204

Elaine.

Elaine had had six years of Latin in high school and middle school when she

started French as a freshman. At the end of that year, she spent six weeks in France where

she improved her speaking and comprehension skills. Upon her return, she made the

decision to jump to fourth semester starting sophomore year. Elaine was majoring in

international studies with a possible minor in French and she wanted to be "a

humanitarian aide worker in Africa and so French was the most accessible language to

learn out the African ones". She considered it "very important to speak another language

besides English". Elaine's goal for the semester was to learn as much grammar as she

could and continue improving her ability to "speak more fluently and not have to think in

advance so much about what to say". Additionally, she was planning a second trip to

France for next January to re-connect with the people she had visited during the past

summer and she wanted to "sound better". Elaine's long-term motivation was to become

fluent by the time of her graduation.

Elaine reported reading and writing as her strengths and speaking as her

weakness. She was a hard worker who studied a great deal. Recalling the experience of

past semesters, she claimed: "if I work hard enough, read it again, look up certain

vocabulary, or certain grammatical concepts I can pretty much get the idea of everything.

But, I think it all comes down to the effort one puts forth". Asked to assess her learning

for the semester, Elaine was specific in describing her state of mind for the class:

I was dedicated to learning it (French) from day one of this semester. And so I've

kept my enthusiasm and ... my level of wanting to learn French at the same - I've

251

kept at the same pace. So I am really excited about it, and I enjoy learning it, and

I love coming to class and working outside of class on it. So I think I've stayed

about the same pace as a learner.

In fact, she reported that she has "definitively learned a lot this semester" mainly in

mastering grammatical concepts and increasing her reading ability. Nonetheless, Elaine

mentioned that she put a lot of pressure on herself expecting "to be a lot better" than she

actually was. At the same time, she was trying: "to have the pressure encourage me rather

than discourage me". Thus, receiving encouragement and positive comments from her

teacher about her work was very reassuring. Elaine was very sensitive to her teacher's

demeanor when interacting with students:

A lot of the time after someone finishes giving an answer, if she says, "Oh yeah,

that's right" or if she continues on with it, you know that you made a good

remark. So that can help, but sometimes if it's just stopped right there, you know

that you didn't quite get it, you didn't give the answer she was looking for. Which

can encourage you to try and find the right answer.

This approach was beneficial for Elaine who always attempted to give an elaborate

answer on the spot a skill she very much wanted to improve. Elaine was also a strong

believer in immediate feedback from the teacher. By receiving an immediate correction,

she was able to correct herself and hopefully would "have that memory of being

corrected". She further rationalized:

For me at least, if I speak and make the same mistake over and over again I'll just

get in the habit of that mistake, but if I'm corrected right off the bat then I won't

hopefully make that mistake again.

252

Elaine was not driven by grades in this class. She believed that tests were

necessary; however she argued that "they really cannot show your true ability". She

expressed the desire to be "good at speaking French and learning French" as more

important to her than the validation of "getting the good grade", which is, without a

doubt, important in college. However, for Elaine the knowledge she was gaining was

"more important than the grade". Despite her doubts about her own abilities, she received

98% on the first test for which she felt happiness and 97% for the first oral exam. These

grades confirmed that Elaine was "going in the right direction". That is, she was

continuing to improve and working towards her goal.

In conclusion, Elaine was a very dedicated French learner with concrete goals and

a strong determination to succeed. She described her French class "intriguing and

relaxing". However, despite very good results on tests she needed to be reassured about

her continuous performances during class. It was important to be encouraged as well as

corrected at the time of her participation in order to maintain her level of motivation

during instruction.

Claire.

Between seventh grade, the time when Claire discovered French, and now, her

sophomore year in college, fourth semester French, her feelings about learning French

changed. It included a two-week trip in France, which was "amazing". Most importantly,

she loved it and hoped to go to France the following year (as a junior). In fact, Claire had

outlined a "whole plan" about her future as a French learner: "I want to eventually be

fluent... I'm applying for the 'assistant d'anglais'117 next year". As for this semester, she

117 This is a program in place for American Students to spend one year in a French elementary or middle school to teach English to French students.

253

wanted to learn as much as she could and specifically become a better speaker. In

addition, she loved other cultures and languages and was "a complete travel bug".

Language and culture together formed "a giant package" for Claire, which represented

her source of motivation for the class and as a French learner.

Claire described her strength as being good at memorizing things and retaining

vocabulary. Then, once memorized, she was able to use those words when she was

speaking. Conversely, Claire's weakness was "without a doubt grammar". She could

understand the concepts when reading, but then, she was challenged "with verb tenses,

memorizing the irregulars and applying it to every single verb... I know there's like a

giant pattern in all of it, but [laugh]". Claire was pleased with how she was doing this

semester. In particular, she understood better "a lot of grammar stuff and "how it's

built" and explained that for the most part, she was learning much of the grammar for the

second time. Claire believed that:

Learning something a second time can be really beneficial because you can catch

things that you hadn't caught before. It's like looking at a painting one time and

then looking at it a second time, you can see more things that you normally hadn't

noticed the first time.

With some hesitation, Claire expanded her view about her own learning. That is, when

studying and reading, she was memorizing and retaining the information however, she

did not feel that she was learning it because:

I just feel like I'm to the point where I need to go somewhere and to speak only

French. Because I don't know how well I'm learning it. Because I mean, we have

254

the opportunity to speak in class and everything, but I just don't know. Does that

make sense? [Laugh.]

Claire reported a discrepancy between how she though she had done on the day of

the first test and the actual result. She "wasn't too happy" receiving a 77%. Overall, the

test was a little harder than she had expected but she had studied a lot and was not

unprepared. During the test, she was very challenged by the reading part, but after

reading it several times she answered the questions to the best of her ability. For Claire,

the first test is always a benchmark because "you don't know what to expect from the

teacher ... you don't know how the test is going to be laid out". In this particular class,

she claimed that she was "a lot more test driven" and explained that she was not a good

test taker in French:

I get nervous and I forget things that I normally wouldn't have.... And I'll be

walking out the door - just thinking about all these other words that I'd forgotten

on the test.. ..Then, it'll pop back into my brain. It's all just because I was nervous

and I'm making a big deal out of something that shouldn't be a big deal at all.

Despite the disappointing result on the test, Claire was very positive about the review

session organized by her teacher, which included several review sheets. She wished that

the whole class "would spend actually more time on the whole packet - especially things

hard to remember - because .. .it was beneficial either way".

In conclusion, Claire described the class as "challenging" though "rewarding"

because she understood more. She viewed the class as "another stepping stone into

learning more" along with having fun while learning. Specifically, Claire's demeanor

during class was directly linked to her level of comprehension: "I have fun with it when

255

I 'm understanding it and then speaking it". At the same time, when she was frustrated

she had to remind herself: "no, you really do love this [Laugh]. It's like, you do like it.

You really don't hate it, even though you're doubting yourself right now. But I still have

fun with it a lot".

Napoleon.

Napoleon took French from eighth grade through the end of high school. He

always knew he wanted to speak other languages and explained that the summer trip to

France between junior and senior year "pretty much set my abilities in concrete that I was

able to put everything I knew into practical use". Napoleon recalled the first time he

could express his own views in another language: "I just remember that feeling, wow! I

can actually talk to someone else in a different language like this!" From that point on,

this realization and sensation "opened up a new door" for him. Starting college, Napoleon

decided to pursue learning French to become an interpreter or to major in public relations

with a minor in French. He tested into the fourth semester French for which he set two

specific goals: to be successful in order to receive the retro credits and to expand his prior

knowledge while addressing his weaknesses. Napoleon was a very perceptive language

learner and reported improvement in distinguishing sounds and, consequently better

pronunciation. He also improved his ability to conjugate verbs and to use verb tenses

including the subjunctive, which he used to avoid "at all cost". Nonetheless, Napoleon's

biggest disappointment this semester was his lack of progress in writing French. He was

very frustrated because he made the same mistakes over and simply declared: "as far as

my writing goes, it's at a stalemate". He pointed to his struggle with idiomatic

256

expressions and grammatical structures such as prepositions and articles. Napoleon failed

the first test as he was somewhat expecting:

Before taking the test, I was fairly confident I would do well. But once I had the

test in hand, I was surprised at some of the things I was being asked. I remember

thinking, "Well, that was there but I didn't really think to look at it."

Having missed the in-class review, he focused on the wrong things, which was also

upsetting because he had spent a lot of time studying and it was not on the test. But, in

the end, he recognized that the test was fair because "all the information was given" but

he "didn't study the right stuff.

Napoleon did not want to place too much emphasis on grades yet, he said: "if I'm

failing, you better believe it I'm going to try a little harder". Overall, he was motivated

because of his interest in French. However, he also mentioned that his motivation outside

the class to do the homework was sometimes lacking. Discussing further his bad grade,

Napoleon made the "difference between taking failure to heart and then, learning from

the failure". He compared receiving this poor grade with situations in France when he

could not communicate in any form with French people: "if I took those situations like I

failed, I'm never going to talk again and that'd be wrong. So, you have to learn from your

failures and boost your successes". He adopted a different approach to prepare for the

second test. At the time of our interview, he had just taken the second test about which he

felt better now that he could "see how the examples she (the teacher) gave us fit into what

was on the test". Ultimately, he received a B.

Napoleon was a motivated language learner (he was also enrolled in first semester

Chinese). He was experiencing some frustration because of his written performance and

257

on occasion lacked the motivation to produce personal work outside of class. However,

he was able to maintain his overall motivation as a French learner. Another important

issue related to instruction affected Napoleon. He felt rushed by the way in which his

teacher explained grammatical structures or verb tenses. Instead of "skipping over things

and .. .moving so fast", he wished she would "slow down and repeat it and give lots of

examples" in order to have enough time "to let it sit in our brain and retain". As a result,

this teaching style caused him to become frustrated and even "just tune out". Only when

presented with something he knew then, he remained engaged. Asked to summarize,

Napoleon described the class as "quick, difficult, and entertaining". (Earning only 76% as

semester grade, he did not receive the retro credits but, he chose to continue French).

Pierre.

Pierre took two years off from school after high school graduation. He was

currently a junior majoring in journalism. With five years of French (middle and high

school), Pierre waited half his sophomore year to begin French again. He tested into the

second semester but took his chance with the third semester and received an A minus. He

knew that the fourth semester was going to be hard. Pierre liked French and wished that

he could have use of the language outside of class. He admitted that he was interested in

getting a good grade. Yet, at the beginning of this semester, his motivation was running

high because he wanted to minor in French. However, soon after, he had to abandon the

idea for practical reasons such as scheduling the required classes. Thus, Pierre's focus

shifted as he did not "need the French class for anything". He became even more

interested in the grade in order to keep a high GPA even though he did not "want to learn

it (French) just for a grade". Pierre was not certain why he remained in the class claiming

258

that "it must be something because I probably wouldn't have been taking French... I

can't describe it why I took French".

Pierre had two strengths in French: speaking and writing. Contrary to many

students who disliked writing in French, Pierre enjoyed any types of writing and felt that

he was "good at it". He added that the writing parts of tests were what saved him.

Reading comprehension, in contrast, was Pierre's real weakness, which explained why he

found the reading activities more challenging and less motivating. To prepare for new

readings, he purposely chose not to use a dictionary in order to work in the same

conditions as during tests and exams. However, based on the continuous difficulties he

was facing, he conceded: "I guess I don't have a good strategy this year to do the

reading". Pierre reported a positive assessment of his learning: he has learned more this

semester than the previous one in terms of being able to recall prior knowledge and to use

it, including "a lot of the grammar stuff and verb tenses such as the imparfait and the

subjunctive. He acknowledged that he "didn't know them (grammatical structures) as

well as" he thought. He now had a better understanding but made an important point: "as

far as how I'm remembering stuff, I don't know".

