A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA

A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA

JENNIFER BOWN AND CYNTHIA WHITE

IRAL 48 (2010), 331–353 0019042X/2010/048-331DOI 10.1515/iral.2010.014 c©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

Affective factors in language learning have long attracted attention. While re-search findings indicate substantial links between affect and achievement, fur-ther inquiry into the role and contribution of affect in language learning hasbeen limited by a narrow focus on single emotions and on the disruptive effectsof emotion. Drawing on social cognitive theory and research on the intelli-gent processing of emotions we propose an approach to understanding affect inSLA. This approach emphasizes the reciprocal nature of relationships amongemotions, their individual and social antecedents and their effects on learn-ing and achievement. Evidence from a qualitative study into the regulation ofaffect conducted with 19 independent learners of Russian demonstrates howstudents’ emotions and their regulation of emotions are affected by the learn-ing environment and by the quality of relationships available to them withinthat environment. Results also reveal how students’ cognitive appraisals medi-ate their experiences of emotions, and that intelligent processing of emotionscan impact positively on their experience of language learning. We argue thata broader perspective on affect and affective experiences can illuminate fur-ther the interdependence between the social context and cognitive processes inlanguage learning.

1. Introduction

Affect has long garnered attention in Second Language Acquisition research(Brown 1973; Curran 1976; Lozanov 1979) and, like attitude and motivation,has been identified as a significant “learner-internal” variable related to suc-cess in language learning (Gardner and MacIntyre 1993). The importance ofaffect has been theorised in Krashen’s concept of the affective filter (1981),in the hypothesised contribution of affective involvement in interactions with

Brought to you by | California State University Madden Library FresnoAuthenticated | 129.8.242.67

Download Date | 4/27/13 10:09 AM

332 Jennifer Bown and Cynthia White

impact on evaluation and repair (Rost 2005), in the place of affective schematain models of language ability (Bachman and Palmer 1996), and in the role ofaffective strategies in language learning (Rossiter 2003; Bown 2006). In a re-cent volume introducing the SLA research literature Scovel (2001: 140) states,“More than any other topic covered in this book, affective variables are thearea that SLA researchers understand the least.” Indeed, research on affectivefactors is plagued by a number of problems, including the lack of a clear defini-tion of affect and lack of agreement as to what constitutes affect. Furthermorethe predominance of correlational and experimental approaches to investigat-ing emotion cannot account for the situated nature of emotion and the complexinterdependence of emotions with social and cognitive factors.

In this paper, we offer definitions of affect drawn from the general psychol-ogy literature and provide a critical review of research into emotion in SLA.Drawing on social cognitive theory (Bandura 2002; Martinez-Pons 2002), andresearch on the intelligent processing of emotions (Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, andHall 2005) we argue for the importance of understanding the individual andsocial antecedents of emotions and the relationship between emotion and cog-nition in SLA. We present evidence from an in-depth qualitative study into theregulation of affect conducted with 19 independent learners of Russian usingsemi-structured interviews and narrative journals to show both social and cog-nitive aspects of affect in language learning. It is our position that a broaderperspective on affect and affective experiences can illuminate further the in-terdependence between the social context and cognitive processes in languagelearning.

2. Conceptual issues

As early as 1978, Scovel noted that affect is used as a “cover term underwhich is swept a wide range of disparate constructs and behaviours” (129).The boundaries of the concept have long since remained ill-defined. Includedunder the rubric of affect are motivation (Gardner and MacIntyre 1993; Shoaiband Dörnyei 2004); attitudes and beliefs (Gardner and MacIntyre 1993); self-referential judgments (de Andrés 1999; Oxford 2002); and numerous personal-ity traits, including extraversion-introversion (Dewaele 2005a), ego boundaries(Ehrman 1999), and tolerance of ambiguity (Leaver, Ehrman, and Shekhtman2005). Most of the variables considered “affective” would not be thus consid-ered by the field of general psychology, which defines affect as the “emotionalinterpretation of perceptions, information, or knowledge” (Huitt 1999; Huittand Cain 2005). In general psychology, and in this paper, affect is equated withemotion; motivation, self-esteem, attitudes and beliefs may be closely relatedto affect, but they are not affect in and of themselves.



A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA 333

Socialenvironment

Cognitiveappraisals

Emotions

Figure 1. Antecedents of emotions

How then do we define emotions? Emotions are valenced responses to exter-nal stimuli and/or internal mental representations (Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsnerand Gross 2007). They produce changes across multiple response systems –physiological, experiential, behavioural (Fredrickson and Branigan 2005) –and tend to have identifiable objects or triggers. Contemporary perspectiveson the psychology of emotion, such as Pekrun’s (2000) social cognitive the-ory of academic emotions, emphasise environmental antecedents of emotions,relating to the self or the situation, that is individual and social antecedentsof emotions. Individual antecedents of emotions include personality factorssuch as self-concept and sense of self-efficacy, and social antecedents com-prise quality dimensions of instruction and feedback, and the level of supportin interactions (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, and Perry 2002). The cognitive aspectsof emotions are also emphasised: importantly, it is the cognitive appraisal pro-cesses, self-related appraisals and situation-related appraisals, which determineemotion (Scherer, Schorr, and Johnstone 2001). Individuals may interpret oneand the same external stimulus quite differently: a looming deadline for onestudent may be interpreted as an invigorating challenge, while for another asa source of great anxiety. Thus the affective impact of social environments ismediated by appraisals (see Figure 1).

Further, emotion is now widely held to be essential to human cognitionand the influence of emotions on cognition and cognitive processes is a sig-nificant line of enquiry in cognitive and neuropsychology (Ashby, Isen, andTurken 1999; Ashby, Valentin, and Turken 2002). Harris, Gleason and Ay-cicegi (2006) refer to the “emotion revolution” (258) in cognition includingDamasio’s (1994) research on the crucial role of emotion in decision-making,Panksepp’s (1998) overview of affective neuroscience, and Barsalou’s (2003)findings which reveal how cognitive processing draws on bodily movements.One of the primary functions of emotions is to provide information about one’sself, one’s environment, and one’s interactions with the environment (Davis2001). Emotions are also thought to be critical for guiding our reasoning andour thinking, helping us to assign value to life experiences (Clore 1994; Davis2001), thus forming a critical component of cognition (Damasio 1994). Con-versely, cognition is necessary in order to make sense of emotions (Davis2001).




