(PDF) Language Anxiety and Classroom Dynamics.

Language Anxiety and Classroom Dynamics.
ANNA TURULA

LANGUAGE ANXIETY
AND
CLASSROOM DYNAMICS
A study of the adult beginner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter I: The Adult Learner
1.1. Misconceptions about learning in adulthood
1.2. The adult learner – a more familiar species
1.2.1. General characteristics
1.2.2. Advantages of the adult learner
1.2.3. Potential drawbacks in adult education

Chapter II: Language Anxiety

2.1. Definition
2.2. The origins of language anxiety
2.2.1. Language anxiety – in the eyes of the learner
2.2.2. Language anxiety and classroom dynamics
2.3. I know an anxious student when I see one
2.4. The effects of language anxiety on learning a foreign language
2.4.1. The importance of affect in learning
2.4.2. Is language anxiety always debilitating?

Chapter III: Towards More Positive Classroom Dynamics

3.1. Caring and sharing in a foreign language class
3.1.1. The importance of learning in a group
3.1.2. The advantages of collaborative learning
3.1.3. The role of the teacher
3.2. The more autonomous language learner
3.2.1. How autonomy is achieved
3.2.2. Language as a cognitive skill
3.2.3. Language learning strategies, techniques and mnemonics
3.2.4. Strategy training in a language classroom
3.3. Individual differences – do they really matter?
3.3.1. Individual differences – research to date
3.3.2. Multiple Intelligences
3.3.3. Neuro-Linguistic Programming in the language classroom
3.4. Motivation
3.4.1. Attitudes and motivation
3.4.2. Clear sense of direction
3.4.3. Enjoyment
3.5. Experiential language learning
3.5.1. Experience in the language classroom
3.5.2. The anatomy of experiential learning

Chapter IV: Scheme of Research Design

4.1. Aim of the study
4.1.1. Research questions
4.2. Research tradition
4.3. Research methods
4.4. Research tools
4.4.1. Description
4.4.2. Analysis units and coding systems
4.5. The sample
4.6. Research chronology

Chapter V: The Research

5.1. General characteristics
5.1.1. The groups
5.1.2. The teachers
5.1.3. The classrooms
5.2. Classroom interaction
5.2.1. Quantitative analysis of classroom interaction
5.2.2. Interaction patterns
5.2.3. Between the people in the classroom
5.3. The metacognitive in the classroom.
5.3.1. General analysis of the course
5.3.2. Error correction
5.3.3. Teacher explanations
5.4. Language anxiety
5.4.1. Anxiety suspects; anxiety culprits
5.5. Analysis of student Self-Report Questionnaires
5.6. The students about their classroom dynamics

Chapter VI: The Teacher, Peer Students and the Classroom as Inhibiting
Factors – Discussion and conclusions

6.1. Group anxiety and classroom dynamics
6.2. Individual anxiety and classroom dynamics
6.3. Conclusions

Bibliography

Appendix: Research tools

Streszczenie

INTRODUCTION

For many years, regardless of the method that was contemporarily in fashion, there

have been successful language learners and people who failed. Consequently, it seems that

success in foreign languages depends not only on appropriate methodology but also on

something that goes beyond the cognitive aspect of language acquisition. This book was

written in deep belief that equally important aspects of success are the metacognitive (the

ability to organise and control one’s own learning) and the affective, with special ragerd to

language anxiety as well as the relationship between the people who take part in the process.

Therefore, Language Anxiety and Classroom Dynamics examines the interdependence

between the feeling of tension and apprehension associated with language learning seen at the

background of what happens in the language classroom. The research, which was carried out

to determine their mutual relations, concentrated on the adult beginner. The age was

important because it seems that adults more than other age groups suffer from classroom-

related tensions. The beginning level was another priority as apparently a satisfactory first

encounter is of ultimate importance to later perseverance and success in learning.

First of all, however, it seemed necessary to define the adult learner. That is why

Chapter I looks at mature language students, their advantages and weaknesses. Most of the

characteristics of adult learners presented in this chapter are universal; some of them,

however, are typical of Polish learners only, as the main focus of the present work are adults

learning foreign languages in Poland, their strengths and potential barriers.

One of such powerful inhibitors is language anxiety. That is why its anatomy,

underlying factors and influence on success in foreign language learning are discussed in

Chapter II. This part of the book presents the results of research-to-date in this area: the most

popular definitions and controversies. It also attemps to explain why it is the mature learner

that is the most vulnerable to language anxiety.

Chapter III attempts to define the characteristics of language environment which

would be the least tension-breeding. To do so, it looks at classroom dynamics in its broad

understanding proposed by Hadfield (1992), who saw the relationship between group

members from a number of perspectives such as caring and sharing in the language classroom

on the one hand, and motivation, autonomy and individualisation of learning on the other.

Since classroom dynamics is such a complex phenomenon, its relationship with

language anxiety had to be tested on a number of planes. Consequently, the research, whose

design is presented in Chapter IV and results – in Chapter V, had to be multifaceted and, as

such, carried out by means of a number of tools. Moreover, as both classroom dynamics and

anxiety belong to the affective domain of language learning, direct observation was chosen as

the most effective means of recording classroom events and their relationships. As a result,

the present research belongs to the ethnographic tradition with elements of interaction and

discourse analysis and is mainly qualitative in nature. The discussion of the obtained results

as well as conclusions and teaching implications are oresented in Chapter VI.

CHAPTER I: THE ADULT LEARNER

The term “the adult learner” appears to be a conceptual aberration, an idea

contradictory in itself. Learning implies change, development, growth. The term adult, on the

other hand, means “grown up” - somebody whose biological, psychological, mental, etc.

growth is already complete and the person either does not need or shows no capability of

change. Czerniawska (2000:32-33) traces the origin of this concept of adulthood back to

Aristotle’s Rhetoric, where it is understood as maturity, the climax of life, harmony. In

Bellow’s (1976) understanding, adulthood stands for being and, as compared to becoming, is

a state rather than a process, complete and with neither the need, nor the opportunity for

development. Consequently, the very concept of learning in adulthood seems to undermine

the notion of completeness as it must imply changing the unchangeable.

One of the most important reasons for writing the present book was to challenge the

above-mentioned idea, as in the post-industrial era the concept of adult learning needs a

profound reconsideration. In these times of rapid development learning has become an

integral part of adult life. With the ever-accelerating speed of change in both science and

technology, mature people can never stop developing as the only alternative to life-long

learning is obsolescence. Finger (Czerniawska 2000:17) goes as far as seeing adult education

as the antidote to post-industrial frustration and the means of re-interpretation of life. That is

why we need to look at the adult person from the point of view of humanistic psychology -

the capable being, able to become, shaped and ready to be shaped at the same time; the

capable being, whose development-oriented potential never ceases to exist and depends on

the diversity and quality of stimuli created in learning situations. The perception of learning

as situational is of major importance here. It helps us reconcile the idea of change, inseparable

from learning, with personal integrity and existential climax associated with adulthood. The

process of learning, which Crow and Crow (1963) understand as acquisition of new habits,

knowledge, and attitudes as well as personal and social adjustments, is restricted to areas of

life in which the adult human being chooses to undergo such change. This book looks at the

adult learner in one of such situations: foreign language learning.

It has to be admitted, though, that the present language teaching methodology seems to

be predominantly young-learner-oriented. There are numerous programmes specially

designed for children and Polish philology students, well-trained in pedagogy and rarely - or

never- in andragogy, are used to thinking of learners as children or young people. The adult

learner - whom Knowles (1990) rightly calls the neglected species - does not have a special

place in the methodology syllabus. As a result, when philology graduates become teachers of

adults - which in language education in Poland is not rare - they do not see their students as

significantly different from learners as such. That is why, before we see the adult learner in

the context of the foreign language classroom, it seems indispensable to have a closer look at

“the species” as an age group. We need to describe it in the hope of invalidating all

misconceptions about learning in adulthood, to identify the driving forces which change an

adult into an adult learner and to specify his/her strengths and weaknesses. Chapter I offers

such an insight.

1.1. Misconceptions about learning in adulthood

The fact that learning in adulthood still very often seems bizarre and impracticable is

not only – and not mainly – the result of the popularity of the Aristotelean concept of human

life. It is rather the consequence of common prejudices, according to which learning is

difficult if not impossible for the mature mind. In their research on potential problems

discouraging adults from undertaking various forms of postsecondary education, Carp et al.

(1974) identified three types of barriers: situational (e.g.: time, cost, lack of childcare or

transportation), institutional (incl. inconvenient scheduling or unavailability of a needed

course) and dispositional (based on unfavourable self attitudes). The last inventory of barriers,

though seen by the subjects of the study as the least important of all three, was headed by the

statement “I’m afraid I’m too old to learn”. As this attitude is widespread among adults and

pedagogically - or rather andragogically - devastating for them, it seems indispensable to

analyse how well-founded the common knowledge is.

The best-known research into learning in adulthood was carried out by Thorndike in

the early 20th century (Thorndike 1950) and concentrated on the quantitative and qualitative

changes in the human ability to learn between the ages of 15 and 45. The adult subjects of the

research were studied in diverse learning situations: they were taught to solve mathematical

problems, type, develop simple and complex habits, write with the other - not dominant -

hand etc. The data from Thorndike’s study gave the basis for the learning-ability curve, whose

general shape is presented in Figure 1:

LEARNING ABILITY

x x x x x
10 20 30 40 50
AGE
Figure 1. The relationship between age and learning ability (Thorndike 1950:141)

On the basis of the graph we can observe that the adults demonstrated considerable

plasticity of their learning ability. It is true that the curve shows decline of learning ability

between the ages of 30 and 40. There are, however, two facts that need to be pointed out:

firstly, the decline is much less radical than the increase observed from childhood to mid-

twenties; secondly, what the line may actually show is not necessarily reduced capability for

learning but rather the fact that learning is less efficient because sensory acuity, strength and

stamina declining with age - we all realise the change and do not need special scientific

evidence to prove it.

One may argue, though, that the lower learning ability demonstrated by the adult

subjects can also and, first of all, be attributed to age-associated neuronal atrophy and thus

prove that learning capability does decrease with age. Greenfield (1999) subscribes to such a

view declaring that between the age of 20 and 70 our ability to learn and memorise is subject

to a 50% decline. Tuszyński (Smith et al. 1999) disagrees, claiming that most studies to date

have failed to prove extensive age-related neuronal loss in memory-related brain regions such

as the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. Our brain contains 100,000 m neurons and even if

we assume that 10,000-20,000 of them disappear daily, it means that in 100 years time we

would lose 1% of our neuronal potential. This is too little, argues Turlejski (Włodarski et al.

1999: 11), to cause a considerable decline of brain functions. What, in his opinion, makes it

more difficult to learn in adulthood and old age is the earlier highlighted inefficient

physiology of the ageing organism and not neuronal atrophy, the more that the latter may be

insignificant whatever the extent of the neuronal loss. According to Niewiadomska

(Włodarski et al. 1999Ś 11), brain efficiency is determined less by the number of neurons and

more by the numbers of connections between them. In this way, a 60-year old, whose brain

compensates neuronal loss by the complexity of such connections, can have as efficient a

brain as a 20-year-old.

However, even if the neuronal atrophy is minimal or unimportant, it may seem that the

mature brain can never outperform its younger counterpart because the latter is subject to

rapid neurogenesis, whereas in adulthood neuronal build-up is no longer an option. This

theory, though, has recently been disproved. Gould et al. (1999) proved that thousands of

hippocampal neurons can actually be born in adulthood. On the basis of their experiments,

they demonstrated that the number of adult-generated neurons doubles in the rat dentate gyrus

in response to training on associative learning tasks that require the hippocampus. These

findings indicate that adult-generated neurons are specifically affected by and potentially

involved in associative memory formation – a statement not unimportant for language

learning, which, to a large extent, is based on associative training. The results of the above-

quoted study were confirmed by Praag et al. (1999), who showed that exposure to an enriched

environment increases neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of adult rodents. Although their

findings proving that voluntary exercise is sufficient for enhanced neuronal build-up refer to

adult rodents, the conclusions seem equally optimistic for mature humans: adults (including,

hopefully adult human beings) should be encouraged to learn because only by constant

intellectual training can they preserve their learning capabilities.

At the same time we have to bear in mind that what may be true for learning in general

does not necessarily apply to language learning. In light of cognitive approach to language

learning (Skehan 2003), late bilingualism is skill-based and, consequently, may be perceived

as similar to solving mathematical problems or typing. There is no denial that this is not true

for early bilinguals, in whose case the process is more instinctive. What Chomsky called the

Language Acquisition Device, an inner mechanism used for the acquisition of the mother

tongue can be activated for the sake of the second language (Pinker 1994). Consequently,

adult learners may never be able to outperform children, as the only resources they can fall

back on are: general learning ability, learning strategies and possible exaptation (Pinker 1994;

Pinker 2002) of their already inactive LADs. Does it mean that mature language learners are

at a disadvantage that is impossible to overcome? To answer the question, we need to

consider the results of research in this field.

The belief in the unrivalled linguistic abilities of young learners dates back to

discoveries in neuropsychology and neurophysiology of the late 1950s. According to the

critical period hypothesis, at a certain age - specified by Penfield and Roberts (1959) as the

age of 10 - the plasticity of brain which enables the child to acquire his/her mother tongue

disappears because of the final lateralisation of brain hemispheres. The hypothesis, however,

was later challenged by Krashen, Whitaker, Bub and Laventer (Ellis 1994: 457), who

questioned both: the precise age and the neuroscientific foundations of the hypothesis. The

dispute was impossible to resolve in the past as, until very recently, our understanding of the

cortical representation underlying multiple language functions had been limited. Before the

invention of the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) we did not have the means

allowing the precise identification and insight into language-specific cerebral areas. However,

with the use of fMRI, it was possible for Kim et al. (1997) to investigate the fundamental

question of how native and second languages were represented in the human brain. With the

use of advanced technology, they were able to determine the spatial relationship between

native and second languages in the cortex and prove that within the frontal-lobe language-

sensitive region called Broca’s area, second languages acquired in adulthood were spatially

separated from native languages, whereas in early bilinguals native and second languages

tended to be represented together. The discovery confirms that the Broca’s area loses its

plasticity with age and those who start second language acquisition in adulthood need to

engage other cerebral areas, which, although only a fraction of a millimetre distant, make

neuronal flow more difficult and, consequently, less fluid. In addition to – and possibly as a

result of - brain change, the way our minds work is subject to modification. Skehan, who is

one of the proponents of the theory of the modularity of mind, argues that in the case of

mother tongue it is the syntax-semantics opposition that matters, while in late bilinguals

“modularity is based on stages of information processing: input, central processing and

memory/output” (2003: 233). As a result, syntax, so naturally acquired by children, in adults

requires a lot of memory work and practice until it is sufficiently automatised, instinctive,

native-like acquisition being out of question for post-critical period learning (Paradis 2004).

All this does not sound optimistic for the adult language learner.

However, in addition to neurological mechanisms and mental processes,

environmental issues have to be taken into account. By early bilinguals we usually understand

children who acquire both - their native and second languages in natural settings. However,

the majority of people in Poland – children and adults alike - learn a foreign language in

formal teaching situations in which, according to the results of the study carried out by

Cochrane (Ellis 1994: 486) adults outperform children because, as proved by Harley (Ellis

1994: 489-491), formal schooling does not offer enough exposure needed for the age

advantages of young learners to emerge. Besides the above-cited findings, Ellis (1994: 484-

494) quotes numerous studies in which the relationship between age and different variables

(rate of learning, ability to achieve native-like competence, level of achievement and

processes of learning) were investigated. He concludes by stating that under ideal conditions

adults have been known to achieve native-like quality of speech and grammatical competence.

This statement seems to resolve the question whether one can be too old to learn a foreign

language, and the answer is no. It, however, poses another problem, which will be of major

concern for the present studyŚ “What are źllis’s ideal conditions?” “How can they be created

in formal learning situations?” And if not or not for all the learners, how can formal schooling

activate the potential of mature language learners which helps them to outperform children on

the one hand and, on the other, how can we compensate for the afore mentioned

disadvantages of late bilingualism. However, to be able to activate the strengths and

advantages of the adult learner, we, first of all, need to define and acknowledge them.

1.2. The adult learner - a more familiar species

1.2.1. General characteristics

The adult learner, who enters any classroom - including the language classroom

which is of interest to the present study - has to be seen from a three-fold time perspective:

through his/her unique past experiences, his/her present interests and abilities as well as the

reasons for learning and the goals (s)he wants to achieve in the future.

The past the students bring into the classroom is enormous and diverse. They all

already have what Knowles (1990) calls background experience: certain knowledge of the

world based on former formal schooling, self-instruction or experiences; some scholarship in

all academic subjects, including foreign languages; the knowledge of their own mother

tongue; and finally great expertise in the area which is their profession or special interest.

Besides, they are usually aware of social norms and rules underlying interpersonal relations.

What is equally important is that all they know and remember is emotionally loaded by all the

memories - pleasant and unpleasant - which have been formed in the course of earlier

education and development. On this entire, broadly understood knowledge, the students build

their awareness of themselves as human beings in general and potential learners in particular.

As a result, adult education is not limited to passive assimilation of the material. It consists of

processing of the information and its adapting to the already existing cognitive structure

(Malewski 1998). It is also strongly influenced by the already-formed attitudes.

The concept of the present is important for the adult learner in a number of

ways. First of all, "the now" stands for who the student is at the moment - the unique self, by

which we understand skills and interests on the one hand and the personality, learning style

and habits as well as type of linguistic intelligence on the other, to mention only a few from

the broad range in individual features of the learners (cf. Gardner 1985, Ellis 1994, Arabski

1997). The class of adults will therefore consist of individuals who can be extrovert or

introvert, field (in)dependent, have some flair for music or arts, be keen on languages or good

at mathematics, enjoy stamp collecting or dancing. All those characteristics will be important

- if - in light of żardner’s multiple intelligences theory (1983) - the old question of “How

smart is the student?” has to be replaced by “How the student is smart?” (Weber 2001). Those

individual differences will be reinforced by the fact that the students are not of the same age

and background, some of them can be more mature, experienced and autonomous than the

others and all have their own needs, expectations and development pace different than those

of their peers (Rogers 1996). Moreover, adult students – for whom learning is only a part-time

activity – will, metaphorically, bring into the classroom all their other commitments, their

families and all the spheres of life the teacher has neither the competence, nor the right to

interfere with. Consequently, in a class of adults some classroom stimuli will operate with

greater effect on some students than on the others and the diversity will naturally be much

greater than in classes of young learners. In spite of the differences, there is one characteristic

all mature learners have in common – they are grown-up. And if we agree with Holster (1986)

that adulthood is synonymous with autonomy, a żreek word meaning “making one’s own

rules”, we have to assume that in a class of adults all the students are, by definition,

responsible for their actions and capable of self-direction. Knowles (1990) argues that, at least

theoretically, adults not only are but also want to be seen as autonomous.

The second aspect of the present of the adult learner is the question of how they

learn. Mature learners actually learn for "the now". While it is true that they have their long-

term learning goals (possible motives of mature learners will be discussed later in this

chapter), they do not like distant learning objectives (Daintes et al. 1993), are decisively task-

oriented (Knowles 1990) and have a life-centred learning motivation (Lindeman 1926). This

means that they need to know why they learn something and see the immediate practical

implication of the knowledge on the one hand, and, on the other, they are ready to learn only

the things that are meaningful to them (Knowles 1990), relevant in the sense that they can be

linked to what the learner already knows, likes and who (s)he is. As a result, they want the

teacher to elicit and clarify the purposes (Rogers 1969) as well as handle concrete, non-

abstract issues (Daintes et al 1993).

Another “now” is the human context in which the adult learns. Many andragogues

(cf. Dewey 1938, Knowles & Knowles 1973, Rowan 1987, Coare & Thompson 1996, Rogers

1996, Harwas 1999) emphasise the importance of adult education as a social activity. Harwas

(1999) states that the adult learner learns best in a group because it is the team that offers the

best motivation. Besides, according to Rowan (1987), what one gets from the other in

addition to stimulation is know-how. The fact that mature students benefit from collaborative

learning and actually enjoy it is confirmed by the subjects of the already-cited study carried

out by Coare and Thomson (1996). The analysis of the diaries of those who attended regular

classes shows that they appreciate the positive contribution of group experience -

cameraderie, support and inspiration.

Finally, "the present" implies the student’s expectations towards the learning

environment - the teacher and the group. According to Daintes et al. (1993), adult learners

want their tutor to be competent and show enthusiasm. That is probably because - at least it is

true for Poland - adults pay for the courses and they expect "value for money". Besides, they

want the teacher to make the course enjoyable, which is understandable if we take into

account the fact that adult learners have to reconcile their learning with other commitments,

and usually come to the classroom immediately before or after work. Whether or not the

teacher lives up to such expectations is a strong motivation determinant.

The future of the adult learner is understood here as all the reasons and motives

that make adults undertake learning. Daintes et al. (1993) define some common driving forces

which motivate mature students. They include following an existing interest,

learning/developing a skill or an idea, satisfying curiosity and creativity, discovering “If I

can”, gaining approval or access to further learning, meeting like-minded people, gaining

social confidence and enhancing self-esteem. Houle (1981) applies a more systematic

approach to motivation and distinguishes three types of adult learners: 1) goal oriented; 2)

activity oriented and 3) learning oriented.

The goal-oriented adult learners are driven by the pragmatic desire to use and

implement their knowledge. In their statistical analysis of motivation scales, Morstain and

Smart (1974) prove that the achievement of such a goal may result in various kinds of drives.

Goal-oriented learners are very often motivated by the prospect of professional advancement:

they want to achieve higher status, to secure advancement or to keep up with competition.

Such motives are very frequent among adult learners of English in Poland, where the

knowledge of this language has become an indispensable characteristic of the candidates for

all financially and professionally interesting positions. Another driving force is constituted by

external expectations. People enrol on language courses to comply with instructions from

their superiors or to carry out the expectations or recommendations of somebody with formal

authority. Such external pressure is typical of the contemporary Polish labour market where

English courses organised by employers for the members of their staff are not infrequent. The

third aspect of the goal-oriented motivation singled out by Morstain and Smart (1974) is the

learner’s interest in their social welfare. Very often learning in adulthood is undertaken to

improve one’s ability to serve other people and to be able to participate in the community

through such services.

Activity-oriented learners, in turn, can be driven into the language classroom by

potential social relationships or by escape/stimulation needs. Morstain and Smart (1974)

define their motives as the need for personal participation and friendship or relief from the

boredom of everyday routines both at home and at work. Finally, learning-oriented people

engage in education out of cognitive interest - they seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake in

order to satisfy their enquiring minds.

As demonstrated above, the adult learner can be perceived and understood three-

dimensionally: through their past, their present and their future. There are a number of

possible consequences of the acknowledgement of the fact. The first conclusion will be that

the experience can and has to be utilised for the benefit of the student. Secondly, with all the

diversity on the one hand and responsibility on the other, adult learning should be as

autonomous as possible. Finally, it cannot be questioned that the mature learner deserves the

teacher's regard for all they already know, are and can do. Therefore, the teacher owes his/her

adult students respect and education based on partnership and dialogue. There is nothing

particularly unusual and innovative in such an approach. Looking back at adult learning,

Knowles (1990) observes that in ancient times, when all teaching (Confucius, Lao Tse,

Aristotle, Socrates, Jesus Christ, to mention only the best known teachers) was directed to

adults, learning was active enquiry not passive reception.

1.2.2. Advantages of the adult learner.

Having described the adult as both an individual person and a potential learner,

we need to consider which of those general characteristics are so beneficial that they enable

mature students to outperform children in formal teaching situations. Those advantages have

to be identified and highlighted for the benefit of the educators of mature students, who need

to know their students’ strengths in order to use their knowledge for constant positive

reinforcement in the classroom. At the same time, the knowledge is also very important for

the students themselves, especially those particularly prejudiced against learning in adulthood.

They have to be informed and reassured about the fact that their maturity is, in fact, their main

trump card.

Andragogues agree that the main advantages of the adult student are motivation

(cf. Lindeman 1926, Semków 1987, Półturzycki 1991, Daintes et al. 1993, Coarse and

Thompson 1996, Peers 1998, Malewski 1998,), experience (cf. Szczepański 1962, Urbańczyk

1962, Szewczuk 1962, Knowles 1990, Daintes et al. 1993, Harwas 1999), autonomy (cf.

Lindeman 1926, Szewczuk 1962, Bruner 1966, Holster 1986, Semków 1987, Knowles 1990,

Jarvis 1992, Daintes et al. 1993, Skrzypczak 1999a) and cognitive maturity (Szewczuk 1962,

Urbańczyk 1962, Półturzycki 1991 Harwas 1999).

Motivation

According to Peers (1998), motivation is a more important factor than intelligence

because, as he claims, tendencies are educationally and socially more important than

capacities. The validity of this thesis is best demonstrated by the comparison of young and

adult learners which shows motivation as one possible reason why, as already mentioned,

adults outperform children in the language classroom. Polish children learning English in

kindergartens or the first three grades of the primary school very rarely achieve any language

proficiency in spite of their supposed advantage in this area. The reasons may be numerous

and diverse but one is certain - young learners hardly ever have a strong motivation of their

own. They do not have any English-speaking friends, infrequently or never take advantage of

the natural language setting, and the perspective of finding a better job in the distant future is

not potentially stimulating. Young learners may experience short motivation spans usually

connected with a particularly interesting activity or the person of the teacher if (s)he is

popular with her students. However, more often than not it is the parents and not the children

who see the need to learn a foreign language.

Adults and young adults, on the other hand, present knowledge of English proved

by internationally recognised certificates. In 2000 the number of FCE holders (CAE and CPE

were not included) in Poland numbered 70,000 ( source: British Council, Poland). What gives

adult learners an advantage? First of all, unlike children, mature students are highly motivated

because they experience the needs which can be satisfied by learning. They take exams in

foreign languages, they more often than children have to take care of themselves abroad. In

many professions a foreign language, usually English, is a must. Information technology and

the Internet, which have become easily accessible and popular in all spheres of life, both at

home and at work, are other powerful incentives. The number of areas of adult life where the

knowledge of a foreign language can immediately prove useful is large and growing.

Intellectual maturity of the adult learner, which facilitates proper estimation of the

practicability of undertaken activities (Urbańczyk 1962) is an additional advantage here.

Secondly, and more importantly, the analysis of the types of motivation carried out earlier in

this chapter leads us to the conclusion that the motives are not only diverse and numerous but

also mutually reinforcing - Houle (1981) and Coare and Thompson (1996) claim that every

learner has more than one orientation and every individual motivation is a combination of

several overlapping factors. As a result, the discussion of which drive is stronger – integrative

or instrumental – seems futile in the case of adults, as the mature learners most probably have

both kinds of motivation. Instrumental motivation in adulthood is generated mainly by

professional requirements, some of which have already been defined. Integrative motivation,

which used to be understood as the positive perception of the target language and its peoples,

has changed a little when English ceased to be the property of Anglo-Saxons and became the

means of international communication. At present, the integrative drives of the adult learner

are close to what Czerniawska (2000) calls affiliative motivation – the need to interact with

like-minded people from other countries. Both drives – instrumental and integrative are

additionally strengthened in an adult learner by the egocentric drive (Green 1993) - seeking

to realise one’s fullest potentialitiesŚ physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. Such maximal

ego-centred development is – in the understanding of the humanistic psychology – the goal of

every individual. Finally, and not least importantly, unlike most children, adult learners are

capable of sustained effort (Williams and Burden 1997), show more perseverance and

determination.

Experience

Experience, limited or nonexistent in children, is another important advantage of

the adult learner. In Dewey’s understanding (1938) it is the basis of all genuine education.

Lindeman (1926) sees experience as the richest source of learning. No wonder, as the already

existing knowledge and skills can be both: the basis of the accreditation of new capabilities as

well as the means of assessment of how efficient this learning is. In this way, experience,

understood as both: linguistic and general knowledge, becomes a critical factor in language

learning. In the context of the language classroom, Wenden and Rubin (1987) see the

learner’s experience as the basis for one of the most efficient learning strategiesŚ inferencing.

They distinguish three planes on which such experience-based conclusion drawing can take

place: intralingual, interlingual and extralingual. In the first kind of inferencing, the already

existing awareness of the nature of language helps the adult learner understand the foreign

language as a system governed by rules. In the second kind of conclusion drawing, the learner

takes advantage of their existing knowledge of other languages (mother tongue, other foreign

languages), which can facilitate the acquisition of a new foreign language through

comparative study of grammar and vocabulary. Finally, experience understood in broader

terms as the knowledge of the surrounding world on the one hand and the awareness of social

rules on the other can help the learner in communicative situations enabling inductive

thinking and verification of understanding through social strategies like relying on other

people for help, correct interpretation of verbal and non-verbal reactions of others etc.

Another kind of experience adult learners bring into the classroom is their self-

awareness of themselves as both people in general and learners in particular. The first makes

each learner a unique human being. The fact, if acknowledged and intelligently utilised by the

teacher, may become the basis for individualised language instruction and, consequently, lead

to learner autonomy and higher self-esteem. The second is based on the knowledge and

memories connected with learning itself. Adult learners already have their learning

preferences, which can and need to be adapted to language education. Finally, the overall

knowledge of oneself - apart from its immediate and practical use for developing learning

strategies - can also have a long-lasting effect on the whole learning process. Kargulowa

(1987) claims that self-awareness not only helps overcome inner barriers, which prevent the

full development of a human being, but also leads to empathy and thus facilitates human

relations and opens the possibility of dialogue, which “...deeply rooted in self-awareness,

reinforces it” (Kargulowa 1987Ś38). In this way, self-knowledge enables genuine interaction,

which, in turn, results in more profound self-knowledge. Not only though. If we agree with

Skrzypczak that “all human knowledge is shaped exclusively by interaction” (1999bŚ141), we

have to admit that self-awareness that leads to interpersonal encounters lies at the root of

learning as such.

Autonomy

In light of the already quoted opinion of Holster (1986) that adulthood is

synonymous with autonomy, we have to assume that every mature student is an autonomous

learner – at least by definition. How important is this in language learning? For Holster

autonomy means choice, decision, deliberation, reflection, planning and judging. If we

analyse all those possible interpretations, we realise that they are very similar to another

inventory – a list of efficient metacognitive strategies utilised by successful learners (Wenden

and Rubin 1987), which includes taking the initiative in diagnosing one’s learning needs,

formulating learning goals, identifying resources, choosing strategies and evaluating

outcomes. Thus the first, inescapable conclusion is that autonomous, to use Holster’s words,

is synonymous not only to adult but to successful in learning.

The second possible association provoked by the very concept of autonomous learning

is self – self-reliance and, consequently, independence. There are three possible advantages of

independent learning. First of all, it means that if there is no immediate help in ambiguous

situations, the learner can accept and tolerate this. Secondly, self-reliance requires careful

planning and good organisation of learning so autonomous learners have to be realistic and

self-disciplined, able to set long-term goals and to achieve them by means of self-imposed

and self-executed short-term goals. Needless to add, tolerance for ambiguity and self-

discipline are two other characteristics of a successful learner (Wenden and Rubin 1987, Ellis

and Sinclair 1990). Finally, and most importantly, independence from the teacher means that

autonomous learning is actually incessant because, owing to the learner’s independent

initiatives, it is not limited to 2 meetings a week (the most popular format of adult language

courses in Poland). And how invaluable frequent exposures to the target language are can be

best understood if we take into consideration źbbinghaus’ findings about human memory.

If we take into account that memory loss is the greatest within the first 24h, and can be

prevented only by daily contact with language, the advantages of autonomous learning

become more than clear.

Finally, autonomy means taking on full responsibility for one’s own learning. As a

result, all decisions are made by the party interested, success is ascribed where it truly lies –

with the learner – and failure is subject to repair and not a pretext to put the blame elsewhere.

Cognitive maturity

Advanced intellectual development of the adult person is, together with

experience, seen as one of the main advantages of the adult learner (Harwas 1999). According

to Szewczuk (1962) the main manifestation of this maturity is stabilisation of mental

processes and orientation. The first leads to more systematic learning and better

understanding, the latter being responsible for greater motivation and autonomy (both

discussed earlier in this chapter).

The main aspects of cognitive maturity which Urbańczyk (1962) sees as

particularly conducive to learning are: capability of abstract thinking and understanding

abstract concepts, longer spans and a higher quality of concentration and greater importance

of facultative attention. Półturzycki (1991) in turn, emphasises such faculties of the mature

mind as diversity of perception, which is much more complex than in young learners, and

well-developed logical memory and analytic thinking. Both of them, facilitative in learning in

general, are, at the same time, especially important in language acquisition. Perceptional

complexity is invaluable in the language classroom because, according to the principles of

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), the more channels of perception are activated, the

more efficient the learning will be. Analytical thinking helps in perceiving and analysing

general patterns and thus creates the basis for hypothesis formation and aids learning. The list

of cognitive advantages of the adult mind would not be complete without two more

characteristics specified by Urbańczyk (1962). They include the ability to understand the

sense of participation in education and a clear perception of the practicability of knowledge.

The advantages of both of these faculties have already been demonstrated in the present work

(cf. Advantages: motivation).

1.2.3. Potential drawbacks in adult education

The already mentioned Carp et al. (1974), in their research into the barriers to

adult learning distinguished three types of barriers: situational, institutional and dispositional.

In the present work, the potential difficulties of adult learners will be examined on the basis of

a similar division. Situational and institutional problems will be discussed together as the

external barriers. The internal barriers will include the dispositional and cognitive barriers,

the latter not mentioned by Carp et al., whose category inventory is limited to affective

factors.

External barriers

The situational barriers defined by Carp et al. included time, cost, other

commitments (family, job), organisational difficulties (lack of childcare or transportation) and

insufficient support from family and friends.

Time, or rather the lack of it, and cost are the two greatest problems in adult

learning. They head the list of difficulties worked out by Carp et al. (1974) on the basis of

their above-mentioned research. Their findings were confirmed by Coare and Thompson

(1996), who arrived at a similar conclusion on the basis of their analysis of 1000 adult learner

diaries. Their subjects report that sometimes the courses are too expensive and very often

participation in them means that the student has to find time and energy for many activities.

Lack of time was also seen as one of the greatest barriers by the subjects of studies carried out

by Hayes (1989) and Marinova-Todd et al. (2000).

The two factors - cost and time - seem particularly important in Poland, which is

the subject of a profound systemic transformation. The cost of language courses, especially

seen in the context of constant pauperisation of our society, as well as the time commitment

necessary in language learning, which may be a problem in a country where people have to

work more and more, are extremely off-putting factors.

Other situational problems include no childcare (Carp et al. 1974), the lack of

transport (Carp et al. 1974, Hayes 1989) or unfavourable attitudes in the learner’s

environment (Carp et al. 1974, Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). Although seen by the researchers

as far less important, they have to be taken into account for the sake of a fuller and more

profound understanding of how difficult it may be for an adult learner to start, continue and

succeed in language learning. These constraints are especially hard to remove if the already

discussed problems are reinforced by institutional barriers, which include unavailability or

inconvenient scheduling of desired courses, insufficient information about course offers as

well as too much red tape in the enrolment.

Internal barriers

The first type of internal inhibitors are cognitive barriers created by the fully

developed nervous system of an adult (Jankowski 1973). Consolidated cognitive and

executive categories as well as well-established memory tracks resist the “new personality”

the language classroom forces on the student. As a result, strong ego defence mechanisms

(Rogers 1996) can be activated making language learning particularly difficult for older

people and males who, according to Harmann (Ehrman 1999:72) have thicker ego boundaries

than children and females. Ehrman describes learners with thick ego boundaries as meticulous

and orderly but often “unreceptive to new information” (1999Ś71). This may result from the

fact that, unlike learners with thin ego boundaries and, unfortunately unlike good language

learners (cf. Wenden and Rubin 1987, Ellis and Sinclair 1990), they see thinking and feeling

as distinct processes, rarely rely on intuition and do not tolerate ambiguity or loose lines of

authority, the latter being critical to autonomous learning.

Other often mentioned cognitive disadvantages of the adult learner include a

decline in learning ability in adulthood and lower flexibility of the mature brain. Earlier in this

work, they were identified as misconceptions rather than real barriers in adult learning.

However, on the basis of the same experiments (cf. Gould et al. 1999, Praag et al. 1999) that

helped us disqualify those potential learning inhibitors, it has to be stated that minds that are

not trained become subject to neuronal atrophy and, consequently, show limited learning

ability. Thus, for a brain not used to intellectual exercise - not very rare in adults who resume

language education after years of break in schooling - it may be difficult to adapt to a learning

situation.

All those cognitive barriers can be additionally reinforced by affective factors –

the student’s negative self-awareness and attitudes. Affect is a very powerful force in

education. According to Stevick (1999), it is important to learning in many ways. First of all,

affective data are stored in the same memory networks as other kinds of data. As a result,

affective barriers can disorganise the intake and storage of newly learned material. Secondly,

affective data may “call up from long-term memory certain other kinds of data and these

extra data may act as clutter on the worktable” (Stevick 1999:55). Consequently, incoming

information is not processed efficiently and even if the data are stored properly, affect may

interfere with our ability to retrieve them.

The list of affective barriers reported by the subjects of the research carried out

by Carp et al. include statement like “I’m too old to learn”, “I’m not confident in my learning

ability because of low grades in the past”, “I’m tired of school/classrooms”, “I don’t enjoy

studying”, “I don’t know what to learn and why”. All the statements can be seen as the

manifestations of three most powerful affective inhibitors: low self-esteem, insufficient

motivation and the learning inertia resulting from the lack of learning know-how and the

ability to become self-reliant.

The reasons underlying these negative attitudes may be numerous. The negative

self-awareness may be rooted in the already-mentioned misconceptions about age and

linguistic abilities. The lack of motivation may be ascribed to all the situational and

institutional barriers discussed earlier in this section. It is possible to understand the learning

inertia and the resulting lack of autonomy inscribed in the life scenario of the individual.

According to Heymans (Malewski 1998:104), an adult person sees his/her life as one of four

possible narrative scenarios: a romance, in which life is an eternal quest and never-ending

struggle with evil; a comedy, where life is a series of unrelated episodes where one cannot

control everything but success is possible owing to good luck and optimism; a tragedy, whose

protagonist is a victim doomed to failure; and finally an irony, where the protagonist distances

him/herself from the course of action. The main aspect of the scenarios, which are created

under the influence of their environment and personal experience, is the concept of the locus

of control (Williams and Burden 1997). Students who are convinced that they do not control

their lives and, consequently, their learning, never become autonomous learners, which means

that they not only cannot liberate themselves from the harmful schemata and damaging

misconceptions but also never take on full responsibility for their own learning and are ready

to blame their failures on factors that are beyond them.

At the same time, however, many authors (cf. Thorndike 1950, Półturzycki 1991,

Coare and Thompson 1996, Rogers 1996, Malewski 1998) agree that low self-esteem,

insufficient motivation, invalid know-how and the lack of autonomy are often the result of

earlier schooling. What the adult student brings into the classroom are his/her memories of

previous learning as well as the learning routines formed and fossilized in earlier schooling.

Many adults, who remember their previous educational encounters as inefficient, dreary and

unpleasant will most probably be highly demotivated to start any kind of learning and to

persevere with it. Some of them may still remember the negative opinion their teachers had

and, unfortunately, expressed about them and they are likely to have low opinion of

themselves as learners. At the same time, a lot of learners come into the classroom with

learning routines which may be inefficient or unsuitable for them and quite a number of adult

learners demonstrate a total lack of know-how in learning. This can usually be blamed on the

past disregard for the learner's individual needs typical of the teacher-centred classroom. The

authoritarian teachers of the past are also probably responsible for the desire for extensive

tutor control some adult learners demonstrate, a kind of learned helplessness probably rooted

in the teacher-centred organisation of learning which did not require any initiative on the part

of the student who was only the passive recipient of knowledge.

As demonstrated in Figure 4, all the affective states of the learner are interrelated

and their mutual influence is multiplicative. Insufficient motivation reinforces the lack of

know-how, low self-esteem and the lack of autonomy. Extreme reliance on the teacher has its

effect on self-attitudes and the preparedness to enlarge one’s learning strategy repertoire.

Limited know-how decreases motivation, self-esteem and autonomy. Low opinion of oneself

as a learner results in plummeting motivation to learn, to rely on oneself and to seek more

efficient ways of learning. And the elements of the vicious circle of affective barriers not only

reinforce one another but lead to what, according to Oxford (1999), is the result of

plummeting motivation, negative attitudes and beliefs - language anxiety.

I don’t know how to learn
LACK OF and it decreases my INSUFFICIENT
enthusiasm

KNOW-HOW I don’t want to learn so I don’t look MOTIVATION
for better ways of learning.

I don’t know how to learn. I
can’t become a good learner.
I don’t know how to learn so I
have to depend on my teacher
I don’t really enjoy
all the time. I can’t learn on my I can’t be independent
learning. The
own outside the language classroom is and it decreases my
classroom. enough enthusiasm. I’m a bad learner.
I know I can’t and it
decreases my enthusiasm
I don’t know how important it is to
learn on my own outside the
language classroom and that is why
I don’t need to know the ways to
learn best. If you don’t really
I’m a bad learner. If I don’t want you can’t.
know how I can’t learn
anything.

