Group Processes and EFL Learners’ Motivation: A Study of Group Dynamics in EFL Classrooms

Group Processes and EFL Learners’ Motivation: A Study of Group Dynamics in EFL Classrooms LILIAN YA-HUI CHANG Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China This study explores how group processes, such as group cohesiveness and group norms, influence an individual EFL learner’s motivation The uniqueness of this research lies in shifting the focus from an analysis of the individual’s experience being seen as apart from the group to considering the individual’s experience in relation to the social interactions within the group Questionnaires were administered to 152 Taiwanese university students from the English Department of a university in Taiwan The results from the questionnaires show that there was a slight to moderate correlation between group processes (group cohesiveness and group norms) and students’ level of motivation (selfefficacy and autonomy) A dozen students who participated in this study were asked to share more information in semi-structured in-depth interviews During those interviews, several students commented that their learner class group was indeed important to their learning, as associating with more motivated classmates and classmates with whom they get along does positively influence their own motivation On the other hand, being in a class group of stolid learners who are unresponsive and show little interest or concern for each other could de-motivate an otherwise motivated learner doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.213780 oltan Doărnyei (2001) has observed that ‘‘the term ‘motivation’ presents a real mystery’’ (p 7) Understanding it in the context of daily classroom experience in language teaching is part of that mystery As an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher in Taiwan, I was intrigued by how I could teach exactly the same materials to more than one class and yet observe very different responses from each of them Some groups of students seemed to be more motivated, more eager to participate in class, for example, volunteering to answer questions and actively engaging in group work Other groups never quite caught on in the same way, for example, shunning my request to answer questions or disconnecting during group discussions It appeared that each class Z TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 44, No 1, March 2010 129 group had its own particular identity that determined a certain kind of classroom climate The groups with a more positive identity created a supportive classroom climate that was enjoyable; I looked forward to each class with those groups and felt fulfilled at the end On the other hand, groups with a decidedly negative identity seemed disinterested and created an apathetic classroom climate; more often than not I felt frustrated by students’ indifference, as I encouraged their attempts to improve while trying to increase their interest in the English language Struck by the impact different class groups had on my enthusiasm toward teaching, I wondered: If my motivation was being influenced by various group identities, was individual students’ motivation within the group also being influenced? If they were being influenced, was there something I, as their teacher, could to facilitate the group’s ability to have a more positive influence on individual learners or perhaps simply mitigate against negative influences? During this same period, I discovered that relevant literature in the area of group dynamics theory by Zoltan Doărnyei and his colleagues (Doărnyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999; Doărnyei & Murphey, 2003) attempted to answer questions similar to my own As Doărnyei (2007, p 720) affirmed, the quality of teaching and learning is entirely different depending on whether the classroom is characterized by a climate of trust and support or by a competitive, cutthroat atmosphere.’’ It appeared that since most learning situations, especially in classrooms, take place in groups, the interactions learners have with their teachers and classmates are bound to have a significant effect on them (Ushioda, 2003) I wondered whether, within an Asian context where collectivism is more prevalent than individualism, the group influence would be further emphasized In Taiwan, even at the university level, students in the same class group take their required courses together They may often stay in the same classroom and take classes for several hours a day, five days a week Such close contact for an extended period of time encourages the growth of a strong group bond within the class group I imagined such a bond might have the potential to affect individual learners’ second language (L2) motivation To explore this issue, this article uses the theory of group dynamics as an analytical tool to investigate the relationship between group processes (such as group cohesiveness, group norms) in an EFL classroom and individual learners’ L2 motivation (such as their self-efficacy and autonomy) Although the shift from focusing on the individual’s experience apart from the group to looking at the individual embedded within the social interactions of the whole class group has received some attention (e.g., Doărnyei, 2007; Doărnyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999; Doărnyei & Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Doărnyei, 1998; Hadfield, 1992), relevant studies in an Asian context remain scarce One attempt at a study on 130 TESOL QUARTERLY group dynamics in an Asian context was made by Chang (2007), who explored the effects of group processes on learner autonomy This article expands the scope from Chang’s emphasis on learner autonomy to L2 motivation, in an effort to broaden our understanding of the effects of the class group on individual learners LITERATURE REVIEW This section discusses four strands essential to this research Two are from the area of group processes: group cohesiveness and group norms The other two come from the field of L2 motivation: self-efficacy and learner autonomy While serving as evaluative measurements within the questionnaire used to conduct the research discussed in this article, these four strands also interweave to form the theoretical framework of this study, which sought to understand the ways in which group processes may affect individual learners’ L2 motivation Group Processes Group processes in this article derive from group dynamics theory as applied to language classrooms (for thorough reviews, see Do ă rnyei & Malderez, 1997; Ehrman & Doărnyei, 1998) Researchers of group dynamics define the term group in accordance with the definition established in social psychology—the whole teacher-led class of students in school settings being one group This is distinct from smaller groups within the class, which teachers might configure during a lesson’s task activities The term group members refers to classmates within that same whole entity The two group-related processes integral to this study are group cohesiveness and group norms Group Cohesiveness Group cohesiveness refers to how well group members get along Members of a cohesive group show a strong connection by sharing ideas with each other, participating in group-related activities, or working easily together (Doărnyei & Murphey, 2003) Groups lacking cohesiveness display an aversion to group interaction of their own volition Even though research on group cohesiveness in other contexts (e.g., business groups, sport groups, therapy groups) has demonstrated its importance (Mullen & Copper, 1994), research on group cohesiveness in language learning classrooms remains scant The infrequent studies of group cohesiveness conducted in language classrooms have shown promise: Group cohesiveness affects learners’ positive evaluation of their GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 131 learner