In second language acquisition research we have yet to explore in detail indi-vidual and social antecedents of emotions in particular language learning andteaching environments and the relationship between emotion and cognition;the qualitative study we report on later provides some initial insights into thelinkages between cognition and emotion and the underpinnings of emotionsexperienced in individualised instruction.

2.1. Emotions and SLA

Theories of SLA tend to belong to one of three camps: cognitive, social, orsociocognitive. According to cognitive theories of language acquisition (for arecent review of various cognitive theories see Ellis and Larsen-Freeman 2006;Ellis 2006) learning is an individual mental activity independent of social con-text. Cognitive views of language learning also downplay the role of affectin the acquisition process. However, many theorists (Block 2003; Gass andMackey 2006) have rejected this model of language learning, countering thatlanguage is primarily a social tool, and that the social context, as well as af-fective issues, play crucial roles in language acquisition. Still other scholars,adopting a Vygotskian perspective (Lantolf 2000; Atkinson 2002; Hall, Vi-tanova, and Marchenkova 2005), argue that the dichotomy between social andcognitive views of language learning is artificial. They assert that social inter-action is more than just a context in which language learning takes place, butthat it is rather the very source of language learning. According to sociocog-nitive theory, language learning results from mentorship and sociocultural ac-tivity (Lantolf 2000). These theories recognize that language, far from beingmodularized within the brain, is intertwined with experiences, cultural knowl-edge, self-identity and emotions (Collentine and Freed 2004). In this paperwe explore emotions in SLA from a social-cognitive perspective, arguing thatstudents’ emotions arise from individual and social antecedents mediated bystudents’ cognition, namely cognitive appraisals of antecedents of emotionsand the intelligent processing of emotion.

As SLA has taken more of a social turn (Block 2003), scholars have increas-ingly recognized the important role played by emotions in language learning.Dewaele (2005b: 367), for instance, calls for a greater focus on emotion and“increased attention to the communication of emotion.” Using a mixed quan-titative and qualitative method Dewaele (2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b 2006,2008) has explored the effect of context of acquisition and age of acquisitionon various emotion-related variables in language learning and use, includingexpression of emotion by multilingual individuals. Likewise, Pavlenko (2005)has investigated expression of emotion by bilinguals and language learners,examining the factors that lead an individual speaker to choose one language




over another when expressing feelings. Her research is notable for her use ofmemoirs as source material, in addition to narrative interviews and surveys.Pavlenko has also called on scholars to develop a broader perspective on emo-tions in language learning and use. Researchers have begun to address the inter-section of emotions, motivation, identities, and interactional opportunities (see,for example Dörnyei 2005, 2009, Ushioda 2007, Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide2008).1

Though emotions are receiving increased attention in the SLA literature,Scovel (2001: 40) notes that “we are still struggling to come to grip with [emo-tions]. The great irony is that they could very well end up being the most in-fluential force in language acquisition.” What, then, is the contribution of emo-tions to second language learning and teaching? Experience suggests that emo-tions are not inert elements in learning and teaching environments, processesand experiences, and research reveals that emotions affect students’ engage-ment with learning (MacIntyre 2002) as well as the social climate in classrooms(Wright 2006). The issue of learner engagement and the contributions of emo-tions to engagement with learning opportunities are important avenues for en-quiry in second language acquisition research. MacIntyre (2002) proposes thatthe differences between the engaged and the unengaged learner, as discussedby Gardner (1985), Oxford and Shearin (1994) and Dörnyei (1994) lie in theemotions students experience during language learning, arguing that attitudesalone are not sufficient to support motivation. MacIntyre (2002: 63) concludesthat “a better understanding of emotion has the capacity to explain cases wherestudents endorse orientations but might not be energized to take action, and alsocases where action is prevented by emotional arousal, either present or antici-pated.” More research is needed exploring the relationship between emotions,attitude and motivation. In addition, the focus of research needs to expand toinclude a focus on a wider range of emotions (e.g. enjoyment of learning, hope,pride, satisfaction, relief, anger, boredom, shame) including positive as well asnegative emotions as well as domains of emotions (e.g., Bown and White 2006,2010).

Early enquiry into emotions in SLA focused almost exclusively on anxiety.Much of the early anxiety research (see for example Horwitz, Horwitz, andCope 1986) relied largely on self-report scales of anxiety and on statisticalanalysis to determine correlations between intensity of anxiety and achieve-ment in the L2. Results from these studies show that language anxiety is asso-ciated with deficits in listening comprehension, impaired vocabulary learning,

1. In general psychology, motivation (or conation) is generally considered separate from affectand also cognition (see Huitt 1999, Damasio 1999). We, too, follow that model in this paper.However, Pavlenko (2005) does argue that the distinctions between “emotion” and “motiva-tion” are not so clear cut, as emotion is a pervasive aspect of one’s identity.




reduced word production, low scores on standardized tests, and low grades inclassroom courses (Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret 1997; see also Dewaele,Petrides, and Furnham 2007 for an overview). In 2000, Horwitz asserted that“the potential of anxiety to interfere with learning and performance is one ofthe most accepted phenomena in psychology and education” (256). However,as Spielmann and Radnofsky (2001) argue, the experimental and correlationaldesigns that have dominated the research ignore the quality of the emotionalexperience, the “how” rather than the “how much” (262). Spielmann and Rad-nofsky argue for a greater emphasis on the social, affective, and conceptualdimensions of the learning process. They also call for more qualitative enquirydirected at the holistic experience of language learning; a call that is echoed bymany other scholars, including Pavlenko (2005) and Garrett and Young (2009).

Recently Dewaele and colleagues used a mixed quantitative and qualitativestudy of 464 multilingual adults to explore the effects of trait emotional in-telligence on language anxiety (Dewaele, Petrides, and Furnham 2007). Traitemotional intelligence (Petrides, Furnham, and Mavroveli 2007) is defined asthe belief that one can regulate one’s own emotional reactions. In this study,individuals with higher levels of trait emotional intelligence suffered less fromcommunication and language anxiety. The study also found significant rela-tionships between language anxiety and several other sociobiographical vari-ables, including participants’ “history-of-learning” and current linguistic prac-tices. Social factors were found to influence anxiety levels: individuals reportedless anxiety when speaking with friends than with strangers, and speakers whowere better socialized into a given language also experienced less anxiety whenusing it. The use of qualitative data in this study provided valuable insights intothe experiential aspect of language use.

