以任務型英語教學提升國小學童學習動機之行動研究

全文

(1)!"#$%&'(%)*+,-(.(/012 ! ! ! !. !"#$%&'())*+) ! ! ! ! ! !. How to Improve Primary Students’ Learning Motivation Through Task-based Language Teaching: An Action Research Study!. !"#$%&'()*+,(-. (/0123045. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. ,-.%/+0)1) ! ! ! !. 2345 678 9 : ;).

(2) !. Acknowledgements I would like to show my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Cheng-Ji Lai. He not only taught me how to write an English essay but also provided many precious suggestions for my thesis; without his patience, expertise and guidance, I would never complete this study. I would also like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Yi-Chun Lin and Dr. Li-I Hsu, for their valuable and influential advice on this study. Moreover, I am thankful to my dearest family. When I came across the difficulty, they were always by my side. They are my biggest support. I also deeply appreciate my classmates, Sandy, Madeline, Doris, Tina, and Jeff. They offered me plenty of teaching ideas and help me to clarify my thinking when I got stock, and I always can make a big progress on my thesis by talking with them. Next, I would like to present my greatest thanks to all the participants who were involved in this study. Because of their cooperation and assistance, this action plan could be carried out smoothly. Besides, I have to show my immense gratefulness for the homeroom teacher, Sue, and the English teacher, Tina. They granted me the full authority to design my teaching syllabus and helped me to improve and amend my teaching. Finally, my appreciation goes to all who helped and encouraged me. Because of their help, I could make this mission impossible become possible.. "! !.

(3) !"#$%&'()*+,(-(./012/345. !"5 !"#$%&'()*+,-./01.2.3456789:"#;6<=>? (@) &'()*+,-./AB+,CD.E64578F(G) &'-.H/IJ( )*+,-.6KLF(M) &'.2/NO()*+,-.6KLF(=) &'PQH /()*+,-.6KLF !"#RS4"#9"#/TUVWXYZ[01(\])^_`a@b.E9c 24 ]9dSefgh6()*+,-.F"#ijkl\6+,.345mn(opq9 2006)r9stuQvwxyzQ{P|}~z zF "#?(@) %NO()*+,-.9+,6. 29:.345<d+,6.29%.345 F(G) -.Hz.2PQH/()*+,-.¡¢.3456789£¤¥¦§ 6KLF(M) IJ()*+,-.¨©ª6«¬<.26®¯Tz°±²³i´ µ6¶·z1¸¹S()º»u¼dS½¾9¿<+,½¾CD6À3FÁÂÃ-. ÄCÅÆÇÈ6Éz-.ÈI¹Szs»ÊË.EÌÍ9uÎÏÐ£C<¨ÑÒF. !"#$()*+,-.z.345zS4"#Ó. I.

(4) How to Improve Primary Students’ Learning Motivation Through Task-based Language Teaching: An Action Research Study Adviser: Cheng-Ji Lai Ph.D. Graduate student: Shih-Yu Huang. Abstract The present action research was used to explore whether Task-based language teaching could improve primary students’ learning motivation; therefore, four purposes were addressed: (i) to evaluate the influence of TBLT on the students with different English proficiency (i.e. high-achievers, middle-achievers, and low-achievers), (ii) to explore the instructor’s attitudes towards TBLT, (iii) to explore the students’ attitudes towards TBLT, (iv) to explore the observers’ attitudes towards TBLT (i.e. from the homeroom teacher’s and the English teacher’s perspectives). In addition, there were 24 fifth-grade students in Sunny Primary School (pseudonym) of New Taipei City enrolled in the ten weeks TBLT action plan. The instruments included Learning Motivation Questionnaire (Wu, 2006), course feedback sheet, classroom observa-tion checklist, semi-structured interview towards students and observers, and reflective jour-nal. The results indicated that (i) high- and low-achievers learning motivation were increased, but there was no significant improvement on middle-achievers’ learning motivation. (ii) The instructor, students and observers all had positive attitudes towards TBLT and the learning motivation improvement. (iii) The issues of mixed-level class, teamwork, mother tongue use, and target language production might be solved by setting up clear classroom rules, carrying them out exactly, and offering students more encouragement.. Keywords: Task-based language teaching, learning motivation, action research. II.

(5) Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………1 1.1 Background.……………………………………………………….......1 1.2 Statement of the Problems………………………………………........2 1.3 Study Purpose and Research Questions…….……………………........3 1.4 Definitions of Terms………………………….………………….........4 1.5 Significance of the Study……………………….………………..........5 1.6 Organization of the Research…………………….……………...........5 Chapter Two: Literature Review…………….……………………………….7 2.1 Task………………………………………………………..………….7 2.2 Task-based Language Teaching…………………………………......10 2.3 Learning Motivation………………………………………..……….21 Chapter Three: Method …………………………….……………………….35 3.1 Action Research……………………………….…………………......35 3.2 Learning Context…………………….………………………………36 3.3 Participants………………………………………………………….38 3.4 Research Design………………………………………………….....40 3.5 Data Collection……………………………………………………...44 3.6 Data Collection and Analyses…………………………………….....47 3.7 Research Ethics……………………………………………………...49 Chapter Four: Results…………………………………………………….51 4.1 Research Question One…………………………………..…………51 4.2 Research Question Two…………………………………..…………55 4.3 Research Question Three………………………………..…………65 III.

(6) 4.4 Research Question Four………………………….……..…………70 Chapter Five: Summary and Discussions……………….……………….77 5.1 Summary of Research Findings……………………….…..…………77 5.2 Discussions……………………………………………….…..………78 5.3 Limitations of the Study……………………………………...……….81 5.4 Suggestions to Future Research………………………………………81 5.5 Conclusion…………………….……………………………...………82 References……………………………………………………………………..83 Appendixes…………………………………………………………………..94 Appendix I: Lesson Plans ……………………………………………...94 Appendix II: Learning Motivation Questionnaire ……………………...100 Appendix III: Course Feedback Sheet …………………………….……103 Appendix IV: Checklist of Classroom Observation …………………108 Appendix V: Student Interview Questions ……………………………112 Appendix VI: The Agreement of Recording……………………….…...113 Appendix VII: Teacher Interview Questions……………………………114 Appendix VIII: Reflective journal……………………............................115 Appendix IX: Parents’ agreement………………………………………116. IV.