I can’t learn on my own
NO so I am a bad learner LOW
AUTONOMY
I’m a bad learner. Why
should I learn on my own? SELF-ESTEEM

Figure 2. The learner’s affective barriers and their interrelations

MacIntyre and Gardner (1993) see language anxiety as the strongest negative

correlate of language achievement. Its nature and effects on learning a foreign language will

be thoroughly examined in Chapter II. It will also be of central interest for the present work

because adult language learners, who are the focus of this book, seem to be vulnerable to

language anxiety more than other age groups. Underlying such a state of being are a number

of factors like the already cited popular misconceptions about learning in adulthood on the

one hand and, cognitive maturity and firm ego boundaries as well as the embarrassment

caused by deficiencies seen as unbecoming in adulthood such as error making or inability to

communicate messages. These factors are going to be thoroughly discussed in Chapter II.

The second conclusion that results less from the study of affective barriers and

more from the overall analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the adult learner is that

motivation, experience and self-awareness and cognitive maturity can be both: advantageous

for the adult learner and potentially inhibiting. As a result, we have to assume that success in

foreign language learning is a function of the interaction between an internal psychological

predisposition and some external factors. Those factors are very often beyond our control, as

we, teachers, cannot influence the situational and institutional advantages and drawbacks. We

can be equally helpless in the face of some of the internal barriers. What we can, however,

influence and improve is what happens in the language classroom called by Hadfield (1992)

the classroom dynamics. Chapter III will concentrate on how we can influence and improve

these by working on the rapport between the people in the classroom as well as working on

the students’ motivation, autonomy, self-awareness and confidence.

CHAPTER II: LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Various anxieties in the modern world are becoming an epidemic. According to the

results of the study carried out by the Shyness Research Institute of the University of

Indiana (Lubelska 2001: 3), the percentage of shy people has grown from 40 to 48% in

western societies over the last 15 years. Polish experts estimate that the number for Poland

is 10-12% higher. This means that approximately every second Pole fears everyday

situations which require decisive action, finds it difficult to speak in public, is panic-

stricken at work, afraid to meet strangers, worries about opinions of others, social

occasions make him/her feel embarrassed and nervous. Such a state of being cannot be

without its influence on particular areas of life, including foreign language learning.

2.1. Definition

Language anxiety is a common label Arnold and Brown (1999) use for lack of

confidence in oneself as a learner, uneasiness, frustration, self-doubt, apprehension and

tension. However, is language anxiety different from the general anxiety or shyness described

above?

Researchers describe language anxiety as a separate phenomenon because it is not just

another manifestation of what Ellis (1994: 467) calls, after Scovel, trait anxiety – a more

general term referring to an aspect of an individual’s personality, a kind of permanent

predisposition to be anxious in all areas of life. Language anxiety as a separate construct was

identified by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986). Their foreign langaue anxiety was found to

be the source of negative language-learning-related experiences. The correlational studies

carried out by Horwitz and Young (1991) on the basis of students’ diaries confirmed the

findings proving that learners do experience a kind of tension associated exclusively with

attempts to learn a foreign language and to communicate in it. Similarly, on the basis of their

study on various types of anxiety and their mutual relations, MacIntyre and Gardner (1991)

conclude that language anxiety can be discriminated from other types of anxiety. In their later

work they define language anxiety as “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically

associated with second language contexts, including speaking, listening and learning ...”.

(MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994: 284). In one of her latest publications Horwitz (2001)

emphasises once more: language anxiety is a specific construct related to language learning

and not just another manifestation of an overall predisposition to be anxious.

This very specific relationship between language anxiety and language learning can be

identified on two planes: anxiety may be both the result and the cause of learning problems.

On the first plane, language anxiety arises in response to some specific language learning

situations, including: tests (Bailey 1983 quoted by Ellis 1994: 480); assimilation of

knowledge and skills (MacIntyre and Gardner 1994) as well as speaking and listening

(Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope 1986, MacIntyre and Gardner 1994, Matsumoto 1989). Horwitz

(2001) reports that new trends in language anxiety research go as far as to identify skill-

related anxieties (reading anxiety; writing anxiety). At such a level of specificity, it has to be

stated that in the case of adult learners listening and speaking anxieties would the most acute.

Arnold and Brown (1999) state that post-puberty learners often report the feeling of tension

while trying to pronounce the sounds of the foreign language or to use the language for

communicative purposes.

At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that tension and apprehension resulting

from all the above-mentioned learning experiences affects learner performance in these

specific areas of language learning. If the experience resulting from the particular situation is

repeatedly negative, the episodes of transitional, situation-related fears may evolve into a

lasting trait (MacIntyre and Gardner 1993) and have pervasive effects on language learning

and performance. Therefore, the most important questions are: what kind of experience can

have the damaging effect and how language anxiety affects the language learner.

2.2. The origins of language anxiety

2.2.1. Language anxiety – in the eyes of the learner

The first group of anxiety-breeding factors are rooted in the way the individual

perceives him/herself as a language learner. They include unfavourable self-attitudes, inability

to get out of thick ego boundaries, worry over potential failure, the discrepancy between rich

personality and intellect and poor foreign language repertoire.

As it has already been mentioned, numerous adult learners enter the language

classroom victimised by common prejudices about learning a foreign language. Chapter I

highlighted some of them including the belief in the unrivalled linguistic abilities of young

learners as well the special predisposition for learning a foreign language some people have

and others lack. Such attitudes are a very powerful tension-breeding force as they result in

low self-confidence, which, as proved by Cheng et al (1999) is consistently associated with

anxiety. This does not have to be a permanent state. A person can generally feel good about

him/herself but experience the lack of confidence in oneself in certain situations and

environments (Oxford 1999; Gregersen and Horwitz 2002). For many adults, language

learning can be such a situation.

The apprehension resulting from a low opinion of oneself as a language learner can be

additionally reinforced by the conflict between the learner’s cognitive maturity and personal

integrity, and the fact that the language classroom forces a new personality on every student

and demands going out of what Guiora (Arnold and Brown 1999: 10) calls the language ego,

whose firm boundaries were formed during the first language acquisition. Thus, adult

learners, especially those with thick ego boundaries – the effect of which on the ability to

learn was discussed in Chapter I – may see their performance in a foreign language as

unnatural and ridiculous.

Another reason for the adult anxiety is the inevitability of errors in the language

classroom. Mature learners will be more sensitive to their own mistakes than young learners

for two reasons. Firstly, in childhood, which naturally is a formative period, learners are less

aware of language forms and making mistakes is neither unnatural, nor particularly

conspicuous. This does not seem the case in adulthood. Secondly, adults are very impatient to

learn the foreign language and they see every mistake as potential threat to their overall

success. They want the impossible: perfect production from the very beginning, which makes

frustration inevitable. The feeling is reinforced by limited language resources. The fact that

they cannot express more than an average 2-year-old is a potential threat to their status as

grown-up people. “It is humiliating to be deprived of one’s main means of communication –

one’s own language, which enables one to appear intelligent or at least adult”(Linsay 1977:

186). The most up-to-date methods, including communicative language teaching, make this

inability much more conspicuous than the old methods did.

Żinally, as discussed in Chapter I, language anxiety may be related to the individual’s

low motivation and earlier negative experience. This is true for the learning past, like being

ridiculed for a wrong answer in the class, as well as general experience, something Heron

(Arnold and Brown 1999: 9) calls archaic anxiety – a repressed distress of the past like a

hidden personal hurt.

At the same time, we have to remember that learning a language is a social

phenomenon and that is why language anxiety will depend on how the student sees

him/herself not only as a language learner but also in relation to all the participants in the

learning situation, the people from whom and with whom (s)he learns. That is why, the

second group of anxiety-breeding factors will be identified on the basis of the learner’s

perception of his/her learning environment.

The importance of the social aspect of language anxiety becomes more evident if we

cite the results of the research in this area to date. Eysenck (1979), in addition to excessive

self-evaluation and worry over potential failure, sees concern over the opinion of others as a

powerful source of inhibition. The studies of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope’s (1986) as well as

Matsumoto’s (1989) confirmed that fear of negative evaluation is a tension-breeding factor.

Leary (Oxford 1999: 63) calls this fear of the prospective interpersonal evaluation social

anxiety and identifies its components as speech anxiety, shyness, stage fright and

embarrassment and, consequently, communication apprehension. According to Arnold and

Brown “there is a great deal of vulnerability involved in trying to express oneself before

others in a shaky linguistic vehicle”(1999: 9). Oxford (1999) claims that this anxiety is

particularly strong in learners whose self-esteem is not very strong, and those who, because of

their external locus of control, believe that their performance is controlled by factors beyond

their influence. Unlike people with the internal control mechanisms, such students will be

over-sensitive to the possibility of peer and teacher evaluation.

In addition to the social-evaluative anxiety, there are a number of other classroom-

related attitudes that cause language anxiety. The analysis of 11 students’ diaries led Bailey

(Ellis 1994: 480) to the conclusion that the two major tension-breeding factors include

comparison with fellow students, especially if it results in seeing oneself as less proficient

than the others, and perceiving one’s relationship with the teacher as unsatisfactory. Heron

calls such anxiety arising out of one’s social self-awareness existential anxiety which has

three components that are relevant to the language classroom: acceptance anxiety: “Will I be

accepted, liked, wanted?”ś orientation anxiety: “Will I understand what is going on?” and

performance anxiety: “Will I be able to do what I have come to learn?” (Arnold and Brown

1999: 8). Finally, the feeling of tension and apprehension associated with language learning

may also be caused by the conflict between the learner’s expectations and learning style and

the teacher’s approach, methods and teaching strategies (Zanatta 2001). All this shows once

more how much language anxiety depends on classroom dynamics.

2.2.2 Language anxiety and classroom dynamics

Daintes et al. (1993) claim that any anxiety is a handicap especially in over-

competitive and hostile situations. That is why we need to look at language anxiety not only

as the result of how the learner perceives him/herself and his/her learning environment but

also, and more importantly, of what actually “goes on … between the people in the

classroom” (Stevick 1980:4). The social apprehension which is the result of unfavourable

attitudes can be strengthened by how the teacher and peer students actually react, both

verbally and non-verbally, to the efforts an individual makes to learn, assimilate knowledge

and perform.

In their book describing techniques which help build confidence in the classroom

Davies and Rinvolucri (1990) encourage looking at the problem of anxiety from the

perspective of classroom interaction. They define three inhibition-breeding aspects of the

language classroom: being judged, being isolated and feeling out of control.

Being judged in the classroom

The most obvious source of judgement in the language classroom is the teacher. (S)he

can be judgemental while assessing students as well as showing approval/disapproval on the

one hand, and (dis)interest on the other, both verbally and by means of body language.

Students can be extremely vulnerable to the teacher’s judgement. Stevick (1999) describes a

workshop in which he interviewed two volunteer students. Both were asked to perform the

same task. However, while with the first student the teacher played the role of a

conversational partner, with the second he was polite but evaluated his/her linguistic

performance. “Without exception,” states Stevick (1999: 54), “the first volunteer talks more

fluently, talks longer, and comes up with a richer, more interesting, more personal image”.

źqually evaluative are the teacher’s error correcting procedures. Many researchers (cf.

Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope 1986, Oxford 1999) relate language anxiety to teacher-students

interaction. “Harsh error correction, ridicule and the uncomfortable handling of mistakes in

front of a class are among the most important instructor-learner interaction issues related to

language anxiety” (Oxford 1999: 65-66). Therefore, it is important whether the teacher

corrects the error him/herself, gives the errormaker the opportunity for self-correction or

ignores the error. If the teacher treats every error explicitly, the students feel that their

ignorance is highlighted and made obvious to everybody. In this way every student is in the

position of permanent inferiority before a critical audience.

The study of Ellis and Rathbone (1987) demonstrated that other teacher routines,

particularly those connected with asking questions, were also perceived by the students as

highly inhibiting. Even the not-so-rare teacher’s habit of answering their own questions can

be judgemental, as the routine conveys the message of “I have to answer my own question

because you are unable to do it yourself”.

Fellow students can be equally inhibiting in this area. Although they do not have the

teacher’s authority, peer evaluation - expressed verbally or non-verbally – is not rare. Its

manifestations are showing disapproval and impatience or even open mockery..

Another question related to the concept of being judged by fellow students is peer

correction. Wajnryb (1992) claims it is more telling and generally less threatening than

teacher correction. Sengupta (1998), on the other hand, presents the results of research into

the aspect of peer evaluation of writing which seem to disprove the thesis. First of all,

students take selective account of peer comments and do not treat them as trustworthy,

thinking that teacher’s comments are more reliable. Besides, Sengupta (1998) states that in all

cases the evaluation offered by peers was prescriptive rather than collaborative. In this way

peer correction, instead of being conducive to learning, can become a form of the students’

competition aimed at winning the approval of the teacher, and yet another manifestation of

judgementality.

Being isolated in the clasroom

Shavelson and Stern (Nunan 1989: 23) looked at the classroom from the perspective of

the teacher’s preferences and found out that teachers tend to have their favourites – students

they pay more attention to and are more tolerant towards. On the basis of his research,

Allwright (Nunan, 1989: 32) concludes that teachers are inconsistent in their treatment of

error, correcting some students while ignoring the mistakes of the others. Distribution of turns

is subject to similar tendencies.

Who are those “chosen” by the teacher? Wilson (1999) claims that every class can be

and often is divided into low achievers and high achievers. The division is very often

reinforced by the teacher. It is the “lows” who get less challenging tasks, less verbal and non-

verbal support as well as signs of impatience, whereas the “highs” - who already have the

advantage of their knowledge and/or aptitude - receive special treatment: more hesitation time

and generous support. In this way the teacher, unconsciously though quite efficiently, isolates

the low achievers within the educational ghetto of the “can’t do” spirit. In such a classroom,

the distance between “highs” and “lows” is likely to grow in time and an atmosphere of trust

and rapport can never be built.

The students may also feel isolated if they are deserted by the teacher, left on their

own in a classroom where the concept of learner-centredness is wrongly understood as catch-

as-catch-can meaning no control and – simultaneously – no assistance from the teacher.

Underhill (1999a), who claims that the primary characteristic of a really learner-centred

classroom it is not who makes all the decisions but whose agenda is seen as important and

implemented, distinguishes four types of classrooms: authoritative, authoritarian, facilitative

and abdicated (Figure 3):

Your needs and attitudes are Your needs and attitudes
important to me are unimportant to me

I teach you AUTHORITATIVE AUTHORITARIAN

You teach yourself FACILITATIVE ABDICATED

Figure 3. Underhill’s classroom typology (Underhill, 1999a)

In Underhill’s opinion, the classroom where students will most probably feel isolated

because of being neglected by the teacher is the abdicated classroom. Learner’s autonomy in

such a classroom does not have a beneficial, morale-boosting effect. It is a source of anxiety

because the teacher ignores or is unaware of the fact that the students are unprepared to take

on full responsibility for their learning.

The feeling of isolation will also be present in a classroom in which there are no

communicative activities, the language is reduced to a drill and the topics are uninteresting

and meaningless to the students. One of the basic assumptions of humanistic psychology is

that every individual’s self-concept is a social product shaped through interaction with

environment, through psychologically meaningful experience. This immediate personal

experience is seen by Nunan (1993) as a focal point for learning understood as giving life,

texture and subjective personal meaning to abstract concepts. Experiential learning theory

emphasises the importance of the learner’s subjective experiences, attitudes and feelings

about their own learning. These experiences, Kohonen (1993) claims, have an ultimate effect

on the development of the learner’s cognitive and affective characteristics. According to

Nunan (1989), tasks in which learners have to negotiate meaning in order to successfully

complete an interactive task are particularly beneficial to language development. Denied all

this, the learner is limited to abstract concepts, linguistically disabled by the form-first

learning model and thus isolated from the hands-on experience and, consequently, from the

world of real meaning and personal importance. Students may feel secure in the classroom

where risk-taking is low or non-existent. This sense of security, however, is dangerous in the

long run, as such students will certainly find themselves hopeless and, consequently, inhibited

in the world of real communication.

Students may feel equally isolated if they are anonymous. Prodromou (1994) sees

nominating as crucial to classroom atmosphere. He claims that knowing and using the

students’ names not only accounts for better rapport in the group but also prevents over-

reliance on volunteers, which can lead to “a show dominated by the best or more extrovert

students. An equal distribution of turns is difficult without systematic – and encouraging – use

of students’ names” (1994: 30).

Finally, one can also be isolated by fellow students. First of all, peer favouritism is not

rare. The already-mentioned group’s division into “low-achievers” and “high-achievers” can

be strongly reinforced by the students themselves. The high-achievers, who are and feel

“chosen” by the teacher, decide about the timing and agenda of the lesson while “the lows”,

who are very often ‘the slows”, fall behind and find themselves out of the language learning

game.Moreover, isolation usually occurs in a highly-territorial classroom, where everybody is

attached to his/her seat and his/her never-changed partner. The arrangement of desks is not

without its influence in this respect. If the students do not face one another, or if someone has

a place where the eye-contact with the teacher is almost none, the feeling of not-belonging

will grow.

Feeling out of control in the classroom

The management of classroom discourse is the main source of the feeling of having, or

being deprived of, control. Routines like turn taking – and especially turn stealing which is

one of its aspects – are of major importance in this area. If the student is always late to answer

a general solicit and personal solicits directed to him/her are consistently appropriated by

others, he/she will not have much control over classroom interaction. Similar feelings may

occur if the group are not willing to listen to one another, openly show lack of interest or

interrupt the speaker.

Teacher’s talk is another source of insecurity. Students who find the teacher’s

explanations unclear or unsatisfactory may feel they lose control of the language. Equally

confusing may be the teacher’s digressions, especially if they are too frequent, too long and

do not result in better understanding of a given problem. The learner may also feel out of

control if the class is taught by a domineering teacher who controls everything leaving his/her

students with the feeling they have no influence on what is going on in the classroom.

Especially, in the classroom which Underhill (1999a) calls authoritarian, where teaching is

not based on reliable needs analysis.

In conclusion, the level of language anxiety seems to depend on two groups of

factors. High tension may result from the learner’s beliefs, attitudes and the way (s)he sees

him/herself as a language learner and his/her learning environment on the one hand, and, on

the other, from what, after Hadfield (1992), has been labelled classroom dynamics – the

relations between the people in the classroom – teacher-student and student-student

interaction, classroom management as well as physical surroundings – the furniture

arrangement, attractiveness of the venue, etc. Although individual factors are by no means

unimportant, it is the learner-unfriendly classroom dynamics that is of interest to the present

work and will be subject to further study and analysis in the following chapters. This chapter

intends to look at two more issues: anxiety symptoms and the way “this feeling of tension and

apprehension” (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994:284) affects learning and performance.

2.3. I know an anxious student when I see one

Obviously, because of individual differences between the students, some people in the

classroom will experience and show more tension and apprehension than others. For an

observant teacher it is not too difficult to identify the anxious students. Oxford (1999)

highlights the following manifestations of language anxiety:

- General avoidance – “forgetting” the answer, showing carelessness, cutting class,

coming late, arriving unprepared, low levels of verbal production, lack of volunteering in class,

apparent inability to answer the simplest questions,

- Physical actions – squirming, fidgeting, playing with hair or clothing, nervously

touching objects, stuttering and stammering, jittery behaviour, being unable to reproduce the sounds or

intonation of the target language even after repeated practice

- Physical symptoms – complaining about headache, experiencing tight muscles, feeling

unexplained pain or tension in any part of the body

- Other signs, which may reflect language anxiety, depending on the culture –

overstudying, perfectionism, social avoidance, conversational withdrawal, lack of eye contact, hostility,

monosyllabic or noncommittal responses, image protecting or making behaviours (exaggerated smiling,

laughing, nodding, joking), failing to interrupt when it should be natural to do so, excessive

competitiveness, excessive self-effacement and self-criticism (‘I am so stupid’)

(1999: 66)

The observations of Oxford to a large extent confirm the findings of MacIntyre and

Gardner (1994), who argue that the different manifestations of tension will be perceivable at

three different stages at which anxiety can be experienced: input, processing and output. At

the stage of language input anxious students have problems with attention, concentration and

encoding. They are afraid of language spoken too quickly and of exceedingly complex

sentences. They often ask for repetition and take more time reading. Processing anxiety,

which appears at the stage of organisation, assimilation and storage of knowledge, imparts

cognitive processing on tasks that are more difficult. This means that anxious students need

more time to understand, they rely heavily on memory, are reluctant to hypothesise and seem

disorganised. Their processing is, as a result, less efficient. At the output stage the production

of the anxious student is poorly organised, hesitant and discontinuous.

2.4. The effects of language anxietyon learning a foreign

language

2.4.1. The importance of affect in learning

Affect – and anxiety is one of the learner’s affective states - is definitely not

unimportant in learning. The fact was signalled in Chapter I. Emotions create a frame of

reference for the cognitive data at all stages of learning: input, processing and output. First of

all, affective data are stored together with other kind of information and thus, according to

Hamilton (Stevick 1999: 47), affect, already at the moment of input, is encoded in the

cognitive schemata of memory. The second role of affect is found in the processing of new

information. When we learn something, the new information activates our long-term memory

through a network of connections formed by means of all kind of associations. Consequently,

our working memory, which Stevick (1999) metaphorically calls “the worktable”, shuffles,

compares and recombines the new data together with their long-term memory associations,

including the previous and simultaneous emotions. If the affective data, processed together

with the newly learned material, are negative they may create clutter on the worktable

(Stevick 1999), using up the processing capacity and thus preventing the information that is

relevant in learning from being processed efficiently. Such is the operation of the human brain

that the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for working memory, is under the powerful

influence of the limbic circuits, our “emotional intelligence” powerhouse. As a result “strong

emotion … can create neural static, sabotaging the ability of the prefrontal lobe to maintain

working memory” (Goleman 1995: 27). Language anxiety can most probably be such a

“saboteur” in language learning.

At the stage of output, when the learner is interested in efficient transmission and

reception of ideas, emotions are present in the form of affective feedback (Stevick 1999), both

external and internal. źxternal feedback comes from the student’s learning environment – the

forms of negative affective feedback have been discussed in the section devoted to language

anxiety and classroom dynamics. Internal affective feedback consists in how the student

perceives him/herself as the user of the target language and whether (s)he likes his/her

performance. Sarason (1984) indicated that the attention of an anxious person is constantly

divided into task-related and self-related. Eysenck (1979) identified the cognitive side of

anxiety which is worry and concluded that by worrying us anxiety contributes to poor

performance because it wastes the energy that should be used for memory and processing.

In conclusion, the role of affect in learning is immense and the potential risk of the

damaging influence of negative emotions cannot be ignored. As Damasio states (Stevick

1999: 47) “because the brain is the captive audience of the body, feelings are winners among

equals”.

2.4.2. Is language anxiety always debilitating?

In light of the above neurobiological findings we can say that it certainly is not

without negative influence. However, if we try to answer this question on the basis of

research to date, it is impossible to arrive at definite and explicit conclusions. In one of the

earlies studies Kleinmann (1978) saw anxiety as a helping factor. The subjects of his research

who claimed that “learning nervousness” helped them do better while learning źnglish were

less likely to avoid complex grammatical structures. For Williams (Ellis 1994: 482) high

levels of anxiety are debilitating, whereas low level anxiety can be facilitating. However, his

low level anxiety is understood as motivation to fight a new learning task, to make an

additional effort. In this way it is rather the state of being anxious (=impatient) to learn and

does not correspond to the notion of anxiety understood as inhibiting fear. MacIntyre (1995)

argues that the facilitating or debilitating effect depends on the level of anxiety as well as task

difficulty. Omaggio Hadley (Oxford 1999:61) expresses a similar view suggesting that a

certain amount of tension might be useful for language learning but she did not want to call

this tension “anxiety” and, like Terrell (Oxford 1999Ś 62), prefers the term “attention”.

Anxiety may seem to facilitate learning because anxious students usually realise the ill

effects of their anxiety and try to compensate for them by making more than usual effort. In

fact, however, as demonstrated by Horwitz et al. (1986), the anxious students’ achievements

very often do not reflect the effort. In her later work Horwitz (1990) argued that anxiety may

facilitate simple learning tasks but in the long run it certainly cannot be seen as helpful.

A number of researchers – including Young (1986), Parkinson and Howell-Richardson

(1990) and Ely (1986) - did not find any correlation between language anxiety and learning

process and progress. However, Ely found that , language anxiety did not affect participation

in class, it resulted in a high level of what he calls discomfort which, in turn, discouraged its

victims from risk taking in classroom interaction. Therefore, if we take into consideration the

fact that risk taking is one of the characteristics of a good language learner, we have to admit

that źly’s research showed, in the end, that language anxiety cannot be perceived as

beneficial.

A large group of researchers – and the present work has been written with a deep

conviction that they are right – believe that language anxiety can sabotage language learning.

Krashen (1986), in his affective filter hypothesis, argued that in a high-anxiety learning

environment there exists a filter - a mental block that impedes the acquisition of the target

language. Consequently, he saw zero anxiety as indispensable for success in the language

classroom. Krashen’s hypothesis has been confirmed by a number of studies. Steinberg and

Horowitz (1986) showed that anxious students were less interpretative in commenting

ambiguities. MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) found that the tension resulted in a slower rate of

vocabulary learning and more difficulty in the recall of previously learned items. Sarason

(1984) proved that this inability resulted from cognitive interference (discussed earlier in this

chapter). According to MacIntyre and Gardner (1994), anxious students have problems with

attention, and concentration, rely heavily on memory, are reluctant to hypothesise and seem

disorganised. The list of anxiety researchers would not be complete without Gardner, Smythe,

Clement and Gliksman (Ellis 1994: 481), Clement and Kruidenier (ibidem) and MacIntyre

and Gardner (1991) all of whom proved anxiety to be negatively correlated with language

performance. If we, in turn, look at the characteristics of a good language learner, as defined

by Rubin (1975) as well as Wenden and Rubin (1987) presented in Figure 4, including the

ability to take risks, tolerance for ambiguities, positive attitudes and good cognitive strategies,

we have to state that anxiety can be a serious obstacle on the student’s way to becoming a

successful language learner.

ANXIOUS LEARNER (most important research to GOOD LEARNER (Rubin 1975; Wenden & Rubin
date) 1987)

- less interpretative in commenting on ambiguities
(Steinberg and Horowitz 1986) - tolerant towards ambiguities

- suffering from fear of evaluation and concerned - risk-taking
over errors (Gregersen and Horwitz 2002)
- possesing good metacognitive strategies (including
- reluctant to take risk (Ely 1986) monitoring their own progress; self-evaluation,
etc.)
- having problems with attention, and concentration,
relying heavily on memory, reluctant to
hypothesise and disorganised (MacIntyre and
Gardner 1994)

- suffering from cognitive interference (task-related
vs. self-related attention) (Sarason 1984; Horwitz - possessing good cognitive strategies (guessing
et al 1986; MacIntyre 1995) inferencing, monitoring, categorizing, synthetising,
practising, etc.)
- slower in vocabulary learning and less efficient in
recall of learned items (MacIntyre and Gardner
1989)

- worried (Eysenck 1979)
- showing positive attitudes, sociable, outgoing
Figure 4. The comparison between the good learner and the anxious learner.

The conclusion we cannot escape here is that the main task of the teacher will be to

identify and eliminate anxiety-breeding factors in the classroom. The diagnosis itself may be

based on the analysis of symptoms already quoted in section 2.3. As to possible forms of

treatment, a number of such attempts to overcome the inhibition are cited by Arabski

(1997:54). In 1972 Guiora et al. carried out an experiment in which they gave a group of

beginning adult students 45% alcohol to make their linguistic performance more relaxed.

Their research demonstrated that 28-42 gram drinks were enough to considerably improve the

communicative abilities and pronunciation of the subjects of their experiment. Schumann et

al. (Arabski 1997:54) hypnotised students and achieved similar results. However promising it

may sound, serving alcoholic drinks or using hypnosis are not standard teaching procedures.

What alternatives, then, do we, language teachers have to a glass of vodka?

One option we potentially have is the return to the grammar-translation method or

audiolingualism, which was very popular in the past, where language anxiety was probably

low because there was no need for the students to invest much of their “selves” and

performance did not go beyond drill, whereas in the language classroom where genuine

interaction takes place there is always a place for affect. However, this option cannot be

seriously considered in the era of global communication. Most probably in the nearest future,

with English as the new lingua franca of the modern world, the student will need to perform

transactions and to cope with fragmented, eclectic reality (Littlejohn 2000). Therefore, the

artificial, and thus apparent safety of the grammar-translation or the audiolingual classroom,

is not the answer. We need rather to create a language classroom which would be what

Krashen (1986) understood as a pleasant learning environment, where students are relaxed

and confident enough to take the risk of language learning and production. Therefore, it is

necessary to work on and improve classroom dynamics.

Oxford (1999) lists a number of suggestions which need to be followed if language

anxiety is to be diminished. She argues that the teachers should:

- Help students understand that language anxiety episodes can be transient and do not
inevitably develop into a lasting problem.
- Boost the self-esteem and self-confidence of students for whom language anxiety has
already become a long-term trait by providing multiple opportunities for classroom success in
the language.
- Encourage moderate risk-taking and tolerance of ambiguity in a comfortable, non-
threatening environment.
- Reduce the competition present in the classroom.
- Be very clear about classroom goals and help students develp strategies to meet these
goals.
- Give the students permission to use the language with less than perfect performance.
- Encourage students to relax through music, laughter or games.
- Use fair tests with unambiguous, familiar item types.
- Help students realistically access their performance.
- Give rewards that are meaningful to students and that help support language use.
- Provide activities that address varied learning styles and strategies in the classroom.
- Enable students to recognise symptoms of anxiety and identify anxiety-maintaining
beliefs.
- Help students practice positive self-talk (self-encouragement) and cognitive
“reframing” of negative or irrational ideas.
(Oxford 1999: 67)

Chapter III will look at the practical implications of Oxford’s suggestions in a

language classroom of mature students. Its main goal is to specify under what classroom

conditions the above-quoted list of suggestions is best implemented.

CHAPTER III: TOWARDS MORE POSITIVE

CLASSROOM DYNAMICS

In order to create classroom dynamics which would be conducive to learning we need

to consider what sort of educational environment actually stimulates the growth of the adult

learner. Billington (2000), in her study of 60 men and women who began doctoral

programmes between the ages of 37 and 48, investigated which factors in the learning

environment best facilitated adult growth and development. She claims that all measures

revealed the same results and helped her define the type of context in which mature students

were able to progress significantly. The key aspects of such a learning environment are:

1. An environment where students feel safe and supported, where individual needs and

uniqueness are honoured, where abilities and life achievements are acknowledged and respected

2. An environment that fosters intellectual freedom and encourages experimentation and

creativity

3. An environment where faculty treats adult students as peers – accepted and respected as

intelligent, experienced adults whose opinions are listened to, honoured, appreciated. Such faculty

members often claim that they learn as much from their students as the students learn from them

4. Self-directed learning, where students take responsibility for their own learning. They work

with faculty to design individual learning programs which address what each person needs and

wants to learn in order to function optimally in their profession.

5. Pacing or intellectual challenge. Optimal pacing is challenging people just beyond their present

level of ability. If challenged too far beyond, people give up. If challenged too little, they become

bored and learn little. Pacing can be compared to playing tennis with a slightly better player; your

game tends to improve. But if the other player is far better and it’s impossible to return a ball, you

give up overwhelmed. If the other player is less experienced and can return none of your balls, you

learn very little. Those adults who reported experiencing high levels of intellectual stimulation – to

the point of feeling discomfort – grew more.

6. Active involvement in learning as opposed to passively listening to lectures. Where students

and instructors interact and dialogue, where students try out new ideas in the workplace, where

exercises and experiences are used to bolster facts and theory, adults grow more.

7. Regular feedback mechanisms for students to tell faculty what works best for them and what

they want and need to learn – and faculty who listen and make changes based on student input.

(Billington 2000: 2)

Not surprisingly, the results of Billington’s study accord with both the findings about

learning preferences of adult students highlighted in Chapter I and indications for anxiety

treatment suggested by Oxford (1999) quoted in Chapter II. Therefore, it seems appropriate to

state here that if the teacher wants to work towards more positive classroom dynamics (s)he,

first of all, has to:

- create a confidence-building learning environment, work out

positive interaction patterns within the group and promote collaborative

learning

However, it has to be acknowledged that classroom dynamics is a notion that goes beyond

being nice to one another in the language classroom. Therefore, “what goes on in and

between people in the classroom” will be seen in a broader sense proposed by Hadfield

(1992). The choice is motivated by number of reasons. First of all, classroom dynamics

cannot be positive if the friendly atmosphere is not successfully matched with constantly

sustained clear sense of direction and if classroom activities do not seem to be related to

experience. Moreover, learners may enjoy being important to the “caring and sharing”

teacher, but if they are not encouraged to feel responsible for their own learning, they will

probably feel infantilised. Finally, nice atmosphere may not be enough if stress-free learning

environment is misunderstood as the lack of intellectual challenge, or if the challenge is too

radical. The final remark accords with not only with Billington’s (2000) findings but also

with a number of earlier concepts including Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and

Żeuerstein’s mediation theory (Williams and Burden 1997Ś 40-42) as well as the Krashen’s

input hypothesis (Krashen 1986), all of which suggest that challenge is indispensable for

learning.

In light of all this, apart from humanistic learner-learner and teacher-learner attitudes,

positive classroom dynamics will mean that the teacher should

- encourage and reinforce learner autonomy;

- individualise teaching, working on and fostering every learner’s

self-esteem and positive (self-)attitudes;

- systematically motivate and challenge the students,

- actively involve the students in learning, promote experience.

That is why, the present chapter looks as all five of the above-mentioned aspects of

classroom dynamics. While its first section examines the nature of various classroom

encounters, other sections look at autonomy, individualisation, motivation and experiential

learning, as the quality of what happens between the participants of the learning-teaching

process is to a considerable extent determined by what the classroom offers in these four

areas.

3.1. Caring and sharing in a foreign language class (Moskowitz 1978)

3.1.1. The importance of learning in a group

Learning of every kind requires an encounter. Dewey (1938) sees interaction as one

of the key concepts of education. In Maslow’s hierarchy (1987), higher needs, like self-

actualisation, are group-related and the importance of interaction is emphasised by humanistic

psychology. In light of the client-centred approach of Rogers (1951), we learn only with the

help of others - we need somebody to remove the shutters and blinkers off our eyes. As

Malamah-Thomas (Castillo 1998Ś8) states “Learning a language, like the learning of anything

else, is essentially an individual achievement … But typically this private process takes place

in the public context of the classroom, the individual is one of a group”.

The already-quoted analysis of adult learner diaries (Coare and Thomson 1996) proves

that mature students emphasise the positive effect of group work seeing it as inspiring and

enjoyable. However, it is the kind of learning environment in the group that is important

because certain study contexts are more efficient than others. Rogers (1996) claims that adults

learn best in small (10-25 members) primary groups, face-to-face close-knit units based on

mutual acceptance of roles and having a strong sense of loyalty, who meet regularly and share

a common task (homework) between the meetings. These findings confirm earlier research

results obtained by Good and Brothy (Nunan 1993: 145). Out of 41 classrooms they studied,

26 fared better using co-operative instead of competitive techniques; in 14 results were not

significant and in 1 classroom students learned better in a competitive environment. Stevens,

Madden, Slavin and Farnish (Nunan 1993: 146) arrived at similar conclusions proving that

students learning in co-operative groups outperformed those from competitive learning

environments. This was most probably possible because collaborative classroom routines are

conducive to learning in four ways: they lower the affective filter; they promote interaction;

they enable strategy exchange; and they encourage the individual to conform – give up his/her

objectives for the sake of the group’s overall aims – which makes it possible for the whole

group to achieve the overall goal of the course.

3.1.2. The advantages of collaborative learning

Lowering the affective filter

In light of the already quoted Krashen’s (1986) affective filter hypothesis, the filter

resulting from unfavourable learning environment is a form of mental impediment

blocking the acquisition of the target language (cf. Chapter II). Kagan (Crandall 1999:

233) states that the level of such anxiety is reduced if people are allowed to affiliate, while

Douglas claims that “where good interpersonal relations exist, most barriers either can

be dealt with or do not arise” (1995: 144). In this way, the collaborative classroom -

where “there is a positive supportive atmosphere”; “members have positive self-image

which is reinforced by the group, so they feel secure enough to express their

individuality”; “the group is tolerant of all its members”; “members feel secure and

accepted”; “the members of the group trust each other”; “individuals in the group are

not competitive and do not seek individual attention at the expense of others”; “the group

has a sense of fun”(Hadfield 1992:12) – will be synonymous with Krashen’s friendly

learning environment. Its non-threatening atmosphere, resulting in low affective filter,

will be built on the students’ ability to refrain from competition and help each other to

solve problems as well as capitalise on their sense of fun, which lowers the students’

defences and enables people to relax.

Learning through interaction

Stevick (1976) claims that in the atmosphere of reduced inhibitions and established

trust participants feel a strong need to communicate. Thus, by being a low-anxiety learning

environment, the collaborative classroom fosters genuine interaction more than any other

educational context, because if students trust one another, they are not afraid to express their

opinions and feelings. Communication, in turn, develops and reinforces such skills as

listening to others, talking with others and negotiating meaning in a shared context. Rivers

(1988) states that through such meaningful interaction students increase their language store

by learning from their peers, utilise all the language they know in real-life - or at least quasi-

real-life – exchanges where expressing the actual meaning is important. “They exploit the

elasticity of language to make the little they know go a long way… the give-and-take of

message exchanges enables students to retrieve and interrelate a great deal of what they have

already encountered – material that, in a foreign-language situation, might otherwise lie

dormant until the teacher thought to introduce it”(Rivers 1988: 5). Moreover, according to

Crandall (1999), such communicative situations, in which students have the opportunity to

practise language with their peers, offer the chance to rehearse and receive feedback and,

consequently, are one more way of reducing debilitating anxiety, which often results from

having to answer the teacher’s questions in front of the whole class. żenerally, when the risk

is low, the inclination to experiment, tolerate ambiguity, infer meaning and negotiate it grow

and, as a result, increase every student’s chance to become a good learner (cf. good learner’s

characteristics quoted, after Rubin 1975, in Chapter II). This tendency is additionally

reinforced by the fact that interaction, in addition to communicating one’s own messages,

requires attentive listening to what others have to say. Listening attentively, in turn, demands

not only concentration but also empathy, the latter being, according to Kustra (1994), the

underlying factor of general open-mindedness. Those who learn to manifest their empathetic

behaviour towards other people, usually develop a similar attitude towards the learning

material and, what is not unimportant in language education, the target language and its

culture.

An additional benefit of interaction in a collaborative classroom is, according to

Crandall (1999), the development of metacognitive strategies including higher order and

critical thinking skills like planning, organising oneself, making decisions and resolving

potential conflicts. In this way, as Christison claims, “since most consequential problems are

solved via collaboration, students … are better prepared to meet life’s obligations”

(1994:146). They become real partners in the learning enterprise, learn to take the

responsibility for their own learning and, consequently, become more autonomous. The final

result of the increased possibilities to interact is that students in collaborative classrooms feel

more liked on the one hand and better known and understood on the other (Christison 1994).

This improves self-esteem, enables better personalisation of the learned content and,

generally, makes the classroom a more efficient and motivating learning environment.

Therefore the already quoted Hadfield (1992:12) rightly sees a good group as one whose

“members are not cliquey or territorial but interact happily with all members of the group”,

“listen to each other and take turns”. The good group “is self-reliant and has a sense of

responsibility”; “group members are able to empathise with each other and understand each

other’s points of view even if they do not share them”; “group members are open-minded,

flexible and receptive to new ideas”; “group members have a positive attitude to themselves

as learners, to the language and culture being studied, and to the learning experience”

“members co-operate in the performing of tasks and are able to work together productively”;

“it [the group]is able to overcome problems and difficulties without recourse to the teacher”.

Sharing the know-how

A collaborative classroom, however, is not only the context in which one can share

his/her personal opinions and experiences with one’s peers. In the analysis of his classroom

observations Freeman states that sharing means “working together in order to learn in every

way” (1993: 62). It corroborates knowledge by helping learners create what Freeman calls a

shared understanding. If a concept is not equally clear to all the students, the collaborative

classroom offers a chance that those who are quicker to internalise it will help others

understand. Peer instruction can occasionally be much more efficient than the one provided

by the teacher, as the cognitive distance between two students in the group is usually smaller

than between the group and the tutor. As a result, it may be easier for a peer instructor to find

appropriate means to explain something (s)he has fairly recently understood him/herself.

What is more, according to Kinsella and Sherak (1998), ample student-student interaction

results in a complexity of input. In this way the collaborative classroom not only

accommodates diverse learning styles but also helps students become more flexible in the

way they learn. Besides, it is the place where students learn from one another how to learn

best by sharing their learning strategies and exchanging the know-how.

Reconciling the individual and the collective

The final benefit of the collaborative classroom is that it has the power to reconcile the

individual needs and objectives with the group goals. Student conformity – the readiness to

sacrifice his/her individual needs for the sake of mutual goals – is strongly dependent on

positive group dynamics. Douglas (1983) states that preparedness to conform is related to the

feelings of security, acceptance and the sense of belonging. Allen (Douglas 1983: 44) adds

that whether the individual will respond to the group’s conformity pressures is, among others,

largely influenced by such dynamics-related factors as the level of the person’s commitment

to the group and the group’s attractiveness.

