Inter-cultural and Intra-cultural Contact and the L2 Motivational Self System: An EFL Classroom Intervention Study

Abstract

This 13-week study investigated changes in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ motivational states due to face-to-face inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact treatments in a Japanese EFL classroom. Drawing on the L2 motivational Self System and International Posture, this quasi-experimental study took the form of a between-groups design with pre- and post-questionnaire data. A total of 84 participants (63 Japanese students and 21 international students) were assigned to Inter-cultural, Intra-cultural, and Comparison groups. Japanese EFL students from the two treatment groups performed a series of oral tasks with either a Japanese peer (intra-cultural interaction) or a non-Japanese international student (inter-cultural interaction) while students from the Comparison group did not perform the tasks. The results revealed that inter-cultural contact led to significant increases in the variables, L2 learning experience and international posture, with no significant change in scores for any variables in either the Intra-cultural or Comparison group. Thus, the provision of inter-cultural contact in the classroom resulted in an improvement in students’ attitudes towards the classroom environment and their attitudes towards the international community. The findings are discussed in terms of the use of inter-cultural task-based interaction as a pedagogical tool to enhance motivation and as a basis for a predeparture study abroad programme.

Keywords

TBLT intercultural motivation EFL L2 motivational self system international posture

Introduction

Prominent theories of L2 motivation suggest that motivation to learn a new language is strengthened when learners develop a social identification with members of the target language community (Gardner, 1985) or when learners form a cognitive self-representation of themselves as a speaker of that language (Dörnyei, 2005). For EFL learners specifically, a vision of themselves as part of the international English-speaking world generates a similar motivational drive (Yashima, 2013). Thus, it is not surprising that an inter-cultural encounter with a target language speaker “represents one of the most prominent sources of motivation for many foreign language learners” (Rivers, 2011: 842). Although inter-cultural contact can take many forms, from a language teaching perspective, it is useful to delineate two broad categories: interactions that occur inside the classroom and those that occur outside. While the latter has received much attention (e.g. Clément et al., 1994; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005; Kormos and Csizér, 2007; Labrie and Clément, 1986; Noels and Clément, 1996) the former has not. The current study, then, attempts to capture changes in key motivational variables and provide an example of how teachers can implement structured task-based inter-cultural contact in their classrooms. In doing so, this study adds to the comparatively small pool of L2 motivation research that has the specific pedagogical goal of increasing learner motivation (see Boo et al., 2015, for a metanalaysis of papers in the field).

Literature Review

The L2 Motivational Self System and International Posture

The L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS; Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 2009), a prominent model of learner motivation, draws on the psychological notion of possible selves (Markus and Nurius, 1986) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). L2MSS, in broad terms, views L2 learners as deriving their motivation from the creation of future L2-learning selves and the desire to reduce the gap between their present and future states. Dörnyei (2005) postulates that three components, the Ideal L2 Self (i.e. a learner’s idealized version of him/her self in the future), Ought-to L2 Self (i.e. the obligation of the learner towards others to learn a language), and L2 Learning Experience (i.e. the learner’s attitude towards their immediate learning environment), which work together to regulate a learner’s motivated learning behaviour (i.e. their learning effort).

Several large-scale questionnaire studies have tested and validated the L2MSS model across different age groups (e.g. Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Lamb, 2012) and learning contexts (e.g. Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013; Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Kong et al., 2018; Taguchi et al., 2009). To provide more than just a ‘snapshot in time’ of learners’ motivation, other studies have attempted to deepen our understanding of the developmental nature of L2MSS (e.g. Aubrey, 2014; Munezane. 2013; Nitta and Asano, 2010). For example, in the Japanese EFL context, learners have been shown to enhance their L2 ideal self as a result of a visualization treatment (Munezane, 2013) and strengthen the relationship between L2 learning experience and L2 self during an intensive communicative class (Aubrey, 2014).

