Protocolo de adquisici´on

MacIntyre and Charo’s (1996) Model of L2 Willingness to Communicate (WTC) and Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model served as basic frameworks behind the Yashima (2002) study (these models are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively).

Figure 1. MacIntyre and Charos’(1996) Model of L2 Willingness to

Communicate.4

The methodology used to present the results in Figure 1 draws upon Structural

Equation Modelling (SEM) which is a statistical technique for testing and

estimating causal relationships (for an in-depth discussion regarding causality see 3.2.4, Causal Relationships in Structural Equation Modelling). In the MacIntyre and Charos (1996) study data was drawn from 92 Anglophone students (studying French) pertaining to each of the observed variables (depicted by rectangles in Figure 1). This data set was then processed by SEM software which then provided standardised regression weights for each path (these weights are placed adjacent to each single headed arrows depicted in the Figure 1). Regression weights generally vary from -1.00 (total negative causal relationship) and 1.00 (total positive causal relationship). It is important to note that theory driven paths are represented by a solid arrow and data driven paths are represented by dotted arrows in the above model5. Regression weights values over .2 are considered

4

From “Personality, Attitude, and Affect,” by P. MacIntyre and C. Charos, 1996, Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 15, p. 12. 5

The path from Perceived Competence to L2 Communication Frequency was not initially theorized.

significant and accompanied by an asterisk. With this in mind the general result of Figure 1 was that Integativeness and Attitudes Toward the Learning Situation was linked to Motivation. Also, L2 Anxiety, along with Perceived L2 Competence reflected upon Willingness to Communicate (WTC), which, in turn, reflected upon L2 Communication Frequency. Additionally, a direct path from Perceived Competence to L2 Communication Competence was also supported by data in the study. The dotted rectangle in Figure 1 encapsulates part of Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model. This section of Figure 1 is depicted in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Part of Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model.6

Although not shown, part of Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model suggests that motivation has a positive effect on L2 achievement or proficiency. This is depicted as Linguistic outcome in Figure 2.

Yashima’s (2002) re-conceptualization of these two models was initiated by a body of research that showed that instrumental motivation is equally important or more significant than integrative motivation in various foreign language learning contexts (Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1994; Dornyei, 1990; Sammy & Tabuse, 1992). However, an important phase of the Yashima (2002) study occurred two years prior. Yashima’s (2000) study utilized 97 students7who gave reasons as to why they had decided to study English. This initial data set established 25 items to be added to the main questionnaire. A further 12 question items established by

6_{From “Orientations and Motivation in Foreign Language Learning: A Study of Japanese College}

Students,” by T. Yashima, 2000, JACET Bulletin, 31, p. 122.

7

University freshman of a non-English major not included in the main study by Yashima in 2000.

Integrativeness

Attitude toward the

learning situation

Motivation

Linguistic_outcome

previous diagnostic procedures (drawn from Ely, 1986; Clement et al., 1994; and, Belmechri & Hummel, 1998) made up the 37 item instrument used in the main survey. In the main survey 372 freshman of a non-English major responded to each of the 37 items on seven-point Likert scales rating the degree of importance of each. Yashima (2000) then conducted factor analysis procedures on the 37 items to establish two main attitudinal groupings. These two groupings are explained below by Yashima (2002):

Yashima (2000) identified an orientation similar to the integrative orientation but somewhat different in the sense that it reflected the role of English as lingua franca with the target community not clearly specified. This orientation labeled ‘Intercultural Friendship Orientation,’along with instrumental orientation,’ predicted the strength of motivation and in turn predicted proficiency. (p. 57)

Path analysis was then conducted with the data set pertaining to: 1. The two grouped orientations, Intercultural Friendship Orientation and Instrumental Orientation; and, 2. Motivation and Proficiency. Motivation, as a single latent variable, was measured by students’Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn English (taken from Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Proficiency was measured by students’TOEFL scores (Test of English as a Foreign Language). The results from the Yashima (2000) path analysis are depicted in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Results of Path Analysis of the Yashima (2000) Investigation8.

8

From “Orientations and Motivation in Foreign Language Learning: A Study of Japanese College Students,” by T. Yashima, 2000, JACET Bulletin, 31, p. 130.

It should be noted that all values in Figure 3 represent regression weights with the exception of the value adjacent to the double-ended arrow which reflects a

correlational value. The correlational value of .59 represents a significant statistical relationship between the two observed variables suggesting that Intercultural Friendship Orientation (Figure 3) and Instrumental Orientation (Figure 3) are related. This is in obvious support of the agglomeration of the previously conceived and divided integratively and instrumentally related motivational constructs. It should also be noted that the asterisks denote significant path values (.2 and over).

In a second study, Yashima (2002), drawing on the findings from her first study (Yashima, 2000), proposed a new motivationally focused model depicted in Figure 4. One of Yashima’s (2002) main suggestions is that Attitude, or

International Posture, is related to L2 Learning Motivation, and that L2 Learning Motivation is related to L2 Proficiency. International Posture and L2 Learning Motivation can be perceived in the more traditional sense. The International Posture construct can be considered a general attitude that encompasses

integrative and instrumental orientations, whereas L2 Learning Motivation can be seen as reflecting the degree of instrumental and integrative motivation.

Figure 4. L2 Communication Model for the Japanese EFL Context.9

9

From “Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language,” by Y. Yashima, 2002, The Modern