What makes a group attractive enough to command the loyalty of its members?

According to Knowles and Knowles (1973), in order to be attractive, a group has to satisfy the

individual’s needs and help them achieve their goals, providing the feeling of acceptance and

safety. It also needs to be highly valued by outsiders. Another important factor is that the

students will feel committed to a decision or goal if they participated in determining it. Peers

(1998) states that such participation should be general as the successful class is the one where

not only 2-3 people but everybody actively contributes to the common effort. All the

requirements are best fulfilled in a collaborative classroom which is “cohesive and members

have a definite sense of themselves as a group”; “the members of the group are able to

compromise”; “they have a sense of direction as a group and are able to define their goals in

group, as well as individual, terms”; “group members are interested in each other and feel

they have something in common” (Hadfield 1992: 12).

3.1.3. The role of the teacher

Because of all the above-listed advantages, promoting collaboration in the

language classroom seems indispensable. For a number of reasons, the process, at least

initially, is in the hands of the teacher. Heterogeneous as it is, a group of adults as any

other group of novices in a given environment, is ready to accept and comply with the

rules suggested by the person in charge of the formative process and this person is

inevitably the teacher. The students very often mirror the teacher’s behaviour and attitudes

giving back as much as they get. That is why it is the teacher’s duty to set the initial mood

of the group and class experience.

Therefore, if the teacher wants to create a collaborative classroom, (s)he will, first

of all, need to take the initiative in sharing him/herself – his/her feelings and thoughts -

with the students (Rogers 1969, Dörnyei and Malderez 1999) on the one hand and

enhance peer affiliation on the other. The latter can be achieved by means of melee

exercises, successful completion of whole group tasks building up a sense of “we as a

group” (Dörnyei and Malderez 1999, Hadfield 1992) as well as break-up of group

structures (Rogers 1996), avoidance of territoriality (Dörnyei and Malderez 1999,

Hadfield 1992) and flexibility and proximity of seating arrangements (Dörnyei and

Malderez 1999, Hadfield 1992, Rogers 1996)

At the same time, if we agree that collaborative classroom routines are based

mainly on interaction, it will be the teacher’s role to provide the climate and guidelines

conducive to real meetings between people, where each treats the other as a whole human

being, in a direct and undefended way. Such interaction – called by Rowan (1987) “the

game of no game” - is possible if the teacher can prevent destructive games from actually

taking place in the classroom. (S)he may do so by ensuring that transactions within the

group will consist in the exchange of positive strokes – the basic unit of human interaction

described by Transactional Analysis (Berne 1964).

In order to understand the nature of classroom games and the conditions under

which positive strokes are likely to occur, we need to go back to the concept of ego states.

Transactional Analysis distinguishes three such states: Parent, Child and Adult. Stevick

points out that these two states draw on early memories of how “things were in the great,

overwhelming world outside the skin of a very young child” (1976: 66). Therefore, being

in the Parent ego state means controlling, showing (dis)approval and supporting. The

Child implies a lack of responsibility as well as an inclination to comparison and

competition on the one hand and, on the other, creativity, intuition and enjoyment. The

Adult, in turn, “appraises his environment objectively, and calculates its possibilities and

probabilities on the basis of past experience” (Stevick 1976: 68-69). A healthy interaction

of “game of no game” is possible if all the ego states remain in balance with one another.

The ego state responsible for this balance and, unfortunately, “most likely to be swept

aside by others under pressure of external events” (Stevick 1976: 69) is the Adult.

According to Berne (1964), two factors are responsible for such lack of balance. The first

is the feeling of “I’m not OK”, which can bring up both the rebellious Child and the

strong inner critic of the Parent. The second is the natural tendency to assume the Child if

the transactional partner is in the Parent ego state. Therefore, to guarantee that classroom

interaction will, at least mainly, be of the Adult-Adult type, the teacher has to shape the

classroom dynamics on two planes. First of all, (s)he must help the students find ways in

which they can free themselves from the “not OK” feeling, ways other than destructive

classroom games like competing with others or what Berne (1964) calls the “Why Don’t

You – Yes, But” gameŚ showing dissatisfaction for dissatisfaction’s sake to gain

temporary relief from the “I’m not OK” position (“I may be not OK but you are imperfect

too”). Stevick (1976), who looks at the games from the language classroom perspective,

admits that the attainment of such a goal may be beyond the potential of the language

teacher, but this does not alter the fact that both the goal and direction are appropriate.

What both the rebellious Child and the self-critical Parent need in the language classroom

is acceptance. It removes the “not OK” threat, enables balance of ego states and helps to

bring up the more positive aspects of the Child and the Parent – the already mentioned

creativity, intuitiveness and enjoyment on the one hand and control and support on the

other. Therefore, the primary obligation of the teacher is to accept the student as (s)he is -

which means giving everybody the chance to exercise their skills and express their views

without the fear of criticism, contradiction or exclusion (Rogers 1996) - and as a whole

person, with his/her intellectual content and emotional attitudes (Rogers 1969).

On the second plane, for the sake of genuine interaction, the teacher has to control

their own Parent ego state aware of the fact that it is most likely to provoke the

dominance of the Child in his/her transactional partner, the student. If the collaborative

classroom is to be based on the interaction of Adults, the only teacher-learner symbiosis

conducive to such a transactional model will be the Adult-Adult one. This implies that the

teacher must not dominate the group and facilitation should be prior to management. It

also means allowing room for learner autonomy.

3.2. The more autonomous language learner

The importance of autonomy in second language learning has already been

emphasised in the present work. First of all, the studies of good language learners (Wenden

and Rubin 1987, Ellis and Sinclair 1990) prove that good learners are autonomous. Critical to

learning in general, autonomy is particularly important for mature students. As has already

been stated, adult learners, autonomous by definition, want to be seen and treated as capable

of self-direction. In addition to satisfying the students’ needs, such treatment is beneficial in

two other ways. Dickinson (1988) claims that enhancing learner autonomy and creating

opportunities for self-instruction increase the student’s motivation and help reduce the sense

of inferiority resulting from the feelings of being “a linguistic infant” (1988Ś 25) – the

humiliation of being unable to express oneself sensibly in the new language observed by

(Linsay 1977) and already discussed in Chapter II.

3.2.1. How autonomy is achieved

It is true that the positive affective factors of the collaborative classroom – listed and

discussed in the previous section of the present chapter - improve the learners’ morale and

thus, by increasing his/her self-esteem and motivation, encourage autonomy. However, if the

students are to achieve and exercise full autonomy, a positive classroom atmosphere seems

not enough because only very few people are what Dickinson calls “spontaneously self-

directed” (1988Ś 1). The fact is that the adult learner autonomy, one of the main advantages of

the mature learner discussed in Chapter I, is usually limited to the fact that mature students

come to the language class voluntarily and they have a fairly precise idea of what their aims

are. As already mentioned, they possess the potential for self-direction – they want and like to

be seen and treated as equals and are prepared to take on responsibility for learning. However,

being aware of what one needs does not necessarily imply the knowledge of how to achieve

the goal or the belief that self-reliance is the key to success. Many learners, even if fully

mature and generally ready for independence, cannot assume full responsibility for their

learning because they do not have the necessary know-how. Others may find autonomy

bewildering because they are used to relying on the teacher to guide them. All of them, will

most probably belong to the abdicated category, in which Underhill (1999a, quoted in

Chapter II) includes learners who are offered independence instead of being prepared for it.

Underhill’s opinion is similar to the one proposed much earlier by Dickinson, who claims that

“learners do not achieve autonomy by being told to, nor by being denied conventional class

teaching; in these ways they are likely only to achieve failure” (1988: 2).

How does a student become autonomous then. It has to be emphasised that autonomy

is a result of conscious effort on the part of the learner and, more often, the teacher. What the

latter needs to offer is a purposeful training scheme to arm the learner with the knowledge of

how to learn better on the one hand and, on the other, how to organise one’s time and

resources as well as to develop the social skills indispensable for efficient communication in

the newly learned medium. The importance of “the conscious” element of learning is

emphasised by Wenden and Rubin (1987), who claim that such consciousness raising should

not be accidental to learning for two reasons. First of all, conscious decisions help all students

learn better. Secondly, intentional focusing on learning how to learn helps weaker students

identify successful strategies and use them to good effect. In this way, the sharing, the

positive influence of the friendly learning environment - the affective characteristics of the

collaborative language classroom described in the previous section of the present chapter - is

complemented by the cognitive aspect of language learning. Possible implementation as well

as actual results of strategy training in the language classroom will be examined later in this

section. Żirst of all, however, as such training engages the learner’s mental processes, we need

to look at language learning as understood in light of the cognitive theory of learning.

3.2.2. Language as a cognitive skill

The subheading, a direct quotation from O’Malley and Chamot (1990), is a

subscription to their view that, apart from being a social phenomenon strongly influenced by

the learner’s affective states, second language acquisition is, in fact, “best understood as a

complex cognitive skill” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990Ś 19). Such a view enables us to see

language ability not mainly as a divine gift which some people get and others are denied, but

rather as a skill that can be learned and improved. It is not the intention of the present work to

deny that some people are better language learners than others. It, however, has been written

in the belief that everybody can learn to learn better.

Cognitive psychology provides an information-processing framework for learning.

According to Weinstein and Mayer (O’Malley and Chamot 1990Ś 17) new information is

acquired through an encoding process which includes four stages: selection, acquisition,

construction and integration. At the selection stage the learner chooses the information that is

of interest to him/her, concentrates on it into the working (short-term) memory. Acquisition

consists in information transfer from short-term to long-term memory. Construction involves

relating the newly learned material to the existing database. Integration, in turn, implies

information transfer from the long-term memory to the working memory. The first two stages

are responsible for information input. The other two determine how the knowledge is

organised and accessible for potential output. Thus the cognitive theory of language learning

provides the basis on which we can “identify and test the existence and applicability of

certain learning strategies” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990: 20), which will be most efficient at

all of those four stages.

3.2.3. Language learning strategies, techniques and mnemonics

“Learning strategies are special ways of processing information that enhance

comprehension, learning and retention of the information” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990Ś 1).

In their quest for this “philosopher’s stone” of language acquisition, numerous researchers

concentrated on the learning strategies of those who have learned languages successfully. In

one of the earliest analysis of strategies used by good language learners, Naiman (1978)

identifies five categories of learning strategies:

1. Active task approach - responding positively to learning opportunities, seeking and
exploiting learning environments, out-of-classroom practice, analysing individual problems
2. Realisation of language as a system – L1/L2 comparisons, inferencing based on
analysis of the target language, making use of the fact that language is a system

3. Realisation of language as a means of communication and interaction – emphasising
fluency over accuracy, seeking communication situations and finding socio-cultural meanings
4. Management of affective demands – preparedness for mistakes and ambiguities,
overcoming inhibitions
5. Monitoring L2 performance – testing inferences and asking for feedback
(abridged from O’Malley and Chamot 1990Ś 5)

Apart from strategies, Naiman et al. (O’Malley and Chamot 1990Ś 6) identified

learning techniques, which differed from strategies because they focussed on individual

language skills rather than on language learning as such. Naiman’s techniques includedŚ

1. Sound acquisition techniques: repeating aloud after a model, listening carefully,
talking aloud (incl. role-play)
2. Grammar techniques: following rules given in textbooks, inferring rules from context,
L1/L2 comparison, memorisation and frequent use of structures
3. Vocabulary techniques: word charts, learning in context, word associations, practice,
use of dictionaries and notebooks
4. Listening comprehension techniques: listening to the radio, tapes, records, watching
TV, movies, exposing oneself to different accents and registers
5. Learning to talk: preparedness for mistakes, contact with native speakers, asking for
corrections, memorising dialogues
6. Learning to write: pen-pal exchanges, frequent writing and reading
7. Learning to read: frequent reading on the appropriate level, reading about familiar
things, guessing meaning from context.
(O’Malley and Chamot 1990Ś 6)

In a much later analysis of ways of learning enhancement utilised by successful

language learners, Wenden and Rubin (1987) describe four types of learning strategies:

1. Cognitive strategies – mental process directly contributing to learning – such as:
clarification/verification, guessing, inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning, practice, utilisation
of mnemotechniques, monitoring
2. Metacognitive strategies – used to oversee, regulate and self-direct – including:
assessment of preferences, prioritising, goal-setting

3. Communication strategies – aimed at successful interactions in the target language –
finding ways to continue communication in spite of limitations, recognising misinterpretation of
message, indicating reception of the co-speaker’s message
4. Social strategies like joining a group, relying on friends for help, seeking opportunities
for practice.
Wenden and Rubin (1987)

In addition, Wenden and Rubin (1987) emphasise the importance of memory in

language learning. That is why they focus on mnemonics – special memory tricks which help

students learn faster and recall better. They include linguistic mnemonics such as “the peg

method” (peg words associated with the words to be learned), “the key-word method”

(establishing acoustic and/or visual links between new and already known words); spatial

mnemonics including “the loci method” (mentally placing new material in a room), spatial

grouping of words on a page; visual mnemonics – pictures illustrating words or visualisation.

Although mnemonics can mainly be utilised in vocabulary learning, their importance should

not be underestimated. First of all, they are fun and show students that learning a language

does not have to be a terribly serious activity. Moreover, they are a very good example that

there are ways to learn – instruction in mnemonics can be a very good introduction to further

strategy training.

The most contemporarily popular taxonomy of learning strategies is the one put

forward by Oxford (1990), in which the strategy system was divided into two classes, each of

which contains 3 strategy groups:

1) Direct strategies
- memory strategies
- cognitive strategies
- compensation strategies
2) indirect strategies
- metacognitive strategies
- affective strategies
- social strategies
(adapted from Oxford 1990: 17)

The main advantage of Oxford’s system stems from the fact that the above-mentioned six

groups are futher divided into nineteen sets of strategies, which are interconnected and

mutually supportive. Reviewing Oxford’s taxonomy, Williams and Burden value it highly for

being detailed and “containing most of the features of the previous classifications” ( 1997Ś

152). Żor this reason, Oxford’s strategy system will be one of the two major reference points

for the present work.

The other list of strategies which will be of importance is the one compiled by

O’Malley and Chamot (1990). Żirst of all, O’Malley and Chamot’s three categories:

metacognitive, cognitive and socio-affective partly correspond to Oxford’s taxonomy.

Secondly, in their studies of good language learners, O’Malley and Chamot paid special

attention to the level of language proficiency of their subjects. The classification presented

below (Figure 5) are strategies utilised by beginning and intermediate ESL students who are

of particular interest to the present work.

Learning strategy Definition
A. Metacognitive strategies

Planning

Advance organisers Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learned, often by skimming the
text for the organising principle

Directed attention Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore irrelevant distractors
Functional planning Planning for and rehearsing linguistic components necessary to carry out an upcoming
language task

Selective attention Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input, often by scanning for key-words,
concepts and/or linguistic markers
Self-management Understanding the conditions that help one learn and arranging for the presence of those
conditions

Monitoring

Self-monitoring Checking one’s comprehension during listening or reading or checking the accuracy and/or
appropriateness of one’s oral or written production while it is taking place

Evaluation

Self-evaluation Checking the outcomes of one’s own language learning against a standard after it has been
completed
B. Cognitive strategies
Resourcing Using target language reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias or textbooks

Repetition Imitating a language model, including overt practice and silent rehearsal

Grouping Classifying words, terminology, or concepts according to their attributes of meaning

Deduction Applying rules to understand or produce the second language or making up rules based on
language analysis

Imagery Using visual images (either mental or actual) to understand or remember new information

Auditory representation Planning back in one’s mind the sound of the word, phrase or longer language sequence

Keyword method Remembering a new word in the second language by: (1) identifying a familiar word in the
first language that sounds like or otherwise resembles the new word, and (2) generating
easily recalled images of some relationship with the first language homonym and the new
word in the second language

Elaboration Relating new information to prior knowledge, relating different part of new information to
each other, or making meaningful personal associations with the new information

Transfer Using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist comprehension and production

Inferencing Using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes or fill in
missing information

Note taking Writing down key words or concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form while
listening or reading

Summarising Making a mental, oral or written summary of new information gained through listening or
reading

Recombination Constructing a meaningful sentence or larger language sequence by combining known
elements in a new way

Translation Using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the second language
C. Social Mediation
Question for clarification Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanations, rephrasing, examples, or verification

Co-operation Working together with one or more peers to solve a problem, pool information, check a
learning task, model a language activity, or get feedback on oral or written performance

Figure 5. Learning strategies utilised by beginning and intermediate students. Definitions and classifications
(O’Malley and Chamot 1990: 119-120)

3.2.4. Strategy training in the language classroom

While good language learners utilise a number of strategies, it is very often true that

language learning is, in the case of most students, either devoid of the conscious application

of strategies, or impeded by the use of the inappropriate ones. This situation results from the

fact that the know-how instruction is either non-existent in the language classroom or

indiscriminate – addressed to the class en masse and ignoring each student’s individual needs

and preferences. Therefore, in order to actually accelerate learning, the classroom strategy

training should be carried out at three stages.

First of all, classroom instruction should include the presentation of a wide range of

learning strategies. Though usually initiated by the teacher, such training can and should be

reinforced by peer-to-peer strategy sharing, possible especially in the collaborative classroom

described earlier in this chapter. During the second stage, the learners must be offered ample

opportunities to experiment and try out the techniques in order to select the ones that comply

with their learning style and type of intelligence (both discussed later in this chapter). Such

strategies can be automatised at the third and final stage, at which the level of strategy

competence leads to both the ability and the confidence to make independent learning

choices.

In his/her strategy instruction, the teacher cannot be indifferent to what can be called

anti-strategies used by many students, especially those who suffer from various language

inhibitions. Called reduction strategies (Faerch and Kasper 1983), they include change of

topic, lack of an answer and pretending misunderstanding. Utilised during communication,

they enable students to avoid problems rather than to cope with them. The role of the teacher

– and hopefully the positive outcome of both strategy training and a learner-friendly

classroom atmosphere – is the promotion of achievement strategies, which mean trying to

communicate in spite of difficulties.

The effectiveness of the know-how instruction has been the object of a number of

studies, two of which are quoted below. Although their subjects were teenagers, some of their

findings seem to be universal.

Lam and Wong (2000) studied the efficiency of strategy training of 58 six-form

students in Hong Kong. After identifying the subjects’ strategy deficiencies, the researchers

designed a programme aimed at enriching the group’s know-how repertoire. The training

highlighted such communication strategies as seeking clarification, clarifying oneself and

checking if other people have understood one’s message. The post-training analysis of the

group proved that learners made more attempts to seek clarification and clarify themselves

after the instruction. At the same time, the researchers noticed that the instances of inefficient

strategy use outnumbered effective utilisation of learned techniques. In conclusion they state

that while their results support the importance of strategy training they also show that

strategy-based instruction should be supported by linguistic monitoring and peer help and co-

operation. This seems to confirm an assumption made earlier in the present section that

strategy training is best carried out in collaborative classrooms.

A longitudinal study of the influence of the strategy training implemented in three

classes of grammar school beginners was carried out in Wrocław in the years 1990-1994 by

Michońska-Stadnik (1996). As a result of the training, the students abandoned some typical

language learning prejudices, among other the belief that children are better learners than

adults and that it is best to learn English in an English-speaking country. Simultaneously,

students built up their inventory of learning strategies. They did not utilise all the strategies

presented by the teacher; however, supposedly inspired by the training, they worked out and

experimented with their own know-how including mnemonics and learning techniques. The

promotion of individual learning preferences together with the training in learner autonomy

resulted in the learners’ growing independence and encouraged them to seek possibilities to

practise outside the language classroom. Although Michońska-Stadnik admits that the results

of the experiment might have been influenced by factors other than the strategy training, the

findings support what has already been stated in the present section: strategy instruction

results in both greater self-confidence of learners and increased autonomy.

What both studies, especially the Wrocław experiment, show is in accord with the

assumption of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) that “competent individuals are effective

because of special ways of processing information” and that “strategies are not the preserve

of highly capable individuals, but could be learned by others who had not discovered them on

their own” (2). This idea, as O’Malley and Chamot point out, “contrasts sharply with an idea

that some people just have an ear for language or that some individuals have an inherent

ability for language learning” (ibidem).

Such a view has very important consequences. If we agree that the effectiveness of

competent individuals depends more on strategy use than on special predisposition – usually

associated with age, sex, field (in)dependence or personality – we have to redefine the

significance of individual differences in language learning.

3.3. Individual differences – do they really matter?

Before we try to look at the question asked in the heading it seems important to quote

the results of studies whose authors have tried to demonstrate the importance of individual

differences in language learning.

3.3.1. Individual differences – research to date

Several studies have been aimed at the identification of personal learner characteristics

underlying language achievement. Figure 6 presents the results of three studies cited by Ellis

(1994).

Altman 1980 Skehan 1989 Larsen Freeman & Long 1991

1. age 1. language aptitude 1. age
2. sex 2. motivation 2. socio-psychological factors:
3. previous 3. language learning strategies a) motivation
experience 4. cognitive and affective factors b) attitude
with language a) extroversion/introversion 3. personality
learning b) risk-taking a) self-esteem
4. proficiency in c) intelligence b) extroversion
the native d) field (in)dependence c) anxiety
language e) anxiety d) risk-taking
5. personal e) sensitivity to rejection
factors f) empathy
6. language g) inhibition
aptitude h) tolerance of ambiguity
7. attitudes and 4. cognitive style
motivation a) field (in)dependence)
8. general b) category width
intelligence c) reflectivity /
(IQ) impulsivity
9. sense d) aural / visual
modality e) analytic / gestalt
preference 5. hemisphere organisation
10. sociological 6. learning strategies
preference 7. other factors: memory, sex
(e.g. learning
with peers vs.
learning with
the teacher)
11. cognitive
style
12. learning
strategies

Figure 6. Factors listed as influencing individual learner differences in language learning in three surveys. (Ellis

1994: 472)

The examination of the factors quoted by Ellis (1994) leads to the conclusion that the

factors responsible for individual differences can be divided into two groups. The first group

contains characteristics that can be influenced in the process of language instruction like

motivation, beliefs, empathy, learning strategies, and, to some extent, tolerance for ambiguity,

risk taking, self-esteem. In the second group there are factors like age, sex, personality,

intelligence, cognitive style, hemisphere organisation, which are beyond classroom influence

and seem to divide the learners into “the chosen” and “the doomed”. It has to be pointed out

that more than once has the present work emphasised the importance of the first group of

factors. Ways of influencing and improving them have either already been discussed or are

going to be highlighted in this chapter. Therefore, the question asked in the heading of this

section – individual differences, do they really matter – refers to the second group of factors.

Do we, teachers, have to worry about things we cannot change?

The results of studies examining the relationship between age, learning style and

personality - quoted by both, Gardner (1985) and much later Ellis (1994) - are definitely

inconclusive. The influence of age is, according to Ellis, an open question – the problem has

already been discussed in the present work (cf. Chapter I for the results of research to date),

the conclusion (Ellis 1994) important for the present work being that adults outperform

children in the language classroom. In the area of learning style, field independence (FI) was

found to correlate positively with overall achievement in formal language contexts (Naiman et

al. quoted in Gardner 1985: 30; Seliger, Stansfield and Hansen, Chapelle and Roberts, Carter

quoted in Ellis 1994: 501). Tucker et al. and Genesee and Hamayan (Gardner 1985: 30)

found that it influenced language learning outcomes with the exception of oral production.

These findings were contradicted by negative results obtained by Bialystok and Frohlich

(Gardner 1985: 30, Ellis 1994: 501). The study of Hansen (Ellis 1994: 502) reports some

relationship between FI and language achievement but the author admits that it is insignificant

if the variable of learner general scholastic ability has been removed. However, there are a

number of points that need to be raised before drawing any finite conclusions. First of all, any

language outcomes with the exception of oral production (cf. Tucker et al. and Genesee and

Hamayan) cannot be seen as satisfactory if we favour the functional approach to language

(Communicative Language Learning included) over the structural approach, subscribing to

the view that language learning is a means to a communicative end not pure mental

gymnastics. Secondly, the field dependence/independence division does not seem as clearcut

as it used to be. Brown (Ellis 1994: 502) suggested the existence of flexible learning styles – a

combination of FI and FD. Ehrman (1998), in turn, redefined the old definition of FI/FD

introducing a new category: field sensitivity (FS) – the importance ascribed to context

regardless of the way the knowledge has been internalised. źhrman’s new typology included

four types of learners: FI/FS, FI/FN (field-insensitive), FD/FS and FD/FN.

The results of studies of other personality attributes seem rather inconclusive. The

analysis of teacher reports on who they perceived as the good language learner (Naiman et al

1975 quoted by Gardner 1985: 25) proved that some features, including timidity, shyness,

extrovertism and introvertism, were associated with successful and unsuccessful students at

the same time. The study of Smart et al. (Gardner 1995: 32) proved that both, overachievers

and underachievers tended to be introverted. Busch found no correlation between

extrovertism/introvertism and language achievement, Strong found that extroverts learned

faster (Ellis 1994: 518).

A study of brain sex and its influence on language achievement carried out by Arabski

(1998) demonstrated that female students achieved better results. However, as Arabski

himself admits, it may be because women more often than men rely on strategies. Ellis

(1994), in turn, qualifies women as field-dependent, a characteristic which, in a number of

studies, was proved to correlate negatively with language achievement.

The only factor consistently underlying language achievement is language aptitude.

Carroll (Ellis 1994: 496) found a .40 and .60 correlation between MLAT (Modern Language

Aptitude Test) and a variety of criteria (final grades, objective tests, etc.). Horwitz (Ellis

1994: 496-7) found that MLAT results correlated significantly with both the results of

discrete point grammar test (.41), as well as tasks requiring spontaneous language (.40).

Nevertheless, as Ellis himself admits, all the studies were based on aptitude models developed

during the time of structuralist, audiolingual and behaviourist views of language learning. As

a result, aptitude measure was more CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) than

BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills).

Inconclusive as they are, the findings referring to factors underlying individual

differences can by no means be disregarded in language learning pedagogy. They create a

very significant basis for identifying the learner’s strong points on the one hand and, on the

other, determining what the teacher’s role and the nature of instruction individual learners are

likely to benefit from.

Arabski (1997), who analyses individual differences from the utility perspective,

notices that all – field dependence/independence, reflectivity/impulsiveness,

extrovertism/introvertism – have aspects that accelerate language learning. Field dependent

students are empathetic and engage their affect in learning; field-independent individuals tend

to be self-confident, task-oriented, capable of analytical thinking and have an internal locus of

control. Reflective learners are more meticulous, make fewer mistakes and are good at

inductive thinking; impulsive types are quicker and capable of risk-taking. Ehrman (1998), in

turn, in her ŻI/ŻD/ŻS typology pays special attention to students’ needs and expectations. She

claims that FI/FS types adapt easily to multiple teaching styles; FI/FN students appreciate

good organisation but have to be trained on tolerance to ambiguity; FD/FS learners appreciate

external structure but need assistance in planning and prioritising; FD/FN need frequent

feedback, regular reviewing and help in autonomy building. Both Arabski and Ehrman help

us realise what has already been stated in the present chapter (cf. section on strategy training).

Even if we agree, in light of what we know about language aptitude, that not all students are

potentially good language learners, all of them can be better language learners, and it is

the teacher’s role to help them discover their strong points and guide them through

difficulties.

Such a conclusion redefines the importance of individual differences in the language

classroom. The fact that people are different is crucial but it does not imply that some can be

taught and others cannot. It rather means that everybody learns, and should be taught, in a

relatively different way determined by his/her learning style as well as broadly understood

potential. As a result, individualised teaching means catering for all the types needs and

predispositions that are potentially represented in it. Basing one’s classroom procedures on

the theory of multiple intelligences is a methodological option in this area.

3.3.2. Multiple Intelligences

The theory of multiple intelligences was introduced by Gardner (1983). The aim of

his “Project Zero” started in 1981 at Harvard University was to investigate the

development of learning processes in children, adults and organisations and, consequently,

to help understand and enhance learning, thinking and creativity. On the basis of his study

of the mind, Gardner re-evaluated the understanding of intelligence. Having noticed that

the popular IQ tests measure mainly the verbal and mathematical skills controlled by our

left-brain hemisphere, disregarding the artistic and musical capacities of the right brain,

Gardner presented his own new understanding of intelligence. He saw it as the capacity to

do something useful, to respond successfully to new situations and to utilise one’s past

experiences. Moreover, he questioned the verbal-and-mathematical “one and only” form of

cognition by putting forward the theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner proposed an

array of at least seven intellectual capacities employed in learning: linguistic, musical,

logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.

What relevance does this have for language teaching? It is difficult to agree with

Gardner (2003) himself that none. First of all, the theory provides a framework for

strategies for enhancing language learning which can be focused on as soon as the learner

realises what (s)he actually excels in. Therefore, the teacher’s role will consist in helping

the class diagnose their skills and capacities and relate them to language learning

techniques which every student needs to employ in order to accelerate his/her learning. The

applicability of żardner’s theory in the language classroom is demonstrated by Wingate

(1997), who relates every type of intelligence to particular activities and exercises (Figure

7).

A LEARNER WHO IS: THINKS: LOVES: NEEDS:
Linguistic in words reading, writing, telling books, tapes, writing
stories, playing word- implements, paper diaries,
games dialogue, discussion,
debate, stories
Logical-Mathematical by reasoning experimenting, things to explore and think
questioning, figuring out about, science materials,
logical puzzles, manipulatives, trips to
calculating planetarium, science
museums
Spatial in images and pictures designing, drawing, art, Lego, video, movies,
visualising, doodling slides, imagination games,
mazes, puzzles, illustrated
books, trips to art
galleries, museums
Bodily-Kinesthetic through bodily awareness dancing, running, role play, drama,
building, touching, movement, things to build,
gesturing sports and physical games,
tactile experiences, hands-
on learning
Musical via rhythms and melodies singing, whistling, sing-along time, concerts,
humming, tapping feet and music, musical
hands, listening instruments
Interpersonal by bouncing ideas off leading, organising, friends, group games,
other people relating, manipulating, community events, clubs,
mediating, partying mentors/apprenticeships
Intrapersonal deeply inside themselves setting goals, meditating, secret places, time alone,
dreaming, being quiet, self-paced projects,
planning choices

Figure 7. Multiple Intelligences in the language classroom (Wingate 1997: 31)

Noticing all those individual differences in the language classroom, helping learners

realise them as well as course organisation catering for all those individual needs not only

promotes autonomy but also increases every learner’s self esteem by showing them they can.

This is the sort of positive thinking which is based on strong foundations because, instead of

promoting the volatile hurray-optimism of “we are all good”, it gives every individual the

means for coping with potential learning problems.

The question, however, will be, how can we possibly cater for all those individual

differences and still be able to proceed with the course. How do we reconcile individual and

group needs? The first answer is integrative learning, which implies the teacher’s efforts to

involve all the different intelligences and learning styles, weaving them together and making

sure that all those diverse activities listed by Wingate (1997) are present in the classroom.

Another way to accommodate all the learning styles is, according to Ramburuth (1998),

extending the boundaries of the classroom and extending the core curriculum enabling each

student to engage in language learning at a preferred level, in a chosen style and through

topics of his/her choice. This can be achieved through a carefully structured and tailor-made

homework scheme supported by the already mentioned autonomy training.

Still another way of combining the interpersonal with the individual is NLP.

3.3.3. Neuro-Linguistic Programming in the language classroom

What is NLP? “It is an attitude to life. It is also a collection of techniques, patterns

and strategies for assisting affective communication, personal growth and learning” (Revell

and Norman 1998: 7). The underlying assumptions of NLP are incorporated in its name.

Neuro represents the way we experience the world through our five senses and process the

information in our brain “using the internal version of the five senses (Revell and Norman

1998: 9); the Linguistic component of the name tells us that the language we use both

represents and shapes our experience; Programming indicates that we can change the way we

learn, think and speak and, consequently, program our attitudes to be more positive.

The acknowledgement of different ways of perception leads to the assumption that

information intake and processing are highly individual. NLP claims – similarly to Reid

(1987), who studied sensory learning styles - that we all have our preferred sense and are

usually either visual, auditory or kinesthetic. Therefore, to make language learning more

efficient, the teacher should offer all different kinds of exercises to satisfy the individual

needs represented in the group – a recommendation already put forward in the discussion of

the theory of multiple intelligences. What is innovative about the NLP approach is the fact

that defining preferences does not imply categorical labelling of individuals. On the contrary,

it claims that the more senses we use while learning the better and more efficient the intake

and processing, and the easier the recall. What is more, multi-sensory lessons not only cater

for individual needs; they also help people become more flexible and expend their range of

learning styles. Such programming, or rather re-programming, can be successful if based on

another NLP presupposition called “getting inside the skin” of others. Bandler and żrinder

(Revell and Norman 1998: 10), the proponents of NLP, noticed that if some people were

particularly good at what they did, we should analyse their behaviour and try to imitate every

element of it. Such modelling can be very useful in the language classroom for two reasons.

First of all, it enables utilisation of the successful strategies of others and increases every

student’s learning repertoire. At the same time, getting to know oneself leads to a better

understanding of others, greater tolerance and improved rapport within the group. In this way,

getting inside another person’s skin helps students develop empathy, the importance of which

has already been discussed in the present chapter.

To conclude, if properly understood, individual differences do matter as they can

become the foundation of successful learning in three ways. First of all, their

acknowledgement leads to a better understanding of the students’ needs and, consequently,

more efficient teaching methods. Respect for them gives every student the signal that his/her

needs are recognised and catered for. This, in turn, results in learner comfort and increased

self-esteem. Finally, the theory of multiple intelligences, undermining the old division into

good and bad learners, helps create the “I can” spirit, which is one of the factors underlying

the learner’s motivation.

3.4. Motivation

Of all the individual differences, motivation and attitudes are, according to Gardner

(1985) the strongest predictors of language achievement. At the same time, as a construct,

motivation is one of the most notoriously elusive concepts. It has been subject to numerous

and diverse interpretations validated and invalidated with the continuous changing of

psychological theories. The present work does not intend to present the theoretical

background to date, as it was thoroughly discussed by Dörnyei (2001). It will look at

motivation in light of the humanistic and cognitive approaches trying to relate the main ideas

to the adult language learner.

As already mentioned in Chapter I, the adult language learner enters the classroom

with potentially high and diverse motivation, the ability for sustained effort being his/her

main advantage. This potential, however, is neither eternal, nor very stable. The student

obviously is under the incessant influence of all the external and internal (de)motivating

factors we have no control over, yet, the belief that language training can influence attitudes

and motivation is a common one (Gardner 1985). Pattison (1976) states that “the chief

influence on motivation is the learning process itself” (1976:290), because what learners do to

achieve the goal that had driven them into the language classroom sustains, increases or

decreases their original motivation. Many researchers agree (cf. Amir, Hofman and Zak cited

by Gardner 1985:86) that classroom interaction as such does not cause the change in question.

It is the nature of this interaction that is important. Therefore, we face the questions of “What

kind of interaction helps the teacher maintain the motivational momentum?” “What makes

motivation higher?” “What prevents the originally strong drive from plummeting?”

To answer the above questions we need to examine motivation as a complex notion

involving many interrelated factors. Gardner (1985) sees it as a combination of three

characteristics: attitudes towards learning a language, desire and motivational intensity.

3.4.1. Attitudes and motivation

Positive attitudes towards language learning, seen by Rivers (1983) as the main source

of the optimalization of the learning process, can be reinforced by a number of factors. In the

understanding of humanistic psychology, the main driving force of human activities is the

satisfaction of needs. Consequently, in light of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a motivating

learning context will be one, where the basic needs, with a particular emphasis on safety

(Maslow 1987), have been fulfilled because activation of a higher need is possible only as

long as the lower needs have been satisfied.

Although it is difficult to disagree with Maslow’s theory, particularly with regard to

what has already been said in the present work about the need for a non-threatening language

environment, it is cognitive psychology, whose understanding of the problem of motivation

helps us more clearly define the interrelationship between attitudes and the intensity of drives.

According to it (Malewski 1998), human beings are not passive recipients of what the

learning context can offer. They actively shape their relations with the environment and the

most important cognitive mechanism and – simultaneuosly – the most powerful drive are

expectations. Vroom (Malewski 1998: 55) argues that our motivation depends on two factors:

our estimation of the attractiveness of the possible outcome of our activity – language

learning in our case - as well as our confidence that the learning context is conducive to

success. The Expectancy-Valence Paradigm of Rubenson (Cross 1981: 118) - based on

Vroom’s theory – clearly shows the interrelation of the following motivation-related factors:

previous experience, active preparadness, current needs of the individual, the individual

experience of these needs as well as value of education as such, factors in the environment

together with the individual’s perception and interpretation of the environment. As seen from

the above listing, the factors can be divided into two groups: the expectations towards the

learning environment and the perception of oneself as a learner. Most of the motivation

elements have already been discussed in the present work. What happens to motivation in the

language classroom is described in the “expectancy” square (Figure 8).

Expectancy = the expectation that
education will have certain desirable
consequences x the expectation of being Force
able to participate in and complete (the strength of will
education determining behaviour)

Figure 8. The Expectancy square of Rubenson’s źxpectancy-Valence Paradigm (Cross 1981: 118)

The motivation that classroom dynamics can influence is the outcome of the multiplication of

two kinds of attitudes, which will for the sake of this discussion be labelled “I am on the right

route” and “I can”.

The attitude towards oneself as a language learner is synonymous with the student’s

self-esteem. The notion has been given considerable attention in the present dissertation. The

nature of interaction that helps increase the spirit of “I can” has already been described as the

atmosphere of acceptance and trust as well as individual and equal treatment of every student

in the class.

The second element of the expectancy multiplication, the attitudes towards the

learning context, may depend on a number of factors like the renown of the language teaching

institution, the appearance of its premises but, as demonstrated by research to date, it is the

person of the tutor that more that anything else guarantees that “education will have certain

desirable consequences”. Komorowska (1978) and (Szałek 1992) see motivation as heavily

dependent on the teacher. The learner’s belief that this particular person can guide them

properly is, according to Pattison (1976), powerfully motivating. The characteristics of the

teacher which underlie this feeling of confidence are personal culture, knowledge of the

language taught as well as general knowledge of the world, professional qualifications and

appearance (Szałek 1992). In the characteristics of a good teacher compiled by Prodromou

(1994) on the basis of 40 questionnaires filled in by students, from intermediate to advanced,

there are statements like: “she was educated”, “she knew psychology”, “she believed in me,

made me believe in myself”, “[she] was very experienced”, “she gave advice”, “she knew

mathematics (i.e. her subject matter)” (1994: 19).

The acknowledgement of this fact indicates the first means of maintaining and raising

the students’ motivation – incessant teacher development. In order to motivate their students

efficiently, teachers need to constantly improve their knowledge of the target language,

broaden their horizons as well as work on becoming better, more understanding human

beings. The simple truth has to be emphasised with ultimate determination because, obvious

as it is, the idea of teacher development is rarely implemented by the very often frustrated

educators in Poland. As shown by Wysocka (1998) in her analysis of a study of 30 Polish

teachers of English, self-development after graduation is rare. Target language work is

occasional and limited to watching films in the original version or informal contacts with

native speakers. Professional qualifications are equally neglected. 8 subjects have never taken

part in any formal training, 14 never read any źLT journals. Although Wysocka’s research

was carried out in state schools and adults learn foreign languages on private courses, in

Poland both types of educational institutions are staffed by the same teachers.

At the same time, in addition to their professional qualifications, teachers need to take

care of their personal growth – work on their ability to empathise and focus their attention on

their students – their individual needs and preferences. Individualisation of teaching, the

importance of which was emphasised in section 3.3, will be impossible without an increased

awareness of students’ needs and learning preferences. This demand for increased sensitivity

to the learner is best proved by research results obtained by Griffiths and Parr (2001). Their

comparison of language learning strategies actually utilised by students and the teachers’

beliefs concerning students’ strategy use (Figure 9) demonstrate considerable discrepancies

between classroom reality and the teachers’ perception of it.

Similar differences were found by Nunan in his analysis of learning activity evaluation

(żriffiths and Parr 2001Ś 252) and by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) who found that students

used an array of diverse strategies teachers were totally unaware of. All these facts prove that

1 2 3 4 5 6
MEMORY STRATEGIES xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
COMPENSATION xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
STRATEGIES
xxxxxxxxxxxx
METACOGNITIVE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
STRATEGIES
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx
SOCIAL STRATEGIES xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Figure 9. A comparison of student and teacher rankings of LLS group use (Griffiths and Parr 2001: 253)
(Frequency: 1 – low; 6 – high; students – xxxxx; teachers – xxxxx)

teachers need to develop and grow with their students in order to establish and maintain a

climate conducive to learning.

3.4.2. Clear sense of direction

As seen in żardner’s characteristics, in addition to the student’s desire, with which

they usually enter the classroom, motivational intensity is directly related to the goal – his/her

learning objectives. Rubenson’s paradigm labels this motivational aspect “individual

experience of needs” which is of crucial importance here as it is the role of the learning

context – and most importantly the teacher and the group (usually by the teacher’s inspiration)

– to make students actually and constantly feel (= experience ) those needs.

