THESIS l I g. . g3 :73?) 63> This is to certify that the thesis entitled ATTITUDES OF LEARNERS ENROLLED IN UNIVERSITY LEVEL BEGINNING JAPANESE COURSES TOWARDS INSTRUCTION BY NON-NATIVE VERSUS NATIVE SPEAKERS OF JAPANESE presented by Jill M. McKay has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of degree in Adult Language Learning Arts am a 772 144115cm Major Professor’s Signature Z/pz/ A 1/ Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution l rs» " ‘l\ LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MR2217 W6 05"; EB 2 3 2008 (fir-y 6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65~p.15 ATTITUDES OF LEARNERS ENROLLED IN UNIVERSITY LEVEL BEGINNING JAPANESE COURSES TOWARDS INSTRUCTION BY NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS VERSUS NATIVE SPEAKERS OF JAPANESE. By Jill M. McKay A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Linguistics & Germanic, Slavic, Asian & African Languages 2004 t» .\. ABSTRACT ATTITUDES OF LEARNERS ENROLLED IN UNIVERSITY LEVEL BEGINNING JAPANESE COURSES TOWARDS INSTRUCTION BY NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS VERSUS NATIVE SPEAKERS OF JAPANESE. By Jill M. McKay The study of learner attitudes towards Ieaming foreign languages has attracted the attention of many second language acquisition (SLA) researchers. Recent studies have pointed to learner motivation, perceived difficulty of the language, learner L1 5, socio-economic status, and pedagogy as factors that shape learner attitudes. This study focused on attitudes of learners in university level beginning Japanese courses as they relate to learner preference in terms of the instructor’s L1. Furthermore, the study examined the relationship between motivation and Ieamer preference in terms of the instructor’s L1. The results revealed that (a) beginning learners of Japanese at the university level prefer instruction by native speakers of Japanese; (b) the higher the motivation of the Ieamer, the more likely they will prefer instruction by a native speaker of Japanese; (0) there is a strong correlation between motivation of the Ieamer and the perceived difficulty of studying the Japanese language, that is the higher the motivation the higher the perception of difficulty; and (d) the majority of Ieamers who prefer instruction by native speakers of Japanese rate themselves as intrinsically motivated to study Japanese. Possible implications of the results are discussed as they pertain to research, pedagogy, and the teacher/student dynamic. ”ii lltl .. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank first and foremost, Dr. Debra Hardison for her continued support and guidance of both this thesis and the pilot for the past two years. I am also indebted to Dr. Patricia Wetzel and Dr. Naomi Geyer for allowing me to survey their students at both Portland State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, respectively. For continued academic advisory aid and committee work, I am grateful to Dr. Grover Hudson. To Dr. Colleen Tremonte, I am eternally grateful for her mentorship and friendship over the past eight years of my academic career. Finally, special thanks goes to Michael Chrobak for his unending support in all aspects of my life. iii L .l I. I. 6Q APP TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................... vii I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 2. PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES ...................................................... 1 3. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 4 3.1 The study of Japanese as a foreign language ............................... 4 3.2 Student attitudes towards instructor Ll preference ........................ 8 3.3 Motivation and foreign language learning ................................. 12 4. EXPERIMENT ONE: PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY ...................... 22 4.1 Method ........................................................................... 22 4.1.1 Participants .......................................................... 22 4.1.2 Materials ............................................................. 22 4.1.3 Procedure ............................................................ 23 4.2 Results and Discussion ........................................................ 23 4.2.1 Hypothesis 1 ......................................................... 24 4.2.2 Hypothesis 2 ......................................................... 25 4.2.3 Hypothesis 3 ......................................................... 27 5. EXPERIMENT TWO: UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN—MADISON ......... 28 5.1 Method ........................................................................... 29 5.1.2 Participants ........................................................... 29 5.1.2 Materials .............................................................. 30 5.1.3 Procedure ............................................................. 30 5.2 Results and Discussion ......................................................... 31 5.2.1 Hypothesis 1 ......................................................... 31 5.2.2 Hypothesis 2 ......................................................... 36 5.2.3 Hypothesis 3 ......................................................... 39 5.2.4 Null Hypothesis ...................................................... 41 5.2.5 Further Discussion ................................................... 41 6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................... 43 7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 45 APPENDICES ................................................................................. 47 Appendix A: Portland State University Learner Survey ........................ 47 Appendix B: University of Wisconsin—Madison Learner Survey ............ 50 Appendix C: Selected learner responses to Section D of U of W Survey. 53 iv REFERENCES ............................................................................... 60 I? :u‘ HF] LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Ratings of learners’ preference concerning instructor Ll ................. 25 TABLE 2: Preferences and motivation rating results .................................... 26 TABLE 3: Pearson Correlation of preference and motivation ......................... 26 TABLE 4: Motivation and difficulty rating results ...................................... 27 TABLE 5: Pearson Correlation of motivation and difficulty ........................... 27 TABLE 6: Ratings of learners’ preferences concerning instructor Ll ................ 32 TABLE 7: Preferences and motivation rating results .................................... 37 TABLE 8: Pearson Correlation of preference and motivation ......................... 37 TABLE 9: Motivation and difficulty rating results ...................................... 38 TABLE 10: Pearson Correlation of motivation and difficulty ......................... 38 TABLE 1]: Pearson Correlation of motivation and use of L1 ......................... 42 Vi LIST OF FIGURES FIG. 1 Reasons for Studying Japanese .................................................... 28 FIG. 2 Motivation for Studying Japanese ................................................. 35 FIG. 3 Motivation to Study Japanese Compared ......................................... 44 vii 1. Introduction The present study investigated the attitudes of Ieamers towards instruction by non-native speakers (NNSS) of Japanese versus native speakers (NSs) in a Japanese as a foreign language (J F L) classroom. Previous research has uncovered various unique aspects of teaching Japanese and student attitudes and perceptions concerning foreign language study. However, most research has failed to address the specific relationship between Ieamer attitudes and the L1 of their instructor. The following sections provide the purpose and hypotheses of the present study as well as a detailed discussion of the various research studies on Japanese as a foreign language, Ieamer attitudes towards instructor preference and motivation in foreign language studies. The literature review seeks to show both the progress made within this field and the gaps. The method and the results and discussion sections of the present study are an attempt to fill the gaps in previous studies to the best of the researcher’s ability. The present study concludes with a brief discussion of the limitation of the study as well as a call for further research in the areas of Ieamer attitudes towards the L1 of their foreign language instructor and the correlation between motivation and Ieamer preferences in instruction. 2. Purpose and Hypotheses The purpose of this study is to investigate attitudes of Ieamers in beginning level Japanese courses towards instruction by non-native speakers of Japanese versus native speakers of Japanese. There has been some research concerning the attitudes of instructors towards what type of instructor is best suited to teach Japanese, or if one of each L1 is needed to successfully teach a postsecondary course. The current study is unique in that it not only seeks to examine Ieamer attitudes towards the instructors’ L1, but also to investigate possible correlations between motivation and the Ieamer attitudes towards native versus non-native instruction of Japanese. The hypotheses to be addressed in the present study are as follows: Hl. Instructors who are native speakers of Japanese will be preferred by Ieamers of beginning Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction. H2. Learners who rate their motivation as high will prefer a Japanese native speaker for Japanese language instruction. H3. Learners who rate themselves as intrinsicallyl motivated to study Japanese will find a Japanese native speaker more preferable for Japanese language instruction. H4. Students will find the type of instructor that currently instructs them as the most desirable despite their Ll. These research hypotheses are based on the assumption that instructors have sufficient English skills for basic instructional purposes. While higher levels of university Japanese courses may be taught primarily in Japanese, such is not the case for the beginning level courses taught at Portland State University and the University of Wisconsin—Madison, where data for the present study were collected. The researcher was informed by the Japanese course supervisor at the universities that this is due to the need for the introduction of complex writing systems and language structure before any language is actually taught. However, the problem does arise in some cases that instructors who may have an excellent command of the Japanese language do not always have equal skills in speaking English. This lack of English skills can be extremely ' For the purposes of the current study intrinsic motivation is defined as a personal want‘versus extrinsic motivation which is defined as a personal need. detrimental to the attitudes of students taking a beginning level course in a foreign language (Levine, 2003). Problems may arise when detailed instructions or explanations are needed in the learners’ L1 to enable them to effectively and accurately grasp the Japanese language structure and writing systems (Jorden & Walton, 1987). The Ieamer may become frustrated by the instructors’ apparent lack of accurate description of instructional details and remain confused concerning basic structures taught in the first few months of beginning level Japanese. This frustration towards the instructor can lead to a loss of motivation to study a foreign language and an overall negative experience in the course (Ehrman & deyei, 1998). Conversely, those Ieamers who are highly motivated may in fact prefer a Japanese native speaker. This preference may be due to a number of factors. The Ieamers may feel that native speaker instruction is more authentic, thus leading to more native-like skills for the Ieamers. They may also feel that native speaker instruction will be more challenging and this makes it more attractive to the highly motivated student concerned with the elitism associated with studying a difficult language (Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Highly motivated Ieamers may believe they are more likely to be exposed to “authentic” Japanese if the instruction is by a native speaker. There are obviously many mitigating variables when looking at learner attitudes towards instruction. The present study hopes to shed some light on the subject concerning the independent variable of motivation of the Ieamer when studying Japanese. 