In addition to anxiety, two key studies to date have explored the impact of avariety of emotions on language learning. Goetz, Pekrun, Hall and Haag (2006)explored the contributions of emotions to Latin language instruction in a quan-titative study of 200 students from Grades 7 to 10. The authors note that thereis little research into the ways in which emotional experiences may vary acrosssubjects. They investigated five conceptually distinct emotions – enjoyment,pride, anxiety, anger, boredom – that have been found to be salient to instruc-tional contexts. Findings indicate that student cognitive appraisals mediate theinfluence of environmental factors on their emotional experiences. In addition,anxiety was found to be less domain specific than enjoyment or boredom sug-gesting that the degree to which emotions are domain specific may dependupon the emotion in question. It would be interesting to extend the investiga-tion of domain specificity within the area of language instruction to explore thecontribution of emotions to particular tasks, methodologies, language skills,learner groupings and forms of assessment. More recently, Garrett and Young(2009) provide a narrative account of Garrett’s own experience of emotion dur-




ing an intensive Portuguese course. The study detailed how Garrett’s emotionalresponses were engendered by particular topics and experiences, how some ofthese responses were modified by new experiences, and how the affective ap-praisals changed on a week-by-week basis. In particular, Garrett and Youngfind that social relations were of significant importance to the learner’s affec-tive state, eliciting both positive and negative emotions. Most notable is theuse of interview technique and qualitative analysis as a means of discovering“an individual’s affective states and the trajectory of change in those statesthroughout the language learning process” (224).

Qualitative approaches are appropriate research strategies in building moreecologically valid models of emotion processes in specific settings. Becauseemotion is constantly generated, unfolded, and changed, it may be better cap-tured by examining the quality of learner’s subjective experiences. The studythat we now report on is thus situated in a qualitative tradition of enquiry, ex-ploring emotion phenomena reported by students in a language learning settingbased around individualised instruction, with particular emphasis on the socialand cognitive aspects of emotion. We have drawn on a social and cognitivemodel of academic emotions (see Figure 2) which emphasises the social an-tecedents of emotion, the importance of cognitive appraisals of situations andthe regulation of emotion. The reciprocal linkages between emotions and theirantecedents are also indicated in the model: emotions feed back to cognitive ap-praisals of the social environment, and contribute to the learning environment,though this aspect is only touched on in our study.

3. A study of emotions in individualised instruction

The study reported here explores students’ affective responses to the experi-ence of learning Russian in a large public university in the mid-Western UnitedStates. It is important to note that students in this setting can opt to learn lan-guages in a traditional classroom environment or in a self-instructed format;the participants in the present study had all chosen individualised instruction,a hybrid of distance learning and self-access learning. As in distance learning,students follow a set curriculum and the university schedule. However, theyhave face-to-face meetings with an instructor and their instructional sessionstake place in a physical learning centre. The individualised programme offersvariable credit. A five-credit hour course in Russian 101 can be broken up overseveral terms as students complete one credit hour at a time. The programmealso offers a “fail-safe” near the end of the academic term; students can add ordrop credits as needed so that they can complete their credits in a timely fash-ion. Students schedule appointments with instructors no more than two weeksin advance. The appointments are made as needed, rather than being scheduled




Socialenvironment

Cognitiveappraisals

Learning Emotions Perception

Reflection

Regulation

Figure 2. A social-cognitive model of emotion in language learning (adapted fromPekrun 2000; Goetz, Pekrun, Hall, and Haag 2006)

in advance for the entire academic term. This flexibility in scheduling allowslearners in individualised instruction to choose which instructors they wouldlike to work with. Students in the current study reported that they often availedthemselves of this opportunity, as they found that their relationships with theinstructors had a serious impact on their emotional responses to individualisedlearning.




Nineteen learners2 (12 female and 7 male) ranging in age from 18 to 45participated in the study and data was gathered through open-ended interviewsand narrative journals (see Appendices A and B for instruments). Data analysisfollowed the Constant Comparative Method described by Glaser and Strauss(1967) and later by Strauss and Corbin (1998). After thorough immersion inthe data, themes were identified. In particular, the theme of “emotion” provedparticularly salient. Words and phrases that referenced emotion were identi-fied, and the researchers then searched for descriptions of the events that gaverise to or were somehow associated with the emotion. In subsequent interviewsthemes were verified with participants in a member check (Ely, Anzul, Fried-man, Garner, and Steinmetz 1991).

A common theme running through the learners’ stories was that of “emo-tion.” In fact, there were 476 references to emotions in the interview corpus.Learners described their emotional reactions to particular instructors, specifictasks, and, more generally, to the overall challenges of studying Russian in anindividualised learning environment. In this paper, we will present the learn-ers’ own words as they describe their affective reactions and the techniques thatthey employ for processing and managing them. The data show that social re-lationships (or the absence thereof) are one of the primary factors contributingto either positive or negative affective states. The learning environment itselfalso plays an important role in learners’ affective responses. It is important tonote that the participants generally emphasised negative affective states (63 %of references to emotions) over positive ones (35 % of references).3

We noted that emotions were closely tied to the following categories: socialrelationships (31.2 %); cognitive appraisals (56.7 %) of task, learning context,and self; and decision-making (11.8 %). See Figure 3 for graphic representa-tions of the distribution of emotion-related comments.

3.1. Emotion and Cognition

The relationship between emotion and cognition was evident in three recurrentthemes: in emotion as integral to decision-making, in the emotional qualitiesof the cognitive appraisals of tasks and aspects of instruction, and in the “intel-ligent processing” of emotions.

2. A total of twenty-three students were interviewed, but data from four of the students were notincluded in the findings.