Consequently, not only the language course as such but individual activities during a

lesson have to have their purpose. This is particularly important for adult students, who need

to see the meaning and practical implications of what they are doing. Williams (1999) points

out that the teacher needs to discuss with his/her students why they are carrying out certain

activities making it clear to learners how each task helps them achieve their learning

objectives. As the overall aims of individual students are usually long-term goals, the students

need to be kept on their path to them by constant reminders in the form of diverse short-term

goals. Williams argues that students should be involved in setting such language goals. “It is

a crucial element in motivation which helps individuals develop internal feelings of control

and move towards autonomy” (1999: 6). This autonomy is particularly important for

motivational intensity if we agree that individuals, especially adult learners, as it has already

been pointed out a number of times, are best motivated if they are allowed to learn in ways

that are personal and important to them.

In groups where autonomy and internal control mechanisms are low, maintaining a

clear sense of direction will make the teacher responsible for one more thing: training in

metacognitive strategies, which help students organise their time and resources. Instructions

on defining one’s objectives, setting long- and short-term goals as well as developing and

implementing self-evaluation techniques are described by Ellis and Sinclair (1990). What they

emphasise as relevant to clear sense of direction and, hence, to motivation are precise analysis

(including self-analysis) of actual needs - the main purpose, specific situations and skills

necessary in them; systematic and conscious diagnosing of progress and motivational

intensity which, in the case of too slow development and/or motivation break-down, enables

applying prompt and efficient treatment; conscious choice of materials and their assessment.

Finally, motivational intensity will be high if the particular learning environment can

cater for two apparently opposite aspects of a clear sense of direction - the feeling that every

individual’s personal needs are important on the one hand and, on the other, that the group as

a whole is moving ahead towards their common objectives like passing an exam or, at least,

doing a coursebook. To achieve such balance, the course has to be based on both a profound

analysis of individual needs and a climate conducive to compromise, the latter already

described in section 3.1. The students need to know that, although there is a great need for

every learner’s autonomy, such autonomy cannot mean unlimited freedom to adjust the

syllabus to one’s own individual needs. Consequently, the group members, in addition to their

individual self-awareness, need the already discussed feeling of “we as a group” (Hadfield

1992).

3.4.3. Sense of fun

The sense of fun associated with language learning is the one more important factor

fostering motivational intensity. Although there is no denying its attitudinal nature, it was not

discussed in the section devoted to students’ attitudes as it seems that the influence of the

enjoyment element upon learner beliefs is more subtle; an array of situational incentives

rather than a directly motivating factor.

The point is that a course will be seen as attractive if its activities, apart from being a

means of achieving one’s individual goals, are perceived as interesting. Therefore, if an

activity is to be attractive it has, first of all, to be meaningful and related to personal

experience and interests. Secondly, adult learners in Poland come to the classroom

immediately before or, more often, after work, sometimes preoccupied with family problems

and very often tired. As a result, they want to see the language course as a break in their daily

routine and they want to enjoy themselves. This can be catered for by means of varied

activities including games, creative exercises, communicative work as well as through

interaction with other group members and the teacher. In addition to a number of roles

mentioned in the present work, the tutor is also seen as responsible for creating an enjoyable

learning environment. (S)he has to be a guide but also a friend, a human being, an actor, an

entertainer. The already quoted survey by Prodromou (1994) includes statements like: “[she]

knew how to treat someone who sits in a desk for six hours”, “we did the lesson together”,

“talked about her life”, “talked about problems of the school”, “talked about other subjects”,

“played games”, “told jokes”, “she was one of us”, “asked students’ opinions, there was a

dialogue”, “she was like an actress, pretended a lot”, “she was funny”, “she got close to

students”, “he had a personality of his own”, “she was more like a comedian”. (1994: 19).

All these characteristics show how the human aspect with an emphasis on a sense of fun is

important in language learning. However, the significance of humour is not limited to the fact

that it guarantees enjoyment and thus acts as learning incentive. Apart from being the vehicle

for participation, a sense of fun gives the energy and willingness to speak as well as

encourages students to take risks (Freeman 1993). Through a sense of fun, learning a

language becomes a unique, positive experience.

3.5. Experiential language learning

The importance of experience in adult learning has already been given a lot of

attention in the present work. Dewey (1938) sees experience as the basis for all genuine

learning. The learner’s experience is also perceived as focal for learning by Knowles (1990)

who goes as far as claiming that the teacher and the textbook are secondary. Therefore it

seems indispensable for the teacher of adults to introduce experiential learning to the

language classroom. An old, frequently quoted, Chinese proverb says “Tell me and I will

forget. Show me and I will remember. Involve me and I will understand”. As experience

means both – what one has already learned and what (s)he is feeling or taking part in at the

moment, involvement in the language classroom can be built around the two aspects of

learner’s experienceŚ his/her biography on the one hand and hands-on tasks on the other.

3.5.1. Experience in the language classroom

Recognising the learner as an experienced person has a number of practical

implications in the language classroom. First of all, as was already mentioned in Chapter I,

the teacher can build on the considerable knowledge, understanding and skills adults already

possess. Consequently, the experiential classroom will, primarily, be a morale-boosting

environment as it is the place where everybody can feel important because (s)he is a

recognised expert in some field of knowledge. Moreover, if the teacher makes the students

realise, refer to and base on their earlier experience and already possessed knowledge, (s)he

not only opens room for associative learning and thus facilitates the acquisition of new

material (cf. Chapter I of the present work), but also humanises language learning and thus

increases every individual’s motivation and involvement, because, as Moskowitz (1978)

emphasises, effective education is that which combines the subject matter to be learned with

the lives of the students – their feelings, emotions and experience. Such immediate personal

experience gives life, texture and subjective personal meaning to abstract concepts and also

provides a concrete reference point for testing the validity of ideas created in the learning

process (Nunan 1993). In light of this statement, grammar, for example, can be taught

effectively only if something personally significant can be expressed by means of a newly

learned structure. This very important pedagogical rule can be best implemented in the

experiential classroom where grammar drill is abandoned for the sake of more humanistic,

learner-centred activities.

Finally, the experiential classroom will be a place where the metacognitive instruction,

understood mainly as strategy training described in section 2 of this chapter, can be enriched

by what Czerniawska (2000) calls the reflection on one’s own “educational biography”. She

describes a seminar during which participants were asked to compile their educational

biographies which were not supposed to be their CVs but rather the presentation of their lives

as seen through a variety of learning events, intentional and spontaneous, including

socialisation and upbringing. Such reflection can be a very useful component of language

education because, as Czerniawska states, it helps every student improve his/her self-

awareness as a learner. As a result of such educational biography studies, students can

identify their strengths and weaknesses, their learning preferences and, consequently, learning

style as well as cope with classroom anxieties resulting from what Czerniawska defines, after

Hurlbutt (2000Ś 57) as the outcome of “the invisible environment”, all the psychological

factors of the past, subjective perception of past events, values, spiritual culture.

In addition to the students’ subjective experiences, attitudes and feelings about

themselves as learners, experiential learning is also what Weil and McGill (1989) call

“meaningful discovery”, a combination of action, autonomous and integrative learning.

Learners are not passive recipients of knowledge and teaching cannot mean lecturing to an

inactive audience. They need to experience – to participate, to try out to experiment, to

discover – and only in this way can they learn best. The last statement is particularly true for

adult learners who, as discovered by numerous researchers (cf. Knowles 1990, Maslow 1987,

Urbańczyk 1962), learn more effectively by doing.

3.5.2. The anatomy of experiential learning

Kohonen (1993) sees experiential learning as a four-stage cycle. First of all, it requires

concrete experience in or outside the language classroom. In this context Nunan (1998)

emphasizes the importance of task-based learning. In his opinion, it is the task that dramatises

the relationship between the grammatical items and the discoursal context. At this stage

feeling is as important as reason. The next step is abstract conceptualisation which is a logical

and systematic activity consisting in neating and precising. The third stage is reflective

observation – understanding the meaning of ideas, thoughts, feelings and judgements. The

cycle is completed by active experimentation – practical application of internalised ideas and

learned skills which obviously involves risk taking.

Such a definition of experiential learning bears a number of consequences for the

language classroom. First of all, it has to be flexible and the methods and techniques used by

the teacher need to be easily adaptable to particular objectives. The first and the last stage of

the experiential learning cycle is best carried out in the communicative classroom where

interaction is frequent; abstract conceptualisation and reflective observation, in turn, are better

suited to approaches like the Silent Way, where there is ample room for uninhibited, anxiety-

free processing; the combination of reason and affect and the involvement of the whole

person are the characteristics of a method known as Community Language Learning; while

the essence of language is meaning in the Natural Approach. Consequently, the principal

approach of the experiential classroom must be eclecticism, a combination of different

methods changed depending on both the students’ needs and the nature of task.

At the same time, where immediate experience is more important than internalisation

of abstract concepts through a drill limited to repetition, manipulation and transformation,

form is ancillary to meaning and depends on it. This implies the necessity of what Nunan

(1998) calls organic language instruction – teaching language as a set of choices, providing

opportunities for learners to grasp grammatical and discourse relationships in authentic data

as well as making form-function relationships transparent. Learning a language, Nunan

claims, is more like growing a garden, not building a wall (1998: 101). Therefore, in the

experiential classroom, meaning – already identified as focal in the education of adults - is

central.

Finally, in a language classroom which combines reason with feeling and requires

potentially inhibiting risk-taking, it is the quality of the experience that matters. Both Nunan

(1993) and Kohonen (1993) agree that experiential learning, which is a social phenomenon in

which experience is shaped through interaction with the environment, is best implemented in

a cooperative rather than competitive classroom. Creating a caring and sharing classroom –

what this means in practice has already been identified in the present chapter - is of ultimate

importance as the learning experience gained in the process of learning has a cumulative

effect on the learner’s cognitive and affective characteristics.

In addition to a friendly environment, the quality of experience is related to its

wholeness. Holism focuses on involving all areas of the brain on both: the horizontal - or the

hemispheric - plane and the vertical plane – limbic and motor sensory as well as cognitive

(Hansen 1999). This means that the experiential classroom should not discriminate against

either the cognitive or the affective aspect of the learner’s experience and simultaneously

activate as many channels of perception and, consequently, of experience as possible. The

already discussed NLP techniques used in the experiential classroom will enable learners to

experience a variety of sensory stimuli helping them rely on what are their strong points and

develop areas in which they are weaker.

In conclusion, the factors underlying positive classroom dynamics – the collaborative

spirit in the classroom, autonomy, individualisation of teaching methods, motivation and

experiential learning – can be achieved through numerous classroom procedures, a variety of

which have been described in this chapter. It will be interesting to see this theoretical

background implemented in everyday classroom practice. Consequently, the aim of the

research described in Chapter V and discussed in Chapter VI was to examine whether

teachers are aware of the importance of positive classroom dynamics and to what extent they

try to influence the learning/teaching context in this area. That is why the four classrooms

observed in course of the study were researched as social systems. At the same time, special

attention was paid to whether there is any relationship between a friendly learning

environment - seen through the five aspects of classroom dynamics discussed in the present

chapter – and language anxiety.

CHAPTER IV: SCHEME OF RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1. The aim of the study

There is such a sharp contrast between the anxiety breeding environment described in

Chapter II and the learning settings characterised by positive classroom dynamics discussed in

Chapter III that the relationship between language anxiety and classroom dynamics appears

obvious. That is why, the research, first of all, attempted to examine whether the

interdependence of those two phenomena was actually as straightforward as it seems.

Secondly, it was interesting to see which aspects of the positive classroom described in

Chapter III were more than others related to the level of language anxiety in a particular

classroom. Finally, the aim of the research was to examine the nature of the relationship

between language anxiety and classroom dynamics and try to discover whether they were

mutually dependent. That is to say, not only whether positive classroom dynamics can lower

language anxiety but also if the level of anxiety brought into the classroom at the very

beginning of the course has the power to shape what “goes on inside and between” the

students.

4.1.1. Research questions

In order to achieve the aim of the planned study specified in the previous section of the

present chapter, the research was meant to answer a number of questions. First of all, it was

important to decide whether the classroom dynamics of a given group can be seen as positive

or negative. It is fully acknowledged that the answer to a question formulated in this way

cannot be truly objective and the observer is bound to be judgemental. That is why, the

general question about classroom dynamics had to be divided into a number of sub-questions,

the answers to which was not – or rather not only - based on the overall impression of the

researcher but rather on detailed live observation and quantification of a number of

phenomena. In light of the components of positive classroom dynamics discussed in Chapter

III, the aspects of the classroom that was focused on during the study were:

a) interaction patterns in a given classroom, their frequency and recurrence;
b) turn taking routines;
c) the quality of interaction;
d) the teacher’s classroom management procedures;
e) correction and explanation strategies;
f) teacher favouritism and attitude to students;
g) the spatial organisation of the classroom, seating arrangements, lighting, etc.

In addition to these affective and social foci, the research also concentrated on the

metacognitive aspect of classroom dynamics. That is why it was of interest to answer the

question of

h) whether the students in a given group were willing/encouraged to share, and if they
were instructed in the know-how of language learning.

At the same time, it seemed necessary to find out

i) what aspects of classroom dynamics were most important to the students
themselves, that is what a given group found beneficial to their learning was an
important research question too.

That is why, in addition to the observer’s perspective, the learner perspective was introduced

as well.

The second issue which was crucial to the research and focused on was language

anxiety. In this area the study tried to determine the level of anxiety for each group.

The final research question concerned the group profile. It was interesting to know

what sort of people each classroom contained. There is no denying that we cannot control all

variables. That is why, the insight into the group is always constrained by insufficient data.

Consequently, the questions in this area were limited to the age, education and sex of the

group members on the one hand and, on the other, to what has already been highlighted in the

present work as important in the language classroom – the students’ self-attitudes. What was

of interest to the present study was the relationship between the learners’ self-concept – seen

as a crucial element of classroom dynamics - and their language anxiety.

4.2. Research tradition

As the main focus of the research was on what actually goes on in the classroom, the

goal of the study was to produce descriptions and interpretations of classroom events and

relationships between them. It also produced an analysis of verbal discourse seen as

embedded in all social processes going on in the classroom with special attention paid to the

context-dependent nature of those events. Some of them were quantified because it was of

interest to the study whether any regularities and idiosyncracies between the events can be

noted. That is why, out of the four basic research traditions – psychometric, interaction

analysis, discourse analysis and ethnographic (cf. Nunan 1989, Chaudron 1995) – the present

research belongs to the ethnographic tradition with some elements of interaction and

discourse analysis. The “mostly quantitative” (Chaudron 1995) approach of the psychometric

tradition had to be excluded for a number of reasons. First of all, its statistical analysis is more

product than process oriented as studies of this kind usually involve the comparison of various

materials and techniques in order to determine which of them result in better or more efficient

learning (Nunan 1989). The latter, however, is not of direct interest to the present work. As it

was mentioned in the previous section of the present chapter, the planned study was not going

to relate the major features of teacher and student behaviour to the learning outcomes

presuming - as already highlighted in Chapter II in the comparison between the anxious

learner and the good learner - that anxiety-heavy learning environment has to be seen as

debilitating. That is why, in the present research, academic achievement – the product - was

not controlled for.

Furthermore, as was already shown in the section describing research questions, the

study of classroom dynamics is a complex one and requires deep insights into the

complexities of teaching and learning. As a result, the number of classrooms studies cannot be

too large. In such a case, a quantitative study would be very difficult to carry out if not totally

impracticable.

At the same time it is fully acknowledged that the research may face the accusation

that the data accumulated in it are statistically insignificant. True as the objection is, two very

important factors need to be emphasised. First of all, reliable though they are, statistics

provide information on what is generally true, averaging the extremes and thus making it

impossible to examine what actually “goes in and between people in the classroom”, the state

of being the already quoted Stevick (1980) found to be of ultimate importance. Secondly,

according to Nunan (1989) “ethnographic approaches speak more readily to the concerns of

the classroom practitioner who is more likely to be interested in gaining insights into his/her

classroom processes rather than establishing generalisable truths” (8). That is why, argues

Nunan, it is ethnography that is more likely to reach a wider audience and lead to a change in

classroom procedures. The final point is of ultimate importance to the present work, as, before

the research was even designed, its first and most important goal was to look at way in which

we may all become better teachers.

4.3. Research methods.

As the research was intended as qualitative, it was - in accordance with the qualitative

paradigm – based on longitudinal participant observation. However, to make it as

multifaceted as possible, in addition to the “naturalistic, uncontrolled, subjective, process-

oriented observation” (Chaudron 1995Ś 16) typical of ethnographic studies, the research

included some quantification of events observed by means of special research tools designed

or adapted for the sake of the present study and described later in the present chapter. The

controlled observation consisted of separate simultaneous coding of all manifestations of a

given language behaviour (cf. research questions earlier in this chapter) in a predetermined

time unit. As, contrary to the naturalistic observation, the controlled observation was to be as

objective as possible, the majority of its instruments were real-time low inference category

instruments - the observed behaviours and events were simple to avoid judgementality.

Finally, the third study facet was the data self-reported by students. Such methodological

triangulation – naturalistic observation, controlled observation and self-reported data – was to

enable mutual validation of all three mentioned research perspectives.

4.4. Research tools

4.4.1. Description

As already mentioned in the previous section, the research was intended as an

ethnography with elements of interaction and discourse analysis, in which the data was

collected by means of naturalistic observation as well as controlled observation and self-

report. That is why, the instruments used in the study were divided into two groups –

observation charts, scales and systems on the one hand and self-reported questionnaires and

scales on the other. All the research tools discussed in the present section can be found in the

Appendix.

Controlled observation

The first group of instruments, used for controlled observation, contains tools whose

aim is to analyse the quality as well as recurrence of interaction patterns, the idiosyncracies of

classroom management and the predictability of language anxiety.

Classroom interaction was examined by means of Żlanders’ Interaction Analysis

Categories (ŻIAC), Allwright’s Turn żetting/żiving Chart and the Verbal Interaction Chart.

The selection of FIAC as a tool for interaction analysis was made with the full

awareness of all the criticism the instrument has been subject to. First of all, Allwright (1988)

claims that the ten categories are very imprecise and that is why the observer cannot avoid

interpretation and judgementality. Consequently, one may argue that Moskowitz’s ŻLINT

(Allwright 1988, Nunan 1989), whose categories number 22 instead of the original ten, would

be more precise and, consequently, far less open to interpretation. However, it seems quite

obvious that a 22-category system is extremely difficult to manage, especially in an

observation scheme as detailed and multi-faceted as the present one. That is why FIAC seems

more practicable than FLINT, even if it is methodologically inferior. Moreover, It seems that

FLINT may be equally judgemental especially if its validity is not confirmed by the Scott’s

coefficient – simultaneous observation carried out by two observers followed by the

comparison of the laterally collected data (Allwright 1988) – a procedure impracticable in the

present work which, at no stage, was intended as collaborative. Other alternatives to FIAC –

Fanselow’s ŻOCUS (Allwright 1988) or źCS (ibidem) – although much more objective, have

to be rejected because of their complication and the need for audio or video recording. As it

was later to turn out, they would not have had the chance to be utilised as the observed groups

refused to be recorded. Consequently, FIAC appears the most efficient because of its

simplicity. For the sake of the observation preliminary interpretations of all the ten categories

have been made.

Another deficiency for which FIAC has been criticised is the fact that it focuses on the

teacher as the initiator of classroom interaction and looks at the students as mere discourse

recipients. That is why, the data collected by means of Żlanders’ system will be supplemented

by the information obtained by Allwright’s Turn żettting/żiving Chart. The most important

advantage of this tool, as its proponent argues (Allwright 1988: 177), is its “deliberate

avoidance … of any built-in distinction between the teacher and the learners”. Unlike

Żlanders’ instrument, Allwright’s tool does not look at the teacher as opposed to the students

seen en masse but rather examines the personal investment of every member of the classroom

community. It is assumed that the learners are not entirely under the teacher’s control and thus

“have the freedom concerning the nature and extent of their participation in class”

(Allwright 1988Ś 173). What is more, the application of Allwright’s instrument enables the

observer to overcome the judgementality objection, as the categories of the Turn

Getting/Giving Chart are relatively objective and easily observable, the latter leaving little

room for interpretation.

The final instrument, the Verbal Interaction Chart – with its WHO/ TO WHOM focus

- was to help identify the aspects of interaction that are not easily discernible through the two

already discussed instruments: certain interaction patterns, tendencies, teacher and peer

favouritism, etc.

Classroom management was analysed by means of the WHO Analysis Chart, the

Teacher Routines Analysis Chart, the Strategies Chart, the Error Correction Chart and the

Teacher Explanations Chart. All the charts have been devised for the purpose of the study, but

only the Teacher Routines Analysis Chart and the Strategies Chart can be considered

innovative. All the other instruments have been constructed on the basis of recommendations

from the following sources: the WHO Analysis Chart – Deller 1990; the Error Correction

Chart – Nunan 1989 as well as Bartram and Walton 1994; the Teacher Explanations Chart –

Nunan 1989.

The aim of the above-mentioned instruments was to examine classroom management

typicalities, with particular regard to the organisation of the learning environment,

metacognitive training consisting in the encouragement and instruction in the area of the

language learning know-how, learner autonomy, as well as the teacher’s error correction and

explanation strategies.

The predictability of language anxiety was examined on the basis of the Anxiety

Trait Action Chart based on MacIntyre and Gardner 1994 and Oxford 1999. Its goal was to

determine whether certain learner behaviours can help the observer, and eventually and more

importantly the teacher, identify the anxious students.

Self-reports

The second group of instruments contains two scales – the Anxiety Scale, the Self-

Report Questionnaire and an open-ended questionnaire The Ideal Teacher/Group/Classroom.

The Anxiety Scale, adapted from MacIntyre and Gardner, has been chosen as the

model anxiety examining instrument from a variety of anxiety scales because, unlike any

other scale – including the ones created by Ely (1986), Gardner (1985) Horwitz et al.(1986) –

it proposes the distinction between three types of anxiety: input, processing and output

anxiety. While there is no denying that the above-mentioned scales are very well constructed

– it may be important to mention that McIntyre and żradner themselves used żardner’s

(1985) and Horwitz et al.’s (1986) scales to assess the validity of their instrument - the three-

type distinction, basing on the three stages of learning identified by Tobias (1986 quoted in

McIntyre and Gardner 1994: 289), seemed particularly suitable for the present work because,

as highlighted in chapters II and III various aspects of classroom dynamics affect each of the

three acquisition stages in a different way. However, considering the fact that a research tool

such as scale works best if its numbers are ascribed definite answers, the typical 1-6 format of

the scale in question was subjected to a minor change for the purpose of the present study.

Individual numbers were defined in terms of answers (1 – definitely yes; 2 – rather yes; 3-

this statement does not refer to me; 4 – rather no; 5 – definitely no). As a result, instead of the

1-6 range, a 1-5 range had to be used. When the results were calculated, for anxiety-positive

statements every “definitely yes” answer was ascribed 2 points on the scale and every “rather

yes” answer was counted as 1 pointś in the case of anxiety-negative statements, the same

calculations, respectively, were made for “definitely no” and “rather no”.

The Self-Report Questionnaire is a tool whose aim was to examine the students’ self-

attitudes. It was designed specially for the study and its questions were to help students reflect

on themselves as language learners from the perspective of the important aspects of classroom

dynamics – motivation, autonomy, self-esteem and the know-how.

The open-ended questionnaire The Ideal Teacher/Group/Classroom was to help

compare what the students receive and would like to receive in the classroom.

Prior to their application in the observed classrooms, all the self-report tools had been

translated into Polish and the newly devised tools had been tested during a pilot study (Turula

2002b).

4.4.2. Analysis units and coding systems

The research tools described in the previous section were applied with varying

frequency during the observation period (a month /10 meetings). In terms of application

procedures they can be divided into three categories. The first category includes the

instruments used in order to determine certain overall tendencies of the course – FIAC, the

WHO Analysis Chart, The Teacher Routines Analysis Chart and the Strategy Chart. These

tools were utilised during every meeting for an arbitrary time unit of 30 minutes. The second

category of tools are the ones designed to examine a particular aspect of the language

classroom. They include Allwright’s Turn żetting/żiving Chart, the Verbal Interaction Chart,

the Error Correction Chart, The Teacher Explanations Chart and the Anxiety Trait Action

Chart. Each of them was applied three times during the observation period at the end of which

a typical sample of each recording was selected for analysis. The self-report tools, which are

the third and last category of instruments, were used only once at the end of the observation

period.

As far as recording procedures are concerned – and these apply only to the first two

instrument categories – the category coding system was applied for all tools. This means that

a particular behaviour was coded every time it occurred. This system was also applied in the

case of FIAC, for which, originally the sign system (the observation made at regular three-

second time intervals) was devised. All instruments were intended for real-time coding, and

for the majority of tools the tally system was applied. The only exceptions are the Verbal

Interaction Chart and the WHO Analysis Chart, for which a separate multiple coding systems

have been devised. The presentation of data for all instruments belonging to categories two

and three is numerical. In the case of category one instruments a separate calculation system

was applied. The tallies were calculated and if for a given category their number was 8+

(almost one such behaviour per meeting) the category got a YES; 3-7 – SOMETIMES; 2 and

below – NO.

4.5. The sample

The research sample included 4 groups of adults learning a foreign language – English

(3 groups) and German (1 group) - at the beginning level in private language schools in

Silesia. As the study focus was on mature subjects of various ages and professions learning of

their own accord, the research was not carried out in groups of university students, both full-

and part-time who learn a foreign language in the course of their studies. First of all, students

do not make a very diverse sample. They all have secondary education and are learning to get

a diploma. Secondly, university language courses are compulsory and the present work is

interested in voluntary language learning.

4.6. Research chronology

The whole research project started in October 1998 and was carried out over three

years. During the first year (the academic year 1998/1999) the pilot study, whose aim was to

validate the two newly designed research tools – the Teacher Routines Analysis Chart and the

Self Report Questionnaire, was carried out. The research proper took place in the years 1999-

2000 and is described in the following chapter.

CHAPTER V: THE RESEARCH

The research, whose aim was to study the relationship between language anxiety and

classroom dynamics, was carried out in the years 1999-2000 in two private language schools

in four groups of beginners, three of which were English learning groups and one group was a

German group. Group A was observed in October and November 1999 while the study of

groups B, C and D took place a year later.

Unfortunately, the sample was neither as large, nor as varied as it had been intended

to. What is more, one of the observed groups, although principally a group of adults,

contained a number of primary school children. All the difficulties are the result of the fact

that private language schooling in Poland is an area where any form of intrusion – and the

presence of an observer is an example of such – is extremely unwelcome by both – the

principals and the teachers, who see it as personal and commercial invigilation.

The study looked at every group through its members. Consequently, the studied

groups are rarely described en bloc and it has been necessary to nominate individual students.

Naturally, for the sake of privacy protection, all the names have been replaced by symbols,

e.g. Teacher A (teacher of Group A); Student D3 (student 3 from Group D), etc. All four

groups were observed for a month. Each of them had already been learning together for two

weeks when the research started.

The data presented in the present chapter were collected by means of both controlled

and uncontrolled observation as well as self-reported by the students. Section 5.1 contains a

general description of the studied groups and their teachers. Section 5.2. offers a number of

insights into the classroom dynamics of all four observed groups, with special regard to

interaction patterns and classroom routines. Section 5.3 describes the metacognitive aspect of

language learning, its main focus being the know-how training in all for groups as well as

error correction and teacher explanations. The results gathered by the language anxiety scale

and observation chart are presented in Section 5.4. The last two sections contain data gathered

by means of the two self report questionnaires. All general descriptions are based on field

notes, interviews and self-report questionnaires (Turula 2002b).

5.1. General characteristics

5.1.1. The groups

Group A was an English group meeting twice a week (Tuesday and Thursday) from 8

p.m. to 9.30 p.m. The number of students changed during the observation period. In the

beginning there were seven students, five joined later. Two dropped out before the study was

concluded. Out of the ten students who remained in the group when the research was being

completed, two were still in higher secondary school, two were ongoing students and two had

an M.Sc. Others had finished their secondary education and had Matura. The majority

admitted they learned English for pleasure. One person wanted to get a better job and one saw

the course as a form of revision before they undertook more serious language learning. As for

their reasons for learning with the school, three people reported enrolling on the course

because they needed control, four stated they enjoyed learning in a group, three gave other

reasons like time to spare or encouragement from friends. The age average of the group was

26.1 and the majority of the students were actually in their early or mid-twenties. There were

two persons under 18 and three middle-aged students – two in their mid-thirties and a forty-

nine-year-old. The group contained seven men and three women. Four students reported some

knowledge of other languages (Russian and German).

Group B was an English group meeting twice a week (Tuesday and Thursday) from 8

p.m. to 9.30 p.m. The group had two teachers, each of whom taught once a week always on

the same day. Out of the seven students who were still in the group when the research was

carried out one was still in secondary school, one was an ongoing student, one had an MA and

one – an MSc. Three students had finished their secondary education and had Matura. The

majority admitted they learned English for pleasure. Three learners reported enrolling on the

course because they needed teacher control to learn effectively, two stated they enjoyed

learning in a group, two gave other reasons saying they wanted to do something interesting in

their free time. One person saw the course as a form of revision before they undertook more

serious language learning. The age average of the group was 29.1 and the majority of the

students were between their early twenties and early thirties. One person was nineteen and

one - fifty. The group contained two men and five women. Nobody reported any knowledge

of other languages.

There was a group within the group – the core: five students (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) who

enrolled in April and came back after the summer holidays. Their attendance was regular with

the exception of student B1, who was 8 months pregnant. The number of other students

changed during the research period – out of six newcomers four dropped out as the course

continued. One (B7) of the two (B6 and B7), who initially decided to stay, moved to a higher

level after a month.

Group C was an English group meeting twice a week (Monday and Wednesday) from

6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. The number of students was 15 at the beginning of the course and 1

person dropped out before the conclusion of the observation. Out of the fourteen students who

remained in the group, three were still in the primary school, one was a grammar school first-

grader, three learners reported having an MSc, one was an ongoing student and others had

finished their secondary education and had Matura. The majority admitted they learned

English because they needed it at school or at work. One person mentioned personal

satisfaction and one admitted that they saw English as an international means of

communication. Eight students reported enrolling on the course because they needed teacher

control to learn effectively, one stated they enjoyed learning in a group, five gave other

reasons like time to spare or encouragement from friends or the possibility to meet other

people. The age average of the group was 18.6 but the group contained four very young

students aged 12-15 and ten adults the youngest of whom was 26 and the two oldest were in

their mid-forties. The group contained nine women and five men. Five learners reported some

knowledge of other languages (French, Russian and German). Four indicated that their

knowledge was limited to basics.

There were four pairs in the group that knew each other before they had enrolled on

the course: C1 and C2 were brother and sister; C10 and C11 as well as C14 and C15 were

married couples; C12 and C13 were workmates.

Group D was a German group meeting twice a week (Mondays and Wednesdays)

from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. The number of students did not change during the observation

period. The group contained one still in primary school, a grammar school first-grader, four

ongoing students two persons with an M.Sc, one MA. The other students had finished their

secondary education and had Matura. The reasons for learning were school and work, foreign

travel as well as pleasure and personal satisfaction. Four learners reported enrolling on the

course because they needed teacher control to learn effectively, three stated they enjoyed

learning in a group, four gave other reasons like doing something interesting in their free time

and three ignored the question. The age average of the group was 26.7 and the majority of the

students were actually in their twenties and thirties. There were two persons under 18 and two

- over forty. The group contained eight women and six men. Four subjects reported a basic

knowledge of other languages (Russian, French, English and Spanish). There was one married

couple in the group (D1 and D4).

5.1.2. The teachers

Teacher A was in his mid-twenties and he was a fresh MA with no professional

experience besides his student teaching practice. In his teaching he rarely referred to the book

and the workbook and all his lessons during the observation period were organised around a

handout containing 10 sentences in present simple, past simple and future simple, all in three

forms (statement, its negative and question). This handout was used in every lesson. No

reading, writing and listening practice was observed. The teacher occasionally gave

homework from the workbook. Other grammar problems introduced during the observation

period included adverbs, there is/are, have got and present continuous. His teacher talk was

mainly in Polish, small talk, occasionally, in źnglish. The teacher’s źnglish was good and his

voice – clear.

The teacher seemed to be working without either preparation or a lesson plan. Field

notes contain a number of examples of slight lesson chaos, two of which are cited below.

While discussing have got and have he said that the latter is less frequent but did not give any

further explanation or examples of use and when he explained adverb formation he said there

were no rules and the students had to memorize every adverb and later during the lesson he

listed a number of adverbs and asked the students to discover the rule on the basis of which

they are formed from adjectives.

Group B had two teachers – B1 and B2 – and the course was meant as a collaborative

teaching undertaking. However, as each of the teachers claimed that she was concentrating on

communication and other language skills were to be practised by her partner, it has to be

stated that the co-operation was not very well-coordinated.

Teacher B1 was a medical doctor in her mid-thirties. She had the Certificate in

Advanced English but no formal teacher training. She did not use the coursebook and her

lessons were based on self-made vocabulary handouts presenting around 50 items each.

During the observation period she covered personal description (character and appearance)

and one of her lessons was devoted to grammar revision, during which the following

problems were discussed (listed in the order observed during the lesson): compound nouns,

irregular plurals, present simple, comparison, questions and negatives, tag questions, modals,

subjunctive, have/have got, contractions, there is/are, this/that/these/those, Saxon Genitive.

She gave two writing home assignments based on the vocabulary lists she had prepared. Her

teacher talk was exclusively in Polish.

The teacher’s voice was clear and she seemed very self-confident in all she presented.

Her English, however, was not perfect. She regularly made pronunciation and spelling

mistakes, and gave untrue or confusing grammar explanation (about contractions: “można w

listach formalnych”; about have you got…? - short answersŚ “Yes I have got/No, I don’t

have”ś about comparisonŚ “Ostanią spółgłoskę można podwoić. Jest tak lub tak, nie ma

reguł”; about can, could, may, might – “spada pewność, rośnie grzeczność).

Teacher B2 was in her early twenties and she was in the fifth year of her English

Studies. She used the coursebook and the workbook, out of which she covered: plural nouns,

orders and did grammar revision – questions and negatives in present simple. During one of

her classes there was a listening comprehension practice. Her teacher talk was mainly in

Polish, simple requests and commands - in English.

The teacher’s voice was low and monotonous, her speech slow and a little unclear.

She chewed gum during each class. She remained seated most of the time and stood with her

face to the blackboard while giving explanations. Her pronunciation was good but her

knowledge of English seemed shaky when she had to provide grammar rules underlying

certain phenomena (“Nie wszystkie [rzeczowniki] zakończone na ‘o’ mają końcówkę ‘es’” –

she does not specify which do and which do not; “Proszę raczej dodawać ‘s’”). She provided

explanation saying: “raczej tak …/nie…”, “Ja się z tym nie spotkałam więc raczej tak nie

można powiedzieć”and occasionally gave untrue grammar rules (Teacher: “W rzeczownikach

zakończonych na ‘y’ przed dodaniem końcówki ‘s’ zmieniamy ‘y’ w ‘ie’. Student B7Ś “A w

słowie ‘monkey’?” Teacher: „Tak, też. Chwileczkę, muszę to sobie napisać”. Writes

‘monkies’ on the blackboard. Teacher: “Tak, w ‘monkey’ też”). One error was dicovered and

highlighted by a student (Student B7: “Znalazłem w podręczniku do gramatyki, że w słowie

‘monkey’ nie zmienia się ‘y’ w ‘ie’”. Teacher: “A co to za gramatyka?” Reads the fragment

indicated by B7. Teacher: “O tak, przepraszam, czasami się zmienia, a czasami nie”).

Teacher C was in her early twenties and she was a fresh MA. She had a limited

teaching experience in groups of children and young teenagers. In her teaching she used a

coursebook and a workbook, out of which - during the research period - she covered basic

personal questions, nationalities, numbers, greetings, present simple. Her teaching procedure

was unchanged for all the observed meetings. At the beginning of the class she always

checked the homework, recycled previously learned vocabulary. All lessons included

speaking, listening and grammar practice, reading was rare. Her teacher talk was mainly in

Polish with simple requests and orders in English. New words were always introduced

together with their pronunciation transcribed on the blackboard and the indication of part of

speech. The teacher occasionally used extra materials including flashcards and games. Two

lessons began with a short test and one meeting opened with a grammar revision. The teacher

occasionally used teaching procedures like choral repetition of grammar structures and choral

reading.

The teacher’s źnglish was good. She was observed to make one spelling mistake while

writing on the board (“progresive”) and the error was corrected immediately by student C7.

Her voice was strong. Her manner of speaking occasionally reminded one of mothers talking

to young children. When she wanted to speed up students’ talk she clapped or tapped the

rhythm.

Teacher D was in her early thirties, an MA with almost 10 years of teaching

experience. She based her teaching on a coursebook and its workbook. During the observation

period she covered: greetings, basic personal information, numbers, nationalities, possessive

pronouns, verbs (conjugation). Her teaching procedure was similar at every meeting. She

began every lesson with a round of referential questions to all the students. All lessons

included speaking, listening and grammar practice, reading was not too frequent and writing

was once assigned as homework. The teacher talk was mainly in Polish with simple requests

and orders – in German. New words were always spelled on the blackboard. The teacher

occasionally used extra materials including games.

The teacher’s żerman was good and her voice – clear and calm. She demonstrated a

lot of self-confidence and her answers to the students’ questions were never hesitant. She

neither admitted making a mistake, nor was ever caught out by her class.

5.1.3. The classrooms

Classroom A was well lit and ventilated as well as modern-looking due to

comparatively recent redecoration and furnishing. The desk setting – a horseshoe –

remained unchanged for the whole research period but seating arrangement was subject to

slight alterations – some students (A1, A2, A5 and A6) never changed their places. Others

seemed more flexible in this respect. A typical seating plan for Group A is presented in

Figure 10.

teacher

observer A1

A8 A2

A9 A11

A12 A3

A10 A6 A5 A4

Figure 10. Group A: seating plan

Classroom B was well lit and ventilated as well as modern-looking due to

comparatively recent redecoration and furnishing. There were two types of furniture setting

(see Figure 11 a and b): a horseshoe, observed most often, and rows of desks facing the

blackboard observed twice. The students noticeably did not like the latter and expressed their

dissatisfaction openly (B5: “Bez sensu”; B3: “Czuję się jak w szkole”ś B1Ś “Nie podoba mi

się tu”) but did not go beyond complaining. Neither the teacher, nor any of the students

decided to rearrange the classroom.

a)
teacher

observer B11

B2

B10 B1

B9 B3

B7 B6 B8 B4 B5

b)

teacher

observer

B1 B2 B3 B7

B6 B4 B5

Figure 11. Group B: seating plans

TEACHER OBSERVER

C1 C2

C6 C7

C3
C8 C9 C12 C13

C4
C10 C11 C14 C15

C5

Figure 12. Group C: seating plan 11/10/00

Classroom C was a typical grammar school classroom (used by the school as a

mathematics classroom). The desks faced the blackboard. Neither their setting, nor the seating

plan changed during the observation period even in case of absences. Student C5 moved to

another place during the course.

In Classroom D the students and the teacher were seated together around one table.

The seating arrangements changed in case of absences and student D9 moved to another place

during the course. Twice during the observation period the students were asked to work in

small groups. On those two occasions they left the table – situated centrally – and moved to

other desks scattered around the classroom.

Observer

Teacher

D10 D12

D2 D4

D5 D1

D13 D7

D8 D11

D3 D9

D6 D14

Figure 13. Group D: seating plan

5.2. Classroom interaction

Apart from their differences described in the section devoted to general characteristics,

all the classrooms had a similar whole-class interaction pattern. All interaction in classrooms

A and B and most interaction in classrooms C and D, where instances of pairwork, small

group and melee exercises were occasionally observed, was of this type. The whole-class

activity of each group was subject to analysis both: quantitative and qualitative.