Of relevance to the current study, Aubrey (2014) investigated changes in L2 motivation for a large group of Japanese learners of English as they completed their first intensive communicative English course at university. In a pretest-posttest design, Aubrey administered L2MSS questionnaires at the start and end of the semester-long course, which was used to measure changes in learners’ motivational strength and structure. Overall, the learners significantly improved along two dimensions: motivated learning behaviour and ought-to L2 self. This was accompanied by a strengthening in the relationship between L2 learning experience and ideal L2 self, indicating that the learners’ attitudes towards their classroom environment became more congruent with their future self-concept over the semester. Furthermore, the SEM models generated from the data were shown to support previous findings in the broader EFL context, namely the weak contribution of ought-to L2 self to motivated behaviour (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013; Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Kormos and Csizér, 2008), and the sizeable impact of both L2 learning experience and ideal L2 self on motivated behaviour (e.g. Munezane, 2013; Papi, 2010). The significance of Aubrey’s (2014) study was that it showed that the L2MSS is susceptible to partial change in a relatively short amount of time under stimulating learning conditions.

In addition to measuring the three L2MSS components, Aubrey (2014) and others have also included items that target the variable international posture (Yashima, 2002; Yashima, 2009). Yashima describes international posture as an “interest in foreign or international affairs, willingness to go overseas to stay or work, readiness to interact with inter-cultural partners, and, one hopes, openness or a non-ethnocentric attitude toward different cultures” (2002: 57). The majority of studies that have incorporated international posture into the L2MSS structure have found a strong and significant relationship between international posture and L2 ideal self (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013; Aubrey, 2014; Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Kim and Lee, 2013; Kormos and Csizér, 2008; Lee and Ahn, 2013; Xie, 2014; Yashima, 2009). Furthermore, improvements in international posture has been shown to occur when EFL learners participate in study abroad programmes (Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide, 2008; Lee, 2018), international volunteer sojourns (Yashima, 2010), and domestic classes that have a global studies focus (Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide, 2008).

Extending these lines of inquiry, the current study uses international posture and the three key components of L2MSS to capture changes in the strength of Japanese EFL students’ motivation as a result of inter-cultural contact in the EFL classroom.

Inter-cultural Contact in the L2 Classroom

Studies have revealed that inter-cultural contact has a pivotal role in developing learners’ L2 motivation. Research has found that encounters between language learners and representatives of the target culture outside of the classroom can lead to increased L2 self-confidence (Clément et al., 1994; Labrie and Clément, 1986; Noels and Clément, 1996), an obligation towards others to learn an L2 (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013), decreased L2 anxiety (Kormos and Csizér, 2007), and more positive language learning attitudes (Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005). Far fewer studies, however, have investigated if similar motivational and affective benefits manifest as a result of deliberate efforts inside the second or foreign language classroom.

To the authors’ knowledge, only one study has looked at the motivational effects of face-to-face inter-cultural contact inside the Japanese EFL classroom (Aubrey, 2017a; Aubrey, 2017b). In Aubrey (2017a), questionnaire responses revealed that learners who experienced inter-cultural task-based interactions had significantly higher flow states (i.e. emotional engagement) than those who had intra-cultural encounters. Aubrey (2017a) argues that the immediate, face-to-face nature of these inter-cultural encounters lead to intense problem-solving around both linguistic and cultural issues, i.e. ‘cultural rich points’ (Agar, 1994), the resolution of which can result in feelings of connectedness between interlocutors. In a further analysis of student diaries, Aubrey (2017b) found that such heightened engagement was also attributed to the challenging nature of inter-cultural interaction, from which learners derived a sense of accomplishment – a dimension of engagement that grew as students completed more tasks.

The current research is a follow-up to Aubrey (2017a; Aubrey, 2017b), drawing on previously unpublished questionnaire data to examine how such classroom interactions may lead to changes in learners’ motivation to learn English from a possible selves perspective. It attempts to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. Does inter-cultural contact have an effect on the different components of Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation?

RQ2. Does intra-cultural contact have an effect on the different components of Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation?

RQ3. Is there any difference in the effects of inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact on the different components of Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation?