3. Literature Review 3.1 The Study of Japanese as a Foreign Language Teaching Japanese as a foreign language (J FL) has many unique characteristics. While enrollment in Japanese courses has steadily increased over the past ten years, for English speakers, Japanese in many ways is still considered a “truly foreign language” with “totally unfamiliar linguistic patterns and cultural concepts”(Jorden &Walton, 1987, p. 110). The Foreign Service Institute still classifies Japanese as a “Group IV” language on their scale of expected level of Speaking proficiency. This classification means that in the Foreign Service’s intensive language training of adults it will take native speakers of English four times longer to learn Japanese than if they were studying a “Group 1” language like French, three times longer for a “Group 11” language like German and two times longer for a “Group III” language such as Polish. The only other languages in the “Group IV” category are Arabic, Chinese and Korean (Ommagio Hadley, 2001). Perhaps due to the stigma that Japanese is an extremely difficult language to learn, the majority of post-secondary Japanese language teachers are native speakers. This relies on the assumption that most NNS of Japanese may not feel confident enough to teach Japanese at the post-secondary level (Endo Hudson, 1994, p. xiv). This fact has important implications for J F L instruction because “most teachers of Japanese are Japanese nationals who have been educated in the Japanese exam-oriented education system. . .These teachers give exams because it is the way they themselves were taught when they were students: it is the only ‘teaching method’ they know” (Brannen, 1990, p.106). Monane (1990) further emphasizes these implications stating: We [Japanese NS instructors] do not usually say to ourselves: ‘Ah, that was certainly a great method by which I learned English. Let me try to teach in the same way’. On the contrary we are often highly critical of the way in which we were taught English or other foreign languages. But cognitively, for many of us this pattern of teaching and Ieaming which we have experienced are likely to be ‘the only game in (our memory) town ’——and therefore the model to which we, unwittingly, are most likely to refer (p. 259). This type of observation by many scholars raised concern as to how to continue authentic instruction of Japanese while still maintaining a sense of Western educational policies, that of not a predominately test based and impersonal approach to teaching. Monane (1990) points out that the teaching methods Japanese native speakers adhere to when instructing Japanese as a foreign language are inherently flawed because they are based on the archaic methods by which the instructors themselves learned English. He argues: “The point I should like to suggest here is that without consciously setting out to do so we are likely to reproduce in our own language teaching today the same patterns as those we followed when we Ieamed English or other foreign languages in our native land” (p.259). Monane (1990) is suggesting that instructors that adhere only to the same pedagogies that they are familiar with through their own language Ieaming experiences can be detrimental. The remedy Monane suggests for such a stagnate teaching malady is for language teachers to be exposed to a wide variety of teaching pedagogies. He states: “Those who in good faith taught us English or other foreign languages in Japan certainly did not intend for their teaching to have the dysfunctional consequences which it often has. Yet because our early cognitive imprinting does often exhibit such consequences, it becomes crucial, when possible, to expose all prospective language teachers to teaching models of the very highest quality. Thus one of the central features of an effective teacher training program must be to provide prospective language teachers with the opportunity to observe excellent teaching. . . .And should those who should chance to visit our classes discover an idea or technique of ours that is useful to them, this is the most Sincere tribute to our teaching that we may ever hope to gain” (p. 260). Monane’s (1990) argument illustrates that while instructors of Japanese courses are usually Japanese native speakers, this type of instruction may not always be best for the beginning Japanese Ieamer. The result may be that the English Ll Ieamers will be subjected to a decidedly foreign approach to language Ieaming, one which is profoundly unfamiliar to them. Another remedy proposed, besides Monane’s (1990) appeal to open Japanese language classrooms to various pedagogies, is to “team-teach” Japanese at the post- secondary level. Team teaching involves a group of two or more persons assigned to the same students at the same time for instructional purposes in a particular subject or a combination of subjects (Johnson & Lobb, 1959). The method gained popularity in the US. in the 19605 amidst sweeping educational reforms (Shannen & Meath-Lang, 1992, p.120), and became widespread in Japan in the late 19805, when schools began to incorporate communication and cultural awareness into the objectives for English language instruction (Sturman, 1992, p.145). The biggest proponent of team teaching in the postsecondary Japanese language classroom is Eleanor Jorden. J orden is a forerunner in Japanese foreign language education, penning many of the first comprehensive textbooks for use in the J FL classroom, most notably, Japanese: The Spoken Language. Her ideas in the text about how the Japanese language should be taught through team-teaching to English L1 students were adopted by many universities around the US. and to this day they closely adhere to her teachings in their JF L classrooms (Jorden with Noda, 1987). Jorden and Walton (1987) seemingly agreed with Monane’s (1990) argument when they stated “educated members of the target culture, like educated people anywhere, tend to teach in the fashion in which they themselves learned” (p.118). However, the Jorden and Walton argument goes one step further to propose that to completely grasp a foreign language one must be exposed to an instructor who natively speaks the language being taught and an instructor who speaks the L1 of the Ieamers. This argument is made clearer in the following statements: “The View that. ..native teachers have of their languages, their own experience in Ieaming them, and their educational traditions may sometimes interfere with presenting the language for acquisition by Ieamers” (Walton, 1992, p.10). “Traditionally it has been assumed that the Japanese language belongs exclusively to the Japanese people: if one is Japanese, one’s language is Japanese, and if one knows Japanese, one should be Japanese. ..Even among some of the most internationally minded, there is often a lingering conviction that foreigners cannot master the Japanese language to a high degree of proficiency” (Jorden & Walton, 1987, pp.l20-121). Team-teaching is used as a way of reaching a middle ground between the notion that only Japanese can speak Japanese and the notion that Japanese is best taught by a speaker of the learners’ L1 to assure better acquisition of the language. Therefore, Jorden and Walton (1987) argue team teaching is the best way to achieve near native-like Japanese skills because it exposes the Ieamer to both native speakers of Japanese, primarily for language use, and native speakers of English, primarily to teach grammatical structures. To this day, many institutions including Portland State University and the University of Wisconsin—Madison, adhere to a modified version of team-teaching. The general idea that team teaching is the best way to efficiently and effectively teach Japanese at the postsecondary level remains strong but there have been modifications. For the universities examined in the present study and the pilot study (McKay, 2003), University of Wisconsin—Madison and Portland State University, respectively, have hired both non-native Japanese speakers as well as native Japanese speakers who do not work together everyday in the same classroom but teach allotted days. For example, the native speaker of Japanese will teach a section of the Japanese course on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in which the Ieamers are expected to speak only Japanese and hence receive instruction through instructor modeling of forms and repetition and practice of those forms and dialogues. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, the non-native speaker of Japanese will instruct the same section concerning complex grammar patterns and rules in which a limited amount of LI is allowed in the classroom on these days for the purpose of clarification and precision. Generally, the belief is that due to the unique and difficult nature of Ieaming the Japanese language, it is imperative to have both a native speaker and a non-native speaker present in the classroom. The native speaker provides an authentic language model for the Ieamers while the non-native Speaker will handle complex instructions and tutorials. The purpose of this study is to gauge how students perceive this current set-up, more specifically, their attitudes and preference in terms of instruction. 3 .2 Student Attitudes Towards Instructor L1 Preference While there have been some studies concerning how instructors, both native and non-native, have reacted to teaching a foreign language, there have been few, if any, observations concerning how students feel about the native language of the instructor. Most studies such as Horowitz (2000) and Oukada (2000) focus predominately on the perceptions and pedagogies of the instructors themselves with no real survey of Ieamer attitudes. The topics that focus on the Ieamer-teacher relationship and teacher’s perceptions of Ieamers are numerous (Horowitz, 2000, p.532) but Ieamer comments and attitudes have been largely ignored or filtered. Horowitz (2000) argues that it is unfortunate that the practice of surveying Ieamer attitudes, especially towards their instructor, has been discontinued in today’s literature. She argues: “If this practice were revived. . .readers would benefit from a wider range of viewpoints on the language classroom and therefore be exposed to a wider range of Ieamer dimensions. Thus I recommend that a ‘Learners’ column appear periodically in The Modern Language Journal, in which students could offer their preferences, concerns, and ideas directly to language teachers” (Horowitz, 2000, p.533). From this argument one can infer that studies and research on student attitudes in the classroom is indeed lacking. The emphasis on instructor beliefs and perceptions can be further illustrated in the work of Oukada (2000). The research focuses mainly on the effects of tension on teaching, from the instructors’ point of view, not the Ieamers. Oukada (2000, p.335) states that teaching is an intricate and evolving interplay of aims, constraints, conflicts, and compromises. While this may be so, it seems there is a missing element in the statement, that of the learner. It would be quite difficult to discuss “constraint, conflicts, and compromises” (Oukada, 2000, p.335) in a language-Ieaming environment without taking into consideration the other half of the classroom, namely the Ieamer. Therefore, the predominate focus on instructors has led to a gap in foreign language Ieaming research. It seems that while instructor pedagogies, attitudes and perceptions are widely examined in the literature, the other half of the teacher/student dynamic is largely ignored. While there have been various studies that deal with foreign language classrooms only those that focus on the use of the L1 in the classroom are discussed in the present study. This is another important element in the teacher/student dynamic that may influence Ieamer attitudes toward their instructor. Many scholars argue that at the intermediate, advanced, and superior levels of teaching Japanese, native speaker instruction is preferable because the entire class is conducted in Japanese (Walton, 1992). However, there has not been much discussion about novice level Japanese classes concerning the relationship between the amount of English spoken in the classroom and the native language of the instructor. Instructors with the same L1 as the Ieamers are used when acquisition of a solid understanding of structural rules is essential, and a systematically structured course is necessary, unless those involved are trained language teachers or have a natural flair for teaching (Kaiser, 1993). For these novice levels, many argue it is imperative to have an instructor with the same L1 as the majority of the students or have a native Japanese speaker with exceptional skills in that L1 (J orden & Walton, 1987). While some pedagogies maintain that the L1 should be used sparingly in the L2 classroom it is important to note the following observation: Although the teacher’s ideal may be that the learners use only the L2 to accomplish collaborative tasks, studies Show that students do use the L1 to some extent. In the 10 teacher-fronted mode of instruction, it is possible for the instructor to avoid the use of English and to prohibit students from using English. However, when peer Ieaming tasks are introduced, the teacher gives up turn-by-turn control of Ieamer language use. ..For foreign language students, the L1 is an important element needed for thinking processes (Ohta, 2001, p.236). Therefore, the more complex and interactive a task the more the use of the L1 may be needed in the classroom. This illustrates the need for instructors with sufficient Ll skills. However, this begs the question of whether instructors can be found and, if so, whether they are up to the challenge. Some may feel less confident about teaching Japanese because they are not native speakers, but it should be encouraging to keep in mind the following statement by Allen and Valette (cited in Endo Simon,1984, p.xiv): How effective can native Americans hope to be as foreign language teachers? The answer is that they may be highly effective. First, their own continuing role as students of the language they are teaching is sensed by their students. Students will respond