The Impact of the Learning Environment on Students’ Motivation in Upper Secondary School

(1)

Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies and Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

The Impact of the Learning Environment on Students’ Motivation in Upper Secondary

School

Lärandemiljöns effekt på gymnasieelevers motivation

Ban Shareef Syleme Sadiku

Master of Arts in Upper Secondary Education, 300 credits or in Secondary Education, 270 credits English Studies and Education

06-06-2021

Examiner: Anna Wärnsby Supervisor: Damon Tutunjian

CULTURE-LANGUAGES-MEDIA

(2)

Acknowledgments

Our deepest and sincerest gratitude goes to our families for their unconditional love and support throughout our (long) academic journey. We would also like to extend our appreciation to our supervisor Damon Tutunjian for putting up with our statistical mess and emergency zoom calls.

We promise to never touch a pivot table ever again. A special thanks also goes to Ivar Johansson for giving us a crash course in statistics when we needed it the most. Lastly, we would like to thank our best friends Ramlah Warsame and Lara Hussein who have been our ride or die since day one. We would not have been able to complete this research (or program) without their wonderful enthusiasm, humor and love. This ship has not sunk. She sailed.

Ban Shareef & Syleme Sadiku 2021-06-06

(3)

Abstract

The present study sets out to explore the impact Swedish upper secondary students' present learning environments have on their motivation to learn English as a second language. More specifically, we aim to investigate student opinions on how their learning situation and their teachers’ approach to leadership and pedagogy affects their motivation in L2 English. The study is performed with the third component of Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivation Self-System, the L2 Learning Experience, as a theoretical point of departure. The L2 Learning Experience emphasizes the motives connected to the immediate learning environment through course- specific, teacher-specific, and group-specific aspects. A quantitative study including four qualitative questions was carried out by a self-report questionnaire to four different Swedish upper secondary schools. The results showed that the students’ learning environment was positive for their motivation across all schools. Moreover, it was found that students seem to consider the teacher’s role to be an important factor to their motivation and learning in L2. A teacher’s mood, spontaneity, and flexibility all seem to be influential aspects to the students’

motivation. This demonstrates the importance of making room for creating meaningful teaching situations and relationships with the students. We conclude that if motivation was emphasized explicitly in the Swedish curriculum, then teachers would perhaps receive the time and the tools to achieve Skolverket’s goal of stimulating a lifelong desire to learn.

Keyword: L2 Motivation, L2 Motivational Self System, L2 Engagement, Learning outcomes, L2 Learning Experience,

(4)

1. Introduction

Sweden has traditionally distinguished itself as a knowledge-based economy with a well- educated population - a nation that focuses heavily on education and high-level technological readiness - which makes Sweden one of the most productive and competitive economies in the world (World Economic Forum, 2013). However, this well-maintained reputation is being threatened by an increasing number of low-performing students. According to the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), Sweden's PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) results were at their highest in the year 2000 when the survey first began but then gradually declined until 2012. Thereafter, the results turned slightly upwards in 2015 and continued on this path up to the most recent results in 2018, where Sweden ranked eleventh in PISA scores among the 36 OECD countries. In this 2018 report, Swedish students were seen to read less and, crucially, to have increasingly less positive attitudes, and thus motivation, for reading, a decline which was seen to be stronger in Sweden than in other OECD countries (Skolverket, 2019).

Although the PISA results are a relative estimation between countries, the findings are still concerning as they indicate that a sizable number of students are trapped in a vicious cycle of poor performance and demotivation that can potentially cause more low grades and further disengagement from school. As previously mentioned, poor school performances have long- term consequences for the individual and for society as a whole. The 2016 report states there is a high risk of dropping out of school for students who perform poorly at the age of 15. In contrast, the 2018 report indicates an improvement, but the results should be interpreted with more caution than usual due to the high level of exclusion could have led to inaccurate results.

Nonetheless, if a large percentage of the population lacks basic skills, the country’s long-term economic growth will be jeopardized which will cause long-term consequences on both individuals and society (OECD 2016). Keeping this in mind, understanding what motivates students to improve their learning outcomes is crucial for educators.

(6)

It is well known that success in language learning is largely dependent on the motivational state of the learner. Dörnyei (2001) argues that the success of learning a foreign language is strongly related to motivation and that two central demotivating factors for learners are when they deem the subject content to be meaningless with no relevance to their lives and poor teacher-student relationships. Dörnyei further argue that if a teacher wants to motivate their students, then the relevance needs to be ascertained in all of the activities. In other words, the students must see the relationship between the activities taught at school and the world in which they live. If the students fail to see this connection, then the whole subject will be seen as meaningless which will increase student demotivation. Dörnyei (2001, 2005) describes several reasons for the development of low-performing students within the theory of the L2 Motivational Self System.

The L2 Motivational Self System is composed of three components: Ideal-self, Ought-to-self, and the L2 Learning Experience. Of particular interest to the current study is the third component, L2 Learning Experience. The L2 Learning Experience emphasizes the motives connected to the immediate learning environment through course-specific, teacher-specific, and group-specific aspects. With these aspects in mind, Dörnyei (2001) advises teachers to investigate their students’ goals and the type of topics they would like to learn about and then create relevance to the students by incorporating these aspects into the curriculum.

When taking a closer look at the Swedish curriculum for upper secondary school, one can see that motivation is not explicitly mentioned. However, some implicit mention can be found in the Swedish Curriculum. For example, Skolverket (2011) briefly states that education should promote and develop students' lifelong desire to learn. Yet, they do not elaborate on what ignites a lifelong desire to learn within the students or how the teachers should kindle this desire. Nor do they address what happens if teachers fail to motivate their students. The purpose of the current investigation is to explore to what degree course-specific, teacher-specific, and group-specific aspects can be seen to impact the motivation of Swedish upper-secondary students to learn English L2. This is particularly important to understand in a Swedish context to prevent the consequences of having a generation of unmotivated or school disengaged students.

