The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance

By Zoltn Drnyei and Judit Kormos Language Teaching Research 4, 3 (2000); pp. 275 300 Presented by Soledad Sandoval M.

OVERVIEW
Introduction Objective Method

Participants Data collection and analysis

Results and discussion Researchers conclusion Critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION
Students verbal

behavior in oral tasks is partly determined by nonlinguistic and non-cognitive factors:

Motivational Social

OBJECTIVE

Identify attitudinal/motivational variables that determine the participating language learners actual engagement in language tasks in terms of the amount of speech produced:
number of words number of turns

PARTICIPANTS
46 Hungarian students 16 17 years old 5 classes in 2 Budapest secondary schools Intermediate level of English Preparation for further studies in higher education

TASKS
Two

versions of an oral argumentative task (problemsolving) in L2 and L1

Select and rank-order preferences Negotiate with a partner

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

C-Test : language proficiency Two questionnaires:

a) Attitudinal/motivational issues b) Cohesiveness InterrelationshipWillingness to Communicate (WTC)

Data analyzed using the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: L2

High Task- Attitude (in L2) Low Task-Attitude (in L2)

Positive Correlations
N of words N of turns and and WTC WTC Social Status Need for achievement Negative correlations Nof words and L2 proficiency Incentive values of English proficiency

Positive correlation
N of words and Favorable attitude towards the English course

Negative correlations Nof words and Nof turns and Cohesivenes Social status s

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: L1

Positive Correlation Relationship with the interlocutor and n of words and turns. Negative Correlation Learners who did not like the English classes were more active in L1.

CONCLUSIONS
Situation-specific motives and motivational variables have a significant impact on learners engagement. Variables affected students behaviors differently depending on their initial task attitudes (filter)

CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Novelty of the study Small sample. Measurement = Quantity of speech Quality = ? Arguments to justify negative correlations are tentative and speculative (p. 294) Individualistic perspective (e.g. conversation = two speakers).