warmly to a person who doesn’t pretend to “know it all,” but who is truly committed to the Ieaming process. Second, a recent study has failed to find any definite correlations between teacher language proficiency and student language achievement at the elementary levels. Although there may be many explanations for this lack of significant correlation, it seems plausible that a dynamic language teacher of average-to-low language proficiency who uses tape recordings and a variety of techniques in the classroom might well be more effective than the very fluent teacher who is less responsive to the needs of the students and lacks imaginative teaching methods (Allen & Valette, 1972, p.4). If it can be Shown that non—native speakers of Japanese can be just as successful in language instruction in the beginning level classroom then it is also important to 11 investigate factors that tell us why and what Ieamers are receptive towards concerning the L1 of their instructors. It is important that instructors explore their students’ perceptions regarding those factors believed to enhance the Ieaming of a new language and make efforts to deal with potential conflicts between student beliefs and instructional practices (Schulz, 2001 ). Even Krashen (2000) admitted that postsecondary students of a new language are accustomed to formal (i.e. authentic) grammar Ieaming and expect it. To provide that kind of instruction, it is imperative that Japanese language instructors examine their own assumptions about how they are perceived to become more effective in the classroom, a belief echoed by Monane (1990). That being said, it is one thing to investigate the attitudes of the Ieamers, yet quite another to look at why they have the opinions they do. To be sure, there have been some studies that deal with Ieamer attitudes in the foreign language classroom, however, I was unable to find any concerning learner attitudes towards the L1 of the instructor. However, the studies that do deal with Ieamer attitudes include an analysis of other variables in conjunction with Ieamer attitudes. The variable most widely researched dealing with Ieamer attitudes is motivation. 3.3 Motivation and Foreign Language Learning One factor that has been extensively researched but nonetheless remains difficult to qualify and quantify is motivation. Within the study of L2 Ieaming, motivation refers to the combination of effort plus the desire to achieve the goal of Ieaming the language (Gardner, 1985). Research has shown that motivation directly influences how often students use L2 Ieaming Strategies, how much Ieamers interact with native speakers, how much input they receive in the language being Ieamed, how well they do on curriculum 12 related achievement tests, how high their general proficiency level becomes and how long they persevere and maintain L2 skills afier language study is over (Ely, 1986). Therefore, motivation is extremely important for L2 Ieaming and it is crucial to understanding what learners’ motivations are (Oxford & Shearin, 1994). However, there is a lack of research to determine if there is a relationship between motivation and learners’ attitudes towards the L1 of their instructor. Deci and Ryan’s Self Determination Theory (SDT) (1985) attempted to qualify and quantify motivation in Ieaming a foreign language. According to SDT, there are two general types of motivation, one based on intrinsic interest in the activity per se and the other based on rewards extrinsic to the activity itself (Noels, Pelletier, Cle'ment & Vallerand, 2000). A Ieamer who is intrinsically motivated, therefore, would study a language for broader purposes: intellectual challenge, cultural knowledge, personal travel, general interest in the language, etc. On the other hand, a learner who is extrinsically motivated would study a language for more Specific purposes: employment, communication with a friend, fulfillment of university requirements, etc. This theory is easily grasped and defines motivation in a clear manner. Other theories are not so succinct. Another theory concerning second or foreign language study motivation that has been widely used is the integrative aspect theory developed by Gardner (1985). This concept is similar to the idea of intrinsic motivation in that it concerns the desire of the Ieamer to interact with the L2 community to the extent of possibly becoming identified with that community. It takes intrinsic motivation one-step further, however, in noting that an important aspect of the integrative disposition is a sort of psychological and 13 emotional identification. According to Gardner (2001), the identification concerns the L2 community, (identifying with the speakers of the target language), but Ddrnyei (1990) argued that in the absence of a salient L2 group in the learners’ environment (as is often the case in foreign language Ieaming contexts in which the L2 is primarily Ieamed as a school subject), the identification can be generalized to the cultural and intellectual values associated with the language as well as to the actual L2 itself. Therefore, while Ieamers may believe they are identifying with the language, they are in fact identifying with the culture and values of the language community. While Gardner’s (1985) integrative theory on motivation is comprehensive for the purposes of this study it is perhaps too comprehensive and almost confusing. The integrative aspect deals with almost every factor that may or may not influence a learners’ motivation including psychological and emotional schemas. Although the present study strives to be thorough, in no way does it purport to attempt to measure the psychological and emotional state of its participants. Domyei perhaps has provided the field of motivational studies in second and foreign languages with the most comprehensive and extensive research. In an attempt to identify the common dimensions of motivation, Domyei (1998) presented a synthesis of 13 different constructs by tabulating the main motivational domains underlying them. Almost all the motivational constituents—many already discussed in this study—could be classified into seven broad dimensions. 1. Affective/integrative dimension, referring to a general affective “core” of the L2 motivation complex related to attitudes, beliefs and values associated with the process, the target and the outcome of Ieaming, including variables such as “integrativeness”, l4 9, 66' 99 ‘6 “affective motive”, “language attitudes, Intrinsic motivation, attitudes towards L2 ,9 ‘6 Ieaming, enjoyment,” and “interest;” 2. Instrumental/pragmatic dimension, referring to extrinsic, largely utilitarian factors such as financial benefits; 3. Macro-context-related dimension, referring to broad, societal and sociocultrual factors such as multicultural, intergroup and ethnolinguistic relations; 4. Self-concept-related dimension, referring to Ieamer specific variables such as self- confidence, self-esteem, anxiety and need for achievement; 5. Goal-related dimension, involving various goal characteristics; 6. Educational context-related dimension, referring to the characteristics and appraisal for the immediate Ieaming environment (i.e. classroom) and the school context; and 7. Significant others-related dimension, referring to the motivational influence of parents, family and friends (Domyei & Cle’ment, 2001, p.400). Summarily, dimensions one and three are largely defined as intrinsic motivation, while dimensions two and four through seven refer more to extrinsic motivation. These dimensions provide a comprehensive summary of the predominant theories of motivational studies. However, for the purposes of the present study and simplification, motivation will be measured by the general definitions on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation provided in the SDT theory. While the information above provides a brief synopsis of the different components of motivation in language Ieaming, it is also important to examine these theories to differentiate between motivation in Ieaming a foreign language, which this study predominately refers to and is not as widely researched, and a second language, which dominates most of the current literature. Individuals making the second/foreign language distinction have proposed that integrative motivation might have more 15 relevance for students of a second language than it would for students Ieaming a foreign language (Masgoret & Gardner, 2001). This distinction led Masgoret and Gardner to hypothesize that the relationship of attitudes, motivation, and orientation to language achievement would be stronger in a second language than in a foreign language. In another study, deyei (1990) proposed that foreign language Ieamers often have not had enough contact with the target language community to form attitudes about them (p. 69). As a consequence he argued that intrinsic motivation might be expected to be associated with achievement in the second language, but that students often learn a foreign language for purely practical reasons and thus an instrumental motive would be more likely to lead to successful Ieaming of the language (Masgoret & Gardner, 2001, p. 179). Dbmyei (2001) has recently modified his position: In a large scale nationwide study in Hungary, a language-learning environment that is strikingly different from Canada in that it is largely monolingual and mono-cultural, and foreign languages are taught primarily as a school subject with very limited direct contact with L2 speakers, Ddrnyei and Clement (2001) found integrativeness to be the most powerful general component of the participants’ generalized language-related affective disposition, determining language choice, and the general level of effort the students intended to invest in the Ieaming process (pp.50-51). Domyei’s definition of integrative motivation is largely parallel to the SDT definition of intrinsic motivation. From this research we can assume that intrinsic motivation does in fact play a large role for Ieamers in the foreign language classroom. Therefore, motivation in foreign language Ieaming may be characterized by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. l6 Even though the present study will examine Ieamer attitudes towards the instructor concerning the instructor’s Ll, it is important to review how learners’ perceptions about their instructors and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are linked. While there have been some notable studies concerning perceptions of instructors, most have dealt with learner attitudes towards the instructors’ communicative style. Noels, Cle'ment, and Pelletier (1999) found that stronger feelings of intrinsic motivation were correlated with positive language Ieaming outcomes, including greater motivational intensity, greater self-evaluation of competence, and reduction in anxiety. Moreover, students’ perceptions of the instructor’s communicative style were related to intrinsic motivation, such that the more controlling and the less informative the Ieamers perceived the instructor to be, the lower the students’ intrinsic motivations were. These findings illustrate that learners’ perceptions of their instructor can ultimately help or hinder their intrinsic motivation. However, the research only examines learners’ perceptions of their instructors’ communicative style. The current study proposes to identify the relation between learners’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and their preferences and attitudes towards the L1 of their instructor. To do so, it is important to look at research that pertains to what in the past has motivated Ieamers to study the Japanese language. In 1991, 218 American high school Ieamers were asked to write an essay explaining their motivation for studying Japanese. Here is a summary of some of the responses as reported by Oxford and Shearin (1994): Many wanted to learn Japanese for future business reasons (an instrumental motivational orientation), and others were spurred by the desire to make friends in Japan (an integrative motivational orientation). However, more than two-thirds of the teenagers also had additional reasons for Ieaming Japanese that did not relate well to either of these two 17 motivations. These reasons included: receiving intellectual stimulation, seeking personal challenge, enjoying the elitism of taking a difficult language, Showing off to friends, developing greater cultural “secrets”, pursuing a fascination with Japanese writing systems, and having a private code that parents would not know (p. 13). This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but rather a mere snapshot of the many varying dimensions of motivation to study Japanese. However, it is important to note what has historically motivated students in order to fully understand their level or degree of motivation. With the boom of Japanese industry in the US. in the 19905 the levels of motivation to learn Japanese skyrocketed, mostly because they were directly related to dollar signs (Fujita, 1997). Practically speaking, many students who take language courses at the college level hope to utilize the language in their careers after they graduate apart from those who take language courses to meet a requirement. In the US, such a circumstance is evident in relation to Japanese: There was a high demand but low supply in the job market. For this practical reason, Japanese language