(7) List of Tables Table 2.1: Attribution Dimensions of Success and Failure …………….…….26 Table 2.2: Modified Subcategories of the ARCS Model …………………….30 Table 3.1: SWOT analysis of Sunny Primary School……………………....37 Table 3.2: Syllabus of the Action Plan ……………………………………....44 Table 3.3: Data- Research Question Comparison ……………………………48 Table 3.4: Coding System ……………………………………………………49 Table 4.1: High-achievers’ Learning Motivation Scores ……………………52 Table 4.2: T-test Results of High-achievers …………………………………52 Table 4.3: Middle-achievers’ Learning Motivation Scores ….………………53 Table 4.4: T-test Results of Middle-achievers ………………………………53 Table 4.5: Low-achievers’ Learning Motivation Scores ……………….……54 Table 4.6: T-test Results of Low-achievers …………………………………54 Table 4.7: Task Performance Criteria …….……………………………..……65. V.

(8) List of Figures Figure 2.1: Motivational Design: Ten Step Model …………………………..31 Figure 2.2: Motivated Learning Strategy …………………………………..33 Figure 3.1: Seat Arrangement ……………………………………………...38 Figure 3.2: Flow Chart of the Research Process ………………………...42 Figure 3.3: Triangulation …………………………………………………...48 Figure 4.1: Cycle Process of the Course …………………………………...55 Figure 4.2: Time Arrangement for Each Task …….………………………...58 Figure 4.3: Five Items of the Menu …………….………………………...59 Figure 4.4: The Menu for Group Five ………….………………………...59. VI.

(9) !. Chapter One 1.1 Background It is universally acknowledged that English is the internationally communicative language; therefore, many countries have poured money into English education. Being a part of the global community, the Republic of China (R.O.C) government also regards English education as one of the important educational policies. In 2001, the R.O.C government implemented formal English curriculum and instruction in the fifth grade and sixth grade in primary schools nationwide. Afterward, English teaching has been brought forward to start from third grade in elementary school since 2005 (Ministry of Education, 2003). In 2012, four administrative areas in Taiwan (i.e., Taipei City, New Taipei City, Hsinchu City, and Taoyuan City) have required first graders to learn English. Shih and Chu (1999) point out that the key of having kids learn English as a foreign language at these early ages should accompany with joy. Besides, learners with positive motivation are those who will be willing to keep learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). This also explains why many researchers (Krashen, 1982; Nunan, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) believe that learning motivation plays an important role to the success of English learning. Once students are not extrinsically or intrinsically motivated to learn English, there is no use providing them with abundant English resources. In fact, based on the Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines in Taiwan, one of the goals of the English curriculum for elementary school students is to enhance their interests in learning English (Ministry of Education, 2003). Accordingly, a challenging task for English teachers in Taiwan is how to arouse as well as maintain students’ motivation at their early ages of learning English. In terms of how to motivate students’ interests in English learning, Nunan (1991)and Peacock (1997)suggest teachers provide more opportunities to use English in authentic surroundings so that learners could find learning useful and interesting. Besides providing motivating lessons, Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines also recommend English teachers in Taiwanese primary schools to create a natural and enjoyable language learning surroundings, to reduce one-way, teacher-led teaching, to make learning more communicative by involving students in tasks, discussions, and interactions (Ministry of Education, 2003). For decades, Taiwanese English teachers have been employing the approach of presentation, practice, and production (PPP), which teachers count on textbooks mostly, leaving students’ performance in authentic world unknown. In PPP approach, "! !.

(10) !. teachers typically set up a fairly organized course plan (e.g., a syllabus, a lesson objective, and assessment methods) and the classroom tasks are under teachers’ control and predictable. However, Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines urge teachers to employ methodologies or pedagogies that could simultaneously provide students linguistic forms and the opportunities to use language more communicatively. Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is one of pedagogies that provide ways to use target language through interactions, to use authentic texts in classroom activities, and to make the classroom language applicable to real world (Nunan, 2004). Various kinds of tasks are designed to be student-centered to increase the interactions with one other, and students could acquire the target language in a natural way. TBLT aims to create opportunities for students to use, to develop, and to acquire the target language in a simulated classroom according to tasks. According to Willis (1996), the framework of task-based language teaching (TBLT) includes three phases: the pre-task phase, the task cycle task, and the language focus phase. Firstly, the pre-task phase introduces the topic and the task to learners, and at the same time, provides them the essential words, phrases, and the information related to the task. Secondly, the task cycle phase offers students opportunities to use the target language and to present their results under the teacher’s guidance. Lastly, the language focus phase provides an explicit study on the language use during the task cycle phase.. 1.2 Statement of the Problems Although learning English has been put forth to begin at younger ages, students ’learning effects remain controversial. For instance, Singleton (1995) pinpointed two different viewpoints about the relation between learners’ age and their second language achievements: one is that children learn second language better, while the other is that adolescents and adults could attain second language effectively. Also, Cheung (2006) stated that second language learners who started learning English before junior high shool could attain higher proficiency in listening and reading, but the English learning assumption, the earlier the better, is not valid. Tsau and Hao (2010) found that because there was no significant difference in English achievements among learners who learned English from the third grade, first grade, and kindergarten. However, Chamot(as cited in Sadeghi & Khonbi, 2012) found that learners who used metacognitive and social strategy more could learn second language better, and younger learners are usually regarded as those who have less metacognitive and social strategies. "! !.

(11) !. Although many researchers have claimed the relationship between learners’ motivation and age or proficiency level, whether learners’motivation is related to certain teaching approaches is questioned. A popular inference is that younger learners have higher motivation(Mayo & Lecumberri, 2003), but Tragant (2006) points out that the learners who start learning foreign languages at younger ages don’t necessarily imply they have higher motivation. On the contrary, they claimed that older learners have higher motivation than younger ones, because they know the benefits of acquiring a second language (i.e., higher instrumental motivation). Aside from the relation between age and motivation, learners with different second language proficiency would have different attitude toward the language. (Shaaban & Ghaith, 2000) In general, learners with higher second language proficiency would have more motivation. Thus, it’s worthwhile to research whether a specific teaching methodology (i.e., task-based language teaching) could improve Taiwanese elementary student learners ’motivation since Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines has been implement for twelve years. Lastly, though many researchers have been devoted to explore the effect of task-based language teaching (TBLT) on Taiwanese primary students’ English proficiency(Chen, 2011; Chen, 2008; Chin, 2011; Chou, 2007; Fan Chiang, 2006; Ho, 2006; Hus, 2004; Tang, 2012; Tsai, 2007; Tseng, 2006; Tu, 2012), rather less attention has been paid to the impact of TBLT on learners’ learning motivation. Although, plenty of advantages are advocated on task-based language teaching (TBLT), but rather few Taiwanese English teachers implement TBLT in public primary schools. According to Carless (2002), Chao (2008), and Lin (2005), plenty of difficulties (e.g., limited time, lacks of English proficiency for students, large class sizes issues, insufficient resources about TBLT) continue to impede the implementation of TBLT because the current English teaching environment in primary school is still examinationoriented and more teacher-centered. Thus, it would be of interest to learn the effect of Taiwanese primary school carrying out Task-based language teaching (TBLT) on learners’ motivation.. 1.3 Study Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this action research was to design an action plan based on task-based language teaching (TBLT) and to assess the impact of TBLT on the motivation of students with different English proficiency (i.e., high-achievers, middle-achievers, low-achievers). Besides, this study aimed to explore the attitude toward task-based language teaching (TBLT) "! !.

