The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition and Use among University

Students in Kenya: Trends, Prevalence and Effects

By

Dr. Prisca Kiptoo-Tarus; [email protected]

and Jeniffer Barngeny; [email protected]

Mount Kenya University-Eldoret Campus.

ABSTRACT

English is a language that makes a foundation for all subjects and courses in all secondary
schools and universities in Kenya except Kiswahili. However, students at the university find it so
difficult to communicate to friends and tutors for a substantive time using English. Why is it so
difficult and emotionally trying for young adults to acquire and use a second language? What
makes university students sprout gray hairs and frown lines when they try to learn and use a
lingua franca like English that could pave their road to academic and career success? Linguists
have often pointed out that children in every culture all over the world manage to achieve
communicative competence in their “first” or “native” languages — unless they have a specific
language processing problem like autism or have been restricted to a developmental environment
markedly deficient in language stimuli.
Subsequent work within a school setting with a more abstract or de contextualized use of the
native language — and with the addition of written as well as oral use of language — further
strengthens the child’s communicative competence. It might at first glance seem logical that an
academically well-prepared adolescent or adult who makes a “second” language an object of
serious study could likewise achieve proficiency in that language without undue stress or
emotional turmoil. But as any educator of new learners of English will attest, a smooth and
seamless course is rarely the pattern for second language acquisition within a college setting.
What is the role of a young adults’ attitude and mastery of native languages in the acquisition
and use of a second language? There are, of course, enormous cognitive differences between
young adults and developing children, which could account for some of the difficulties college
students encounter in mastering a second language. This study utilized content analysis to
establish the trends, prevalence and effects of attitude and mastery of native languages on second
language acquisition among university students in Kenya. Research findings showed that
attitudes and motivation are important because they promote active involvement in the learning
process and that they influence active choice of behaviour regarding participation in acquisition
contexts. Native language is integral to the sense of well-being of Native learners, and in turn, to
their academic performance, self-esteem, and ability to succeed in a complex world. Young
adults feel at ease when communicating using their native language which builds up their self
esteem and reduces anxiety. Such encourages the use of native language as well as cod
switching. Hence, attitude plays a major role in the acquisition and use of second language in
universities in Kenya.
Key words: Psychology, Attitude, Native Language, Second language Acquisition, Young

Adults
INTRODUCTION

English is a language that makes a foundation for all subjects and courses in all secondary
schools and universities in Kenya except Kiswahili. However, students at the university find it so
difficult to communicate to friends and tutors for a substantive time using English. Why is it so
difficult and emotionally trying for young adults to acquire and use a second language? What
makes university students sprout gray hairs and frown lines when they try to learn and use a
lingua franca like English that could pave their road to academic and career success?

It might at first glance seem logical that an academically well-prepared adolescent or adult who
makes a “second” language an object of serious study could likewise achieve proficiency in that
language without undue stress or emotional turmoil. But as any educator of new learners of
English will attest, a smooth and seamless course is rarely the pattern for second language
acquisition within a college setting. What is the role of a young adults’ attitude and mastery of
native languages in the acquisition and use of a second language? There are, of course, enormous
cognitive differences between young adults and developing children, which could account for
some of the difficulties college students encounter in mastering a second language. This study
utilized content analysis to establish the trends, prevalence and effects of attitude and mastery of
native languages on second language acquisition among university students in Kenya

Second-language acquisition (SLA), second-language learning, or L2 (language 2) acquisition, is

the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the
scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is
a subdiscipline of applied linguistics, but also receives research attention from a variety of other
disciplines, such as psychology and education.

A central theme in SLA research is that of interlanguage, the idea that the language that learners
use is not simply the result of differences between the languages that they already know and the
language that they are learning, but that it is a complete language system in its own right, with its
own systematic rules. This interlanguage gradually develops as learners are exposed to the
targeted language. The order in which learners acquire features of their new language stays
remarkably constant, even for learners with different native languages, and regardless of whether
they have had language instruction. However, languages that learners already know can have a
significant influence on the process of learning a new one. This influence is known as language
transfer.
The primary factor driving SLA appears to be the language input that learners receive. Learners
become more advanced the longer they are immersed in the language they are learning, and the
more time they spend doing free voluntary reading.