programs concerning such student’s needs [should] include certain aspects of vocational training in their curricula (F ujita, 1997). Vocational training is understood as language Ieaming geared toward Ieamers who wish to use the language in a business setting. Hence, a new breed of Japanese language instruction was bom—one geared mostly towards the instrumental/pragmatic dimension (deyei & Clement, 2001), or extrinsic motivation. Therefore, many Japanese language students in the early to mid 19905 enrolled in Japanese courses to secure a job after graduation. It must be noted, however, that the 19903 are gone, thus a shift has occurred in J FL curricula since that time. As the demand for fluent speakers of Japanese in the 18 private sector declines, no longer are Ieamers only motivated by extrinsic values, which may account for the rise of intrinsically motivated learners. Thus, today the level and dimensions of motivation are much more varied and J FL instruction has evolved accordingly. Another factor that may be inherently linked to Ieamer motivation is the amount of the target language (TL) and L1 that is used in the classroom (Tumbull & Arnett, 2002). Most second language and TL educators agree that students need to be exposed to TL input if they are expected to learn (Krashen, 1982). However, this begs the question how much of the TL should be used? Should the L1 be strictly limited to instructional purposes and grammar? Cook (2001) and van Lier (1995) believe that teachers have interpreted the stress placed on the maximization of the TL in the classroom to mean that the L1 should be avoided entirely (Tumbull & Arnett, 2002). This interpretation is condemned by Cook (2001) because as he says this practice sharply limits the “possibilities of language teaching”(p. 504). He argues, as many other SLA scholars do, that using the student’s Ll appropriately provides a resource to the Ieamer that would otherwise be lacking in a class conducted solely in the TL. On the other hand, other scholars argue the use of the L1 Should be limited to the explanation of complex grammatical concepts and should not be extensively relied upon (Tumbull & Arnett, 2002). These arguments follow the belief that the only way to “truly” learn a language is to provide the most TL input as possible for the Ieamer. How then does L1 and TL use factor into Ieamer motivation? According to Levine (2003), the amount of instructor and student TL use correlates positively with the 19 students’ sense of anxiety about TL use. Therefore, the more TL is stressed in the classroom, the more anxiety a Ieamer will feel. Anxiety on the part of the student has long been recognized as a factor that greatly affects motivation in the classroom. At the individual level, students produce and enhance motivation to learn other languages and cultures to interact with speakers of the language. On the other hand, students also can have underlying massive anxiety about how one is perceived and accepted by others, which can interfere greatly with motivation and achievement in the SL or FL classroom (Ehrman & deyei, 1998). Ultimately, greater usage of the TL in the classroom directly relates to the level of anxiety of the Ieamer, which can greatly affect Ieamer motivation in a negative way, thus lowering Ieamer motivation. These observations are important when examining Ieamer preferences and attitudes towards their instructors. One can argue then that instructors who “overuse” the TL in the classroom setting may make the Ieamer anxious (Levine, 2003). It is imperative then to look at what kind of instructors are more prone to using the TL exclusively in the language classroom, so much so that Ieamers lose confidence because they feel pressured to use the high level of the TL as the instructor does. Although current teaching methodology has idealized communicative tasks as the goal of instruction, these students in the first two years of Japanese language Ieaming still have a rather fragile grip on their L2 resources. They are dependent on teachers structuring and preparation for tasks in order for them to participate productively and without anxiety (Ohta, 2001, p.269). The case is that a NS of the language would be more likely to exclusively use the TL, it being the language they feel most comfortable using. Consequently, this leads Ieamers to prefer a NNS instructor, assuming that the NNS would be more apt to use the leamer’s 20 Ll, if they in fact share the same L1, and therefore reduce the anxiety of the student and increase or maintain the learner’s motivation. On the other hand, it can be supposed that a NNS instructor might use the TL exclusively to quell any sort of misgivings the Ieamers may have as to the authenticity of their instructor’s language skills. The NNS may also use the TL predominately in the classroom to prove to themselves that they are able to teach the TL as well as a NS. This situation will obviously have the same outcome as that of the NS who produces only TL input. Though the above situation may seem highly unlikely, Levine’s (2003) study revealed that some of the non-native instructors interviewed said they felt a need to overcompensate for the fact that they were not native speakers of the language they teach. While there are claims on both sides of this argument, there has been no conclusive evidence to prove what kind of instructor, NS or NNS, tends to use the TL more in the classroom. However, the Levine (2003) study does make an interesting discovery that whoever uses too much of the TL can face negative results concerning the motivation of the Ieamer. These negative results consist of lower motivation levels and higher anxiety for the Ieamers in the classroom. Whatever the case maybe, it is obvious that if a Ieamers do not feel comfortable in the classroom—feeling anxious, losing motivation, etc—their attitudes towards the instructor will undoubtedly be affected. Ultimately, there is no one way of instructing J FL to accommodate the varying motivational dimensions that are frequently encountered in the FL classroom. There is no one definitive guide to instructing J FL. Every Ieamer has different idiosyncrasies that may or may not be revealed in the general schema of the entire classroom dynamic, making it difficult to adhere to only one method of teaching JFL. This study hopes to 21 provide insight into a small facet of this dynamic, namely how attitudes of Ieamers towards non-native instruction versus native instruction differ according to motivational levels and dimensions. 4. Experiment One: Portland State University Experiment One was completed in the Fall of 2003 at Portland State University as a pilot study for Experiment Two at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. The method and results with brief discussion are presented here to further substantiate the findings of Experiment Two. Therefore, a comprehensive discussion of the results of the survey will be covered in section 5. 4. 1 Method 4.1.1 Participants Participants in the study were a total of 80 Ieamers enrolled in a university beginning level Japanese at Portland State University. They included freshman to senior in undergraduate study, graduate students, and post baccalaureate study. The L1 ’3 of the Ieamers are as follows: English (64), Chinese (3), Thai (3), Korean (2), Vietnamese (1), Tagalog (1), Spanish (1), German (1), Indonesian (1) and Cambodian (1). The length of time spent studying Japanese at the beginning university level was about two months prior to the present study. Most of the participants who had studied Japanese previously had done so for less than one year. As stated earlier, Portland State University engages in a modified team-teaching curriculum for beginning-level Japanese courses. All of the participants were instructed twice a week in lecture (focusing on grammar structures) by a non-native speaker of Japanese with a native speaker of Japanese (a total of 3 rotated) 22 teaching dialogue, pronunciation, nuances, some grammar structures, etc. three times a week. 4.1.2 Materials The materials used in this study consisted of a survey with three sections (See Appendix A). The survey created for this study was loosely based on deyei and Clement’s (2001) study of foreign language learners in Turkey. The first section (Section A) was a student background section, consisting of twelve questions pertaining to ethnicity, gender, level of study at the university, whether Japanese was a required course, first language, other languages studied, experience studying that language, status as a heritage Ieamer, reason for studying Japanese, and the L1 of their instructor. The second section (Section B) contained six questions that were to be answered using a 5- point Likert-type rating scale, with 5 being the highest rating and 1 being the lowest. These questions pertained to the learners’ interest in studying Japanese, motivation, perceived difficulty of Japanese as a TL, perceived personal performance, perceived performance of the entire class and how much instruction is given in English in the class. The third section (Section C) consisted of three statements to which the participants were asked to respond using a Likert-type scale of 5 (highest) and 1 (lowest) according to how true the statement was of them. The statements concerned their preference for the L1 of their instructor. 4.1.3 Procedure Before filling out the survey, Ieamers voluntarily signed a consent form, which ensured their anonymity. The consent forms were detached from the survey, therefore the researcher and collecting instructor could not match the Ieamer names to their survey. 23 The survey was completed during regular class hours. The survey was administered by the instructor of the class who informed the Ieamers that their participation was voluntary. The Ieamers were informed that (a) their names and their instructors’ names were not on the survey, (b) their instructors would not see their responses, and (c) their participation would not affect their course grades. All the Ieamers signed the consent form indicating they understood the nature and purpose of the study and agreed to participate. They then completed the survey without a time limit. The survey should have taken no more than five minutes to complete. 4.2 Results and Discussion The results were tabulated by the researcher in Microsoft Excel as raw data, which then allowed the researcher to perform a Pearson correlation to analyze the significance of the results. According to Hatch and Lazaraton (1991) the Pearson correlation allows researchers to establish the strength of relationships of continuous variables (p. 427) The following section of the study will reiterate the hypotheses posed while providing and briefly discussing the results according to the aforementioned hypotheses. As Experiment One was designed as a pilot study for Experiment Two, the bulk of the results’ discussion will be covered in section 5.2, as Experiment Two is the focus of the present study. 4. 2. 1 Instructors who are native speakers of Japanese will be preferred by learners of beginning Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction (H 1). Table 1 presents the results of the participant responses when asked to rate their preference of L1 for the purpose of Japanese instruction. AS shown in Table 1 the 61 of 24 the 752 (81.3%) participant responses strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of Japanese”. Conversely, 42 of the 75 (56%) participant responses strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement “I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of English. Interestingly, 28 of the 75 (37%) participant responses partly agreed with the latter statement. This result is likely due to the fact that the participants all have access to both types of instructors and were somewhat conflicted by having to choose which type they prefer. However, most of the participants as stated above overwhelming (81.3%) prefer a Japanese NS for the purpose of Japanese language instruction. Therefore we can confirm the first hypothesis. Table 1: Ratings of learners’ preference concerning instructor L13 Prefer Instruction by Prefer Instruction by a NNS of NS of Japanese Japanese 5-Strongly agree 39 5-Strongly agree 3 4—Agree 22 4-Agree 2 3-Partly agree 12 3-Partly agree 28 2-Disagree 2 2-Disagree 30 l-Strongly disagree 0 l-Strongly disagree 12 One possible explanation for the above results is that Ieamers believe they will be receiving more “authentic” instruction if it is provided by a NS of Japanese. This explanation will be more thoroughly discussed in section 5.2.1, as the results of both experiments are quite similar and the focus of this study is on Experiment Two. 4. 2.2 Learners who rate their motivation as high will prefer a Japanese native for Japanese language instruction (H2). Table 2 presents the results in a correlation matrix for preference of a Japanese NS and motivation. As shown in Table 2 the number of participant responses (97.3%) 3, 66 who “strongly agree , agree” and “partly agree” with the statement “I prefer my 2 Though there were 80 participant survey and consent forms returned to the researcher some of them were not completed in full, therefore leading to various participant response numbers. 3 See Appendix A, section C for complete survey instructions and statements. 