3. Some references to emotion defied this binary classification and thus were omitted from thiscalculation.




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Social elationships Cognitive appraisals Decision making

Negative

Positive

r

Figure 3. Distribution of 476 comments by theme

3.1.1. Emotion and decision-making. The emotions students experiencedand reported in learning Russian were integral to the kinds of judgements andchoices they made. The interview data contained 56 references (or 11.8 % ofall coded emotions) to emotions within the context of decision-making. In thefollowing examples we see the role of emotion in decision-making relating topersistence and the relative merits of individualised instruction. Furthermore,the reports of learners revealed that emotions were central to the judgmentsand choices they made. In the excerpt below Rachel4 identifies anxiety as akey factor in her impetus to end the conversation session:

[When I feel anxious] I just want to leave [the conversation session]. I mean, Idon’t, but, you know I sort of inside myself, I feel like, “Oh, I hope this will beover soon, and I wish I could leave now.”

Rather than acting on this impulse, however Rachel reminds herself of herdesire to study Russian and the importance of persistence:

But then I say, ‘No, you wanted to do this and you have to get through this,’

showing how awareness of emotion can contribute to decisions about learn-ing and long-term goals. Emotion was also central to decisions about choiceof learning environment (mentioned in 62 % of references to emotions and

4. All names used are pseudonyms.




decision-making). Emma, for example, reported dissatisfaction with individ-ualised instruction, resulting in her decision to transfer back to classroom lan-guage instruction. She reported:

When I was in [individualised instruction], I felt frustrated because I thought itwas a lot of work; it was just incredibly time consuming, and I felt like I was justall alone, I didn’t have anyone to say, “you know, am I doing this right? . . . I didn’tfeel like I was making any progress . . . and I didn’t have any way to really gaugemy progress.”

In the solo context of individualised instruction Emma’s emotions of frus-tration and loneliness prompted her to change her learning environment. Shenoted a lack of motivation to work in the individualised context. The isolationof the programme and her own sense of dissatisfaction served to de-motivateher. Because she had an intrinsic interest in Russian, she chose to transfer tothe classroom context, where she hoped to feel less lonely. She also wished togauge her progress against other students, noting that individualised instructiondeprived her of that opportunity:

Like I wasn’t in a classroom with other people, and I didn’t know, “OK, they didn’tunderstand that either.”

Emotions influenced learners’ decisions about what and when to study (10 %of references to emotions and decision-making focused on this aspect). Melin-da, for instance, noted that she had to “get in the mood” to study Russian. Ifshe was unable to get in the mood, she described taking advantage of situationsthat she knew would motivate her, including good weather. David, too, allowedpositive emotions to help him choose a topic of study:

I will allow myself to procrastinate like no other, unless I just, there’s just some-thing that catches me and I’m like “I have to go with this. I’m interested, I have tokeep learning.”

Thus emotions played heavily in students’ decisions about when and what tostudy. These findings parallel those of Dörnyei (2000, 2001), who studied mo-tivation in its relationship to specific learner behaviours and classroom pro-cesses, using a process-oriented approach to account for the daily “ups anddowns” of motivation to learn, i.e. the ongoing changes of motivation overtime. According to his model, motivation can be divided into three stages:pre-actional, actional, and post-actional. Numerous factors affect motives at allthree stages, including values associated with the task, expectancy of success,appraisal of the learning experience and effects of feedback. The present studyoffers further insights into the factors that influence motivation, namely moodsand emotions. Furthermore, results demonstrate how learners harness positive




emotions and banish negative emotions in the pursuit of their goals. Learners’motives were also influenced by their cognitive appraisals, which were oftencoloured by their emotions.

3.1.2. Emotion and cognitive appraisals. Cognition and emotion are alsorelated through cognitive appraisals. A student may cognitively appraise aspeaking task, for example, in terms of understanding the purpose and re-quirements of the task, of the kinds of linguistic resources required, and theapproximate duration of the task. Such cognitive appraisals can also include anemotional quality, including whether the task is enjoyable or not, boring, frus-trating, and the degree of anxiety or other attendant emotions the task may in-duce. In the context of individualised instruction, student appraisals of aspectsof the target language, including the script and the grammar, of the instruc-tional context and of their use of time all included evident emotional elements.In particular the perceived difficulty of learning Russian evoked strong emo-tional reactions in 16 of the participants. Reflecting back on his initial reactionto the script, John reports the following:

I picked up the book originally and looked at all these words and I thought, “Boy,this is going to be nasty.” Because, you know, I obviously couldn’t even recognizethe symbols and couldn’t write them.

Other learners found that performing particular tasks, especially listening(reported by 15 respondents) or speaking (reported by 18 respondents), oftenelicited strong feelings, usually negative. Referring to listening comprehension,Natasha reported difficulty understanding her instructors during conversationsessions and exams. This difficulty was clearly accompanied by negative feel-ings:

But then on the listening comprehension it was just, I couldn’t understand. Forone it was way too fast. It seemed to me that it was more blurred than the tapes. . . I wasn’t able to catch it, even after we went back and I asked, you know, whatwas said, what the correct answers were. It still didn’t really click with me. I wasvery frustrated.

Tia found that speaking was particularly difficult for her and wrote about thenegative emotions associated with her speaking skills:

I think I’m doing quite well as far as “paper Russian” is concerned. However,when it comes to opening my mouth and speaking I feel very insecure.

In fact, participants used “emotion” words to describe their appraisals bothof tasks and of their own abilities. Learners frequently used the terms “feelingcomfortable” or “feeling uncomfortable” with specific tasks or material when




they evaluated their own skills. Nine participants specifically cited “feelingstupid” as a reason for discontinuing the individualised programme, while an-other six participants talked about feeling unsuccessful. Other emotion wordsthat participants used frequently included “frustration” (92 mentions) “ner-vousness,” (21 mentions) and “disappointment” (66 mentions).

It was in face-to-face interviews that emotions were particularly evident:Emma’s appraisal of individualised instruction, for example, included a strongemotional dimension as she stated that she “hated” the learning format, adding,that those same negative emotions related to her appraisal of herself as shestruggled to work effectively in that context. “When I say hate, I’m also sayingthat – it’s how I feel about myself and my lack of ability to work well within thatstructure.” She described her difficulties learning in individualised instructionand said in an embarrassed whisper, “I get lazy.” Then she added, indicative ofher embarrassment, “Don’t tell [my instructor].”