In Kenya, English is a very crucial language. For a long time English has been the sole
official language in the country, but after the promulgation of the new constitution in 2010,
Kiswahili was accorded the status of an official language too. English is a compulsory subject in
secondary school education. This trend is also true in all universities and colleges. Proficiency in
English is very critical for a student who wishes to compete favorably with other learners in the
country for prestigious careers and consequently jobs. In universities in Kenya, it is to enforce
the use of English among students’ interaction in their day today activities. The study established
that mother-tongue maintenance and code switching influenced the acquisition of English
language skills among university students.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study is on-going and it is carried out in selected private and public universities in Kenya.
The research design adopted is ex post facto. The data collection will take place between January
and June 2017.Both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected. Simple random sampling
was used to select university students in lecturers. Student sample was representative of students
in all study programs in the universities. This study utilized content analysis also to establish the
trends, prevalence and effects of attitude and mastery of native languages on second language
acquisition among university students in Kenya. Research instruments used include interview
shedules and closed ended questionnaires. Journals and research reports of studies done in Kenya
were analyzed, discussed and presented.

Methods of data analysis will include analysis of themes of views and opinions of respondents
and ANOVA. Data will be presented using cumulative frequency tables, pie charts , ANOVA
tables and thematic presentations.

The study is guided by the Language Acquisition theory of the linguist philosopher and cognitive
scientist Chomsky, (1999). According to Chomsky, (1999) children have got inborn structures in
the brain he referred to as Language Acquisition Devices (LAD) that give them a natural
propensity to organize spoken language in different ways, and argued that children do not simply
copy the language that they hear around them, (a view proposed by Skinner, (1997) in his social
learning theory in Touretzky and Saksida, (1997) but that they deduce rules from it, which they
can then use to produce new sentences. Further Chomsky, (1999) argues there is a universal
syntactic set of categories, he called universal grammar (UG) or “language faculty” which
children are born with which help them to learn how words and structures of their first language
are related to elements of Universal Grammar

FINDINGS

Trends of Mastery of Native Language on Second Language Acquisition

Research on how exactly learners acquire a new language spans a number of different areas.

Focus to proof whether basic linguistic skills are innate, acquired or a combination of the two
attributes and acquisition and use of second language is psychologically influenced is paramount
in this study. Cognitive approaches to SLA research deal with the processes in the brain that
underpin language acquisition such as paying attention to language affects ability to learn it, or
how language is related to short-term memory. What is the psychology behind second language
acquisition and use?. Is it influenced by learner's attitudes and motivation? This is the area of
focus in the present study.

The field of language education is changing at ever- increasing rate (Eaton,2010). Traditional
notions of education are giving way to newer ones, more innovative ways of thinking about how
we learn, teach and acquire language is area of concern for all educationists. (Eaton,2010)
established that in the 21st century, a comprehensive essential skill set is needed for
employment. This includes competence in areas beyond language such as numeracy, thinking
skills and the ability to work well with others (Human Resources and Skills Development
Canada, n.d, 2010)

Second Language Acquisition

Second language refers to any language learned in addition to a person's first language; although
the concept second language acquisition can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth or
subsequent languages (Allwright, Dick, Hanks & Judith,2009)

Language and the Human Brain

The human brain is divided into two hemispheres. The left hemisphere is the "logical brain" and
is involved in language and analysis and the right hemisphere is the "creative brain," involved in
daydreaming and imagination. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body while the
right hemisphere controls the left side.

The earliest research on speech and language centers of the brain dates back to the early
nineteenth century. Physicians noted that brain-injured patients with damage to the left
hemisphere would lose power of speech and language abilities, while those with injuries to the
right hemisphere did not lose this ability.
Recent studies have shown that in around 97% of people, language is represented in the left
hemisphere. However, in about 19% of left-handed people, the areas responsible for language are
in the right hemisphere and as many as 68% of them have some language abilities in both the left
and the right hemispheres.

Determination of language areas

A procedure called cortical stimulation mapping is a technique that is used to analyze regions of
the brain that are related to speech. On performing brain surgery to treat epilepsy or remove
tumors for example, electrical stimulation of speech-related areas in the cortex prevents the
patient from being able to name things that are shown to them and may also prevent their ability
to produce grammatically coherent sentences. When such a site is indentified, it is spared, since
damaging these areas could cause a temporary or permanent loss of speech.

Neural networks in the brain

Neural networks are established over time as an individual learns and experiences things.
Language and speech skills are therefore acquired after birth. The human genome codes for the
speech ability that will evolve as the brain is trained.

Speech and language brain regions

The visual cortex is the part of the cerebral cortex that is responsible for processing visual
information.