5.2.1. Quantitative analysis of classroom interaction

Turn Getting/Giving
Turn getting categories
1. Accept (respond to a personal solicit)
2. Steal (respond to a personal solicit made to another)
3. Take (respond to a general solicit)
4. Take (take an unsolicited turn, when turn is available)
5. Make (make an unsolicited turn, during the current speaker’s turn without intend to gain the floor)
6. Make (make an unsolicited turn, during the current speaker’s turn with intend to gain the floor)
7. Make (take a wholly private turn at any point of the discourse)
Miss (fail to respond to a personal solicit within whatever time is allowed by the interlocutor)

Turn giving categories
(-) (fade out or/and give way to interruption
O (make a turn available without making any kind of solicit)
P (make a personal solicit)
G (make a general solicit)

Turn Getting/Giving Chart. Classroom A
Catego Tea
A1 A2 A11 A3 A4 A5 A8 A9 A7 A10 Total
ry cher

Turn getting
1 19 12 9 8 13 15 16 16 11 7 10 136
2 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 15
3 0 3 5 5 6 5 7 0 8 0 3 42
4 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 14
5 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 4 14
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 7 0 1 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 3 19
0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 2
Total 40 19 19 21 24 24 31 22 24 9 22 255

Turn giving
(-) 14 3 2 5 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 29
O 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
P 125 1 1 2 5 4 5 3 2 0 3 151
G 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
214
Total 4 3 7 5 4 5 6 2 2 3 255

Turn Getting/Giving Chart. Classroom B: Teacher B1
category Teacher B7 B2 B3 B5 B4 B1 B6 Total

Turn getting
1 7 3 4 4 5 4 4 5 36
2 3 1 4
3 0
4 8 1 9
5 8 1 9
6 7 7
7 7 1 1 3 1 13
0 1 1 2 4
Total 40 4 5 6 7 7 6 7 82

Turn giving
(-) 1 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 20
O 22 22
P 27 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 40
G 0 0
Total 50 6 5 5 4 3 3 6 82

Turn Getting/Giving Chart. Classroom B: Teacher B2

category teacher B2 B3 B5 B4 B6 Total

Turn getting
1 24 13 10 13 11 9 80
2 2 1 3
3 4 3 4 1 1 13
4 10 10
5 4 1 1 1 7
6 5 5
7 5 5 4 4 3 3 24
0 1 1 1 3
Total 48 25 20 23 16 13 145

Turn giving
(-) 4 1 4 3 2 1 15
O 34 34
P 53 6 4 7 7 6 83
G 13 13
Total 104 7 8 10 9 7 145
Turn Getting/Giving Chart. Classroom C
Cat. teacher C5 C3 C2 C1 C7 C6 C8 C9 C11 C10 C13 C12 C4 C15 C14 Total

Turn getting
1 11 4 4 4 3 12 10 4 5 8 8 12 6 1 7 2 10
2 6 1 3 2 12
3 0 1 4 2 1 15 2 3 3 2 1 5 8 1 48
4 26 2 28
5 2 2
6 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 1 9
0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 12
Total 49 6 9 8 4 34 14 7 10 11 10 17 17 3 10 5 214

Turn giving
(-) 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 16
O 37 37
P 82 1 1 5 7 1 2 2 5 4 1 2 113
G 48 48
Total 167 1 1 3 2 5 7 0 1 4 3 5 4 2 3 6 214
Turn Getting/Giving Chart. Classroom D
cat teacher D6 D2 D5 D13 D8 D14 D7 D11 D1 D4 D12 D10 D9 Total

Turn getting
1 9 5 5 6 4 4 7 6 5 7 7 5 5 4 79
2 1 1 1 3
3 4 4 6 4 6 4 1 1 1 4 35
4 6 6
5 2 1 1 1 5
6 0
7 3 1 1 5
0 1 1 1 3
Total 20 7 9 8 10 5 12 13 11 9 8 7 10 5 136

Turn giving

(-) 3 2 2 1 8
O 11 11
P 59 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 2 3 1 82
G 16 1 17
Total 89 3 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 1 0 1 118

Figure 14. Turn taking/turn giving (groups A, B, C and D)

In Classroom A, 83.9% of all turns (214 out of 255) were given by the teacher.

Besides, he appropriated 54.5% of all the turns he himself made available (18 out of 33). Out

of 151 personal solicits, 125 were given by the teacher and 19 were answered by him, which

means that only 7 such solicits (in a group of 10 students) were not teacher-controlled. He

appropriated 15.7% (40) of all (255) received turns.

The distribution of turns in Classroom B depended on the teacher who facilitated the

class. Teacher B1 gave 60% (50 out of 82) of all turns (only 60% if compared to other

teachers), but she appropriated as much as 48.8% of all received turns (40 out of 82) and

68.1% of all turns she herself made available (15 out of 22). Out of 40 personal solicits 27

were given by the teacher and 7 answered by her, which means that 6 such turns (in a group

of 6 students) were not controlled by the teacher.

Teacher B2 gave 71.7% of all turns (104 out of 145). She appropriated 33.1% of all

received turns and 40.5% of the turns she herself made available (15 out of 37). Out of 83

personal solicits she gave 53 and answered 24. Consequently, 6 such turns (in a group of 7

students) were not controlled by the teacher.

Turn giving in classroom C was also mainly in the hands of the teacher. She

distributed 78% (167 out of 214) of all turns, received 22.9% (49) and appropriated 75.7% of

the turns she herself made available (28 out of 37). She made 82 and answered 11 out of the

total of 113 personal solicits, which means that 20 turns of this kind (in a group of 15

students) was not controlled by the teacher.

Teacher D gave 75.4% of all turns (89 out of 118). She received 20 turns (16.9%) and

appropriated as much as 81.8% (9 out of 11) of the turns she herself made available. Out of all

82 personal turns distributed during the activity, the teacher gave 59 and answered 9.

Consequently, 14 such turns (in a group of 14 students) were uncontrolled by the teacher.

90,00
80,00
70,00
60,00 A
50,00 B1
40,00 B2
30,00 C
20,00 D
10,00
0,00
1 2 3

Figure 15. Teachers in the classroom. 1 - % of turns given by teacher; 2 - % of turns taken by teacher; 3 - % of
turn teacher made available and took him/herself

The quantitative analysis of discourse management shows some similarities between

the classrooms in the area of distribution of turns. In all the classrooms the central figure in

this area was the teacher (Figure 15). The only interaction not initiated or received by the

teacher was a number of personal solicits made by students to their peers. The latter was

rather limited and its ratio was approximately 1 per student (A – 0.7; B1- 1.2; B2 – 0.86; C –

1.3; D – 1) – the highest in classroom C, the lowest in classroom A. At the same time it has to

be admitted that, although predominantly teacher-centred, the activity was student-focused as

the amount of turns given by the teachers vastly outnumbers the turns they received. The only

exception was teacher B1, whose turn taking almost equals turn giving. The appropriation of

turns the teacher him/herself made available was less popular in classes facilitated by teachers

A and B2 and the most frequent in classroom D.

10
11
12
13
14
A B1 B2 C D 15

Figure 16. Distribution of personal turns by teachers

The analysis of the per cent representation of individual turn giving categories, carried

out for all the teachers shows that in their distribution of turns, all five of them preferred to

focus on individual students rather than addressing the whole group. However, the teachers

differed in how fair they were in the distribution of personal turns (Figure 16).

The most equal distribution of personal turns was by Teachers B1, B2 and Teacher D.

In both groups there were students who got slightly above (B1, B5 , D1) or slightly below

(B7, B6 D9, D13) the group’s average ( 3-6 from Teacher B1; 9-14 from teacher B2 and 4-8

from teacher D). The distribution of personal turns by teacher A was a little less fair. There

was a leader – student A8 with his 19 personal turns and other students in the classroom could

be divided into three groups, among which the differences between students were more

noticeable (A1, A4, A5, – 15-16 turns; A2, A3, A9, A11 – 11-13 turns; A7 and A10 – 9-10

turns). The distribution of personal turns, however, was the most unfair in the case of Teacher

C. She definitely had her favourites (students C6, C7 and C13 – 10-12 turns), a group of

students she noticed quite often (C10, C11, and C15 – 9 turns), some students that

occasionally attracted her attention (C2, C3, C9, C12, C14 and C15 – 5-8 turns) and three

students she almost never noticed (C1, C8 and C5 – 4 turns). The latter got 3-4 times less

turns than the top turn receivers.

The analysis of all four turn-giving procedures (Figure 17) shows that whether fairly

or unfairly distributed, personal solicits outnumbered general solicits and cover 58.4% of all

given turns for teacher A, 54% for teacher B1, 50.9% for teacher B2, 49.1% for teacher C and

66.3% for teacher D. General solicits amounted, respectively, to 19.6%, 0%, 12.5%, 28.7%

and 18%. In this respect the teachers were visibly different. Teacher B1 did not make general

solicits at all while teacher C gave approximately one general turn for every two personal

solicits. Students in the classroom do not make general solicits – with the exception of student

D14 – and a considerable number of their personal solicits are addressed to the teacher: 19/26

(A), 7/13 (B1), 24/30 (B2), 11/27 (C) and 9/23 (D). The ratios are the highest for teachers A

(0.73) and B2 (0.66) and visibly lower in classrooms C (0.41) and D (0.39), with teacher B1

in the middle with her ratio of 0.54. This, together with the analysis of the per cent of turns

made available by the teacher and then appropriated him/herself shows that in front of

teachers A and B2 students took more unsolicited turns than in the presence of teachers B1, C

and D.

Teacher A Teacher B1 Teacher B2

(-)

Teacher C Teacher D

Figure 17. Teachers’ turn giving by categories

The analysis of two other turn giving categories shows that the students rarely

interrupt their teachers. The largest amount of “fade-out” turns belongs to Teacher A (6.5%),

Teachers B2 , D and B1 seldom fade out (respectively 3.8%, 3.4% and 2%) and Teacher C –

never. Quite a large proportion of turns are turns made available by teachers (A – 15.4%; B1

– 44%; B2 – 32.7; C – 22.2%; D – 12.3%) but, as has already been demonstrated, a

considerable amount of such turns were actually appropriated by the teachers themselves.

Teacher A Teacher B1 Teacher B2

Teacher C Teacher D

Figure 18. Teachers’ turn taking by categories

The main turn taking category (Figure 18) of teachers A, B2 and D was answering

personal solicits, which means that the teachers mainly answered students questions addressed

to them (Teacher A - 47.4% of all his turns; Teacher B2 – 50%; Teacher D – 45%). Teachers

B1 and C got much less questions from their students (respectively 17.5% and 22.4%). Except

for Teacher C, teachers spent approximately a quarter of their turn taking (A – 27.5%; B1 –

20%; B2 – 20.8%; D – 30%) getting unsolicited turns or, in other words, filling in the silence

in the classroom. Teacher C devoted to this category more than a half of all the turns she took

(53%). Teachers A, B1 and C occasionally stole turns answering their own questions

(respectively 7.5%, 7.5%, 12.2%). Teachers B1, B2, C and D sometimes interrupted their

students without the intent to gain the floor and teachers B1, B2 and C – with the intent to

gain the floor and both procedures were most frequent in the case of teacher B1 (20% and

17.5%) and teacher B2 (8.3% and 10.4%). Teachers A, B1 and D took a number of private

turns – jokes or personal digressions – (respectively 17.5%, 17.5% and 15%). Private turns of

Teacher B1 account for 10.4% of all her turns and Teacher C took only 4% of such turns. The

teachers did not answer general solicits and were not observed to miss turns at all.

35 1
30 3
25 5
20 7
15
10 10
11
5 12
13
0 14
A B1 B2 C D 15

Figure 19. Turn taking of individual students.

The students in all four groups, though mainly mere recipients of their teacher’s turns,

vary considerably (Figure 19). The fact that distribution of turns is not always fair and certain

students have more opportunities to speak has already been highlighted in this section. It

seems to be not without influence on the total number of turns individual students got.

If we compare Figure 19 with Figure 16 presenting the graph showing the teachers’

distribution of personal solicits, there are definitely some similarities. In all the classrooms the

students with the largest number of received turns were among those who received the largest

number of personal solicits (A1, A4, A5, B2, B5, C7, C13, C6, D1, D5, D7, D14). They

increased their scores by what can be called turn-seeking – they steal turns, appropriate

general solicits and take private turns. The only exception was student A8 – group A’s top

personal solicit receiver – who did not take much initiative. The students who were less

noticed by the teacher can be divided into two groups. Some of them – like A7, B6, B7, C1,

C4, C5, C8, C14, D8, D9 and D12 – remained inconspicuous. Others, like A2, A9, A10, A11,

B4, C3, C9, C12, D2 D10, D11 and D13 struggle to be noticed by taking general solicits, turn

stealing or interruptions.

5.2.2. Interaction patterns

While the study of the turn taking/giving routines was a quantitative analysis, the

examination of the Verbal Interaction Charts of all the classrooms (Figures 20-23) was aimed

at examining the nature of interaction between students and the interaction patterns of all the

groups. Therefore, observation of this kind was carried out for a much shorter time and

concentrated on “who to whom” and “what” rather than “how many times”.

Nevertheless, even such a short study confirms certain already identified tendencies:

the discourse is dominated by the teacher and a few students – A12, A5, B4, B8, C7, C10,

C14, D10, D5, D7, D11, D14 – and the distribution of turns is not always fair as the teachers

tend to have their favourites – A12, B2, C7, C10, C15, D7. Very often the teacher’s favourite

shows a lot of initiative him/herself or, possibly, the person who shows initiative becomes the

teacher’s favourite.

The interaction patterns of the whole-class activities analysed in the previous section

are almost identical for all four classrooms. The teacher spoke either to class or to individual

students depending on the type of solicit (s)he was making. The students turned either to the

teacher or to the person sitting next to them. The nature of teacher talk differed in every

classroom from the students talk. The teacher asked questions (Q) in English or German

WHO A1 A2 A11 A10 A12 A5 A6 Teacher

TO
WHOM

A1 QQA

DQ
A2 EQA

A11 DQ EQE

QAQQ
A10
QAE

EQAQ
QAQQ
A12 Q DQ
AQQA
QEE

A5 QAQQ
D P DQ D D
EE

QA QE
A6 D DQ
QAQE

QQQQJ
Class DD DD DD
JJJEEE

PDPP
AP AP AP P P AP
P AP AP
Teacher AP AP P AP P P AP AP AP AP AP APAP PP
AP AP
AP AP AG AG
AG AG

Figure 20. Group A: Verbal Interaction Chart (whole-class activity)

covering the grammar and vocabulary previously taught, (s)he offered some grammar

explanations (E) in Polish both requested and unrequested by the students, occasionally joked

(J) or made personal digressions (D). The students answered the teacher’s questions – in

English or German (AP – answer to personal solicit; AG – answer to general solicit) and all

their questions to the teacher were in Polish and referred to grammar or vocabulary problems

(P). Similar questions were also directed to the student sitting next to the person who

requested explanation. Some students occasionally joked (J) or made personal digressions

(D). In Classroom A (Figure 22) there is the additional category of DQ – directed questions in

źnglish like “X, ask Y …” and classrooms A and D have A for approval, a lot of which was

offered by the teachers.

WHO B2 B1 B5 B4 B8 B7 B10 B9 Teacher
TO
WHOM
B2
QQ Q Q
DD J J

B1
D PD QQDE

B5
D P QQD

B4
DE D QQDE

B8
QQDE

B7
PD P P
D QQQ

B10
EEEE DQ

B9

Class
QQQE
JJJ JJ

Teacher
AP AP P AP AP P P AP AP AP AP
P AP AP AP AP
AG AG AG AP

Figure 21. Group B: Verbal Interaction Chart (whole-class activity)

The directed questions in Classroom A (Figure 20) and the amount of approval in

Classroom D (Figure 23) – virtually non-existent in other groups – are not the only

differences between the classrooms. Another striking dissimilarity is the fact that in groups A

(Figure 20) and B (Figure 21) students joked and made personal digressions to the whole

class, whereas in classroom C (Figure 22) and D (Figure 23) all interaction of this kind was

directed to the teacher. In Group C joking and personal digressions were generally quite rare.

At the same time it is true for all the classrooms that some students – A5, A6, A12, B1, B8,

C12, C13, D6, D14 – joked more eagerly and made more personal digressions than their

peers.

Groups A and B (Figures 20 and 21) are also similar to each other and different from

the other two groups in their interaction patterns. While in all the groups the pattern was

usually student-teacher and student-neighbour student, in groups A and B addressing peers

sitting further was much more frequent. However, not all the students received such turns as

the procedure seems limited to A5, A6 and A 12 as well as B1, B2, B4, B5 and B7. In

classroom C and D (Figures 22 and 23) such “cross-classroom” initiatives are rare and seem

limited to students C9 and D14.

The interaction rate is much faster in classrooms C and D (Figures 22 and 23). The

observation was carried out for the same time (approx. 10 min.) in all classroom and the

number of turns taken in the two classrooms is visibly bigger than in classrooms A and B

(Figures 20 and 21).

The interaction pattern can be expected to be different during pairwork or small group

work as well as during melee whole-class mixers where the teacher’s control is naturally

limited. Unfortunately, such interaction was non-existent in classrooms A and B and only

limited in classrooms C and D (Figures 24 and 25).

WHO C1 C2 C3 C4 C7 C6 C8 C9 C10 C11 C5 C12 C13 C14 C15 Teacher
TO
WHOM

C1 PE QQ

QQQ
C2 EP

QQQ
C3

QQQ
C4
QE
QQQ
C7 EP QQQ
QEE
QQQ
C6 PE

QQQ
C8

QQQ
C9 E
QQQ
QQQQ
C10 PE QQQQ
QQ

QQQ
C11 P EP

QQQ
C5
QEE
EPJ QQQ
C12
DE Q
PEJ
QQQ
C13 PD
QQQ
C14 PE
QQ
QQQ
C15 EP QQQ
QQQ
QEE
QQE
Class
QQE
QEE
PP
AP AP
AP
AP AP
AG AP
AP AP AP
P AG AP PP AP AP
AP P AP AP AP AP AP AP
P AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Teacher AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
AP AP AP AP AP
AG AP AP
AP AP
AG AP
AP
AG AP
AG

Figure 22. Group C: Verbal Interaction Chart (whole-class activity)

WHO D10 D2 D5 D13 D8 D3 D6 D14 D9 D11 D7 D1 D4 D12 teacher

TO
WHOM
QQA
D10 QAQ
DDP QAQ
D2 E Q

DE P QAQ
D5 AJ

EPD QAQ
D13 A

PE J QAQ
D8 Q

DDD QQA
D3

DDD PQ
D6

DJ DDD QQQ
D14 Q

QQQ
D9

DED QQA
D11 PP

DEP QQA
D7 E QQQ
AQ
D QQA
D1 Q

D P QAJQ
D4 QAQ
E QAQ
D12 AQA

JJJJQ
QQQ
Class EEQQ
QEQ
QQQ
EQQE
Teacher Q AG JQ QQ J AG AP AG QQJ QQ AP QQ AG Q AP AG AP AP
Q AG APAG AG AG AP AP AP J Q AG AP AG AG AP AP AP
AG AG AG AG AP AG AG AP AG AG AP AP
AP AP Q AG AP AG Q AG AG AG AP AG
AG AP AP AG AG AP AG AG AP AP
AP AG AG AP AG AG AG Q AP AP
AG AG AP AG AG AG
AP AG AG AP AP AG
AP AP AG AG AG
AG AP AG
AG AG AP
AG AG AG
AG AP AG
AG AG
AG AG
AG

Figure 23. Group D: Verbal Interaction Chart (whole-class activity)

Group C had one whole-class activity – its interaction pattern is presented in Figure 24

- during which turn taking was not under the teacher’s control. The students were instructed to

ask a round of questions covering the grammar and vocabulary previously taught, choosing

their partners themselves. The teacher intervened once, when students C13 turned to C12

sitting at the same desk.

TEACHER

C1 C2

C7

C3
C8 C9 C12 C13

C4
C10

Teacher said “no”

Figure 24. Group C : interaction pattern (whole-class activity with less teacher control)

The students received the following number of turns: C1 – 1, C2 – 3, C3 – 2, C4 – 2,

C7 – 3, C8 – 1, C9 – 2, C10 – 3, C11 – 1 (invalidated by the teacher) and C13 – 2 (including

the “opening” turn from the teacher who started the whole exercise).

The analysis of the interaction pattern shows that there actually were two interaction

patterns in the classroom. Students C1, C2, C3, C8 and C13 asked the peers sitting close to

them and their interaction resembled the typical neighbour-neighbour pattern known from the

teacher-controlled activities. This time, however, at the very beginning of the activity, they

got a message from the teacher that she did not approve of such pattern and that is probably

why they chose the second-closest person. The other group – C4, C7, C9 and C10 – seemed

more outgoing turning to the peers across the classroom.

The interaction pattern of a whole-class activity of a similar kind carried out in Group

D is presented in Figure 25.

Teacher

D10 D12

D9
D4

D2 D1

D5 D11

D13

D3 D14

Figure 25. Group D : interaction pattern (whole-class activity with less teacher control)

The number of turns: D10 – 2, D9 – 1, D2 - 3 (including 1 from the teacher), D5 – 3,

D13 - 1, D3 – 2, D14 – 3, D11 – 2, D1 – 2, D4 – 4, D12 – 1. The same activity was repeated

during the following lesson and the number of turns received by individual students was, as

follows: D10 – 2, D9 – 1, D2 – 1, D11 – 0, D5 – 0, D6 – 3, D14 – 3, D8 – 1, D7 – 4, D1 – 1,

D4 – 2, D12 – 1. In żroup D, unlike in żroup C, the “cross-classroom” interaction was a

standard.

Another interaction pattern (Figure 26) could be observed during one and the only

small-group activity in Group D. The groups were formed by the teacher and instructed to ask

a number of questions to a reading piece. The teacher, however, did not specify which

sentences needed interrogatives so the groups’ members had to negotiate.

D1 D14

D4 D11 D8 D6

D12 D7
D13
D5
problem discussion

D2 D9 small talk
(arrow indicates eye contact)

D10 (after a time D10 turned round and started working alone)

Figure 26. Group D: Interaction pattern (small-group activity, little control from the teacher)

Each of the three small groups presented a different interaction pattern. The interaction

between students D1, D4, D11 and D12 was quite balanced. Everybody talked to everybody

else with the exception of the absence of small talk between students D12 and D4. The group

containing D6, D7, D8 and D14 had a very distinct problem-discussion nucleus in the person

of student D7. There was some exchange of small talk between D6 and both – D7 and D14,

which may suggest that while D7 was the group’s expert, D6 was the life and soul of the

party. D8 was barely noticed. Yet another pattern appeared in the last small group, which

seems to have contained a group within a group – students D2, D5 and D13 – who preferred

to stick to one another ignoring the two other students. Taken no notice of, D10 decided to

work on his own.

In conclusion, it has to be stated that regardless of the type of interaction, the

distribution of turns was never really fair in any of the classrooms. At the same time the

students who are most often chosen by their peers during activities where teacher control is

limited are frequently the ones who are the teacher’s favourites as well (C7, C10, D7, D14).

There is also a group of students who, although frequently noticed by the teacher are not so

popular with their peers (C12, C13, D5, D10, D11). And, most importantly, in both groups

there are students who remain inconspicuous – neither noticed by the teacher, nor by their

peers, nor outgoing enough to take frequent part in classroom interaction (C1, C4, C8, D8,

D9, D11).

5.2.3. Between the people in the classroom

Apart from tool-based observations of classroom interaction a lot of attention during

the whole research period was devoted to the quality of interaction between students in the

group and between the group and the teacher. The observations, based of field notes, are

described below.

Group A had a sense of fun and seemed to be enjoying themselves when they were

together. A lot of socializing was observed before and during the lessons. Some students,

though appeared more outgoing than the others - the majority of small talk and jokes came

from student A5. At the same time it has to be admitted that most of the students expressed

their doubts and discomfort openly (A11Ś “Nie chwytam” śA5Ś “Ciężkie to”ś A8Ś “Nie

rozumiem tego”ś A4Ś “Czy ktoś mi pomoże?”and occasionally manifestations of very positive

self-attitude and outgoingness could be observed (during one lesson student A12 did not

allow the teacher to correct her but demanded a self-correction; student A10 introduced

herself saying “My name is E… and I like everybody”).

Teacher A’s attitude was outgoing and friendly – he definitely had a sense of fun and

liked to introduce a lot of jokes and personal digressions, a few of which are quoted (“door –

drzwi. The Doors – pamiętacie ‘Whisky Bar’. Mój ulubiony”; “Lots of, warto pamiętać. A

PLL Lot to skrót of Lots Of Trouble”). He was also observed to frequently shorten the

distance between himself and the students by coming close to the person he was talking to.

What is more, numerous examples of socializing between the teacher and individual students

were noticed, although the teacher’s attention seemed to concentrate on some students more

than on others. Students A3, A4, A5, A6, A8 got a lot of small talk and a considerable number

of referential questions and the teacher interacted with them with visibly more interest than

with A1, A2, A7, A9 and A10.

Presented below are the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories. The statements not

referring to Group A have been left out.

Teacher talk

I. Indirect influence
1. Accepts feelings:
accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of a student in a non-threatening way;
2. Praises and encourages:
praises or encourages student action or behaviour;
jokes that release tension; not at the expense of another individual;
nodding head, saying “uh huh” are included

3. Accepts or uses ideas of student:
clarifying, building or developing ideas or suggestions by a student.
4. Asks questions about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.
5. Lectures:
gives facts or opinions about content or procedures, expressing his own idea;
II. Direct influence
6. Gives directions:
directions, commands, or orders with which a student is expected to comply
7. Criticises or justifies authority:
self-reference

Student talk

8. Student talk-response:
talk by student in response to teacher.
Teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement
9. Student talk initiation:
talk by students, which they initiate.(occasionally)
10. Silence or confusion : pauses
Short periods of silence;

Group B, as has already been mentioned in the present chapter, consisted of two sub-

groups – the core and the newcomers. The core students socialised a lot before the lessons.

They also seemed to be enjoying themselves during the meetings, their attitude depended on

which teacher facilitated the class. They were cheerful and never complained during teacher

B1’s lessons and showed a lot of dissatisfaction while with teacher B2 (Student B5Ś “Po co

my sie tego uczymy?” B4 and B7: “A kogo my mamy o to pytać po angielsku?”. Everybody

keeps talking in Polish. The teacher’s ‘Quiet, please!’ does not work. Teacher: “Gdzie student

B1?” SS: “Ona powiedziała, że w czwartki nie chodzi, bo już zna ten materiał z zeszłego

roku”).

Students B8, B9, B10 and B11 who dropped out during the observation period differed

considerably from the core in their attitudes. Student B8 came twice, had a lot of questions

about the material presented at the meetings, demonstrated a dissatisfied facial expression and

addressed B1, B3 and B4 as “stara kadra”, “faworytki pani”. Students B9 and B10 came

together. B10 seemed a little at a loss in the group (B10: “Mówicie tak szybko, że ja nic nie

rozumiem”) often had problems with the new material (B10:“Nie chwytam, ale może muszę

się z tym przespać”) and very often conferred privately with B7 asking for explanation. After

two meetings B9 and B10 disappeared and did not return during the research period. B11

came only once, did not take his coat off, did not have a notebook or a pen. Neither the

teacher, nor any of the students showed any interest in him.

The two teachers of the group differed considerably in their attitudes to their students.

The behaviour of Teacher B1 was a little disrespectful, occasionally rude. Her language

sometimes seemed inappropriate (“Co wy mi tu wtykacie?”; “Jak wy sie uczycie?”; “Ja mam

na imię …, świnia jestem, nie przedstawiłam się” to B8 who is new; “Możecie jeść i pić tylko

nie siorbcie i nie plujcie pestkami”) and some of her actions may be seen as offensive (at the

end of the lesson her mobile rang. She received the call and talked for about a minute and the

students had to wait. The teacher appeared quick-witted and easy-going yet some of her jokes

were occasionally at the expense of individual students (“I am well-built” said B3 - in her

late forties, obviously overweight. “Well-built,” laughed the teacher “powiedziałabym raczej

fat”).

Presented below is the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories. The statements not

referring to Group B, Teacher B1 have been left out.

Teacher talk

I. Indirect influence
1. Accepts feelings:
(-)
2. Praises and encourages:
encourages student action or behaviour;
jokes at the expense of another individual;
nodding head, saying “uh huh” are included
3. Accepts or uses ideas of student:
(-)
4. Asks questions about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.
5. Lectures:
gives facts or opinions about content or procedures, expressing her own idea;

II. Direct influence
6. Gives directions:
directions, commands, or orders with which a student is expected to comply
7. Criticises or justifies authority:
criticising strongly and mocking at students);
extreme self-reference

Student talk

8. Student talk-response:
talk by student in response to teacher.
teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement
9. Student talk initiation:

talk by students, which they initiate.
10. Silence or confusion : pauses
short periods of silence;

The attitude of Teacher B2 was student-friendly. She treated individually student B10,

who often demonstrated a lack of understanding and confidence, noticed and introduced new

students and involved the class in classroom management (“Kto powie?” “Kto poda

przykład?”). One of her main problems – already described in the characteristics of the group

- was discipline.

Presented below is the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories. The statements not

referring to Group B, Teacher B2 have been left out.

Teacher talk

I. Indirect influence
1. Accepts feelings:
clarifies the feeling tone of a student in a non-threatening way;
2. Praises and encourages:
nodding head, saying “uh huh” are included
3. Accepts and uses ideas of student:
clarifying
4. Asks questions about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.
5. Lectures:
gives facts or opinions about content or procedures, expressing her own idea;

II. Direct influence
6. Gives directions:
directions, commands, or orders with which a student is expected to comply
7. Criticises or justifies authority:
(-)

Student talk

8. Student talk-response:
talk by student in response to teacher.
teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement
9. Student talk initiation:
talk by students, which they initiate.(occasionally)
10. Silence or confusion : pauses
periods of silence;

Classroom interaction in Group C was limited. Socializing – observed before the

lesson while the students were waiting in front of the classroom – was limited to four pairs:

C1 and C2, C10 and C11, C14 and C15, C12 and C13. Other students were usually seated or

stood in silence. When asked to work with partners in class, they choose the person sitting

next to them, with one exception. During one activity, designed by the teacher as a melee

exercise, after additional encouragement some students (C13, C3, C9, C12 and C2) interacted

across the “desk” divisions. Later, at the same lesson C12 made a wholly private turn (a joke)

to C9 and they interacted of their own accord during the following meeting. C8, C14 and C15

were never seen to.

Teacher C’s attitude to her students seemed rather friendly. However, if the students

worked – in her opinion - too slowly, she demonstrated signs of impatience verbally (“Dzieci

lepiej się tego uczą”; “To takie łatwe a państwo jeszcze piszecie”), non-verbally (she

answered her own questions ; she tapped her feet when C14 was slow to answer ).

Presented below is the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories. The statements not

referring to Group C have been left out.

Teacher talk

I. Indirect influence
1. Accepts feelings:
clarifies the feeling tone of a student in a non-threatening way;
2. Praises and encourages:
nodding head, saying “uh huh” are included
3. Accepts or uses ideas of student:
clarifying, ideas or suggestions by a student.

4. Asks questions about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.
5. Lectures:
gives facts or opinions about content or procedures, expressing her own idea;

II. Direct influence
6. Gives directions:
directions, commands, or orders with which a student is expected to comply
7. Criticises or justifies authority:
(-)

Student talk

8. Student talk-response:
talk by student in response to teacher.
teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement
9. Student talk initiation:
(-)
10. Silence or confusion : pauses

periods of silence;

Group D seemed to like being together. There were instances of socializing before the

class. Some students, however, appeared to be a little outside the circle before and during the

lessons alike. D3, D9, D10 and D12. D3 was seated between two pairs – D8 and D13 as well

as D6 and D14. He seemed attracted to the latter but they appeared to return his interest only

to a limited extent. D9 sat with her head lowered, did not speak to anybody and scribbled all

the teacher said. D10 seemed better than other studentsś he answered the teacher’s general

solicits. He interacted only with the teacher and never with his right-hand neighbour. The

position of D12 did not facilitate her integration with the group. She was seated peripherally,

next to the married couple. Students D7 and D10 were treated by the teacher as the group’s

experts.

The attitude of Teacher D to her students was positive – she offered a lot of approval.

She welcomed newcomers and asked the class to revise the most important points for them.

Presented below is the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories. The statements not

referring to Group D have been left out.

Teacher talk

I. Indirect influence
1. Accepts feelings:
accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of a student in a non-threatening way;
2. Praises and encourages:
praises or encourages student action or behaviour;
jokes that release tension; not at the expense of another individual;
nodding head, saying “uh huh” are included
3. Accepts or uses ideas of student:
clarifying,
4. Asks questions about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.
(-)
5. Lectures:
gives facts or opinions about content or procedures, expressing her own idea;

II. Direct influence
6. Gives directions:
directions, commands, or orders with which a student is expected to comply
7. Criticises or justifies authority:
(-)

Student talk

8. Student talk-response:
talk by student in response to teacher.
teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement
9. Student talk initiation:
talk by students, which they initiate.(occasionally)
10. Silence or confusion : pauses
Short periods of silence;

5.3. The metacognitive in the classroom.

Apart from the classroom interaction, its structure and quality, it was of interest to the

present study whether the teachers helped their students build up autonomy, motivation and

self-esteem as well as whether the classroom instruction incorporated learning to learn. That

is why particular attention was paid to whether the students were involved in decision-making

in the class, taught and encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning as well as to

share the know-how of foreign language learning with their peers. Special attention in this

area was paid to classroom procedures like error correction and teacher explanations, which

have already been identified in the present work as powerful morale boosters.

6.3.1. General analysis of the course

General analysis of the course carried out by means of the WHO Analysis Chart

(Figure 27) and the Teacher’s Routines Analysis Chart (Figure 28) confirms the earlier

findings proving that the classrooms were teacher-centred as the individualisation of language

instruction, metacognitive training and autonomy promotion were almost non-existent.

WHO Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
Teacher
A B1 B2 C D
Decides about furniture arrangement school school school school
school/the
teacher
Gives homework nobody teacher teacher teacher teacher
Chooses groups or pairs students students students students students
Suggests topics teacher teacher teacher teacher teacher
Asks questions teacher/ teacher teacher teacher teacher
students
Writes on the board teacher teacher/ teacher teacher teacher
students
Decides about learning priorities in teacher teacher teacher teacher teacher
general/for the day

Figure 27. The WHO Analysis Chart

Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
A B1 B2 C D
Does the teacher inform his students
how human memory works and how N N N N N
to use it to the best possible effect?
about various learning strategies and Y S N S Y
mnemonics?
about the advantages of an adult N N N N N
language learner over a young learner?

about various kinds of linguistic N N N N S
intelligence?
Does he help his students
define their intelligence? N N N N S

Does the teacher encourage his students to
discover grammar for themselves Y N N N Y
hypothesise vocabulary Y N N N Y
monitor their speech and writing N N N N Y
themselves?
invent their own homework? N N N N N
correct their mistakes Y N Y S Y
use sources other than the coursebook? N N N N N
ask about words from sources other than N N N N N
the coursebook?
speak English without additional N N N N N
encouragement?
define their short-term and long term N N N N N
goals?
make lists of learning priorities? N N N N N
share their linguistic experience with N N N N N
others?
share their linguistic problems with N N N N N
others?
suggest homework for the class ? N N N N N
suggest topics for classroom N N N N N
discussions?

Figure 28. Teacher Routines Analysis Chart

The two above presented forms, as well as the Strategies Chart and field notes, show

that Teacher A often showed his students learning strategies and mnemonics (Figure 29) but

he did not help them define their linguistic intelligence. Neither did he inform them about the

way human memory works or the advantages of the adult learner.

Teacher A sometimes gave his students the confidence to discover grammar for

themselves, hypothesise the meaning of unknown vocabulary, monitor their speech

themselves or correct their own mistakes but he never encouraged them to use sources other

than the coursebook, to define their priorities, suggest homework or topics for classroom

discussion or share their experience with others.

STRATEGY The way it is introduced Who introduces it
unfortunately means “niestety”.
Association fortuna means szczęście in Polish teacher

Inference unfortunately – niestety teacher
Na szczę cie - fortunately
swimming means pływanie . A noun
Anchoring like the nouns you know: parking, teacher
camping.
When you know how to ask a
Speech patterns question, think of the positive teacher
statement and shift

Language similarities It is exactly the same in Polish teacher

Exact translations “Jak stary ty jesteś” teacher

Figure 29. Group A: Strategies Chart

General analysis of the course carried out in Classroom B shows that Teacher B1

informed her students about various learning strategies and mnemonics (Figure 30) but she

neither helped them define their intelligence, nor informed them about the way human

memory works. The advantages of the adult learner were never discussed. Teacher B1 did not

give her students the confidence to discover grammar for themselves, hypothesise the

meaning of unknown vocabulary, monitor their speech themselves or correct their own

mistakes and she never encouraged them to use sources other than the coursebook, to define

their priorities, suggest homework or topics for classroom discussion or share there

experience with others.

Strategy How it is introduced Who introduces it
Acousitc anchors źxplicit instruction (“Kojarzcie teacher
sobie d więki”)
Vocabulary grouping źxplicit instruction (“Uczcie się teacher
[vocabulary] kolumnami, nie da się
inaczej”)
Realia anchor Signalling (“just – justice, kojarzcie teacher
z filmami policyjnymi”
Realia anchor Signalling (“uncle – wujek. teacher
Wszyscy znamy uncle Bena”)

Figure 30. Group B: Strategies Chart (teacher B1)

Teacher B2 never informed her students about various learning strategies and

mnemonics, she did not help them define their linguistic intelligence or inform them about the

way human memory works. The advantages of the adult learner were never discussed during

the research period. Teacher B2 never gave her students the confidence to discover grammar

for themselves, hypothesise the meaning of unknown vocabulary, monitor their speech

themselves but she enabled self-correction. She did not encourage them to use sources other

than the coursebook, to define their priorities, suggest homework or topics for classroom

discussion or share their experience with others. As already mentioned, she occasionally

invited them to participate in classroom management.

General analysis of the course in Classroom C shows that Teacher C only once

informed her students about learning strategies and mnemonics (Figure 31) but she did not

help them define their linguistic intelligence or inform them about the way human memory

works. The advantages of the adult learner were never discussed during the research period.

Teacher C never gave her students the confidence to discover grammar for themselves,

hypothesise the meaning of unknown vocabulary, monitor their speech themselves. Allowing

students to correct own mistakes was observed on a number of occasions but was infrequent.

She did not encourage them to use sources other than the coursebook, to define their

priorities, suggest homework or topics for classroom discussion or share their experience with

others. She once invited C3 to help her collect tests and thus allowed the students to

participate in classroom management.

Strategy How it is introduced Who introduces it
repetition źxplicit instruction („Powtarzajcie teacher
sobie nowe słówko, raz za razem, 3-
5 razy)

Figure 31. Group C: Strategies Chart

Teacher D presented a whole range of learning strategies and mnemonics (Figure 32).

She did not help her students define their linguistic intelligence or inform them about the way

human memory works but she often encouraged the students to seek their own ways and to

experiment where and how they learned best. The advantages of the adult learner were never

discussed during the research period. Teacher D gave her students the confidence to discover

grammar for themselves, hypothesise the meaning of vocabulary, monitor their speech

themselves or correct their own mistakes. She did not encourage them to use sources other

than the coursebook, to define their priorities, suggest homework or topics for classroom

discussion or share their experience with others.

Strategy How it is introduced Who introduces it
Anchoring (German/Silesian) presenting Teacher/D10
Analogies (Polish/German) presenting Teacher
Dividing long words into small presenting Teacher
units
Rehearsal before production presenting Teacher
Anchoring (genetive/accusative presenting Teacher
distinction)

Figure 32. Group D: Strategies Chart

5.3.2. Error correction

Teacher A (Figure 33) corrected most of his students’ mistakes at once and his

correction was explicit. Out of 18 mistakes committed during the observation time 9 were

subject to instantaneous explicit correction, 4 were immediately transferred to errormaker

with the indication of what was wrong, 3 errors – 2 grammar and 1 pronunciation – were

ignored and 2 were corrected by students A4 and A5.

Error Teacher Teacher treats Teacher transfers treatment Treatment of error Error treated by
ignores at once with delay to class to explicit implicit class
errormaker (indication independently of
of: fact/ the teacher
blame/
location/
model
V x x
G x x (blame)
WO x x (blame)
G x x
G x x
G x(A4)
P x x
G x x
G x x
G x
G x
G x x
V x(A5)
G x x
P x
G x (blame)
P x x
G x (blame)

Figure 33. Teacher A: Error correction; G – grammar; V – vocabulary; P – pronunciation; WO – word
order

Correction strategies of Teacher B1 (Figure 34) were similar. 12 mistakes (out of 20)

were corrected explicitly at once, 3 were ignored and were transferred to errormaker with the

indication that a mistake had been made.

Error Teacher Teacher treats Teacher transfers treatment Treatment of error Error treated by
(example) ignores at once with delay to class to errormaker explicit implicit class
(indication independently of
fact/blame/ the teacher
location/model)
P x x
P x x
WO x x
P x x
G x x
P x x
P x x
P x x
G x x
G x x
G x x
G x
G x
G x x
G x fact
G x fact
G x fact
G x fact
P x

Figure 34. Teacher B1: Error Correction

Error Teacher Teacher treats Teacher transfers treatment Treatment of error Error treated by
(example) ignores at once with delay to class to errormaker explicit implicit class
(indication independently of
fact/ blame/ the teacher
location/model)
G x x blame
G x x blame
P x x fact
G x x blame
P x x
G x x fact
G x x fact
WO x x fact
G x x
G x
G x
P x
P x
P x
G x x fact
G x
G x x fact
G x x fact
G x x fact

Figure 35. Teacher B2: Error correction

Teacher B2 (Figure 35) was much more varied in the way she corrected her students’ errors. źxplicit

correction was rare whether instantaneous (1 out of 19) or delayed (1 out of 19). Three other immediate

corrections were transferred to errormaker and out of 8 other delayed corrections 4 were transferred to

errormaker and 4 to the class. When the treatment of error was transferred, Teacher B2 indicated fact (8) or

blame (3). 6 mistakes were ignored (3 pronunciation and 3 grammar errors).

Error Teacher Teacher treats Teacher transfers treatment Treatment of error Error treated by
(example) ignores at once with delay to class to errormaker explicit Implicit class
(indication independently
fact/ blame/ off the teacher
location/model)
P x x
P x x
P x x
P x x
G x x
G x x
G x x
G x blame
G x blame
G x x
G x fact
P x x
G x x

Figure 36. Teacher C: Error correction

In her error correction strategy, Teacher C (Figure 36) was more similar to teachers A

and B1. Out of the 13 mistakes made during the time of the observation 8 were treated

explicitly at once, 1 was instantaneously transferred to class, 2 – to errormaker and 2 treated

explicitly after some time. When she transferred the treatment of errors, Teacher C indicated

blame (2) or fact.