Melinda’s laughter in an interview similarly revealed her embarrassment ather lack of regular study habits:

I, um, do a lot of spurt work [laughs], you know. I’ll, uh, maybe a week I’ll do,um, you know, one and a half lessons, you know, and, um, then the next two weekswon’t do anything. I know that’s not ideal, but that’s kind of the way my schedulefits sometimes, and um, also, um, just my laziness or whatever.

Specific aspects of the individualised context created strong emotional re-actions in some students. Susan, in particular, characterised her experience inindividualised instruction as “lonely,” and noted that she felt, “abandoned.” Allbut two learners commented on their feeling of being isolated from other learn-ers (in fact, feeling “lonely” was mentioned 51 times), and five chose to leavethe “lonely” environment of individualised instruction for the socialization of-fered by classroom instruction. Another five would have preferred the socialopportunities of the classroom had their schedules permitted.

3.1.3. The “intelligent processing” of emotion. Further insights into theregulation of affect in learning comes from the notion of the “intelligent pro-cessing” of emotions in learning and achievement (Martinez-Pons 2000, 2001;Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, and Hall 2005), which involves using one’s cogni-tive abilities to perceive, reflect on and regulate emotions. This represents acomplex and fine-grained understanding of the processes by which individualsengage with and manage their affective states as illustrated in the followingreports of learners. John, for example, reported that he noticed recurrent emo-tions of frustration which he judged to be a threat to his motivation. In suchcases, he acted to manage the emotion in a productive way:




. . . and there are times when I’m very frustrated, because, being in my conversa-tions, someone asks me a question that I want to answer in a way that I’m not ableto yet . . . but I also realise the point that I’ve come from.

John endeavoured to reframe frustration at what he perceived as his slowprogress, by reminding himself of the progress he had made: instead of focus-ing on what he could not do he focused on what he had accomplished in arelatively short period of time.

The intelligent processing of emotions is a complex process and a more de-tailed treatment of the topic is beyond the scope of this paper.

The social antecedents of emotions identified in the study are discussed inthe next section.

3.2. Social antecedents of emotion

Social relationships or the absence thereof, created salient emotional responsesin the learners in the individualised instruction programme. Because learnersin this programme were largely isolated from other students of Russian, rela-tionships with instructors became very important. Relationships with instruc-tors were referenced in the interviews 122 times. Positive relationships withinstructors accounted for 47 % of the references, while the remaining 53 % ofreferences focused on the negative effects of these social relationships. The be-haviours in which the instructors engaged and the ways in which the instructorspositioned themselves relative to the students’ learning had profound effects onthe learners’ emotional responses and ultimately on the learners’ motivation.The following excerpt from an interview with Carla shows the positive effectthat instructors can have on the subjective experience of language learning,in particular, if they position themselves as partners in the language learningprocess.

Carla: I thought [my learning experience] was really good, it was neat having thereally one-on-one with the instructors. I got to know some of them very well and,um, they were just very encouraging. And they were thrilled with the idea youknow I wanted to read a children’s book in Russian, and then you know, I’d comein for bonus sessions for fun ‘cause I enjoyed it a lot, and yeh.Interviewer: So it was a positive experience?Carla: Yeah, more this quarter than summer quarter.Interviewer: Summer quarter was not as enjoyable?Carla: Right. I kind of, I almost dreaded it summer quarter.Interviewer: Is there a particular reason?Carla: I don’t . . . maybe, I didn’t feel like as close to the instructors summerquarter.




She found her language study and her interactions with the instructors enjoy-able, and she describes what it was that made the interactions enjoyable. Theinstructors demonstrated a sincere interest in her as a learner and in her extraefforts to learn the language. She found their behaviours “encouraging” andwas motivated to attend extra conversation sessions “for fun.” However, whenshe felt alienated from the instructors, i.e., not as close to them, she found hersubjective experience was quite negative.

Natasha, too, felt that interactions with the instructors had a significant im-pact on her learning experience. She enjoyed her first two quarters (which,incidentally did not correspond with Carla’s first quarter), primarily becausethe instructors:

seemed to want to have more of an actual relationship with the students. Theyreally seemed excited when the student wanted help. They were excited abouthelping the student and wanting to teach them as much as possible.

Experiences with different instructors, however, were less positive. Natashadescribed the instructors’ tendency to talk too quickly for her to understand;they claimed the right not only of speech but to set the rate of speech. She feltthat the instructors positioned themselves as examiners or gatekeepers. Ratherthan showing interest in helping the students and in clarifying difficult con-cepts, they “were there just to check the homework and see that you’ve doneyour work.” As a result, Natasha reported in the interview that she felt alone,saying, “it’s so much work on myself.” She decided to try classroom instruc-tion, where she felt that the instructor “knew me better. Was able to take careof my needs more because they’d worked with me; they knew who I was.”

In an interview with Janice, she indicated that interactions with instructorsnot only affected her emotions, but also ultimately influenced her languagelearning:

I won’t learn from that person unless I like that person . . . If they [the instructors]don’t seem to like you in someway, maybe you don’t necessarily have a problemwith them, but they just don’t seem like they want to be there, maybe they’re tootired, or they come across as “I really don’t want to be here today, so where’syour homework, let’s see it.” I’m not going to say, “Well, I really have a problemwith Section 3.1, could you help me?” Because I feel like, they don’t really givea crap, so why should I bother, waste my time, because I’m probably not going toget anything – I don’t want to be made to feel stupid, either. And sometimes thathappens.

Language learning was pleasant and effective for students when they workedwith instructors who showed a degree of personal interest in them. When in-structors positioned themselves as partners in the learning process, learners en-joyed interacting with them and enjoyed their language study. However, when




instructors distanced themselves from students and took on the role of objec-tive judges of ability and work, the learners began to dread interactions in thetarget language and found that their overall experience was more negative. Incases where instructors’ behaviours suggested apathy or annoyance, learnersfelt intimidated and unable to learn.

When faced with negative relationships with instructors, some learners optedto change their environment in the only way they saw available to them. Stu-dents in the particular programme under study were able to choose among threeor four instructors. Jessica made use of this strategy when one of the instructorsmade her nervous:

I know when I’ve gone in with one of the other instructors, she tends to make memore nervous because she speaks a lot faster, because she’s a native speaker, soshe speaks a lot faster and she, she corrects things that I haven’t gotten to, yet.And so it starts to, you know, make me nervous like, “Well, I’m really not gettingas much as I should.” When I probably am, and I’m just not there, yet . . . I startedto realize that I probably shouldn’t . . . go in with her.