Having felt really good after taken the first exam, Pierre was taken by surprise

when he received a D. Disappointed and frustrated, he described a gap between how

much he studied, how he felt after taking the exam and the actual grade he received. He

explained that in reaction to this outcome, he had changed how he studied for the

following exam for which he received a 70%. It was an improvement but still a

disappointing result. Despite of this poor performance, Pierre was not discouraged (may

be on the day he got the test back) and remained as engaged and motivated in class as

259

before. Revisiting the discussion about grades, Pierre mentioned that he did well on both

oral exams, which boosted his level of enthusiasm for the class.

Early in the semester Pierre had to overcome some disappointment which made

him challenged, to some degree, his motivation for taking the class. He also placed a

strong emphasis on the final grade in the class. However, Pierre stated: "as far as how

much I've enjoyed the class it's stayed the same or gone up. Nothing's really declined

except for how I thought my grades would be". He further described the class as "good,

hard, and fun".

In conclusion, this section introduced twelve individual narratives that report the

findings about the qualitative aspect of participants learning outcomes. Each narrative

provided a detailed picture of participants as French learners as described and interpreted

by them, including comments and thoughts about their assessment of their abilities in the

French language and the extent of their learning in the present classroom environment.

Overall, participants had a similar high interest in the French language which was

triggered by different sources (e.g., personal interest in languages, a past and/or

upcoming trip to France, a former great French teacher). Yet, they each had a unique

background as French learners, which explained why they reported different as well as

similar points of view. Participants provided valuable insights into how they evaluated

the extent of their learning and described their learning based on their interpretations of

what learning a foreign language means to them. Emerging as the main finding, all

participants, with the exception of Sybille, indicated that they had learned throughout the

semester. They described this learning as a review, an expansion, as well as an

enhancement of their prior knowledge. Whereas some participants remained vague when

260

identifying areas of learning, others were very specific when describing the scope of their

learning: improving verb conjugation and properly using verb tenses, mastering

grammatical concepts, increasing reading abilities, becoming more confident in speaking,

expanding vocabulary and expressions, and having a better overall understanding of the

language. Regardless of participants' differences and similarities in their abilities, their

levels of comprehension during instruction, their amount of effort produced as well as

their levels of interest and motivation, they all had one thing in common, that is: the prior

knowledge they relied on when using French. From activities in the classroom and

interactions with classmates and teachers to answering questions and writing

compositions on a written test, participants used the newly learned material together with

their prior knowledge.

Additionally, several points emerged as key to explain, to some degree,

participants' views about their learning experiences and implicitly addressed some areas

of language instruction: 1) participants' perspectives on the first test and the test

preparation conducted by their teachers, 2) participants' expectations of the instruction

and what takes place in class based on their individual needs as a learner, and 3) the hope

and the need for the class to be enjoyable. The importance and impact of these points

vary according to students' personalities and prior learning experiences. Also arising

from the narratives, several participants established a relationship among their learning

outcomes, their perceptions of these outcomes, and their level of motivation during class.

To close this section on students' learning, I established a descriptive profile of

participants as French learners. Thus, I selected from the data (gathered during individual

interviews) the most representative participants' narratives of their learning goals for the

261

class and their qualitative descriptions of their learning. This information, along with

participants' semester grades, is displayed in Figure 18.

Nam

es

Lad

isla

s 10

4

Mar

gue

rite

10

4

Mar

ie

104

Cha

rlot

te

104

Cec

ile

203

Jacq

ues

203

Lea

rnin

g G

oals

for

th

e C

lass

To

be m

ore

conf

iden

t in

Fre

nch

wri

ting

&

spea

king

: to

be a

ble

to c

omm

unic

ate

and

spea

k w

ith th

e Fr

ench

fam

ily s

he m

et i

n F

ranc

e.

To u

nder

stan

d m

ore

abou

t pas

t & fu

ture

pas

t te

nses

; wan

t to

know

mor

e.

Wan

ted

to b

e ab

le to

car

ry a

con

vers

atio

n (in

Fr

ench

) with

a fr

iend

abou

t gen

eral

life

. Thi

s re

pres

ents

lear

ning

Fre

nch.

W

ante

d to

pur

sue

lear

ning

Fre

nch;

bel

ieve

d im

port

ant

to le

arn

a di

ffer

ent

lang

uage

and

ex

cel;

Saw

link

bet

wee

n be

ing

inte

rest

in

subj

ect

mat

ter

& le

arni

ng it

. Wan

ted

retr

o-cr

edits

for

her

hig

h sc

hool

wor

k.

Wan

ted

to a

dvan

ce m

ore

in F

renc

h.

Bel

ieve

d in

the

need

of

spea

king

Fre

nch

for

her

care

er. F

ound

im

port

ance

in

havi

ng f

un

and

likin

g cl

ass

task

s as

she

is l

earn

ing.

Wan

ted

retro

-cre

dits

; wor

ked

hard

in h

igh

scho

ol a

nd w

ante

d cr

edit

hour

s. W

ante

d to

co

ntin

ue a

fter

this

sem

este

r.

Had

not

spe

cifi

cally

out

lined

goa

ls f

or t

he

sem

este

r. A

fter

1st &

2nd

sem

este

rs, d

id n

ot

wan

t to

sto

p th

e pr

ogre

ss; "

just

wan

ts t

o co

ntin

ue b

ecom

ing

mor

e ad

ept"

.

Qu

alit

ativ

e D

escr

ipti

on o

f P

arti

cip

ants

' L

earn

ing

Bel

ieve

d sh

e w

as le

arni

ng th

is s

emes

ter.

Bec

ame

mor

e co

nfid

ent

abou

t her

abi

lity

to

spea

k. H

ated

test

s. D

id n

ot d

o w

ell o

n te

sts

that

se

mes

ter,

whi

ch w

as a

real

dis

appo

intm

ent.

Has

im

prov

ed v

erb

tens

e us

e. H

as r

each

ed

a hi

gher

lev

el o

f pr

ofic

ienc

y an

d sp

oke

usin

g a

"cer

tain

lev

el o

f gr

amm

ar".

C

ompa

riso

n w

ith

prio

r Fr

ench

cla

sses

.

Ack

now

ledg

ed h

avin

g le

arne

d a

few

new

gr

amm

atic

al s

truc

ture

s; s

he a

sses

sed

her

lear

ning

as

mos

tly

a re

view

of

prio

r kn

owle

dge.

Was

ver

y ch

alle

nged

wit

h or

al

com

preh

ensi

on i

n cl

ass.

O

vera

ll im

prov

emen

t. D

escr

ibed

the

se

mes

ter

as a

rev

iew

of

the

"sam

e th

ings

" sh

e pr

evio

usly

lea

rned

. Was

pro

gres

sive

ly

lear

ning

mor

e an

d ge

tting

the

deta

ils

dow

n.

Rep

orte

d ha

ving

"le

arne

d so

me

wor

ds".

U

nder

stoo

d m

ore

in c

lass

and

eve

ry sm

all

acco

mpl

ishm

ent i

mpo

rtant

and

vie

wed

as

lear

ning

. D

efin

itive

ly im

prov

ed: e

xpan

sion

of

expr

essi

ons

and

voca

bula

ry a

nd in

tern

aliz

atio

n of

stru

ctur

es. H

e di

d no

t nee

d to

thin

k as

muc

h in

Eng

lish

in c

lass

, whi

ch h

e de

scrib

ed a

s le

arni

ng.

Sem

este

r G

rad

es i

n %

11

8

SL-I

H

P&

A /

/ H

w /

/ W

T /

/ O

ral

96

.A..

•W£$

'••9

$A

". 8

, ;

M4

l

98

83

82.4

88

97

87.2

99.7

84

90.2

70

84

100

83.9

85

85

78.3

59

96.2

97.5

98

86

89.5

92

92.5

Sem

: se

mes

ter

grad

e/ P

&A

: par

tici

pati

on &

att

enda

nce/

Hw

: " ho

mew

ork/

WT

: wri

tten

test

s/ O

ral:

oral

exa

m.

Na

mes

Am

elie

20

3

Sybi

lle

203

Ela

ine

204

Pie

rre

204

Nap

oleo

n 20

4

Cla

ire

204

Lea

rnin

g G

oa

ls f

or

the

Cla

ss

Wan

ted

to i

mpr

ove

her

wri

ting

ski

lls,

get

be

tter

ove

rall

, bec

ome

flue

nt s

omed

ay a

nd

have

a b

ette

r ac

cent

.

Tyi

ng u

p th

e lo

ose

ends

of

the

prev

ious

tw

o se

mes

ters

and

bec

omin

g m

ore

flue

nt w

ith

a be

tter

flo

w.

No

part

icul

ar l

earn

ing

goal

.

Wan

ted

to le

arn

gram

mar

: co

ntin

ue t

o im

prov

e sp

eaki

ng. W

ante

d to

spe

ak m

ore

flue

ntly

; di

d no

t wan

t to

have

to th

ink

in a

dvan

ce s

o m

uch

abou

t w

hat

she

wan

ts t

o sa

y. W

ante

d to

kee

p he

r en

thus

iasm

and

leve

l of

wan

ting

to le

arn

Fren

ch a

t the

sam

e ti

me.

W

ants

to

get A

-.

No

part

icul

ar l

earn

ing

goal

; w

as d

rive

n b

y gr

ades

: be

liev

ed t

hat

they

ref

lect

wha

t th

e st

uden

t ca

n do

. W

ante

d to

pas

s: g

et th

e re

tro-

cred

its.

Exp

and

on

his

stre

ngth

s an

d w

eakn

esse

s. W

ante

d to

de

velo

p sk

ills

of q

uick

thin

king

to

be a

ble

to

spea

k lik

e a

Fren

ch n

ativ

e w

ould

.

Wan

ted

to l

earn

as

mu

ch p

ossi

ble;

wan

ted

to b

ecom

e a

bett

er s

peak

er.

Qu

ali

tati

ve

Des

crip

tio

n o

f P

art

icip

an

ts'

Lea

rnin

g O

ral p

arti

cipa

tion

wen

t bey

ond

initi

al g

oal;

im

prov

emen

t in

ora

l co

mpr

ehen

sion

and

ora

l pa

rtic

ipat

ion.

Dis

appo

inte

d by

her

ove

rall

skill

s as

a F

renc

h le

arne

r, i

n pa

rtic

ular

, not

so

good

te

st r

esul

ts.

Neg

ativ

e ou

tloo

k o

n th

e se

mes

ter:

had

"g

otte

n w

ors

e" a

nd

felt

she

wen

t "b

ack

a li

ttle

". H

owev

er,

was

sur

pris

ed w

ith

her

go

od t

est

resu

lt d

espi

te h

er l

ack

of

effo

rt.

Lea

rned

a l

ot t

his

sem

este

r: m

aste

ring

gr

amm

atic

al c

once

pts

and

incr

easi

ng

read

ing

abil

itie

s. L

iked

im

med

iate

fe

edba

ck:

beli

eved

it

was

th

e on

ly w

ay to

le

arn

from

mis

take

s an

d n

ot

repe

at t

hem

.