(12) !. from instructor’s, students’ and observers’ perspectives. That is, the research also aimed to learn in detail whether both teachers and instructors benefit from TBLT in order to provide the suggestions for further studies. Therefore, this study addressed the following research questions: 1. To what degree would task-based language teaching (TBLT) action plan had an impact on the motivation of students with different English proficiency (i.e., high-achievers, middle-achievers, low-achievers)? 2. What were instructor’s attitudes (e.g., insight, obstacles, advantages, growth) of implementting task-based language teaching (TBLT)? 3. What were students’ attitudes (e.g., insight, obstacles, advantages, growth) of implementing task-based language teaching (TBLT)? 4. What were observers’ (i.e. the English teacher and the homeroom teacher) attitudes (e.g., insight, obstacles, advantages, growth) of implementing task-based language teaching (TBLT)?. 1.4 Definitions of Terms 1.4.1 Task Tasks are activities that require learners to communicate with each other in target language; however, the tasks in the research included real-life tasks and pedagogical tasks. Real-life tasks are that people do in daily life including language use and non-linguistic outcome (Nunan, 2004). While pedagogical tasks are what take place in the classroom that involve learners to understand, to manage, to produce, or to interact in target language (Nunan, 1989). Therefore, real-life tasks are that people use target language outside the classroom, but pedagogical tasks are that learners’ performance in the classroom (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1999, 2006). !. 1.4.2 Learning motivation Language learning motivation is the combination of motivational intensity, desire to learn, and attitudes toward learning the language, and it’s also the reason why learners learning the language (Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, & Mihic, 2004). In the present study, learning motivation stood for the combination of integrative and intrinsic motivation that could motivate students to engage in English learning and increase their interest on English learning. "! !.

(13) !. 1.5 Significance of the Study Many researches on TBLT mainly focused on either English oral proficiency or literacy abilities, but only a few researches explored the affective aspect. !his research aimed to find out if there was a relationship between TBLT and English learning motivation for all level achievers, and would be able shed light on the literature as well as be beneficial to both instructors and learners in primary schools. If the results show a significantly positive relationship, the study could provide suggestions of how to implement TBLT in a large and heterogeneous class. Meanwhile, the study results could also provide students insight of how to learn and use English to motivate their learning.. 1.6 Organization of the Research Chapter one, at the outset, provided the background of English learning trend and the English educational policy in Taiwan. Besides, it also articulated the problem and the need to investigate the effect of TBLT in English curricula, presented specific research questions, stated the definition of terms and, and lately addressed the significance of the study. Chapter two reviewed the relevant theoretical and empirical literature concerning task types, task-based language teaching (TBLT), and language learning motivation. The goal in this chapter was to address the need for further investigations in certain task-based language teaching (TBLT) areas that were to be researched in the present study. Chapter three presented the research design, participants, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analyses of this research. Chapter four set forth the response rates, profiles of the participants, and results to each research question. Finally, Chapter five summarized the findings of the study, discussed the strengths, limitations, and implications of this study, and put forth recommendations for future research. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! !.

(14) !. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! !.

(15) !. Chapter Two Literature Review Introduction The current study assessed whether the task-based language teaching had an impact on the motivation of students with different English proficiency. Additionally, the current study aimed to address instructor’s and learners’ attitude toward TBLT. Therefore, in order to provide the theoretical background and the empirical studies for the present study, the relevant literature was reviewed in this chapter. There were three sections including conceptualizations of task, Task-based Language Teaching, and learning motivation.. 2.1 Task The definitions and categories of task were included in this section; besides, the differences between task and exercise were also included.. 2.1.1 Definitions of Task Task played an important role in task-based language teaching; however, the definitions of task were different based on the various backgrounds of scholars’ and researchers’. The followings were some typical definitions of task. Long (as cited in Nunan, 2004) argues that tasks are what people do in their everyday lives, including language use (e.g., filling out a form, writing a check) and non-linguistic outcome (e.g., painting a fence, shopping a pair of shoes). However, Ellis (2003) disputes with Long’s definition and states that tasks in language teaching should promote learners’ language proficiency. Therefore, tasks are language-used activities rather than non-linguistic ones. Tasks consist of learners’ thinking and production (Prabhu, 1987). Hence, if students do some activities meaninglessly, those activities aren’t tasks. Richards, Platt and Weber’s definition of task (as cited in Nunan, 2006) is similar to Prabhu’s, and they consider that tasks are the events fulfilled as the result of processing or realizing a language. Accordingly, tasks include language and non-linguistic production, and the latter is also involved in language understanding. Tasks are also pieces of classroom works and include the process of understanding, handling, producing and interacting in target language (Nunan, 1989). Most important of all, "! !.

(16) !. learners pay their attention on meaning rather than language form, namely, fluency is more important than accuracy. Moreover, Tasks require learners to use target language for the purpose of communicating and achieving an outcome (Willis, 1996). Tasks should connect learners with the real world and emphasize the language use outside the classroom, such as buying train tickets or reading instruction manuals (Long & Crookes, 1992). However, Breen (as cited in Skehan & Foster, 1997) defines task as everything learners do in the classroom, and the purposes are assisting language learning. Skehan (1998) summarizes tasks in five characteristics: (1) focusing on meaning, (2) communicating and negotiating is essential, (3) being related to real-life activities, (4) accomplishing task is the priority, (5) using the outcome to evaluate the success of tasks. Besides, based on these five characteristics, it’s more obvious to distinguish between tasks and exercises. Tasks focus on meaning, communicating, task achievement, and have the connection to real-world. However, exercises focus on form, linguist practice and outcome, and are hard to implement in real-world. Through the synopsis of various definitions of task, the present research would like to define task as the activities providing learners opportunities to use the target language inside the classroom and also to apply in the real-world.. 2.1.2 Categories of Task Many scholars define tasks from various perspectives, so there are different classifications toward tasks. Firstly, There are three types of tasks in Bangalore Communicational Teaching Project (Prabhu, 1987), and they are classified according to different information exchanging activities, including (1) information-gap tasks, which involve transferring messages from one learner to another, and learners must do a lot of negotiation and communication to accomplish the task (2) reasoning-gap tasks, which require students to do inference from what they already know and have demands of students’ intellectual and logical deduction by reasoning, i.e. problem-solving tasks (Willis, 1996) (3) opinion-gap tasks, which demand learners to express their feelings, attitude, or ideas, i.e. tasks of sharing personal experiences (Willis, 1996). Besides, jigsaw tasks could also be classified into these kinds of interaction tasks. Jigsaw tasks require each learner completing the product through exchanging the parts of information what the learner has (Pica, Kang, & Sauro, 2006). More accurately, interaction tasks could be divided into two parts, one-way or twoway tasks. One-way tasks are thoses each student has whole information related to the task "! !.