In this study, the inter-cultural contact is operationalized as face-to-face interaction between members of different cultural and linguistic communities arising from the performance of oral tasks. Similarly, intra-cultural contact is defined as face-to-face interaction between members of the same cultural and linguistic community arising from the performance of oral tasks.

Method

Participants and Context

The research was conducted at a large private university in Japan. At the time of the study, 96.5% of enrolled students were Japanese, with the remaining student population made up of either short-term or long-term (degree-seeking) international students. A total of 84 students from this university participated in the study. Sixty-three (36 female, 27 male) of the participants were first-year university Japanese EFL students, while 21 (11 female, 10 male) were short-term study abroad students who had been in Japan for less than 3 months.

The 63 EFL learner participants were students from parallel classes of the same intensive English programme, studying from the same curriculum and coursebook, and could all be classified as having intermediate English language proficiency (paper-based TOEFL scores of 430-500). These participants formed three groups in the study: the Inter-cultural group, the Intra-cultural group, and the Comparison group. The Inter-cultural and Intra-cultural groups were made up of intact classes of 21 students each, both taught by the same teacher. The Comparison group, on the other hand, comprised students randomly chosen from 12 different classes in the same programme. On a background questionnaire administered prior to the study, all EFL learner participants indicated their weekly inter-cultural contact experience (in minutes) and self-reported their English speaking proficiency based on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 (very poor) and 7 (very good). These characteristics for each group, including gender distribution, are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the participants from each group reported having a below-average speaking proficiency and reported very little interaction with non-Japanese students on a weekly basis (approximately 5 minutes); however, it should be noted that the mode length of an inter-cultural encounter was zero minutes for each group.

Table 1.

Summary of Groups.

	Gender	Speaking Proficiency		Inter-cultural Contact Experience
	Gender	M	SD	M	SD
Inter-group	13F, 8M	3.14	1.40	5.24 min/week	7.98
Intra-group	11F, 10M	3.05	1.34	4.76 min/week	12.99
Comp. group	12F, 9M	3.10	1.70	5.88 min/week	13.65

Inter- group = Inter-cultural group, Intra- group = Intra-cultural group, Comp. group = Comparison group.

The 21 international student participants were made up of 13 native English speakers and eight non-native English speakers. The 13 native English speakers identified as having the following nationalities: American (n = 10), Singaporean (n = 1), and Australian (n = 2). The eight non-native English speakers identified as the following nationalities: Mexican (n = 1), German (n = 2), Lithuanian (n = 1), Indonesian (n = 1), Norwegian (n = 1), French (n = 1), and Canadian (n = 1). Furthermore, the non-native English-speaking international students, self-reported speaking the following languages as an L1: French (n = 2), Norwegian (n = 1), German (n = 2), Spanish (n = 1), Indonesian (n = 1), and Lithuanian (n = 1). On a background questionnaire, the non-native English speaking international student participants, rated their English speaking proficiency based on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 (very poor) and 7 (very good). The results (M = 6.75, SD = .71) indicated that the non-native English speaking international student participants self-reported having ‘very good’ speaking skills. As described in the following section, the inter-cultural contact treatment occurred when the 21 international students participated in a series of tasks with Japanese EFL students from the Inter-cultural group.

Design

The research was conducted over a 13-week period as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Design of Experiment.

Note. Inter- group = Inter-cultural Group, Intra- group = Intra-cultural group, Comp. group = Comparison group.

Phase 1 of the research was from Week 2 to Week 6, during which time the EFL learners performed one oral paired task per week. Thus, a total of five tasks were performed. During Week 1 (Time 1), a motivation questionnaire was administered to each EFL learner participant. They were then assigned a task partner during Week 1 and kept the same partner for all five tasks. However, an odd number of learners in each group (21) resulted in there being nine pairs and one group of three participants.