(7)

At the core of motivational research and theory lie questions regarding what moves a person to engage in certain actions, to make decisions, and to expend effort towards certain goals. These questions, which seem quite simple at first glance, have provoked a good deal of debate among scholars as they have worked to develop a single understanding of the term “motivation” (see discussion in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Dörnyei (2001) considers motivation to be a highly complex, abstract, and hypothetical construct which is resistant to simplistic definitions and yet which is also frequently overused and over-applied despite its inherent vagueness. As Dörnyei (2001, p.1) states: “it is a very convenient way of referring to what is a rather complex issue. As Dörnyei emphasizes, when trying to describe a motivated or unmotivated learner, one quickly notes the difficulty of finding the most appropriate attributes to describe what being motivated or unmotivated actually consists of. Again, this ties back to the fact that most people’s experiences of motivation are rather complex and cannot simply be characterized as a cause-and-effect binary state that occurs before or after, for example, a task or some other activity.

(8)

2. Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this project is to explore Swedish upper secondary school students' perspectives of their L2 Learning Experience regarding to the contribution of aspects of their classroom environment on their motivation to learn L2 English. Our specific research questions are as follows:

• Which factors, linked to the English teacher, such as leadership and teaching pedagogy, do students consider playing an important role in their motivation to learn L2 English in upper secondary school?

• To what extent do students feel that the learning environment, course content, and peer groups affect their motivation to learn L2 English?

(9)

3. Background

3.1 L2 motivation theory

The L2 Motivational System (2005) is highly influenced by the work of psychologists Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert. Gardner and Lambert (1959) were pioneers in the research of L2 learning motivation and introduced regulated methods and instruments for L2 learning motivation using a social psychological approach. One key development within the field of L2 motivation was Gardner’s (1985) establishment of a theoretical framework for second language acquisition. This framework includes two central components: integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. Integrative motivation is strongly connected to L2 culture and community, for example, the wish to become related and identified with an L2 community.

Instrumental motivation is linked to the desire to develop communication skills in the second language for reasons such as earning more money or securing better jobs (Dörnyei, 1994).

Despite the influence of the model, it was criticized for being too limiting and having no cohesion. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) issued a call to re-theorize L2 motivation research where they questioned important matters about new theoretical concepts and extended the social-psychological theoretic framework in L2 motivation (Ushioda, 2001).

Csizer and Dörnyei (2005) further investigated the theory of integrative motivation to also force the re-theorizing of L2 motivation research. They regulated a long large-scale investigation of Hungarian students’ attitudes towards learning foreign languages (1993-2004). The data revealed the significance of integrative motivation, however, Dörnyei and Cziser (2005) claimed that the process of the underlying identification in integration could be better described as an internal process of identification within the individual’s self-concept rather than identification with an external reference group.

In 2005, Dörnyei introduced a new approach, an L2 motivational framework he called the L2 Motivational Self System, which builds on previous theories on motivation. According to Dörnyei (2009), this new approach was necessitated because earlier approaches failed to explain the precise connection between the essential components of L2 motivation. In addition, previous research presented a diversity that did not appear to have created a clear big picture.

As Dörnyei (2009) argues, there also had been a stream of studies that have displayed

(10)

dissatisfaction with Gardner’s integrative approach and therefore suggested a requirement for reevaluation that would allow for improved theories and ideas in L2 motivation. Dörnyei (2019) states that the L2 Motivational Self System was partly the result of research on L2 motivation in Hungary and partly of the theoretical progress in applied linguistics and psychology. The key focus in the process incorporated the concept of integrativeness (Gardner, 1985) which then became a broader approach which is now conceptualized as Ideal L2 self.

The results of this research justified the development of a new construct of motivation: with Ideal L2 Self as a central part, a second component being Ought-to L2 self and a third part, L2 Learning Experience.

The L2 Motivational Self System examines the connection between three main components, learners’ possible L2 selves (ideal L2 self and ought to self) and their L2 learning context (L2 learning experience). The first component, Ideal L2 self refers to the L2 specific facet of one’s

“ideal self”, which is the description of all the qualities a person would like to acquire.

Moreover, if a person’s ideal self speaks an L2, the “ideal L2 self” is an effective motivator to learn a second language because we strive to reduce the conflict between our actual and ideal selves. Ought-to-self concerns the attributes that one believes one ought to possess to avoid possible negative outcomes and involves duties, responsibilities, and obligations. In other words, L2 learners are motivated by the idea of the kind of person they think they should become. The second component is based on more extrinsic reasons than intrinsic.

Lastly, the third component, the L2 learning experience, differs theoretically from the first two components in that it is not directly connected with the self-image. The L2 learning experience instead concerns situations -- specific motives that are connected to the actual learning environment and experience. Dörnyei (2005) clarifies that the third component is associated with such aspects as the influence of the teacher, the curriculum, the peer group, and the students’ own encounters with success. Dörnyei (2009) further clarifies that primary motivation does not always derive from internal and external self-images (the first 2 parts of the system). For some language learners, motivation comes from outstanding engagement with the process of learning a language (e.g., they discover that they are good at it). Lastly, Dörnyei (2005) states that the L2 learning experience can be seen to correlate with casual dimensions of L2 motivation stated by Ushioda (2001). Ushioda (2001) claims that L2 motivation comes from the sequence of L2 learning including L2-related past and present events which indicates that the third component is a larger element that surpasses the present learning situation.

(11)

However, Dörneyi (2019) states that it is important to note that the third component, the L2 learning experience, is not as theorized as the first two components. The author demonstrate that this neglect does not mean that the L2 Learning Experience is secondary in importance.

On the contrary, several studies have provided empirical evidence that the L2 Learning Experience is often seen as the most powerful predictor of motivated behavior (Csizér &

Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012; Papi, 2010; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009). Dörnyei (2019) offers two explanations for the neglect of L2 Learning Experience.

