Evaluación de la Propuesta

An alternative to the proposal that TTO and other bilingual approaches are particularly motivating is the suggestion that such approaches may simply attract more motivated learners. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a common assumption in the TTO context

[89]

(Coleman 2006), and there is published evidence to this effect from contexts outside of the Netherlands. Johnson and Swain (1997) highlight commitment, attitudes towards the TL culture and status of the L2 as key in their framework of criteria and variables in immersion education. This suggests that they view these learner and contextual characteristics not as being created or enhanced by language immersion but, on the contrary, as being conditions that can influence its success. The view that certain attitudes and characteristics can

influence the appeal or the effectiveness of bilingual education has been reflected in a number of other publications, in particular in relation to immersion. For example, Boudreaux and Olivier (2009) comment that motivation and attitude could contribute to high attrition rates in immersion and Bruck (1985b) conducted extensive research into the characteristics of immersion ‘drop-outs’, among which attitude and motivation featured prominently.

In Europe, the majority of selective bilingual programmes include motivation as a central factor in evaluating potential pupils (Eurydice 2006a). This is also the case in the Netherlands (Maljers 2007), suggesting a belief that motivation may be brought to, rather than created by, the educational context (Bruton 2011a, 2011b). Pica (2002) highlights an added

complication in studying bilingual education in elective programmes in that the very fact that pupils have chosen this route might suggest that they are more motivated from the outset. The same concern has been echoed by TTO researchers, who have attempted to balance their results by including comparator groups from schools who do not offer a bilingual variant, with results suggesting that their caution may have been justified (Edelenbos, Jong 2004, Verspoor, Edelenbos 2009, Verspoor, Schuitemaker-King et al. 2010).

In both Europe and North America, however, concerns have been expressed regarding the tendency to take for granted the supposedly higher levels of motivation in bilingual learners. Cummins (1998), concerned with the problems of attrition and lower-than- expected attainment in immersion education, highlights the importance of maintaining standards and authenticity in the immersion classroom, in order to avoid demotivating learners. There is some evidence from research to suggest that this is a genuine risk. Bruck’s (1985b) study of the attitudes of low-ability pupils who chose to transfer out of immersion programmes highlighted that the decision to transfer might be less related to academic performance than to more general attitudes towards school and learning. If pupils had low self-esteem and a low sense of autonomy and control over their learning, they were more likely to become demotivated and opt to leave the immersion programme, even though

[90]

their academic difficulties may not have been less apparent in mainstream education.

Subsequent studies, however, have shown that pupils in similar situations have succeeded in improving their performance and their attitudes following a switch out of immersion

(Genesee 2007a). This may have been due to the removal of the psychological barrier that could lead to learned helplessness (Weiner 1992b, Dörnyei 1994a). In her study of CLIL in Finland, Seikkula-Leino noted that “CLIL pupils had a low self-concept in foreign languages,

although pupils had a strong motivation to learn” (p.328). Similar findings have been noted by Lanvers (2013), in whose study learners with more TL contact appeared to have lower self-efficacy. Seikkula-Leino (2007) suggested that such learners may be more aware of the difficulties in communicating in a FL and therefore be more likely to be self-critical. On this basis, she argues that learners in bilingual contexts need extra encouragement in order to maintain self-esteem, and prevent them from feeling “incompetent and inadequate” (Seikkula-Leino 2007, p.338). The high levels of motivation in spite of a low linguistic self- concept might suggest that pupils attributed their success to effort rather than ability, which is fitting with Attribution Theory (Weiner 1986, 1992a, 2007), and could potentially continue to be a motivator. This increase in motivation may also be a reflection of the type of

motivation experienced by the learners, who may have entered the bilingual programme in the first place as the result of high trait motivation (Julkunen 1989, 2001), mastery

orientation (Ames 1992), intrinsic motivation (Deci, Ryan 1985, 2002) or integrativeness (Gardner, Lambert 1972).

In a similar respect, Oonk (2009) cites social pressure as a strong motivator for pupils to succeed in bilingual education, commenting that learners are attracted by the prospect of mastering a language that is seen by their parents, peers and teachers as being an important means of achieving educational and professional success. In terms of motivational theories, pressures to opt into bilingual programmes due to parental encouragement or social desirability could actually be counteractive to motivation. Dörnyei (2009c) emphasises the importance of harmony between the ideal and ought selves that form future self-guides (Dörnyei 2009c, Dörnyei, Ushioda 2011). In a situation where a learner has chosen to follow a particular educational route not through free will but because he or she feels it is expected of him or her, the conflict between the ought and ideal selves, and the loss of autonomy (Ushioda 2009a) and ownership over the learning goals and processes could counteract other motivational properties that might be offered by the teaching and learning context.

[91]

On the basis of the considerations presented here and in Section 2.3.1, Figure 2.8 illustrates both sides of this coin. The downward arrow on the left, exuding from TTO, symbolises the features of the TTO learning environment that could potentially have a positive impact on learner motivation. Meanwhile, the upward arrow on the right, which is moving towards TTO, highlights motivational features that the TTO learner may, according to theory, theorising and assumption, bring to the TTO classroom. These features, as also shown in the diagram, need to first pass through the filter of selection criteria before they can reach TTO.

Figure 2.8 Potential motivational features and existing learner motivation in TTO.

As will be observed in Section 2.3.3, research in this area has not been extensive enough to determine whether learners are motivated by bilingual education or whether their

motivation is something that they bring to learning themselves. In fact, research on

motivation and CLIL is still so sparse (Craen, Mondt et al. 2007) that one can only tentatively assume that bilingual learners are indeed more motivated, not to mention postulate on the workings of that motivation, without first conducting further research.