Phase 2 of the experiment involved the inter-cultural contact treatment. For the Intra-cultural group, each EFL learner was paired with another EFL learner from within their group. Thus, every student from this group had a different Japanese interlocutor from the one they had in Phase 1. Also during Phase 2, the international students were invited to the classroom and were paired with Japanese students from the Inter-cultural group only. Participants from both groups then repeated the tasks in their new pairs from Weeks 7 to 12. The motivation questionnaire (post) was then administered to all EFL learner participants in Week 13 (Time 2).

Instruments

Tasks

The tasks used in this study provided the context for inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact to occur. The tasks had a compound structure (a two-way information exchange, an opinion gap, and a decision-making component). Input for the tasks was generated from participants through guided research (task topic and instructions were prescribed, but the participants researched the content before the performance). To preserve ecological validity, task topics were aligned with unit topics in the textbook, although the participants still had control over the informational content and language they could use when performing tasks. For a description of the tasks, see Table 3.

Table 3.

Task Descriptions.

Task	Topic	Guided Research:Research. . .	Information Gap:Exchange Information On. . .	Opinion Gap:Discuss the Pros/Cons	Decision-making:Decide. . .
Task 1	Travel	A place you would like to travel to.	Local language, famous sites, cost of living, food, history.	Travelling to each destination.	Which destination to travel to and activities to do.
Task 2	Nature	One endangered animal.	Appearance, habitat, population, diet, challenges.	Spending money to save each animal.	Which animal to spend money on and how to help the animal.
Task 3	History	A person in history you would like to meet.	Birth/death date, nationality, accomplishments, public opinion, life events.	Meeting the person.	Who to meet if one could travel back in time and what questions to ask.
Task 4	Careers	A job you are interested in.	Company, duties, responsibilities, qualifications, salary.	Working in the job position.	Which job is more interesting and the steps needed to get the job.
Task 5	Celebrations	A celebration you are interested in.	Location, celebration, origin, purpose, activities.	Participating in a celebration.	Which celebration to participate in and what to do to prepare.

The tasks were performed in the classroom during regular scheduled classes. When performing tasks, the participants were instructed to refer to their completed task research worksheet, which contained the information they would be exchanging. They were given 25 minutes to complete each task and were instructed to use only English. Thus, in total, students in the inter-cultural group experienced 125 minutes of inter-cultural contact.

Questionnaire

The sole data collection instrument for this research was a motivation questionnaire. Thirty-six items were initially created which targeted the variables ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, L2 learning experience, international posture, and motivated learning behaviour. The items consisted of statements to which the participants were asked to rate their agreement on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (absolutely untrue) and 7 (absolutely true) (See Appendix for the complete questionnaire). As shown in Table 4, items were either adapted or taken directly from previous literature.

Table 4.

Sources for Motivation Questionnaire Items.

Variable	Item	Source of Item	Change to Source
Motivated learning behaviour	1–5	Taguchi et al. (2009)	Adapted item 1
Ideal L2 self	6–10	Nakahira and Yashima (2012)	Adapted all items
L2 learning experience	11–15	Taguchi et al. (2009)	Taken directly
Ought-to L2 self	16–20	Taguchi et al. (2009)	Taken directly
International posture	21–36	Yashima et al. (2004)	Taken directly

Once the draft English questionnaire was composed, it was translated into Japanese by a bilingual Japanese professor and back-translated into English by a bilingual Japanese graduate student. Any discrepancies between the original and back-translated version of the questionnaire were resolved through discussion with the translators in order to ensure no meaning was lost in the process. The motivation questionnaire was then administered to the Inter-cultural group (N = 21), the Intra-cultural group (N = 21), and the Comparison group (N = 21) in Week 1 and then again in Week 13.