Firstly, Dörnyei argues that the historical background of the L2 Learning Experience is considerably different from the first two components. As a result, the L2 Learning Experience cannot be easily harmonized with the well-established theoretical basis of the first two components. Secondly, the undertheorized nature of this third component does not make it easy to integrate it into extensive theories in the same manner as the Ideal and Ought-to selves (Dörnyei, 2019). Nonetheless, Dörnyei states that “… understanding the situated learning experience in an active, engagement-specific framework (as outlined earlier) may also establish a platform” (Dörnyei, 2019, p 27), as a tool that could be used as a solution to reduce or eliminate the theoretical discordance that is present between the three components of the L2 Motivational Self System.

3.2 The L2 Learning Experience

Further explanation of this third component can be found in Dörnyei (1994) where he presents several classroom aspects related to the L2 learning experience. The framework combines several classroom aspects which may affect student motivation in L2 learning. Dörnyei (1994) presents the framework by dividing it into three sets of components regarding motivation: 1) course-specific motivational components, 2) teacher-specific motivational components, and 3) group-specific motivational components. In the following section, we describe these components and discuss what they mean in the L2 classroom.

(12)

3.2.1 Course-specific aspects

Course-specific motivational components include four important motivational factors to describe motivation in an L2 classroom that seem to be beneficial when explaining course- specific aims. The four factors are: interest, relevance, expectancy, and satisfaction. Interest refers to intrinsic motivation and a person’s implicit interest and desire to know more about him/herself and his/her climate. The second category, relevance, is related to what extent the student acknowledges that the instruction is united to the person’s valuable needs, values or goals. Furthermore, Dörnyei (1994) correlates relevance with instrumentality, students’

function of serving some purpose, of the learning situation and relates it to what degree the classroom instruction and content in the course are seen to be helpful in achieving the goal of learning an L2. Expectancy is connected to the anticipated possibility of success and refers to the L2 learner’s self-confidence and self-awareness at a basic level. At the level of the learning environment, it involves perceived task difficulty, the extent of effort needed, the amount of accessible help and guidance, the teacher’s delivery of the task, and experience with the task type. Lastly, satisfaction refers to the result of a task, concerning extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.

Extrinsic rewards are related to praise or good scores whereas intrinsic rewards concern pleasure and pride (Dörnyei, 1994).

3.2.2 Teacher-specific aspects

Dörnyei (1994) presents the teacher-specific motivational components with three sub- components: affiliate drive, the teacher’s authority type, and the teacher’s systematic socialization of student motivation. The first component which is affiliate drive has been identified to be perhaps the most crucial teacher-related motive. Affiliate drive concerns students’ requirement to do well in school to please the teacher whom they admire. The second teacher-specific component is authority type, which means if the teacher is dominant or supports autonomy. In addition, Dörnyei (1994) states that students' independence and intrinsic motivation improves when the teacher shares responsibility with them, offers them choices and alternatives, involves them in making decisions, and lets the students contribute to establishing priorities. The third and last teacher-specific motivational component is the teachers’ part in direct and systematic socialization of student motivation, meaning if the teacher actively

(13)

cultivates and stimulates students’ motivation. The author introduces three channels for the socialization process: 1) Modelling: teachers demonstrate “group conscience” in their capacity as group leaders which causes similar modeling approaches and orientations toward learning in students. 2) Task presentation: teachers present the tasks thoroughly by bringing attention to the purpose of the task the students are going to do and its possible interest and functional value. Moreover, task presentation regards drawing attention to the strategies that should be favorable in accomplishing the task, thus increasing students’ interest and self-understanding.

3) Feedback: the provided feedback brings a clear message about the teacher’s priorities and is emulated in the students’ motivation. There are two kinds of feedback: informational feedback and controlling feedback. Informational feedback means that the commentary is related to competence whereas controlling feedback judges students’ work against external principles. Dörnyei (1994) further describes that including praise in informational feedback may indicate the success of effort and competence because it indicates that similar accomplishments can occur eventually. However, praise should be avoided in controlling feedback considering it is a comparison of students’ accomplishments to the successes of other students. Comparing one’s student accomplishment with other students in controlling feedback may have a negative effect to intrinsic motivation. The student might feel too much pressure because of the comparison and lose their interest in those aspects of learning that they enjoy.

Likewise, Ushioda & Dörnyei (2011), and Csikszentmihalyi (1997) emphasizes the effects teachers can have on their learners' motivation. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) points out that the most influential teachers, those who make the biggest impact on their students, are the ones who show immense love and dedication to their profession. As a matter of fact, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) describes the above-mentioned teachers as “nutcases”, whose involvement and passion for their subjects is excessive and almost crazy. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) argues that their passion, enthusiasm, and involvement in their profession and subject is contagious in a way that instills a similar enthusiasm and willingness to learn and pursue new knowledge. Moreover, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) further maintains this argument by further describing that:

Students can usually discern, for instance, whether an adult they know likes or dislikes what he or she is doing. If a teacher does not believe in his job, does not enjoy the learning he is trying to transmit, the student will sense this and derive the entirely rational conclusion that the particular subject matter is not worth mastering for its own sake. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997,p.77)

(14)

Therefore, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) concludes that teachers' enthusiasm transmits to their students and affects their motivation. To further stipulate Csikszentmihalyi’s argument, another ingredient is related to commitment to and teacher’s expectations for the students’ academic progress. According to Dörnyei (2001), it is vital to understand that students are sensitive to the cues coming from the teacher. This means that teachers have to be aware of how they express themselves. Dörnyei (2001) argues that if teachers express clear commitment towards the students’ learning and progress, students will start mirroring the same behavior and commitment towards their learning. The commitment that Dörneyi refers to includes making a strong presence in the students’ both physical and as the author calls it, spiritual. Dörnyei (2001) provides a couple of examples, such as offering concrete assistance; showing concern when things are not going well, responding immediately when help is requested. Interestingly enough, Dörneyi (2001) also identifies being available to work overtime or allowing students to call their teachers at home when they have a problem to have negative consequences. This could indicate that, although teachers should show commitment, the said commitment should not consume the teachers’ personal life and time in an excessive way.