Lea

rned

thi

s se

mes

ter

mor

e th

an t

he

prev

ious

on

e; w

as a

ble

to r

ecal

l an

d u

se

prio

r kn

owle

dge:

"gr

amm

ar s

tuff

, ve

rb

tens

es a

nd

had

a b

ette

r un

ders

tand

ing.

Im

prov

ed v

erb

conj

ugat

ion

and

use

(i

nclu

ding

th

e su

bjun

ctiv

e);

lack

of

prog

ress

in

wri

ting

was

a b

ig

disa

ppoi

ntm

ent.

U

nder

stoo

d be

tter

"a

lot o

f gr

amm

ar s

tuff

. W

as r

evie

w f

or th

e m

ost p

art.

Vie

wed

lea

rnin

g a

seco

nd t

ime

as v

ery

bene

fici

al.

Not

a g

ood

test

tak

er.

Sem

este

r G

rad

es i

n %

11

9

Sem

//

P&

A /

/ H

w /

/ W

T /

/ O

ral

923 A-

80.7

98U

B6

A

:

•853

-B

76.1

'.

C

.'

;•

',

»«

•'

99.5

93.2

100

96

86.6

96.6

87

61

100

91.1

64

90.6

80.3

84

98.6

66.2

67

72.2

94.5

93

95.5

90

92.5

94.5

Figu

re 1

8. P

artic

ipan

ts l

earn

ing

goal

s, q

uali

tati

ve d

escr

iptio

n of

par

tici

pant

s' l

earn

ing,

and

sem

este

r gr

ades

.

Sem

: sem

este

r gr

ade/

P&

A: p

arti

cipa

tion

& a

ttend

ance

/ Hw

: hom

ewor

k/ W

T: w

ritte

n te

sts/

Ora

l: or

al e

xam

.

264

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore students' motivation and learning

outcomes in the French language instruction. The goal was to establish connections

between what students said about their learning and motivation, what took place during

instruction in terms of their engagement and motivation, and their learning outcomes. The

qualitative inquiry grounded in FL classroom observations, interviews, and focus groups

allowed me to: 1) bring out participants' lived experiences as French learners during

instruction, 2) gain insights into the process responsible for creating a classroom

environment which encourages students' engagement and motivation, and 3) examine

students' learning to establish links between motivation and learning. Two questions120

addressed students' motivation as experienced during FL instruction in an attempt to

determine and understand what students reported as engaging and motivating. The third

question addressed students' learning outcomes from both quantitative and qualitative

perspectives; that is, through traditional assessments and learning outcomes as perceived

by participants.

In this chapter, I bring together the findings for review and interpretation in order

to present a slightly broader view, seen through the lens of previously reviewed literature.

First, within the framework of the studies reported in the FL literature, I discuss the

findings which have revealed the role played by the FL teacher to shape students'

interest, enthusiasm, engagement, and motivation in relationship to the knowledge base

of FL instruction as a whole. Second, I interpret the findings using the characteristics of

Connell's motivational model (Connell & Wellborn, 1991) as a conceptual framework. In

short, I established explicit connections between the findings of the present study and

120 See introduction of chapter 4.

265

each of the three main components of the model: autonomy, competence, and

relatedness121. These connections will reveal how the instructional variables (e.g.,

teaching style, types of activities) meet students' needs for autonomy, competence, and

relatedness, which in turn, engage them in motivated actions. Ultimately, these

connections will demonstrate the usefulness of this motivational model when examining

student motivation in FL classrooms at the post-secondary level. Third, I further examine

possible links between students' learning and motivation and endeavor to bring together

the facts and thoughts conveyed by my participants with the third relationship in Connell'

model: actions and outcomes. Fourth, I propose implications for FL educators in the form

of the following question: what can be learned from these findings about student

engagement and motivation during instruction in terms of FL pedagogy? Fifth, I address

the possible directions for future research on student motivation during FL instruction

while addressing student learning. Finally, I conclude this chapter by presenting the

limitations of the study.

Role Played by the Foreign Language Teacher

Taken together, the findings emerging from participants' testimonies revealed that

various factors, whether linked to the teacher or to the student, affected participants'

levels of interest, enthusiasm, engagement, and motivation during FL instruction.

Explicitly, factors such as the teachers' personal characteristics, their teaching style and

their approach, the classroom atmosphere and the classroom set-up, and the delivery of

the instruction shaped students' behaviors and actions. Regardless of their levels of

proficiency and motivation they had for the class, participants frequently pointed to their

They are the three basic psychological needs identified as the source of every individual's self-autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

266

teacher, through personality, demeanor, and attitude, to explain their own (the

participants) behaviors in class. The teachers' impact was perceived differently by

participants based on their personal characteristics and prior experiences as French

learners. Thus, teachers' behaviors and actions affected students in every aspect of

instruction: the organization of the class period, the choice of activities and topics, the

explanations given prior to and during activities, the occurrence of immediate feedback

as well as encouragements and comments, and the choice of the language of instruction.

Additionally, participants were equally receptive and sensitive to how teachers connected

and interacted with students, how they facilitated the involvement amongst students,

which in turn would create a classroom atmosphere conducive, or not, to engaging

students in the different activities and encouraging them to participate. In fact, the

classroom atmosphere and the ability for the teacher to make the class fun emerged as the

most influential factor in engaging and motivating students during instruction. This

finding is in line with Chambers's claim that the teacher is "the most influential

contributor to a positive view" (1999, p. 129) of students language learning experiences.

From the participants' perspectives, teachers represent the major player during FL

instruction in that they shape most aspects of the instruction itself. Teachers are also the

driving force for initiating and developing various interactions between themselves and

students as well as among students. The existence and the quality of these relationships

are partially responsible for creating the classroom atmosphere, which is identified as the

most influential motivational factor by participants. Yet, FL students, carrying their

"considerable 'personal baggage'" (Cohen & Dornyei, 2002, p. 170), perceive and

respond differently to these factors resulting in different levels of engagement and

267

motivation during instruction. Thus, it explains why "no two classes are ever the same"

(Nunan, 1999, p. 156). Taken together, these findings are in accordance with Tudor

(2001) who claimed that teachers are "active participants in the creation of classroom

realities" (p. 17) acting "in the light of their own beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of the

relevant teaching situation" (p. 17).

Furthermore, findings of the present study are supported, in part, by Dornyei's

(1994). The key role played by the teacher is in line with the conceptualization of the

teacher recognized as one separate dimension in Dornyei's conceptual framework of L2

motivation722. That is, several of the Teacher-specific motivational components such as

the teacher-student relationship, teaching style, teacher's personality are among the

aforementioned factors. Moreover, several of the teachers' actions and behaviors reported

as engaging and motivating by participants coincide with some of the strategies for

language teachers proposed by Dornyei (1994) as well as with several of the "ten

commandments for motivating language learners" validated by Dornyei and Csizer

(1998). In fact, these strategies could be integrated within some of the factors (e.g.,

teaching style, delivery of the instruction, classroom atmosphere) comprised in the

model. For example, as the classroom atmosphere has been identified as the most

influential factor on students' engagement and motivation, the following strategies

correspond to numerous participants' comments about their teachers' actions and

behaviors responsible for creating a classroom atmosphere conducive to their engagement

and motivation.

This framework is introduced in the literature review ("Cognitive-situated Approach").

268

• Show your enthusiasm and commitment; try to be empathic, congruent, and

accepting; adopt the role of a facilitator and develop a warm rapport with the

students; do not overreact to errors. (Dornyei, 1994, p. 282)

• Develop a good relationship with the learners; make the language classes

interesting; personalize the learning process. (Dornyei & Csizer, 1998, p. 215)

In addition to the importance participants gave to the classroom atmosphere, they

included the need for them to have fun in class. This finding can be validated in the

recent L2 motivation literature (Chambers, 1999; Noels, 2001). Noels (2001) found that

having fun learning the language was one of the various students' perceptions linked to

their generalized sense of self-determination as well as to their teachers' communicative

style. Focusing on the perceived usefulness and enjoyment of a FL course, Chambers's

(1999) study also supports the claim about having fun in class. While students learn when

the subject of learning is useful and enjoyable, Chambers stated that the teacher-student

relationship plays a vital role in accomplishing that objective. Thus, I use Chambers's

words to summarize the present findings about the role of the teacher in engaging and

motivating FL students; the teacher emerged as the "key factor" who "holds all the

strings" as "her approach to teaching, her personality, her power to motivate, make

learning meaningful and provide something which pupils refer to as 'fun'" (Chambers,

1999, p. 137). In sum, as the notion of enjoyment during FL instruction has become a

recent point of interest for L2 scholars, the overwhelming evidence emerging from the

present database confirms the importance given to this issue when it comes to engaging

and motivating FL students.

269

FL Students' Motivation and the Motivational Model of Engagement

Drawing from reviewed literature and the purpose of the study, I chose the

sophisticated engagement model123 proposed by Connell and Wellborn (1991), shown in

Figure 20, to examine and interpret the present findings. This notion of engagement was

formally adopted throughout the entire process of the present research to illustrate

students' motivation. Grounded in the SDT framework, this motivational model, explains

relationships among individuals' experiences in the social context (e.g., the FL

classroom), their self-system processes124, their patterns of actions (i.e., engagement and

disaffection), and the actual outcomes of performance (e.g., grades and achievement test

scores).

CONTEXT •> SELF -• ACTION -> OUTCOMES

Engagement vs.

Disaffection

- cognitive - behavioral - emotional

Skills & Abilities

Personal Adjustment

Figure 19. A Motivational model of Context, Self, Action, and Outcomes by Connell and Wellborn (1991).

Explained in Chapter 2, in the section 'Overview of self-determination Theory'. 124 It refers to appraisal processes defined by Connell & Wellborn (1991) as "of how competent, autonomous, and related the individual feels within and across particular contexts" (p. 52).

270

How does the FL classroom context contribute to satisfying (or neglecting) the three

psychological needs125 of FL students, which in turn, promotes (or impedes) their

engagement during instruction, and affects outcomes of performance? According to this

model, structure, autonomy-support, and involvement are the three dimensions of teacher

behavior fostering the fulfillment of each psychological need and underlying the patterns

of FL students' actions during learning activities (Connell, 1990; Connell & Wellborn,

1991).

Additionally, this model holds that students, whose needs are fulfilled, are

engaged in ongoing activities and should increase their actual abilities and competencies.

Thus, it is essential to interpret the present findings through the lens of this model in

order to explain and gain insights into how each of the three dimensions of teacher

behavior affected participants in terms of their engagement and motivation (regardless of

the type of instructional activities). To accomplish this task, I first examined individually

each dimension of teacher behavior to establish connections between the characteristics

of these dimensions, the findings linked to each of the dimensions, and the impact on FL

students' engagement and motivation associated with the effect of that dimension. It

appears that, regardless of the type of activities, participants were receptive to their

teachers' behaviors; however, the impact on their own (the participants) behaviors and

actions varied with the instructional activity. For the purpose of this discussion, I have

adopted the descriptions of the three dimensions of teacher behavior (autonomy support,

structure, and involvement) as proposed by Connell (1990) and Connell and Wellborn

(1991). Second, I combined the main points emerging from this interpretation to

demonstrate the critical role of Connell's motivational model in framing FL student

Autonomy, competence, and relatedness

engagement and motivation through teachers' behaviors. As a final note, the third and

last relationship within the model between actions and outcomes will be addressed in the

following section about motivation and learning. At the outset of the discussion, it is

important to point out the similarities found in the findings linked to participants in 104

and 204 in opposition to those linked to participants in 203. Additionally, as a group,

participants in 104 and 204 reported higher levels of engagement and motivation during

instruction than participants in 203.