Analysis

The questionnaire data analysis was done using SPSS version 23 and AMOS version 22. The actual version of the questionnaire had been administered to Japanese students and validated by the first author (Aubrey, 2014). However, the authors acknowledge that each context is different, so the construct validity was again examined using learners from the same university, programme, and year as those used in the Inter-, Intra-, and Comparison groups. To do this, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, which tested the validity of the specified relationships between the variables and the actual 36 questionnaire items that assess them. Data for the CFA were based on the administration of the questionnaire to a sample of 203 EFL learners who did not participate in the study (i.e. not part of the Inter-cultural group, Intra-cultural group or Comparison group). During the CFA process, modifications were made in order to satisfy the basic validity requirements of the model. Two items on the scale ought-to L2 self were found to be loading very low (less than .35), and as a result were deleted (these two items are indicated by a * in the Appendix). After the two items were removed from the analysis, the modified model was a satisfactory fit for the data collected at Time 1 and Time 2. Thus, the remaining 34 items were used to measure the five motivation variables. Table 5 shows the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for each administration and each group.

Table 5.

Cronbach Alpha Coefficients for Each Scale.

Scales	Group(N = 21)	Cronbach’s α(Time 1 = Week 1)	Cronbach’s α(Time 2 = Week 13)
Motivated learning behaviour	Inter- group	.77	.86
	Intra- group	.75	.80
	Comp. group	.82	.86
Ideal L2 self	Inter- group	.90	.88
	Intra- group	.80	.90
	Comp. group	.91	.92
Ought-to L2 self	Inter- group	.68	.77
	Intra- group	.69	.70
	Comp. group	.75	.80
L2 learning experience	Inter- group	.86	.89
	Intra- group	.79	.86
	Comp. group	.86	.89
International Posture	Inter- group	.86	.87
	Intra- group	.81	.80
	Comp. group	.86	.92

Note. Inter- group = Inter-cultural group, Intra- group = Intra-cultural group, Comp. group = Comparison group.

A repeated measures mixed-model ANOVA (3 x 2) was conducted on the mean scores for each variable to test for the comparative effects of the treatments, with time as the within-subjects factor (Time 1, Time 2) and group as the between-group factor (Inter-cultural group, Intra-cultural group, Comparison group). The determination of any interaction effect (time-by-group) on each motivation variable is pertinent to the research questions of this study. Any significant interactions were subjected to a post-hoc analysis.

Results

Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of each variable measured at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 6.

Mean Scores for Each Variable.

Variable	Group	Time 1		Time 2
	(N = 21)	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Motivated learning behaviour	Inter-	4.50	.92	4.62	1.10
	Intra-	4.40	.54	4.44	.77
	Comp.	4.52	.92	4.59	1.06
Ought-to L2 self	Inter-	3.33	.93	3.44	1.61
	Intra-	3.85	1.15	3.73	1.05
	Comp.	3.65	1.34	4.10	1.55
Ideal L2 self	Inter-	4.41	1.03	4.91	1.08
	Intra-	4.23	.71	4.48	1.09
	Comp.	4.35	1.19	4.35	1.26
L2 learning experience	Inter-	5.38	1.00	5.88	1.11
	Intra-	5.49	.84	5.44	.92
	Comp.	5.14	.96	5.03	1.18
International Posture	Inter-	4.99	.77	5.27	.84
	Intra-	5.06	.72	5.09	.77
	Comp.	4.69	.91	4.58	1.02

Note. Inter- = Inter-cultural group, Intra- = Intra-cultural group, Comp. = Comparison group.

The repeated measures mixed-model ANOVA was conducted on the mean scores for each of the five variables. The assumption of homogeneity of variance (as tested by Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances and Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices) was not violated; therefore, Wilks’ Lambda was reported for significant values. Table 7 shows the results of the univariate tests.

Table 7.

Univariate Tests (Mixed-model ANOVA) of 3 (Group) x 2 (Time) Design.