25 Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of Japanese” are strikingly similar to the number of participant responses (98.8%) that rated their motivation as “very high”, “high” or “average”. Of those responses, 81.3% of participants responded that they “strongly agree” or “agree” with the former statement in complete correlation with 81.3% of those who rated their motivation as “very high” or “high”. Table 3 presents the results of Pearson correlation between preference for instruction by a NS of Japanese and the participants’ motivation. The Pearson correlation of the data in Table 2 the factors of NS of Japanese preference and motivation was shown to be strong and significant, r= 0.74, p< .001. From these results we can see that there is indeed a strong relationship between preferring a NS of Japanese for Japanese language instruction and motivation of the Ieamer. Therefore, it seems likely that Ieamers who are highly motivated prefer a NS of Japanese for Japanese language instruction, thus proving hypothesis two (H2). Table 2: Preference and motivation rating results” Prefer Instruction by Motivation NS of Japanese 5-Strongly Agree 39 5-Very high 24 4-Agree 22 4-High 41 3-Partly Agree 12 3-Average 14 2-Disagree 2 2-Low l l-Strongly disagree 0 l-Very Low 0 Table 3: Pearson Correlation of preference and motivation Prefer NS Japanese Motivation Prefer NS Japanese 1 Motivation 0.735496745 1 While the researcher did not hypothesize as to the correlation between Ieamer motivation and perceived difficulty of the language, the results show that there is indeed ’ See Appendix A, Section B & C for complete instructions, survey questions and statements 26 a strong correlation. Table 5 shows a Pearson Correlation of: r= .68, p<.001. Therefore, these results not only imply that Ieamers who are more highly motivated will prefer a NS of Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction but also that those highly motivated Ieamers rate the difficulty of the language as predominately “difficult” or “average”. These correlations are clearly illustrated in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4: Motivation and difficulty ratinwsults Motivation Difficulty S-Very high 24 5-Very Difficult 11 4-High 41 4-Difficult 32 3-Average l4 3-Average 36 2-Low 1 2-Easy 2 l-Ver)I Low 0 l-Very Easy 0 Table 5: Pearson Correlation of motivation and difficulty Motivation Difficulty Motivation 1 Difficulty 0.681572215 1 4. 2.3 Learners who rate themselves as intrinsically motivated to study Japanese will find a Japanese native speaker more preferable for Japanese language instruction (H3). This hypothesis was a bit more difficult to quantify due to the structure of the question that allowed unlimited answers asking the participants “What is your reason for studying Japanese”. However, the majority of the responses (22%) stated “Interest in Japanese culture” as the reason for studying Japanese followed closely by “Intellectual challenge” (19%), “Travel” (15.5%) and “Career Interests” (14%). The results’ breakdown of the 271 responses can be seen in Figure 1. These results Show that a majority of the responses (41%) point towards intrinsic motivation, or the affective/integrative dimension that iS referred to by Ddrnyei and Cle'ment (2001). 5 See Appendix A, Section A. 27 Therefore, these results imply that students who are intrinsically motivated prefer 3 NS of Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction. F7 ,7 iii L 7 L i Fig. 1 Reasons for Studying Japanese ‘ §70 ‘ :604 ° l I 350- I £40 I I "530 I- . I 320 I ‘ E10 2 Oil ‘5 :9 am :3; '5 "’ " l ‘ gas as a? {we > LEE 3 ca ~,~, m9 age ‘3 2>= o I 2.3% 32 ES 238 " E39 l ‘ $568:- " so 5") m3 Learner Responses l Furthermore, Figure 1 shows that the majority of the participants chose “intellectual challenge” and “interest in Japanese culture” as their primary reasons for studying Japanese. Not surprisingly, the lowest number of participant responses to this question was “satisfies university requirement”. This shows that learners who enroll in Japanese courses are generally more motivated than other language Ieamers because the perceived difficulty of the language appeals to those who wish to take a course for reasons other than to satisfy university requirements. It can be said then that if Ieamers wish to satisfy a university requirement they are more likely to choose a language other than Japanese. 5. Experiment Two: University of Wisconsin—Madison The focus of the present study is Experiment Two. This is due mainly to the fact that the survey provided to the participants at University of Wisconsin—Madison 28 included a section (Section D) for open-ended explanations as to why the participants rated the statements in Section C as they did. Therefore, the addition of Section D provides for a deeper analysis of the participant responses to Section C. Due to the similarity of the two experiments’ results, the explanations and analysis offered in section 5.2 is more comprehensive to more fully explain both the pilot and the present study through the use of the participant responses in Section D. 5.1 Method 5.1.1 Participants Participants were a total of 84 Ieamers enrolled in a university beginning level Japanese language course at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. They included freshman to senior levels in undergraduate study, graduate students, post baccalaureate study. The Lls of the Ieamers are as follows: English (50), Korean (13), Thai (8), Chinese (6), Indonesian (3), Russian (1), and Cambodian (1). Females made up 48% of the participants, while males represented 52%. The length of time spent studying Japanese at the beginning university level was about two months prior to the present study. Most of the participants who had studied Japanese before college had done so for less than one year. As stated earlier, the University of Wisconsin—Madison engages in a modified team-teaching cun'iculum for beginning level Japanese courses. On Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays the students are instructed on dialogue, pronunciation, nuances, some grammar structures, etc. by a NS of Japanese and on Tuesdays the students are instructed on grammar structures by a NS of English. Therefore, the Ieamers have access to both native speakers of Japanese and native speakers of English. 29 5.1.2 Materials The materials used in this experiment consisted of a survey with four sections. There were only two changes made to the survey from Experiment One for Experiment Two namely, question 11 of the survey now reads “What is your motivation for studying Japanese?” versus “What is your reason for studying Japanese?” and the inclusion of a fourth open—ended question section (See Appendix B). In this experiment, the fourth and final section (Section D) asked the participants to explain their ratings for questions in the third section (Section C). The impetus for these changes is two—fold. First, changing the term from “reason” to “motivation” allows the researcher to more accurately account for the participants’ motivation, as this is one of the central variables in the present study. Second, allowing the participants to explain why they rated their preferences as they did provides the researcher a deeper analysis of the results of not only Experiment Two but Experiment One as well. 5.1.3 Procedure The procedure and data collection were completed in exactly the same manner as was discussed in Experiment One section 4.1.3 and section 4.2. 5. 2 Results and Discussion The following section of the study will reiterate the hypotheses posed while providing and discussing the results according to the aforementioned hypotheses. 5. 2.1 Instructors who are native speakers of Japanese will be preferred by learners of beginning Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction (H I ). Table 6 presents the results of the participant responses when asked to rate their preference of L1 for the purpose of Japanese instruction. As shown in Table 6, 74 of the 30 84 (88%) participant responses strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of Japanese”. Conversely, 54 of the 826 (68%) participant responses strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement “I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of English. Interestingly, 24 of the 82 (29%) participant responses partly agreed with the latter statement. This result is likely due to the fact that the participants all have access to both types of instructors and may have found some difficulty in having to choose which type they prefer. However, most of the participants as stated above overwhelming (88%) preferred a Japanese NS for the purpose of Japanese language instruction. The Pearson correlation for preference for a NS of Japanese over a NS of English is significant at r= 0.80, p<.001. Therefore, the first hypothesis (H1) is confirmed. Table 6: Ratings of learners’ preference concerning instructor L17 Prefer Instruction by Number Prefer Instruction by a NS of Number NS of Japanese of English of Responses Responses 5-Strongly agree 46 5-Strongly agree 0 4—Agree 28 4-Agree 2 3-Partly agree 7 3-Partly agree 24 2-Disagree 2 2-Disagree 41 l-Strongly disagree I l-StronglyI disagree 15 An explanation for the above results is that Ieamers believe they will be receiving more “authentic” instruction if it is provided by a NS of Japanese. Authentic instruction can be described as the Ieamer feeling that only a native speaker of Japanese can truly portray the nuances and innate characteristics of the language, supported by many of the Ieamer responses to Section D in the survey. In Section D the Ieamers were asked to 6 Though there were 84 participant survey and consent fomis returned to the researcher, four of them were not completed in full, therefore leading to various participant response numbers. 7 See Appendix B, section C and D for complete survey instructions and statements. 31 explain why they rated their preferences in such a manner. Below are some representative responses": “I think that the instructor will be better able to explain the usage of Japanese in native [Japanese]. It’s also important that they are able to convey the intricacies of natural Japanese speakers.” “My Japanese instructor should be Japanese because it is always best to learn from someone who has lived in Japan, and has gone through many critical parts of his or life (ie. Childhood, school, work) and therefore knows Japanese mannerisms and experiences you can’t Ieam from a book.” “I believe that only a native speaker of one language would firmly master the art of the language 100%” “It is very important that my Japanese studies come from an experienced Japanese instructor. I would hate to study Spanish if my teacher is a Chinese native.” “feel much more confident about my instructors understanding of the language I want to Ieam if they are a native speaker they also bring the culture behind the language into the classroom which is important in appreciating and drawing interest in the language.” The responses above illustrate the leamer’s preference for a NS of Japanese for the purpose of language instruction. They also Show that this preference is linked to the idea that authenticity can only be provided by a NS of Japanese. Another reason for these results is that while all of the participants in the present study were exposed to both a NS and NNS of Japanese, some perceive their NS of Japanese instructor to be the one who teaches them the most interesting aspects of the 8 See Appendix C for a longer sample of learner responses. 