1 / 25

Demotivation and Technological Institute Students ’ EFL Proficiency

Demotivation and Technological Institute Students ’ EFL Proficiency . Rou-Jui Sophia Hu Department of Applied Foreign Languages Cheng Shiu University snh@isu.edu.tw. OUTLINE. Introduction Literature Review Methodology Findings Conclusion. INTRODUCTON.

koko
Download Presentation

Demotivation and Technological Institute Students ’ EFL Proficiency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Demotivation and Technological Institute Students’ EFL Proficiency Rou-Jui Sophia Hu Department of Applied Foreign Languages Cheng Shiu University snh@isu.edu.tw

  2. OUTLINE • Introduction • Literature Review • Methodology • Findings • Conclusion

  3. INTRODUCTON • Most technological institute students, in general, do not perform as well as university students do, either in academic performance or EFL proficiency. This paper aims to explore the relationship between the demotivating factors and technological institute students’ English language proficiency.

  4. LITERATURE REVIEW • Not much discussion has been found about the relationship between demotivation and English proficiency attainment. • Dornyei’s (2001b) definition of demotivation: the mental and physical condition of an individual when the existing motivation is lessened or the ongoing action is stopped by some external influences.  Chang and Cho (2003) found the following factors that are responsible for junior high students’ demotivation: (1) learning difficulties, (2) threats to self-worth, (3) monotonous teaching, (4) bad teacher-students relationship, (5) punishments, (6) general and language-specific anxiety, (7) lack of self-determination, (8) poor classroom management.

  5. METHODOLOGY • Subject: -- 467 students from Cheng Shiu University participated in this study. • Instrument for measuring EFL proficiency: (GEPT-basic) --Grammar & reading comprehension Test (20 multiple choice questions) --Listening Comprehension Test (20 multiple choice questions)

  6. METHODOLOGY(cont’) Instrument for measuring demotivating factors: --35 statements on 11 hypothetical variables: (1)learning difficulties, (2)threats to self-worth, (3)monotonous teaching, (4)bad teacher-student relationship, (5)punishment, (6)general & language-specific anxiety, (7)lack of self-determination, (8)poor classroom management, (9) theory not put into practice, (10)xenophobia-orientedness, (11)negligence of English from previous schools. ( variables (9), (10), and (11) are from the authors’ investigation.)

  7. DATA ANALYSIS • Descriptive Statistics • Correlational Analysis

  8. Descriptive Statistics (1) • Background information:

  9. Descriptive Statistics (2) • EFL proficiency:

  10. Correlational Analysis (1a)--learning difficulties vs. EFL measures • English grammar and vocabulary building are two most significant predictor items in relation with Grammar Test. • Vocabulary building and reading comprehension have similar correlation coefficients with not only Grammar Test but also Listening Test. Thus, it can be told that vocabulary building is an issue that should be taken note of among technological college students.

  11. Correlational Analysis (1b)--learning difficulties vs. EFL measures • Vocabulary building, listening training and reading comprehension are three most significant predictor items in relation with Listening Test

  12. Correlational Analysis (2a)--Threats to self-worth vs. EFL measures • From the correlation with Grammar Test, practicing pronunciation in class is deemed as one of the most significant predictor items.

  13. Correlational Analysis (2b)--Threats to self-worth vs. EFL measures • From the correlation with Listening Test, practicing pronunciation in class, being looked down upon by teachers, and being mocked by friends are all related with school, not family members. It can be told that students do care about how teachers and friends treat them while learning. On the other hand, the pressure from their families is not as strong as it is from school.

  14. Correlational Analysis (3a)--Monotonous teaching vs. EFL measures

  15. Correlational Analysis (3b)--Monotonous teaching vs. EFL measures

  16. Correlational Analysis (4)--Bad teacher-student relationship vs. EFL measures

  17. Correlational Analysis (5)--Punishment vs. EFL measures

  18. Correlational Analysis (6)--General and language-specific anxiety vs. EFL measures • Being asked to speak a foreign language in the class is usually the source of anxiety for EFL learners. The anxiety of training speaking skill is reflected not only in Listening Test but also in Grammar Test.

  19. Correlational Analysis (7)--lack of self-determination vs. EFL measures

  20. Correlational Analysis (8)--Poor classroom management vs. EFL measures

  21. Correlational Analysis (9)--Theory not put into practice vs. EFL measures • The so-called “pragmatic English” or “every-day English”, agreed by most EFL learners, equals effective listening & speaking skills training, not grammar translation.

  22. Correlational Analysis (10)--Xenophobia-orientedness vs. EFL measures • Communicating with native speakers of English depends primarily on speaking/listening skills. Therefore, it is no surprise to find the above correlation.

  23. Correlational Analysis (11)--Negligence of English from previous schools vs. EFL measures • This correlation shows that there is no doubt for EFL learners to see speaking/listening skills as a more important tool for communication than grammar translation or vocabulary building.

  24. CONCLUSION • The item “I am bad at memorizing vocabulary” is found to have the second highest correlation coefficient with Grammar Test and the highest correlation coefficient with Listening Test at .01 level of significance. Therefore, it should be noted that vocabulary building is indeed the major problem for technological college students when encountering learning difficulties. • The item related with language-specific anxiety are found to have the third highest correlation coefficient with Grammar Test, and the second highest correlation coefficient with Listening Test among all items. Anxiety has been a very significant factor for ESL/EFL learners. How to lessen low achievers’ learning anxiety is an important issue for teachers to face and solve. • On the other hand, weak correlations are found among the items: “bad teacher-student relationship”, “lack of self-determination”, and “disorder of the classroom”, which means these items have weak demotivating influence for technological college students in this subject.

  25. RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH • Stepwise Multiple Regression analysis is recommended to analyze the relative weighting of the eleven hypothesized variables. By applying this statistical analysis, we can locate which variable(s) explain the most variance when entering the regression(s) and, therefore, find the rank of the hypothetical variables.

More Related