The auditory cortex in the cerebral cortex processes auditory information and as part of the
sensory system for hearing, performs both basic and higher hearing functions.

Wernicke's area is an area in the cerebral cortex related to speech and is involved in both
spoken and written language. This area was named after Carl Wernicke, a German neurologist
who discovered that the area is related to how words and syllables are pronounced.

Broca's area is an area in the frontal lobe of the brain that is related to the production of speech.
The area is named after Pierre Paul Broca who noticed an impaired ability to produce speech in
two patients who had sustained injury to the region.

There has been much debate about exactly how language is learned, and many issues are still
unresolved. There are many theories of second-language acquisition, but none are accepted as a
complete explanation by all SLA researchers. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field of
SLA, this is not expected to happen in the foreseeable future.

Stages second-language acquisition

Haynes divided the process of second-language acquisition into five stages: preproduction, early
production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency (Cook &
Vivian,2016). The first stage, preproduction, is also known as the silent period. Learners at this
stage have a receptive vocabulary of up to 500 words, but they do not yet speak their second
language. Not all learners go through a silent period. Some learners start speaking straight away,
although their output may consist of imitation rather than creative language use. Others may be
required to speak from the start as part of a language course. For learners that do go through a
silent period, it may last around three to six months.(Dekeyser,1998 )

The second of Hayne's stages of acquisition is early production, during which learners are able to
speak in short phrases of one or two words. They can also memorize chunks of language,
although they may make mistakes when using them. Learners typically have both an active and
receptive vocabulary of around 1000 words. This stage normally lasts for around six months.
(Cook & Vivian,2016).The third stage is speech emergence. Learners' vocabularies increase to
around 3000 words during this stage, and they can communicate using simple questions and
phrases. They may often make grammatical errors.

The fourth stage is intermediate fluency. At this stage, learners have a vocabulary of around
6000 words, and can use more complicated sentence structures. They are also able to share their
thoughts and opinions. Learners may make frequent errors with more complicated sentence
structures.

The final stage is advanced fluency, which is typically reached somewhere between five and ten
years of learning the language. Learners at this stage can function at a level close to native
speakers (Cook & Vivian,2016)

The time taken to reach a high level of proficiency can vary depending on the language learned.

Prevalent Use of Native language among University Students In Kenya

Kenya, like most African countries, has several ethnic groups and over forty ethnic languages.
These various languages fall under three major families: Bantu, Nilotic and Cushitic, although
there are a few such Guajarati and Hindi that do not fit into any these classes. As is common with
multilngual communities, Kenyans have always juggled their languages to fit various contexts
(Michieka,2012). University students belong to these ethnic

Role of Attitudes and Motivation on Second Language Acquisition and Use

The role of attitudes and motivation on second language acquisition and use cannot be under-
estimated. Research findings showed that attitudes and motivation are important because they
promote active involvement in the learning process and that they influence active choice of
behaviour regarding participation in acquisition contexts( )

role of a young adults’ attitude and mastery of native languages in the acquisition and use of a
second language? There
Cognitive factors

Much modern research in second-language acquisition has taken a cognitive approach.

(Lenneberg,1967) Cognitive research is concerned with the mental processes involved in
language acquisition, and how they can explain the nature of learners' language knowledge. This
area of research is based in the more general area of cognitive science, and uses many concepts
and models used in more general cognitive theories of learning. As such, cognitive theories view
second-language acquisition as a special case of more general learning mechanisms in the brain.
This puts them in direct contrast with linguistic theories, which posit that language acquisition
uses a unique process different from other types of learning. (Lightbown,1990).

The dominant model in cognitive approaches to second-language acquisition, and indeed in all
second-language acquisition research, is the computational mode (Lightbown, Patsy, Spada,
Nina,1990). l. The computational model involves three stages. In the first stage, learners retain
certain features of the language input in short-term memory. (This retained input is known as
intake.) Then, learners convert some of this intake into second-language knowledge, which is
stored in long-term memory. Finally, learners use this second-language knowledge to produce
spoken output (Lightbown, Patsy,Spada and Nina,2006)Cognitive theories attempt to codify both
the nature of the mental representations of intake and language knowledge, and the mental
processes that underlie these stages.

