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 learners motivation. The
uniqueness of this research lies in shifting the focus from an analysis of
the individuals experience being seen as apart from the group to
considering the individuals 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 (self-
efficacy 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
Z
oltan Dornyei (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
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 do to facilitate the groups 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 Dornyei and his colleagues
(Dornyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999; Dornyei & Murphey, 2003) attempted
to answer questions similar to my own. As Dornyei (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 individuals
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., Dornyei, 2007; Dornyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999; Dornyei
& Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Dornyei, 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 Changs 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 Dornyei &
Malderez, 1997; Ehrman & Dornyei, 1998). Researchers of group dynamics
define the term group in accordance with the definition established in
social psychologythe 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 lessons 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 (Dornyei & 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 (Clement, 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 studys 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 & Dornyei, 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 (Dornyei & 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 sanctiondirectly or indirectly
those who fail to conform to what is considered acceptable (Dornyei &
Malderez, 1999, p. 161). The literature on motivation indicates that a
highly cohesive group having positive norms could be a stimulus to ones
learning. Building on this idea, this study sought to investigate the ways
in which an individual students 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 Lamberts (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 Dornyei, 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 studyself-efficacy
and learner autonomywill 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 challen-
ging tasks, adopting effective learning strategies, investing more effort,
and feeling less frustrated. Zimmerman (2000) echoes these conclu-
sions: 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) do not dispute the
fundamental principle of learner autonomylearners 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 autono-
mous 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). Wus (2003) quasiexperimental
study supporting Deci and Ryans (1985) notion that an autonomy-
supporting environment helps develop learners intrinsic motivation
further highlights the connection between autonomy and motivation.
To conclude, theoretical evidence and empirical research demon-
strate 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 (Dornyei & 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 ones learning, a
highly cohesive group with positive norms may impact a learners L2
motivation as well, since without sufficient motivation learning does not
take place (Dornyei, 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 learners 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 learners 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 learners 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 learners L2
motivation. The descriptive research question proposed was: What are
each groups level of cohesiveness, norms, self-efficacy, and autonomy?
The two inferential research questions proposed were as follows:
1. Do these four class groups have different levels of group processes (group
cohesiveness, norms) and L2 motivation (self-efficacy and autonomy)?
2. 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. 458459). 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. 258259).
Before conducting semistructured interviews, the survey was first
administered to allow this researcher to gather complementary data for
the following advantages:
1. Survey questionnaire data could provide significant (or nonsignificant)
results, outlier results, or surprising results (Creswell & Clark, 2007,
p. 72) to follow up during interviews.
2. 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 studys
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
associates degree and those wishing to obtain a bachelors 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 classmatesat my research site that would be 9 hours per week for
juniors and 3 hours per week for seniors (who as juniors had spent 9
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 in-
depth 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 ones 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, 1
(no responsibility) to 4 (mainly my responsibility)and a second
column asking them to reply to the same item for their behaviorsto
GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS MOTIVATION 137
what extent the respondent actually engaged in the deed, that is,1 (not
at all) to 4 (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 Knights (1994) and
Jinks and Morgans (1999) research on self-efficacy. Respondents were
asked to rate these statements from 1 (not true) to 4 (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 Clement et al. (1994), because their study shared a similar
backgroundlearners 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 (Cronbachs 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
TABLE 1
Sample Questionnaire Items From the Questionnaire Section A
How responsible for Statements To what extent
1 2 3 4 1. Identify my own strengths and
weaknesses
1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 2. Set up my own learning goals 1 2 3 4

138 TESOL QUARTERLY

list of probe questions followed by unanticipated questions in reply to
interviewees responses (Bryman, 2004). The interview probe questions
were formed based on the qualitative research question: How would
individual learners describe the role of the class group in their L2
motivation? Several resultant banks of probe questions were formed
based on this research question; some questions explored learners
general opinions on the role of the class group, such as
N
In your opinion, is the learner group important to your learning?
[11 out of 12 respondents answered affirmatively].