group (Cle´ment, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994), a cohesive group learns more efficiently because the members feel more at ease when speaking and sharing ideas with peers (Senior, 1997), and a relationship exists between the time group members spend together and their development of group cohesiveness (Hinger, 2006) Such studies point to the relevance of group cohesiveness in language learning and thus helped motivate this study’s exploration of the relationship of group cohesiveness to motivation in the language classroom Group Norms Group norms are group rules accepted and respected by all group members; they enable group members to act in accordance with normally accepted group behaviors (Ehrman & Doărnyei, 1998) Group norms promote an effective learning environment in two ways: (1) reinforcing group members’ desire and need to perform well (Levine & Moreland, 1990), and (2) facilitating learning by acting as an appropriate boundary (Doărnyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999) Positively reinforcing norms, such as handing in assignments on time or coming to class fully prepared, can bring positive pressure to bear on group members Positive norms can mediate the development of individual learners’ motivation, since learners may adjust behavior to conform to group norms Group norms, acting as an appropriate boundary, might facilitate the learning of individual members within the group: A group of learners, who have established the norm of using only the target language, English, in an L2 class, could persuade a member violating this norm (or boundary) to attune her behavior to the group by creating an unpleasant experience for her, such as giving her the cold shoulder ‘‘We should not underestimate the power of the group: It may bring significant pressure to bear and it can sanction—directly or indirectly— those who fail to conform to what is considered acceptable (Doărnyei & Malderez, 1999, p 161) The literature on motivation indicates that a highly cohesive group having positive norms could be a stimulus to one’s learning Building on this idea, this study sought to investigate the ways in which an individual student’s motivation might be impelled by a language learning group through these two group processes: group cohesiveness and group norms L2 Motivation For several decades, motivation has been considered an important factor in learners’ successful acquisition of their second language Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) social psychology perspective 132 TESOL QUARTERLY dominated L2 motivation research for nearly 30 years Then, in the 1990s, L2 researchers (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) began investigating the limitations of the social psychological perspective, expanding from a focus on the social psychological approach to encompass various motivational theories from educational psychology: equity theories, expectancy-value theories, need theories, self-efficacy theory, attribution theory, and cognitive developmental theory (for an overview, see Doărnyei, 2001, 2005) Currently, L2 motivation is often seen as an intricate construct comprised of multilevel aspects, such as the cognitive aspect, the process aspect, and even the neurobiological aspect Examining the full range of aspects discussed in current L2 motivation literature is beyond the scope of this review Only those two aspects relevant to this study—self-efficacy and learner autonomy—will be discussed These two representative aspects were chosen because (1) both generate considerable discussion in L2 motivation literature, particularly in an Asian context (e.g., Chan, 2001; Wu, 2003; Yang, 1999), and (2) both provide a well-constructed quantitative measure from other studies (e.g., Chan, Spratt, & Humphreys, 2002; Riggs & Knight, 1994) appropriate for this study Having only two measures of L2 motivation is certainly not sufficient to fully explore a language learners’ L2 motivational spectrum However, these two measures can serve as useful measures for a preliminary exploration into the relationship between group processes and L2 motivation, the results of which could aid the design of more comprehensive research in this area in the future Self-Efficacy Learners’ motivation can be influenced by perceptions of themselves, such as their introspective judgment of their ability to perform, that is, their self-efficacy Some research (Schunk, 1991; Wood & Locke, 1987; Yang, 1999) suggests that self-efficacy is a strong indicator of motivation due to self-efficacious learners being more readily engaged in challenging tasks, adopting effective learning strategies, investing more effort, and feeling less frustrated Zimmerman (2000) echoes these conclusions: ‘‘Self-efficacy beliefs have also shown convergent validity in influencing such key indices of academic motivation as choice of activities, level of effort, persistence, and emotional reactions’’ (p 86) According to Oxford and Shearin (1994), learners with high self-efficacy set more challenging goals for themselves, which in turn generates in them stronger motivation to achieve those goals; conversely, learners with low self-efficacy lack confidence, which can lead to lower levels of motivation and can compromise their ability to achieve GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 133 Learner Autonomy Autonomy is not so much an essential component of motivation, like self-efficacy, as a reflection of motivation; in many respects, autonomy and motivation act as intertwined forces affecting L2 learning and its outcomes Deci and Ryan (1985) explain the link between autonomy and motivation as follows: When conditions are created that facilitate intrinsic motivation [emphasis added], in particular those that are autonomy [emphasis added] supporting, students’ learning, especially conceptual learning and creative thinking, increases dramatically (p 261) Various researchers of autonomy in language learning (Benson, 2001; Dickinson, 1987, 1995; Gremmo & Riley, 1995; Holec, 1981; Little, 1991, 1995; Littlewood, 1996, 1999; Ushioda, 1996) not dispute the fundamental principle of learner autonomy—learners taking charge of and becoming responsible for their learning When the locus of control lies within learners themselves to make decisions on how and what they want to learn, they are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation Some researchers (Dickinson, 1995; Ushioda, 1996) point out that autonomous learners are also motivated learners, since both kinds of learners show responsibility toward and interest in their learning, consequently leaving more in charge of their own learning More recent empirical research indicates that motivation is essential for fostering autonomy (Chan, 2001; Spratt, Humphreys, & Chan, 2002), and motivation is one of the key elements in determining whether or not learners are autonomous (Chan, 2001) Wu’s (2003) quasiexperimental study supporting Deci and Ryan’s (1985) notion that an autonomysupporting environment helps develop learners’ intrinsic motivation further highlights the connection between autonomy and motivation To conclude, theoretical evidence and empirical research demonstrate the interrelatedness of autonomy and motivation in forming a virtuous cycle of learning in the foreign language classroom Therefore, it is important to include learner autonomy within this study on motivational research To sum up what has been discussed, my own teaching experience indicated that a class group had its own group identity, which helped shape a distinct group climate that in turn may have affected individual learners’ L2 motivation Group processes (e.g., group cohesiveness and group norms) discussed in group dynamics theory provided an appropriate analytical tool for exploring the characteristics of a class group The literature (Doărnyei & Malderez, 1999; Senior, 1997) indicates