The quote from Jessica indicates the social antecedents of her emotionalstates. The instructor positioned herself as someone who had the right to setthe tempo for the conversation. The rapid rate of speech, perhaps combinedwith the instructor’s apparent disregard for the students’ comprehension, con-tributed to a pronounced power differential. This led to Jessica’s “nervousness.”Moreover, what the instructor chose to correct (grammatical features that thelearner had not yet come across) caused Jessica to doubt her abilities. Jessicaunderstood the antecedents of her emotions, and understood the immediate andpossible long-term consequences of the nervousness, in this case, self doubt.She recognized that the relationships with a particular instructor were creatinga negative and potentially damaging affective state. In order to counteract theeffects, Jessica chose to work with other instructors, whose feedback style wasless threatening to her self-image. This exchange with Jessica illustrates thesituated, complex nature of emotions. While it is no secret that social relation-ships can give rise to particular emotional responses, this quote indicates thatresearchers should also give attention to the dynamics of power in the teacher-student relationship. In situations in which learners meet one-on-one with in-structors, power relationships may acquire even greater significance. In class-room settings, students are involved in multiple social relationships, which canoffset any negative effects from relationships with instructors. In self-instructedenvironments, students frequently work one-on-one with instructors and maybe more affected by instructor behaviours.

Research in educational communication has long suggested that instruc-tor behaviours significantly impact student attitudes, motivation, and learning(Menzel and Carrell 1999; Pogue 2006). Mettewie (2004) asserts that learners’




attitudes towards the foreign language teacher determine to a large extent theirattitudes towards the foreign language, especially for languages which are rarein the usual linguistic landscape of the learners. Our findings corroborate thoseof earlier studies, but also illustrate how instructor behaviours are intertwinedwith relations of power. Instructors who demonstrate uncaring behaviours por-tray themselves as being in a position of greater power than do those whodemonstrate “immediacy” behaviours, or behaviours that reduce psychologi-cal and social distance. However, by intelligently processing their emotionsand understanding both the antecedents and consequences of those emotions,learners can control their affective responses. Furthermore they can resist feel-ing “powerless” in exchanges with instructors. In self-instructional settings andother settings in which learners’ interaction with other L2 speakers is limited,immediacy behaviours take on enormous significance.

4. Conclusion

The affective experiences of learners of Russian in individualised instruction inthe current study offer preliminary insights into the social antecedents of emo-tions in language learning and into the close and complex relationship betweenemotion and cognition. Reports revealed emotions as integral to students’ so-cial relationships, thoughts, actions and decision-making, and to their cognitiveappraisals of tasks, teachers, the learning environment and themselves. Rela-tionships with teachers intertwined with power relations emerged as particu-larly salient features of the learning environment and as significant emotionalantecedents in the individualised instruction setting. Reports also suggest thatstudents’ cognitive appraisals of situations mediate their experience of emo-tions, and that they apply their cognitive abilities to self-regulate emotions ex-perienced in language learning. Our enquiry has taken a process approach toemotion, focusing on the situated nature of emotions, the experiences asso-ciated with emotions, and how individuals interpret those experiences. It haspointed briefly to the reciprocal linkages between emotions, the antecedentsof emotions, and the intelligent processing of emotions and language learn-ing, as an important avenue for further research. There are of course a numberof methodological challenges to enquiry as emotions are very fluid, arisingquickly and changing quickly, and we are reliant on students’ ability to no-tice and articulate the emotions they are experiencing. However, if we are totruly understand the processes of SLA, we cannot ignore the assertion of theemotion revolution, namely that the feeling of what happens is central to con-sciousness, to what we notice and to how we engage with input, interaction andthe features of our environment. We look forward to further research on affectand affective experiences in second language acquisition as a means of illumi-




nating further the interdependence between social and cognitive processes inlanguage learning.

Brigham Young University〈[email protected]〉

Massey University〈[email protected]〉

Appendix A

Student interview protocol

Date Participant #:Location: Time:

1. Tell me a little about why you’re studying Russian.

2. Describe your language-learning background.

3. How do you think your study of Russian in I.I. compares to your classroomlanguage study?

4. Why did you choose to study Russian in Individualised Instruction?

5. How is your study going?

5.1 What does _____ (well, badly, pretty well . . . ) mean for you?5.2 On what basis do you gauge your progress in Individualised Instruc-

tion?

6. How do you define “success” in language learning?

7. What do you consider the characteristics of a good language learner?

8. Do you consider yourself a good language learner? Why or why not?

9. In which environment – classroom or I.I. – do you feel that you are a betterlearner?

10. How do you study Russian?

11. How do you organize your time to study Russian?

12. What have you most recently been studying? Describe how you studied_______.

13. How would you characterize your overall learning experience in I.I.

13.1 Do you see that experience/those experiences as negatives or posi-tives?



[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


14. What advice would you give a friend planning to take Russian I.I. nextquarter? What should he/she do to have a good learning experience?

Appendix B

Instructions for narrative journal

Learning a language in Individualised Instruction gives you a lot of flexibilityto decide what you’re going to study, when, and how. Individualised Instructionis also unique in that you, the student, may no longer rely on a teacher fordirection, but must take on the responsibility of managing your own learning.

For many of you this may be your first experience with self-managed learn-ing. You may soon discover what kinds of activities are comfortable and pro-ductive for you and which are frustrating and intimidating. Since there is not ateacher prompting you to study and no hard deadlines set for your study, youwill need to decide how and when to study the language and how and whennot to study. You may also find that learning a language on your own is verycomfortable, or you may find yourself frustrated. I’d like you, as students ex-periencing Individualised Instruction, to give me your insights into how youperceive this experience. For example, do you enjoy this kind of learning, ordo you find it frustrating and overwhelming? Do you feel successful? How doyou feel during and after a conversation session? Please give me some insightinto what prompted these feelings. Was it an encounter with an instructor? Wasit frustration over a difficult reading/listening passage you were doing on yourown? Was it a feeling of satisfaction over something you did well? If so, pleasedescribe the situation.