However, Dörnyei (2001) notes that although sharing enthusiasm with students is important it is not enough. Thus, teachers must place high enough expectations for the students to achieve (Dörneyi, 2001). Moreover, this is supported by Hugo (2011) as his findings confirm that it is absolutely vital for the students' motivation to have expectations that they will succeed. Hugo further states that teachers must believe in their students and their students' abilities more than the students themselves. Hugo disclose that if a teacher expects a student to achieve a high level of attainment, then the student is more likely to actually live up to that expectation.

However, having low expectations becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the students will fail. According to Hugo, expressing both high expectations and showing commitment to the students and their learning, the students experience themselves as accepted, confirmed, and appreciated as their teachers regarded them as competent fellow human beings. In other words, students experience trust in their teachers. Trust is also an important element to add to the commitment and expectation ingredients.

According to Ramirés (2001), it goes without saying that a good relationship with the students is necessary for the success of the students’ motivation. Ramirés states that for trust-building to take place in relation to the students, one of the prerequisites is that there is a natural openness

(15)

and belief in the human ability, an interest in the other, and spontaneity in the teacher.

According to Ramirés trust building cannot be planned, because too much intentionality may seem calculating and create suspicion. This emphasizes that building trust, openness, and a good relationship with the students is a long process. It is, as Ramirés describes it, “Trust is a wild plant that only blooms spontaneously.” (p. 132). In contrast to Ramirés (2001), Dörneyi (2001) provides more concrete components to systematically build trust. These include, acceptance of the students, ability to listen and pay attention to them and availability for personal contact.

3.2.3 Group-specific aspects

Dörnyei (2001) states that creating a safe, supportive, and pleasant classroom is placed as second most important (after the teachers own behavior) among all the motivational dimensions. In other words, the pleasant classroom that Dörnyei is referring to is free from tension or hostile feelings that make the environment uncomfortable or unsafe for the students to practice their English in. Instead, the classroom has a norm of tolerance that allows the students to make mistakes without feeling embarrassed or criticized (Dörneyi, 2001).

Furthermore, Dörnyei states that a supportive and safe classroom is also described as a classroom that is filled with humor:

The main point about having humor in the classroom is not so much about continuously cracking jokes but rather having a relaxed attitude about how seriously we take ourselves. If students can sense that the teacher allows a healthy degree of self-mockery and does not treat school as the most hallowed of all places, the jokes will come. (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 41).

Ultimately, Dörnyei claims that what is at stake is the creation of a relaxed environment that makes the students feel safe to be in and learn without any language anxiety that is known to be a powerful factor in hindering L2 learning development (Dörneyi, 2001). In addition, Dörnyei states that the cohesiveness of the learner group determines whether they may develop appropriate group norms. According to Dörneyi, this is due to the powerful influence a group as a social unit has on its members’ behaviors both in a positive and a negative way. Thus, Dörneyi (2001) argues that understanding how group dynamics in the L2 classroom work will enable teachers to understand how to motivate their students. Keeping this in mind, Dörnyei (1994) presents four categories of group dynamics that have motivational bearings. These four

(16)

categories are group-specific motivational components: 1) goal-orientedness 2) norm and reward system 3) group cohesion 4) classroom goal structures.

The first category regards Goal-orientedness and refers to what degree the group is attuned to follow their group goal. A group goal is a combination of individual goals, a final state that is requested by most of the group members. Sometimes there is more than one group goal and in many cases, the group goal is perhaps not a goal at all. An example is that students decide that their group goal is to have fun instead of learning. Meanwhile, the second category concerns the group’s norm and reward system which is a highly important factor that may affect student motivation. Group norms are principles that most of the group members agree to and therefore become an element of the group’s value system. When a norm has been integrated and becomes an obvious requirement for the group to operate, the group will presumably cope with changes by putting pressure on those who disrupt the norm. This can happen through series of group actions. Firstly, the group shows support for the teacher’s work to have the norms realized.

Then the group begins to dislike and disclose disagreements with the members who violate the norm and even openly disapproves of them and isolates them.

The third category Group cohesion regards “the strength of the relationship linking the members to one another and to the group itself” (Dörnyei, 1994, p 279). Dörnyei (1994) presents findings by Evans & Dion (1991) that shows that there is a positive connection between cohesion and group performance. The reasoning could be that group members want to assist in the group’s success since the group’s norms have a high impact on the individual.

Finally, the fourth category, classroom goal structures apply to whether the classroom goal is competitive, cooperative, or individualistic. A competitive structure means that students work against one another and only the outstanding ones are rewarded. However, Dörnyei points out that competition does not necessarily have to be seen in a negative light, it could be positive too. In a cooperative structure, students work in smaller groups and the responsibility for the outcome is divided between members making them evenly rewarded. Lastly, in an individual classroom situation, the students work individually making one’s expectation of accomplishing a goal neither minimized nor intensified because of others.

(17)

In general, it can be said that it is neither good nor bad with small teaching groups for students.

Instead, the crucial determinator is instead how the students themselves experience the situation. However, Hugo (2011), Dewey (1897/2003), and Comenius (1657/1999) advocate for smaller teaching groups. Hugo (2011) illustrates that small teaching groups can be beneficial when teaching in a class of unmotivated students. When working in small groups, scholars agree that students feel a strong sense of affirmation from their teachers. This increases their self-confidence, leads to better group relationship between teacher and students and eventually leads to increased motivation (Hugo, 2011; Dewey, 1897/2003; Comenius, 1657/1999).

(18)

4. Method

Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) point out that doing motivation research can be both very rewarding and daunting at the same time. The authors state that this is due to the inherent problems in motivation research for example that motivation is abstract and not directly observable, and that motivation is inconstant and dynamic. However, despite the challenging and complicated nature of motivation, the authors suggest how to make motivation research less daunting and complicated to conduct. According to the authors, focusing on a particular aspect of motivation that contains thorough clarification of how the L2 motivation will be conceptualized in the specific study makes research easier to conduct. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the students’ opinions on how the learning environment and the teachers' leadership and pedagogy affect their motivation to learn English as a . Keeping this in mind, the investigation will be carried out in accordance with Dörnyei’s (2005) theory L2 Motivational Self-System with a specific focus on the third Component of L2 Motivational Self System theory which is the L2 Learning Experience and its three components: Course-specific components, Teacher-specific components, and Group-specific components. Thus, a survey was used to collect the necessary data on the students’ opinions. Furthermore, the quantitative study was carried out by a self-report questionnaire that, as mentioned above, mainly focuses on the L2 Learning Experience of the L2 motivational self-system theory. Lastly, the quantitative study includes qualitative aspects by including specific open-ended questions in the survey (see Appendix).