that a highly cohesive group or a group having positive norms 134 TESOL QUARTERLY could have an impact on the learning of individuals within that group In view of the fact that motivation is a key element of one’s learning, a highly cohesive group with positive norms may impact a learner’s L2 motivation as well, since without sufficient motivation learning does not take place (Doărnyei, 2001) As a result, it seems logical to form the following hypothesis: There appears to be a relationship between the cohesiveness and norms of a class group and an individual learner’s L2 motivation The study discussed here aimed to test this hypothesis and to extend beyond the hypothesis by exploring the role the class group plays in an individual learner’s L2 motivation RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This was a two-phase, sequential mixed-methods study (Creswell, 2003) with quantitative survey data being collected first, followed by semistructured qualitative interview data The survey component of the study was intended to test the hypothesis, derived from the literature, regarding how factors such as group cohesiveness and group norms correlate with individual learners’ L2 motivation in terms of self-efficacy and learner autonomy Semistructured interviews were employed to describe, from the learners’ point of view, the role the class group plays in an individual learner’s L2 motivation Four class groups (ranging from 32 to 44 learners) at the junior and senior levels of an undergraduate program participated in the survey (see later section for further details on participants) During the quantitative phase of the study three research questions were proposed to test the hypothesis: There appears to be a relationship between the cohesiveness and norms of a class group and an individual learner’s L2 motivation The descriptive research question proposed was: What are each group’s level of cohesiveness, norms, self-efficacy, and autonomy? The two inferential research questions proposed were as follows: Do these four class groups have different levels of group processes (group cohesiveness, norms) and L2 motivation (self-efficacy and autonomy)? Do group cohesiveness and group norms correlate with self-efficacy, and autonomy? Although the survey questionnaire may provide data to accept or reject the hypothesis through answering the above questions, solely relying on quantitative data to grasp the dynamic and possibly elusive relationship between group processes and L2 motivation may not be sufficient Confirming the hypothesis itself would not explain how these two variables are related, because it does not provide opportunities for these learners to illustrate their own learning experiences As Bryman (2004) explains, ‘‘one of the problems that frequently confront quantitative GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 135 researchers is how to explain relationships between variables’’ (p 460) Triangulating quantitative survey data with a more detailed illustration from the language learners through interviews allows the researcher to gather qualitative data to ‘‘explain or build upon initial quantitative results’’ (Creswell & Clark, 2007, p 71) These learners’ elaboration on the influences of the class groups might be particularly important for developing a more intimate view (Creswell, 2003) Such a view is ‘‘often more revealing,’’ because it discloses the ‘‘perspectives of the people [researchers] are studying’’ (Bryman, 2004, pp 458–459) In this regard, the aim of this mixed-methods study was for complementarity (discovering different facets of an event), where the researcher looks for elaboration and illustrations in the results of one method and interweaves those results with another method (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989, pp 258–259) Before conducting semistructured interviews, the survey was first administered to allow this researcher to gather complementary data for the following advantages: Survey questionnaire data could provide ‘‘significant (or nonsignificant) results, outlier results,’’ or ‘‘surprising results’’ (Creswell & Clark, 2007, p 72) to follow up during interviews Survey questionnaires would provide a means to select interviewees based on their questionnaire answers, which is one of ‘‘the chief ways in which quantitative research can prepare the ground for qualitative research’’ (Bryman, 2004, p 457) Further details about interviewees’ selection criteria can be found in the Research Site and Participants section The need to explore the relationship between group processes and L2 motivation from the perspective of language learners led to the necessity of conducting semistructured interviews to address the qualitative research question: How would individual learners describe the role of the class group in their L2 motivation? Research Site and Participants This research was conducted in a department of applied English at a national university of science and technology in Kaohsiung County, Taiwan All student research participants were majoring in English as a foreign language at the time of the study This sample pool was a convenience sample, because I was working at this site during this research and had access to groups of students who matched the study’s selection criteria Because this study focused on the effects group processes have on learners’ L2 motivation, it was essential to have the class group as the basic unit of the study, rather than individual learners Four groups, comprising a total of 152 participants, were chosen as 136 TESOL QUARTERLY follows: junior year Group 3A (32 students); junior year Group 3B (35 students); senior year Group 4A (44 students); and senior year Group 4B (41 students) Students in these four groups all attended the two-year, upper-division program of the university, designed for students already possessing an associate’s degree and those wishing to obtain a bachelor’s degree Hence the junior year groups, Group 3A and Group 3B, were actually in their first year together as a group of classmates The senior year groups, Group 4A and Group 4B, being in the second year, had been together as classmates during the previous year and remained classmates in their senior year To define this more specifically, being together means that classmates in the same class groups take all required courses with those same classmates—at my research site that would be hours per week for juniors and hours per week for seniors (who as juniors had spent hours of classes per week together as a single class group) All these students filled out the survey questionnaire first Then three questionnaire respondents from each group were chosen for the indepth semistructured interviews based on their questionnaire answers A respondent with a positive view of the group, one with a neutral observation, and one with a negative opinion were selected from each of the four class groups, for a total of 12 interviewees The rationale for selecting interviewees with differing questionnaire results was that such diversity might assist in garnering a wider range of opinions, thus providing a fuller examination of the dynamic interplay between group processes and L2 motivation Procedures The Questionnaire A four-section questionnaire was devised by the researcher and filled out by 152 research participants Items were written in both English and Chinese To account for validity and reliability issues, the accepted convention is to adapt questions from prior questionnaires to suit the needs of one’s own set of research circumstances Questionnaire items developed for this questionnaire follow that convention Section A of the questionnaire measured individual learners’ level of motivation from the aspect of autonomous beliefs versus autonomous behaviors Adapted from Chan et al.’s (2002) questionnaire developed during their piloting process, Section A of this questionnaire had respondents replying to statements in two parallel measurement columns: one for their beliefs— how responsible the respondent felt toward a particular deed, that is, (no responsibility) to (mainly my responsibility)—and a second column asking them to reply to the same item for their behaviors—to GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 137 TABLE Sample Questionnaire Items From the Questionnaire Section A How responsible for Statements 4 Identify my own strengths and weaknesses 了解自己的長處及比較弱的地方。 