(17) !. and must share it to the others (i.e. reasoning-gap tasks and opinion-gap tasks), but two-way tasks are thoses each student has different information related to the task and must exchange the message to intergrate the overall information (i.e. information-gap tasks and jigsaw tasks) (Long,1990). If tasks are classified according to the outcome of the task, closed and opened tasks could be included. Closed tasks mean that there is only one result for each task, but opened tasks could result in more than one answer and creative productions (Julkunen, 2001; Willis, 1996). However, Long (1990) and Ellis (as cited in Liao, 2004) state that closed tasks could motivate learners to use target language and get better feedback Moreover, planning or no planning time tasks and one time or repetitive tasks could be sorted together based on the process of completing the tasks. Firstly, in planning tasks, learners would be allowed to make the preparation for communicating to others in target language; on the contrary, learners have to interact with others immediately in no planning time task. Many studied discovered that learners could perform their language proficiency better in planning tasks (Foster & Skehan, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997). Besides, one time tasks mean learners do the task only one time, but repetitive tasks require students to do the same tasks repetitively until achieving the goals. Gass, Mackey, Alvarez!Torres, and Fernández!García (1999) found out learners could improve the overall proficiency by task repetition. However, time interval would also affect the outcome of repetitive tasks, i.e. making the same task could be worse at the second time (Coughlan & Duff, 1994). Willis (1996) sees the big picture of many tasks types and introduces six types of task for language teaching, listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem solving, sharing personal experiences, and creative tasks. At the outset, listing tasks requires students to do the brainstorming and fact-finding, and the outcomes of the task could be a completed list or a draft mind map. Secondly, the processes of ordering and sorting tasks may include sequencing, ranking, categorizing, and classifying items. Thirdly, comparing tasks involve students finding the similarities and differences from different information. Finally, problem solving, sharing personal experiences and creative tasks have been mentioned above, i.e. reasoning-gap tasks, opinion-gap tasks (Prabhu, 1987), and opened tasks. Based on the goals of Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines and the English learning experience of target students (i.e. 5th grade elementary students), the tasks in this study would adopt the six types tasks of Willis (1996) as the basis. Besides, in order to decrease students’ anxiety of reporting in public, they would be allowed to make the preparation, i.e. planning "! !.

(18) !. tasks. At the beginning of this course plan, more closed tasks would be implemented for the purpose of motivating learners to use English and building the confidence, but open tasks would be introduced latter. Finally, most of the tasks in the research were repetitive tasks, but the researcher distributed the repetitive tasks to different topics, gradually increased the difficulties of them, and made them related to learners’ previous learning, i.e. Spiral curriculum (Bruner, 2009).. 2.2 Task-based Language Teaching TBLT was illustrated explicitly in this section, including the rationale of TBLT, seven principles for instructors, the framework of TBLT, the comparison between TBLT and PPP approach, the practical issues of TBLT, and the research on TBLT in Taiwan.. 2.2.1 The Rationale for Task-based Language Teaching (1) Input Hypothesis Input hypothesis claims that second language acquisition (SLA) occurs only in the situation learners understand the input message or a little beyond their language competence, in other words, the “i+1” concept. The “i” stands for learners’ present language ability, and the “1” means the level a little beyond what they’ve already achieved (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985). Based on this hypothesis, learners could acquire the target language through exposed to a lot of language input, and TBLT provides various comprehensible inputs to learners with different language proficiency. However, learners’ SLA doesn’t totally come from receiving a large amount of inputs. Thus, TBLT couldn’t simply be supported by the input hypothesis.. (2) Interaction Hypothesis Interaction hypothesis is brought out to support the input hypothesis; furthermore, it’s pointed out that modified interaction could make language comprehensible. In other words, learners could achieve a mutual comprehension through interacting or working with each other (Ellis, 1994; Mackey, 1999; Pica, 1994). Long (as cited in Ellis, 1991) infers that modified interaction is the essential element for SLA, because interactional modification could promote the language input comprehensible and makes the SLA possible. One of the characteristics of TBLT (Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987) is negotiating with each other (i.e. negotiating for meaning through comprehension checks, clarification requests, and paraphrase), so the interaction hypothesis offers the rationale for TBLT. However, we couldn’t realize learners’ language acquisition only through the interaction hypothesis because the interaction involves a lot of psycholinguistic process that couldn’t be seen. "#! !.

(19) !. (3) Output Hypothesis Output is an obvious evidence of SLA because learners have to integrate the comprehensible input with their cognitive systems. Besides, when negotiating with others, learners have to make their expressions comprehensible for other learners. Based on this output process, learners could be pushed ahead to produce language and get improvement (Bot, 1996; Swain, 2000). In TBLT, learners are also required to make the language output with their limited language competence, so they are pushed to develop their SLA. However, learners’ language output must come from the comprehensible input and the interaction with others, so output hypothesis is supported by input hypothesis and interaction hypothesis.. (4) Affective Filter Hypothesis Affective filter hypothesis means that affective factors would influence the SLA even if there are plenty of comprehensible inputs (Krashen, 1981, 1982). The affective factors include learners’ feeling, emotion, attitude, motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. According to this hypothesis, language teachers have to provide learners a learning environment with less pressure and higher pleasure. Although TBLT is derived from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Carless, 2003), instructors shouldn’t limit learners’ use of mother tongue. To be accurate, teachers should encourage learners communicate in target language not ban their use of mother tongue; besides, instructors must find the balance between the use of mother tongue and target language based on the tasks (Carless, 2008; Hung, 2012). There are many researches pointed out that the use of mother tongue could reduce learners’ anxiety and involve them in learning activities (Auerbach, 1993; Burden, 2004; Carless, 2008; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; J. Tang, 2002), especially for those nervous and with lower confidence students. Therefore, instructors should offer learners a low anxious setting when implementing TBLT.. 2.2.2 Seven Principles of Task-based Language Teaching In order to develop the instructional successions of TBLT, there are seven principles for instructors to follow, including scaffording, task dependency, recycling, active learning, intergrating, reproduction to creation, and reflection(Nunan, 2004).. (1) Scaffolding Instructors have to offer support for learners not only in course design but also in learning materials. Besides, it’s important to remove scaffolding properly. Removing. ""! !.