4.1 Participants

The data was collected from four different Swedish upper secondary schools in four different locations in Southern Sweden. All schools have been contacted through our VFU-teachers, friends and previous teachers where we attended school as teenagers. The chosen schools have been anonymized in this research and will therefore be referred to as the following: School 1 (S1), School 2 (S2), School 3( S3) and School 4 (S4). The reason we chose these specific schools is because they vary to some degree in size and socio-economic status. School 1 is an upper secondary school from a high median income and a high socioeconomic status municipality with low unemployment rates (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2021). Moreover, School 1 has approximately 1000 students and 42 students from School 1 have participated in our

(19)

questionnaire. The students were between the ages 16 and 18 and were taught by the same English teacher. Similar to School 1, School 2 is an upper secondary school with a large student capacity with approximately 900 students. However, School 2 is from a municipality with a lower median income and a high percentage of unemployment. The 25 participants are between the ages 18 and 20 and were taught by the same teacher. School 3 is the largest upper secondary school with 1250 students. School 3 is also from a lower median income municipality. There were 19 students from the age of 16 to 19 that participated and that are also taught by the same teacher. The fourth and last school is a comparatively smaller upper secondary with approximately 500 students and is from a municipality with higher median income than School 2, and 2 but not as high as School 1. Lastly, 20 students from School 4, aged 16 to 17, participated in the questionnaire and were taught by the same teacher. The reason we chose to include four different schools in our study is to create a nuanced analysis regarding the L2 Learning Experience. In total, 106 students between the ages of 16 and 20 participated in the questionnaire.

Table 1 presents the information on the number of participants in each of the four schools by displaying the amount of participants, age and gender. It was significant to select students from different schools to fill in the questionnaire to create an analysis regarding the L2 learning environment. Furthermore, the different schools allow an analysis that displays potential differences or similarities of diverse learning environments concerning motivation.

Table 1

Participants

School Participants Age

School 1 42 16-18

School 2 25 18-20

School 3 19 16-19

School 4 20 16-17

(20)

4.2 Materials

The construction of the questionnaire was based on the design method presented in Dörnyei and Taguchi’s (2010) Questionnaires in Second Language Research Construction, Administration, and Processing, as well as Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) Teaching and Researching Motivation.

The construction of the items was based on the theory presented in Dörnyei (1994, 2001, 2005), and the first cluster of questions was based on Ushioda’s (2001) motivational facets. The questions used were all attitudinal questions to investigate the students’ opinions, attitudes, and beliefs when it comes to L2 learning motivation. When designing the questionnaire, we tried to actively resist what Dörnyie and Ushioda (2011) refer to as the temptation of creating extensive questionnaires that cover too much ground area. Hence, the principle of “less is more” was considered in the questionnaire design.

The questionnaire consists of three sections that reflect the three components presented in Dörnyei’s (1994) framework for the L2 Learning Experience: course-specific motivational aspects, teacher specific motivational aspects, and group-specific motivational aspects. The purpose of the first part of the questionnaire was to collect basic statistical and demographic information regarding the students age before starting with the questions. The schools and teachers were tracked by the researchers externally to the questionnaire.

All questions in the questionnaire were in English which resulted in all the answers being in English. Nineteen out of the twenty-five questions were measured with a seven-point Likert scale system: strongly disagree at (1) to strongly agree at (7). Likert Scales are used when researching attitudes and opinions in the scale and are often in the scale of 1 to 7. Moreover, they are more suitable for electronic distribution (Finstad, 2010). In addition, two questions used a six-point measuring scale of “very difficult” to “very easy, and “very low” to “very high”. This specific measuring scale was included because the questions asked to indicate and rate certain aspects of their learning environment which made the 7-point Likert scale not suitable. Furthermore, the questions were phrased either neutral or positively. According to Taguchi and Dörnyei (2010), researchers should avoid negative item construction as responding to such questions can be problematic. Additionally, the authors state that it is rather cognitively demanding to gauge the meaning of different degrees of disagreement with a

(21)

negative statement. The authors conclude that respondents will inevitably understand the question wrong. Thus, the authors suggest that the best solution is to either phrase the negative question in a rather positive manner or avoid using negatives altogether. Only question 4 in the course-specific component (see Appendix ) is phrased slightly negative as we want to investigate how difficult versus easy the students view their tasks and assignments.

Moreover, we included four open-ended questions related to the teacher specific aspect.

Taguchi and Dönyei (2010) argue that despite the inherent limitations of questionnaires as a research method, due to the short and superficial engagement of the respondents, specific (open-ended questions that ask about a specific piece of information) items can provide greater range of possible answers than what might have been included in the pre-prepared response categories. According to Dörnyei & Taguchi (2010), open-ended questions facilitate more diverse information than a fully quantitative survey as they allow the respondents more freedom of expression. A full list of the questions is presented in the Appendix.

4.3 Procedure

First of all, the questionnaire was constructed based on the L2 Learning in Forms on Google drive. In accordance with Vetenskapsrådet (2017) first protocol regarding information, the questionnaire included detailed information on the purpose and the procedure of the questionnaire for the participants to take part in prior to filling out the survey (See 4.5 for Vetenskapsrådets ethical considerations). Moreover, the questionnaire was emailed with a web link to the contact persons in the four schools. All of the contact persons were English teachers.