Set up my own learning goals 訂定自己的學習目標。 To what extent 4 what extent the respondent actually engaged in the deed, that is,1 (not at all) to (very much) (See Table 1.) Section B of the questionnaire measured individual learners’ level of motivation with respect to self-efficacy and operated much like Section A These statements (e.g., "I am proud of my English ability and skills") were based on measures developed from Riggs and Knight’s (1994) and Jinks and Morgan’s (1999) research on self-efficacy Respondents were asked to rate these statements from (not true) to (very true) The second part of the questionnaire measured group cohesiveness and norms Nine group cohesiveness statements (Section C), such as, "Compared to other groups like mine, I feel my group is better than most," and "This class is composed of people who fit together," were rated This study chose to adopt questionnaire items in this section from the study by Cle´ment et al (1994), because their study shared a similar background—learners’ perceptions of group cohesiveness in foreign language classrooms As with Sections A and B, the participants indicated their level of agreement with the statements The 10 group norms statements (Section D), such as, "speak only English in the class all the time," and "Fully participate during the class," were formulated by this researcher The participants once again selected the option that best captured his or her level of agreement with the statements One resource for these statements was the relevant literature on group processes mentioned in the literature review section; other statements evolved from classroom observation notes made when observing the target groups The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s a) was checked on SPSS (2002) for all these multistatement sections and reached above the satisfactory level ( 0.70) Any problematic statements were eliminated during the piloting stage The Interviews The relationship between group processes and L2 motivation was further explored during semistructured interviews, which started with a 138 TESOL QUARTERLY was also administered to test the study’s hypothesis, which looked at whether group processes (group cohesiveness, norms) correlate with some aspects of L2 motivation (self-efficacy, autonomous beliefs, and autonomous behaviors) As for the qualitative interview data, all the interviews were transcribed first, then the transcripts were translated into English before the coding process began Sample coding categories, such as participants’ views of the influences of a learner group on their learning and the important components of the participants’ own motivation were developed from the sample probe questions discussed earlier: ‘‘In your opinion, is the learner group important to your learning?’’ and ‘‘Out of all the factors that could influence your motivation, which one is the most important one to you?’’ While most of the coding categories seemed to follow closely with the interview probe questions, the researcher also looked for emergent themes by analyzing across the interview data to explore whether there were any unexpected themes arising from the interview data Two unexpected themes were identified and coded, and one of them—the age factor—is particularly relevant to the focus of this article; hence it will be discussed later Both quantitative data and qualitative data results will be presented in detail in the following section In the interest of brevity, qualitative data from various coding categories have been synthesized to present overall findings relevant to the research focus RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive Statistics of Each Class Group Simple descriptive statistical procedures (means, minimum, maximum, standard deviation) were performed to answer the quantitative descriptive research question exploring each group’s level of cohesiveness, norms, and motivation in terms of self-efficacy, autonomous beliefs, and autonomous behaviors Those results are seen in Tables through TABLE Group 3A (Junior Group) Likert Scale Item Results Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Autonomous beliefs (a 0.79) Autonomous behaviors (a 0.79) Self-efficacy (a 0.84) Group cohesiveness (a 0.83) Group norms (a 0.71) 28 28 1.20 2.10 2.80 1.50 4.00 3.60 29 29 26 1.80 2.00 1.70 1.70 1.75 1.90 3.50 3.75 3.60 SD Variance 3.55 2.83 0.33 0.49 0.11 0.24 2.71 3.00 2.63 0.48 0.52 0.38 0.23 0.27 0.14 Note SD standard deviation 140 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Group 3B (Junior Group) Likert Scale Item Results Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Autonomous beliefs (a 0.83) Autonomous behaviors (a 0.78) Self-efficacy (a 0.82) Group cohesiveness (a 0.79) Group norms (a 0.72) 31 31 1.67 2.20 2.22 1.40 3.89 3.60 31 31 29 1.80 1.67 1.60 2.00 2.33 2.00 3.80 4.00 3.60 SD Variance 3.43 2.70 0.37 0.44 0.14 0.20 2.71 3.15 2.85 0.46 0.42 0.37 0.20 0.18 0.14 As stated earlier, with alpha above the benchmark level (a 0.70) for all the multistatements sections (as shown in Tables 2–5), the statements in each section correlate well with one another to give a reliable overall measurement for each section The top three sections – autonomous beliefs, autonomous behaviors, and self-efficacy – explore the questionnaire respondents’ perceptions of their L2 motivation; the bottom two sections – group cohesiveness and group norms – investigate perceptions concerning the characteristics of their class group Tables and provide descriptive statistics for the two junior groups In both Tables and 3, the highest mean score occurs in the first section, autonomous beliefs: Group 3A 3.55, Group 3B 3.43 The picture that emerges indicates that the participants agreed with the statements in this section, that is, they agreed that, along with the teacher, their own responsibility toward learning is a determinant in their learning process There appears not to be a wide variation in the combined mean of the motivation sections for Groups 3A and 3B (Group 3A 3.03, Group 3B 2.95) However, there is a greater range in the combined mean of the group characteristics sections for Groups 3A and 3B (Group 3A 2.82, Group 3B 3.00) Students in Group 3B seemed to have a more positive view of their group than students in Group 3A This could be due to students in Group 3B having had a greater sense of belonging to their group, or perhaps they shared the same views about what constitutes appropriate behavior in the classroom Tables and display the descriptive statistics for the two senior groups As with the junior groups, the highest mean score for the senior groups in both Tables and is the first section, autonomous beliefs: Group 4A 3.51, Group 4B 3.56 This indicates that the students in the senior groups, like those in the junior groups, agreed that they should take responsibility for their own learning This similarity is also seen in the combined mean score for Groups 4A and 4B with respect to the motivation section (Group 4A 2.94, Group 4B 2.98) However, in the case of the group characteristics section, there was a difference between the junior and senior groups The senior groups were virtually alike in their responses (Group 4A 2.70, Group 4B 2.69), whereas, GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 141 TABLE Group 4A (Senior Group) Likert Scale Item Results Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Autonomous