Autonomy Support

Autonomy-support refers to teacher behavior recognized in fostering the

fulfillment of the need for autonomy in learning. Specifically, it refers to "the amount of

freedom a child is given to determine his or her own behavior" (Skinner & Belmont,

1993, p. 573). In short, autonomy-support refers to the communication of choice, the

opportunity for initiative; the recognition of feelings and a sense that activities are

connected to personal goals and values. For example, teachers support their students'

autonomy by: 1) allowing students choices, providing options, and supporting their

suggestions and initiatives, 2) providing rationale for learning activities and proposing

activities relevant to students' interests while respecting their opinions and feelings, and

3) resisting using authoritative and controlling language but rather, relying on

informational language (Connell & Wellborn, 1991).

The notion that students feel autonomous is strongly linked to the absence of

external rewards, controls, and pressures in the classroom environment. During

individual interviews, my participants did not mention the issue of being or feeling

coerced. At some point in our conversation, I asked if they felt pressured or controlled by

272

their teachers during instruction. Without exception, they responded 'no'. In particular,

participants in 104 and 204 overtly commented on the relaxed and open atmosphere

during class. Charlotte said: "it's a very easy open class. I feel at ease" and Marguerite

added that "the class is just kind of fun.... She (the teacher) doesn't try to stunt our

creativity in the class". Claire stated that: "I never really feel pressure by her (the

teacher)". Elaine gave a more detailed answer: "it's a laid back and kind of relaxed

atmosphere where we can feel free to joke around and have some fun with everything. I

don't feel pressure, no". Conversely, participants in 203 were very specific in describing

and explaining their teachers' behaviors and actions which had a rather negative effect on

the autonomy-support dimension in the classroom. In fact, teacher 2 was the only teacher

whose behaviors and actions did not generally support students' autonomy. To illustrate

this point, I have introduced three distinctive areas of instruction during which teacher 2's

behaviors and actions negatively affected participants' levels of engagement and

motivation the most: that is; 1) some aspects of pair and small group activities; 2) the

choice of language of instruction and participation; and 3) specific demeanor and

approach during some instructional situations.

First, during pair and small group activities, teacher 2 frequently intervened in

ways that disrupted the flow of the activity. Namely, this teacher:

• Asked students to stand up at the beginning of each period for a few minutes for

the duration of the warm-up activity; participants strongly disliked this practice.

• Repeatedly interrupted students to give explanations or instructions about a matter

not related to the activity itself; most often he gave instructions about homework,

about an upcoming test, or just talked about something he remembered from a

273

previous activity or assignment; this practice always disrupted students who often

looked confused and lost their focus.

• Frequently did not respect the time frame he had previously allotted for students

to work in pairs. Most often, he shortened the working time and abruptly called

for collective corrections. As a result, participants felt rather frustrated at being

interrupted and unable to finish their work. Some chose to ignore this practice.

The second situation affecting the autonomy-support was a direct consequence of

the 'no English' policy imposed by the teacher in the classroom. As a result, participants

reported that:

• During pair activities they would very discreetly speak some English in order to

facilitate their language comprehension and assist each other; this opportunity

explained in part their preference for this type of activity.

• In extreme situations, they felt so pressured and stressed by this strict rule that

they just could not formulate a question in French to ask for assistance on

something they did not comprehend; in addition, they were so concerned about

their teachers' reactions that they did not even attempt to ask the question in

English.

• Not being able to use any English made them feel more self-conscious and

isolated as they lacked language comprehension necessary to form the question in

French, which, in turn, led them to remain quiet.

Third, students described more situations in which their teacher's demeanor and

approach were responsible for their confusion, disinterest, and silence. For instance:

274

• Not having enough time to process the information and 'think up' the answers

before being forced to move on to next activity; at times, the transition between

activities developed into frustration, because students felt forced to move on to

something else while they were still trying to figure out the details of the current

activity; during these moments, the teacher did not acknowledge students'

struggles.

• Teacher rapidly acknowledged the student's answer as wrong and did not offer

an explanation or encouragement for the student to pursue thinking and trying to

give another answer; in those instances, the student felt stupid, gave up, and

chose to remain silent for a long period of time.

• Students sensed when their teacher rushed through the different activities, did not

show signs of enthusiasm or caring, but just made sure that the teaching was done

with no other consideration for the students.

• Students felt pressured by the demands imposed by the syllabus and how the

teacher was handling this constraint; they felt the pace imposed during the class

period was too rushed and there was too much to cover leaving no time for some

fun activities.

Taken together, these examples of non-autonomy supportive situations experienced by

participants in 203 had a rather negative impact on their engagement and motivation.

Conversely, the comments made by participants in 104 and 204 were essentially

positive and constructive with regard to having choices and options during instructional

activities as well as receiving support and adequate explanations by their teachers. Two

particular practices by teachers 1 and 3 unanimously emerged as critical in supporting

students' autonomy through the different stages of instruction. First, both teachers

allowed for a minimal use of English which provided students with the option to reach

for explanations in case of total lack of comprehension. Students viewed this practice as

very helpful and did not abuse it. Second, these teachers did not single out students. For

instance, teacher 1 implemented the option "voluntaire ou victime ". She gave students

the choice to volunteer their answers, and as long as someone answered, she would not

call on students.

In conclusion, the participants' comments concerning their teachers' behaviors

supporting students' autonomy suggest two important points. First, it appears that

Teachers 1 and 3 provided the conditions for an autonomy-supportive classroom, which

in turn satisfied students' psychological need for autonomy. Second, it appears that

Teacher 2 was in many ways not supportive of his students' autonomy.

Structure

Intended to fulfill students' need for competence, structure refers to the "amount

and the clarity of information the teacher provides to another regarding the best ways to

achieve desired skills and behavioral outcomes" (Reeve, 2005, p. 125). In order for

teachers to provide structure, they need to: 1) clearly communicate expectations to

students, 2) offer instrumental help and support, 3) provide constructive and effective

feedback, and 4) adjust the instructional strategies to fit students' levels of abilities.

When the class lacks structure, it turns into chaos or confusion.

Many participants were very vocal and specific in describing their teachers'

approach and teaching style in terms of their engagement and motivation, or lack thereof,

during instruction. Regardless of their levels of language proficiency, participants

126 volunteer or victim.

276

reported numerous actions supporting classroom structure. The following list introduces a

sample of teachers' behaviors and actions as experienced by participants which are

illustrative of providing structure.

• Explain exactly what they expect from students while being consistent and

straightforward.

• Re-explain or rephrase the explanation while being attentive to students' reactions

and body language to find out if they understood or not.

• Offer starters and hints for students when they are formulating an answer or

showing signs of hesitation or lack of confidence; in other words, when realizing

students are lost or 'stuck', teachers help 'ease it out'.

• Change the approach by simplifying the question or breaking it down into chunks

which are easier to understand.

• Encourage students, during discussion, to continue speaking once they have

offered a short answer; use follow-up questions in order for students to expand

their answers.

• Give immediate feedback when students are speaking; assist, provide input, and

correct students immediately while they put together their sentence. This practice

is viewed as very helpful and necessary for the students to be as accurate as

possible and to remember the proper form. It gives students a sense of confidence.

In addition, students are more comfortable when teachers rather than the

classmates provide feedback.

• Provide feedback on previous work in order for students to identify areas of

strengths and weaknesses.

277

Additionally, it is important to address the findings concerning whole class

discussions separately. Indeed, this type of teacher-centered activity, which was the least

motivating activity for half of the participants, represented a real source of frustration for

many of them who remained quiet at those times. It is also essential to reiterate that

findings revealed that during whole class discussions, as for the rest of the instruction,

students' levels of engagement and motivation were directly linked to their level of

language comprehension. As participants described several scenarios to explain their

silence, they also made recommendations for teachers to implement in an attempt to

provide guidance and assistance as well as adjust their instructional strategies to fit

students' competencies. Explicitly, participants in 203 and 204 were the most involved in

and challenged by whole class discussions linked to reading and comprehension of texts.

They suggested detailed practices that they believed would be effective and helpful to

reduce their challenges of comprehension and to enhance their abilities to participate in

the discussion. In the following, I have reported a variety of informative

recommendations expressed by participants:

• Instead of repeating the exact same question several times, teachers should restate

the question in different ways. The use of other words might trigger students'

prior knowledge differently and assist with language comprehension.

• Have students read out loud the passages of the text viewed as the most

challenging in terms of comprehension; point out to students the main elements

(e.g., words, phrases, idioms) linked to the comprehension of the text.

• Adopt a systematic approach to discover paragraph by paragraph and ensure the

students' basic and literal comprehension of the text prior to launching the

discussion.

• Start with easy questions and progressively increase the difficulty of questions

instead of beginning with an abstract and complicated question.

• When using the usually complex and convoluted questions of the textbook, first,

create sub-questions directed to smaller parts of the text to narrow down the area

being discussed; then, work towards addressing and discussing the complicated

questions.

• Overall, do not hesitate to provide clarifications and examples of sentences, even

the simplest, in order to guide and 'unblock' students.

• When students make an attempt to volunteer an answer, give them a chance to

finish their thoughts when hesitating and/or struggling.

• Try to fit the level of difficulty of the reading or the topic for discussion with

students' level of proficiency and language comprehension. It is important for

students not to feel completely overwhelmed by the difficulty of the task.

Finally, without exception, participants viewed it imperative that teachers follow their

recommendations to conduct these challenging activities in a fun and interesting manner

so that students remain interested and engaged. Effectively, the importance of having fun

in class was previously emphasized on several occasions by participants.

In conclusion, with the exception of what took place during whole class

discussions, participants largely reported that their teachers provided structure through

their actions and behaviors. This suggests that the classroom structure provided by FL

279

teachers is linked to the type of instructional activities. However, some variations need to

be noted in terms of students' behaviors in 203 and 204 during whole class discussions

even though in both instances their participation was limited. Despite the similar format

of that activity in both classrooms and the insufficient classroom structure provided by

Teachers 2 and 3, differences in students' behaviors were noticeable. Indeed, as

previously mentioned, students in 203 were considerably more challenged in a negative

manner than those in 204. Thus, it is conceivable that classroom structure alone is not

enough to place students in a favorable situation of engagement and motivation during

instruction. In fact, it was previously stated that in 204, Teacher 3 was supportive of her

students' autonomy whereas in 203, Teacher 2 was in many ways not supportive of his

students' autonomy. Taken together, these findings are in agreement with ConnelPs

model which demonstrates that the classroom conditions must satisfy all three

psychological needs to engage students.

Involvement

Involvement derives from the need for relatedness. It refers to the quality of the

interpersonal relationship between teachers and peers as well as the teacher's willingness

to dedicate psychological resources such as time, interest, and attention to others (Connell

& Wellborn, 1991). In order for teachers to express teacher involvement, they need to: 1)

take time for students to express concerns and pay attention to their needs and emotions,

2) demonstrate affection and caring, and truly enjoy the time with the students, 3) show

understanding and sympathy, and 4) dedicate personal resources to their students such as

time, interest, energy, and emotional support.