Teacher D, in turn, corrected her students’ mistakes very much like Teacher B2 and

her strategies were equally varied (Figure 37). 7 mistakes were corrected at once – 4 explicitly

and 3 by the errormaker to whom the treatment was transferred. Out of 7 errors corrected with

delay 6 were transferred to errormaker and 1 treated explicitly. When the treatment was

transferred the teacher indicated blame (5), fact (3) or quoted the grammar rule the knowledge

of which was to help the errormaker correct the mistake. 1 error was corrected independently

of the teacher by Student D7.

Error Teacher Teacher treats Teacher transfers treatment Treatment of error Error treated by
(example) ignores at once with delay to class to errormaker explicit Implicit class
(indication independently
fact/ blame/ off the teacher
location/model)
V x x blame
P x x
P x x theory
P x x
G x x
V x x

V x (D7)
G x x blame
P x x fact
G x x fact
G x x fact
WO x x
WO x x blame
WO x x blame
WO x x blame

Figure 37. Teacher D: Error Correction

5.3.3. Teacher explanations

The analysis of Explanations Charts shows differences between the explanation-giving

routines of individual teachers. Teachers A, B1 and D varied the ways their treated their

students’ problems. Teachers B2 and C were much more rigid in this area.

On 5 occasions Teacher A (Figure 38) gave explicit explanations, 4 times he

redirected a student’s question about a grammar problem to class, he indicated the source of

knowledge once and the problem was solved by the class twice (Student A4 and Student

A10). Out of all 12 explanations, 6 were clear and satisfactory – positive feedback from the

class could be observed. Two were visibly insufficient – 1 for the whole class and the other

for Student A8). On 4 occasions it was impossible to decide if the explanation was

satisfactory as there was no feedback – either positive or negative - from the class.

Problem (example) Teacher treats Teacher redirects to Teacher indicates Problem treated by Teacher’s
explicitly class source of knowledge class independently explanation (clear,
of teacher relevant, satisfactory,
confusing,
insufficient for some
students
present simple vs. x no positive or
present continuous (explanation he negative feedback
offered at previous (smile, head-nodding
lesson) etc.) from students
use of present x no positive or
continuous negative feedback
(smile, head-nodding
etc.) from students
use of present x no positive or
continuous negative feedback
(smile, head-nodding
etc.) from students
use of present x no positive or
continuous negative feedback
(smile, head-nodding
etc.) from students
unknown word x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
present simple vs. x Clear and satisfactory
present continuous (positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
all known tenses x Insufficient (negative
feedback from all –
dissatisfied facial
expressions)
all known tenses x Insufficient for
Tomek (negative
feedback –
dissatisfied facial
expression)
all known tenses x (A4) Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
all known tenses x (A10) Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
use of indefinite x Clear and satisfactory
article (positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
a/an + a complex x Clear and satisfactory
noun phrase (positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)

Figure 38. Teacher A: Teacher Explanations

Explanation routines of Teacher B1 (Figure 39) were a little less varied: out of 6, 4

were explicit and 2 redirected to class but all her explanations were clear and satisfactory,

which was confirmed by the positive feedback from the students.

Problem (example) Teacher treats Teacher Teacher indicates Problem Teacher’s
explicitly redirects source of knowledge treated by class explanation / student
to class independently reaction (clear,
of the teacher relevant, satisfactory,
confusing, unclear,
etc.)
Vocabulary x clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Vocabulary x clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Vocabulary x clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Saxon Genitive x clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Pres. Simple 3d. p. s. x clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Vocabulary x clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)

Figure 39. Teacher B1: Teacher Explanations

Teacher B2 gave only 4 explanations (Figure 40) during the observation period, all

were explicit and only 1 was clear and satisfactory. Others were either uninteresting or

confusing and frustrating for her students.

Problem (example) Teacher treats Teacher Teacher indicates Problem Teacher’s
explicitly redirects source of knowledge treated by class explanation / student
to class independently reaction (clear,
of the teacher relevant, satisfactory,
confusing, unclear,
etc.)
Article (a/an) x unclear - unknown
word used for
example (negative
feedback from all –
dissatisfied facial
expressions)
Article (a/an) x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Diphthongs x uninteresting (ss not
paying attention)
Vowel/consonant x Uninteresting (no
attention, ss either
chatting or looking
frustrated)

Figure 40. Teacher B2: Teacher Explanations

Problem (example) Teacher treats Teacher Teacher indicates Problem Teacher’s
explicitly redirects source of knowledge treated by class explanation / student
to class independently reaction (clear,
of the teacher relevant, satisfactory,
confusing, unclear,
etc.)
Plulars x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Negatives x Confusing – too
difficult an example
(negative feedback
from all – dissatisfied
facial expressions)
Saxon Genitive x x (after t’s explicit Clear and satisfactory
expl.) (positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Difference between x Confusing –
Saxon Genitive and examples not clear
‘s=is enough (negative
feedback from all –
dissatisfied facial
expressions)
Plurals x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
Plurals x x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)

Figure 41. Teacher Explanations (Teacher C)

Teacher C offered 6 explanations (Figure 41), out of which 5 were explicit. Twice, in

addition to her explanation, the teacher reinforced the grammar rule by redirecting the

problem to the class or indicating the source of knowledge supposedly for further study. The

problem of plurals, which appeared three times during the observation period, was first

explained explicitly by the teacher, then redirected to the class and, finally, treated explicitly

with the indication of the source of knowledge. 4 explanations were clear and satisfactory,

which was confirmed by the positive feedback the teacher got from her class, and 2 were

confusing because the examples were either too difficult or wrongly selected.

Problem (example) Teacher treats Teacher Teacher indicates Problem Teacher’s
explicitly redirects source of knowledge treated by class explanation / student
to class independently reaction (clear,
of the teacher relevant, satisfactory,
confusing, unclear,
etc.)
V x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
G (tenses) x no positive or
negative feedback
(smile, head-nodding
etc.) from students
G (pronouns) x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
G (declension) x no positive or
negative feedback
(smile, head-nodding
etc.) from students
G (declension) x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)
G (questions) x Clear and satisfactory
(positive feedback
from students – head-
nodding)

Figure 42. Teacher D: Teacher Explanations

Out of the 6 explanations offered by Teacher D (Figure 42), 3 were explicit and 3 –

redirected to class. 4 were clear and satisfactory, one teacher’s explanation received no

feedback and 1 explanation redirected to class without any feedback was taken over by the

teacher and explained explicitly.

As in the case of error correction, the explanation routines of the five observed

teachers varied considerably. First of all, Teacher A offered twice as many explanations as

teachers B1, C and D and three times as many as Teacher B2. Teacher B2 not only gave the

smallest number of explanations but also was the only one whose explanations were visibly

uninteresting to her students (3 out of 4 offered).

5.4. Language anxiety

Language anxiety of individual members of the four groups was tested in various ways

– explicitly, by means of adapted MacIntyre and żardner’s (1994) anxiety scales, as well as

in three other indirect ways - by means of the Anxiety Trait Action Chart - compiled on the

basis of MacIntyre and żardner’s as well as Oxford’s identification of behaviour betraying an

anxious person – as well as the students’ self-report questionnaires and their opinions on ideal

teachers, groups and classrooms.

5.4.1. Anxiety suspects; anxiety culprits

The aim of the diagnosis based on the Anxiety Trait Action Chart and Anxiety Scales

was to identify possible anxiety suspects and check whether the findings comply with scale

test results. It was of interest to the present study whether it is possible to identify anxious

students on the basis of certain behaviour. That is why, the examination by means of the

Anxiety Scales could not be anonymous as it had to be compared with the earlier findings

about the potentially anxious students. The present section presents the comparative study for

all four groups.

The anxiety suspects of Group A (Figure 43) are definitely students A10 and A11.

They showed almost all the actions identified as tension-related behaviour. A10 had problems

with attention and concentration, showed impatience and nervousness and frequently asked

for explanations. She also suffered from speech confusion. Similarly A11 had problems with

attention and concentration and suffered from speech confusion but additionally her own

speech was very often hesitant. She relied on the teacher for help, showed signs of impatience

and nervousness and frequently asked for explanation. Another possible anxiety suspect can

be Student A8. He did not show as many tension-related actions – only signs of impatience

and nervousness and frequent asking for explanation. However, his requests for explanation

were quite frequent.

student Problems Problems Speech Frequent Taking Heavy Reluctan- Poor Hesi- Signs of Frequent
with with fear/ asking for the reliance ce to organi- tant impa- asking for
attention concen- confusion repetition longest on hypothe- sation of speech tience and explana-
tration time memory/ sise speech nervous- tion
reading teacher/ ness
notes
A1 x
A2
A11 x x x x x xx x x
A10 x x x x xxx
A12
A5 x
A6
A3
A4
A8 x xxx
A9 xxx

Figure 43. Group A: Anxiety Trait Actions Chart

The analysis of the anxiety scale for Group A (Figure 44) confirms the earlier findings

only in the case of student A10, whose score (10) was above the group average (8). The other

most anxious students were A4 (14), A6 (10) and A9 (16), the anxiety score of the last being

the group’s highest. Students A11 and A12 were not tested by means of the Anxiety Scales

because they dropped out before the conclusion of the research period.

The overall anxiety in Group A (Figure 44) is 80 (out of possible 360), input anxiety

being the area where the whole group – regardless of individual score tendencies – scored the

most (38 compared to 18 in processing anxiety and 24 in output anxiety). What bothers the

group the most is English spoken in a disorganised way (14) and quickly (10). The third

common input anxiety factor were disorganised notes (7). Although comparatively high

tension-breeding factors were inability to recollect a word (7) and tests (7), the processing

anxiety total score in Group A was the lowest.

WHO A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 TOTAL

WHAT

Input anxiety
I’m not bothered by someone
speaking quickly in English. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

It does not bother me if my English
notes are disorganised before I 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 7
study them.
I enjoy just listening to someone
speaking English. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I get flustered unless English is
spoken very slowly and 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 14
deliberately.
I get upset when I read in English
because I must read things again 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 5
and again.
I get upset when English is spoken
too quickly. 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 10

TOTAL 4 5 2 4 2 5 2 5 4 5 38

Processing anxiety
Learning new English vocabulary
does not worry me, I can acquire it 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
in no time.
I am anxious with English because,
no matter how hard I try, I have 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
trouble understanding it.
The only time that I feel
comfortable during English tests is
0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 5
when I have had a lot of time to
study.
I feel anxious when English class
seems disorganised. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

I am self-confident in my ability to
appreciate the meaning of English 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
dialogue.
I do not worry when I hear new or
unfamiliar words, I am confident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
that I can understand them.
TOTAL 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 1 7 1 18

Output anxiety
I never feel tense when I have to
speak in English. 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5

I feel confident that I can easily
use the English vocabulary that I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
know in a conversation.
I may know the proper English
expression but when I am nervous 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
it just won’t come out.
I get upset when I know how to
communicate something in English 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 7
but I just cannot verbalise it.
I never get nervous when writing
something for my English class 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

When I become anxious during a
English test, I cannot remember 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 7
anything I studied.
TOTAL 2 2 2 6 0 2 1 0 5 4 24
OVERALL
ANXIETY 6 7 4 14 2 10 3 6 16 10 80
TOTAL

Figure 44. Group A: Anxiety Scale

In Group B the manifestations of tension were quite frequent (Figure 45). All the

students with the exception of B7 frequently asked for repetition or explanation. However, the

group’s most evident anxiety suspects are B1 and B3. In addition to the anxiety trait actions

mentioned above, B1 had problems with attention, relied heavily on her notes and the teacher,

was reluctant to hypothesise, confused when spoken to and her own speech was hesitant and

poorly organised. B3 had all the symptoms apart from problems with attention and taking the

longest time reading (the group never read anything either in class or as homework). Students

B4, B5 and B6 seemed to some extent anxious. In addition to whole-class specific symptoms,

B4 relied heavily on her notes when asked to say something, B5 had problems with attention

and B6 showed signs of impatience and nervousness.

student Problems Problems Speech Frequent Taking Heavy Reluctan- Poor Hesi- Signs of Frequent
with with fear/ asking for the reliance ce to organi- tant impa- asking for
attention concen- confusion repetition longest on hypothe- sation of speech tience and explana-
tration time memory/ sise speech nervous- tion
reading teacher/ ness
notes
B1 x x x x x x x
B2 x x
B3 x x x x x x xx x x
B4 x x x x
B5 x x x
B6 x x x
B7 x

Figure 45. Group B: Anxiety Trait Action Chart

The anxiety scale (Figure 46) for Group B shows that, although the scores of students

B1 (12) and B3 (13) were above the group’s average (11.85) and B3 qualified as the group’s

second anxious student, it was B5 whose score was the highest (21). Student B2 (12) scored

as much as B1 and B4 (13) – as much as B3, although they showed much less anxiety

symptoms.

The overall anxiety in the classroom is 83 (out of possible 252). All three types of

anxiety have similar total scores, output anxiety being the area where the whole group –

regardless of individual score tendencies – scored the most (31 compared to 27 in input

anxiety and 25 in processing anxiety). What bothered the group the most was English spoken

WHO B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 TOTAL

WHAT

Input anxiety
I’m not bothered by someone
speaking quickly in English. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

It does not bother me if my
English notes are disorganised 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 8
before I study them.
I enjoy just listening to someone
speaking English 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I get flustered unless English is
spoken very slowly and 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 10
deliberately.
I get upset when I read in English
because I must read things again 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
and again
I get upset when English is
spoken too quickly. 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 8

TOTAL 4 4 3 5 5 5 1 27

Processing anxiety
Learning new English vocabulary
does not worry me, I can acquire 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 5
it in no time.
I am anxious with English
because, no matter how hard I
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
try, I have trouble understanding
it.
The only time that I feel
comfortable during English tests
1 1 1 0 2 0 0 5
is when I have had a lot of time to
study.
I feel anxious when English class
seems disorganised. 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 8

I am self-confident in my ability
to appreciate the meaning of 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
English dialogue.
I do not worry when I hear new
or unfamiliar words, I am
0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3
confident that I can understand
them.
TOTAL 4 3 4 6 8 1 0 25

Output anxiety
I never feel tense when I have to
speak in English. 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 7

I feel confident that I can easily
use the English vocabulary that I 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
know in a conversation.
I may know the proper English
expression but when I am 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 6
nervous it just won’t come out.
I get upset when I know how to
communicate something in
2 0 2 1 1 1 0 7
English but I just cannot verbalise
it.
I never get nervous when writing
something for my English class 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

When I become anxious during
an English test, I cannot
remember anything I studied. 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 8

TOTAL 4 5 6 3 8 4 1 31
OVERALL
ANXIETY 12 12 13 13 21 10 2 83
TOTAL
Figure 46. Group B: Anxiety Scale

in a disorganised way (10) and quickly (8) as well as disorganised notes (8),

disorganised class (8) and tests (8).

In Group C the anxiety suspects identified on the basis of the Anxiety Trait Actions

Chart (Figure 47) were C5, C14 and C15. C5 had problems with concentration, frequently

asked for repetitions, took the longest time reading. She showed some speech confusion and

when asked, relied heavily on notes and her speech was poorly organised.

Student Problems Problems Speech Frequent Taking Heavy Reluctan- Poor Hesi- Signs of Frequent
with with fear/ asking for the reliance ce to organi- tant impa- asking for
attention concen- confusion repetition longest on hypothe- sation of speech tience and explana-
tration time memory/ sise speech nervous- tion
reading teacher/ ness
notes
C1
C2 x x
C3 x x
C4 x x X
C5 x x x X x x x
C6 x
C7 x
C8 x
C9
C10 x
C11 x X
C12 x x
C13 x
C14 x X x x x xxx
C15 x X x x x x

Figure 47. Group C: Anxiety Trait Actions Chart

C14 and C15 both showed speech confusion and their own speech was hesitant, poorly

organised and they heavily relied on notes. They also took the longest time reading.

The analysis of the Anxiety Scale (Figure 48) shows that the chief anxiety suspect –

C14 – was the person with the highest anxiety score (24). Another high score belongs to C13

(her anxiety total was the second highest in the group and almost as high as C14’s). Other

students who scored above the average (12.8) were C1, C8, C15 – another anxiety suspect –

and C10. C5 was not tested as he dropped out before the conclusion of the research period.

The overall anxiety in the classroom is 179 (out of possible 504). The input anxiety

score is the highest (77 compared to 47 in processing anxiety and 55 in output anxiety). What

WHO
C1 C2 C3 C4 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 TOTAL
WHAT
Input anxiety

I’m not bothered by
someone speaking
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
quickly in English

It does not bother me
if my English notes
1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 17
are disorganised
before I study them.
I enjoy just listening
to someone speaking
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6

I get flustered unless
English is spoken
2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 23
very slowly and
deliberately.
I get upset when I
read in English
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 9
because I must read
things again and again
I get upset when
English is spoken too
2 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 20
quickly.

TOTAL
5 5 2 5 2 6 5 5 6 6 5 8 9 8 77

Processing anxiety

Learning new English
vocabulary does not
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 7
worry me, I can
acquire it in no time
I am anxious with
English because, no
matter how hard I try, 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 7
I have trouble
understanding it.
The only time that I
feel comfortable
during English tests is 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 10
when I have had a lot
of time to study.
I feel anxious when
English class seems
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 7
disorganised.

I am self-confident in
my ability to
appreciate the 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 9
meaning of English
dialogue.
I do not worry when I
hear new or
unfamiliar words, I 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 7
am confident that I
can understand them.

TOTAL
2 3 1 4 0 1 6 6 4 2 1 6 8 2 47

Output anxiety

I never feel tense
when I have to speak
1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 12
in English.

I feel confident that I
can easily use the
English vocabulary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
that I know in a
conversation.
I may know the
proper English
expression but when I 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 12
am nervous it just
won’t come out.
I get upset when I know
how to communicate
something in English but 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 11
I just cannot verbalise it.
I never get nervous
when writing
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
something for my
English class
When I become
anxious during an
English test, I cannot 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 9
remember anything I
studied.

TOTAL
7 4 3 2 0 0 4 1 5 2 1 7 7 5 55

OVERALL
ANXIETY TOTAL 14 12 6 10 2 7 15 12 15 10 5 21 24 15 179

Figure 48. Group C: Anxiety Scale

bothered the group the most was English spoken in a disorganised way (23) and

quickly (20). The third factor causing tension were disorganised notes (17).

In Group D the Anxiety Trait Actions Chart (Figure 49) helped to identify one anxiety

suspect – D9. She showed problems with concentration, signs of nervousness, her speech was

hesitant and poorly organised.

student Problems Problems Speech Frequent Taking Heavy Reluctan- Poor Hesi- Signs of Frequent
with with fear/ asking for the reliance ce to organi- tant impa- asking for
attention concen- confusion repetition longest on hypothe- sation of speech tience and explana-
tration time memory/ sise speech nervous- tion
reading teacher/ ness
notes
D1
D2
D3 x
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8 x x
D9 x x x x
D10 x
D11
D12
D13
D14

Figure 49. Group D: Anxiety Trait Actions Chart

The analysis of the Anxiety Scale (Figure 50) shows that D9 (13) was among the

students who scored quite high and above the group’s average (9.35). Other students who

score above the average include D1 and D8 (10), D10 and D14 (13) – as much as D9 – D11

(15) and the highest score – 18 – belongs to D12.

WHO D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 Total

WHAT
Input anxiety

I’m not bothered by
someone speaking quickly
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
in German.

It does not bother me if
my German notes are
0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 12
disorganised before I
study them.
I enjoy just listening to
someone speaking
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
German

I get flustered unless
German is spoken very
1 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 14
slowly and deliberately.

I get upset when I read in
German because I must
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3
read things again and
again
I get upset when German
is spoken too quickly.
1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 14

TOTAL 2 1 4 2 2 3 5 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 48

Processing anxiety

Learning new German
vocabulary does not worry
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
me, I can acquire it in no
time.
I am anxious with German
because, no matter how
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4
hard I try, I have trouble
understanding it.
The only time that I feel
comfortable during
German tests is when I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 9
have had a lot of time to
study.
I feel anxious when
German class seems
1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 10
disorganised.

I am self-confident in my
ability to appreciate the
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 9
meaning of German
dialogue.

I do not worry when I hear
new or unfamiliar words, I
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6
am confident that I can
understand them.

TOTAL 5 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 4 4 6 7 4 4 44

Output anxiety

I never feel tense when I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 4
have to speak in German.

I feel confident that I can
easily use the German
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
vocabulary that I know in
a conversation.
I may know the proper
German expression but
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 10
when I am nervous it just
won’t come out.
I get upset when I know
how to communicate
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 11
something in German but
I just cannot verbalise it.

I never get nervous when 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
writing something for my
German class
When I become anxious
during a German test, I
1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 9
cannot remember anything
I studied.

TOTAL 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 5 5 4 7 1 4 39

OVERALL ANXIETY
10 3 8 4 4 5 5 10 13 13 15 18 10 13 131
TOTAL

Figure 50. Group D: Anxiety Scale

14
12
10 Group A
8 Group B
6 Group C
4 Group D

Figure 51. Average anxiety (Groups A, B, C and D)

Summing up, anxiety average differs between the groups (Figure 51). It is visibly

higher in groups B and C where it amounts respectively to 11.85 (12) 1 and 12.8 (12.75) and

lower in groups A – 8 and D - 9.35 (9.2). All the groups, however, are similar in the fact that

all their anxiety suspects are among the groups’ anxious. At the same time, in every group

there is one person whose anxiety is higher (A9, D12) or much higher (B5, C14) than the

anxiety of other members of the group (Figure 52).

25 1
20 4

15 6
10 9
10
11
12
13
0 14
A B C D 15

Figure 52. Individual anxiety scores (Groups A, B, C and D)

The numbers in brackets indicate anxiety average calculated after the extreme cases have been ignored.

5.5. Analysis of student Self-Report Questionnaires

At the end of the research period, in addition to Anxiety Scales, the students were

asked to fill in – anonymously – the Self-Report Questionnaires. They were asked to

underline only those statements that referred to them. The results of the questionnaire are

presented in Figure 53.

Group A was considerably teacher-dependent in some areas - 9 out of 10 students

thought that the teacher should correct all their mistakes, 9 asked the teacher if they had

doubts – and more autonomous in others - less than a half (4) saw the teacher as the main

source of knowledge, only 2 learners wanted the teacher to give regular homework and 3

thought that a short test was the best motivating factor. At the same time only 1 person

invented their own homework and 1 believed they could monitor their speech and writing

themselves. 5 students, however, claimed that they could monitor their own progress.

Other metacognitive skills were equally varied. 5 students claimed they could define

their priorities but only 2 set short and long term goals. 6 students had good compensation

strategies, 6 claimed they knew where, when and how they learned best, and 5 – how human

memory works and how to learn effectively. Out of 4 learners who had motivation problems,

2 knew how to cope with them and 2 did not. Although the coursebook was enough for 1

person, only 3 students used other coursebooks, and 1 referred to a grammar. 4 subjects

admitted having a dictionary and using it; 3 could organise their time and materials.

The self-esteem of the group was not very impressive – only 2 subjects thought they

were good for a beginner and nobody claimed they had flair for languages. However, only 1

person thought (s)he was too old to learn a foreign language and 1 – that (s)he was worse

than other students. At the same time 1 person felt embarrassed to speak in front of the group

and 2 students were ashamed of their pronunciation. 4 out of 7 worried they made mistakes

and 3 did not. 4 prefer to keep silent if they are not sure of something. 1 person initiated

interaction in English.

GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP TOTAL
A B C D
The number of people tested in each group 10 7 14 14 45
I enrolled a language course because I need someone to control me. 3 3 8 4 18
I enrolled on a language course because I like learning in a group. 4 2 1 3 10
I enrolled on a language course because … 3 3 5 4 15
For me my teacher is the main source of linguistic knowledge. 4 5 12 7 28
The teacher should regularly give and check homework. 2 3 11 7 23
The teacher should correct all my mistakes. Otherwise I will never learn to 9 5 14 13 41
speak and write properly.
I can monitor my progress myself. 5 3 7 8 23
The coursebook is the only source I use. 1 0 4 4 9
I have other sources like a dictionary and I often use it. 5 4 10 6 25
I have other sources like a grammar and I often refer to it. 1 1 2 5 9
I often use other coursebooks. 4 3 3 7 17
I invent my own homework. 1 0 1 2 4
Grammar exercises for the coursebook and workbook are enough for me. 0 2 5 5 12
I speak źnglish/żerman even if the teacher doesn’t ask me to. 1 1 3 2 7
If I don’t understand something I ask the teacher. 9 6 10 12 37
I can monitor my speech and writing myself. I correct my own mistakes. 1 0 2 0 3
A short test at every lesson is the best motivating factor. 3 2 10 9 24
I have flair for learning languages. 0 0 1 3 4
I’m too old to learn a foreign language. 1 0 3 3 7
I’m worse than the other members of my group. 1 1 2 3 7
I’m good for a beginner. 2 1 2 3 8
When I can’t remember a word in źnglish, I use gestures. 6 6 4 9 25
I’m worried about my mistakes. 4 5 11 6 26
not worried 3 2 1 6 12
I feel embarrassed if I have to speak in front of the group. 1 0 7 2 10
I’m ashamed of my pronunciation. 2 2 4 1 9
If I’m not sure of something I prefer to keep silent. 4 4 10 6 24
I know why I want to learn English. 10 5 14 14 43
I can define my priorities. 5 2 5 6 18
I set short-term goals for myself. 2 2 4 5 13
Sometimes my motivation goes down and I know what to do. 2 1 4 3 10
Sometimes my motivation goes down but I don’t know what to do 2 2 3 3 10
I share my linguistic experience with others. 7 1 3 5 16
I’m interested in how other people solve the problems I can’t cope with. 4 2 5 8 21
I have my own ways of learning and I don’t need other ways. 0 1 2 4 7
There are no special learning methods. You have a teacher, a coursebook and a 1 3 4 6 14
copybook and you cram.
I know how human memory works and how to learn effectively. 5 1 6 6 18
I know what kind of linguistic intelligence I have and how I can use it best. 1 1 2 6 10
I know where, when and how I learn best. 6 3 7 8 24
I can organise my time and learning materials. 3 1 5 9 18
When I have to say or write something, I rehearse/write first drafts. 2 4 6 7 19
I know how to memorise vocabulary 1 0 2 5 8
I would like to know how to memorise vocabulary 7 6 11 7 31
I know how to learn grammar. 0 1 3 5 9
I would like to know how to learn grammar. 7 4 9 7 27
I understand audio and video recordings. 0 3 0 2 5
I would like to understand audio and video recordings. 7 4 12 9 32
I know how to ready quickly and understand the written word. 0 0 3 3 6
I would like to know how to ready quickly and understand the written word. 7 6 11 10 34
I can speak and write fluently (for a beginner) 0 0 1 3 4
I would like to speak and write fluently (for a beginner) 6 7 12 10 35

Figure 53. Self-Report Questionnaire (groups A, B, C and D)

The last five questions show that the students’ know-how was almost nonexistent and

they were expertise-hungry – 7 subjects wanted to learn vocabulary more effectively, 7

needed better ways of learning grammar, 7 wanted to understand audio and video materials, 7

needed to improve their reading skills and 6 wanted to speak fluently. One person claimed

they had some expertise in learning vocabulary.

At the same time the group were eager to share. 7 students stated they shared their

language experience with others, 4 were interested in how other students coped with similar

problems. 1 believed that there were no special ways and nobody claimed they had their own

ways and did not need new methods.

In Group B most of the students depended heavily on their teacher in their linguistic

education – for 5 she was the main source of knowledge, 6 students consulted her if they had

any problems and 5 wanted their tutor to correct all their mistakes. Only a few, however

needed the teacher’s control of their homework (3) and wanted her to give tests at every

lesson (2). At the same time only 3 subjects believed they could monitor their own progress

and nobody thought they could monitor their speech and writing or correct their own

mistakes. Nobody in Group B invented their own homework either. Although the coursebook

was not enough for anybody only 3 learners used other coursebooks, 1 referred to a grammar.

4 subjects admitted to having a dictionary and using it.

As far as the metacognitive skills are concerned, the group’s score was not very high.

2 students could define their priorities, 2 set short-term goals, out of the 3 learners who had

motivation problems 2 did not know what to do about them. However, 6 subjects used

compensation strategies and 4 rehearsed before performance in the target language. 1 person

could define their linguistic intelligence and 1 claimed they knew where, when and how they

learned best. 1 person believed they could organise their time and materials

The students were neither too enthusiastic, nor over-critical about themselves as

language learners – nobody thought they had a flair for languages and 1 person stated they

were good for a beginner. Nobody claimed they were too old to learn a foreign language and

1 person stated they were worse than other members of the group. Nobody felt embarrassed

when speaking in front of the group and 2 students were ashamed of their pronunciation. 5

subjects, however, worried they made mistakes and 4 preferred to keep silent when they were

not sure of something. 1 person initiated interaction in English.

Group B were not interested in sharing – 1 person stated they shared their language

experience with others, 2 were interested in how others cope with similar problems. 3 subjects

believed there were no special methods and 1 person said they did not need other ways. At the

same time, however, everybody was interested in the know how. 6 students wanted to

improve their vocabulary learning skills, 4 wanted to learn grammar more effectively and 3 –

to understand audio and video recordings better. 6 would like to read faster and all tested

students wanted to speak fluently. Only 1 person admitted having some expertise in learning

grammar.

Group C were decisively teacher-dependent. All the students thought she should

correct all their mistakes, 11 wanted her to give regular homework and 10 claimed that a

short test at the beginning of every lesson was the best motivating factor. At the same time 7

students believed they could monitor their progress themselves and only 2 claimed they could

monitor their output and correct mistakes. 1 person invented their own homework. For 12

students the teacher was the main source of knowledge, 10 consulted her when they did not

understand something. The coursebook was enough for 4 learners but only 3 used other

coursebooks and 2 referred to a grammar. 10 students in the group had and used dictionaries.

The metacognitive skills in the group were better developed, some - rare. 7 subjects

knew where, when and how they learn best, 6 – how to do it effectively. 5 could organise their

time and materials, 5 – define priorities and four set short and long-term goals. 6 students

rehearsed before performance in English, 4 used compensation strategies in conversation. Out

of 7 learners with motivation problems 4 know how to cope with them.

The group did not see themselves as very good students. 1 person claimed they had

flair for languages, 2 thought they were good for a beginner. At the same time 3 saw

themselves as too old to learn a foreign language, 2 thought they were worse than the rest of

the group. 11 were worried by their mistakes; only 1 did not see any problem in making

errors. 7 felt embarrassed to speak in front of the group, 4 were ashamed of their

pronunciation and 10 preferred to keep silent if they were not sure of something. 3 learners

initiated interaction in English.

Group C were not very eager to share. 5 were interested in how other learners coped

with similar problems, 3 shared their linguistic experience with others, 2 had their own ways

and did not need new methods and 4 claimed that there were no special ways. At the same

time all the group were interested in the know-how. 11 students wanted to learn vocabulary

more effectively, 9 would like to know how to learn grammar, 12 wanted to improve their

listening and 11 – their reading skills. 12 subjects would like to speak fluently. Some learners

claimed they had some expertise in learning vocabulary (2) and grammar (3), reading (3) and

speaking (1).

Group D depended on the teacher in some areas and were more autonomous in others.

As many as 13 students wanted her to correct all their mistakes. 12 asked her when they did

not understand something but only 7 saw her as the main source of knowledge. 9 wanted a

short test at every lesson, 7 would like the teacher to regularly give and check homework. 8

subjects claimed they could monitor their own progress, 7 used other coursebooks, 5 – a

grammar and 6 had and referred to a dictionary. At the same time only 2 learners invented

their own homework and nobody believed they could monitor their output and correct their

own mistakes.

As far as other metacognitive skills are concerned, 6 learners claimed they knew how

to learn effectively, 6 could define their priorities, 5 set short- and long-term goals, 6 new

what kind of linguistic intelligence they had, 8 – where, when and how they learned best, 9

believed they could organise their time and materials. 7 students rehearsed before

performance and 6 employed compensation strategies while speaking. Out of 6 persons who

had motivation problems 3 knew how to cope with them

The self-image of the group is varied. 3 learners thought they had flair for languages, 3

– that they were good for a beginner. At the same time 3 believed they were too old to learn a

foreign language and 3 thought that they were worse than the rest of the group. 6 worried

about their mistakes and 6 thought their error-making was not a problem. Only 2 subjects

were afraid to speak in front of the group and 1 was ashamed of their pronunciation. 6

students preferred to keep silent when they did not know something and only 2 persons

initiated interaction in German.

Out of 14 students 5 shared their linguistic experience with others. 8 were interested in

other learners’ ways and 4 preferred to stick to their own methods. 6 believed that there were

no special ways of learning. At the same time Group D show considerable interest as well as

some expertise in the know-how. 7 subjects would like more effective ways to learn

vocabulary, 7 – grammar, 9 – to improve their listening skills, 10 – to read better and 10 – to

speak German fluently. 5 students believed they could learn vocabulary, 5 claimed they had

good ways of learning grammar, 2 were satisfied with their listening and 3 – with their

reading comprehension. 3 students believed they could speak German fluently for a beginner.

Apart from numerous differences between the groups there are a number of visible

similarities. First of all, almost all of the 45 students knew why they learned a foreign

language (43). The second big total score is 41 – the number of subjects who believed that the

teacher should correct all their their mistakes. 37 students claimed that they asked the teacher

if they did not understand something.

A number of statements were chosen by more than 50% of the students interviewed

(23+). They include the belief that the teacher is the main source of knowledge (28) and that

(s)he should regularly give and check homework (23) as well as monitor progress by means of

short tests at every lesson (24). 26 subjects worried about their mistakes and 24 preferred to

keep silent when they were not sure of something. At the same time, as many as 23 believed

that they could monitor their progress themselves, 24 knew where, when and how they

learned best and 25 used dictionaries.

Interest in the know-how was also common for all four groups. A majority of students

were interested in better ways of learning – vocabulary (31), grammar (27), listening

comprehension (32), reading skills (34) and speaking (28).

At the same time, the groups were similar in not choosing certain statements, some of

which got the score of below 20% (1-8). Only 4 persons claimed they created their own

homework, 7 spoke in the foreign language unasked by the teacher, 3 could monitor their

output and correct their mistakes. 4 believed they had flair for languages, 8 – that they were

good for a beginner. Similarly, as few as 7 thought they were too old to learn a foreign

language and 7 saw themselves as worse than the other members of the group. 7 students said

they did not need other ways of learning and very few students believed they had some

expertise in the know-how: 8 – in vocabulary learning, 5 – in listening comprehension and 6 –

in reading.

5.6. The students about their classroom dynamics

As the object of the research was to identify a potential relationship between language

anxiety and classroom dynamics, it seemed necessary to complement the anxiety diagnosis

(based on the results obtained by means of anxiety scales) with students’ self report on what

they found student-unfriendly about their own classroom dynamics. However, as a

straightforward question about the anxiety-breeding factors of a particular classroom could be

disquieting in itself, the investigation was carried out in the form of a mini opinion poll and

the question was “What are the characteristics of the ideal teacher, group and classroom?”.

Ideal teachers

Group A saw their ideal teacher primarily as competent (“kompetentny” mentioned

4 times). Many students emphasised the knowledge of the target language (“dobrze

znający język”; “kompetentny, dobrze zna język”; “perfekcyjnie znający język, którego

uczy”), others wanted their teacher to be well organised (“zawsze przygotowany do lekcji,

dobrze zorganizowany, nie bałaganiarz”; “wesoły, nie za bardzo, żeby nie było za dużo

zamieszania na lekcji”; “kompetentny, zorganizowany”) and always prepared. Besides, a

lot of subjects indicated that the teacher should be demanding (“musi być wymagający”;

“wymagający”). They would like him/her to control them, correct mistakes and

systematically give homework (“systematycznie sprawdzający postępy, poprawiający

błędy”; musi poprawiać studentów, zadawać zadania domowe”) and see him/her as

responsible for their progress (“wymagający, chcący nauczyć”; “musi chcieć nauczyć”).

Another important characteristic was good sense of humour (“z poczuciem humoru, nie

traktujący nauki na 100% poważnie”; “wesoły”; “z poczuciem humoru”). A few learners

focused on friendly attitude to class (“cierpliwy”; “przyjaźnie nastawiony do studentów”).

2 students need an energetic teacher, 1 person wanted him/her to be young (“powinien być

energiczny”; “młody i energiczny”).

The ideal teacher in the eyes of Group B should, first of all demonstrate student-

friendly attitude. In the opinion poll most of the subjects emphasised the importance of the

ideal teacher’s close contact with his/her students (“powinien być w kontakcie wzrokowym

z rozmówcą”; “powinien być z grupą na ‘ty’, wtedy jest lepsza atmosfera”; “powinien

umieć nawiązać bliski kontakt ze słuchaczami, to też ludzie”; “nie może być poważny,

powinien traktować grupę na luzie”; “winien umieć związać grupę”; “przyjacielski,

sympatyczny”) as well as qualities like tolerance (“powinien być wyrozumiały”;

“wyrozumiały dla niepowodzeń) and justice (“sprawiedliwy w ocenie”). Moreover, a lot of

subjects emphasised the ability to pace with the students’ level (“umiejący przekazać

wiedzę w sposób docierający do odbiorcy”; ”powinien dostosować się do grupy, tzn. do

tych, co najmniej umieją”; “powinien dokładnie tłumaczyć i pomału, żeby każdy nadążał”;

“powinien być cierpliwy, bo każdy ma inny stopień przyswojenia wiadomości”; “stopień

trudności materiału (słownictwo) oraz ćwiczeń powinien być dokładnie przemyślany”;

“powinien chcieć nauczyć”) and moods (“dopasowujący się do grupy), a few learners

emphasised the importance of respect for and from the teacher (“odpowiednio starsza

osoba, żeby wzbudzała”; “bez przesadnej poufałości, musi zostawić miejsce na szacunek

dla siebie”; “nie powinien zawstydzać kursanta na lekcji”; nie dający odczuć swojej

wyższości”). Finally, many students focused on the importance of the teacher’s

professional competence (“powinien być kompetentny”; “przygotowany do zajęć”;

“powinien być zawsze bardzo dobrze przygotowany do zajęć”; “oczywiście idealnie

przygotowany i z odpowiednim wykształceniem; schludny wygląd i odpowiednia dykcja

dużo znaczą”; zajęcia powinny być interesujące”) and wanted the teacher to be demanding

(“wymagający, ale bez przesady; winien ... zmusić grupę do nauki w trakcie zajęć”;

“powinien być wymagający”; powinien ... utrzymywać, niezbyt ostrą, ale jednak

dyscyplinę” “Powinien chcieć nauczyć”).

Group C wanted their ideal teacher to be able to express him/herself clearly – to

give good explanations and to be communicative (“dobrze tłumaczy”; powinien wszystkie

zdania tłumaczyć na polski”; “powinien ... umieć dobrze wytłumaczyć”;

“komunikatywny”; ‘potrafiący wszystko wytłumaczyć; “dużo ... tłumaczący”; “dobrze

przekazujący wiedzę”; “nie wykręcający się od odpowiedzi”). They also expected him/her

to be demanding and to regularly check their knowledge (“dużo pytający”;

“wymagający”; “powinien robić na każdej lekcji kartkówki i sprawdzać, co

zapamiętaliśmy”; “powinien ... na każdej lekcji pytać nowe słówka i zadania”;

“wymagający”). Other important characteristics included a friendly attitude

(“sympatyczny”; “pogodny, uśmiechnięty”; pomocny, przyjazny”; miły, wesoły, mający

czas dla każdego ucznia”; prowadzący zajęcia bezstresowo, swobodnie”; “umiejący

wytłumaczyć osobie, która tego nie rozumie”), patience (“spokojny, nie nerwowy”;

nauczyciel powinien być spokojny”) and good knowledge of the target language

(“nauczyciel mówiący bardzo dobrze po angielsku”; “nauczyciel powinien dobrze władać

tym językiem”). Single requirements referred to age (“młody”) and fairness (“równo

pytający wszystkich uczniów”).

The ideal teacher of group D would, first of all, be demanding and competent

(“wymagający”; “wymagający; powinien być wymagający”; “wymagający”

“kompetentny”; “zainteresowany przekazywaniem wiedzy innym”; “przede wszystkim

bardzo dobrze przygotowany”; “powinien różnicować materiały z których korzysta”;

“dobrze tłumaczy”; “powinien ... być zawsze przygotowany do lekcji”; “koniecznie

dwujęzyczny – polsko-niemiecki”; “konsekwentny, chcący nauczyć”; wymagający, chcący

nauczyć”; “przede wszystkim nauczyciel ze stażem w tym zawodzie” ) on the one hand and

understanding, patient (“wyrozumiały”; “średnio wymagający, aby poziomu ‘0’ nie

zniechęcić do dalszej nauki”; “powinien być cierpliwy i spokojny”; “cierpliwy,

wyrozumiały”; “dobry, wyrozumiały”) and helpful (“pomagający słabszym”) on the other.

Many students focused on a friendly attitude (“z poczuciem humoru, sympatyczny”; “nie

powinien podchodzić do swoich uczniów z dystansem” Two subjects want him/her to be

young and energetic (“nauczyciel języka obcego powinien być młody, energiczny”;

“niezbyt stary, ponieważ wiek ma wpływ na sposób wykładu”), one person emphasised the

importance of communicative activities (“poświęcający dużo czasu na dialogi”), one

claimed that personality is unimportant and always second to competence.