beliefs (a 0.79) Autonomous behaviors (a 0.85) Self-efficacy (a 0.70) Group cohesiveness (a 0.75) Group norms (a 0.81) 36 36 1.40 2.10 2.60 1.50 4.00 3.60 35 35 35 1.70 2.11 2.40 1.90 1.78 1.50 3.60 3.89 3.90 SD Variance 3.51 2.67 0.37 0.51 0.14 0.26 2.65 2.67 2.72 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.16 0.17 0.25 as seen earlier, the two junior groups presented contrasting views, with Group 3B more positive than Group 3A It is important to remember here that the data in Tables 2–5 alone are merely descriptive in nature and not differentiate between the groups in terms of statistical significance The next section will further explore the issue of the differences among class groups through unpaired t-tests Differences Among the Class Groups The next step after the descriptive statistics were generated was to examine whether there were statistical differences among these class groups to answer the quantitative inferential research question— whether these four class groups had different levels of group cohesiveness, norms, self-efficacy, and autonomy An unpaired t-test showed no significant differences between Groups 4A and 4B on all the questionnaire sections However, for the junior groups, it showed that Group 3A and Group 3B had slightly different levels of group norms (at p , 0.05 level), as seen in Table Another t-test was administered to examine the differences between senior groups (as one unit) and junior groups (as one unit) The t-test confirmed that there was a statistically significant difference between their group cohesiveness at 0.000 level, as reflected in Table One can conclude from these statistical results that the junior groups appeared to be more cohesive than the senior groups This finding TABLE Group 4B (Senior Group) Likert Scale Items Results Sections N Autonomous beliefs (a 0.85) Autonomous behaviors (a 0.85) Self-efficacy (a 0.71) Group cohesiveness (a 0.81) Group norms (a 0.88) 31 31 1.00 2.30 3.00 1.40 4.00 3.70 31 31 29 1.79 2.22 2.00 1.70 1.56 1.70 3.40 3.78 3.70 142 Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance 3.56 2.69 0.30 0.55 0.09 0.30 2.71 2.66 2.71 0.39 0.46 0.51 0.15 0.20 0.26 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE t-Test Results Comparing Junior Groups 3A and 3B t-Test for equality of means t Autonomous beliefs Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Autonomous Equal behaviors variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Self-efficacy Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Cohesiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Norms Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed df Significance (twoMean tailed) difference SE difference 95% Confidence interval of the difference Lower Upper 1.263 57 0.212 0.1163 0.09209 20.06810 0.30072 1.271 56.974 0.209 0.1163 0.09150 20.06692 0.29953 1.116 57 0.269 0.1354 0.12126 20.10745 0.37819 1.111 54.737 0.272 0.1354 0.12189 20.10894 0.37967 20.021 58 0.983 20.0026 0.12099 20.24475 0.23963 20.021 57.106 0.983 20.0026 0.12123 20.24530 0.24019 21.210 58 0.231 20.1474 0.12180 20.39122 0.09641 21.201 53.724 0.235 20.1474 0.12270 20.39343 0.09862 22.134 53 0.037 20.2172 0.10178 20.42135 20.01305 22.132 52.150 0.038 20.2172 0.10188 20.42161 20.01278 Note t test value; df degree of freedom; SE standard error sounds counterintuitive; because senior year students have spent one more year together, it would naturally be expected that their degree of group cohesiveness would be higher than for the junior students However, bear in mind that the questionnaire was designed to rate the feelings the respondents had about their group at one specific point in time As seniors, the respondents had only hr of compulsory courses together, whereas in their junior year they shared hr of compulsory courses Therefore, it is possible that as juniors these students could have had a higher sense of cohesiveness, whereas their level of cohesiveness gradually diminished during their senior year due to their reduced opportunities to interact Another possible explanation is that, as juniors, these students never enjoyed a high level of group cohesiveness to begin with Thus an increase in cohesiveness during the senior year would be unlikely, given that they spent less time together that year Teaching experience tells researchers that some class groups simply seem to get along quite well from the beginning, whereas others never quite jell, even after being together for several years Each class group is unique; as such, GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 143 TABLE t-Test Results of Senior Groups and Junior Groups t-Test for equality of means Significance (two-tailed) Mean difference SE difference 20.714 124 0.477 20.0439 0.06159 20.16586 0.07796 20.711 119.972 0.478 20.0439 0.06181 20.16633 0.07843 0.916 124 0.361 0.0814 0.08888 20.09451 0.25734 0.923 123.986 0.358 0.0814 0.08822 20.09320 0.25603 0.400 124 0.690 0.0307 0.07675 20.12122 0.18260 0.397 116.663 0.692 0.0307 0.07732 20.12245 0.18383 5.105 124 0.000 0.4112 0.08054 0.25176 0.57059 5.082 119.700 0.000 0.4112 0.08090 0.25098 0.57136 0.355 117 0.723 0.0295 0.08323 20.13529 0.19436 0.362 115.883 0.718 0.0295 0.08167 20.13223 0.19129 t Autonomous beliefs Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Autonomous Equal behaviors variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Self-efficacy Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Group Equal cohesiveness variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Group norms Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 95% Confidence interval of the difference df Lower Upper sometimes being together as a group for a longer or shorter period of time is not necessarily relevant to the level of group cohesiveness Statistical Correlations Between Group Processes and L2 Motivation This section aims to answer the last quantitative inferential research question, whether group cohesiveness and norms correlate with selfefficacy, autonomous beliefs, and autonomous behaviors To this end, a Pearson’s correlation test was administered on SPSS The correlation matrix is presented in Table The correlation results indicate that group processes seem to relate to some aspects of L2 motivation—Group cohesiveness and group norms have slight to moderate correlations with individual learners’ self-efficacy and autonomous behaviors This could mean that learners who believed 144 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Pearson’s (P) Correlation Matrix Autonomous beliefs Autonomous beliefs P Correlation Sig (two-tailed) N Autonomous P Correlation Sig (two-tailed) behaviours N Self-efficacy P Correlation Sig (two-tailed) N Group P Correlation cohesiveness Sig (two-tailed) N Group norms P Correlation Sig (two-tailed) N 126 0.25(**) 0.00 125 0.16 0.08 125 0.10 0.26 125 0.12 0.17 118 Autonomous behaviors 0.25(**) 0.00 125 126 0.35(**) 0.00 125 20(*) 0.02 125 0.26(**) 0.00 118 Selfefficacy Group cohesiveness 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.26 125 125 0.35(**) 0.20(*) 0.00 0.02 125 125 0.43(**) 0.00 126 126 0.43(**) 0.00 126 126 0.23(*) 0.34(**) 0.01 0.00 118 118 Group norms 0.13 0.17 118 0.27(**) 0.00 118 0.23(*) 0.01 118 0.34(**) 0.00 118 119 Note Sig significance **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) their group was cohesive or had positive group norms might have had higher self-efficacy and demonstrated more autonomous behaviors, both of which could be signs of high motivation This correlation result contributes to accepting the hypothesis that group processes are related to L2 motivation, which is in line with current literature (Doărnyei & Murphey, 2003; Hadfield, 1992) that promotes the importance of group processes in language learning In addition, it is important to explain that the Pearson’s correlation test showed a correlation between group cohesiveness and level of self-efficacy