The questionnaire was sent out to each contact person in each school at the same date on the 22nd of April; however, the answers came in at different times during weeks 16 and 17. This is mainly due to the different schedules of the English teachers. Nonetheless, each teacher notified when their students had conducted the questionnaire which enabled us to connect the data to the right school. Lastly, taking into consideration the current state of the global pandemic, making an electronic questionnaire was an appropriate choice of method to minimize the risk of spreading the infection.

(22)

4.4 Analysis

Because the research questionnaire consisted of 25 questions, of which 4 were qualitative questions with 106 participant responses, the data were extracted for a quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The analysis of the responses to the 21 quantitative questions, including a 7-point scale, were performed by a calculation of the mean values of all individual responses for the given questions. We used a pivot table in Excel to calculate the mean value of the individual responses and the standard deviation. Furthermore, for each section in the questionnaire, the mean value across questions by school was also calculated as well as standard deviation which shows the spread of the data. For further clarification, the following concepts will be described: pivot table, mean value and standard deviation. A pivot table sorts and summarizes a large dataset in form of a table which includes statistics such as average / mean values. A mean value is the most common value among the numbers in a data set and in our case it shows the most common number the students have scored on the Likert scale. Lastly, standard deviation measures the distribution of the data, the standard deviation increases when then there is a bigger data spread. A smaller standard deviation indicates that the data is closer to the mean value which means that most students in our questionnaire have rated similar scores on the scale.

However, we used a different approach in analyzing the remaining 4 open-ended questions as they were qualitative data. The qualitative data consisted of non-numerical data, such as descriptions and students' perspectives of the given questions. Therefore, the analysis was implemented firstly by becoming familiar with the data, which means that we read the responses several times to identify patterns. Thereafter, we began identifying frequent responses to the questions and finding connections to answer our research questions and conclusions draw from the quantitative data.

4.5 Ethical considerations

This specific research study follows the guidelines and protocols of Vetenskapsrådet (2017) for conducting a conventional research. Because the respondents are between the age of 16-20, we have ensured that the research method is in accordance with Vetenskapsrådet’s (2017) four main requirements that are based on the society’s general ethical norms and values. The first

(23)

requirement concerns information in which we, the researchers, must inform the respondents and survey participants about their role in the project and the conditions of their participation.

Therefore, explicit information was provided to the students that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw their participation at any given time. The information included all elements of the survey in question that may reasonably affect the students willingness to participate (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). The second requirement is the consent requirement, and it specifically regards obtaining consent from the respondents and study participants. As our questionnaire did not contain questions of a sensitive nature that would require an additional parent/guardian consent, and information regarding voluntary participation was provided, no further measures were taken here. The third requirement is confidentiality which ensures that the participants’ personal data are stored in a way that an unauthorized person cannot access. All personal data was anonymous and in accordance with GDPR. Thus, all answers were anonymized to ensure anonymity of the participants’ identities and confidentiality. Lastly, the requirement of usage ensures that the collected data is only to be used for research purposes and shall not be used for commercial or other non-scientific purposes. Therefore, the data collected has only been used in the present study and will be destroyed upon the completion of the project.

(24)

5. Results and Discussion

To clarify the presentation of the results, this part of the paper is divided into three main sections representing each component of the L2 Learning Experience: course-specific, teacher- specific, and group-specific. To present the responses according to the L2 Learning Experience, the three sections consist of the results of the four involved schools in the questionnaire. Thus, the result section will contain tables and their descriptions, an analysis of the data, and a discussion of the significance of our findings.

5.1 Course-specific data

Tables 2 and 3 provides mean responses from the questionnaire for the students’ opinions and beliefs on how much the course-specific component of their L2 Learning Experience affects their motivation to learn English as an L2. A thorough explanation of the data will be presented in the following section with the tables that illustrate the statistical data. Table 2 and Table 3 include the data, mean values and standard deviation, of the responses for every given question related to the course-specific component. The data was split between two tables because Questions 1-3 are positively biased (a higher value represents agreement with a question which was presented in a positive manner) whereas Question 4 was negatively biased (a higher value represents agreement to a question presented in a negative manner). Question 4 also uses a 6 -point scale (Very Difficult-Very Easy) whereas 1-3 use a 7-point scale.

Table 2

Course-specific mean responses to positively biased questions

School Q1 Q2 Q3

S1 4.86 (1.12) 5.10 (1.16) 5.31 (1.00)

S2 4.13 (1.36) 4.96 (1.20) 4.21 (1.22)

S3 5.40 (1.60) 5.8 (1.01) 5.20 (1.51)

S4 5.00 (1.17) 5.65 (0.88) 5.45 (1.15)

Mean (all schools) 4.82 (1.34) 5.30 (1.13) 5.07 (1.26)

Note: Standard deviations appear in ( ). Mean (all schools) represents means of all individual responses for a given question.

(25)

Table 3

Course-specific mean responses to the negatively biased question

School Q4

S1 3.40 (0.94)

S2 2.63 (0.88)

S3 3.80 (1.24)

S4 4.0 (0.73)

Mean (all schools) 3.42 (1.06)

Note: Q4 is treated separately since it is not positive biased like Q1-Q3. Standard deviations appear in ( ).

Table 4 represents the mean value and standard deviation for all four questions by each school to provide a measure of the generalizability of the results. Similar to above, Q1-Q3 have been calculated separately from Q4.

Table 4

Mean responses to course-specific questions by school

School Q1-Q3 mean Q4 mean

S1 5.09 (1.59) 3.40 (0.94)

S2 4.43 (0.12) 2.63 (0.88)

S3 5.47 (0.32) 3.80 (1.24)

S4 5.37 (0.32) 4.00 (0.73)

Note: Standard deviations appear in ( ).

No distinct contrast appears to be present in the numerical values of Q1 to Q3 in Table 3.

However, there does appear to be more variation in the standard deviations, indicating there may be a higher degree of spread in the questions for S1, suggesting that there is greater variation in the students’ scores on the scale for that school. Table 4 also demonstrates that School 2 has the lowest means. If we look to Table 2, it can also be seen that School 2 has a

(26)

lower mean in every question in comparison to the other three schools. This implies that the students from that school have at least numerically (though perhaps not statistically significant) rated lower scores in comparison to the other schools. Looking at Table 2, the mean value for each question per school is somewhat similar throughout Q1 to Q3 suggesting that students viewed the course material in a positive light across all schools. The mean value in Q4 for all four schools suggests that the students do not view the tasks and activities as being particularly difficult.