Ideal groups

Ideal Group A would primarily be a small (“mała” mentioned by 7 learners) circle

of people harmoniously working together (“zgrana” mentioned by 6 learners), and socially

attractive as well as showing friendly attitude to one another (“wesoła”; ”niezbyt liczna,

obie płcie”; “przyjazna”; “zgrana i pomagająca sobie, nie wyścig szczurów”; “przyjazna,

tak, żeby każdy czuł się w niej dobrze” ). Some subjects, however, pointed out that the

sociability of the group should not prevent effective learning (“wesoła, ale nie za bardzo,

żeby można się było uczyć”; “zgrana, ale nie za bardzo na luzie”; “wesoła, ale taka, co

chce się uczyć”). 1 person wanted a group without age differences (“mniej więcej w tym

samym wieku, bez dużych różnic”), and 1 did not have any requirements (“nie ma w tym

względzie żadnych wymagań, najważniejszy jest nauczyciel”).

For Group B the ideal human environment would first of all be small (“mała”

mentioned by 5 subjects; “ilość osób 6-8, przy większej trudno się skupić”; “8 osób bo w

większych grupach trudniej się uczyć”). Many students emphasised the same age, (“przede

wszystkim żeby był ten sam wiek i poziom, to jest najważniejsze”; ”o zbliżonym przekroju

wiekowym, wtedy wszyscy czują się swobodniej”; “grupa rówieśników, rozbieżność max.

10 lat” ) the social attractiveness of such an ideal group (“idealna grupa to taka, co się

dobrze zna i czasem spotyka prywatnie”; “powinna być zgrana: podobne zainteresowania,

rodzaj muzyki, wspóln przyjaciele, to tworzy wspólnotę”) and a friendly attitude towards

one another; (“każdy powinien być traktowany tak samo, mówić do siebie po imieniu,

wtedy atmosfera jest luźna”; “każdy powinien pomagać drugim”; “nie powinno być

śmiania jeden z drugiego, kiedy ktoś nie potrafi”; “ludzie powinni być bezpośredni, bez

uprzedzeń” “wesoła, miła, sympatyczna”; “ważna jest wzajemna pomoc” ). 2 students

pointed out that sociability should not prevent effective learning (“albo bardzo

zdyscyplinowana, albo mało atrakcyjna towarzysko aby lekcje nie były hamowane przez

plotki i wybuchy śmiechu”; “ważne, żeby osoby w grupie umiały się uczyć”). Two subjects

opted for diversity (korzystniej jest, gdy grupa jest w różnym wieku”; “zróżnicowana

zawodowo).

Ideal Group C would first of all be of the same age (“w podobnym wieku”;

”rówieśnicy”; “w miarę wyrównana wiekowo”; “ten sam przedział wiekowy”; “grupa w

podobnym wieku”; “mniej więcej w tym samym wieku” ), level (“najlepiej by było, żeby

wszyscy się równo uczyli, równo robili postępy w nauce”; “wyrównana pod względem

zaawansowania”; “złożona z osób o tym samym poziomie wiedzy”) and quite small (“jak

najmniej liczna, najlepiej kilka osób”; “mała liczebnie”; “mała”; “do 10 osób”; “grupa

nieliczna”; “8-10 osób”). 3 students mentioned friendly attitude as important (“grupa

powinna ... umieć sobie nawzajem pomagać”; “klasa powinna być koleżeńska”; “grupa

osób przyjaźnie nastawionych”). 1 person wanted the group to be quiet (“grupa powinna

być cicha”),and 1 said that age is unimportant (“wiek nie ma znaczenia”).

In Group D the small size is a priority (“nieduża, ok. 8 osób”; “grupa powinna być

mała”; “moim zdaniem powinna być niewielka, choć wszystko zależy od tego, po co ktoś

się uczy”; “niewielka, ok. 8 osób”; “grupa powinna być mała 5-10 osób”; “ok. 6 osób, by

najlepiej uczyć się niemieckiego”; nie może być zbyt duża). Another important

characteristic is a friendly attitude (“wesoła, umiejąca stworzyć miłą atmosferę”;

“powinna stworzyć miłą atmosferę”; “ludzie powinni być wyrozumiali, pomagający

innym”; “wesoła”; “ludzie powinni być mili i wyrozumiali”; “zgrana”; “wszyscy powinni

być wyrozumiali i zgrani”). 1 person stated that age is not important (“wcale nie musza być

to moi rówieśnicy”), 1 prefered to learn in a larger group (“dobrze się uczy w gronie 12

osób, bo jest czas na rozmyślanie odpowiedzi”).

Ideal classrooms

For Group A four characteristics of the ideal classroom are almost equally

important: comfort (“sala powinna być wygodna”; “najważniejsze, żeby klasa była

wygodna i dobrze oświetlona”; “bardzo ważny jest komfort zajęć”; wygoda i praktyczność

są najważniejsze”), overall impression (“schludna”; powinna być przytulna”; “klasa

powinna być ładna i przytulna”; “sala musi być przede wszystkim przytulna”; sala

powinna być ładna”), eye contact between students (“ustawienie ławek powinno

umożliwiać kontakt wzrokowy”; “konieczne jest, aby wszyscy się widzieli”; “bardzo

ważny jest kontakt wzrokowy”) and how well the classroom is equipped (“W sali powinien

być sprzęt taki jak magnetofon, wideo”; sprzęt audiowideo jest przydatny”; “ważne jest

dodatkowe wyposażenie – magnetofon, telewizor, o ile to możliwe laboratorium

językowe”). Two subjects described physical surroundings as unimportant (“nie mam w tej

sprawie żadnych wymagań”; ”jest to bez znaczenia ).

Group B saw their ideal classroom as comfortable – bright and well-lit (“klasa

powinna mieć odpowiednie oświetlenie”; “klasa powinna być jasna”; “jasna, z dużą

ilością światła, najlepiej dziennego”; “oświetlenie jasne ale nie jaskrawe”; “dobrze

oświetlona”), spacious (“klasa powinna być przestronna, wygodne miejsca do siedzenia”;

“przestronna”) – and neat – clean (“czysta, sprawiająca wrażenie przyjemnej”),

moderately furnished (“dość spartańsko urządzona, żeby nie rozpraszała”;

“nierozpraszająca”) and aired between classes (“wywietrzona, z odrobina zieleni”; dobrze

wentylowana”; “przewietrzona po porzednich”). One of the chief requirements was

furniture arrangement enabling eye-contact (“niesformalizowana – ułożenie ławek nie

powinno kojarzyć się z typową szkołą, ale zbliżać kursantów i wykładowców”; “ułożenie

ławek w koło, kiedy każdy ma świadomość bycia z przodu a nie w tylnym rzędzie

schowany”; “ustawienie ławek takie, abyśmy się wszyscy widzieli”; “idealna klas to taka,

w której ławki są ustawione w taki sposób, aby każdy uczestnik kursu widział innych ... Nie

lubię czuć się jak w szkole”; ustawienie nie jak w szkole – rzędami, tylko w półkolu – lepiej

wtedy widać tablicę i wykładowcę”). Some students found equipment an important factor

(“wyposażona w odpowiednie pomoce”; “przydałaby się jakaś plansza i dobry sprzęt

RTV”).

Group C had a number of very different priorities. 2 subjects claimed that their

present classroom is adequate (“co do klasy nie mam żadnych zastrzeżeń”; “klasa jest

bardzo dobra, nie trzeba zmieniać”). 2 students mentioned cleanliness (“czysta”;

“powinna być schludna i czysta”), 2 – comfort (klasa powinna być taka, żeby można było

w niej pracować”; “wygodna”), 2 wanted the classroom to be small (normalna, nie za

duża”; “nie za dużą, o przyjemnym wystroju”), 1 preferred spacious premises (“nie może

być mała klitka”). 1 person thought eye contact would be good (“idealnie byłoby siedzieć

tak, żeby się wszyscy widzieli”) and 1 person wished for computer equipment (“idealna

byłaby klasa z komputerowym wyposażeniem”) 1 person did not give their opinion at all.

A number of students in Group D found physical premises insignificant (“jest mi to

całkowicie obojętne, nie przywiązuję do tego wagi”; “obojętnie w jakiej klasie będziemy się

uczyć, wszystko zależy od chęci”; “jest mi to obojętne”; “klasa – bez znaczenia” ). 3 subjects

mentioned the importance of temperature (“ciepła”; “ciepłe pomieszczenie”; “nie za

gorąca”). Single voices opted for a classroom that would be comfortable (“przystosowana do

nauki”, “pomieszczenie powinno stwarzać komfortowe warunki do nauki – siedzenia,

pisania”), spacious (“przestronna”), cosy (“przytulna”), quiet (“dobrze wytłumiona, poza

tym nie ma żadnych wymagań”), bright (“jasna”), well-equipped (‘posiadająca warunki do

nauki: sprzęt, słowniki), not too big (“pomieszczenie średniej wielkości”). However, it has to

be admitted that Group D was generally quite laconic on the issue of physical premises.

Different as they are, all four groups have some requirements in common. They all

want their teacher to be demanding and understanding at the same time as well as competent.

All “dream” groups should primarily be small. A friendly atmosphere is of great importance

too. Ideal classrooms are nice and cosy.

The research data presented in this chapter offer a number of insights to both language

anxiety and classroom dynamics of all four studied groups. The significance of the findings

are discussed in Chapter VI, and the discussion leads to a number of conclusions and teaching

implications.

CHAPTER VI: THE TEACHER, PEER STUDENTS AND THE

CLASSROOM AS INHIBITING FACTORS -

- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The three-perspective study of classroom dynamics – based on controlled and

uncontrolled observation as well as student-reported information – offers numerous and

varied data on the nature of the classroom dynamics of all the four observed groups. These

data, together with the anxiety diagnosis, which has identified both – the average anxiety

for every group as well as anxiety scores of individual students, enable a two-plane

analysis of the relationship between language anxiety and classroom dynamics. That is

why, the research results will be discussed for each group en bloc, as well as for all its

individual members.

6.1. Group anxiety and classroom dynamics

As already highlighted in Chapter V, the anxiety average is lower for groups A and

D than for B and C, Group C having the highest average anxiety score of all the groups. At

the same time, the analysis of classroom dynamics of all the classrooms shows that the

quality of interaction and the teacher’s procedures are considerably better in groups A and

D. This seems to confirm the research assumption about the relationship between language

learning tension and apprehension and what happens in and between people in the

classroom. However, before any final conclusions can be drawn, both classroom dynamics

and language anxiety of all four groups have to be discussed.

What the students themselves see as important in the area of classroom dynamics

becomes evident if we look at the students’ ideals (cf. Section 5.6) . All four groups, apart

from wishes that were evidently classroom specific and will be discussed later in this

section, seem to have the same teacher, group and classroom archetypes. They all want

their teacher to be both demanding and understanding, as well as professionally competent.

As to “dream” groups, they should primarily be small. Friendly atmosphere is of great

importance too. Ideal classrooms, in turn, are nice and cozy. If we analyse the wishes, the

most powerful and inescapable association is the family. The ideal teacher defined by A,

B, C and D students resembles a good parent: respectable, trustworthy and caring; what is

important for the children – the students - is the sense of brother/sisterhood on the one

hand and, on the other, the belief that they are important and unique for the parents. No

wonder then that the groups should be friendly and small. The descriptions of classrooms

are almost like the requirements of somebody who wants to buy or rent a flat.

The study of classroom dynamics of all four classrooms shows that teachers A and

D, as well as the learning environment of their classroom, fitted best into the idealistic

descriptions. Teacher D presented herself as the most respectable and trustworthy of all the

observed tutors. She was always appropriately dressed and self-contained, with excellent

error correction and explanation strategies, never hesitant. Her students had every right to

believe that they, as learners, were in good hands. Moreover, she offered a lot of

encouragement and frequently praised her students. She additionally increased their self-

esteem by giving them the confidence to discover grammar and hypothesise the meaning

of unknown vocabulary as well as encouraging them to look at themselves as language

learners and look for their individual ways of studying. The fact that everybody – the

teacher and her students – sat at the same big table introduced a spirit of egalitarianism into

the classroom. Finally, Teacher D was demanding and consistent – she regularly gave and

checked homework, and, although she did not give any tests, she quizzed her students

frequently.

Teacher A was less close to the archetype because he lacked some of the above

mentioned characteristics. While, similar to Teacher D, he was most probably seen as a

good professional, he was often disorganised; the fact that in their opinion polls his

students defined their ideal teacher as organised is most probably an indirect complaint

about this. Besides, his classroom procedures seemed to be less confidence building. Like

Teacher D, he offered a lot of approval and had good explanation giving routines but his

error correction has to be described as judgemental, while the metacognitive training, apart

from a number of mnemonics he introduced, was almost nonexistent. What is more, he was

not what the students would call demanding. He hardly ever gave homework and did not

test his class. At the same time he outperformed Teacher D in other areas. He humanised

and personalised his teaching, enquired about his students’ lives, sought common interests,

very often released classroom tensions by joking and made a lot of personal digressions

(some of which, unfortunately, manifested his extreme self-reference). Teacher D, in turn,

in her personalisation of the learned content did not go beyond her referential questions

rounds. In addition, Teacher A accepted and utilised ideas of students and was friendlier

and more outgoing. Always on the move, he frequently shortened the distance between

himself and his students, whereas Teacher D remained seated, separated from her class by

a big table and maintained a reserved attitude which could foster respect on the one hand

but emotional distance on the other.

The analysis of the turn taking/giving routines for all the classrooms show that in

front of teacher D – as well as B1 and C, whose procedures will be discussed separately –

her students were not as eager to take unsolicited turns and fill the classroom’s silence as

Group A. The fact that the number of turns given by the teacher by means of fading out is

the largest for Teacher A, together with the observation that his students were the only

group to express their dissatisfaction openly, are two more proofs that in Classroom A

students were the freest to speak up. All things considered, the teachers of both groups – A

and D - evidently liked and respected their students and were liked and respected by them.

The analysis of the relationship between students shows that, like their teachers,

groups A and D were closer to the ideal described in the opinion polls. First of all, group

territorialism was lower in those two classrooms. While in all the classrooms students

rarely changed the seating arrangements and usually worked with the same partner, Group

A seemed flexible in this area. What is more, both groups were observed to occasionally

interact across “the common desk” divisions, the procedure, though, was much more

frequent in Classroom A. Besides, the students in groups A and D did not form any internal

structures like “the core” in group B and the four pairs in żroup C.

At the same time, however, it has to be admitted that out of the two learner-

friendlier groups, Group D presented themselves as less caring and sharing than Group A.

They competed for the teacher’s turns - it was the only group where the amount of general

solicits taken by the students outnumbered those given by the teacher, which means that

every such turn was taken by several students at a time. The already-mentioned fact that

they looked at her while joking or socialising seeking her approval more than that of their

peers was probably another form of competition.

The positive tendencies in both classrooms were reinforced by their seating

arrangements. The horseshoe furniture arrangement of Classroom A enabled eye contact

and made it possible for the teacher to come up to every student. The common table of

Classroom D introduced the already mentioned feeling of equality. At the same time both

arrangements had their drawbacks. The learners sitting the closest to the teacher rarely got

his/her eye contact. Additionally, in Classroom D, as was already pointed out, the table did

not allow for direct contact between the teacher and individual students. What is more,

Group D proved slightly territorial during small-group practice where a trio who always sat

and worked together (D2, D5, D13) excluded other peers (D9 and D10) from the

performed group activity. Besides, all the personal turns Group A made were evidently

addressed to everybody in the classroom, while, as has already been mentioned, such

digressions and jokes in Group D were usually to the teacher as if she were the interaction

filter of the classroom.

All the aspects of classroom dynamics, more or less positive and anxiety-reducing

in classrooms A and D, were naturally much inferior in the environments where anxiety

scores where higher – classrooms B and C.

First of all, the three teachers of groups B and C do not seem very close to the

idealistic archetype. The situation of those two classrooms is best explained in light of the

Expectancy-Valence Paradigm. In both of them the Expectancy multiplication would

probably be quite low because, on the one hand, the students had many reasons to doubt

whether they were in the right hands and, on the other, the spirit of “I can” was almost

never promoted by any of the three teachers. Teachers B1, B2 and C did not help their

groups build confidence. They never praised their students, nor did they personalise

teaching – none of their learners did ever have any chance to show his/her personality or to

see his/her teacher as a human being. Teacher B2 seemed the most concerned about her

students – she showed interest in newcomers and low-achievers, and although her

explanation routines were confusing and most probably did not help the students build self-

esteem, her correction strategies were confidence-building. Besides, she often utilised her

students’ ideas and discussed problems brought up by the class regardless of her lesson

plan. However, although potentially a good teacher-to-be, she lost all the advantages

because her attitude often did not encourage student respect. First of all, her behaviour

was shy and frequently hesitant. The fact that she was caught out making a mistake and her

explanations betrayed shaky knowledge of the target language usage, as well as her way of

speaking and dressing (her students emphasised the importance of those characteristics in

their opinion poll, which can be treated as an indirect complaint about Teacher B2’s

carelessness about her appearance and manners), presented her as untrustworthy. Besides,

her students wanted to know and were never told why certain problems were discussed in

the classroom, which additionally weakened the belief of being in good hands. Group B

evidently longed for and was never offered a clear sense of direction. Ironically, they felt

much safer in the hands of Teacher B1, whose self-confidence prevented the students from

noticing and questioning all the absurdities she taught them.

Teachers B1 and C very often treated their students as children. Classroom routines

of Teacher C were most probably transferred from her previously-taught young learners

class. Infantilised in this way, the learners did not have many opportunities to rebuild their

already shaky confidence, as Teacher C did not praise her students and occasionally

showed signs of impatience either towards low-achievers or to the whole class when they

disappointed her. On such occasions she aggravated her students’ “not OK” position by

comparing them with children who, in her opinion, outperformed her adult learners in

many areas. At the same time, it has to be admitted that she was very demanding and

consistent as a teacher. She monitored her students’ progress by frequent tests and

revisions and gave a lot of homework she systematically checked. She was also very well-

organised and her classroom routines were unchanged and predictable.

The attitude of Teacher B1 was different and requires a separate discussion. It has

to be stated here that her teaching procedures were most unprofessional and even

inhumane. She not only treated her students like children but also gave them a lot of

reasons to feel inadequate. She openly expressed her criticism and even mocked some of

them, the cruellest example of which was the joke at the expense of student B3 cited in

Chapter V. Moreover, she did not respect her students. Her way of speaking was offensive

and often rude and the fact the she – more than teachers B1 and C, and unlike teachers A

and D - took a large proportion of her turns by interrupting students, with and without the

intent to gain the floor, demonstrates that her attitude to her group can be described as rude

and insensitive. Besides, she was the only teacher who did not give any general solicit so

her interaction with the group was always on a one-to-one basis, which, in addition to her

unfriendly attitude, must have been extremely disquieting for her students. They

complained about it in an indirect way describing their ideal teacher as the one who did not

mock or ridicule students and showed patience and tolerance.

It is not improbable that it was Teacher B1’s relationship with her students that

influenced the students’ attitude to Teacher B2 because the whole situation resembles one

of the classroom gamesŚ the “Why Don’t You – Yes, But” game (Berne 1964, Stevick

1976) in which learners who are made to feel inadequate show that others are inadequate

too. Group B, treated most disrespectfully by Teacher B1, felt defenceless because the

tutor was quicker-witted and showed she could be malicious. That is probably why they

transferred the revenge onto Teacher B2, whose behaviour, described earlier in this

chapter, seemed to invite opposition.

The already-mentioned shaky self-esteem of groups B and C was additionally

weakened by the fact that in both classrooms – B and C – metacognitive training was rare

or almost nonexistent, and the students were not given the confidence to discover English

on their own by hypothesising the meaning of unknown vocabulary or grammar rules or

monitor their performance. Apart from Teacher B2, the self-correction procedures of the

teachers were most judgemental.

The dynamics of classrooms B and C were not very impressive either. Group B

showed many more manifestations of friendliness and were much more eager to interact

than students C. However, the relations within Group B were rather unfavourably

influenced by the existence of “the core”. This “group within a group” must have been an

extremely closed circle if we take into consideration the number of newcomers that

dropped out during the first month (4 out of 6). This territorialism could have been the

result of some tensions and inhibitions within “the core” as all its members tested above

average on the anxiety scale,

The inner structures preventing successful interaction between group members

seem to be present in Group C as well. Four pairs – two married couples, brother and sister

and the two workmates who preferred to stick to each other – constituted more than a half

of the group and, most probably, contributed to the atmosphere of territorialism in their

classroom. The tendency to never change partners was so strong that students C did not

leave their seats even if their and other students’ regular partners were absent. Besides,

students C demonstrated rather shy attitudes and preferred to keep silent.

The analysis of turn taking/giving routines shows that Classroom C had the highest

ratio of interaction not controlled by the teacher but this interaction was limited to pairs

sitting at the same desks, which may suggest that when in trouble, the students preferred to

consult their mates rather than expressing their doubts by openly asking their teacher or

other students for help. No wonder then that in her classroom Teacher C had to fill twice as

much silence as the other teachers. The territorialism of Group C was additionally

strengthened by the seating arrangements – rows of desks facing the blackboard making

eye contact between students impossible.

Apart from the discrepancies between the desired ideal and the reality of particular

classrooms, there are other factors that can be related to the level of anxiety of all four

groups. One of them is the issue of learner autonomy and, consequently, the students’

ability to organise and control their learning labelled “the metacognitive” in the classroom.

In this area A and particularly D outperform other groups again. Their Self-Report

Questionnaire shows that students D more frequently than others defined their priorities

and knew where, when and how they learned best. Group D used supplementary materials

more often than other groups, they claimed they could monitor their own progress and set

long and short-term goals. They were also better than other groups in their knowledge of

their type of intelligence as well as organisation of time and materials. Their know-how

was the most advanced as well. It is not clear whether the relatively high metacognitive

score of żroup D is the result of their teacher’s metacognitive input or – as the students

claimed they can monitor areas that were never highlighted by Teacher D like Multiple

Intelligences among others – the students had come to the course with good know-how.

However, in light of the findings, it seems certain that, whatever its origin, metacognitive

awareness reduces anxiety.

Yet another important tension-related factor is the students’ worry over potential

failure. Groups B and C were most disquieted about the possibility of making a mistake,

ashamed of their pronunciation and preferred to keep silent when they did not know

something. Additionally, Group C members felt extremely embarrassed to speak in front of

the class. It has already been demonstrated more than once that the two groups had reasons

to fear failure in front of the class. They could be easily mocked by their teacher or felt

uneasy in front of their peers who were much younger/older (in their description of an

ideal group students C pointed out that age difference was a disadvantage).

Finally, factors related to anxiety are seating arrangements and the reason for

enrollment on the course. Anxiety was lower in classrooms where seating arrangements

linked rather than divided and where the students’ expectations were not high. Classroom

B – although some of the teaching procedures could be qualified as teaching pathology –

was less tension-breeding than C; Classroom A proved learner friendlier than Classroom

D. It was probably because students A and B could see one another, which gave them a

stronger sense of “we as a group”, while the seating arrangements of Classroom C have

already been shown as strengthening the inner pair-based structure and invalidating any

attempts to communicate. The common table of Group D, egalitarian as it was, was at the

same time very big and not only distanced the students from the teacher and their peers but

also immobilised the teacher and made it impossible for her to circulate and shorten the

distance between herself and individual students.

As far as the main reason for enrolment is concerned, for groups A and B language

learning was a hobby so even if the course did not entirely satisfy their expectations, they

could enjoy their classroom more as a social system than effective learning environment.

Students C and D, in turn, gave enrolment reasons such as professional and school

requirements or planned travel. As a result, their expectations were higher and the tension

resulting from any discrepancies between their requirements and reality – stronger.

Finally, it has to be emphasised that the study of anxiety, apart from differences

between groups, showed certain similarities. First of all, the anxiety score measured by

means of the tool based on McIntyre and żardner’s scale is generally quite low for all four

groups. This confirms the opinion of the already quoted Ellis (1994) that tension related to

language learning is usually rather small in groups of beginners. At the same time, though,

the questionnaires of all the groups show that the students did not estimate themselves

highly as language learners as the learner confidence, regardless of the group, was not very

high. There are a number of possible explanations of this low anxiety-low self-confidence

coincidence.

First of all, it is true that the students in all the classrooms did not have to take too

many risks. Output was limited and real communication was non-existent and

consequently, the classrooms were tension-free. However, at the same time, the students

must have realised that the lessons hardly prepared them for genuine communication in the

world outside their classroom. As a result, they may have felt “isolated” (Davies and

Rinvolucri, 1990) from the real language and thus unconfident.

Secondly, none of the classrooms gave a full sense of accomplishment. Teachers A

and D praised their students but did not give them many opportunities to check themselves

either by means of a test or in communication with their peers. Teacher C monitored her

students progress but did not praise them. Classroom B did not have any monitoring of

progress and its other dynamics – already discussed here – were demoralising rather than

confidence building.

Finally, the discrete analysis of all three types of anxiety shows that the category

where the scores were the highest for all the groups apart from group B was input anxiety.

This most probably is the result of the fact that effective input is related to successful

“intake” and whether students take in what is taught depends on how well the teaching

harmonises with their individual learning styles. In all four classrooms, however, the

individualisation of teaching was ignored. This is probably the reason why students from

every classroom wanted their group to be small. And, most probably, rather than tutoring

on the one-to-one basis they expressed their longing for individualised teaching or a more

equal distribution of turns which was not fair in any of the classrooms. What is more, the

input offered by teachers A and B1 was evidently too difficult.

The only group where input anxiety was second to output anxiety was Group B -

not surprising in the classroom where performance has every chance to be unfavourably

scrutinised by the teacher.

6.2. Individual anxiety and classroom dynamics

The comparative analysis of individual anxiety scores and classroom dynamics

shows some relationship between the two as well.

In the beginning, however, it has to be pointed out that the predictability of high

anxiety scores, although 100% correct – all the anxiety suspects (A10, B3, B4, B5, C14,

C15 and D9) turned out to be anxiety culprits – does not seem very efficient as it helped to

identify approximately 1/3 of the actually anxious. As a result, it has to be admitted that the

Anxiety Trait Action Chart cannot be seen as a fully reliable research instrument. This is

probably because the trait actions may but do not have to be manifestations of tension.

The analysis of the individual scores on the Anxiety Scale show certain regularities.

There are a number of similarities between all the students who scored above the average

in each of the four groups.

First of all, most of the students who scored high on the anxiety scale are those who

were unnoticed or negatively noticed by the teacher and inconspicuous to the class (if there

was any kind of whole class melee exercise) or who attracted the teacher’s attention but

did not seem very popular with their peers. The first group includes A9, A10, B3, C1, C14,

D13, D8, D9, D10, D12 and D13. Those who belonged to groups C and D did not get too

many of the teacher’s turns – some of them like C1, C8 or C 14 were almost never noticed

– and additionally were not very eagerly chosen by their peers in activities where teacher

control was limited – students D8, D9 and D10 were almost outcasts in the small group

activity and all C and D students received a considerably smaller amount of peer turns in

melee exercises. The case of the anxious students from groups A and B seems much more

complex. Students A9 and A 10 got a comparatively large number of the teacher’s turns

but they belonged to the part of the group with whom the teacher did not socialise. Student

B3 was frequently chosen by the teacher but we cannot forget that she was not only much

older than the rest of the group but it was her whose looks were openly mocked by Teacher

B1. The other group which included students frequently or moderately noticed by the

teacher but unnoticed by their peers was much smaller and consisted of C13, C15 and D11.

The whole group of students, inconspicuous to the teacher and peers or only to peers can

again be divided into two groups – students, like B3, C1, C8, C14, C15, D8, D9 and D12,

who did not receive too many turns and did not show any initiative to break out of oblivion

and students like A9, A10, D10, D11 and D13, who struggle to be noticed by taking

general solicits, stealing turns (A10), providing explanations (A9). Generally speaking, the

anxious in all four classrooms are learners who have the right to feel neglected in their

learning environment. To come back to the family metaphor used at the beginning of this

chapter, they were the lesser children.

At the same time, however, the group of the anxious would not be complete

without, the so-far unmentioned, A4, A6, B4, B5 and D14. They are different from the

majority just described because they can all be qualified as their teacher’s favourites. They

received a lot of personal solicits as well as wholly private turns from the tutor and were

very active themselves – they answered general solicits, corrected other students’ mistakes

and provided explanations when a problem was redirected to class (A), made general

solicits (D14), interacted across the classroom (A4, A5, D14), were the life and soul of the

classroom, joked a lot and made private turns (A4, D14). This acknowledgement - together

with the fact that some of the unnoticed students are more active because they struggle to

gain attention - reintroduces the question of facilitative anxiety and the question whether

the tension – even as high as in the case of B5 – can stimulate learning. A question which

cannot be answered in the present work because language achievement was not controlled

for during the research as unimportant to its objectives.

Finally, it has to be admitted that in every classroom, regardless of its classroom

dynamics, there was one anxiety extreme – A9, B5, C14 and D12 – whose score was much

higher than others. However pessimistic it may sound, it shows that there are anxieties –

supposedly trait not state tensions – that are not subject to classroom repair no matter how

positive the classroom dynamics. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to investigate the

issue of such anxiety high scores in order to correlate them with other variables like

perfectionism or negative self-attitudes (probable culprits if we take into consideration the

tested students’ worry over potential mistakes or their low learner self-esteem scores),

communication apprehension or general self-esteem.

6.3. Conclusions

In conclusion, it has to emphasised that a number of classroom dynamics factors seem

closely related to the level of anxiety in the classroom – both overall and individual.

First of all, the findings show the relationship between language anxiety and

motivation, most clearly seen through the analysis of the Expectancy-Valence paradigm. The

classrooms where two Expectancy factors – the expectation that education will have certain

desirable consequences and the expectation of being able to participate in and complete

education – were lower had higher anxiety scores. As seen in the context of classroom reality

the two expectations mean: the trust in being in good hands and on the right track on the one

hand and, on the other, the student’s belief in their own ability. Therefore, it has to be stated

that the two very important inhibiting factors are an incompetent, untrustworthy teacher

who offers classroom instruction seen by the students as substandard – an anxiety frequently

reinforced if such lack of professionalism coincides with an ambitious learning objective - as

well as low self-esteem of the learner resulting from both – the teacher’s negative or

insufficiently positive learner attitudes, and the lack of clear sense of achievement based on

the tutor’s systematic and easily interpretable monitoring.

Another important tension-breeding aspect of classroom dynamics is directly related to

what goes on between people in the classroom and is the feeling of isolation. This may result

from the group’s territorialism, seating arrangements of the particular classroom or

insufficient attention from the teacher and peer students. On the other hand, students feel

anxious if isolated from the world of real communication. Even a seemingly anxiety-free

classroom, where risk-taking is low and production reduced to a drill, can breed anxieties

associated with seeing oneself as unprepared for the challenge of true communication. This,

once again, proves the validity of such concepts as Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development

and Żeuerstein’s mediation theory (Williams and Burden 1997Ś 40-42) as well as the

Krashen’s input hypothesis (Krashen 1986).

The third factor most probably underlying language anxiety which was identified in

the present research is the lack of individual treatment of learners. Classrooms which were the

most inhibiting where the ones in which teachers are unaware of or not interested in

individual learning styles on the one hand and, on the other, do not allow their learners to

show themselves to peer students as interesting and unique human beings. The inhibition

resulting from the insufficient attention of the teacher is usually additionally reinforced if the

teacher is not fair in his/her distribution of turns.

The list of inhibiting factors would not be complete without the lack of learner

autonomy. This final diagnosis seems a little contradictory in itself if we remember that what

the students really want (cf. ideal teachers’ descriptions) is the teacher’s control not learner

independence. However, in light of the results of the research which show that low

metacognitive awareness was diagnosed in the classroom with higher anxiety scores, it seems

necessary to prepare students for autonomy to help them overcome classroom tensions. It has

already been emphasised in the present work that learner autonomy can be taught in the

language classroom and in this way the students’ need for the teacher’s control can be used to

the best possible effect.

The conclusions lead to a number of postulates referring to both teaching strategies

and further research into the area of language anxiety and classroom dynamics.

The first group of postulates refer to teacher training at universities and colleges. First

of all, it seems that in addition to the cognitive, the would-be teachers should be sensitised to

the metacognitive and the affective domains in the language classroom. They have to be

aware that teaching methods are as important as good rapport in the classroom and language

instruction has to be enriched by teaching students how to learn. Secondly, as the competence

of the teacher has been proved to be such an important issue, teachers should be encouraged

to development continuously. Finally, the methodology syllabus – in addition to pedagogy

training - has to incorporate elements of adult education. This seems crucial as, apart from

other findings, the research showed that the observed teachers were almost totally unaware of

the specific characteristics and needs of the adult learner.

At the same time both, the aspiring and current teachers should be encouraged to

reflect on their own teaching with special regard to teacher routines, rapport between learners

in the classroom and the premises. If we go back to the home/family metaphor, each teacher

needs to ask him/herself the following questions – Are we a happy family?; Am I a good

parent?; Is our home a nice place to be at?

Are we a happy family (=cooperative group)?

The teacher must be aware that a language classroom, unlike both science and

humanities classrooms, is a place where the students need to invest their own selves and put a

lot at stake. Language is a practical skill rather than subject knowledge. As a result, learning it

implies practice and all production attempts mean the risk of potential failure. This failure is

easier to bear when one is with friends. In turn, in order to be friendly, fellow learners need to

know one another. Such knowledge cannot be acquired without sharing. Moskowitz (1978)

provides a further rationale for the humanistic classroom. If the language is to be learned, she

argued, the content has to be personalised. If we are to communicate, we want to

communicate what is of importance to us personally.

The role of the teacher in establishing and maintaining positive rapport between

students is very important. Żirst of all, it is him/her who sets the initial “caring and sharing”.

That is why the questions a reflective teacher should ask him/herself areŚ “Am I frank and

sensitive?”, “Do I encourage and teach my students to personalise the content of the lesson?”.

At the same time it is necessary for the teacher to realise that such openness may not

be practicable in every group, with particular regard to teenage classes. Wilson (1999) claims

that one of the best ways of scaring a young person is ask them to talk about themselves. In

such a case personal interests instead of personal life is the path the teacher has to follow.

Therefore “Do I find out from my students what they are interested in?”, “Do I teach across

the curriculum to get through to those who like maths, biology, literature?”, “Do I let my

students suggests lesson topics/ homework/etc.?” are another set of questions a teacher needs

to ask.

Another skill necessary in the humanistic classroom is the ability to listen to others. It

is easier to overcome the apprehension associated with speaking in a foreign language if one’s

audience is friendly. If the listeners are attentive and empathetic, it gives the speaker an

additional morale boost.

Is it possible to teach empathy, though? First of all, the teacher can him/herself be a

model of an empathetic listener. There are a number of verbal and non-verbal signs showing

that one is with the speaker and not deep in their thoughts. That is why, the teacher needs to

ask him/herselfŚ “Do I listen to my students attentively?”, “Is there eye-contact between me

and the speaker?”, “Do I try to avoid writing on the board, fixing equipment, etc. while a

student is speaking?”, “Do I try to avoid signs of impatience?”, “If there is a need to interrupt,

do I do it tactfully?”.

Apart from being the model of an attentive listener, the teacher can introduce the

humanistic exercise into the classroom. Sharing and Caring in the Foreign Language Class

by Gertrude Moskowitz (1978) and Classroom Dynamics by Jill Hadfield (1992) contain a

large number of examples of such games and tasks. Neuro-Linguistic Programming, with its

“in your shoes” paradigm, is another source of excellent techniques in this area.

What learners can and should be encouraged to share in the humanistic classroom are

not only their personalities and interests, but also their learning techniques and strategies as

well as doubts, problems with motivation. Rubin (1975) discovered that weaker students can

learn from a good language learner. That is why such an exchange of ideas may encourage

students to try out successful strategies used by their peers. Therefore, another question a

reflective teacher should ask is “Do I encourage my students to share the know-how in class?”

The last factor which can prevent caring and sharing is class territorialism. Students

like to stick to their seats, rarely change their place in the classroom and almost always work

with the same partner. As a result, there may be learners in the classroom who have never

spoken to each other and sometimes do not even know each other’s names. One answer is

breaking up such pairs. Another, melee exercises, a number of which can be found in the

already-cited books by Moskowitz and Hadfield. Therefore the questions at this stage will be

“Do I deal with territorialism in my class?”.

Am I a good parent (=teacher)?

The second focus of self-reflection should be oneself as a teacher. Good parents can be

respected and the respect gives the child the feeling that they are in good hands and thus

safe. Good parents listen to their children. Good parents love everybody the same. And

finally, good parents bewing their children. As an old saying goes, we do not have children

for ourselves but for the world.

Consequently, a good teacher is primarily a good professional. A lot has been said

about how important the person of the teacher is in motivating students and raising their self-

confidence. The relationship is most clearly shown by Rubenson’s źxpectancy-Valence

Paradigm. That is why “What do I do for my own professional development?”, “Are my

classes interesting/varied/creative?” are the questions that need to be asked at this stage.

Secondly, the teacher has to be a good audience. The question of attentive listening has

already been discussed. In addition to this, a good attentive teacher listens to the students’

voice in all matters concerning the organisation and management of the course. That is

why regular student evaluation is a must. “Do I ask my students for their opinion about the

course?” is the question which needs to be asked here.

Another problem is the treatment of students that is not fully just. The research has

once again made it clear that teacher favouritism is a serious problem in almost every

classroom. That is why the very important questions will beŚ “Do I treat all students equally?”

“Do I give each of them the same number of turns/ amount of approval/ opportunity for self-

correction/ respect/ patience?”, “Do I rearrange the classroom/ Am I on the move to be in

equal eye contact with all the students?”, “Don’t I have the tendency to turn always to the

same learners while asking questions/ telling anecdotes?”.

Finally, the question of bewinging the children/students introduces the idea of learner

autonomy. However, we cannot expect our students to be autonomous before we tell them

how to be self-dependent.

First of all, a self-dependent learner is one who has been shown a number of various

learning methods and can choose the one that suits him/her best. That is why the already-

mentioned exchange of ideas and strategies is so important. Secondly, in order to learn

without the teacher’s assistance the student needs to know how (s)he learns best, which means

that (s)he has to be aware of his/her linguistic intelligence and it is the teacher’s role to

sensitise the student to the problem. This may be done by means of straightforward

presentation or by presenting different types of exercises for all kinds of intelligences in the

classroom. Finally, if the student is to take on some of the responsibility for his/her learning,

the teacher has to be ready to share it in what can be called autonomy spoonfeeding. This will

be a step-by-step involvement of students in small decisions concerning their own learning.

Not only, as it has already been said, do the students need to evaluate the course, they may

also participate in decisions concerning home assignment, furniture arrangement, problems

that need to be discussed, etc. The teacher should encourage them to feel free to take the

initiative in those areas. At the same time it is the teacher’s role to build up the students’

confidence to make them believe they can be successful learners. That is why, apart from a

friendly attitude and frequent approval, the teacher has to be very tactful in his/her error

correction and explanations, both of which can be highly judgemental. For the same reason,

instead of explicit instant treatment of both problems it is better to allow room for self-

correction and problems should be redirected to class. The questions that need to be asked at

this stage are “Do I inform my students about different kinds of linguistic intelligence?”, “Do

I encourage my students to plan their learning, to experiment what, how , where, when, etc.

they learn best?”, “Do I share responsibility in the classroom?”, “How do I correct my

students?”, “How do I explain?”.

Is our home (=classroom) a nice place to be in?

The appearance of the classroom can be controlled only to a certain extent. The teachers

usually do not have much influence on the financial standing of the school. What,

however, is within the teacher’s control is making sure students sit in a way that enables

eye-contact and the room is aired before the lesson. Possibly, students’ ideas about how the

classroom should look can be taken into account and their work exhibited, because what

makes us feel at home is – much more than luxury – the belief that the place we are in is

ours.

ARE WE A HAPPY FAMILY?

1) AM I FRANK AND SENSITIVE?
2) DO I ENCOURAGE AND TEACH MY STUDENTS TO PERSONALISE THE CONTENT OF THE LESSON?
3) DO I FIND OUT FROM MY STUDENTS WHAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN?
4) DO I TEACH ACROSS THE CURRICULUM TO GET THROUGH TO THOSE WHO HAVE A FLAIR FOR
MATHS, BIOLOGY, LITERATURE?
5) DO I LET MY STUDENTS SUGGEST LESSON TOPICS/ HOMEWORK/ ETC.?
6) DO I LISTEN TO MY STUDENTS ATTENTIVELY?
7) IS THERE AN EYE CONTACT BETWEEN ME AND THE SPEAKER?
8) DO I AVOID WRITING ON THE BOARD/ FIXING THE EQUIPMENT/ ETC. WHEN A STUDENT IS
SPEAKING?
9) DON’T I MANIŻźST IMPATIźNCź?
10) IF THERE IS A NEED TO INTERRUPT DO I DO IT TACTFULLY?
11) DO I ENCOURAGE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, EXPERIENCE, STRATEGIES?
12) DO I DEAL WITH TERRITORIALISM IN MY CLASS?