Another topic to address is how you make decisions about when, where,what, and how to study. How do you choose when to study? When do youdecide to stop? How do you know that you are ready to take a test?

I don’t expect a polished letter on the subject, rather something much morecasual, similar to a letter home to your friends or family. Think of reading yourjournals years from now and trying to recapture exactly the feelings of the ex-perience and who you are now. I’m looking for short but detailed descriptions,written informally, which let me know what the occasion was like and howyou were dealing with it. Please write about at least two events during thistwo-week period. Don’t worry about spelling, neatness, or style. Although I’minterested in knowing as much detail as possible, I don’t wish to pry into yourpersonal life. Your name will be recoded and you need not provide real namesof the people you describe.

I expect to gain a lot of helpful information from your journals. However,the experiences you record will not only be extremely helpful to my present




research and to future self-managed learners, but should also give you a recordof your experience with Individualised Instruction and the opportunity to an-alyze your own learning and make better use of your time in IndividualisedInstruction.

References

Ashby, Gregory, F., Alice M. Isen, & And U. Turken. 1999. A neuropsychological theory of posi-tive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review 106(3). 529–550.

Ashby, Gregory F., Vivan V. Valentin, & U. Turken. 2002. The effects of positive affect and arousalon working memory and executive attention. Neurobiology and computational models. In Si-mon Moore & Mike Oaksford (eds.), Emotional cognition. From brain to behaviour, 245–287.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Atkinson, Dwight. 2002. Towards a social cognitive approach to second language acquisition.Modern Language Journal 86. 525–545.

Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrian S. Palmer. 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Bandura, Albert. 2002. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology. An Inter-national Review 51. 269–290.

Barrett, Lisa Feldman, Batja Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner, & James J. Gross. 2007. The experienceof emotion. Annual Review of Psychology 58. 373–403.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2003. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language andCognitive Processes 18. 513–562.

Block, David. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.

Bown, Jennifer. 2006. Locus of learning and affective strategy use. Two factors affecting successin self-instructed language learning. Foreign Language Annals 39. 640–659.

Bown Jennifer, & Cynthia White. 2006. Emotional intelligence in language learning. Identify-ing a research agenda. Joint conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics(AAAL) and Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (ACLA). Montreal, Canada, 17–20June.

Bown, Jennifer & Cynthia White. 2010. Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learn-ing. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 38.432–443.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1973. Affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning23. 231–243.

Clore, Gerald L. 1994. Why emotions require cognition. In Paul Eckman & Richard J. Davidson(eds.), The nature of emotion. Fundamental questions, 181–191. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Collentine, Joseph & Barbara F. Freed. 2004. Learning context and its effects on second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 153–171.

Curran, Charles A. 1976. Counselling-learning in second languages. Apple River, IL: Apple RiverPress.

Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ error. Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York:G. P. Putnam.

Damasio, Antonio R. 1999. The feeling of what happens. Body and emotion in the making ofconsciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Davis, Beverly. 2001. The restorative power of emotions in child protective services. Child andAdolescent Social Work Journal 18. 437–454.




de Andrés, Verónica. 1999. Self-esteem in the classroom or the metamorphosis of butterflies. InAffect in language learning, Jane Arnold (ed.), 87–102. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2004a. Blistering barnacles! What language do multilinguals swear in?! Es-tudios de Sociolingüística 51. 83–106.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2004b. The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech ofmultilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25. 204–222.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2005a. Investigating the psychological and the emotional dimensions in in-structed language learning. Obstacles and possibilities. Modern Language Journal 89. 367–380.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2005b. The effect of type of acquisition context on perception and self-reported use of swearwords in the L2, L3, L4 and L5. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (eds.), In-vestigations in instructed second language acquisition, 531–559. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2006. Expressing anger in multiple languages. In Aneta Pavlenko (ed.), Bilin-gual minds. Emotional experience, expression, and representation, 118–151. Clevedon: Mul-tilingual Matters.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2008. The emotional weight of ‘I love you’ in multilinguals’ languages.Journal of Pragmatics 40. 1753–1780.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, Adrian. 2007. Effects of trait emotional intelli-gence and sociobiographical variables on communicative and foreign language anxiety amongadult multilinguals. A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning 58(4). 911–960.

Dörnyei, Zoltan. 1994. Motivation & motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Lan-guage Journal 78. 273–284.

Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2000. Motivation in action. Towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of stu-dent motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70. 519–538.

Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2005. The psychology of the language learner. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2009. The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Moti-

vation, language identity and the L2 self, 9–42. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Ehrman, Madeline. 1999. Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning.

In Jane Arnold (ed.), Affect in language learning, 68–86. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ellis, Nick. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA. The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review9. 100–121.

Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2006. Language emergence. Implications for applied lin-guistics. Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 558–559.

Ely, Margot, Margaret Anzul, Teri Friedman, Diane Garner, & Ann McCormack Steinmetz (eds.).1991. Doing qualitative research. Circles within circles. New York: Falmer.

Fredrickson, Barbara L. & Christine Branigan. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of at-tention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion 19. 313–332.

Gardner, Robert C. 1985. Social psychology and second language acquisition. The role of attitudesand motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, Robert C. 1999. Language anxiety. A review of the research for language teachers. InDolly J. Young (ed.), Affect in foreign and second language learning. A practical guide tocreating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere, 24–45. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Gardner, Robert C & Peter MacIntyre. 1993. A learner’s contributions to second language acqui-sition. Part II. Affective variables. Language Teaching 26. 1–11.

Gardner, Robert C, Paul F. Tremblay, & Anne-Marie Masgoret. 1997. Towards a full model ofsecond language acquisition. An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81. 344–362.




Garrett, Paula & Richard F. Young. 2009. Theorizing affect in foreign language learning. An analy-sis of one learner’s responses to a communicative-based Portuguese course. Modern LanguageJournal 932. 209–226.

Gass, Susan & Alison Mackey. 2006. Input, interaction, and output. An overview. AILA Review.3–17.

Glaser, Barney G. & Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goetz, Thomas, Anne C. Frenzel, Reinhard Pekrun, & Nathan Hall. 2005. Emotional intelligencein the context of learning & achievement. In Ralf Schulze & Richard D. Roberts (eds.), Emo-tional intelligence. An international handbook, 233–253. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.