Variable	Effect	F	df	Sig.	Eta Squared
Motivated learning behaviour	Time	.687	1	.410	.011
	Group	.199	60	.820	.007
	Time x Group	.064	60	.938	.002
Ought-to L2 self	Time	1.051	1	.309	.017
	Group	1.018	60	.368	.033
	Time x Group	1.415	60	.251	.045
Ideal L2 self	Time	5.958	1	.018	.090
	Group	2.065	60	.136	.064
	Time x Group	.665	60	.518	.022
L2 learning environment	Time	1.308	1	.257	.021
	Group	1.875	60	.162	.059
	Time x Group	3.946	60	.025	.116
International Posture	Time	1.308	1	.257	.021
	Group	2.379	60	.101	.073
	Time x Group	3.701	60	.030	.110

Both L2 learning experience, F(2,60) = 3.946, p = .025, η² = .116, and international posture, F(2,60) = 3.701, p = .030, η² = .110, reached a level of significance, indicating that the changes in mean scores over time for these variables are not equivalent between the three groups. Thus, changes in mean scores for L2 learning behaviour and international posture for each group need to be explored further.

A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the group means at each time for the two variables where an interaction was observed. Table 8 presents the results of the mean comparisons. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment were used for post-hoc analysis.

Table 8.

Results of One-way ANOVA Comparing Means between Groups.

	F	df	Significance	Post-hoc Tests
L2 learning experience
Time 1	.739	2	.482
Time 2	3.274	2	.045	Inter- > Comp.
International Posture
Time 1	1.253	2	.293
Time 2	3.517	2	.036	Inter- > Comp.

Note: Inter- = Inter-cultural group, Intra- = Intra-cultural group, Comp. = Comparison group.

For L2 learning experience, there was no statistical difference between the groups at Time 1; however, at Time 2, there was a significant difference between the groups (p = .045). Post-hoc analyses of Multiple Comparisons (with Bonferroni adjustment) indicated that the Inter-cultural group had significantly higher mean scores than the Comparison group (p = .039, d = .760), but the Intra-cultural group did not differ significantly from either the Inter-cultural group (p = .573, d = .442) or the Comparison group at Time 2 (p = .664, d = .397). Similarly, for international posture, there were no statistical differences between the groups at Time 1; however, at Time 2, there was a significant difference (p = .036). Post-hoc analyses revealed the Inter-cultural group scored significantly higher than the Comparison group (p = .039, d = .757), but the Intra-cultural group did not significantly differ from the Inter-cultural (p = 1.00, d = .229) or Comparison group (p = .194, d = .578). This is shown visually in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1.

Changes in mean scores for L2 learning experience.

Figure 2.

Changes in mean scores for international posture.

Two one-way within-groups (repeated measures) ANOVAs were conducted to investigate whether the change in L2 learning experience and international posture between the two time periods was significant for each group. Since two ANOVAs were repeated, Bonferroni adjustment was applied and an α level of .25 was used for claiming .05 level significance per family. The results revealed that the Inter-cultural group significantly increased their L2 learning experience scores from Time 1 to Time 2, F(1,20) = .949, p = .006, d = .485, whereas the Intra-cultural group and the Comparison group did not: Intra-cultural group: F(1,20) = .079, p = .781, d = -.058; Comparison group: F(1,20) = .427, p = .521, d = -.105. The effect size indicates the inter-cultural contact had a medium effect on learners’ L2 learning experience. Similarly, the Inter-cultural group also significantly increased their international posture scores from Time 1 to Time 2, F(1,20) = 5.970, p = .024, d = .356, whereas the Intra-cultural and the Comparison group did not: Intra-cultural group: F(1,20) = .128, p = .724, d = .041; Comparison group: F(1,20) = .986, p = .332, d = -.117. The effect size reveals that the inter-cultural contact treatment also has a medium effect on international posture.

Discussion

This research looked at the impact of intra-cultural and inter-cultural contact in an EFL classroom on the components of Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation over one semester (13 weeks). The findings lend support to inter-cultural contact being the more advantageous condition in terms of stimulating learners’ motivation to study English. Learners receiving the inter-cultural treatment (Japanese/non-Japanese interaction) in the classroom significantly increased their scores for L2 learning experience (p = .006, d = .485) and international posture (p = .024, d = .356). In contrast, those receiving the intra-cultural contact treatment (Japanese/Japanese interaction) did not significantly change their mean scores on any scale. There was only one time-by-group interaction for the three groups (L2 learning experience), which was due to a marginal decrease in L2 learning environment for the Inter-cultural group and Comparison group. Thus, the findings suggest the inter-cultural treatment had a significant positive effect on learners’ attitudes towards their learning environment (L2 learning experience) and attitudes towards the international community (international posture) but did not aid in developing their self guides (L2 future self, ought-to self) or motivated learning behaviour.