The t-test result showed that senior groups and junior groups had a statistically different level of cohesiveness Intuitively, when the cohesiveness of the two groups differs, their level of motivation, such as self-efficacy, would likewise differ, because these two variables correlate according to the correlation test However, this was not the case The t-test revealed that the level of self-efficacy between senior participants and junior participants had no statistical difference The reason may be that while one’s perception of the group’s cohesiveness may have changed her level of motivation, it was not the only factor influencing her motivation to learn This finding supports the conception that other factors could also affect L2 motivation; a concept the interviews were meant to tease out Learners’ Own Perspectives on the Class Group Influences This section addresses the second part of the research design, which focused on investigating, from learners’ own perspectives, the role of the GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 145 class group in individual learners’ L2 motivation The questionnaire data supported the hypothesis that group processes correlate with two aspects of L2 motivation—self-efficacy and autonomous behaviors However, the quantitative analysis was limited in its ability to tease out a deeper meaning from the group processes or L2 motivation connection for learners The purpose of the semistructured interviews was to explore details of this connection from these learners’ own perspectives, to develop a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between them To present the interview data discussions succinctly while maintaining a lucid focus, qualitative data across all interviewees from various coding categories have been synthesized to present overall emergent findings that illustrate how the learners viewed the role of the class group in relation to their own L2 motivation Eleven out of 12 interviewees acknowledged either a positive or a negative influence that the class group had on their learning Positive influence meant being in a good learner group that would motivate them to study harder and better Here are some illustrations: Jack: We were all very motivated and willing to share things Whenever we had some questions, we always called each other and everyone was willing to answer my questions if they could Interviewer: So, did being in that group help your learning? Jack: Sure, very much I was more motivated to learn and I had a more enjoyable experience Everyone had an ambitious goal and we all worked together, encouraged each other to reach that goal (Interview, March 24, 2005) Jack appeared enthusiastic when he spoke of being in a group with positive norms, such as sharing learning materials Classmates helping one another with homework showed there was good interaction among group members, who paid attention to each other’s study of English According to Doărnyei and Murphey (2003), positive interaction and paying attention to one another could be behaviors exhibited by a cohesive group Jack himself admitted that being in a group like that had inspired him to develop a higher level of motivation for himself Another example of a class group’s positive influence came from Tracy, who had admitted that her motivation could sometimes be low as well as high: Tracy: Because everyone is hard-working, I can’t help working hard too For example, one time we had a test in about two weeks, one classmate had already started to prepare for the test She told me that certain chapters were particularly hard and wanted me to be more careful and started to prepare early I didn’t plan to start to prepare so soon, but because of this I did start sooner Seeing all other classmates study 146 TESOL QUARTERLY hard makes me nervous and motivates [me] to work hard too I think this kind of influence is very good because I learn a lot more (Interview, June 16, 2005) Tracy’s response points to a group that seemed to show high cohesiveness, because her classmates shared their progress in their study and encouraged each other to prepare sooner for the test This indicated concern about each other Being in a cohesive group motivated Tracy to study harder and be better prepared for the test sooner than she would have done on her own Naturally, the opposite can occur as well If learners are in a group where other learners not show concern for each other or about learning, they might gradually lose their motivation to learn Here is one example: Ray: When I did a presentation in my previous group, I always just did an OK job because if I did it too well, my classmates would look at me strangely and say, ‘‘Why you work so hard there is no point!’’ I felt uncomfortable, so I just tried to an average job (Interview, April 4, 2005) Ray’s previous group possessed a negative norm—do a mediocre job on presentations—this was their code When Ray disregarded the code and performed beyond the level of the group norm by making a good presentation, his behavior was questioned by other group members, who disliked seeing him violate the group norm He felt an aversion to the negative comments from his classmates, and therefore on his presentations he just did ‘‘an average job.’’ Being a member of this group, to some extent, demotivated Ray, because he did not want to differ from other members and be rebuked for it, and this led to him putting less effort toward class work From these interviews, researchers see support for the questionnaire finding that group processes have a mild to moderate correlation with aspects of motivation The interviews bear out the influence of the learner group as being significant, a further indication as to the importance of the learner group on learner motivation While talking about the influence of the class group, most participants (9 out of 12) also mentioned that it was not the only factor that affected their learning These interviewees commented, for example, that their own determination was the most important factor affecting their L2 motivation They believed that the learner group was an influential factor, but in their opinion it was not the most important one The most important factor came from within themselves, namely, how much they desired learning, as the following comments illustrate: GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 147 Debbie: I think your own determination is the most important factor If you have a definite goal, a goal you really want to reach, then you can reach the goal no matter what kinds of environment you’re in (Interview, April 18, 2005) And as Jack reiterates, self-determination is key: Jack: Well, I think classmates still have an influence, more or less, probably 30–40% But your own determination is more like 60–70% (Interview, March 24, 2005) These excerpts show that interviewees emphasized the importance of their own determination to learn in establishing their L2 motivation If they were fixed in their determination to learn a language, they were more likely to succeed than those whose determination had yet to be decided These interviewees also pointed out that their own determination was but one component of their learning motivation; other factors, such as the class group, were also significant This finding supports the questionnaire data that showed that senior groups had a higher level of cohesiveness than junior groups, and yet their level of self-efficacy did not indicate a statistically significant difference These interview data lend support to the speculation that, although the class group could affect learners’ L2 motivation, it was probably not the only factor After all, these interviewees believed that their own self-determination was still the most important factor shaping their L2 motivation It is also worth mentioning that, although these interviewees described the influences a class group had on their learning, a relevant