280

It appears that of the three dimensions of teacher behavior, manifestations of

teachers' involvement surfaced most often in participants' testimonies. Without

exception, participants indicated being sensitive to numerous factors that shaped the

instructional activities and affected the interpersonal relationship between themselves and

their teachers. Participants were thirsty for personal connections and attention from their

teachers. They needed to feel at ease and comfortable and to have a true sense of sincerity

and caring from their teachers. It was also necessary for them to know their classmates

and interact with them in order to feel confident enough to participate in whole class

activities. Those who received attention and encouragement and perceived their teacher's

approach as positive felt connected to their teachers and enjoyed the class. Conversely,

those who lacked personal attention and any type of connection with teacher or

classmates felt left out, detached, and on occasions, completely disengaged for the

duration of the class period. The factors responsible for these feelings are directly linked

to teachers' characteristics and demeanor as perceived by the participants. I have listed

below those factors reported by participants as engaging and motivating, and supportive

of teacher's involvement, which nurtures students' need for relatedness according to

Connell and Wellborn (1991).

• Level of comfort in the classroom which developed from the teacher's behavior

and attitude as well as from the interactions between students and teacher and

among students. The ability to make students feel part of the group and

comfortable enough to make mistakes during activities is central to a high level of

comfort.

281

• Level of patience and engagement of teachers; display enthusiasm and energy

when teaching and encouraging students for their work; sense of humor to joke

with students.

• Ability to make personal connections with participants and willingness to

converse in a relaxed manner; avoid remaining at a certain distance and having a

strict demeanor.

• Approachable and understanding teacher who addresses students' questions, gives

individualized attention during activities, and does not make the student feel

inadequate or stupid.

Taken together, the presence, to varying degrees, or absence of these factors

during instruction, changed the quality of the interpersonal relationships between teachers

and participants. Participants in 104 and 204 reported numerous situations where they

experienced these factors in a positive manner. Thus, it appears that their need for

relatedness was fulfilled. Conversely, participants in 203 explained how many of these

factors were lacking in their classroom as a direct consequence of the very limited

involvement of their teacher. As Cecile, Sybille, Amelie, and Jacques have explained,

over time, the lack of involvement of this teacher affected participants' behaviors and

states of mind differently and ultimately affected their engagement and motivation during

instruction. Often challenged by language comprehension, Cecile felt powerless to ask

questions for assistance. Sybille chose to remain quiet and detached even though she

understood most of the material presented in class and knew the answers. Relying on her

strong motivation, Amelie accepted the situation as it was, admitting that she did not feel

confident asking for additional information from her teacher when needed. As for

Jacques, he took an active role to counteract his teacher's approach particularly during

whole class discussions. Rather than being a passive and bored bystander, he opted to

become an involved participant creating his own interest and fun in the activity.

Moreover, the notion of feeling connected to the teacher is critical in that it affects not

only the teacher-student relationship but also the student-student interactions and

ultimately the classroom atmosphere all together. As previously reported the classroom

atmosphere foremost underlies students' levels of engagement and motivation and is

directly shaped by teachers' personal characteristics, demeanor, and behaviors. Many of

these same behaviors and demeanor illustrate the level of teacher involvement. Thus, it

can be claimed that teacher involvement has the most powerful impact on participants'

perceptions of what took place during instruction and in particular, on the classroom

atmosphere.

Throughout this section, I have described the characteristics of each of the three

dimensions of teacher behavior (autonomy-support, structure, and involvement) present

in the research context. I have also established connections between the findings,

grounded in participants' perceptions of their experiences as French learners, and each of

the dimensions of teacher behavior. It appears that each dimension was present, to

varying degrees, in each of the three classrooms. In 104 and 204, the classroom

conditions underlined by the actions and behaviors of Teachers 1 and 3, satisfied

students' needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence, with the exception of

insufficient classroom structure during whole class discussions127 in 204. Indeed, during

these activities, Teacher 3 did not provide enough classroom structure to satisfy students'

It was explained earlier that in 104, whole class discussions were not a common practice. As a result, I chose not to include these situations in the findings.

283

need for competence. During any other instructional situations, there is evidence that the

FL classrooms 104 and 204 promoted students' needs for autonomy, competence, and

relatedness which translated into students being engaged and motivated. In 203, Teacher

2's actions and behaviors were lacking in providing autonomy-support and involvement

to nurture students' need for autonomy and relatedness. Regarding classroom structure,

two situations emerged. During whole class discussions, Teacher 2, as Teacher 3, did not

provide enough classroom structure to satisfy the need for competence. For the rest of the

instruction, there is not enough evidence to make a claim. To substantiate this latter

finding, I briefly revisit participants' preferred activities128 which, from my perspective,

illustrate student engagement and motivation at its best. In 104, students especially

enjoyed "interactive and creative" activities because: 1) they had a good time, 2) they

understood the material, and 3) they were involved and productive in the activity. In 204,

participants liked the 'cards game' activity the best, because it involved the whole class

and gave everyone the opportunity to participate while concurrently experiencing

challenge and fun. In those instances, I claim that Teachers 1 and 3 supported students'

autonomy, provided classroom structure, and expressed signs of involvement which, in

turn, nurtured their students' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In the

case of 203, it was not without hesitation that I selected the singing activity as

participants' preferred activity. However, though this activity represents the best

illustration of students' engagement and motivation in this class, it does not match the

level of engagement and motivation demonstrated by students in 104 and 204 during their

preferred activities.

These activities are described at length in chapter 4.

284

In conclusion, it emerges from this study that the FL teacher is the key element

affecting students' levels of interest, enthusiasm, engagement, and motivation. The

interpretation of the findings leading to this claim, through the lens of ConnelPs

motivational model, revealed insights about the teacher's role in engaging and motivating

students during FL instruction. This interpretation explained in depth how teachers'

behaviors and actions impact the learning context and organized those behaviors and

actions into three categories: that is, the three dimensions of teacher behavior (i.e.,

autonomy-support, structure, and involvement). Additionally, the detailed account of

teachers' behaviors and actions combined with the recommendations by students,

proposed throughout this section, informs about teachers' behaviors and actions and their

effect on students' engagement and motivation. This account established groundwork for

the usefulness and application of this motivational model in FL classrooms at the post-

secondary level when examining students' motivation. Thus, this model could be

implemented in FL learning contexts similar to the one of this study for further research.

This particular point will be further developed in the section about future research.

Motivation and Learning

The second facet of this study examined participants' learning outcomes as

determined by teachers' quantitative measures and students' qualitative responses as

revealed in interviews and focus groups. One of the objectives was to establish links

between participants learning and their motivation within the research context. Thus, it is

necessary to bring together both qualitative and quantitative findings about learning

outcomes with the earlier findings about students' motivation during instruction to further

the understanding of FL students learning while determining the role of motivation.

Several factors have emerged as playing a critical role in affecting participants'

perceptions of their learning. From classroom atmosphere and having fun to results on

written tests and receiving retro-credits and the use of prior knowledge, these factors

affected participants learning while increasing or undermining their engagement and

motivation in class. This discussion also includes Connell's motivational model and

examine, in particular, the third relationship between actions and outcomes (see Figure

20). By definition, this model demonstrates the link between the action of FL learners

(engagement versus disengagement) and the outcomes that is, the quantitative and

qualitative learning outcomes in the case of present study. Grounded in participants'

testimonies, the following discussion is presented as one continuous narrative of

participants learning.

At the outset, it is important to state that all participants expressed a genuine

interest in the French language and a rather strong initial motivation for enrolling in a

French class this present semester, regardless of their backgrounds as French learners.

Their motives were anchored in personal experiences, beliefs, and objectives; all

participants were in their respective courses voluntarily. Participants also reported

different levels of effort and commitment to the class based on their personalities and

what happened in class throughout the semester.

First, as reported earlier, participants unanimously emphasized the importance of

having fun in class and how the classroom atmosphere was, by and large, the number one

factor affecting their motivation. It appears that having fun in class, remaining motivated,

being committed to the class, and results on assessments as well as perceptions of their

own learning are interconnected to varying degrees. I have chosen to expand on the

286

participants' learning experiences in 203 because the findings have identified this

learning environment to be less engaging and motivating than those inl04 and 204.

Cecile and Sybille stated that the poor classroom atmosphere was a direct consequence of

their teacher's "no fun" attitude and lack of enthusiasm. Consequently, Sybille became

discouraged and did not participate in class whereas Cecile was saddened by "the lack of

these things that would motivate (her)" as well as by not having fun. Additionally, she

lacked confidence and comprehension of subject matter, all of which left her feeling

frustrated and disillusioned during class. She further reported "working really hard" to

make up for her shortcomings and summarized her learning for the semester as "some

words". Unlike Cecile, Sybille acknowledged that she was coming to class because of the

importance of the Attendance and Participation grade. Yet, she missed many homework

assignments, which resulted in a Homework grade of 61% and considerably decreased

her semester grade. She produced minimal effort in and out of class to the point of

practicing her Chinese characters during teacher-centered activities. This behavior was

unlike her motivated attitude towards her past and other present language classes for

which she went "really above and beyond". Describing her learning, Sybille admitted

that: "I am not getting much out of it (the class) because I'm not putting much into it".

However, she earned a B on the first test, which unfortunately decreased her initial

motivation for the class. Sybille had little explanation to offer for her reaction except to

say: "I don't know what it is about this class. I just can't get into it". In reality, she had a

rather negative outlook on her learning this semester believing that she had "gotten

worse". Yet, when she turned in her semester grade of a B-, she simply said: "not bad

considering my work ethic". Both students in 203, Cecile and Sybille, had the worst

129 Sybille was also currently enrolled in a Spanish and Chinese course.

287

experiences of all of the participants in terms of their learning during the semester and

their level of engagement and motivation in class as well. The classroom 203 was

described as a learning environment lacking autonomy-support, teacher involvement and,

to a lesser extent, classroom structure which explains Cecile's and Sybille's lack of

engagement and motivation in class and very limited perceived learning for the semester

as well. This is in accordance with Connell's model.

Conversely, Jacques and Amelie, also students in 203, did not seem as affected by

this learning environment. They both received As as final grades. Nonetheless, Amelie

explained that her level of motivation was not especially affected by her grades or by

what was happening in class: "when I'm in class I don't think about motivation, I'm just

there because I want to be there". She further added that: "if I don't particularly like

something I don't think that reduces how much I like the class". However, as with every

class, Amelie was driven by grades and was putting pressure on herself to do well. She

believed that it was "unreasonable to think, oh don't think about the grades". Describing

her learning, Amelie stated that she was frustrated and disappointed by her performances

on written tests, which did not reflect her proficiency and knowledge about the French

language. She perceived her learning for the semester as mainly a review including a

slight improvement in oral comprehension and a minor increase of her participation in

class. Jacques also described his learning as a small expansion of his prior knowledge.

Overall, participants in 104 and 204 were more positive and forthcoming when

describing their perceptions of their learning for the semester. Additionally, as much as

participants valued having fun in class, they kept their learning experiences in

perspective. For instance, Charlotte was clearly satisfied with her C grades on written

288

tests as long as she was enjoying the class, which motivated her to attend class everyday.

Marguerite, who received a B on the first written test, explained that this grade

strengthened her perception of how she was learning and allowed her to continue

participating in class. She viewed participation and interacting with classmates and the

teacher as a "big motivator" as well as the way to "really learn the language". The key for

Marguerite, who took the class for fun, was to balance the amount of fun and the amount

of effort required to maintain a good enough grade for her satisfaction. Marie was

pleasantly surprised to receive a B on the first written test. It boosted her level of

confidence and motivation for a short period of time before she reverted to feeling very

frustrated. She could not overcome her overall lack of oral comprehension in class and

lack of confidence. By the time of our interview, Mary had lost total hope of earning the

retro-credits but mostly, she felt completely 'demotivated' to the point of missing class

and not completing every homework assignment.