In the early days of second-language acquisition research on interlanguage was seen as the basic
representation of second-language knowledge; however, more recent research has taken a
number of different approaches in characterizing the mental representation of language
knowledge.( Loewen, Reinders,and Hayo,2011). There are theories that hypothesize that learner
language is inherently variable,( Long, 1996). and there is the functionalist perspective that sees
acquisition of language as intimately tied to the function it provides.[44] Some researchers make
the distinction between implicit and explicit language knowledge, and some between declarative
and procedural language knowledge.[45] There have also been approaches that argue for a dual-
mode system in which some language knowledge is stored as rules, and other language
knowledge as items.[46]

The mental processes that underlie second-language acquisition can be broken down into micro-
processes and macro-processes. Micro-processes include attention;[47] working memory;[48]
integration and restructuring. Restructuring is the process by which learners change their
interlanguage systems;[49] and monitoring is the conscious attending of learners to their own
language output.[50] Macro-processes include the distinction between intentional learning and
incidental learning; and also the distinction between explicit and implicit learning.[51] Some of
the notable cognitive theories of second-language acquisition include the nativization model, the
multidimensional model and processability theory, emergentist models, the competition model,
and skill-acquisition theories.[52]
Other cognitive approaches have looked at learners' speech production, particularly learners'
speech planning and communication strategies. Speech planning can have an effect on learners'
spoken output, and research in this area has focused on how planning affects three aspects of
speech: complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Of these three, planning effects on fluency has had
the most research attention.[53] Communication strategies are conscious strategies that learners
employ to get around any instances of communication breakdown they may experience. Their
effect on second-language acquisition is unclear, with some researchers claiming they help it,
and others claiming the opposite.[54]

Sociocultural factors

From the early days of the discipline researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play
an important role.[55] There have been many different approaches to sociolinguistic study of
second-language acquisition, and indeed, according to Rod Ellis, this plurality has meant that
"sociolinguistic SLA is replete with a bewildering set of terms referring to the social aspects of
L2 acquisition".[56] Common to each of these approaches, however, is a rejection of language as
a purely psychological phenomenon; instead, sociolinguistic research views the social context in
which language is learned as essential for a proper understanding of the acquisition process.[57]

Ellis identifies three types of social structure that affect acquisition of second languages:
sociolinguistic setting, specific social factors, and situational factors.[58] Sociolinguistic setting
refers to the role of the second language in society, such as whether it is spoken by a majority or
a minority of the population, whether its use is widespread or restricted to a few functional roles,
or whether the society is predominantly bilingual or monolingual.[59] Ellis also includes the
distinction of whether the second language is learned in a natural or an educational setting. [60]
Specific social factors that can affect second-language acquisition include age, gender, social
class, and ethnic identity, with ethnic identity being the one that has received most research
attention.[61] Situational factors are those that vary between each social interaction. For example,
a learner may use more polite language when talking to someone of higher social status, but
more informal language when talking with friends.[62]

Immersion programs provide a sociolinguistic setting that facilitates second-language

acquisition. Immersion programs are educational programs where children are instructed in an
L2 language.[63] Although the language of instruction is the L2 language, the curriculum parallels
that of non-immersion programs and clear support exists in the L1 language, as the teachers are
all bilingual. The goal of these programs is to develop a high level of proficiency in both the L1
and L2 languages. Students in immersion programs have been shown to have greater levels of
proficiency in their second language than students who receive second language education only
as a subject in school.[63] This is especially true in terms of their receptive skills. Also, students
who join immersion programs earlier generally have greater second-language proficiency than
their peers who join later. However, students who join later have been shown to gain native-like
proficiency. Although immersion students' receptive skills are especially strong, their productive
skills may suffer if they spend the majority of their time listening to instruction only.
Grammatical skills and the ability to have precise vocabulary are particular areas of struggle. It is
argued that immersion is necessary, but not sufficient for the development of native-like
proficiency in a second language.[63] Opportunities to engage in sustained conversation, and
assignments that encourage syntactical, as well as semantic development help develop the
productive skills necessary for bilingual proficiency.[63]

A learner's sense of connection to their in-group, as well as to the community of the target
language emphasize the influence of the sociolinguistic setting, as well as social factors within
the second-language acquisition process. Social Identity Theory argues that an important factor
for second language acquisition is the learner's perceived identity in relation to the community of
the language being learned, as well as how the community of the target language perceives the
learner.[64] Whether or not a learner feels a sense of connection to the community or culture of
the target language helps determine their social distance from the target culture. A smaller social
distance is likely to encourage learners to acquire the second language, as their investment in the
learning process is greater. Conversely, a greater social distance discourages attempts to acquire
the target language. However, negative views not only come from the learner, but the community
of the target language might feel greater social distance to the learner, limiting the learner's
ability to learn the language.[64] Whether or not bilingualism is valued by the culture or
community of the learner is an important indicator for the motivation to learn a language.[65]