N
If so, in what ways?
N
Out of all the factors that could influence your motivation, which
one is the most important one to you?
In addition, more specific questions invited learners to talk about
their past experiences, such as
N
Have you ever been in a good (bad) learner group? [All
respondents replied positively to this question.]
N
How did being in that group influence your learning? Any
examples?
Such qualitative interview questions attempted to illuminate a more
cohesive picture of the role the class group played in learners L2
motivation than the quantitative data alone could provide.
Data Collection
Before data collection, consent from administrators and teachers was
obtained, and students were informed that participation in this study was
completely voluntary. The data collection period lasted 10 months, from
September 2004 to June 2005. Questionnaires were administered to all
152 participants first (of which 127 valid questionnaires were received).
Then, based on the questionnaire data, 12 interviewees were chosen to
participate in the semistructured interviews, which were conducted in
the interviewees native language (Mandarin Chinese). Each interview
lasted approximately 30 min.
Data Analysis
All of the 127 valid questionnaires were coded and keyed into SPSS
for statistical analysis. Some simple descriptive statistical procedures
(means, minimum, maximum, standard deviation) were conducted first.
Then, t-tests were performed to explore the differences between the
target groups. A Pearsons correlation test at two-tailed significance level
GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS MOTIVATION 139
was also administered to test the studys 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 themthe age
factoris 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 groups level of cohesiveness, norms,
and motivation in terms of self-efficacy, autonomous beliefs, and
autonomous behaviors. Those results are seen in Tables 2 through 5.
TABLE 2
Group 3A (Junior Group) Likert Scale Item Results
Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance
Autonomous beliefs (a 5 0.79) 28 1.20 2.80 4.00 3.55 0.33 0.11
Autonomous behaviors (a 5
0.79)
28 2.10 1.50 3.60 2.83 0.49 0.24
Self-efficacy (a 5 0.84) 29 1.80 1.70 3.50 2.71 0.48 0.23
Group cohesiveness (a 5 0.83) 29 2.00 1.75 3.75 3.00 0.52 0.27
Group norms (a 5 0.71) 26 1.70 1.90 3.60 2.63 0.38 0.14
Note. SD 5 standard deviation.
140 TESOL QUARTERLY
As stated earlier, with alpha above the benchmark level (a 5. 0.70)
for all the multistatements sections (as shown in Tables 25), 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 2 and 3 provide descriptive statistics for the two junior groups.
In both Tables 2 and 3, the highest mean score occurs in the first
section, autonomous beliefs: Group 3A 5 3.55, Group 3B 5 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 5 3.03, Group 3B 5 2.95). However, there is a greater range
in the combined mean of the group characteristics sections for Groups
3A and 3B (Group 3A 5 2.82, Group 3B 5 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 4 and 5 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 4 and 5 is the first section, autonomous beliefs:
Group 4A 5 3.51, Group 4B 5 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 5 2.94, Group 4B 5 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 5 2.70, Group 4B 5 2.69), whereas,
TABLE 3
Group 3B (Junior Group) Likert Scale Item Results
Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance
Autonomous beliefs (a 5 0.83) 31 1.67 2.22 3.89 3.43 0.37 0.14
Autonomous behaviors (a 5
0.78)
31 2.20 1.40 3.60 2.70 0.44 0.20
Self-efficacy (a 5 0.82) 31 1.80 2.00 3.80 2.71 0.46 0.20
Group cohesiveness (a 5 0.79) 31 1.67 2.33 4.00 3.15 0.42 0.18
Group norms (a 5 0.72) 29 1.60 2.00 3.60 2.85 0.37 0.14
GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS MOTIVATION 141
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 25 alone are
merely descriptive in nature and do 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 6.
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 7.