AM I A GOOD PARENT?

13) WHAT DO I DO FOR MY OWN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?
14) ARE MY CLASSES INTERESTING/ VARIED ? AM I CREATIVE?
15) DO I TREAT ALL MY STUDENTS EQUALLY?
16) DO I GIVE EACH OF THEM THE SAME NUMBER OF TURNS/ AMOUNT OF APPROVAL/
OPPORTUNITY FOR SELF-CORRECTION/ RESPECT/ PATIENCE?
17) DO I REARRANGE THE CLASSROOM/ AM I ON THE MOVE TO BE IN EQUAL EYE CONTACT WITH
ALL THE STUDENTS?
18) DON’T I HAVź A TźNDźNCY TO ALWAYS TURN TO THź SAMź STUDENTS WHILE ASKING
QUESTIONS/ TELLING ANECDOTES?
19) DO I INFORM MY STUDENTS ABOUT DIFFERENT KINDS OF LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE?
20) DO I ENCOURAGE MY STUDENTS TO EXPERIMENT WHAT/ HOW/ WHEN/ WHERE THEY LEARN
BEST?
21) DO I SHARE CLASSROOM RESPONSIBILITY WITH MY STUDENTS?
22) HOW DO I CORRECT MY STUDENTS?
23) HOW DO I EXPLAIN?

IS OUR HOME A NICE PLACE TO BE AT?

24) HOW CAN I MAKE MY STUDENTS FEEL THAT THE CLASSROOM BELONGS TO THEM?

Figure 54. The teacher’s Self-Reflection Questionnaire

All the above questions can become the basis of the Teacher’s Self-Reflection

Questionnaire (Figure 54), whose aim would be to help educators examine their own

teaching procedures critically. The tool may be applied in a number of areas. First of all, it

can be used as the reference material for teacher training sessions whose aim is to

encourage reflective teaching as well as sensitise ongoing and, possibly, future educators to

the metacognitive and the affective aspects of the language classroom. Secondly, the

questionnaire may be applied on a teacher-to-teacher basis - either in mentoring or in peer

observation programmes – as a means of analyzing the classroom dynamics of an

individual lesson. Finally, a tool of this kind may be an important instrument for individual

professional development because, as hopefully has been illustrated by the present

dissertation – all the teachers should work to become better professionals and more

sensitive and understanding human beings.

In addition to the above classroom-centred postulates, it seems necessary to verbalise the

scientific conclusions and recommendations which result from the present work. These

research postulates concern further investigation into the areas that have been highlighted

in the present work. Detailed as it was, the study was merely qualitative and its ambitions

do not go beyond identifying certain tendencies. Hopefully, some of the problems

described here will become the subject of quantitative studies and thus the relationship

between language anxiety and classroom dynamics will be proved by data that are more

statistically significant than those which were obtained in the present research. It refers

particularly to the issue of anxiety extremes discovered in all four classrooms. It would be

interesting to identify their correlates and determine whether they are influenced by what

goes in and between people in the language classroom.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alatis, J.E. 1976. “The urge to communicate vs. resistance to learning in źnglish as a
second language”. English Language Teaching Journal 30, 4 pp. 265-280

Allwright, D. 1988. Observation in the Language Classroom. London and New York:
Longman

Anderson L. W. and R.B. Burns 1989. Research in Classrooms. New York:
Pergamon Press

Aoki, N. 1999. “Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner
autonomy”. In J. Arnold (ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Arabski, J. 1997. Przyswajanie języka obcego a pamięć werbalna. KatowiceŚ “ ląsk”

Arabski, J. 1998. “The characteristics of successful learners”. In J. Arabski (ed.)
Studies in Foreign Language Acquisition. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ląskiego

Arnold, J. 1994. “Reflections on language learning and teaching: an interview with
Wilga Rivers”. In T. Kral (ed.) Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected
Articles from the English Teaching Forum 1989-1993

Arnold, J. 1999a. “VisualisationŚ language learning with the mind’s eye”. In J. Arnold
(ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Arnold, J. 1999b. “Whole or hole”. Humanising Language Teaching 1, 3.
www.hltmag.co.uk/may99

Arnold J. & H.D. Brown. 1999. “A map of the terrain”. In J. Arnold (ed) Affect in
Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bartram, M & R. Walton 1994. Correction. Hove: Language Teaching Publications

Bellow, S. 1976. Henderson, the Rain King. London: Penguin

Berne, E. 1964. Games People Play. New York: Grove Press

Billington, D. 2000. “Seven characteristics of highly effective adult learning
programs”. The adult learner in higher education and the workplace. New Horizons
www.newhorizons.org/article_billington1.html

Bress, P. 2000. “Prepare yourself for an explosion of choice”. Humanising Language
Teaching 2, 4. www.hltmag.co.uk/jul00

Brown, J.D. 1988. Understanding Research in Second Language Learning,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bruner, J.S. 1966. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harward University Press

Burns, R.B. 1989. Research in Classrooms. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Burton, W.H. 1963. “Basic principles in good teaching-learning situations”. In
L.D.Crow & A.Crow (eds.) Readings in Human Learning. New Your: McKay

Carp A., R.Peterson & P. Roelfs. 1974. “Adult interests and experiences” In
K.P.Cross (ed.) Planning for Non-Traditional Programs: An Analysis of the Issues for
Postsecondary Education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass

Castillo, R. 1998. “Classroom interaction”. Modern English Teacher 7,1. pp. 7-14

Champeau de Lopez, Ch.L. 1994. “The role of the teacher in today’s language
classroom”. In T. Kral (ed.) Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected
Articles from the English Teaching Forum 1989-1993

Chaudron, C. 1995. Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teaching and
Learning. CUP: Cambridge Applied Linguistics

Cheng, Y., E.K. Hoewitz & D.L. Schallert. 1999. “Language anxietyŚ differential
writing and speaking components”. Language Learning 49, 3, pp. 417-446

Christison, M.A. 1994 “Cooperative learning in the źŻL classroom”. In T. Kral (ed.)
Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected Articles from the English Teaching
Forum 1989-1993

Clement, R., Z. Dörnyei & K.A. Noels. 1994. “Motivation, self-confidence and
group cohesion in the foreign language classroom”. Language Learning 44, 3, pp. 417-448

Coare, P. & A. Thompson (eds). 1996. Through the Joy of Learning. Diary of 1,000
Adult Learners. Leicester: Niace

Coles, N. 1999. “Coping with conflict in the classroom”. Humanising Language
Teaching 1, 8. www.hltmag.co.uk/dec99

Crandall, J. 1999. “Cooperative language learning and affective factors”. In J. Arnold
(ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Cropley, A.J. 1977. Lifelong Education. A Psychological Analysis. New York,
Toronto, Sidney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press

Cross, K.P. 1981. Adults as Learners. Increasing Participation and Facilitating
Learning. St.Francisco, Washington, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Crow L.D. & A. Crow. 1963. “Meaning and scope of learning”. In L.D.Crow &
A.Crow (eds.) Readings in Human Learning. New Your: McKay

Czerniawska, O. 1987. “Kiedy uczący się dorosły uczy się?”. In: Uczący się dorosły
w świetle badań. Materiały konferencyjne. Łód Ś Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego

Czerniawska, O. 2000. Drogi i bezdroża andragogiki i gerontologii. Łód Ś
Wydawnictwo Wy szej Szkoły Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej

Daintes, J., C. Daintes & B. Graham. 1993. Adult Learning, Adult Teaching.
Departemt of Adult Teaching, University of Nottingham

Davies, P. 1999. “What is teacher development?”. Humanising Language Teaching 1,
1. www.hltmag.co.uk/feb99

Davies, P. and M. Rinvolucri 1990. The Confidence Book. Pilgrim Longman
Resource Books

De Andres, V. 1999. “Self-esteem in the classroom or the metamorphosis of
butterflies”. In J. Arnold (ed)Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Deller, S. 1990. Lessons from the Learner. London: Longman

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan

Dickinson, L. 1988. Self Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Di Pietro, R.J. 1987. Strategic Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Longman: Harlow

Dörnyei, Z. & A. Malderez. 1999. “The role of group dynamics in foreign language
learning and teaching”. In J. Arnold (ed)Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Douglas, T. 1991. A Handbook of Common Group Problems. London and New York:
Tavistock/Routledge

Douglas, T. 1983. Groups. Understanding People Gathered Together. London, New
York: Tavistock Publications

Douglas, T. 1993. The Theory of Groupwork Practice. London: Macmillan.

Douglas, T. 1995. Survival in Groups. The Basics of Group Membership.
Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press

Ehrman, M. 1998. “ŻI, ŻD and Żield Sensitivity in another sight”. In J.M. Reid (ed)
Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall

Ehrman, M. 1999. “źgo boundaries and tolerance for ambiguity in second language
learning”. In J. Arnold (ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press

Ellis, G. and M. Rathbone. 1987. “Two approaches for investigating second
language acquisition in the context”. In R. źllis (ed.) Second Language Acquisition in
Context. London: Prentice-Hall International

Ellis, G. & B. Sinclair. 1990. Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Ely, Ch.M. 1986. “An analysis of discomfort, risk taking, sociability and motivation
in the L2 classroom”. Language Learning 36, 1, pp. 1-27

Eysenck, M.W. 1979. “Anxiety, learning and memoryŚ A reconceptualisation”.
Journal of Research in Personality 13. pp. 363-385

Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. 1983. "Communication strategies in interlanguage
production." In C. Faerch and G. Kasper (eds) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication.
London: Longman.

Freeman, D. 1993. “CollaborationŚ structuring shared understandings in a second
language classroom”. in D. Nunan (ed.) Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Garczyński, S. 1960. Sztuka pamietania. Warszawa: Iskry

Gebhard, J.G. 1992. “Awareness of teachingŚ approaches, benefits, tasks”. in T. Kral
(ed.) Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves: Selected Articles from the English
Teaching Forum 1989-1993

Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books

Gardner, H. 2003. Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years. Chicago, Illinois:
American Educational Research Association

Gardner R.C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. The Roles of
Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books

Gould, E., A. Beylin, P. Tanapat, A. Reeves & T.J. Shors. 1999. “Learning
enhances adult neurogenesis in the hippocampal formation”. Nature Neuroscience 2, 3 pp.
260-265

Green, C.F. 1993. “Learner drives in second-language acquisition”. in T. Kral (ed.)
Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected Articles from the English Teaching
Forum 1989-1993

Greenfield, S. 1999. Mózg. Warszawa: CIS

Gregersen, T and E.K. Horwitz. 2002. “Language Learning and PerfectionismŚ
Anxious and Non-Anxious Learners’ Reactions to Their Own Oral Performance”. The
Modern Language Journal 86/4. pp 562-570

Griffiths, C. & J. Parr. 2001. “Language learning strategiesŚ theory and perception”.
ELT Journal 55, 3, pp. 247-254

Hadfield, J. 1992. Classroom Dynamics, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hahn, C. 1994. “Dealing with variables in the language classroom”. In T. Kral (ed.)
Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected Articles from the English Teaching
Forum 1989-1993

Hallgarten, K. 1988. “Student autonomy – learner training and self-directed
learning”. In: S. Nicholas & E. Hoadley-Maidment (eds) Current Issues in Teaching English
as a Second Language to Adults. London, New York, Melbourne, Auckland: Edward Arnold

Hansen, G.H. 1999. “Learning by heartŚ a Lozanov perspective”. In J. Arnold
(ed)Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Harwas, E. 1999. “Problem ucznia dorosłego”. In: E. Solarczyk-Ambrozik & K.
Przyszczypkowski (eds) Oświata dorosłych. Poznań-ToruńŚ źdytor

Hayes, E. 1989. “Hispanic adults and źSL problemsŚ barriers to participation”.
TESOL Quarterly 23, 1, pp. 47-64
Hermanson, K. 1998. “źnhancing the effectiveness of adult learning programsŚ The
importance of social and development learning”. The Adult Learner in Higher Education and
the Workplace. New Horizons. www.newhorizons.org/article_hermansn.html

Holster, J. 1986. “Student autonomy in adult classes”. Manchester Monographs 05/86

Hopkins, D. 1988. A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Milton Keynes,
Philadelphia: Open University Press

Horwitz, E.K. 1990. “Attending to the affective domain in the foreign language
classroom. : S.S. Magnan (ed) Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner. Middlebury
VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Horwitz, E.K. & D. Young (eds). 1991. Language Anxiety: From Theory and
Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Horwitz, E.K., M.B. Horwitz & J. Cope. 1986. “Żoreign language classroom
anxiety”. Modern Language Journal 70, pp. 125-132

Howard-Pociecha, S. 1991. The English Advisor or How to Use English for
Communication in the Real World. A Patchwork Approach to What’s Wrong With Your
English. WrocławŚ Oficyna Wydawnicza Remix

Houle, C.O. 1981. The Inquiring Mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press

Hooper-Hansen, G. 1999. “Are we ready for holism?”. Humanising Language
Teaching 1, 4. www.hltmag.co.uk/june99

Jankowski, B.A. 1973. Nauka języka obcego, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna

Jarvis, P. 1992. Paradoxes of Learning. On Becoming an Individual in the Society.
St.Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Kargul, J. 1987. “Co to znaczy uczący się dorosły?” InŚ Uczący się dorosły w świetle
badań. Materiały konferencyjne. Łód Ś Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego

Kargulowa, A. 1987. “Uczenie sie dorosłych to tak e poznawanie siebie”. In: Uczący
się dorosły w świetle badań. Materiały konferencyjne. Łód Ś Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Łódzkiego

Kaye, P. 1999. “Responding to small talk – are your students ‘wonderful listeners’?”.
Modern English Teacher 8, 2. pp. 25-28

Kim, K.H.S, N.R.Relkin, K.M.Lee & J. Hirsch. 1997. “Distinct cortical areas
associated with second and native Languages”. Nature 388. pp. 171-174

Kinsella, K. & K. Sherak. 1998. “Designing źSL classroom collaboration to
accommodate diverse learning styles”. In J.M. Reid (ed) Understanding Learning Styles in the
Second Language Classroom. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Kleinmann, H. 1978. “The strategy of avoidance in adult second language
acquisition”. In W. Ritchie (ed) Second Language Acquisition Research. New York:
Academic Press

Knowles, M. 1990. The Adult Learner. A Neglected Species. Houston, Texas: HH
Editors, Gulf Publishing Co.

Knowles, M.S. & H.F. Knowles 1973. Introduction to Group Dynamics. Chicago:
Follett

Knox, A.B. 1986. Helping Adults Learn. St.Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass
Publishers

Kohonen, V. 1993. “ źxperiential language learning: Second language learning as
cooperative learner education”. In D.Nunan (ed.) Collaborative Language Learning and
Teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Komorowska, H. 1978. Sukces i niepowodzenie w nauczaniu języka obcego
Warszawa: WSiP

Komorowska, H. 1982 . Metody badań empirycznych w glottodydaktyce. Warszawa:
PWN

Kopeika, M. 2000. “Mistaken strategies used by weak students – A Review”. English
Teaching Forum 38, 2 pp. 28-32

Krashen,S. 1986. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman

Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. “Maximizing learning potential in a communicative
classroom”. ELT Journal 47, 1 pp. 12-21

Kustra, W. 1994. “On the attitudes of learner’s mind and the role of empathy”. In J.
Arabski (ed)Papers in Linguistics and Language Acquisition, Uniwersytet ląski, Katowice

Labiosa, L. & C. Driscoll. 1999. “Music at the international center for accelerative
learning. Music for źSL, źŻL and language courses”. Humanising Language Teaching 1, 6.
www.hltmag.co.uk/oct99

Lam, W. & J. Wong 2000. “The effects of strategy training on developing discussion
skills in an źSL classroom”. ELT Journal 54, 3. pp. 245-255

Lee, I. 1998. “Supporting greater learner autonomy in language learning”. ELT
Journal 52, 4. pp. 282-290

Leites, M. & A. Butureira. 2000. “Self-directed learning as a growing trend in in-
company źŻL”. Humanising Language Teaching 2, 6. www.hltmag.co.uk/nov00

Lindeman, E.C. 1926. The Meaning of Adult Education. New York: New Republic

Linsay, P. 1977. “Resistances to learning źŻL”. English Language Teaching Journal
32, 3. pp.184-189

Littlejohn, A. 2000. “Language teaching for the millennium”. English Teaching
Professional. www.etprofessional.com - Selected Articles

Littlewood, W. 1983. Communicative Language Learning and Teaching. An
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lubelska, K. 2001. “Z pewną taką nie miało cią”. Polityka 2285. pp.3-9

MacIntyre, P.D. 1995. “How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply
to Sparks and żanshow” in The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 79. pp. 90-99

MacIntyre, P.D. & R.C. Gardner. 1989. “Anxiety and second language learning.
Towards a theoretical clarification”. Language Learning 39, 2 pp. 251-276

MacIntyre, P.D. & R.C. Gardner. 1991. “Language anxietyŚ Its relationship to other
anxieties and to processing in native and second languages”. Language Learning 41, 4 pp.
513-534

MacIntyre P.D. & R.C. Gardner 1993. “On the measurement of affective variables
in second language learning”. Language Learning 43, 1. pp. 157-194

MacIntyre, P.D. and R.C. Gardner. 1994. “The subtle effects of language anxiety
on cognitive processing in the second language” in Language Learning 44, 2 pp. 283-305

Malewski, M. 1996. “Metodologiczne problemy badań nad o wiata dorosłych I
nauczaniem dorosłych”. InŚ Nauczyciele źdukacji Dorosłych. Biblioteka źdukacji Dorosłych.
ToruńŚ Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek & Akademickie Wydawnictwo Andragogiczne

Malewski, M. 1998. Teorie andragogiczne. Metodologia teoretyczności dyscypliny
naukowej. WrocławŚ Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego

Marinova-Todd, S.H., D.B. Marshall & C. Snow. 2000. “Three misconceptions
about age and second language learning”. TESOL Quarterly 34, 1, pp. 9-34

Maslow, A.H. 1987. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row

Matsumoto, K. 1989. “Żactors involved in the L2 learning process”. JALT Journal
pp. 167-192

Michońska-Stadnik, A. 1996. “Students beliefs about language learning” In J.
Arabski (ed) Foreign Language Acquisition Studies. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ląskiego,
Katowice

Michońska-Stadnik, A. 1998 “The use of learner strategies in translations”. In J.
Arabski (ed) Foreign Language Acquisition Studies. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ląskiego,
Katowice

Morstain, B.R. & J.C. Smart. 1974. “Reasons for participation in adult educational
courses: a multivariate analysis of group differences. Adult Education 24(2) pp. 83-98

Moskowitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class: A
Sourcebook of Humanistic Techniques. Rowley/Massachusetts: Newbury House

Moskowitz, G. 1999. “źnhancing personal developmentŚ Humanistic activities at
work”. In J. Arnold (ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Muszyński, H. 1971. Wstęp do metodologii pedagogiki Warszawa: PWN

Nation, P. 1994. “żroup work and language learning”. In T. Kral (ed) Teacher
Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected Articles from the English Teaching Forum
1989-1993

Naish, J. 1988. “Issues and developments in adult education”. InŚ S. Nicholls & ź. Ht
(eds) Current Issues in Teaching English as a Second Language to Adults. London, New
York, Melbourne, Auckland: Edward Arnold

Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. New York: Prentice Hall

Nunan, D. 1992. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Nunan, D. 1993 Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Nunan, D. 1998. “Teaching grammar in context”. ELT Journal 52, 2. pp. 101-109

O’Malley, J.M. & A. Chamot. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies. What Every Teacher Should Know.
New York: Newbury House

Oxford, R. 1999. “Anxiety and the language learnerŚ New insights”. In J. Arnold
(ed)Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Paradis, M. 2004. “Why single-word experiments do not address language
representation”. A plenary lecture given at the ISAPL Conference in Cieszyn

Parkinson, B. & C.Howell-Richardson. 1990. “Learner diaries”. In C. Brumfit& R.
Mitchell (eds.) Research in the Language Classroom. ELT Documents 133: Modern English
Publications

Pattison, B. 1976. “Organising motivation”. English Language Teaching Journal 30,
4 pp. 286-292

Peers, R. 1998. Adult Education. A Comparative Study. London: Routledge

Penfield, W. and L. Roberts. 1959. Speech and Brain Mechanisms. London: Oxford
University Press

Pica, T. 1994. “Language-learning research and classroom concerns”. In T. Kral (ed.)
Teacher Development. Making the Right Moves : Selected Articles from the English Teaching
Forum 1989-1993

Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press

Pinker, S. 2002. Jak działa umysł?. WarszawaŚ Ksią ka i Wiedza

Półturzycki, J. 1991. Dydaktyka dorosłych. Warszawa: WSiP.

Półturzycki, J. 1996. “Kształcenie specjalistów edukacji dorosłych – tradycje,
do wiadczenia, tendencje”. InŚ Nauczyciele źdukacji Dorosłych. Biblioteka Edukacji
Dorosłych. ToruńŚ Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek & Akademickie Wydawnictwo
Andragogiczne

Praag, H. G. Kempermann & F.H. Gage. 1999. “Running increases cell
proliferation and neurogenesis in adult mouse dentate gyrus”. Nature Neuroscience 2, 3.pp.
266-270

Prodromou, L. 1994 .“The good language teacher”. In T. Kral (ed.) Teacher
Development. Making the Right Moves: Selected Articles from the English Teaching Forum
1989-1993

Prodromou, L. 2002. “In search of a good lesson”. English Teaching Professional
22.pp.5-8

Puchta, H. 1999a. “Beyond materials, techniques and linguistic analysisŚ the role of
motivation, beliefs and identity”. A plenary lecture given at the 8 th International IATEFL
Conference in Katowice

Puchta, H. 1999b. “Creating a learning culture to which students want to belong. The
Application of Neuro-Linguistic Programming to Language Teaching”. In J. Arnold
(ed)Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Reid, J. 1987. “The learning style preferences of źSL students”. TESOL Quarterly 21,
pp. 87-111

Reid, J. 1999. “Affect in the classroomŚ problems, politics, pragmatics”. In J. Arnold
(ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ramburuth, P. 1998. “Keep the fire in meŚ Teaching advanced ESL learners Through
their styles”. In J.M. Reid (ed) Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language
Classroom. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Revell, J. & S. Norman 1998. “NLPŚ What’s it all about?” Modern English Teacher
7,3. pp. 7-12

Richards, J.C. & T.S. Rogers. 1991. Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rinvolucri, M. 1999. “The humanistic exercise”. In J. Arnold (ed)Affect in Language
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rinvolucri, M. 2000. “Courtesy to students”. Humanising Language Teaching 2, 3.
www.hltmag.co.uk/may00

Rivers, W. 1983. Speaking in Many Tongues: Essays in Foreign Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rivers, W. 1988. Interactive Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Robles, A. 1999a. “My students’ self-correction strategies in writing tasks”.
Humanising Language Teaching 1, 4. www.hltmag.co.uk/jul99

Robles, A. 1999b. “Learning vocabulary – strategies that work”. Humanising
Language Teaching 1, 7. www.hltmag.co.uk/nov99

Rogers, A. 1996. Teaching Adults. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press

Rogers, C. 1951. Client-Centred Therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin

Rogers, C. 1969. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill

Rogers, T. 2000. “Methodology in the new millenium”. English Teaching Forum 38,
2 pp 2-13

Rose, C. & L. Goll. 1992. Accelerate Your Learning. Surrey: Unwin Bros Ltd.

Rowan, J. 1987. A Guide to Humanistic Psychology. London: The Association for
Humanistic Psychology in Britain. AHP(B). Publication No 1/87

Rowsell, L.V. 1992. “Adults dropping out? Try Repgrid!”. ELT Journal 46, 4 pp.362-
372

Rubin, J. 1975. “What the good language learner can teach us”. TESOL Quarterly 9,
pp. 41-51

Sarason, I.G. 1984. “Test anxiety, worry and cognitive Interference. Reactions to
tests”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46. pp. 929-938

Schumann, J.H. 1999. “A neurobiological perspective on affect and methodology in
second language learning”. In J. Arnold (ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Semków, J. 1987. “Poznawanie wiata I doskonalenie siebie wobec mo liwo ci I
ograniczeń rodowiskowych” człowiek dorosły na drodze samokształcenia”. InŚ Uczący się
dorosły w świetle badań. Materiały konferencyjne. Łód Ś Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Łódzkiego

Sengupta, S. 1998, “Peer evaluationŚ I’m not the teacher”. ELT Journal 52/1 pp 19-26

Skehan, P. 2003. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press

Skrzypczak, J. 1999a. „Nowe technologie edukacyjne w dydaktyce dorosłych i ich
mo liwo ci”. InŚ ź. Solarczyk-Ambrozik & K. Przyszczypkowski (eds) Oświata dorosłych.
Poznań-ToruńŚ źdytor
Skrzypczak, J. 1999b. „ Nowe aspekty doboru i przekazu informacji w procesie
kształcenia dorosłych”. InŚ ź. Solarczyk-Ambrozik & K. Przyszczypkowski (eds) Oświata
dorosłych. Poznań-ToruńŚ źdytor

Smith, D.E., J. Roberts, F.H. Gage & M.H. Tuszyński. 1999. “Age associated
neuronal atrophy occurs in the primate brain and is reversible by growth factor gene therapy”.
Procedeeings of the National Academy of Science 96, 19. pp. 10893-10898

Steinberg, F.S. & E.K. Horwitz. 1986. “The effect of induced anxiety on the
denotative and interpretative content of second language speech”. TESOL Quarterly 20. pp.
131-136

Stevick, E.W. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method. Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House.

Stevick, E.W. 1980. Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House.

Stevick, E.W. 1986. Teaching and Learning Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Stevick E.W. 1999. “Affect in learning and memoryŚ Żrom alchemy to chemistry”. In
J. Arnold (ed) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Sturtridge, G. 1982. “Individualised learningŚ What are the options for the classroom
teacher”. InŚ M. żeddes & ż. Sturtridge (eds) Individualisation. Loughborough: Modern
English Publications Ltd.

Szałek, M. 1992. Sposoby podnoszenia motywacji na lekcjach języka obcego.
PoznańŚ Art-Print

Szczepański, J. 1962. “Społeczne zadania o wiaty dorosłych”. InŚ K. Wojciechowski
(ed) Pedagogika dorosłych. WarszawaŚ Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych

Szewczuk, W. 1962 “Mo liwo ci rozwojowe czlowieka dorosłego”. InŚ K.
Wojciechowski (ed) Pedagogika dorosłych. WarszawaŚ Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw
Szkolnych

Śliwerski, B. 1987. „Strategie samowychowania osób dorosłych”. In: Uczący się
dorosły w świetle badań. Materiały konferencyjne. Łód Ś Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Łódzkiego

Thorndike, E. 1950. Uczenie się dorosłych. Warszawa: PZWS

Tight, M. 1996. Key Concepts in Adult Education and Training. London & New
York: Routledge

Tsai, B. 1999. “NLP – It’s not what you think”. Humanising Language Teaching 1, 2.
www.hltmag.co.uk/apr99

Tumposky, N. 1982. “The learner on his own”. InŚ M. żeddes & ż. Sturtridge (eds)
Individualisation. Loughborough: Modern English Publications Ltd.

Turula, A. 2000a. “Teaching to break barriers or what alternatives do we language
teachers have to a glass of vodka? A study of 3 adult beginners’ groups”. Network 3, 2. pp.40-
46

Turula, A. 2000b. “Metoda komunikacyjna – j’accuse czyli próba obrony”. Języki
Obce w Szkole 5. pp.41-45

Turula, A. 2002a. “Language anxiety and classroom dynamicsŚ A Study of Adult
Learners”. English Teaching Forum 40, 2. pp. 28-33

Turula, A. 2002b Language Anxiety and Classroom Dynamics. Teacher, Peers and
Learning Environment as Inhibiting Factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Silesia, Poland

Turula, A. 2003. “Inteligencja wieloraka, NLP, autonomia, …. i inne hity ostatnich
dekad – jak z tym yć?”. Języki Obce w Szkole 6. pp. 68-73

Turula, A. 2004a. „Czy warto siać – autonomia na kursach językowych dla
dorosłych”. In M. Pawlak (ed) Autonomia w nauce języka obcego. Poznań-KaliszŚ Wydział
Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

Turula, A. 2004b. „Nauczyciel – odtwórca? Nauczyciel, ot, twórca. Kim wła ciwie
powinni my być?”. Języki Obce w Szkole, 6. pp. 64-71

Underhill, A. 1999a. “źngaging the learnerŚ relationship and intention in the
classroom”. A plenary lecture given at the 8th International IATEFL Conference in Katowice

Underhill, A. 1999b. “Żacilitation in language learning”. In J. Arnold (ed)Affect in
Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Urbańczyk, F. 1962. “Podstawowe zagadnienia dydaktyki dorosłych”. In: K.
Wojciechowski (ed) Pedagogika dorosłych. WarszawaŚ Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw
Szkolnych

Wajnryb, R. 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Wallace, M.J. 1991. Training Foreign Language Teachers. A Reflective Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Waters, A. 1998. “Managing monkeys in the źLT classroom”. InŚ ELT Journal 52/1
pp.11-18

Weber, E. 2001. “Żive-phases to PBL: MITA (Multiple Intelligence Teaching
Approach) model for redisigned higher education classes”. The Adult Learner in Higher
Education and the Workplace. New Horizons www.newhorizons.org/lrn_weber2.html

Weil, S. & I. McGill. (eds). 1989. Making Sense of Experiential Learning: Diversity
in Theory and Practice. Milton, Keynes: Open University Press

Wenden, A. 1987. “Incorporating learner training in the classroom”. InŚ A. Wenden,
A and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall

Wenden, A and J. Rubin. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

Williams, M. 1999. “Motivation in language learning”. English Teaching
Professional 13 pp. 6

Williams, M. and R.L. Burden. 1997. Psychology for language Teachers. A Social
Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, K. 1999. “Teenagers – what do they know?”. A plenary lecture given at the
8th International IATEFL Conference in Katowice

Wingate, J. 1997. “Multiple intelligences and lesson planning”. English Teaching
Professional 2. pp. 28-31

Włodarski, A., G.Niewiadomska & K. Turlejski. 1999. „Mózg jak za młodu”.
Gazeta Wyborcza 216. pp. 11

Wojciechowski, K. 1962. „Czym jest o wiata dorosłych?”. In K. Wojciechowski (ed)
Pedagogika dorosłych. WarszawaŚ Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych

Wołoszynowa, L. 1986. “Młodszy wiek szkolny”. InŚ M. ebrowska (ed) Psychologia
rozwojowa dzieci i młodzieży. Warszawa: PWN

Wysocka, M. 1998. Samoocena nauczycieli języków obcych. Warszawa: Energeia

Young, D. 1986. “The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral
proficiency ratings”. Foreign Language Annals 19. pp. 439-445

Zaborowski, Z. 1973. Wstęp do metodologii badań pedagogicznych. Wydawnictwo
Ossolineum

Zanatta, T. 2001. “One-size-fits-all learningŚ A thing of the past”. Unpublished

Presentation at the 10th International IATEFL Poland Annual

APPENDIX: RESEARCH TOOLS

Allwright’s Turn Getting/Giving Chart (1988: 175-179)

total

Turn getting
Total

Turn giving
(-)
Total

Turn getting
1. Accept (respond to a personal solicit)
2. Steal (respond to a personal solicit made to another)
3. Take (respond to a general solicit)
4. Take (take an unsolicited turn, when turn is available)
5. Make (make an unsolicited turn, during the current speaker’s turn without intend to gain the floor)
6. Make (make an unsolicited turn, during the current speaker’s turn with intend to gain the floor)
7. Make (take a wholly private turn at any point of the discourse)
0 Miss (fail to respond to a personal solicit within whatever time is allowed by the interlocutor)
Turn giving
(-) (fade out or/and give way to interruption
O (make a turn available without making any kind of solicit)
P (make a personal solicit)
G (make a general solicit)

Verbal Interaction Chart

WHO
Teacher
TO
WHOM

Teacher

Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (Nunan 1989:83-84)

Teacher talk

I. Indirect influence
1. Accepts feelings:
accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of a student in a non-threatening way;

2. Praises and encourages:
praises or encourages student action or behaviour;
Jokes that release tension; not at the expense of another individual;
Nodding head, saying “uh huh” are included

3. Accepts or uses ideas of student:
clarifying, building or developing ideas or suggestions by a student.

4. Asks questions about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.

5. Lectures:
gives facts or opinions about content or procedures, expressing his own idea;

II. Direct influence
6. Gives directions:
directions, commands, or orders with which a student is expected to comply

7. Criticises or justifies authority:
statements intended to change student’s behaviour from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern;
Bawling someone out;
Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing;
Extreme self-reference

Student talk

8. Student talk-response:
talk by student in response to teacher.
Teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement
9. Student talk initiation:
talk by students, which they initiate.(occasionally)

10. Silence or confusion : pauses
Short periods of silence;
And periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.

The WHO Analysis Chart (based on Deller 1990)

WHO Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
Decides about furniture arrangement

Gives homework

Chooses groups or pairs

Suggests topics

Asks questions

Writes on the board

Decides about learning priorities in
general/for the day

Teacher Routines Analysis Chart

Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
Does the teacher inform his students
how human memory works and how
to use it to the best possible effect?
about various learning strategies and
mnemonics?
about the advantages of an adult
language learner over a young learner?

about various kinds of linguistic
intelligence?
Does he help his students
define their intelligence?

Does the teacher encourage his students to
discover grammar for themselves
hypothesise vocabulary
monitor their speech and writing
themselves?
invent their own homework?
correct their mistakes
use sources other than the coursebook?
ask about words from sources other than
the coursebook?
speak English without additional
encouragement?
define their short-term and long term
goals?
make lists of learning priorities?
share their linguistic experience with
others?
share their linguistic problems with
others?
suggest homework for the class ?
suggest topics for classroom
discussions?

Strategies Chart
Strategy Who introduces it How it is introduced

Error Correction Chart (based on Nunan 1989 & Bartram, M & R. Walton 1994)

Error Teacher Teacher treats Teacher transfers treatment Treatment of error Error treated
ignores At once With delay To class To error explicit Implicit by class
maker (indication independent
of: fact/ of teacher
blame/
location/
model

Teacher Explanations Chart (based on Nunan 1989)

Problem (example) Teacher treats Teacher redirects to Teacher indicates Problem treated by Teacher’s
explicitly class source of knowledge class independently explanation (clear,
of teacher relevant, satisfactory,
confusing,
insufficient for some
students

Anxiety Scale (McIntyre and Gardner 1994: 304-305)

Items for the Input, Processing and Output Anxiety Scales

 I’m not bothered by someone speaking quickly in Żrench.
Input Anxiety Scale

 It does not bother me if my French notes are disrganised before I study them.
 I enjoy just listening to someone speaking French
 I get flustered unless French is spoken very slowly and deliberately.
 I get upset when I read in French because I must read things again and again
 I get upset when French is spoken too quickly.

 Learning new French vocabulary does not worry me, I can acquire it in no time.
Processing Anxiety Scale

 I am anxious with French because, no matter how hard I try, I have trouble understanding it.
 The only time that I feel comfortable during French tests is when I have had a lot of time to

 I feel anxious is French class seems disorganised.
study.

 I am self-confident in my ability to appreciate the meaning of French dialogue.
 I do not worry when I hear new or unfamiliar words, I am confident that I can understand
them.

 I never feel tense when I have to speak in French.
Output Anxiety Scale

 I feel confident that I can easily use the French Vocabulary that I know in a conversation.
 I may know the proper Żrench expression but when I am nervous it just won’t come out.
 I get upset when I know how to communicate something in French but I just cannot verbalise

 I never get nervous when writing something for my French class
it.

 When I become anxious during a French test, I cannot remember anything I studied.

Self-Report Questionnare
GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP TOTAL
The number of people tested in each group
I enrolled a language course because I need someone to control me.
I enrolled on a language course because I like learning in a group.
I enrolled on a language course because …
For me my teacher is the main source of linguistic knowledge.
The teacher should regularly give and check homework.
The teacher should correct all my mistakes. Otherwise I will never learn to
speak and write properly.
I can monitor my progress myself.
The coursebook is the only source I use.
I have other sources like a dictionary and I often use it.
I have other sources like a grammar and I often refer to it.
I often use other coursebooks.
I invent my own homework.
Grammar exercises for the coursebook and workbook are enough for me.
I speak źnglish/żerman even if the teacher doesn’t ask me to.
If I don’t understand something I ask the teacher.
I can monitor my speech and writing myself. I correct my own mistakes.
A short test at every lesson is the best motivating factor.
I have flair for learning languages.
I’m too old to learn a foreign language.
I’m worse than the other members of my group.
I’m good for a beginner.
When I can’t remember a word in źnglish, I use gestures.
I’m worried about my mistakes.
not worried
I feel embarrassed if I have to speak in front of the group.
I’m ashamed of my pronunciation.
If I’m not sure of something I prefer to keep silent.
I know why I want to learn English.
I can define my priorities.
I set short-term goals for myself.
Sometimes my motivation goes down and I know what to do.
Sometimes my motivation goes down but I don’t know what to do
I share my linguistic experience with others.
I’m interested in how other people solve the problems I can’t cope with.
I have my own ways of learning and I don’t need other ways.
There are no special learning methods. You have a teacher, a coursebook and a
copybook and you cram.
I know how human memory works and how to learn effectively.
I know what kind of linguistic intelligence I have and how I can use it best.
I know where, when and how I learn best.
I can organise my time and learning materials.
When I have to say or write something, I rehearse/write first drafts.
I know how to memorise vocabulary
I would like to know how to memorise vocabulary
I know how to learn grammar.
I would like to know how to learn grammar.
I understand audio and video recordings.
I would like to understand audio and video recordings.
I know how to ready quickly and understand the written word.
I would like to know how to ready quickly and understand the written word.
I can speak and write fluently (for a beginner)
I would like to speak and write fluently (for a beginner)
AGE
EDUCATION
SEX
KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Anxiety Trait Actions Chart (based on McIntyre and Gardner 1994 & Oxford 1999)

Student Problems Problems Speech Frequent Taking Heavy Reluctan Poor Hesi Signs of Frequent
with with fear/conf asking for the reliance ce to organi tant impa asking for
attention concentra usion repetition longest on hypothe sation of speech tience and explana
tion time memory/ sise speech nervous tion
reading teacher/ ness
notes

The Ideal Teacher/Group/Classroom

My ideal teacher

My ideal group

My ideal classroom

STRESZCZENIE

Współczesna metodyka nauczania języków obcych wydaje się koncentrować na young

learners. W efekcie, je eli we mie się pod uwagę popularno ć kursów językowych dla

dorosłych, obraz ucznia języka obcego musi być nieco wypaczony a przygotowanie

przyszłych nauczycieli - niekompletne. W związku z powy szym, jednym z celów niniejszej

pracy była wyczerpująca charakterystyka dorosłego uczącego się języków obcych oraz

pokazanie, e edukacja taka jest mo liwa wbrew wszystkim przesądom dotyczącym nauki w

wieku dojrzałym. Jednocze nie trzeba zdawać sobie sprawę, e dorosły uczestnik kursu

języka obcego – zwłaszcza uczeń początkujący - bardzo często pada ofiarą tych przewa nie

błędnych przekonań, które, zwłaszcza wzmocnione barierami emocjonalnymi i poznawczymi,

mogą prowadzić do stanów lękowych związanych z nauką języka obcego.

Inhibicje tego rodzaju okre lane jako lęk językowy (language anxiety) są tematem

niniejszej pracy. Jej celem jest pokazanie związku pomiędzy tą wła nie zmienną a innymi

czynnikami nale ącymi do sfery afektywnej i metakognitywnej. W rezultacie wysiłek

badawczy koncentruje się wokół zale no ci pomiędzy language anxiety, a tym co „dzieje się

w i pomiędzy lud mi w klasie” (Stevick 1980Ś 4)ś tego co Hadfield okre la mianem

classroom dynamics, a co mo na ująć jako stosunki społeczne w klasie, analizowane z

uwzględnieniem niektórych indywidualnych cech ucznia.

Zaprezentowane w pracy studium czterech początkujących dorosłych grup uczących

się języka obcego ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem ich classroom dynamics i lęku

językowego ukazuje wielorakie związki pomiędzy tymi dwoma zmiennymi. Dowodzi, e

najwa niejsze stresogenne elementy to niekompetencja zawodowa nauczyciela, poczucie

braku rzeczywistej przynale no ci do grupy czy niesprawiedliwe (nierówne) traktowania

uczniów przez nauczyciela objawiające się w faworyzowaniu wybranych studentów. Lęk

językowy jest te silniejszy w klasie, gdzie nie stosuje się indywidualizacji metod nauczania,

autonomia ucznia jest ograniczona, a zasady autodydaktyki – nieznane lub ignorowane przez

nauczyciela i grupę.

Konkludując, skoro istnieje związek pomiędzy wysokim poziomem lęku językowego

i niewła ciwymi stosunkami społecznymi w klasie, to, biorąc pod uwagę cytowane w pracy

badania dowodzące, e obie badane zmienne mają negatywny wpływ na skuteczno ć edukacji

wieku dojrzałym, wydaje się, e zarówno lęk językowy jak i stosunki społeczne w klasie

powinny znale ć się w centrum zainteresowań dydaktyków. Podstawą do refleksji w tej

dziedzinie mo e stać się narzędzie o nazwie Teacher’s Self-Reflection Questionnaire

opracowane na podstawie wyników badań opisanych w niniejszej pracy.