32 Japanese language. Support for this explanation can be seen in the Ieamer responses that cite culture as an important and interesting aspect that they believe only a NS of Japanese can truly convey. For example while some Ieamers feel NNS instruction may be preferable for grammatical structures, overall they prefer a NS of Japanese for the perception of authenticity. This sentiment is illustrated in the following Ieamer response: “Because it’s not enough to know ‘proper’ speech, one must also Ieam commonly used phrases and structures of such—something a non-native speaker may not be able to provide this in my preference; however a teacher who’s first language is English may be able to explain things better (grammatical structures). I catch on quickly, however and prefer a native Japanese speaker for an instructor I overall, however I think a mix is important. . . .” From this sample the most common reason Ieamers prefer a native Japanese speaker for the purpose of Japanese instruction is that it is the “best” way to fully attain the nuances, intricacies, and overall authentic instruction of the language. Another factor that accounts for the results is that the learners’ Japanese NS instructor has excellent English skills. This would lead the Ieamers to feel no frustration with the lack of instruction in English in the classroom. Even if the NS of Japanese was mildly lacking in English skills most of the Ieamers in this study have access to both NS and NNS as instructors. The following responses illustrate how this factor may shape Ieamer preferences: “I think it would most likely be better if the teacher is a native speaker of Japanese. If the teacher isn’t a native speaker of Japanese but speaks the language just as good as one, then it doesn’t matter to me.” 33 “By being a native speaker, they use what they are teaching every single day as an integral part of their lives and they know the subject matter extremely well. They don’t have to be a native English speaker. In fact, I prefer them to be a native speaker of the language they teach. However, it’s helpful for them to have a basic knowledge of English.” “I believe that learning from a native speaker is the best way to learn correct pronunciation and correct nuances of the language. However, the main advantage to having a TA who is a native English speaker is that they can more easily relate to the students’ problems with the language, but I believe a native Japanese speaker who has had a thorough grounding in English can do the same.” “It is best to Ieam from a native speaker because you can Ieam colloquialisms and things. But I wouldn’t object to another teacher, as long as he or she was fluent in the language.” These responses show that while the subjects prefer a NS of Japanese for instruction, they also prefer their instructor to have an excellent command of English in order to teach effectively. The results of both the Pearson correlation and Ieamer responses have shown that they prefer a NS of Japanese for instruction of their beginning level Japanese language course. However, a plethora of Ieamer responses were quite poignant in pointing out that even though they prefer a NS of Japanese, they do not oppose, and even in certain situations may prefer, a NNS of Japanese as an instructor. Here are some of those responses: 34 “Though our instruction has been very complete, it is always easier to teach something that you Ieamed through conscious effort, thus understanding which parts are more difficult than others.” “Sometimes when you don’t know how to speak Japanese (a word) you have to speak English, but if your TA can’t understand English then you will not Ieam. So, I think a little bit of English is required.” “On one hand, a native speaker would have the best Japanese pronunciation, however, native English speakers are more sympathetic to students like me ( a native English speaker) and the problems we encounter in trying to Ieam Japanese.” “I think that it is usually important for a language instructor to be native speaker of that language. A native speaker would be best equipped to give lessons on pronunciation, natural flow of grammar in spoken sentences, cultural nuances, etc. However, I don’t think this entirely precludes non-native speakers for giving foreign language instruction. An instructor that natively Speaks the language of his/her students would be better equipped to explain the language of instruction in terms that more readily make sense to the students.” “Knowing the language you are trying to teach as your first language, gives you a better, deeper understand of the material trying to be taught. But if you have a hard time translating between Japanese and English, deeper understanding of the language may be lost during the translation. Also, it is good to understand the student’s first language so that you can thoroughly answer any difficult questions they have. Sometimes I felt that this was a barrier towards my learning experience.” 35 These responses are important because while they support H1 they also point to a strong awareness on the part of the Ieamer concerning their preferences and attitudes in the classroom. While they may prefer a NS in the FL classroom, most are by no means opposed to a NNS instructor—sometimes even preferring one—and furthermore feel that both NS and NNS instructors must possess not just excellent skills in the TL but also in the L1. According to the latter responses it is clear that some Ieamers find the use of the L1 extremely imperative at times when specific instruction is needed. 5. 2.2 Learners who rate their motivation as high will prefer a Japanese native speaker for Japanese language instruction (H2). In examining the second hypothesis we can begin to generalize why Ieamers of beginning Japanese at the university level prefer NS instructors of Japanese to NNS of Japanese. AS stated earlier, motivation has an important role in determining learner attitudes towards instruction, and the results of testing the second hypothesis confirm this assumption. Table 7 presents the results in a correlation matrix for preference of a Japanese NS and degree of motivation. As shown in Table 7 the number of participants’ responses (96.4%) who “strongly agree”, “agree” and “partly agree” with the statement “I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native Speaker of Japanese” is strikingly similar to the number of participants (97.6%) who rated their motivation as “very high”, “high” or “average”. Of those responses, 88% of participants responded that they “strongly agree” or “agree” with the former statement in correlation with 80.9% of those who rated their motivation as “very high” or “high”. 36 Table 7: Preference and motivation ratingresults9 Prefer Instruction by Number Motivation Number NS of Japanese of of Responses Responses 5-Strongly Agree 46 5-Very high 20 4-Agree 28 4-High 48 3-Partly Agree 7 3-Average l4 2-Disagree 2 2-Low 2 l-StronglyI disagree 1 l-Very Low 0 Table 8: Pearson Correlation of preference and motivation Prefer NS Japanese Motivation Prefer NS Japanese 1 Motivation 0.629153739 1 Table 8 presents the results of the Pearson correlation between preference for instruction by a NS of Japanese and the participants’ motivation. The Pearson correlation of the data in Table 7 between the preference for a NS instructor and motivation to study the Japanese language was shown to be strong and significant: r= 0.63, p< .001. From these results we can see that there is indeed a strong relationship between preferring a NS of Japanese for Japanese language instruction and motivation of the Ieamer. Therefore, Ieamers who are highly motivated tend to prefer a NS of Japanese for Japanese language instruction, thus supporting hypothesis two (H2). The nature of these results can likely be explained by the difficulty in Ieaming the Japanese language. As many people would argue, including The Foreign Service Institute, Japanese carries with it a stigma of difficulty before the Ieamer even enters the classroom. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Ieamers who wish to take a university-level Japanese course are typically motivated to attempt such a strenuous academic goal. Subsequently, those Ieamers who are highly motivated will most likely find Japanese 9 See Appendix B, Section B & C for complete instructions, survey questions and statements 37 moderately difficult, while those students who are less motivated would find such a course very difficult. These correlations are shown in Table 9 and Table 10. Table 9: Motivation and difficulty rating results Motivation Number Difficulty Number of of Responses Responses 5-Very high 20 5-Very Difficult 14 4-High 48 4-Difficult 40 3-Average 1 4 3-Average 26 2-Low 2 2-Easy 5 l-Very Low 0 l-Very Easy 0 Table 10: Pearson Correlation of motivation and difficulty Motivation DifliculQ/ Motivation 1 Difficulty 0.914483628 1 Again, while I did not hypothesize as to the relationship between Ieamer motivation and perceived difficulty of the language, the results Show that there is indeed a strong correlation. Table 10 Shows the Pearson correlation of r= 0.91, p<.001. These results not only further indicate that Ieamers who are more highly motivated will tend to prefer a NS of Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction but also that those highly motivated Ieamers rate the difficulty of the language as predominately “difficult” or “average”. 5. 2.3 Learners who rate themselves as intrinsically motivated to study Japanese will find a Japanese native speaker preferable for Japanese language instruction (H3). This hypothesis was a bit more difficult to quantify due to the structure of the question that allowed multiple answers asking the participants “What is your motivation for studying J apanese”'0. For example, the Ieamers were allowed to check multiple motivational factors such as: university requirement, travel, interest in studying '0 See Appendix B, Section A. 38 languages, etc. However, the biggest number of the responses (24.7%) identified “Interest in Japanese culture” as the motivation for studying Japanese followed closely by “Travel” (18.1%), “Intellectual challenge” (17.4%), and “Enjoy Studying Languages” (16.2%). The breakdown of the 259 responses can be seen in Figure 2. These results show that a majority of the responses (58%) (Interest in Japanese culture, intellectual challenge, travel, and enjoy studying languages) point towards intrinsic motivation, or the affective/integrative dimension (deyei & Cle'ment, 2001). The remaining responses (satisfies university requirement and career interests) are then defined as extrinsic motivational factors (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Therefore, these results imply that students who are intrinsically motivated prefer a NS of Japanese for the purpose of Japanese language instruction. Fig. 2 Motivation for Studying Japanese Number of Responses Other _ - o-0 m — Q) m c b... m0 .E CD Old) 8?“) $8 32’ 1302 >‘coa .96 hi. 00.) 0c: 0.;‘0 ..>.: 0“ —m on: 530: U' C - N Learner Responses One explanation why the majority of the participants in both experiments rated themselves as intrinsically motivated is the fact that motivations for Ieaming Japanese have changed dramatically since first being taught as a foreign language in the US As 39 discussed earlier, in the 1980’s and early 1990’s the motivation to study Japanese was largely extrinsic, to supply the demand for fluent Speakers of Japanese in the job market. Recently, this demand has waned as the job market has become tighter; people no longer look to language study for a guaranteed paycheck, and are instead studying languages for their own intrinsic reasons. While Ieamers may eventually use their Japanese skills in their career, the reason Ieamers begin taking Japanese nowadays, as shown in the present study, is predominantly that they are motivated by the perceived challenge of Japanese and interest in the Japanese culture. Again, it can be argued that those students who are more highly motivated will perceive a Japanese course as difficult. This is a promising revelation in the field of J FL instruction because despite the lack of extrinsically motivating factors, enrollment in J FL classes is still on the rise. The study of this shift calls for future research as to why Ieamers have become intrinsically motivated instead of losing their motivation to study Japanese as a foreign language completely. Furthermore, Figure 2 Shows that the majority of the participants chose “travel” and “interest in Japanese culture” as their primary reasons for studying Japanese. Not surprisingly, the least number of participant responses to this question was “satisfies university requirement” and “other”. This shows that Ieamers who enroll in Japanese courses are generally more motivated than other language Ieamers because the perceived difficulty of the language appeals to those who wish to take a course for reasons other than to satisfy university requirements. It can be supposed, then, that if learners wish to satisfy a university requirement they are more likely to choose a language other than Japanese. 5. 2.4 Students will find the type of instructor that currently instructs them as the most desirable despite their L1 (H0). 40 The null hypothesis (H0) was undoubtedly not supported as all the Ieamers in the present study who were surveyed had access to both native and non-native speakers of Japanese for the purpose of language instruction. The fact that the majority preferred a NS of Japanese in the classroom suggests that the Ieamers made a conscious choice, thus Showcasing their attitude that they do not necessarily prefer the type of instructor they currently have. 5. 2. 5 Further Discussion While the use of TL in the classroom was not measured in either experiment, the perceived use of the L1 (English), which was measured, did provide some pertinent results. As discussed earlier, Levine (2003) hypothesized that the greater the use of the TL in the FL classroom, the greater the amount of anxiety felt by the Ieamer. Anxiety factors directly into learner motivation in that the more anxiety felt the lower the Ieamer motivation to study the FL. After further investigation these observations raised the questions of whether there would be a significant correlation between the perceived use of the L1 in the classroom and motivation. The results of the correlation analysis between use of L1 and motivation from Experiment Two can been seen in Table 11 below. Table 11: Pearson Correlation of motivation and use of L1 Motivation Use of L1 Motivation 1 Use of L1 0423140295 1 The Pearson correlation, r=-0.42, p<.001, is significant between motivation and the use of the L1 in the FL classroom. Namely, the Ieamers in this study who were more motivated perceived the use of English in the classroom as “some” (27.3%) and “not 41 much” (63%). These results therefore led the researcher to suggest that in this case the less the L1 is used in the classroom the more motivated the Ieamers are; or perhaps the more motivated the Ieamers are the less likely they are to perceive a high use of the L1 in the classroom. Learners who enroll in Japanese courses have a greater motivation to study 3 FL and many do so because of the perceived difficulty of the language itself. This perception of difficulty can only be perpetuated perhaps, if instruction is predominantly presented in the TL. Interestingly, one leamer’s response from the present study speaks almost directly to Levine’s (2003) study. “It is said that foreign language instructors should have the same native language as their students so that the students are not intimidated by someone who knows so much more than them. I however, believe I have only benefited from a native speaking instructor because her English is excellent so there is no miscommunication and she also makes herself attainable, not intimidating.” In this response the Ieamer recognizes that students may be intimidated by instructors who seem to know “so much more than them”. However, the Ieamer counters that notion by saying that it is a fallacy in his/her case because the instructor “makes herself attainable, not intimidating”. This response suggests that despite the significant general findings this and many other studies have presented, we as researchers must never forget how large a role individual idiosyncrasies play in the field of SLA. I am not suggesting that such an example of individual preference negates all of the research on motivation, student attitudes and preference in SLA. However, further research needs to be done, including replication studies, concerning the findings in the Levine (2003) study that too much use 42 of the TL in the foreign language classroom can lead to heightened anxiety for the Ieamer. 