(20) !. scaffolding prematurely will result in unsuccessful learning, but persisting scaffolding too long won’t make learner independent.. (2) Task Dependency Tasks should be related to each other, as a ladder for the next task, and help learners achieve higher performance in target language. In other words, each outcome of the task should be built according to the previous task.. (3) Recycling Language input doesn’t equal to the output, and the learning outcome isn’t overall or nothing. Hence, learning recycling could promote and provide more opportunities for students to master the target language.. (4)Active Learning Through actively using or doing the work in target language, learners could learn the language better and acquire the language easier. Therefore, teachers should reduce teachercentered works and provide learners more opportunities of active learning.. (5) Integrating Language learning includes listening, speaking, reading, and writing, hence learners should be taught in the integrating method. Besides, according to communicative language teaching, language acquisition will occur in meaning-based instruction not form-based instruction.. (6) Reproduction to Creation Language reproduction offers learners a basis of mastering the language form, meaning, and function; however, language creation helps learners, not only for highintermediate learners but also for beginners, apply the language from their background knowledge. Accordingly, teachers should promote learners from language reproduction to creation.. (7) Reflection Learners should be provided with opportunities to reflect their learning content, process, and outcome. Based on the reflection, learners could become a better language learner and adapt to TBLT. To sum up, teachers should provide learners with more opportunities to use the target language wholly and actively. Thus, learners could attain the target language successfully through learning by doing, reflecting at every moment, and from teachers’ proper assistance. "#! !.

(21) !. 2.2.3 The Framework of Task-based Language Teaching There are three steps of implementing TBLT: pre-task, task cycle, and language focus. Pre-task phase and task cycle phase focus on task completion and meaningful communication; in other words, language meaning is the highlight of the first two phases. The last phase provides a closer study of the language form that is used during the task cycle phase (Willis, 1996). Therefore, the procedure of TBLT is to make learners involved in an overall language exposure and use, and then put the language analysis at the rear of teaching, namely, the “deep-end strategy” (Brumfit, 1979; Johnson, 1982).. (1) Pre-task Phase Pre-task phase plays an important role of performing the target task individually and promoting acquisition because it frames how the task to be perform (i.e. informing learners how to accomplish the task) and makes learners involved in the task (Ellis, 2003; Lee, 2000; Prabhu, 1987); accordingly, instructors must display the task in a way of motivating learners (Dörnyei, 2001a). However, teachers face the option of highlighting cognitive demands of tasks or linguistic features during pre-task phase because reducing cognitive loads could enlarge learners’ capacity of attention and make them focus on linguistic factors (Skehan, 1996). In order to scaffold learners’ performance of the task, the amount of time for pre-task phase may alter by evaluating learners’ competence, the cognitive demands of tasks, and the complexity and unfamiliarity of tasks for learners (Ellis, 2003; Willis, 1996). In other words, the more complex and unfamiliar tasks require more preparation time. Additionally, it’s also beneficial to offer similar tasks for learners to perform and observe, and to use non-task activities and strategic planning (Crookes, 1989; Ellis, 2006b; Foster & Skehan, 1999; Newton, 2001; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). Firstly, performing a similar task helps learners be ready for doing the main task on their own (Ellis, 2006b; Prabhu, 1987), and observing a sample task reduces learners’ cognitive load and releases more capacity of attention for linguistic features (Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). Secondly, non-task activity means equipping learners with the background knowledge related to the topic (i.e. introducing vital vocabularies, recalling familiar linguistic features, or connecting learners’ life experience to the task); besides, it could be “classifying words and phrases”, “odd one out”, “matching phrases to pictures”, “memory challenge”, “brainstorming and mind-maps”, “thinking of questions to ask”, and “teacher recounting a "#! !.

(22) !. similar experience” (Willis, 1996, pp. 43-44). Non-task activity would prevent learners from placing the vocabularies over the goal of the task (Newton, 2001), but instructors should be careful of making the main task become practices of the vocabularies (Ellis, 2006b). Finally, strategic planning stands for offering learners time to prepare the task, and it makes positive influence on learners’ task performance (Crookes, 1989; Skehan, 1996). Although strategic planning could be teacher guidance or by learners’ own decision (Ellis, 2003), learners perform tasks more enthusiastically by planning on their own (Willis, 1996). In short, in the pre-task phase, instructors help learners define the topic area, recall their background knowledge (i.e. the vital words, phrases and language competence they’ve already attained) and life experience that related to the topic, and introduce some essential words or phrases unfamiliar to them. Then, instructors introduce the task, including its goal and the outcome demands, give learners the similar task that others have done, ask learners to do tasks similar to target ones, and make sure everyone realize the task (Ellis, 2003; Willis, 1996).. (2) Task Cycle Phase Task cycle consists of task, planning, and report stage, and this is the principal phase that learners use the target language the most in the meanwhile achieve the task goals. Besides, teachers serve as supporters when students encounter problems or difficulties (Willis, 1996). Firstly, in the task stage, learners use the language they already acquire and reach the goals of the task with their partners or group members. The instructor plays a passive role (i.e. not offering direct help but making learners do the task on their own) and monitors whether all learners are involved in the task, comprehend the goal of the task, and perform the task in a right way. Additionally, the priority in the task stage is communicating rather than language form, so the instructor should not correct the mistakes of language form that learners make but provide them some helps to express what they want to say (Willis, 1996). Anton and DiCamilla (as cited in Hung, 2012) states if the lexical or grammatical concepts are beyond learners’ language ability, the instructor may use L1 to scaffold their understandings. By accomplishing tasks, learners could cultivate their language fluency, build up their confidence, and have higher motivation. Secondly, the planning stage is the preparation for reporting in public, including how learners cope with the task and what the result is. In order to make an appropriate presentation publicly, learners should do a draft and rehearse. If they come across language "#! !.