On a separate note, one objective of Napoleon, Cecile, and Marie this semester

was to earn retro credits. There was a rule that students entering the French program and

earning a minimum of a B (83%) in the class received credits for each semester they had

skipped to get to that class. Participants described the possibility of earning these extra

credits as a very attractive incentive as well as a validation of their work in French classes

when in high school. It was important for them to have their previous effort and work

acknowledged and validated, which played a strong motivational role. Having struggled

throughout the semester, Cecile and Mary experienced a considerable decrease in their

motivation but despite this challenge they earned a B and received their credits.

Conversely, Napoleon who experienced different kinds of struggles earned only a C for

289

the semester, which prevented him from receiving the retro-credits but allowed him to

continue into the fifth semester French as he had planned.

As a final point, participants who earned poor test grades reacted differently.

Their reactions were influenced by their motivation and objectives for the class as well as

what happened in class. For instance, Pierre still believed that he could earn an A- for the

class despite the D on his first test. Knowing that it would be hard, he was going "to

throw a hail Mary pass130" on the final exam. Despite facing this challenge, he kept his

level of enthusiasm and continued to enjoy the class. Ladislas reported that she

"improved immensely" this semester. However, she was very disappointed and

"demotivated because of the test grades. They show that I'm not making so much

progress. So, I'm just bummed about that". As a result, she felt "less intelligent and less

motivated to participate. But, I still do". She also believed that participating in class was

very important in order to practice the language and it made her feel as though she was

learning. Despite her unsatisfactory performances on the tests, she stated that: "I still

want to keep up with the French language and speaking ... but, I'm not sure if the grades

are going to add up and if it's going to be worth it". Claire and Napoleon, also, had to

cope with the disappointment of receiving a bad grade. Keeping a positive attitude about

the class, Claire viewed the first test as "an experimental thing because you don't know

how the test is going to be laid out. You don't know what to expect from the teacher".

Most importantly, she had fun in class when she was understanding and speaking French.

Thus, she explained that she had to remind herself: "you really do love this (learning

French). You do like it even if you're doubting yourself right now. But, I still have fun

with it a lot". Napoleon was very upset by his grade but "couldn't be angry about it too

130 Pierre asked me if I knew football and understood this expression, which I did.

290

long" even though, he was concerned about being able to earn the retro-credits. He

reflected on his situation between the test result, his effort, and his motivation and

decided to move on. As a result, he did not loose his motivation to speak French in class,

"to work on it and practice it" but lacked motivation outside the classroom to do the

homework.

Taken together, the participants' comments about their learning experiences

reveal disparities and inconsistencies. Most participants were very specific in explaining

how they interpreted their learning while connecting their performances on tests with

their perceptions of their own learning and how these perceptions affected them in class.

As a group, participants in 104 and 204 frequently mentioned their teachers' approach

and demeanor, including the classroom atmosphere as the key factor to keep them

focused, interested, and engaged short term in the classroom as well as long term during

the course of the semester. It was previously demonstrated that Teachers 1 and 3, through

their behaviors and actions, satisfied their students' need for relatedness which might

explain why these participants were able to cope with their learning experiences.

Conversely, in the case of Cecile and Sybille, the lack of teacher involvement and support

to satisfy their need for relatedness would explain their overall negative learning

experience this semester.

Implications for FL teachers

I launched the report of the present study by highlighting that the most salient

challenge commonly identified by FL teachers is the need to motivate the learner. In

addition to the extreme importance given by FL teachers and L2 scholars (Chambers,

2001; Chomsky, 1988; Skehan, 1989; Van Lier, 1996) to motivation for learning a

291

language, the source of motivation is also viewed as "very important in a practical sense

for teachers who want to stimulate students' motivation. Without knowing where the

roots of motivation lie, how can teachers water these roots" (Oxford & Shearing,

1994, p. 15).

Conducted from the 'inside' of the FL classroom, this study is grounded in data

collected in the FL classroom, elicited from FL learners, and interpreted within the FL

classroom context. Thus, the findings reveal specifics about the language instructional

setting seldom available to teachers such as: salient characteristics of what engages and

motivates students and perceptions of what the teacher does and says and what actually

shapes students' behaviors. As a result, I am now in a position to report the findings that

inform the community of FL educators about student motivation during FL instruction.

The findings identifying the teacher as the key factor affecting student

engagement and motivation have been further interpreted through the three dimensions of

teacher behavior as proposed in ConnelPs model. This second set of findings, emerging

from this interpretation, is of utmost importance for FL teachers in that it informs their

teaching by providing detailed and constructive pedagogical practices. Fully reported in

the previous section131, these pedagogical practices are: 1) reported as descriptions of

specifics in teacher's behaviors and actions including factors affecting instruction and

identified by participants as engaging and motivating and 2) organized into the three

dimensions of the teacher behavior required to fulfill each of the psychological needs of

students in order to promote student engagement. Thus, taken separately, these

pedagogical practices support students' need for autonomy, provide classroom structure

and nurture students' need for competence, or facilitate teacher involvement satisfying

131See section labeled "FL Students' Motivation and the Motivational Model of Engagement".

292

students' need for relatedness. Ultimately, the combination by FL teachers of pedagogical

practices supporting each of the three psychological needs as in 104 and 204 (with the

exception of whole class discussions) was conducive to students' engagement and

motivation.

Second, in order to be thorough in presenting implications for FL teachers, it is

necessary to discuss the six scenarios proposed by participants to explain their behaviors

and actions during whole class discussions. This type of instructional activity represents a

challenge for teachers to conduct and for students to participate in. From the point of

view of FL teachers, this notion of students' participation is critical because it is viewed

as an indication of students' abilities to understand and to express themselves in the target

language. Thus, from the teacher's perspective, this type of activity can generate its share

of frustration and challenge when choosing effective means to elicit participation from

students. The six scenarios explained by participants represent a valuable source of

information for teachers. These scenarios provide a better understanding of the source of

motivation that facilitates or hinders students' participation during whole class

discussions so, teachers can reach and stimulate its roots (Oxford & Shearing, 1994).

Described in details in the chapter 4132,1 briefly summarized the six scenarios:

• Students genuinely did not understand the teacher or what was asked; being able

to understand the language represented an ongoing challenge that participants

faced during instruction and more so, during whole class discussions.

• Students had understood the teacher and knew the answer but were incapable of

formulating it in French; some experienced the 'mental block' which represented

an additional matter to cope with as they faced the whole class.

132 Section labeled: "Whole class discussions/ Participants comments".

293

• Students claimed to be self-conscious when having to speak in front of the whole

class; they felt, to varying degrees, insecure, uncomfortable, foolish, and even

stupid; they were very affected by the assumptions they made about how others

perceived them.

• Students were affected by their own states of mind and moods of the day, which

were reversed in certain situations due to the teachers' behaviors and actions.

• Students did not want to monopolize the floor and chose to remain silent allowing

others students to have time to think, reflect, and produce an answer.

• Students pointed to the teachers' approach and demeanor and teaching style as

responsible for their participation or non-participation during these activities.

For most of these situations reported, the pedagogical practices discussed above in this

section are pertinent for teachers to implement in order to address effectively students'

challenges during whole class discussions.

Third, it is important to highlight the abundance of findings involving the

classroom atmosphere and the consensus among participants designating this factor as

key in engaging and motivating them during FL instruction. Consequently, it is vital for

FL educators to take into account the role and impact of the classroom atmosphere as the

proposed model, shown in Figure 19, illustrates its central position within the connections

among the different factors affecting students' levels of interest, enthusiasm, engagement,

and motivation during instruction. Thus, the focal point of teachers should be to create a

classroom atmosphere that will increase students' level of comfort and confidence and

develop relationships within the classroom. To accomplish this task, the teacher should

be approachable, not intimidating or distant, and understanding of students' mistakes and

hesitations; he should also attempt to connect and interact with students at a more

personal level. These suggestions correspond to the descriptions of teachers' behaviors

and actions experienced by participants and supporting teacher involvement which

satisfied their need for relatedness. As previously reported, manifestations of teachers'

involvement surfaced the most in participants' testimonies which emphasize the need for

teachers to create a classroom atmosphere conducive to students' engagement and

motivation.

Fourth, the syllabus, including content and organization, has also been identified

by participants as playing a direct and/or indirect role in affecting their levels of

engagement and motivation in class. Throughout their comments, they explained how the

organization of the syllabus, including the homework schedule, imposed on students and

the teacher's role in implementing the syllabus often had a negative effect. Students had

to study grammatical structures and concepts on their own and apply them in book

exercises prior to coming to class but mostly, prior to have the lesson taught by the

teacher. Depending on the difficulty of the topic studied and participants' prior

knowledge, the outcomes of this practice varied. Often resulting in a lack of

understanding during instruction, this approach was a real source of confusion,

frustration, and discouragement for most of the participants and is well captured by

Napoleon's statement: "it's like building a house before you draw the blueprint".

Consequently, when writing a syllabus, FL teachers should carefully consider every

aspect of it concerning its possible impact on instruction and what takes place in class.

The organization of the syllabus including homework schedule and time allowed for

corrections and the extent of the content should be given special attention.

295

Fifth, the second facet of the study examined participants learning outcomes.

Reporting on the learning outcomes assessed by teachers and perceived by students, the

findings suggest several points pertinent to the assessment in FL learning. For more than

half of the participants, the first test was synonymous with poor results and

disappointment. They were surprised by the content of the test (it was either too specific,

or too challenging, or harder than they had anticipated, or not representative enough of

the chapters in review) and were also affected, to some degree, by the preparation or lack

of it prior to the test. Considering participants' comments about written assessments and

review prior to tests, teachers should: 1) assess students in a manner that reflects better

what is taught and accomplished during regular class periods and 2) not create additional

challenges for students but rather provide clear and well-defined expectations in order to

ease the process of review for students.

As a final point, findings also revealed that participants frequently relied on their

prior knowledge to understand the language, accomplish activities, and complete written

tests or exercises. As a result, when introducing the material for an activity or an

explanation, teachers should employ different wording and varied vocabulary while using

different ways to explain which would allow for students to activate their prior

knowledge and use it to build on new knowledge.

In conclusion, this study contributes to the field of FL teaching in that it provides

valuable pedagogical practices for FL teachers to integrate into their teaching. Taken

together, the excerpts of field notes combined with participants' narratives and

interpretations of their learning experiences are enlightening as they clearly illustrate to

language teachers a facet of what takes place in class usually not available. Viewed from

a broader perspective, the findings contribute to, in varying degrees, to three essential

areas of education: understanding student motivation and student learning, teacher

training, and curriculum development.

Directions for Future Research

To conclude the review of the present findings, it is important to question what

the next step should be in terms of future research. Grounded in the learners' and the

researcher's perspectives, this study was conducted from inside the language classroom

and revealed valuable and noteworthy insights about the teacher's role in engaging and

motivating students during FL instruction. These findings confirm the viewpoint of L2

scholars involved in teacher training (Bailey & Nunan, 1996; Freeman, 1996; Richards,

1998), which is to focus on the importance of understanding teaching and classroom

practice from the "inside" rather than the "outside in". Or, as Williams and Burden

(1997) pointed out, there is a need for language teachers and learners to understand "the

immediate physical environment of the classroom and the nature of the personal

interactions which occurs within it" (p. 198) as this environment has "a profound

influence upon whether, what and how any individual learns a language" (p. 189).