6. General Discussion It is obvious when looking at the two experiments that their results are strikingly similar. These similarities are clearly shown concerning the question “What is your reason/motivation for studying Japanese?” which yielded results strikingly similar in both the pilot (Experiment One) and present study (Experiment Two). These results can be seen in Figure 3. Fig. 3 Motivation to Study Japanese I Compmed ‘ 03‘] OO In 0 in c 8 8 50 ‘ 7,7,77,77,77,,” “ . m 40 ‘EIUofWisc-MadisonI l ‘5 30 Ll Portland StateU g E20 I , , : g’g . . j 2 E .a fives; a "I a mé‘gm'” 39~c9 > >935 I : eeafig EEEEEE ago I agave Eagsa 528’ (05:15 50‘” ”’3 ] Learner Responses The similarities between the present study and the pilot study are even more remarkable in light of the differences between the two universities polled. Portland State University (PSU) is located on the West Coast of the US. in Portland, Oregon, a city where many of the first Japanese and Chinese immigrants settled and continue to make- up a significant portion of the population. This fact led me to hypothesize that a beginning course in Japanese language would be much more popular there, and that there 43 would be a significantly greater percentage of heritage Ieamers enrolled in such a course. However, the survey results showed that only 13.4% of the Ieamers had parents or grandparents that speak Japanese. The University of Wisconsin—Madison, on the other hand, is located in the Midwest US One would not think that this would be a university that draws a significant number of heritage Ieamers, due to the fact that most Japanese that reside in and around Madison, Wisconsin are recent transplants. Interestingly, the heritage Ieamers in the present study are the same percentage as in the PSU study (13%). It must also be noted that the enrollment of these universities differed considerably. The University of Wisconsin—Madison had almost 40,000 students where as Portland State University had only about half that number. Therefore, it is surprising that the number of Ieamers enrolled in beginning level Japanese was almost the same, PSU had 82 and Wisconsin—Madison had 84. The differences between the universities are important to note because in spite of their contrasts the results of both studies were almost identical. The similarity of results supports the validity and significance of this study. 8. Conclusion The two experiments revealed that: 1.) Learners in beginning Japanese at the university level prefer instruction by NSs of Japanese over NNSS of Japanese. 2.) Learners who rate their motivation as “high” prefer instruction by NSS of Japanese 44 3.) The majority of Japanese Ieamers will be highly motivated and thus find the Japanese language of average to difficult to study. 4.) Learners of Japanese who rate themselves as intrinsically motivated will prefer instruction by NSs of Japanese 5.) Learners that are more highly motivated rated perceived use of the L1 in the classroom as moderate to low. Some limitations of this study could be the fact that the Ieamers had access to both native and non-native Speakers of Japanese. This could have resulted in skewing the open—ended response questions, allowing the Ieamers to be contradictory in the reasons given for their preferences. Also the fact that some participants did not fully complete the survey could have skewed the survey results. Those that did not fully complete it may have provided slightly different results, but with the limited number of surveys returned incomplete (about four) the data would only have been skewed marginally. Despite the limitations, the present study suggests several directions for future research. First, the attitudes of Ieamers towards instruction need further investigation. The results of this study imply that the L1 of the instructor is indeed a factor that relates directly to the attitudes and motivation of the foreign language Ieamer. Second, more research needs to be done concerning the relationship between motivation and Ieamer attitudes towards the instructor. In many cases, highly motivated Ieamers may prefer only native speaking teachers of the language being taught. Finally, regarding the variable of learner attitudes, it is imperative that future research begin to focus equally on Ieamer attitudes and instructor attitudes. As it stands now the bulk of SLA research concerning these factors is biased towards instructor attitudes, as evidenced by the lack of studies 45 encountered when reviewing the literature. Until we begin to thoroughly examine student attitudes in the foreign language classroom, the field will never truly understand the reasons behind Ieamer motivation. 46 Appendix A: Portland State University Learner Survey Please check, circle or write in the answers to the following questions as they best apply to you. A. Student Background 1. Ethnicity: ) Non specified ) Caucasian/Non-Hispanic ) African American/Non-Hispanic )Chicano/Mexican American ( ) Hispanic ( )American Indian or Alaskan ( )Asian or Pacific Islander ( ) Other AAA/K 2. Gender: Male Female 3. What is your year in college? ) Freshman ) Sophomore )Junior ) Senior ) Graduate Student ) 4. Is this class a requirement for graduation? Yes No 5. What is your first language? 6. Have you previously studied Japanese? Yes No If yes for how long? ( ) Less than a year ( ) 1 year ( )2 years ( )3 years ( )4 years or more 7. Have you studied a foreign language before? Yes No 8. If you answered yes to #7 what was the language? ( ) Spanish ( ) French ( ) German ( ) Other 9. Please rate your experience of studying that language. 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=bad 1=very bad 47 10. Is there anyone in your family who speaks Japanese? ( ) Parent ( ) Grandparent ( )No one ( ) Other 11. What is your reason for studying Japanese? Check all that apply: ( ) Satisfies university requirement ( ) Career Interests ( ) Intellectual challenge ( ) Interest in Japanese culture ( ) Travel ( ) Enjoy studying languages ( ) Other 12. What is the native language of your Japanese instructor? ( )Japanese ( )English ( ) Korean ( ) Chinese ( ) Other B. In the following section please answer the questions by giving a rating from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). Please circle the rating which most applies to you. 13. What is your interest in studying Japanese? 5=very high 4=high 3=average 2=low 1=very low 14. How would you rate your level of motivation to study Japanese? 5=very high 4=high 3=average 2= low 1=very low 15. How would you rate the overall difficulty of studying Japanese? 5=very difficult 4=difficult 3=average 2=easy 1 =very easy 16. How would you rate your overall performance in studying Japanese? 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=poor 1=very poor 17. How would you rate your classmates performance on average in studying Japanese? 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=poor 1=very poor 18. How much instruction is given in English in your Japanese class? 5= quitealot 4=alot 3=some 2=not much 1=none at all 48 C. The following section contains a list of statements. Please rate the statements by circling marks from 5 to 1 as they apply to you. 19. I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of Japanese. 5=stroneg agree 4=agree 3=partly agree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree 20. I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of English. 5=stroneg agree 4=agree 3=partly agree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree. 21. I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of my first language. 5=strong|yagree 4=agree 3=partly agree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree. Thank you for your participation© 49 Appendix B: University of Wisconsin-Madison Learner Survey Please check, circle or write in the answers to the following questions as they best apply to you. A. Student Background 1. Ethnicity: ( )Non specified ( )Caucasian/Non-Hispanic ( ) African American/Non-Hispanic ( ) Chicano/Mexican American ( ) Hispanic ( )American Indian or Alaskan ( )Asian or Pacific Islander ( ) Other 2. Gender: Male Female 3. What is your year in college? ( )Freshman ( )Sophomore ( )Junior ( )Senior ( )Graduate Student ( )Other 4. Is this classarequirementforgraduation? Yes No 5. What is your first language? 6. Have you previously studied Japanese? Yes No If yes for how long? ( ) Less than a year ( ) 1 year ( )2 years ( )3 years ( )4 years or more 7. Have you studied a foreign language before? Yes No 8. If you answered yes to #7 what was the language? ( ) Spanish ( ) French ( ) German ( ) Other 9. Please rate your experience of studying that language. 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=bad 1=very bad 50 10. Is there anyone in your family who speaks Japanese? ( ) Parent ( ) Grandparent ( )No one ( ) Other 11. What is your motivation for studying Japanese? Check all that apply: ( )Satisfies university requirement ( ) Career Interests ( ) Intellectual challenge ( ) Interest in Japanese culture ( ) Travel ( ) Enjoy studying languages ( ) Other 12. What is the native language of your Japanese instructor? ( )Japanese ( ) English ( ) Have both Japanese and English native speakers as instructors B. In the following section please answer the questions by giving a rating from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). Please circle the rating which most applies to you. 13. What is your interest in studying Japanese? 5=very high 4=high 3=average 2=low 1=very low 14. How would you rate your level of motivation to study Japanese? 5=very high 4=high 3=average 2: low 1=very low 15. How would you rate the overall difficulty of studying Japanese? 5=very difficult 4=difficult 3=average 2=easy 1=very easy 16. How would you rate your overall performance in studying Japanese? 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=poor 1=very poor 17. How would you rate your classmates performance on average in studying Japanese? 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=poor 1=very poor 18. How much instruction is given in English in your Japanese class? 5= quitealot 4=a lot 3=some 2=not much 1=none at all Please continue on to the last page 51 C. The following section contains a list of statements. Please rate the statements by circling marks from 5 to 1 as they apply to you. 19. I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of Japanese. 5=strongly agree 4=agree 3=partly agree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree 20. I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of English. 5=stroneg agree 4=agree 3=partly agree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree. 21. I prefer my Japanese instructor to be a native speaker of my first language. 