Furthermore, the relatively high mean values across all of the data illustrates that relevance in the course material is viewed as being significant to L2 learning by the students. The results in this section suggest that the material used in teaching and the assignments given to the students are viewed by the students as being relevant to them and to their needs, goals, and values. The responses connect us back to the course-specific aspect in which Dörnyei (1994) has included relevance to be one of the four motivational factors to explain motivation in an L2 classroom.

Dörnyei states that the way the teacher presents the task is crucial for motivation as it needs to bring attention to the purpose and function of the task. Dörnyei (2001) also argues that motivation is highly connected to the success of learning a foreign language especially when learners feel that the subject content is meaningful and relevant to their personal lives. Another motivational factor in the course-specific component is the satisfaction which regards the result of an assignment that can be a reward such as good scores, praise, or pride (Dörnyei, 1994).

We believe that findings of this data could indicate that the course material plays a significant part on how students perceive their education and themselves. The data can also be interpreted as a positive reflection of how Swedish upper secondary students view their course material despite potential differences in the course material that may be caused by the socio economics of the school in a specific muniplicity. Our data from the four schools show us that the students are happy with their course material in the sense that they find it to be interesting, relevant to their personal needs and goals, and with that they are happy with the outcomes of the tasks. Of course, the limitations of the size of the study makes it difficult to make ultimate conclusions on whether the students are receiving the course material they want or the course material they need. This is because we lack statistical data on the grades, and how the course materials are aligned with the steering documents and if the course material helps achieve the knowledge requirements. For that reason, we can only interpret the data that we have from our questionnaire. As previously mentioned in the introduction, Swedish curriculum for upper

(27)

secondary school has not explicitly mentioned motivation, yet vague implications that the course material should be relevant to achieve the learning requirements can be found.

Therefore, we assume that the students are still getting relevant course material to their education that they need to achieve the knowledge requirements.

However, we believe that whether the students find the course material to be meaningful might have an effect on their attitude towards the importance of their education as they might feel that it contributes to a relevant part of their lives. We also presume that students will evolve as individuals, and also gain more of a positive self-perception as they understand what the school and their education is trying to provide. Essentially, we argue that students with low motivation does not necessarily mean that said students lack intellectual capacity, nor that the teacher has failed to control their knowledge in the right way. Rather unmotivated students have lost faith in school as a place to learn anything meaningful. The students encounter what the school offers as meaningless experiences which eventually leads to low motivation and a strong resistance to the whole school context.

5.2 Teacher-specific data

Similarly, to Section 5.1, the data from the individual responses for each question is presented in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5 includes data for Question 1-4 and Question 6 which were all positively biased and used a 7-point scale. Question 5 is treated separately in Table 65 because a 6-point scale (Very Low-Very High) was adapted to this specific question and because it was negatively biased.

(28)

Table 5

Teacher-specific mean responses to the positively biased questions

School Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q6

S1 5.86 (1.2) 5.69 (1.28) 6.07 (0.87) 6.43 (0.7) 4.62 (0.79)

S2 5.42 (1.35) 5.92 (1.02) 6.25 (0.9) 5.75 (1.51) 4.83 (1.37)

S3 6.15 (0.93) 5.8 (1.11) 5.7 (1.03) 6.1 (1.02) 4.35 (1.39)

S4 6.15 (1.04) 5.95 (1.23) 5.4 (0.94) 6.35 (0.93) 4.65 (0.99)

Mean (all schools) 5.87 (1.18) 5.81 (1.17) 5.92 (0.96) 6.2 (1.05) 4.62 (1.1) Note: Standard deviations appear in ( ). Mean (all schools) represents means of all individual responses for a given question.

Table 6

Teacher-specific mean response to the negatively biased question

School Q5

S1 5.81 (1.11)

S2 5.5 (1.47)

S3 5.5 (1.67)

S4 5.5 (1.15)

Mean (all schools) 5.62 (1.31)

Note: Q5 is treated separately since it is not positive biased like Q1-Q3. Standard deviations appear in ( ).

Table 7 represents the mean values and standard deviations across all six questions by each school. Q1-Q4 and Q6, being positively biased and use a 7-point scale and are thus calculated separately from Q4 which is negatively biased and uses a 6-point scale.

(29)

Table 7

Mean responses to teacher-specific questions by school

School Q1-Q4, Q6 means Q5 means

S1 5.97 (0.24) 4.62 (0.79)

S2 5.77 (0.28) 4.83 (1.37)

S3 5.85 (0.30) 4.35 (1.39)

S4 5.87 (0.13) 4.65 (0.99)

Note: Standard deviations appear in ( ).

In Table 5 the mean values are numerically higher than what was seen for the course-specific results, suggesting that the students believe that teacher-specific factors are important.

Moreover, Table 6 demonstrates that students believe that their teachers have high expectations of them. However, the standard deviation in the four schools is relatively high which means that there has been varied answers in this question. By looking at the mean values in Table 7, it is evident that the students from all schools share similar opinions whether their teacher has an influence in their motivation. Keeping this in mind, the mean values for the individual responses of the given questions are also somewhat similar to each other. However, the average value across schools in Q6 decreased when asked if their relationship with their English teacher affects their learning motivation. The mean value is still however relatively high on Q6, only not as high as the other questions in the other tables.

Overall, Tables 5-7 present high mean values in all questions across the four schools, suggesting that the students who participated in this study believe that their teachers have a positive effect on their motivation to learn English, are committed to their learning and demonstrate enthusiasm. These aspects are visible in the high values in the tables and demonstrate the importance of a teachers’ energy and dedication to their profession as it will also influence the students’ motivation (see 5.2.1 for data discussion).