Goetz, Thomas, Reinhard Pekrun, Nathan Hall, & Ludwig Haag. 2006. Academic emotions froma socio-cognitive perspective. Antecedents and domain specificity of student affect in the con-text of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76. 289–308.

Grabe, William. 2002. Applied linguistics. an emerging discipline for the twenty-first century. InRobert D. Kaplan (ed.), The oxford handbook of applied linguistics, 3–12. Oxford. OxfordUniversity Press.

Hall, Joan Kelly, Gergana Vitanova, & Ludmila Marchenkova. 2005. Dialogue with bakhtin onsecond and foreign language learning. New perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Harris, Catherine, L., Jean Berko Gleason, & Ayse Aycicegi. 2006. When is a first language moreemotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. In Aneta Pavlenko (ed.),Bilingual minds. Emotional experience, expression, and representation, 257–311. Clevedon,United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B., & Jo Ann Cope, 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Mod-ern Language Journal 70. 125–132.

Horwitz, Elaine K., & Dolly J. Young. 1991. Language anxiety. From theory and research toclassroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall.

Horwitz, Elaine. K. 2000. It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. On foreign language anxiety, first languagedeficits, and the confounding of variables. Modern Language Journal 84. 256–259.

Huitt, William. 1999 Conation as an important factor of mind. Educational Psychology Inter-active. Valdosta, GA. Valdosta State University. http.//chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/conation.html (accessed 9 September 2008.

Huitt, William & Sheila C. Cain. 2005. An overview of the conative domain. Educational Psy-chology Interactive. Valdosta, GA. Valdosta State University. http.//teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brilstar/chapters/conative.doc (accessed 12 July 2008.

Krashen, Stephen. 1981. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Prentice-Hall International.

Lantolf, James P. 2000. Introducing sociocultural theory. In James P. Lantolf (ed.), Socioculturaltheory and second language learning, 4–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, James. P. & Aneta Pavlenko. 2001. (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory. Understand-ing second language learners as people. In Michael P. Breen (ed.), Learner contributions tolanguage learning. New directions in research, 141–158. Harlow, England: Longman.

Leaver, Betty Lou, Madelie Ehrman, & Boris Shekhtman. 2005. Achieving success in second lan-guage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lozanov, Georgi. 1979. Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy. New York: Delacorte Press.MacIntyre, Peter. 2002. Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In Peter

Robinson (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, 45–68. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

MacIntyre, Peter & Robert C Gardner. 1994. The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitiveprocessing in the second language. Language Learning 44(2). 283–305.

Martinez-Pons, Manuel. 2000. Emotional intelligence as a self-regulatory process. A social cogni-tive view. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 18. 3–23.



http.//chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/conation.html

http.//chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/conation.html

http.//teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brilstar/chapters/conative.doc

http.//teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brilstar/chapters/conative.doc


Martinez-Pons, Manuel. 2001. The psychology of teaching and learning. A three step approach.New York: Continuum.

Martinez-Pons, M. 2002. A social cognitive view of parental influences on student academic self-regulation. Theory into Practice 41(2). 126–131.

Menzel, Kent E. & Carrell, Lori J. 1999. The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness totalk and perceived learning. Communication Education 48(1). 31–40.

Mettewie, Laurence. 2004. Attitudes en motivate van taalleerders in België. Free University ofBrussels PhD thesis.

Oxford, Rebecca L. 2002. Sources of variation in language learning. In Robert D. Kaplan (ed.),The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics, 245–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oxford, Rebecca.L. & Jill Shearin. 1994. Language learning motivation. Expanding the theoreticalframework. Modern Language Journal 78. 12–28.

Panksepp, Jaak. 1998. Affective neuroscience. The foundations of human and animal emotions.New York: Oxford University Press.

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2005. Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pekrun, Reinhard. 2000. A social cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In Jutta

Heckhausen (ed.), Motivational Psychology of Human Development, 143–163. Oxford: Else-vier Science.

Pekrun, Reinhard, Thomas Goetz, Wolfam Titz, & Raymond P. Perry. 2002. Academic emotions instudents self-regulated learning and achievement. A programme of qualitative and quantitativeresearch. Educational Psychologist 37(2). 91–105.

Petrides, K. V., Adrian Furnham, & Stella Mavroveli. 2007. Trait emotional intelligence. Mov-ing forward in the field of EI. In Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner, & Richard D. Roberts(eds.), Science of emotional intelligence. Knowns and unknowns, 151–166. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Pogue, Lanette L. 2006. The effect of teacher immediacy and credibility on student motivation andaffective learning. Communication Education 55(3). 331–344.

Rossiter, Marian J. 2003. The effects of affective strategy training in the ESL classroom. TESL-EJ.http.//tesl-ej.org/ej26/a2.html, accessed 21 April 2007.

Rost, Michael. 2005. L2 listening. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second languageteaching and learning, 503–528. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scherer, Klaus R., Angela Schorr, & Tom Johnstone (eds.). 2001. Appraisal processes in emotion.Theory, methods, research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scovel, Thomas. 1978. The effect of affect on foreign language learning. A review of the anxietyresearch. Language Learning 28. 129–142.

Scovel, Thomas. 2001. Learning new languages. A guide to second language acquisition. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.

Shoaib, Amel & Zoltan Dörnyei. 2004. Affect in lifelong learning. Exploring motivation as a dy-namic process. In Phil Benson & David Nunan (eds.), Learners’ stories. Difference and diver-sity in language learning, 22–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spielmann, Guy & Mary Radnofsky. 2001. Learning language under tension. New directions froma qualitative study. The Modern Language Journal 85. 259–278.

Strauss, Anselm L. & Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory. Thousdan Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ushioda, Ema. 2007. Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In Phil Benson (ed.), Learnerautonomy 8. Teacher and learner perspectives, 5–24. Dublin: Authentik.

Wright, Tony. 2006. Managing classroom life. In Simon Gieve & Inés K. Miller (eds.), Under-standing the language classroom, 64–87. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yashima Tomoko & Lori Zenuk-Nishide. 2008 The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, at-titudes, and L2 communication. Creating an imagined international community. System 36(4).566–585.



http.//tesl-ej.org/ej26/a2.html

Date post:	09-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cynthia
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA

Documents