yet unexpected theme emerged—the age factor The age factor refers to the notion that the age of a learner at the time of group interaction has an effect on the individual’s L2 learning Two participants, Debbie and Flora, explained that, when they were younger, that is, during their junior college years (junior college in Taiwan is from age 16 to 20), the group had more of an influence on their learning, and being in the right kind of group at a younger age was especially important As they aged and became more mature, the influence of the group diminished: Interviewer: So, did being in that "bad" group in your junior college influence your learning in any way? Debbie: Yeah, sometimes I couldn’t help being like them, like not paying attention in class or not studying very hard for the test That was especially true in my second and third year of study But gradually, in my fourth and fifth year of study, I realized that it was wrong and adjusted my own attitude… (Interview, April 18, 2005) Flora also expresses how the group exerted more influence on her when she was younger: 148 TESOL QUARTERLY Flora: Well, [learning in my previous group] was quite different We were only 16 when we started our study, so we were all kind of immature and we kind of grew up together I can really see the changes in my classmates Here at this university it is a bit different We are all grown ups, twenty something, so this is quite different Before when we didn’t like a classmate’s behaviour, we would tell that person Now it’s different, either we like it or not, we don’t care that much and we don’t tell the other person what to or how to behave (Interview, June 9, 2005) Here both learners made clear that when they were younger, they were more immature and more easily influenced by others As they grew older, they sensed their own maturity and likened their new behavior to that of a more mature person: Respecting the individuality of others was one example of this Flora pointed out that, in her previous group, the members ‘‘grew up together’’ and thus had a closer relationship It is not unusual for junior college students in Taiwan to remain in the same class group, receiving instruction with the same classmates, every day throughout their five years of instruction Intuitively then, researchers get a sense of how being together under such conditions with that kind of group might exert more of an influence on an individual learner, in particular as teens might be vulnerable to peer pressure When teens grow into young adults, independence and separation from the group evolve naturally; the class group then would not be as essential to their everyday lives In the area of education, some studies (e.g., Wentzel, 1999; Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez, 1998) have addressed a similar issue and implied that peer group influences are likely to be more significant during adolescence This is not to say that a class group comprised of older learners would not have any influence on individual learners—just as Flora herself said, in her present group she is still ‘‘more or less’’ influenced by it Rather, in a group where learners are young, the influence might be more apparent and direct CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The findings from this research point to the importance of the class group in shaping individual’s L2 motivation The quantitative data confirm the hypothesis that group processes correlate with some aspects of L2 motivation The interview data have shown that 11 of 12 interviewees acknowledged the importance of the class group, that is, being in a good group facilitates their learning, while a bad group could negatively affect their learning enthusiasm However, these interviewees also made clear that, even though the class group could influence their GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 149 L2 motivation, the most important factor influencing their L2 motivation was still their own determination The interviewees also stated that the influence from the class group might be more profound at a younger age Such findings support many researchers’ belief that more attention needs to be paid to the influence of learner groups on language learning (Doărnyei & Malderez, 1999; Doărnyei & Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Dornyei, 1998; Hadfield, 1992) After all, because our education culture has learners spending a great deal of time learning in groups, it would be sensible to represent the influence of social factors within the learning process (Brophy, 1999) The idea that a good learner group has a positive effect on motivation carries implications for teachers to create the right environment for the characteristics of a good group to flourish, thus benefiting motivation within the L2 classroom To grasp those characteristics, the construct of a good group was further explored during the interviews Across the interview data, the most important feature of a good group was the cohesiveness of the group—being with classmates who are interested in learning and supportive of each other This echoes Doărnyei and Murphey (2003), Hadfield (1992), and Schmuck and Schmuck (2001) on the importance of a cohesive environment and supportive classmates in creating a good class group To promote a good relationship among students, to encourage student cooperation, and to generate rewarding group experiences (Doărnyei & Murphey, 2003; Doărnyei, 2007), teachers can focus on members of the group getting to know each other better Using ice-breaker activities at the start of the term is an excellent way to initiate the group into the process of building coherence Pair discussions and group work throughout the term encourage interaction among students, especially when members are continuously rotated to ensure various opportunities for sharing ideas and feelings with a wide variety of classmates Such beneficial interactions go a long way toward creating a cohesive learning environment, where students gradually feel closer to and build an understanding of their peers Teachers offer vital support in a cohesive learning environment by rewarding good group characteristics When the group has worked well together to achieve a shared goal, such as finishing a project, their teacher might hold a small, relaxed gathering with some food and drinks to praise cooperative work done well When learners experience the rewards of working and learning together as a group of classmates and not just as individuals within their class, a cohesive group develops It has been the intention of this study to add to the body of research on group dynamics by illuminating the importance of group processes in language learning, specifically in L2 motivation Although this study uncovered an important area for L2 motivation, improvements to future studies could compensate for its limitations Although it is necessary to 150 TESOL QUARTERLY limit the scope of focus within a single research study, it is equally important to note limitations The number of participants in the semistructured interviews—only 12 interviewees were chosen from 127 questionnaire respondents—was one limitation Having a larger pool of interviewees would have garnered more comprehensive data, such as allowing for follow-up on aberrant issues that only one interviewee mentioned, as in the case of the sole interviewee who mentioned that the class group did not affect her learning at all And instead of exploring how the class group affects individual learners, interviewing all learners within one whole class group might have allowed for examining connections across the group, such as detecting the influence of certain individual learners (possibly highly motivated or extremely demotivated) who might positively or negatively be able to affect the motivation of the whole group in a bidirectional manner In addition, an attempt was made to clarify the ideas