The considerable positive impact of inter-cultural contact on L2 learning experience aligns with the findings of Aubrey (2017a; Aubrey, 2017b), who found that learners experiencing inter-cultural interactions had elevated levels flow (i.e. heightened engagement). Dörnyei (2005) conceptualized L2 learning experience differently than other variables in his model, describing this component as the trigger for initial motivation, which comes from engagement in the learning process rather than the generation from internal or external self guides. In this study, learners’ engagement in the learning process came from intra-cultural task interaction (Intra-cultural group), inter-cultural task interaction (Inter-cultural group), or other classroom activities (Comparison group). Inter-cultural contact, therefore, was most effective in improving learners’ engagement. Overall, mean scores for L2 learning experience were the highest among all variables for all groups, which supports Taguchi et al.’s (2009) claim that for Japanese students, situation-specific factors such as class atmosphere – and in this case, the kind of contact – seem to be powerful motivators.

The finding that inter-cultural contact significantly increased international posture, supports Yashima’s (2009) argument that international posture can be enhanced when L2 learning is linked to communicating in an international area and when L2 learners interact with more advanced speakers. Empirical evidence has shown that international posture can be strengthened as a result of inter-cultural contact during study abroad and volunteer abroad programmes (Lee, 2018; Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide, 2008; Yashima, 2010). However, this is the first study to the authors’ knowledge to provide evidence that international posture can be enhanced through face-to-face inter-cultural contact in an EFL classroom. It is encouraging, therefore, to see significant gains when learners in the Inter-cultural group received relatively little contact – at least in comparison with learners experiencing contact in a foreign country. Perhaps this is indicative of the efficacy of generating inter-cultural interaction in a supportive learning environment that is scaffolded through a task-based framework. Additionally, intra-cultural contact also caused an increase in mean international posture scores – albeit a non-significant one – which lends partial support to Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide’s (2008) finding that imagined inter-cultural contact (i.e. indirect contact via the integration of a global/cultural issues component) facilitates positive attitudes towards the international community.

It is somewhat unexpected that inter-cultural contact did not cause any significant change for ideal L2 self. This result is in line with Taguchi et al. (2009), who argues that Japanese learners can have a healthy attitude towards English speakers in the global community but still lack an awareness of how English can be useful in real life. This may also reflect the reality that, despite the contact opportunities that are afforded in the classroom, the world outside the classroom’s walls is still very monolingual, which invariably dictates what is personally relevant for the learner. There was, however, a significant time effect for the ideal L2 self, which was due to no change in ideal L2 self scores for the Comparison group and increases in ideal L2 scores self for both the inter- and intra-cultural groups. This suggests the tasks themselves (rather than the type of contact) may have encouraged learners to imagine themselves as proficient English speakers. Perhaps if the treatment were longer, ideal L2 self may have shown a significant development.

Additionally, inter-cultural contact did not cause any changes in motivated learning behaviour. This is unexpected as both international posture and L2 learning experience have been described as a strong predictor of motivated learning behaviour (e.g. Lamb, 2012). This finding, therefore, indicates that the positively perceived classroom environment does not directly affect the amount of effort students are willing to exert to learn English. This finding echoes Taguchi’s (2013) warning that unless activities carefully align with learners’ personal goals for learning English, the classroom environment will not affect behaviour that leads to long-term motivation. An alternative explanation for this is that L2 learning experience (and international posture) capture attitudes, which are more susceptible to short-term change, whereas changes in motivated learning behaviour are adjustments in behaviour, which require students to reprioritize their time and effort and so may take longer to occur. Again, perhaps a longer treatment would have caused positive changes in this variable.