5=stroneg agree 4=agree 3=partly agree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree. D. In the space provided below please briefly explain WHY you rated statements 19- 21 the way you did. Thank you for your participation© 52 Appendix C: Selected learner responses to Section D of UofW survey “feel much more confident about my instructors understanding of the language I want to learn if they are a native speaker they also bring the culture behind the language into the classroom which is important in appreciating and drawing interest in the language.” “I would rather have my instructor try to explain things in Japanese to increase my overall understanding. English is not important, unless it is for something we have not studied yet” “I believe the language can be learned better if taught by a native speaker. Also, the chances increase in their being able to answer all your questions.” “It is very important that my Japanese studies come from an experienced Japanese instructor. I would hate to study Spanish if my teacher is a Chinese native.” “be able to explain in English when needed” “I believed that only a native speaker of one language would firmly master the art of the language 100%” “If the teacher is a native speaker, or has significant experience, he or she can explain subtle nuances of the language more easily.” “A native speaker knows more and they are more credible” “My Japanese instructor Should be Japanese because it is always best to Ieam from someone who has lived in Japan, and has gone through many critical pars of his or life 53 (ie. Childhood, school, work) and therefore knows Japanese mannerisms and experiences you can’t Ieam from a book.” “Because my Japanese TA is a non-native English speaker and is still well able to instruct 99 me “English is my native language and forcing me to use Japanese is the best way to Ieam and it helps me Ieam common Japanese saying and accents.” “I think that the instructor will be better able to explain the usage of Japanese in native [Japanese]. It’s also important that they are able to convey the intricacies of natural Japanese Speakers.” “Because if the instructor is not a native speaker of Japanese she/he may know more what problems the students would have. And if my instructor is a native speaker of my first language she/he may explain it more clearly for students. But if she/he is a native speaker of Japanese, his/her pronunciation should be more accurate.” “It is good to have a native Speaker because then you Ieam with firsthand experience, but difficult grammatical concepts are a little difficult to convey to non-Speakers in Japanese, which is why it would be helpful to have a native English speaker. Sometimes explanations aren’t very clear. This is why I picked 3’s because I am rather indifferent/on the fence about this.” 54 “I think it would most likely be better if the teacher is a native speaker of Japanese. If the teacher isn’t a native speaker of Japanese but speaks the language just as good as one, then it doesn’t matter to me.” “It is important for the class to be carried out almost completely in Japanese but they should be able to speak English in case something is unclear.” “By being a native speaker, they use what they are teaching every single day as an integral part of their lives and they know the subject matter extremely well. They don’t have to be a native English speaker. In fact, I prefer them to be a native speaker of the language they teach. However, it’s helpful for them to have a basic knowledge of English.” “Someone whose native language is Japanese would be a good instructor for obvious reasons but that is not to say someone who acquired Japanese would not be.” “Because a native Speaker of Japanese will know the language the best. . .because a native speaker of English will explain the language the best. . .because a native speaker of my first language will communicate with me the best.” “A language is always best taught by a native speaker. Native speakers are able to communicate using that language in ways a second Ieamer never knew. Besides the language, native speakers can also induce interests by sharing about their culture. Yet I think it’s good too if a non-native speaker has lived in the country where the language is used on a daily basis as he can understand our Ieaming differently more. But the problem isn’t too big. Though there were times when communication outside of Japanese was 55 ,_ ‘ I difficult, generally students feel closer to the language if the teacher is a native Speaker of it 99 “I believe that learning from a native speaker is the best way to learn correct pronunciation and correct nuances of the language. However, the main advantage to having a TA who is a native English speaker is that they can more easily relate to the students’ problems with the language, but I believe a native Japanese speaker who has had a thorough grounding in English can do the same.” “Because it’s not enough to know ‘proper’ Speech, one must also Ieam commonly used phrases and structures of such—something a non-native speaker may not be able to provide this in my preference; however a teacher who’s first language is English may be able to explain things better (grammatical structures). I catch on quickly, however and prefer a native Japanese speaker for an instructor I overall, however I think a mix is important. . ..” “It makes sense to me to have an instructor who is a native speaker because they would have the most experience with the language and an authentic accent (that’s not necessary, it’s just I’ve had a few language teachers in the past with bad accents and I think it was detrimental to the class). But I would also say that a native speaker of English could be an excellent teacher. So my preference of a Japanese native speaker isn’t all that much. It’s also not necessary that the instructor be a native speaker of my first language, so long as I can understand him/her when he/she uses it.” 56 “Though our instruction has been very complete, it is always easier to teach something that you Ieamed through conscious effort, thus understanding which parts are more difficult than others.” “It is best to learn from a native speaker because you can learn colloquialisms and things. But I wouldn’t object to another teacher, as long as he or she was fluent in the language.” “Sometimes when you don’t know how to speak Japanese (a word) you have to speak English, but if your TA can’t understand English then you will not Ieam. So, I think a little bit of English is required.” “On one hand, a native speaker would have the best Japanese pronunciation, however, native English speakers are more sympathetic to students like me ( a native English speaker) and the problems we encounter in trying to Ieam Japanese.” “It is said that foreign language instructors should have the same native language as their students so that the students are not intimidated by someone who knows so much more than them. I however, believe I have only benefited from a native speaking instructor because her English is excellent so there is no miscommunication and she also makes herself attainable, not intimidating.” “Sometimes it’s harder to understand TA’S with thick accent and sometimes explanations are not given thoroughly.” “1 find that Ieaming a language from the native speaker I Ieam better and also I know more informal things that normally are said in Japan than what was provided in the 57 textbook. It also helps if my teacher [be] able to explain what he or she is explaining in class. So as long as I’m able to understand my instructor, it’s fine by me.” “I feel more comfortable if they are native Japanese speakers because that means I am getting optimum quality instructor on the language I am learning.” “A native Japanese speaker is less likely to make small mistakes and also can explain what forms are really used in Japan.” “I think that it is usually important for a language instruction to be native speaker of that language. A native speaker would be best equipped to give lessons on pronunciation, natural flow of grammar in spoken sentences, cultural nuances, etc. However, I don’t think this entirely precludes non-native speakers for giving foreign language instruction. An instructor that natively speaks the language of his/her students would be better equipped to explain the language of instruction in terms that more readily make sense to the students.” “I believe that the best way to Ieam any language is to be exposed to the related culture. A person native to the country is the best way to be exposed without physically traveling to the country. Also, it is good experience in general interest with people native to countries different from your own.” “Although a native Speaker of English could provide useful advice on Ieaming Japanese as a second language, a native speaker has a greater mastery of the language and grasps subtleties that might slip by a non-native speaker.” 58 5" “Knowing the language you are trying to teach as your first language, gives you a better, deeper understand of the material trying to be taught. But if you have a hard time translating between Japanese and English, deeper understanding of the language may be lost during the translation. Also, it is good to understand the student’s first language so that you can thoroughly answer any difficult questions they have. Sometimes I felt that this was a barrier towards my Ieaming experience.” 59 References Allen, Edward David and Valette, Rebecca M. (1972) Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages and English as a Second Language. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Brannen, Noah. (1990). Ingredients for Ieaming Japanese. Japan Quarterly 37: 55-62. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57: 402-423. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum. Dbmyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language Ieaming. Language Learning, 40: 46-78. Domyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language Ieaming. Language Teaching, 31: 117-135. Dtimyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow, England: Longman. deyei, Z. & Clement, R. (2001). Motivational characteristics of Ieaming different target languages: Results of a nationwide survey. In Z. Domyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.) Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23 pp.399-432) Honolulu: University of Hawai’l, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Dbrnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ehrrnan, Madeline E. & Zoltan Domyei. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible and invisible classroom. Sage Publications. Ely, Christopher. (1986) “Language Learning Motivation: A Descriptive and Casual Analysis”. Modern Language Journal 70: 28-36. Fujita, Naoya. (1997). Situation driven or structure driven?: Teaching Japanese at the college level in the US. In Cook, Haruko M., Hijirida, Kyoko & Tahara, Mildred (eds.). New trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and culture. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London: Arnold. 6O '11 Gardner, RC. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Domyei & R. Schmidt (Eds), Motivation and second language learning (pp. 1- 20). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied Linguistics. New York: Newbury House. Horowitz, Elain K. (2000). Teachers and Students, Students and Teachers: An ever- evolving partnership. The Modern Language Journal 84: 523-534. Johnson, RH. and MD. Lobb. (1959). Jefferson County, Colorado completes three-year study of staffing, changing class size, programming, and scheduling. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 43: 57-78. Jorden, Eleanor H. with Noda, Mari. (1987) Japanese: The Spoken Language. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jorden, Eleanor H. and Walton, Ronald A. (1987). Truly foreign languages: instructional challenges. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 490: 1 10-124. Kaiser, Stefan (ed). (1993). Japanese language teaching in the nineties: materials and course design. Folkestone, Kent, England: Japan Library. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32: 245-257. Levine, Glenn S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87: 343-364. Masgoret, A. M. & Gardner, R. C. (2001). Attitudes, motivation and second language Ieaming: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Garner and Associates. Language Learning, 51(1): 123-163. McKay, Jill. (2003). Attitudes of Ieamers enrolled in university level beginning Japanese courses towards instruction by non-native versus native speakers of Japanese. Michigan State University: East Lansing. Monane, Tazuko Ajiro. (1990). Models and memories: “Pedagogical dysfunctions of an overly resonant past”. In Kamada, Osamu & Jacobsen, Wesley M. (eds). 0n Japanese and how to teach it. Tokyo: Japan Times. Noels, K.A., Cle’ment, Richard & Pelletier, Luc. G. (1999). “Perceptions of teachers’ 61 communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation”. The Modern Language Journal, 83: 23-34. Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Cle’ment, R. & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you Ieaming a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50: 57-85. Ohta, Amy Snyder. (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ommagio Hadley, Alice. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, Rebecca & Shearin, Jill. (1994). Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal 78: 13-28. Oukada, Larbi. (2000). Teaching: An interplay of aims, constraints, conflicts, and compromises. The Modern Language Journal, 84: 327-338. Schulz, Renate A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA- Columbia. The Modern Language Journal, 85: 244-257. Shannon, Nora B. and Bonnie Meath Lang. (1992). “Collaborative language teaching: a co-investigation”. In David Nunan (ed.). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Simon, Mutsuko Endo. (1984) A practical guide for teachers of elementary Japanese. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Sturman, Peter. (1992). “Team teaching: a case study from Japan”. In David Nunan (ed.). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Van Lier, L. (1995). The use of the L1 in L2 classes. Babylonia, 2: 37-43. Walton, A. Ronald. (1992). Expanding the vision of foreign language education: enter the less commonly taught languages. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, Johns Hopkins University. 62 "11 m a In. ml