Gender, as a social factor, also influences SLA. Females have been found to have higher
motivation and more positive attitudes than males for second-language acquisition. However,
females are also more likely to present higher levels of anxiety, which may inhibit their ability to
efficiently learn a new language.[66]

There have been several models developed to explain social effects on language acquisition.
Schumann's Acculturation Model proposes that learners' rate of development and ultimate level
of language achievement is a function of the "social distance" and the "psychological distance"
between learners and the second-language community. In Schumann's model the social factors
are most important, but the degree to which learners are comfortable with learning the second
language also plays a role.[67] Another sociolinguistic model is Gardner's socio-educational
model, which was designed to explain classroom language acquisition. Gardner's model focuses
on the emotional aspects of SLA, arguing that positive motivation contributes to an individuals
willingness to learn L2; furthermore, the goal of an individual to learn a L2 is based on the idea
that the individual has a desire to be part of a culture, in other words, part of a (the targeted
language) mono-linguistic community. Factors, such as integrativeness and attitudes towards the
learning situation drive motivation. The outcome of positive motivation is not only linguistic,
but non-linguistic, such that the learner has met the desired goal. Although there are many critics
of Gardner's model, nonetheless many of these critics have been influenced by the merits that his
model holds.[68] [69] The inter-group model proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct
for second-language acquisition.[70] Language socialization is an approach with the premise that
"linguistic and cultural knowledge are constructed through each other",[71] and saw increased
attention after the year 2000.[72] Finally, Norton's theory of social identity is an attempt to codify
the relationship between power, identity, and language acquisition.[73]

Sociocultural approaches

A unique approach to SLA is Sociocultural theory. It was originally developed by Lev Vygotsky
and his followers.[74] Sociocultural theory has a fundamentally different set of assumptions to
approaches to second-language acquisition based on the computational model.[75] Furthermore,
although it is closely affiliated with other social approaches, it is a theory of mind and not of
general social explanations of language acquisition. According to Ellis, "It is important to
recognize... that this paradigm, despite the label 'sociocultural' does not seek to explain how
learners acquire the cultural values of the L2 but rather how knowledge of an L2 is internalized
through experiences of a sociocultural nature."[75]

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Role Of Attitudes On Second Language Acquisition

The study of motivation has been a prominent area for research in psychology and
education for many years (Dörnyei, 2001a). This interest may reflect the widespread
perception of classroom teachers who tend to regard student motivation as
the most important factor in educational success in general (Dörnyei, 2001b

The socio-educational model

R.C. Gardner formulated the socio-educational model suggesting that learning an L2 cannot be
solely explained by people’s aptitude or their competency to acquire as many languages.[4] He
asserted that individual differences were key factors affecting L2 acquisition such that in
understanding how the L2 learning process and outcomes work, it is important to consider the
cultural contexts, which influence people’s attitude and motivation in learning another culturally
distinct language.[5] By simply regarding aptitude as the only factor, researchers dismiss the
social, contextual and pragmatic reasons that drive people to learn other languages.[4]

The original socio-educational model (1979) proposed that there are two main factors that
influence L2 performance: aptitude, and motivation in learning.[4] The model, however, placed
more emphasis on the motivation factor because Gardner was interested in how people
succeeded in acquiring L2 even when it seemed that their competency/aptitude is below average.
This meant that motivation played a bigger role in driving those people to learn an L2.[4] The
model then attempted to explain that these motivational factors took place in the sites where L2
learning occurs: the formal site (i.e. the educational context), and the informal site (i.e. the
cultural context). Gardner argued that these two contexts play distinct roles in boosting the
learner’s L2 performance in that the educational context became a place where explicit
instruction and correction occurs, whereas the cultural context was an area allowing the learners
to become immersed in the other culture without placing any specific rules or instructions.[6]
Both ways, the learners become increasingly knowledgeable and more confident with the social
and cultural settings behind the L2, and these motivate them to learn L2 even more. Upon this
transition, linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes emerge. In the linguistic component, learners
tend to develop L2 proficiency and fluency, whereas in the non-linguistic outcomes, they
undergo changes in attitudes towards the culture where the L2 came from.[7]