One can conclude from these statistical results that the junior groups
appeared to be more cohesive than the senior groups. This finding
TABLE 5
Group 4B (Senior Group) Likert Scale Items Results
Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance
Autonomous beliefs (a 5 0.85) 31 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.56 0.30 0.09
Autonomous behaviors (a 5
0.85)
31 2.30 1.40 3.70 2.69 0.55 0.30
Self-efficacy (a 5 0.71) 31 1.79 1.70 3.40 2.71 0.39 0.15
Group cohesiveness (a 5 0.81) 31 2.22 1.56 3.78 2.66 0.46 0.20
Group norms (a 5 0.88) 29 2.00 1.70 3.70 2.71 0.51 0.26
TABLE 4
Group 4A (Senior Group) Likert Scale Item Results
Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance
Autonomous beliefs (a 5 0.79) 36 1.40 2.60 4.00 3.51 0.37 0.14
Autonomous behaviors (a 5
0.85)
36 2.10 1.50 3.60 2.67 0.51 0.26
Self-efficacy (a 5 0.70) 35 1.70 1.90 3.60 2.65 0.41 0.16
Group cohesiveness (a 5 0.75) 35 2.11 1.78 3.89 2.67 0.41 0.17
Group norms (a 5 0.81) 35 2.40 1.50 3.90 2.72 0.50 0.25
142 TESOL QUARTERLY
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 3 hr of compulsory courses
together, whereas in their junior year they shared 8 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,
TABLE 6
t-Test Results Comparing Junior Groups 3A and 3B
t-Test for equality of means
t df
Significance
(two-
tailed)
Mean
difference
SE
difference
95% Confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Autonomous
beliefs
Equal
variances
assumed
1.263 57 0.212 0.1163 0.09209 20.06810 0.30072
Equal
variances
not assumed
1.271 56.974 0.209 0.1163 0.09150 20.06692 0.29953
Autonomous
behaviors
Equal
variances
assumed
1.116 57 0.269 0.1354 0.12126 20.10745 0.37819
Equal
variances
not assumed
1.111 54.737 0.272 0.1354 0.12189 20.10894 0.37967
Self-efficacy Equal
variances
assumed
20.021 58 0.983 20.0026 0.12099 20.24475 0.23963
Equal
variances
not assumed
20.021 57.106 0.983 20.0026 0.12123 20.24530 0.24019
Cohesiveness Equal
variances
assumed
21.210 58 0.231 20.1474 0.12180 20.39122 0.09641
Equal
variances
not assumed
21.201 53.724 0.235 20.1474 0.12270 20.39343 0.09862
Norms Equal
variances
assumed
22.134 53 0.037 20.2172 0.10178 20.4213520.01305
Equal
variances
not assumed
22.132 52.150 0.038 20.2172 0.10188 20.4216120.01278
Note. t 5 test value; df 5 degree of freedom; SE 5 standard error.
GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS MOTIVATION 143
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 self-
efficacy, autonomous beliefs, and autonomous behaviors. To this end, a
Pearsons correlation test was administered on SPSS. The correlation
matrix is presented in Table 8.
The correlation results indicate that group processes seem to relate to
some aspects of L2 motivationGroup cohesiveness and group norms
have slight to moderate correlations with individual learners self-efficacy
and autonomous behaviors. This could mean that learners who believed
TABLE 7
t-Test Results of Senior Groups and Junior Groups
t-Test for equality of means
t df
Significance
(two-tailed)
Mean
difference
SE
difference
95% Confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Autonomous
beliefs
Equal
variances
assumed
20.714 124 0.477 20.0439 0.06159 20.16586 0.07796
Equal
variances
not
assumed
20.711 119.972 0.478 20.0439 0.06181 20.16633 0.07843
Autonomous
behaviors
Equal
variances
assumed
0.916 124 0.361 0.0814 0.08888 20.09451 0.25734
Equal
variances
not
assumed
0.923 123.986 0.358 0.0814 0.08822 20.09320 0.25603
Self-efficacy Equal
variances
assumed
0.400 124 0.690 0.0307 0.07675 20.12122 0.18260
Equal
variances
not
assumed
0.397 116.663 0.692 0.0307 0.07732 20.12245 0.18383
Group
cohesiveness
Equal
variances
assumed
5.105 124 0.000 0.4112 0.08054 0.25176 0.57059
Equal
variances
not
assumed
5.082 119.700 0.000 0.4112 0.08090 0.25098 0.57136
Group norms Equal
variances
assumed
0.355 117 0.723 0.0295 0.08323 20.13529 0.19436
Equal
variances
not
assumed
0.362 115.883 0.718 0.0295 0.08167 20.13223 0.19129
144 TESOL QUARTERLY
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 (Dornyei &
Murphey, 2003; Hadfield, 1992) that promotes the importance of group
processes in language learning.
