Feedback Strategies from a Student's Perspective
This classroom research project examines the effectiveness of formative feedback strategies in discussion classes. Formative feedback is a form of feedback where students identify their language problem and are given a chance to practice their weakness (Tuttle and Tuttle, 2012). In other words, formative feedback quickly “fixes” behaviors. The aim of this project was to understand student’s perceptions after receiving formative feedback. Students responded to a questionnaire that asked them to evaluate the feedback they had received and whether they could use the feedback in future activities. While over 90% of the students stated that formative feedback was helpful, less than 60% of the students reported that it was the most helpful activity
Three Conceptual Orientations of Learner Goal-Setting
This study seeks to investigate the extent to which goal-oriented self-checklists foster motivation and autonomy in EDC learners. A secondary area of exploration is to examine the effect of performance avoidance strategies on student attitudes to goal-setting. Over two semesters of a full academic year, EDC students in 24 classes (n=164) independently set themselves function goals and communication skill goals to be completed in an extended discussion. At the end of the semester students participated in a questionnaire which recorded their attitudes towards the activity. Results were analysed using SPSS software to calculate the frequency of responses and test the internal reliability of the data collected. Findings indicated that although goal-setting internally motivated students to perform better in discussions, there was a mixed response to developing learner autonomy, and also that goal-setting was not always being used in a positive manner. INTRODUCTION The conceptual focus of this piece of classroom research looks primarily at learner motivation and autonomy, and more specifically how these attributes can be developed in EDC students through the implementation of goal-setting oriented self-checklists. In addition to these positive concepts, aspects of performance avoidance in which tasks are performed for more negative reasons will also be examined. Motivation was first introduced in connection with language learning in studies by Gardner that identified learner motivation in two categories: integrative, for instance the desire to adapt to the culture of a social setting; and instrumental, for example learning a language to get a better job (Gardner, 1959, pp. 12-13; 1985, p. 11). Gardner’s theory, particularly the instrumental orientation of motivation, has proven durable in the field of ELT and has been developed considerably by Dörnyei (1994 p. 280) into a wider general framework of language learner motivation that includes aspects such as group goal-orientedness. Individual level goal-orientations of learner motivation in the classroom context gained currency in the ELT field, largely as a result of Ames and Archer’s study which identified that Mastery Goals, including such leaner characteristics as progress and challenge, were effective in sustaining student effort levels and development (Ames & Archer, 1988, p. 264). These findings echoed those of motivation studies in areas such as industrial psychology which established Goal Setting Theory under the premise that challenging goals elicit high levels of performance in individuals, particularly when coupled with feedback to track progress (Locke & Latham, 1990 p. 241). This prompted ELT researchers to consider ways that goal-setting in conjunction with instrumentality could be used in the classroom to motivate learners whilst cementing goal-setting itself as a core issue at the heart of motivation in language learning (Oxford & Shearin, 1994, p. 19). In the view of many EDC instructors, goal-setting through formative feedback has proven to be a very successful method of improving student performance in extended group discussions (Brinham, 2013, p. 14; Kuromatsu, 2013, p. 155; Ragsdale, 2013, p. 206). A more recent model for explaining levels of motivation in individuals is Self-Determination Theory (SDT), defined by Deci and Ryan (2002, p. 5) as “human tendencies New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 296 towards active engagement and development”. In other words, SDT examines the process of will-power in individuals, or in the ELT context, language learners. An advantage of SDT is that it avoids the dichotomy that exists in other theories of motivation that categorise cases as one or the other: internally or externally motivated, motivated or unmotivated. Instead, SDT places them on a continuum in which intrinsic motivation (self-determined) and amotivation (nonself-determined) sit either side of the varying degrees of extrinsic motivation (Ibid, 2002, p. 16). Thus, intrinsically motivated and autonomous learners are those that complete activities autonomously out of their own individual interest or satisfaction, without need for external regulation. Perhaps the most cited study in which SDT has been applied specifically to EFL research conducted by Noels et al (2000, p. 75) found that learner motivation can be accurately assessed by SDT and that the process creates a clear distinction between extrinsic, intrinsic and amotivation in responses. On top of more conventional approaches to investigating motivation and autonomy, an added aspect of this study will attempt to examine performance avoidance goals. Goal-setting is usually associated with positive characteristics of learner behavior, but students’ goals may not always be positive in nature, such as completing a task to a high standard to avoid appearing inept and save face. Woodrow (2012, p. 196) includes a performance avoidance goal orientation in her study which was found to be positively correlated to task goal orientations (e.g. liking tasks that involve thinking hard) normally associated with intrinsically motivated learners. Drawing on this method will allow me to approach measuring the concept of motivation from another perspective. Furthermore, performance avoidance goals are relevant and consistent with the face-saving mechanisms employed by Japanese learners of English, characterized by their tendency to limit anxiety by avoiding making mistakes (Cutrone, 2009, p. 59). RESEARCH QUESTIONS The research questions for this study are: 1. To what extent do goal-oriented self-checklists motivate EDC learners to use functions and communication skills more effectively in extended discussions? 2. To what degree do goal-oriented self-checklists foster a sense of autonomy in EDC learners? 3. Do EDC students use independent goal-setting in a positive manner? METHOD A purposive sampling method was employed for this study to include as many students as possible in my regular lessons across both semesters. The cohort includes four level 1 (higher proficiency) classes and twenty level 2 or 3 classes. The questionnaires were conducted at the end of lesson 12 of semester one and lesson 13 of semester two. The final number of respondents amounted to all those that were present for the last ten minutes of that lesson. Total respondents were 164: 76 from semester 1 and 88 from semester 2 (n=164). These respondents were selected because over the previous 11 to 12 weeks of classes we had spent considerable time practicing using self-checklists as a form of student-centered feedback and these students had been setting themselves personal Function Goals (FG) and Communication Skill Goals (CSG) to achieve in Discussion 2 or the Discussion Test. In this research the aim is to investigate the connection between the goal-setting activities that were being employed in class and the concepts of intrinsic motivation, learner autonomy and performance avoidance. In order to devise the research tools to test this relationship I gathered a range of views of students related to using FG and CSG in class from some
CAUSES OF FLUCTUATIONS IN R&D EXPENDITURES A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Introduction 124 The stylised facts of R&D in OECD economies 124 The determinants of business R&D expenditures 127 Modelling R&D expenditures 130 Conclusion 135 Bibliography 137 Annex: The model 138