Week 3: Yulia (article review)

Wehner, Gump and Downey (2011) carried out an interesting research that investigated the difference in students’ motivation between those who use SL and those who don’t. The authors wished to find if the use of SL could affect students’ motivation in the course using statistical methods. In particular, they were interested in the following questions. Is there a difference in students’ attitude toward Spanish culture between students who use SL to enhance their learning experience and those who do not? Is there a difference in students’ anxiety toward using Spanish? Is there a difference in students’ interest in learning Spanish as a foreign language? And finally, is there a difference in the students’ motivational intensity toward learning Spanish?

According to the findings, students who used SL reported a slightly more positive attitude toward Spanish language and culture than those who did not. Anxiety levels among those who used SL were lower than those who did not participate in SL project. Wehner et al (2011) did not find statistically significant items for the last 2 questions, which suggests that SL did not affect students’ interest in learning Spanish and their motivational intensity.

Wehner et al (2011) examined students’ motivation on the basis of Klein’s (1986) theory of language acquisition. According to his framework, motivation is viewed as a dimension that consists of three parts: social integration, communicative needs and attitude (Klein, 1986, as cited in Wehner et al, 2011). It is, however, arguable whether attitude and the issue of social integration and identity aren’t standalone factors that affect language acquisition. Lightbown and Spada (2006) suggest they should be considered as separate individual factors, as learners’ attitude might change due to inconsistency of their learning styles and teaching techniques. Another argument that doesn’t support Klein’s framework is that motivation can originate either from within (self-determined and internalized) or it can be imposed externally by others, for example, teachers, parents, etc. Both types of motivation can be quite powerful in terms of driving learners’ success (Ushioda, 2008).

While it was an interesting inquiry, the limitations of their research are reflected in a small sample size. They had only 21 participants, which isn’t enough to make generalisations (Dornyei, 2007). As noted earlier, their research can be subject to a theoretical criticism. And finally, Wehner et al (2011) did not take into account students’ experiences obtained from a ‘normal’ classroom setting against which they tried to investigate the effects of SL. While some students might have found SL an exciting opportunity to communicate with the native speakers and explore various sites that not everyone can afford to visit in real life, one needs to consider students’ learning needs, styles and of course the art of ‘conventional’ language teaching, which isn’t something archaic yet. Although I enjoy online communication and the experience that SL gives, personally, I would not write those factors off and sometimes prefer face-to-face instruction to learning in virtual world.

References:

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 17-31). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). The effects of second life on the motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 277-289. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2010.551757