In addition, it is important to explain that the Pearsons 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 cohesive-
ness 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 ones
perception of the groups 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
TABLE 8
Pearsons (P) Correlation Matrix
Autonomous
beliefs
Autonomous
behaviors
Self-
efficacy
Group
cohesiveness
Group
norms
Autonomous
beliefs
P Correlation 1 0.25(**) 0.16 0.10 0.13
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.00 0.08 0.26 0.17
N 126 125 125 125 118
Autonomous
behaviours
P Correlation 0.25(**) 1 0.35(**) 0.20(*) 0.27(**)
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
N 125 126 125 125 118
Self-efficacy P Correlation 0.16 0.35(**) 1 0.43(**) 0.23(*)
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01
N 125 125 126 126 118
Group
cohesiveness
P Correlation 0.10 .20(*) 0.43(**) 1 0.34(**)
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.00
N 125 125 126 126 118
Group norms P Correlation 0.12 0.26(**) 0.23(*) 0.34(**) 1
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.00
N 118 118 118 118 119
Note. Sig. 5 significance. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
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 motivationself-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 do 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 others study of English.
According to Dornyei 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 groups 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 cant 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 didnt 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)
Tracys 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 do 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 do an average job. (Interview, April 4,
2005)
Rays previous group possessed a negative normdo a mediocre job on
presentationsthis 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 presenta-
tions 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 youre 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
3040%. But your own determination is more like 6070%. (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 determina-
tion 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 emergedthe 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 individuals 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 couldnt 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 didnt like a classmates
behaviour, we would tell that person. Now its different, either
we like it or not, we dont care that much and we dont tell the
other person what to do 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 learnersjust
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 individuals 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 (Dornyei & Malderez, 1999; Dornyei & 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 groupbeing with classmates who are interested in
learning and supportive of each other. This echoes Dornyei 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 (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003; Dornyei, 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 interviewsonly 12 interviewees were chosen from 127
questionnaire respondentswas 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 character-
istics 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. 144). 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 do our learners tell us?
Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 505518.
Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning:
Hong Kong tertiary students attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation and Research in
Education, 16, 118.
Chang, L. Y.-H. (2007). The influences of group processes on learners autonomous
beliefs and behaviors. System, 35, 322337.
Clement, R., Dornyei, 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, 469512.
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.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London, England: Longman.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins &
C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 2, pp.
719731). New York, NY: Springer.
Dornyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching.
System, 25, 6581.
Dornyei, 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.
Dornyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. E., & Dornyei, 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, 266272.
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, 255274.
Gremmo, M.-J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self access in
language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System, 23, 151164.
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, 97118.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Childrens perceived academic self-efficacy: An
inventory scale. The Clearing House, 72, 224230.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 585634.
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, 175181.
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, 7194.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210227.
Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 1225.
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group successFailure
on motivation beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 755766.
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, 207231.
Senior, R. (1997). Transforming language classes into bonded groups. ELT Journal,
51, 311.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which
comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6, 245266.
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. 90102). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:
Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 7697.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of childrens
motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73118.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 10131024.
GROUP PROCESSES AND EFL LEARNERS MOTIVATION 153
Wu, X. (2003). Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the
classroom environment. System, 31, 501517.
Yang, N.-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and their
learning strategies. System, 27, 515535.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 8291.
154 TESOL QUARTERLY