of group cohesiveness and group norms found in contemporary literature; however, these concepts are by no means bounded Rather, they are fuzzy, abstract notions containing many aspects not addressed in this study The discussion of group cohesiveness in this study focused on the general feeling of bonding among group members, whereas characteristics of group discourse of a cohesive group, for example, how ideas are built on within the class group, how group members agree or disagree, and the like, were not addressed Moreover, in terms of motivation, the self-efficacy and the autonomy of learners were the only two aspects dealt with in this study; other factors, such as learning motives, attributions of learners’ learning success or failure, various needs for achievement, and so on, could also have a significant impact on motivation Given the dearth of research into positive group processes and motivation in the L2 classroom, there clearly needs to be more research aimed at understanding this dynamic relationship Future research needs to further examine the relationship between group processes and language learning, to unveil the intricate layers yet undetected ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article has been drawn from a doctoral dissertation supervised by Dr Ema Ushioda and Judith Kennedy I thank them for their extraordinary support and guidance throughout this research process My special thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers at TESOL Quarterly for their insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this article THE AUTHOR Lilian Ya-Hui Chang teaches at Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China She is interested in the application of GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 151 group dynamics theory in language learning classrooms, with particular attention to exploring the relationship between group processes, learner motivation, and learner autonomy in shaping the learning of Chinese EFL students REFERENCES Benson, P (2001) Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning London, England: Longman Brophy, J (1999) Research on motivation in education: Past, present, and future In M L Maehr & P R Rintrich (Eds.), The role of context: Advances in motivation and achievement (pp 1–44) Stamford, CT: JAI Press Bryman, A (2004) Social research methods (2nd ed.) Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Chan, V (2001) Readiness for learner autonomy: What our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 505–518 Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G (2002) Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviours Evaluation and Research in Education, 16, 1–18 Chang, L Y.-H (2007) The influences of group processes on learners’ autonomous beliefs and behaviors System, 35, 322337 Clement, R., Doărnyei, Z., & Noels, K A (1994) Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom Language Learning, 44, 417– 448 Creswell, J W (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Creswell, J W., & Clark, V L P (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R (1991) Motivation: Reopening the research agenda Language Learning, 41, 469–512 Deci, E L., & Ryan, R M (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior New York, NY: Plenum Dickinson, L (1987) Self-instruction in language learning Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Dickinson, L (1995) Autonomy and motivation: A literature review System, 23, 165 174 Doărnyei, Z (2001) Teaching and researching motivation London, England: Longman Doărnyei, Z (2005) The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Doărnyei, Z (2007) Creating a motivating classroom environment In J Cummins & C Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol 2, pp 719–731) New York, NY: Springer Doărnyei, Z., & Malderez, A (1997) Group dynamics and foreign language teaching System, 25, 6581 Doărnyei, Z., & Malderez, A (1999) The role of group dynamics in foreign language learning and teaching In J Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp 155– 169) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Doărnyei, Z., & Murphey, T (2003) Group dynamics in the language classroom Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Ehrman, M E., & Doărnyei, Z (1998) Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible and invisible classroom Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Gardner, R C., & Lambert, W E (1959) Motivational variables in second language acquisition Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272 152 TESOL QUARTERLY Gardner, R C., & Lambert, W E (1972) Attitudes and motivation in second language learning Rowley, MA.: Newbury House Greene, J C., Caracelli, V J., & Graham, W F (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274 Gremmo, M.-J., & Riley, P (1995) Autonomy, self-direction and self access in language teaching and learning: The history of an idea System, 23, 151–164 Hadfield, J (1992) Classroom dynamics Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Hinger, B (2006) The distribution of instructional time and its effect on group cohesion in the foreign language classroom: A comparison of compact and standard format courses System, 34, 97–118 Holec, H (1981) Autonomy in foreign language learning Oxford, England: Pergamon Jinks, J., & Morgan, V (1999) Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale The Clearing House, 72, 224–230 Levine, J M., & Moreland, R L (1990) Progress in small group research Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634 Little, D (1991) Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems Dublin, Ireland: Authentik Little, D (1995) Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy System, 23, 175–181 Littlewood, W (1996) Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework System, 24, 427– 435 Littlewood, W (1999) Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian context Applied Linguistics, 20, 71–94 Mullen, B., & Copper, C (1994) The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227 Oxford, R L., & Shearin, J (1994) Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12–25 Riggs, M L., & Knight, P A (1994) The impact of perceived group success—Failure on motivation beliefs and attitudes: A causal model Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755–766 Schmuck, R A., & Schmuck, P A (2001) Group processes in the classroom (8th ed.) Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark Schunk, D H (1991) Self-efficacy and academic motivation Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231 Senior, R (1997) Transforming language classes into bonded groups ELT Journal, 51, 3–11 Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V (2002) Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6, 245–266 SPSS (2002) [Computer software] Version 11.0.1 Chicago, IL: Author Ushioda, E (1996) Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation Dublin, Ireland: Authentik Ushioda, E (2003) Motivation as a socially mediated process In D Little, J Ridley, & E Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Learner, teacher, curriculum and assessment (pp 90–102) Dublin, Ireland: Authentik Wentzel, K R (1999) Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76–97 Wigfield, A., Eccles, J S., & Rodriguez, D (1998) The development of children’s motivation in school contexts Review of Research in Education, 23, 73–118 Wood, R E., & Locke, E A (1987) The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013–1024 GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION 153 Wu, X (2003) Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the classroom environment System, 31, 501–517 Yang, N.-D (1999) The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and their learning strategies System, 27, 515–535 Zimmerman, B J (2000) Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91 154 TESOL QUARTERLY