(23) !. difficulties, they could use dictionary or seek assistance from the teacher. In contrast to the task stage, the emphasis of planning stage is language accuracy; hence the teacher could correct learners’ language errors and encourage them to ask questions about the language items. The last factor in task cycle phase is report stage, and the report form could be orally or in writing. The teacher has some pairs or groups report to the class, and other students make some comments or supplement. The teacher is regarded as a chairperson who provides feedback on the advantage and rephrases the errors that learners say, i.e. not correcting their mistakes publicly, during the report stage (Willis, 1996). In addition to the stages mentioned above, two dimensions should be considered: time limitation and the use of input data (Ellis, 2003). Time limitation determines learners’ language use (Lee, 2000), and Yuan and Ellis (as cited in Ellis, 2006a) claim that unlimited time resulting in accuracy while limited time encouraging fluency. The use of input data means using visual or text elements as background (Ellis, 2003), and it could make task easier (i.e. visual support) or more difficult (i.e. the element beyond learners’ anticipation) (Skehan, 1996). To sum up, learners do the task or come up with a solution by team work or pair work, and then perform to all class what they learn and the decision they make during the task cycle phase. Therefore, they have the opportunities to use the target language in private (i.e. in the task stage and planning stage) and in public (i.e. in the repot stage), the former makes meaning clear while the latter motivating them to strive to the language form and meaning (Lochana & Deb, 2006). Besides, instructors will provide assistance to whom needing it and make sure all students involved in the activity and the discussion.. (3) Language Focus Phase The last phase of TBLT is language focus, and there are two components, analysis and practice, in this phase. In contrast to pre-task and task cycle phases which learners have a lot of opportunities to use the language themselves whether right or wrong in language form, language focus provides an explicit language instruction such as making the language use from fluency to accuracy (Willis, 1996). There are three main objectives in this phase: offering a chance to repeat the task, reflecting the task performance, and focusing on language form (Ellis, 2006b). Bygate (1996) argues that task repetition improves the language production not only in fluency but in accuracy. However, the task performance will vary according to the "#! !.

(24) !. situation of task repetition, for instance, repeat a task in public may increase the anxiety and decrease the fluency or accuracy (Candlin, 1987). Regarding the task reflection, students are encouraged to reflect on their task performance and the language use (Ellis, 2006b), and then they may develop their metacognitive strategies in language learning (O'malley & Chamot, 1990). Ellis (1997) indicates that requesting students to appraise the task could help the teacher allocate an appropriate task in the future. Finally, providing a safe circumstance to study language form is the vital factor to support learners to develop fluency, and placing the form focus at the last phase offers the security (Willis, 1996). Besides, there are many methods to deal with the target language form, including reviewing learners’ mistakes, consciousness-raising tasks, practices, and noticing activities. Firstly, reviewing learners’ mistakes stands for the teacher addresses the mistakes which learners make at previous phases, invite learners to correct the errors, and then the teacher offers the correct version with some explanations. Secondly, consciousness-raising tasks could let learners identify the errors they make, and correct the errors by themselves with an explanation. Thirdly, practices could help students to be familiar with the target language forms and automatize them. Finally, noticing activities, such as dictation or transcribing, could result in learners’ self-correction and accuracy in language form (Ellis, 2006b). In brief, instructors may select the important sentence patterns, phrases, or words that puzzle learners during the task cycle phase, and help them analyze and acquire the language form. In addition, Language Focus Phase also provides learners the opportunities to relearn what they don’t catch, and instructors would use some interesting activities to let learners practice these sentences, words, or phrases. The target goal in this phase is to improve learners’ accuracy.. (4) Course Design with the Framework of TBLT In this study, the researcher would use the framework of TBLT for designing the courses. At the outset, the instructor needs to investigate students’ English competence and decides the task difficulty level. Because students could be heterogeneous, the instructor has to offer them some advance organizers originated from Ausubel (as cited in Kang, 2004); besides, the preparation time might be long or short depending on students’ cognitive capacity or the target linguistic features. Once the task is designed, the instructor should make students involve in carrying out the task and develop their fluency (i.e., to use the language they already get to say what they want to say). Encouraging students to share their opinions in private and requesting them to present their works or to make comments in public are both "#! !.

(25) !. indispensable because the former provides them the security of making mistakes while the latter pushes them to develop accuracy. Meanwhile, the instructor could collect students’ difficulties and errors for them to study the language more explicitly. During the language form instruction, the instructor may ask students to correct the mistakes by themselves with the explanation or may provide the comparison between correct and incorrect models; both methods could benefit learners in developing language accuracy. Finally, the instructor could make students automatize the language form by practice. Through the teaching procedure, students could develop both fluency and accuracy; they would have confidence in English learning and increase their learning motivation.. 2.2.4 Task-based Language Teaching and Presentation-PracticeProduction Approach TBLT has a significant difference from traditional teaching method (i.e., PresentationPractice-Production, PPP), especially in teaching sequence. In PPP approach, the teacher would present the language form at the beginning, such as vocabulary, sentence patterns, and grammar. Then, the teacher asks students to practice the language form presented at the previous stage and make the production related to the topic in the end (Byrne, 1986). The main component in PPP is imitation, which students mimic the language form which the teacher presents. If students make errors in the language form, the teacher would correct them and ask them to copy the right models. Students don’t stop practicing the language form until they could memorize it, and the core concept is “practice makes perfect.” PPP appeals to teachers because it could make teaching process smoother and more organized; besides, PPP is easy to be applied in English teaching. However, it’s impossible for students to produce all the language form which teachers give through meaningless exercises. In contrast, TBLT provide the need for students to practice the language form because it originates from their authentic communication by using their available language (Skehan, 1996). Therefore, TBLT makes language learning more contextualized. In short, PPP emphasizes language form in the beginning and expects students to apply it in specific situations (i.e., making the language use from accuracy to fluency) while TBLT puts the language form at last to make the language use from fluency to accuracy. The PPP is regarded as a teacher-centered teaching method while TBLT is a student-centered approach. The PPP makes grammar teaching more effectively while TBLT is good for "#! !.

(26) !. communication. When students encounter difficulties or make errors, the teacher using PPP would provide them direct assistance but using TBLT teacher may ask them to solve the problems by themselves. There are both advantages and disadvantages in TBLT and PPP; in addition, students have different preference for TBLT and PPP. Some could learn better through TBLT; others through PPP; even others through the combination of TBLT and PPP. Therefore, teachers could combine the merits of TBLT and PPP to help students achieve better English competence (Carless, 2009; Lochana & Deb, 2006; Makarchuk, 2000).. 2.2.5 Practical Issues of Task-based Language Teaching In order to make the teaching process smoother in the present study, it would be useful to review the practical issues of TBLT, including classroom management in a big size class, the mixed-level class, mother tongue use, insufficient time, target language production, and insufficient supports of textbooks and training.. (1) Classroom management in a Big Size Class Language teachers usually use more teacher-centered methods in a big size class because it makes teachers’ instructions more effectively and makes students in good discipline. In other words, teachers rarely implement a student-centered approach (i.e. Communicative Language Teaching, CLT, such as TBLT) in public schools because of the disorder and the noisiness. Besides, it’s hard for teachers, who implement TBLT, to distinguish the noise is related to the teaching topic or not (Carless, 2004). There is a dilemma of performing communicative tasks or having good discipline simultaneously due to the former requires students talking while the latter asks them keep quiet (Carless, 2002). However, teachers could use some skillful methods to make students involve in pair or group works rather than chatting (Cameron, 2001). The teacher could provide students limited time to carry out the task and by no means wait for unfinished ones because offering students too much time is regarded as the reason why they chat in the class. Once the teacher set up the time limitation rule, students would concentrate on the task and work harder; besides, it’s also essential to set up the signals that make students notice when to lower their voice or to keep silent (Willis, 1996). If students understand the learning goal and the rationale of the task, the involvement and the participation of tasks could be improved (A. Lin & Luk, 2002).. "#! !.

