1887
image of Sketching a motivational landscape
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Studies of motivation in bilingual education settings often address questions of differences between learners in bilingual programmes and those in mainstream education. Problematic in this respect is our increasing awareness of the inherent differences between these two learner groups, as learners in bilingual programmes have often chosen or been selected for a bilingual route ( ). The study presented here therefore does not seek to compare learners in bilingual and non-bilingual programmes, but rather to explore the nature of language learning motivation within the context of bilingual secondary education (BSE) in the Netherlands. Using a purpose-designed tool reflecting the L2 Motivational Self System ( ), this study investigated trends in motivation across genders, academic tracks and year-groups of nearly 2000 learners. Findings suggest that, although these learners all have bilingual education in common, differences between the motivations of these groups should not be overlooked.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.19010.mea
2021-04-08
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Hoorie, A. H.
    (2018) The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. doi:  10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Azarnoosh, M., & Birjandi, P.
    (2012) Junior high school students’ L2 motivational self system: Any gender differences?World Applied Sciences Journal, 20(4), 577–584.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S.
    (2015) L2 motivation research 2005e2014: Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2015.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
    (2007) A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. 10.1017/S1366728906002732
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruton, A.
    (2011) Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–532. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z.
    (2005) The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19–36. doi:  10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2005.00263.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M.
    (2018) Juggling ideals and constraints. The position of English teachers in CLIL contexts. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 177–202. doi:  10.1075/dujal.18002.dal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18002.dal [Google Scholar]
  9. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
    (2013) Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(04), 545–559. doi:  10.2167/beb459.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0 [Google Scholar]
  10. Denman, J., van Schooten, E., & de Graaff, R.
    (2018) Attitudinal factors and the intention to learn English in pre-vocational secondary bilingual and mainstream education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 203–226. doi:  10.1075/dujal.18005.den
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18005.den [Google Scholar]
  11. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
    (2014) CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2014.889508
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889508 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dörnyei, Z.
    (1998) Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(03), 117–135. doi:  10.1017/S026144480001315X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480001315X [Google Scholar]
  13. (2001) Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667343
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667343 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2003) Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (1st ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) The L2 Motivational self system. InZ. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.9–42). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691293‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L.
    (2013) Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437–462. doi:  10.1111/lang.12005
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12005 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E.
    (2009) Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691293
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2011) Teaching and researching: Motivation (Vol.2). Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Genesee, F.
    (2007) Top ten most consistent findings from research on foreign language immersion. The ACIE Newsletter, 10(3). https://carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol10/may2007_researchfindings.html
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goeman, J. J., & de Jong, N. H.
    (2018) How well does the sum score summarize the test? Summability as a measure of internal consistency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(2), 54–63. doi:  10.1111/emip.12181
    https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12181 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z.
    (2013) Motivating learning. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Henry, A.
    (2009) Gender differences in compulsory school pupils’ L2 self-concepts: A longitudinal study. System, 37, 177–193. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2008.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Henry, A., & Cliffordson, C.
    (2013) Motivation, gender, and possible selves. Language Learning, 63(2), 271–295. doi:  10.1111/lang.12009
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2014) The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. doi:  10.1177/1362168814541736
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541736 [Google Scholar]
  25. IRIS
    IRIS (2020, 15September) IRIS: A digital repository of instruments and materials for research into second languages. IRIS. https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/index
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kissau, S.
    (2006) Gender differences in second language motivation: An investigation of micro- and macro-level influences. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 73–96. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19755
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lamb, M.
    (2012) A self system perspective on young adolescents? Motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00719.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00719.x [Google Scholar]
  28. (2017) The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50(3), 301–346. doi:  10.1017/S0261444817000088
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000088 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lasagabaster, D.
    (2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30–41. doi:  10.2174/1874913500801010030
    https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
    (2009) Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17. www.icrj.eu/index.php?vol=12&page=73
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L.
    (2016) The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. InA. Mackey & E. Marsden (eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS Repository of Instruments for Research into Second Languages (pp.1–21). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mearns, T.
    (2015) Chicken, egg or a bit of both? Motivation in bilingual education (TTO) in the Netherlands. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.646095?
  33. Mearns, T., & de Graaff, R.
    (2018a) Bilingual education and CLIL in the Netherlands. The paradigm and the pedagogy. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 122–128. doi:  10.1075/dujal.00002.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.00002.int [Google Scholar]
  34. (2018b) Bucking the trend? Motivational differences between boys and girls who opt in or out of bilingual education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(1), 1–26. doi:  10.1075/jicb.17003.mea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17003.mea [Google Scholar]
  35. Mearns, T., de Graaff, R., & Coyle, D.
    (2017) Motivation for or from bilingual education? A comparative study of learner views in the Netherlands. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2017.1405906
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1405906 [Google Scholar]
  36. Merisuo-Storm, T.
    (2007) Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign-language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 226–235. doi:  10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024 [Google Scholar]
  37. Michels, B.
    (2006) Verschil moet er wezen. Een werkdocument over verschillen tussen havo en vwo-leerlingen in de tweede fase en handreikingen om daarmee om te gaan. https://www.slo.nl/downloads/archief/verschil_20moet_20er_20wezen.pdf/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mills, N.
    (2014) Self-efficacy in second language acquisition. InS. Mercer & M. Williams (eds.), Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA (pp.6–22). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783091362‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091362-003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nuffic
    Nuffic (2012) Standard for bilingual education. Nuffic.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nuffic
    Nuffic (2019) Kwaliteitsstandaard tweetalig onderwijs 2.0. Nuffic. https://www.nuffic.nl/publicaties/kwaliteitsstandaard-tweetalig-onderwijs-20/
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Papi, M., & Abdollahzadeh, E.
    (2012) Teacher motivational practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Language Learning, 62(2), 571–594. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00632.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00632.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M.
    (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. doi:  10.1016/S0001‑6918(99)00050‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rumlich, D.
    (2018) Current research on CLIL and bilingual education in the Netherlands. A discussion. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 264–273. doi:  10.1075/dujal.00003.rum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.00003.rum [Google Scholar]
  44. Ryan, S.
    (2009) Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. InZ. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.120–143). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691293‑007
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-007 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sieben, I., & van Ginderen, N.
    (2014) De keuze voor tweetalig onderwijs. Mens en maatschappij, 89(3), 233–255. doi:  10.5117/MEM2014.3.SIEB
    https://doi.org/10.5117/MEM2014.3.SIEB [Google Scholar]
  46. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J.
    (1999) Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Somers, T., & Llinares, A.
    (2018) Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2018.1517722
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1517722 [Google Scholar]
  48. Stichting Havoplatform
    Stichting Havoplatform (2019) Visie. https://havoplatform.nl/visie/
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sylvén, L. K.
    (2013) CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–320. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777387
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777387 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sylvén, L. K., & Thompson, A. S.
    (2015) Language learning motivation and CLIL: Is there a connection?Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 28–50. doi:  10.1075/jicb.3.1.02syl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.02syl [Google Scholar]
  51. Thompson, A. S., & Sylvén, L. K.
    (2019) CLIL and motivation revisited: A longitudinal perspective. InL. K. Sylvén (ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp.76–97). Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T.
    (2003) Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145. doi:  10.1177/016235320302700203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203 [Google Scholar]
  53. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X.
    (2015) The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 4–27. doi:  10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.19010.mea
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.19010.mea
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error