The process of L2 acquisition starts from the social milieu where learners have initial attitudes
towards the culture behind the L2; these preset beliefs were acquired from their own cultures. [5]
The social milieu, in turn, influences the strategies, which individuals use in acquiring the L2.
After knowing the individual differences in L2 acquisition, it is important to consider the context
of learning (i.e. educational or cultural) because they improve L2 performance through direct
(i.e. explicit instruction) and indirect (i.e. cultural immersion) means. [6] Finally, when the
learners have already acquired experience and knowledge of the L2, they gain varying positive
outcomes such as fluency and appreciation of the other culture.[4]

Revisions of the socio-educational model

The model has undergone numerous revisions to capture the sub-processes underlying in each of
the individual factors. In 1985, Gardner introduced three sub-measures namely the intensity, the
desire to learn and the attitude towards learning to explain the motivation factor.[8] Gardner
argued that if these three criteria work together, the learner could effectively use motivation as a
tool for L2 acquisition.[8] Dornyei and other researchers, however, assert that this is not the case;
they contend that one can have a ‘strong’ desire to learn, but have a different attitude towards the
learning process itself.[8] Nevertheless, some researches still claim the attitude towards learning
has a high predictive capacity because attitude has a strong association with direct behavior (i.e.
learning).[8] From 1993 to 2010, the model’s schema was rigorously changed to encompass the
variability in the external factors affecting L2 learning; the term “social milieu” became “the
external factors”.[9] More characteristics were added to describe the variables affecting each of
the individual factors; these were compiled in the Attitude Motivation Test Battery developed by
Gardner.

Attitude Motivation Test Battery

Gardner also created the Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) to quantitatively measure the
four main factors and their sub-units, and to predict L2 performance/outcome of the learning.[6]
The test generally instructs participants to rate a set of statements on a scale of 1 to 7 (i.e. least
likely to most likely), and on a 6-level Likert Scale (i.e. strongly disagree to strongly agree).[10]
Different statements correspond to a certain variable (or main factor), and scores from those sets
are added up to determine how much of that variable is influencing the language learning of the
participants.[10] Like the model, however, the test has also been revised over the years. In
Gardner’s review of the Socio-educational Model, he named the four overarching variables
which are measured in the AMTB: (1) integrativeness, (2) attitude toward learning situation, (3)
motivation and (4) language anxiety.[6] Other variables such as the instrumental orientation and
parental encouragement in the AMTB are used in different settings or as needed.

Integrativeness[6]

The integrativeness variable (also known as the integrative motive) reflect the cultural context of
L2 learning as it attempts to measure how open a learner is to the other culture that primarily
uses L2. The AMTB assesses this variable by accounting for the extent to which the learner is
generally interested in foreign languages, as well as his/her preset attitudes towards the
community where the L2 comes from. It also accounts for the integrative orientation of the
individual or the social and cultural reasons why the individual learns the L2.

Attitude toward learning situation[6]

Contrary to integrativeness, the attitude towards learning situation accounts for the education
context of L2 acquisition and the affective facts that correspond with it. The AMTB measures
this variable by asking the individual to evaluate the teacher and the course in the educational
context. This determines how much the educational context aids in improving L2 performance.

Motivation[6]

Motivation, in the AMTB, is assessed through the combination of the desire to learn, attitude
towards learning, and motivational intensity. While integrativeness and attitude toward the
learning situation target each site of learning, motivation accounts for both contexts as well as
the affective variables (i.e. individual differences) that influence the two contexts.

Language anxiety[6]

In the AMTB, language anxiety is an affective variable, which corresponds to what the
individuals feel when ‘performing’ the L2. In the AMTB, it is measured by determining how
anxious the learner feels when in the classroom or when using the language in general.

Linguistic self-confidence

Clément and his associates investigated the importance of social contextual factors on L2
acquisition.[2] Of these social contextual factors, Dörnyei (2005)[2] argues linguistic self-
confidence plays the most important role in motivation in learning a second language. Linguistic
self-confidence refers to a person’s perceptions of their own competence and ability to
accomplish tasks successfully.[11] This linguistic self-confidence is established through the
interaction between the language learner and members of the language community, and
strengthened based on the quality and quantity of these interactions.[11] In multi-linguistic
communities, self-confidence fosters language learners’ identification with the language
community and increases their willingness to pursue learning that language.[11]