(27) !. (2) The Mixed-level Class The mixed-level class is usually considered as an issue in English teaching of Taiwan, but TBLT provides a solution to deal with this problem. In TBLT, there are many activities required students’ collaborations, and students could scaffold each other. High achievers may benefit from explaining and paraphrasing to low achievers, and absolutely low achiever could benefit from the others’ assistance (Willis, 1996). High achievers have greater English competence, so they could complete various tasks, and need less practice and time, and vice versa (Carless, 2003). Willis (1996) states that varying groupings is a good idea to avoid frustrated due to the slow learning pace. In other words, the teacher could make students in heterogeneous grouping and put peerassistances in carrying out tasks. Besides, it’s also a good method to request finished pairs or groups to join other finished ones. Through this method, they could share the results, check the writing, and even learn some useful language items from the other ones.. (3) The Use of Mother Tongue The goal of TBLT is to make students use the target language in classroom or even in the real-world situation, so it results in a debate about the mother tongue use in TBLT. Some people think mother tongue use would make students rely on it and give up using their limited target language to express what they want to say. Others think mother tongue use provide students the security and the clear understanding (Hung, 2012). Sometimes, students couldn’t help but use mother tongue because of their limited competence of target language (Carless, 2004). Swain and Lapkin claim that students use mother tongue with the purpose of discussing with each other and completing the task (as cited in Kötter, 2003). However, it’s not allowed for students overusing the mother tongue. If the task or teachers’ explanation is beyond students’ target language competence, the mother tongue may be used to clarify (Cook, 2001). Accordingly, in the present study, the teacher would use limited mother tongue to provide students timely help and then motivate them to use target language. Besides, the teacher wouldn’t ban students using mother tongue but encourage them use target language as possible as they could. Offering students some useful language items could also facilitate their target language use when carrying out the task or communicating with others. In short, mother tongue and target language are both essential in the present study, but mother tongue is used to facilitate target language not the principal of language teaching and learning. "#! !.

(28) !. (4) Insufficient Time English teachers usually rely on textbooks and have pressure to complete the course according to the syllabus, so there is lack of time to implement pair or group activities, which require lots of time to negotiating and discussing. Besides, the pressure which is came from the expectation of school and parents makes teachers regard finishing the textbooks as the priority and ignore students’ different abilities (Carless, 2003). Therefore, insufficient time is a barrier to implement TBLT. In order to overcome the issue of time limitation, teachers could reduce nonlinguistic tasks and make students have more time in language learning, so all the tasks should be designed and carried out carefully. Moreover, teachers may offer students timely assistance, which follows the framework of TBLT (i.e. providing indirect help and require students to solve problems by themselves), to make the task completed smoother and save the time (Carless, 2004; Rixon, 1991).. (5) Target Language Production In TBLT, students usually concentrate on task completion, so they sometimes could only produce a few linguistic outputs. In order to encourage students have more target language production, teachers should provide authentic context and questions (Seedhouse, 1999). Carless (2004) found out if the task is to require students to discuss the question they already know (i.e. not authentic questions and pretend they don’t know the answer even though they have seen the answer), students may be demotivated to carry out the tasks and produce the target language. Besides, if the language requests of the tasks are far beyond students’ competence, they may not only give up completing the tasks but produce none of the language outcomes. Cameron (2001) argued that offering students some background knowledge and the exposure of the target language could compensate their insufficient language abilities. Therefore, the researcher would design the tasks carefully and offer students the background knowledge before the task, i.e. in pre-task phase.. (6) Insufficient Supports of Textbooks and Training TBLT require students to perform numerous communicative pair or group works, but it’s hard for teachers to implement TBLT by traditional textbooks (Carless, 2004). In addition, teachers are rarely trained to use TBLT in their classes, so they might have some misunderstandings towards TBLT (Carless, 2003; Li, 1998). Although professional textbooks "#! !.

(29) !. and training are insufficient, teachers still could overcome these obstacles with additional preparation. Teachers could extract some language items from textbooks and adapt TBLT based on the context (Muller, 2005), but having thorough understanding toward the rationale of TBLT is the golden rule. Therefore, the researcher in the present study would conduct literature review to have the overall understanding to TBLT and to take the teaching context into consideration by making SWOT analysis, and extract some language items from textbooks and the Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines.. 2.2.6 Research on Task-based Language Teaching in Taiwan In the last decade, many researchers have been devoted to explore the effect of TBLT on Taiwanese primary students’ English proficiency. In speaking ability, both Chin (2011) and Lin (2011) found that primary students could improve their English speaking competence and communicative willingness through TBLT. Besides, primary students could also benefit their reading and writing competence from TBLT (Hus, 2004). Especially in vocabulary learning, many studies indicated that TBLT has positive effect on primary students’ English vocabulary learning (Chou, 2007; Ho, 2006; Tang, 2012; Tsai, 2007; Tu, 2012). Furthermore, some researchers indicated that TBLT provide primary students overall English proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Chen (2008) indicated that low-achievers have significant improvement on their basic English competence; besides, Tseng (2006) found out that high-achievers also have significant improvement on their overall English competence and all of the students (i.e. high-achievers, middle-achievers, and low-achievers) have positive attitude toward TBLT. Some researchers claimed that TBLT makes primary students think English learning is fun and, meanwhile, builds up their confidence (Chen, 2011; Fan Chiang, 2006; Lin, 2005; Tu, 2012). Chen (2011) pointed out students love to learning English through tasks and could build up their metacognition through TBLT; besides, Lin (2005) claimed that TBLT could motivate students in English learning. To sum up, TBLT has positive effect on Taiwanese primary students’ English proficiency, and learners also have positive attitude toward TBLT.. 2.3 Learning Motivation Learning motivation is one of the important factors for English learning, and students’ learning motivation is the complex combination of their goals, believes, self-efficiency, environment, and others’ expectancy (McCown, Driscoll, & Roop, 1996). Once instructors understand the rationale of learning motivation, they could design appropriate activities to "#! !.