The findings are sure to inform FL teachers about students' motivation and

learning during instruction because they provide constructive instructional practices for

FL teaching. Thus, I propose a model, shown in Figure 20, to provide an overall picture

of how students' engagement and motivation is affected during FL instruction. I have

organized and connected the main factors involved in the instruction to illustrate the links

between the teacher, the student, and student motivation.

297

Individual Characteristics

Factors involved in the instruction

Classroom Atmosphere

Students Outcomes & Actions

TEACHER

- Personality - Behaviors - Demeanor & attitude - Teaching

style - Teacher's approach

STUDENT - Personality

& mood -Motivation for the class

- Prior knowledge - (jrades earned

- Perception o f learning

-Delivery of the lesson

Organization of the class

- Feedback

n Classroom set-uo K

Choice of language of instruction

I Level oflanguage

comprehension

- Level of comfort and confidence

- Relationships within

the classroom

Approachable &

Supportive teacher

-Interesting/ boring class

- HAVING FUN

Levels of interest

enthusiasm engagement

and motivation

Figure 20. Model connecting the teacher, the student, and student motivation

during FL instruction.

Rooted in participants' reported experiences, this model explicitly depicts how the

classroom atmosphere represents the predominant element in language instruction in

terms of student motivation. Whereas teachers have an active role in shaping the

atmosphere through their overall teaching approaches, FL students carrying their

"personal baggage" (Cohen & Dornyei, 2002), directly and/or indirectly, have an effect

on the classroom atmosphere. They constantly interpret what takes place during the

various instructional activities throughout their teachers' demeanor, behaviors, and

298

actions; that is, how teachers conduct the lesson, organize the class, and provide feedback

as well as their choice of classroom set-up and language of instruction. Taken together,

these behaviors and actions impact, to varying degrees, the relationships within the

classroom, the level of comfort and confidence of students, as well as how interesting or

boring the class is. Ultimately, this model, showing the main findings, is a valuable tool

for FL teachers. It illustrates how teacher and students are connected to one another, it

indicates that students are very perceptive to many aspects of the instruction in which the

teacher is key, and it demonstrates that the classroom atmosphere is of utmost importance

in FL instruction.

Though, as valuable and informative these findings are, it is important to

understand that the data sources themselves were limited to twelve participants from

three French classrooms. This reality is often viewed as a limitation of qualitative

research though the value and usefulness of the findings are indisputable. Thus, it is now

important to move from the qualitative to a quantitative research paradigm to further

examine this matter and reach a larger number of FL learners in one study. To this end, I

have proposed several paths to follow for future research based on the area of inquiry

chosen within the scope and depth of the findings as well as the interest and goals in

conducting research.

One possible path to follow is the examination on a larger scale of specific points

emerging from the findings. Indeed, they revealed valuable descriptions and comments

about various pair and teacher-centered activities as well as about the choice and use of

the language of instruction and participation. It would be of high interest to explore

further each of these three areas of language instruction. For instance, in the case of

299

whole class discussions, the findings revealed six different scenarios explaining students'

participation and non-participation during these activities. From the point of view of FL

teachers, this notion of students' participation is critical because it is viewed as an

indication of students' abilities to understand and to express themselves in the target

language. It is often viewed as evidence of students' interest, engagement, and motivation

as well. Drawing on these findings about the six scenarios, detailed questionnaires should

be created for use as research instrument in a quantitative study. Conducted with a large

number of FL learners situated in similar conditions as those of the present study, such

examination could demonstrate the validity of the present findings about whole class

discussions in terms of students' engagement and motivation to further inform FL

educators. This example proposed for a future study represents one possibility among

others which could draw from different sections of the present findings based on the

research questions intended to be examined.

Another promising direction for research would be to further the examination of

Connell's model in FL classroom. Findings identified specific practices reported as

engaging and motivating by participants. Framed by the three dimensions of teacher

behavior, these findings represent a sound groundwork to use for creating a customized

instrument for FL learners to fill out based on the chosen research context. For instance,

the instrument could comprise three different questionnaires. Each one would specifically

address each of the three dimensions of teacher behavior.

Furthermore, studies such as Reeve and al. (2004) could be replicated partially or

entirely in FL classroom. For instance, many principles of CLT seem to be conducive to

the development of an autonomy-supportive environment. Once these principles are

properly identified, a group of FL teachers would be retrained in CLT teaching with an

emphasis on autonomy-supportive behaviors (without disclosure of the real purpose of

the study) prior to teaching their class in their regular settings while another group of FL

teachers would be teaching as usual without any specification. It would be interesting to

compare the results of Reeve and al. (2004) with those emerging from this proposed

study conducted in FL classrooms. It would also be interesting to see how FL learners

react to changes in instruction while focusing on teachers' autonomy-supportive

behaviors and student engagement.

The third path to follow is the issue of learning from the perspectives of FL

learners. When analyzing participants' narratives about their learning experiences, I

realized how much more I wanted to know about how they perceived and processed their

own learning based on the instruction they received. In particular, I believe that it would

have been very informative to ask participants, once the semester was over, to comment

on their final grades and reflect on their entire learning experiences. As valuable and

enlightening as the present findings are to inform about participants learning, this

knowledge raises questions about how traditional assessment is implemented in FL

classrooms and how students perceive and are affected by this type of assessment.

Because of the importance of learning, particularly language learning, it is necessary to

further investigate from the learner's point of view in order to better understand the roots,

the impact, and ramifications of this issue.

In conclusion, given that "it is universally accepted that motivation plays a vital

role in academic learning in general" (Dornyei, 2006, p. 50), it is essential to pursue the

301

understanding of how FL learners perceive their learning in relation to their engagement

and motivation during instruction.

Limitations of the study

The last part of the present study should address the issue of external validity or

generalizability of the findings which represents a critical limitation in qualitative

research in general. In other words, can the findings of this study be applied to other

French classrooms and even to FL classrooms in general?

While telling their stories as French learners, participants mentioned, on many

occasions, their prior and current experiences in French classes and other language

classes. They drew on their various lived experiences to justify their explanations and

formulate their interpretations of their current experiences. Thus, within the qualitative

research paradigm, the notion of generalizability is to be considered from a complete

different viewpoint as in quantitative research. My intent in conducting this research was

to inform FL teachers and to provide specifics about the language instructional setting

seldom available to them. To accomplish this task, I have reported 'rich and thick'

description allowing readers to "determine the extent to which findings .. .can be applied

to their context" (Merriam, 2002, p. 29). In order to depict the best picture of the research

context, I have provided myriad excerpts of field notes and participants' quotes, so that

readers will be able to establish "how closely their situations match, and ... whether

findings can be transferred" (Merriam, 2002, p. 29). By adopting this approach, I believe

that I have depicted an informed and in-depth picture of the research context while

presenting the findings.

302

However, despite this approach of dealing with the issue of external validity, it

represents a limitation of the study. Aware of this limitation, characteristic to qualitative

studies, I addressed this matter in the prior section on future research and proposed a path

of research to examine the present findings on a larger scale.

303

REFERENCES

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction

to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner's socio-psychological theory of second

language (L2) learning. Language Learning, 38, 75-100.

Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1996). Voices from the language classroom.

Cambridge University Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497-529.

Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive

motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755-765.

Brown, D. H. (1990). M & Ms for language classroom? Another look at motivation. In

James E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics, language teaching and language acquisition:

The interdependence of theory, practice and research (pp. 383-393). Washington

D C: Georgetown University Press.

Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4 ed.). San

Francisco: San Francisco State University.

Busier, H. L., & Pigeon, Y. (1999, April). Re-Examining the nature of research-

participant relationships in qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

304

Chambers, G. N. (1999). Motivating language learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual

Matters LDT.

Chambers, G. N. (2001). Reflections on motivation. London: CILT Publications.

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

Cohen, A., & Dornyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation styles and

strategies. In Norbert Schmidt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics

(pp. 170-190). London: Arnold.

Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system

processes across the life span. In Dante Cicchetti & Marjorie Beeghly (Eds.), The

self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61-97). The University of Chicago

Press.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A

motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe

(Eds.), Self processes in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child

Psychology, 23 (pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguisitics. Baltimore, MD: Penguin

Education.

Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about

them? System, 27, 493-513.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

305

Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. L. (1988). Review essay [Social psychology and second

language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation by R. C. Gardner (1985)].

Language Learning, 38(1), 127-140.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.

Language Learning, 41, 469-512.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A

study of adolescents. In C. A. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in

education (Vol. 3, pp. 45-61). San Diego: Academic Press.

Daly, J. A., & Bippus, A. M. (1998). Personality and interpersonal communication:

Issues and directions. In J.C. McCrosbey, A. J. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J.

Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspective (pp. 1-40).

Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.

Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the

field. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Deci, E. L. (1980). Psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation.

New York: Penguin Books.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). Promoting self-determined education. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 38(1), 3-14.

306

Deci, E. L., & Ryan R. M. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An

organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of

self-determination research (pp. 3-36). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester

Press.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to

assess adult's orientations toward control versus autonomy with children:

Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642-650.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizating motivation in foreign language learning. Language

Learning, 40(1), 45-78.

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in foreign language learning. The

Modern Language Journal, 78, 278-284.

Dornyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualization

of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 519-538.

Dornyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge

University Press.

Dornyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Pearson

Education Longman.

Dornyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review,

19, 42-68.

307

Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners:

Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2-3, 203-229.

Dornyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation.

Working papers in applied linguistics, Thames Valley University, London, 4,

43-69.

Edwards, A., & Westgate, D. (1999). Observing classroom language. In B. Spolsky (Ed.),

Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics, (pp. 325-332). Oxford, UK:

Elsevier Science Ltd.

Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ehrman, M. E., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language

education: The visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual

differences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313-330.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies of

Second Language Acquisition, 19, 69-92.

Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C.

Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525-551). Maiden, MA:

Blackwell.

Flink, C , Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling strategies: Undermining

children's self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 916-924.

Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic and school performance:

Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 251-21 A.

Freeman, D. (1996). The "unstudied problem": Research on teacher learning in language

teaching. In Donald Freeman & Jack, C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in

language training (pp. 351-378). Cambridge University Press.

Furrer, C , & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-

162.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role

of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2001, March). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher,

and the researcher. Paper presented at the Texas Foreign Language Education

Conference, Austin, TX.

Gardner, R. C , & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second

language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C , & Maclntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in

second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157-194.

Gardner, R. C , & Masgoret, A. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language

learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.

Language learning, 53(1), 167-210.

309

Gardner, R. C , Tremblay, P., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second

language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal,

81, 344-362.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory

Course (2n ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geertz, Clifford (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford

Geertz. New York: Basics Books.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J.E. (1997). Looking in classrooms (7th ed.). New York:

Longman.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An

experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52(2), 890-898.

Guay, F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Social context, student's motivation, and academic

achievement: Toward a process model. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 211-

233.

Gubrium, J. A., & Holstein, J. F. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. Oxford

University Press.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university

foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.

The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

310

Jang, H., & Reeve, J. (2001, April). What teachers do and say to support students'

intrinsic motivation processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American

Educational Research Association, Seatle, WA.

Kleinsasser, C , & Savignon, S. J. (1991). Linguistics, language pedagogy, and

teachers' technical cultures. In James E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and Language

Pedagogy: The State of the Art (pp. 289-301). Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to

student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Elmsford,

NY: Pergamon Press.

Langer, Suzanne (1998). What makes a study qualitative? In Eisner, E. W. (Ed.), The

enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational

practices (pp. 27-41). New York: Macmillan.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching

(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maclntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to

Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 90-99.

Maclntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language

acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences in second language

acquisition (pp. 45-68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

311

Maclntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clement, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate:

Antecedents & consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47(2), 215-229.

Maclntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C , Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2000). Willingness to

communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion

students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.

Maclntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C , Clement, R., & Donavan, L.A. (2002). Sex and age effects

on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2

motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language

Learning, 52(3), 137-165.

Maclntyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing

willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and

affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.

Maclntyre, P, D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety

and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41(1), 85-

117.

Maclntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second

language procifiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2),

265-287.

Markwardt, A. (1948). Motives for the study of modern languages. Language

Learning, 1, 1-11. (Reprinted in (1988) Language Learning, 38, 159-169).

McCrosbey, J. C , & Daly, J. A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

312

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in schools: Individuals differences in

perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203-214.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus group. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 22, 129-152.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Qualitative

Research Methods Series 16. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, H. H., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language

teacher. Research in Education series 7. The Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education, Toronto.

Noels, K. A. (2001). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners' orientations and

perceptions of their teachers' communication style. Language learning, 51(1),

107-144.

Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L.G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers'

communicative style and students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern

Language Journal, 83, 23-33.

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L.G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you

learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination

theory. Language learning, 50, 57-85.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle &

Heinle Publishers.

313

Nunan, D. (2005). Classroom research. In Eli Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in

second language teaching and learning (pp. 225-240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Associates.

O'Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oiler. J. W. (1981). Research on the measurement of affective variables: Some remaining

questions. In Roger Anderson (Ed.), New dimensions in second language

acquisition research (pp. 14-27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Omaggio, A. (1993). Teaching Language in Context (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle &

Heinle.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Factors associated with foreign

language anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 217-239.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Oxford, R. L. (1994). Where are we regarding language learning motivation? The

Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 512-514.

Oxford. R. L., Ehrman, M. E., & Lavine, R. Z. (1991). Style wars: Teacher-student style

conflicts in the language classroom. In S. S. Magnan & C. J. James (Eds.),

Challenges in the 1990's for college foreign language programs (pp. 1-25).

Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding

the theoretical framework. Modern Language journal, 78, 12-28.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

314

Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational

Researcher, 29 (9), 5-9.

Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson. Tesol Quarterly, 26 (2),

225-241.

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Edward

Deci & Richard Ryan (Eds.), Handbook ofSelf-Determination Research (pp. 183-

203). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion (4 ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &

Sons.

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and

motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537-548.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students'

engagement in increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotions,

28(2), 147-169.

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education.

Cambridge University Press.

Richard, J., & Lockhard, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.

Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,

55(1), 68-78.

Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. Tesol

Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.

315

Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.

Texts and contexts in SLL. (2nd ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill SL

Professional Series.

Scarcella, R. R., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The

individual in the communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Scheidecker, D., & Freeman, W. (1999). Bringing out the best in students: How

legendary teachers motivate kids. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal

structure and external connections. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning

motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 14-87). Honolulu, HI: University of

Hawaii Press.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for analyzing talk, text,

and interaction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. New York:

Edward Arnold.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects

of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

316

Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and

whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and children's

engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology,

82 (1), 22-32.

Syed, Z. (2001). Notions of self in foreign language learning: A qualitative

analysis. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language

acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 127-148). Honolulu, HI: University of

Hawaii, Second language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Tremblay, P., & Gardner, R. C , (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language

learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-520.

Tudor, Ian (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge University

Press.

Ushioda, E. (1996). Developing a dynamic concept of L2 motivation. In Tina Hickey &

Jenny Williams (Eds.), Language, education and society in a changing world (pp.

239-245). Dublin: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational

thinking. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language

acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 127-148). Honolulu, HI: University of

Hawaii, Second language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in

a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161-1176.

317

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second

language research. London: Longman,

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and

authenticity. London: Longman.

VanPatten, Bill (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign

Language Annals, 26, 435-450.

VanPattern, Bill (1998). Perceptions of and perspectives on the term "communicative".

Hispania, 81(4), 925-932.

VanPatten, Bill (2002). Processing Instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4),

755-803.

Walcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and

interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wenden, A. L. (1986). What do second-language learners know about their language

learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7(2),

186-205.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.

Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

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

perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 77-84.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social

constructivist approach. Cambridge University Press.

318

Williams, M., Burden, R., & Al-Baharna, S. (2001). Making sense of success and failure:

The role of the individual in motivation theory. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt

(Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23,

pp. 171-184). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second language Teaching and

Curriculum Center.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and

Classroom practice. Cambridge University press.

Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford University Press.

Yule, G. (1985). The study of language. Cambridge University Press.

319

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE

Student's background in learning French

• Can you tell me a little about yourself? - Your experience as a French language learner?

How many years in middle school, in high school? - What is your strongest skill/ability as a French learner? • What has been your best experience learning French? In the classroom and

outside the classroom? • Why are you enrolled in this French course this semester? What is your particular

objective/goal as a French learner? • What is your source of motivation for this class?

Current student's experience in learning French

1. This semester, what types of activities motivate you the most? The least?

2. What are the elements/variables directly linked to your level of interest/motivation and degree of engagement during class? Explain: teaching style, teacher's personality, activities (working alone, in pair, or small groups), classmates, physical appearance of the room ...? How does T133

explain/interact with STs? What are her expectations?

3. Oral participation:

• When you don't participate orally, what does that mean? Explain. - When you remain quiet looking at the teacher, the board, the book, I see you are focused and concentrated but:

- What actually goes through your mind? - What holds you back from raising your hand and speaking out loud? - What role does the teacher play in these instances? - What role do the other students play? • Oral participation represents an important part of the semester grade, do

you actually think about this aspect during class? Does that force you to participate more? Explain.

• Taken together, how does this affect your engagement and motivation at the moment?

• Do you feel pressure by the instructor? How? Short term / long term?

4. Learning:

• Now, having passed mid-semester, how do you assess your learning? How do you think you are doing this semester? What are your strengths? Your weaknesses?

T for teacher// STs for students.

• Are there specific areas where you feel you have learned? Improved? Explain.

• Are you driven by grades? How? • What was your reaction when you received the first written test grade?

The second? • Does this affect your behavior during class? How?

• Comments about the in class written test corrections and reviews: - 203: T made the point to correct together so you will/would be better prepared for the next control. What do you think? Describe. - 204: The review, with the practice exercises in class, before 'controle' 1 was helpful? How? Does this affect how you prepared for the test? How? Role of the teacher?

Other comments:

• If you had the opportunity to give suggestions & comments to your instructor to modify his/her approach/style, what would you say?

• Can you think of something else you would like to say? • Do you think my presence in the classroom affects STs' behavior? How?

321

APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE

My objective for today is to have you discuss together some of the points we addressed during the individual interviews as well as additional situations/aspects happening during French class.

1. Let's start with a common feeling you all have expressed, to different degrees, about speaking in front of the class: concern, worry, nervousness and even fear to be in the spotlight and make a mistake or sound and look stupid and many of you entertain the notion that everyone else knows more than you or speaks better... For many, this feeling directly affects their level of engagement and motivation during class. How? Could you explain and expand?

2. Continuing on this topic of speaking and answering questions during whole class discussion, exercise corrections, or grammar lessons, many of you mentioned the following scenario: - Someone in the class will answer quickly (give the sentence, the verb tense, the vocabulary word...) as you are still thinking and trying to understand or put together the sentence. As a result, the T moves on to the next question while you are still thinking about the previous one. Not enough time to think, reflect, and put together an answer. - Could you expand on this phenomenon and describe what goes through your mind? Some mentioned being confused, frustrated by the situation... - How does this affect your behavior for the rest of the activity, the rest of the class period? - What do you suggest could be done differently to prevent this to happen and instead place STs in a better situation when working within the whole class? - Some STs have mentioned what they call "the mental block". Could you describe what it is? How do you experience the "mental block"? Again, what are the consequences on your behavior for the rest of the activity?

3. I have several questions regarding personal interactions between T and STs and between classmates:

How important are these interactions within the classroom? Do you feel connected to your T? How? If not, why? Does that play a role and affect how you are engaged/motivated in class?

Interactions with classmates: Do you know your classmates well enough? What was the role of the T (or not), at the beginning of the semester, to facilitate the exchanges between STs? Does that make a difference in your behavior? Overall, have you seen an evolution in these interactions during the course of the semester? How?

- What are your suggestions to improve the situation?

322

4. In class, the rule is 'speak only in French!' I have seen some variations between the three instructors: one is very strict; one not as strict but strict; and one more flexible and liberal. This rule was explained at the beginning of the semester. What do you think? Does this affect your behavior? Your level of engagement and motivation during class? How? Comments?

5. Based on what you told me during the interview, I made a list of the different elements and factors that affect your level of engagement, interest, enthusiasm, and motivation during instruction:

Degree of language comprehension. Your personal mood of the day.

- Topic and subject matter being studied or discussed; how interesting and relevant it is to you personally.

- How the matter has been explained and presented to you. Atmosphere in the classroom; connections with/between classmates.

- Being fun and entertaining. How does your T make the class fun, interesting...? Examples, specifics...

Is this accurate? Can you think of other factors? Which one do you place at the very top to affect your attitude during instruction? On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the most important), how do you assess their importance in your level of motivation and engagement?

6. As common practice, when you are working in pairs T asks: 'Vous avez fini?' and often, no one reacts at least the first time T asks the question. Why? Does that matter? Also in one class in particular, T has the tendency to interrupt often when you are working in pairs: mostly this is to comment or give explanations on something not related to the activity (often homework). What are your reactions about this? Does that affect your behavior during this activity?

7. Are warm-up activities important to start the class? Again, how does this affect your behavior?

323

APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES //104

NAME:

FINAL GRADE:

Grading Criteria

Attendance & Participation

Petits Controles

Oral Exams

Written Homework

Final Exam

% of Final Grade

/40

/15

/10

/25

/10

X #i

#i

X

X

X #2

#2

X

X

X #3

X

X

X

X #4

X

X

X

X #5

X

X

X

X #6

X

X

X

324

APPENDIX D: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES // 203

NAME:

FINAL GRADE:

Grading Criteria

Attendance & Participation

Controles

Oral Exams

Homework

'Par ecrit' Assignments

Final Exam

% of Final Grade

/30

/15

/15

/10

/15

/15

X #1

#1

X #1

X

X #2

#2

X #2

X

X #3

X

X #3

X

X

X

X

X #4

X

X

X

X

X #5

X

X

X

X

X #6

X

325

APPENDIX E: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES // 204

NAME:

FINAL GRADE:

Grading Criteria

Attendance & Participation

Controles

Oral Exams

Written Homework

'Par ecrit' Assignments

Final Exam

% of Final Grade

/30

/15

/15

/10

/15

/15

X #1

#1

X #1

X

X #2

#2

X #2

X

X #3

X

X #3

X

X

X

X

X #4

X

X

X

X

X #5

X

X

X

X

X #6

X

326

CURRICULUM VITAE

Claire M. Hicks

Place of birth: Montargis, France

Education:

Degree of Chirurgien-Dentiste (D.D.S.), University of Reims, Dental School, France, January 1985

Teaching certification in French 9-12, University -Milwaukee, January 2003

M. A. F. L. L., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, May 2003

Dissertation Title:

Student Motivation During Foreign Language Instruction: What Factors Affect Student Motivation and How?

5~- ">- Zoog

Major Professor Date