The cognitive-situated period

Cognitive perspectives focus on how the learners’ mental processes influence their motivation.
During the late 1980s and 1990s, emphasis in the language learning motivation field shifted
towards cognitive models, reflecting the “cognitive revolution” taking place in psychology at the
time.[2] Cognitive psychologists argued that how one thinks about one’s abilities, possibilities,
potentials, limitations, and past performances has major influences on motivation.[2] Thus, L2
motivation models shifted away from the broad social psychological perspectives, while more
narrow-viewed microperspectives emerged.[2] During this time, note-worthy contributions were
made by Noels and colleagues through a self-determination theory-based model of language
learning motivation, Ushioda through attribution theory, as well as Williams and Burden with
their social constructivist model.[2]

Self-determination theory

The self-determination theory focuses on the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of motivation. [2]
Noels and colleagues explored this theory in the language learning context and developed the
Language Learning Orientations Scale which categorizes a person’s motivational orientation as
either intrinsic, extrinsic, or amotivated based on a continuum of self-determination.[2] In this line
of research it was found that in the language learning classroom, teachers that were autonomy
supportive and non-controlling promoted intrinsic and self-determined orientations of motivation
in students.[2]

Attribution theory

Attribution theory contends that the causal reasons we attribute to our past successes or failures
plays a critical role in our motivation in future endeavors in that area.[2] Consistent with this
theory, Ushioda identified two attributional patterns associated with positive motivational
outcomes in language learning.[2] The first involves attributing one’s successes in learning the
language to personal factors, while the second involves attributing one’s failures to temporary
forces which may be overcome.[2]

Social constructivist model

This cognitive perspective arose from a supposed “constructivist movement” that stemmed
mostly from the work of Jean Piaget and that also encompassed personal construct psychology
(developed by George Kelly (psychologist)).[12] This model suggests a constructive nature of the
learning process as emphasized by Piaget, this assumes that people are actively involved in
constructing personal meaning right from birth.[12] This brings the learner into central focus in
learning theory as everyone is constructing their own sense of the world, which is key to the
constructivist perspective.[12]

The learner is in control of his/her learning as a result of his/her cognitive processing and
organizing, and the context in which he/she is learning.[12] This means that the individual who is
learning is in control of what he/she learns based on the way he/she think, and the immediate
environment he/she is in as well as any internal factors (mood, preoccupation, motivation,
etc…). Four key elements (the learner(s), the teacher, the task, and the context) are outlined by
this model as affecting the teaching-learning process as they interact with and act on each
other.[12]

Framework of motivation in L2 learning

Using the social constructivist model, Marion Williams and Robert L. Burden developed a
framework of motivation in language learning as an attempt to summarize motivational factors
relevant to L2 learning in the classroom setting. This framework placed an emphasis on
contextual influences, and it categorized motivational factors in terms of learner-internal and
external factors.[13] The framework is shown below:

Internal Factors External Factors

Significant others:
Intrinsic interest of activity:
 parents
 arousal of curiosity
 teachers
 optimal degree of challenge
 peers

The nature of interaction with

significant others:

 mediated learning experiences

Perceived value of activity:
 the nature and amount of
 personal relevance
feedback
 anticipated value of outcomes
 rewards
 intrinsic value attributed to the activity
 the nature and amount of
appropriate praise

 punishments, sanctions
 The learning environment:

Sense of agency:  comfort

 locus of causality  resources

 locus of control RE process and outcomes  time of day, week, year

 ability to set appropriate goals  size of class and school

 class and school ethos

The broader context

Mastery  wider family networks

 feelings of competence  the local education system

 awareness of developing skills and mastery in a  conflicting interest

chosen area
 cultural norms
 self-efficacy
 societal expectations and
attitudes

Self-concept

 realistic awareness of personal strengths and

weaknesses in skills required

 personal definitions and judgments of success

and failure

 self-worth concern

 learned helplessness

Attitudes

 to language learning in general

 to the target language

 to the target language community and culture

Other affective states

  confidence

 anxiety, fear

Developmental age and stage

Gender

REFERENCE

http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/hk/cs789/projects/sumitMundhra.pdf/

Cook, Vivian (2016). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-71377-1.

DeKeyser, Robert (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and
practicing second language grammar". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica. Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 42–63. ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2.

Lenneberg, Eric (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. ISBN 0-
89874-700-7.

Lightbown, Patsy (1990). "Chapter 6: Process-product research on second language

learning in classrooms". In Harley, Birgit. The Development of Second Language
Proficiency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–92. ISBN 978-
0-521-38410-0.

Lightbown, Patsy; Spada, Nina (1990). "Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in

Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning". Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 12 (4): 429–48. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009517.

Lightbown, Patsy M.; Spada, Nina (2006). How Languages Are Learned (3rd ed.).
Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442224-6.