(30)

5.2.1 Teacher specific qualitative responses

For the remaining four questions in the teacher-specific component (see the Appendix), the majority of the 106 responses have shown a clear pattern of similar responses. When asked how teachers should help students maintain or increase their motivation to learn English, the majority of the students agree that it’s important for the teacher to be patient, supportive, and understanding towards the students. The students enjoy when the teacher is clearly committed to their learning and cares for them. One of the students stated, “I become motivated when my teacher can see how things are from my perspective and helps me when I feel stuck in my learning”. Furthermore, the responses indicate the importance of having a good relationship with the teacher as it improves motivation.

Many students also state that the teacher should be able to be flexible in their planning and have a varied lesson content. Additionally, the students believe that motivation is maintained when the teacher includes fun assignments/activities as well as letting students be a part of lesson planning because having responsibility is encouraging and motivational. For example, another student responded, “engaging us students in the subject and letting us make choices or giving several alternatives of different assignments is motivational to me”. Dörnyei (1994) states that students will feel motivated, and their independence will improve when the teacher involves them in making decisions and offers them choices. Despite the students considering flexibility to be a motivational factor, they also believe that structure is a motivational factor.

They consider structure to be helpful and comfortable to know what is expected ahead in lesson planning. Many students feel more motivated when demonstrative tools are included such as example essays, and also different kinds of activities and playful challenges. Lastly, a highly common response that appeared among the students' answers was that motivation is maintained when the teacher gives constructive feedback to make it clear on what they need to evolve.

Both Dörnyei (2001) and Hugo (2011) describe that setting high expectations is also vital for student motivation if the teacher is committed to the students. As stated in 5.2, the mean values is high in all four schools suggesting that the teachers have high expectations on them.

However, according to the students in the qualitative responses, setting too high expectations on them will only decrease their motivation because of feeling too much pressure. Nonetheless, this could be due to the lack of trust and commitment between the teacher and the students.

Hugo (2011) points out that trust is important to include when setting high expectations, it will

(31)

make the student feel accepted and appreciated. Creating a good relationship and building trust with the students requires time, and there must be an interest in the other and improvisation in the teacher (Ramires, 2001).

In Q9, the students were asked to share their opinion on what they think their English teacher does which results in them feeling more motivated. The students feel more motivated to learn English when the teacher has positive energy and is engaged in the English subject. As one student responds “I become more motivated when my teacher is happy and makes jokes during the lesson because it makes me more comfortable in the classroom. It also helps with my anxiety to speak English in the classroom”. As previously mentioned in 5.2, the high values in the teacher - specific tables demonstrate the importance of a teacher’s commitment and the effect it has on student motivation. Furthermore, based on the student responses in our study, this seems to be the largest factor that will have an impact on their motivation in learning. The majority of the students mentioned that motivation will increase when a teacher is engaged and cares for the subject. Just as Csikszentmihalyi (1997) highlights, the teachers who show dedication and passion in their profession will inspire students and create a similar enthusiasm to learn the subject matter. In addition, Dörnyei (2001) claims that teachers must be aware of how they communicate because students will copy their behavior and engagement towards their learning. The commitment that is expressed includes a psychical and spiritual presence.

Along with the teacher having a positive energy, the students from the questionnaire appreciate a happy teacher with humor as it contributes to a safe classroom and a relaxed environment.

However, when sharing their opinion on what makes them less motivated, they responded that negative energy from the teacher usually makes them less motivated. This correlates with Csikszentmihalyi (1997) describing that students will sense when a teacher does not believe in his profession and does not enjoy it which will lead to students believing that the subject matter is not worth learning. The students considering the teacher being too strict is a factor leading them to become less motivated. Moreover, the students share that the type of tasks contributes to motivation, for example, long-winded and unrealistic tasks or too much homework will only make them less motivated. The students have also made it clear in their responses that feedback is a crucial part of an increased motivation since it makes them feel more self-aware, confident and improves their learning achievements. Dörnyei (1994) also mentions feedback in the teacher-specific component, stating that feedback creates a clear message about the teachers’

(32)

priorities which is then followed in the students’ motivation. Students also consider an excessive amount of grade talk and how tasks will affect the grade has a negative effect on their motivation. They believe that too much talk about grades will make them feel that the subject matter does not have a deeper meaning or purpose to their everyday life and future.

Because of the high values in the data, suggesting that the students from all schools seem to have a positive relationship with their teacher, we believe that a teacher’s role can contribute to a change in the student’s perception of themselves. Similar to the course material discussion, our interpretation is that despite the potential differences in the socioeconomics of the four schools, all four teachers are able to affect their students' motivation positively. Although Swedish media like to portrait school as an institution that is often in crisis, with ill-disciplined and less knowledgeable students than before (if the comparison is made between different PISA results throughout the years), the data above demonstrate that the vast majority of the students in this study are actually motivated to learn English as a second language. Furthermore, we believe that this implies that English teachers in Swedish upper secondary are doing their job very well. This is also why we think that the bleak picture presented by the recent PISA should be taken with “a pinch of salt” as even PISA studies have their limitations. Keeping in mind the importance of the teacher role, pedagogy and leadership play a detrimental role in students’

motivation, teachers should be provided with better opportunities and working conditions. This includes more time for planning, teaching and creating meaningful learning situations and relationships with their students instead of being swarmed with unnecessary admin and paperwork. Only then would it be possible to install the will to lifelong learning in the students.

It is also about the students feeling that they are involved in their education and studies, acknowledged and respected as unique individuals. When the students perceive the teaching content as real and meaningful, and that they have the opportunity to expand their knowledge then they become receptive to learning what school offers. As mentioned above, students feel motivated when the teacher involves them in the decision making which we believe creates a development in the students. Involving students in the decision-making regarding teaching and content will be experienced as important and meaningful encounters which strengthens the relationship between the two.

Furthermore, the students grow continuously throughout the upper secondary education, but positive progress occurs for them when they experience a teacher that is committed to their own profession and their students' learning. Therefore, we assume that students will not only

The Impact of the Learning Environment on Students’ Motivation in Upper Secondary School

Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies and Education