(30) !. enhance students’ learning motivation and help them achieve better English achievement. Therefore, the researcher would like to explore the definition of learning motivation, the empirical basis for learning motivation, motivation in foreign language learning, the models of increasing learning motivation, and state the learning motivation in the present study.. 2.3.1 The Definition of Learning Motivation People have six kinds of desires and needs to form the motivation: the need of exploration, the need for manipulation, the need for activities, the need for stimulation, the need for knowledge, and the need of ego enhancement (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978). Based on these six types of needs, motivation could be regarded as an intrinsic drive and would vary according to the outside environment; therefore, changing the environment to meet these needs could enhance the motivation. Besides, Brown (2000) argued that these needs have special connection with learning motivation for second language learning. In other words, the learning motivation usually accompanies with the satisfaction of the needs. Leaning motivation in second language learning is defined as learners’ communicattive needs and the attitude towards the second language community (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). According to Dörnyei (2001b), the learning motivation for second language learning is related to students’ achievement, the attitude toward the culture and the people, or the combination of both; besides, he argues that learning motivation contains choice, effort, and persistence. Moreover, Robert, Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, and Mihic (2004) defined learning motivation as the combination of motivational intensity, desire to learn, and attitudes toward learning the language, and it’s also the reason why learners learning the language. Based on the above definition, learning motivation includes three factors: elicitation, maintenance, and target-oriented. No matter motivation originates from inner or outer, it’s essential to attract learners’ notice (i.e., elicitation). In addition, people have inherent curiosity, so catching students’ attention is quite easy. The difficult part is to maintain their motivation, and maintenance is the challenge for teachers. Finally, the goal of teaching is to help students to attain their learning achievement. Once students get the achievement under teachers’ guidance, they could attribute their learning success to the learning motivation. Therefore, instructors have to understand the origins of learning motivation and how to arouse learners’ motivation; then, they would know students’ needs and could help students to attain better learning achievement.. ""! !.

(31) !. 2.3.2 The Empirical Basis for Learning Motivation Different psychologists have different explanation for learning motivation. Behaviorism claims learning comes from the connection between behaviors and reinforcements, and it ignores learners’ mental abilities. Cognitivism originates from behaviorism, but it regards learning motivation as the attitude toward learning and emphasizes students’ mental abilities. Humanism objects to behaviorism and cognitivism, it argues that learning motivation is the intrinsic drive and leads self-actualization. Social learning theory combines behaviorism and cognitivism, and it also combines the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Because there are many theories about learning motivation, the researcher would like to explore the relevant theories related to the present study (Chang, 1996).. (1) Achievement Motivation Theory Achievement motivation is that learners need to fulfill certain achievement as their motivation; in other words, it’s the orientation that students eager to fulfill something, and it also influences their attitudes (McClelland, Atkinsons, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). According to McClelland (1961), students with high achievement motivation usually take the appropriate risk to attain their target, and they also have more delayed gratification. Atkinson and Feather (1966) argue that achievement motivation is the drive to get success and determines students’ aspiration level, efforts, and patience. In fact, the interaction of the need to achieve and the need to avoid failure produces achievement motivation, and only if the need to achieve is greater than the need to avoid failure, will the achievement motivation appear. The task difficulty decides whether students could get success, and it’s also related to students’ life experience and the anticipation to success. Besides, students with high achievement motivation prefer the task of challenge, but students with low achievement motivation would like to do the easier task (Atkinson, 1964). Furthermore, McClelland (1985) claims that there’s a relation between students’ achievement motivation and the parenting styles. In other words, if parents usually encourage, praise, motivate and reinforce their children, they would have higher achievement motivation.. (2) Expectancy-value Theory Expectancy-value theory derives from achievement motivation, but Eccles (1983) claims that what decides students’ expectancy to success isn’t the task difficulty itself but students’ perceived probability of success, perception of task difficulty, and perception of "#! !.

(32) !. their own abilities. Therefore, the most important factor in learning motivation is students’ perception of the task and their own abilities (McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, & Smith, 1987). There are two main components in the model of achievement performance and choice, which one is psychology and the other is development. Psychological components are composed of expectancy and task value. Firstly, expectancy includes self-concept of ability, perception of task difficulty, perception of others’ expectations, causal attributions, and locus control; in addition, expectancy is deemed an important valuable and decides students’ performance. Then, task value comprises gender identity and personal value, perception of cost to success or failure, and affective experience. Accordingly, based on the expectancyvalue theory, teachers could improve students learning motivation through making students understand the value of the subject and confirm students that efforts could attain success (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). (3) Self-efficacy Theory In the social cognitive theory, students’ performance is determined by the interplay among person, behavior, and environment, and self-efficacy is a critical factor for a person (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is defined as the self-judgment of their own performance and the confidence to be qualified to accomplish the task in a specific circumstance; therefore, self-efficacy is the medium for performance and achievement (Bandura, 1982). Moreover, there are four factors would influence self-efficacy, and they are performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Firstly, performance accomplishments are based on personal actual experiences, and they’re the most influential factors. The experience of success increases the expectation of mastery, but the experience of failure decreases them. Once efficacy expectation is established by repeated successes, it could be generalized to other situations. However, the efficacy expectation is not only derived from the actual experience but also the vicarious experience. When observing others’ successful performances, people could also receive the information of efficacy and improve self-efficacy expectations. Verbal persuasion is widely used to change human behaviors due to the convenience, but it produces less efficacy expectations because of the lack of authentic experiences. Finally, emotional arousal could also affect self-efficacy perceptions, and high arousal usually weakens the performances and accompanies lower successful expectations (Bandura, 1977).. "#! !.

(33) !. Therefore, if teachers could understand students’ various self-efficacy expectations and promote their self-efficacy, they would have the confidence in learning and be willing to make efforts.. (4) Attribution Theory Attribution theory originates from the social perception, and the behavior comes from the interaction of the person and the environment (Heider, 1958). Then, Rotter (as cited in Weiner, 1985) focuses on the internal-external (locus) dimension (i.e., the locus of control theory). The locus of control is the attitude towards the relation between people themselves and the environment. In other words, people with internal control would be responsible for their behaviors (e.g., success comes from their efforts, but their carelessness results in failure), but with the external control ones reject to be responsible for their behaviors (e.g., success comes from luck, and external factors make them fail). Weiner (1985) extracts Heider’s and Rotter’s theories and sets up the attribution theory based on the cognitive perspective. In attribution theory, three dimensions, including locus, stability, and controllability, explain the cognitive results of success and failure. Firstly, locus dimension contains internal locus (e.g., ability, effort, and psycho-physical condition) and external locus (e.g., luck, others’ interference, and task difficulty). Besides, some attributions are stable (e.g., ability and task difficulty) but others are not (e.g., effort, luck, and emotion). Controllability dimension means some factors could be controlled by people (e.g., effort and attention) and some couldn’t (e.g., ability, task difficulty, luck, and psychophysical condition). Table 2.1 displays the relation between attribution dimensions and factors (Chang, 1996).. "#! !.