Loewen, Shawn; Reinders, Hayo (2011). Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23018-7.

Long, M. (1996). "The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition".
In Ritchie, William; Bhatia, Tej. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego:
Academic Press. pp. 413–468. ISBN 978-0-12-589042-7.
1. 44Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. 45Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19: 37–66.
doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034.
3. 46Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instructional
counterbalance". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28: 269–300.
doi:10.1017/s0272263106060128.
4. 47MacIntyre, Peter D.; Gardner, R. C. (1991). "Language anxiety: Its relationship to
other anxieties and to processing in native and foreign language". Language Learning.
5. 48MacWhinney, Brian (1987). "Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism" (PDF).
Applied Psycholinguistics. 8 (4): 315–327. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000357. Retrieved
2011-03-02.
6. 49MacWhinney, B. (2005). "Extending the Competition Model". International Journal of
Bilingualism. 9: 69–05. doi:10.1177/13670069050090010501.
7. 50Paradis, M. (1994). "Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory:
Implications for bilingualism and SLA". In Ellis, Nick. Implicit and Explicit Learning of
Languages. London: Academic Press. pp. 393–420. ISBN 978-0-12-237475-3.
8. 51Penfield, Wilder; Roberts, Lamar (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton:
Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08039-9.
9. 52Piasecka, L. (2011). "Current views on foreign language reading motivation". In
Arabski, Janusz; Wojtaszek, Adam. Individual Learner Differences in SLA. North York,
ON: Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-84769-434-8.
10. 53Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011). "A Study of Gender-Related Levels of Processing
Anxieties over Three Years of Secondary Grammar School Instruction". In Arabski,
Janusz; Wojtaszek, Adam. Individual Learner Differences in SLA. North York, ON:
Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-84769-434-8.
11. 54Pinter, Annamaria (2011). Children Learning Second Languages. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-1185-8.
12. 55Prabhu, N. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-437084-4.
13. 56Rounds, P. L.; Kanagy, R. (1998). "Acquiring linguistic cues to identify AGENT:
Evidence from children learning Japanese as a second language". Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 20 (4): 509–542. doi:10.1017/s0272263198004033.
14. 57Schmidt, R. (2001). "Attention". In Robinson, Peter. Cognition and Second Language
Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–32. ISBN 978-0-521-80288-
8.
15. 58Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics. 10:
209–241. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209.
16. 59Siegel, Jeff (2003). "Social Context". In Doughty, Catherine; Long, Michael. The
handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-
21754-1.
17. 60Skehan, Peter (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-437217-6.
18. 61Solé, Yolanda Russinovich (1994). "The Input Hypothesis and the Bilingual Learner".
The Bilingual Review. 19 (2): 99–110. JSTOR 25745211.(registration required)
19. 62Studenska, A. (2011). "Personality and parenting styles as predictors of self-regulation
in foreign language learning". In Arabski, Janusz; Wojtaszek, Adam. Individual Learner
Differences in SLA. North York (ON): Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-84769-434-8.
20. 63Swain, Merrill (1991). "French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one". In
Freed, Barbara. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington,
MA: Heath. pp. 91–103. ISBN 978-0-669-24263-8.
21. 64Swain, Merrill (1995). "Three functions of output in second language learning". In
Cook, Guy. Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G.
Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 125–144. ISBN 978-0-19-442147-8.
22. 65Tarone, Elaine; Bigelow, Martha; Hansen, Kit (2009). Literacy and Second Language
Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442300-7.
23. 66Tarone, Elaine; Swierzbin, Bonnie (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442291-8.
24. 67Tokowicz, Natasha (2015). Lexical Processing and Second-Language Acquisition. New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-87755-8.
25. 68VanPatten, Bill; Williams, Jessica, eds. (2015). Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-82421-7.
26. 69VanPatten, Bill; Benati, Alessandro G. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language
Acquisition. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-9914-1.
27. 70Vega, Luis, A (2008). Social Psychological Approaches to Bilingualism. New York,
NY: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 978-0-8058-5135-9.
28. 71Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann; Nielsen, Sarah (2003). "Language Socialization in SLA".
In Doughty, Catherine; Long, Michael. The handbook of second language acquisition.
Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-21754-1.
29. 72Yuan, F.; Ellis, R. (2003). "The Effects of Pre-Task Planning and On-Line Planning on
Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy in L2 Monologic Oral Production". Applied
Linguistics. 24: 1. doi:10.1093/applin/24.1.1.