The findings of the present study have clear pedagogical implications for EFL classrooms. EFL teachers who want to invite English-speaking interlocutors into their classroom may, understandably, feel that the resulting interactions may be anxiety-inducing and generally overwhelming (Chen and Starosta, 2005; Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern, 2002). This research provides an example for teachers on how inter-cultural contact can be scaffolded via a task-based framework to alleviate some of these anxieties. However, despite the positive classroom atmosphere generated, there was little change in motivated behaviour. Thus, in designing tasks and classroom activities, teachers may want to choose topics and design tasks that are congruent with students’ goals for learning English. If learners can personally relate to the topics, situations, and goals of the tasks, they are more likely to endorse a successful vision of themselves as English users and put more effort into achieving those goals. Finally, providing inter-cultural contact opportunities, as done in this study, may form the basis for a study abroad preparation programme. Not only would an improvement in learners’ attitudes towards the international community be useful in lowering cultural shock, but learners could more easily map their pre-departure inter-cultural experiences onto their future L2 self concept. This may foster the development of learners’ future L2 selves as well as positive changes in motivated learning behaviour.

Conclusion

Instead of testing the theoretical validity of a motivational theory or describing motivation in a specific context, the goal of this study was pedagogically driven, using the L2MSS to measure the impact of inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact on Japanese EFL learners’ motivation. Inter-cultural contact provided via a series of classroom tasks proved to be the more motivating condition for learners in this study, with L2 learning experience and international posture significantly increasing during the treatment period. Intra-cultural contact, on the other hand, did not have any significant impact on the variables measured.

This study is not without its limitations. It is important to emphasize that data collection for this investigation relied solely on questionnaire data to investigate changes in motivation. Questionnaire items were intentionally simple so learners could easily understand and respond appropriately. The disadvantage of this, however, is that the research instrument did not require learners to think deeply about their motivational dispositions; therefore, the data may not have captured some of the more interesting differences between the three groups. Furthermore, a pre- and post- questionnaire design is not revealing of the ebbs and flows of motivation during the treatment period (i.e. motivation as a process). It is conceivable that each separate task experience had a different impact on learners’ attitudes towards the class, their attitudes towards English in general, and ultimately on their ability to see themselves as successful future English speakers. Future longitudinal research should investigate such motivational trajectories. Finally, we do not claim that inter-cultural contact is a panacea for all classrooms or learners. In fact, we acknowledge that the classroom reality is much more nuanced than the averaged data presented in this study. Consequently, the next efforts to investigate inter-cultural contact in the L2 classroom need to consider individual learners’ experiences, going beyond the inferential statistics and giving learners a voice on this important topic.

Footnotes

Appendix

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partly funded from Kwansei Gakuin University’s individual lecturer research fund.

References

Agar

(1994) The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(2): 221–37.

Aubrey

(2014) Development of the L2 motivational self system: English at a university in Japan. JALT Journal 36(2): 153–74.

Aubrey

(2017a) Inter-cultural contact and flow in the Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research 21(6): 717–34.

Aubrey

(2017b) Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: learners’ perceptions of inter- and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly 51(3): 661–92.

Aubrey

Nowlan

(2013) Effect of intercultural contact on L2 motivation. In: Apple

Da Silva

Fellner

(eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 129–51.

Boo

Dörnyei

Ryan

(2015) L2 motivation research 2005–2014: understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System 55: 145–57.

Chen

Starosta

(2005) Foundations of Intercultural Communication. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Clément

Dörnyei

Noels

(1994) Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44(3): 417–48.

Csizér

Kormos

(2009) Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: a comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In: Dörnyei

Ushioda

(eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 98–119.

10.

Dörnyei

(2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11.

Dörnyei

(2009) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12.

Dörnyei

Csizér

(2005) The effects of intercultural contact and tourism on language attitudes and language learning motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24(4): 327–57.

13.

Gardner

(1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London, Ontario: Edward Arnold.

14.

Higgins

(1987) Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review 94(3): 319–40.

15.

Kim

Lee

(2013) Korean students’ English learning motivation and demotivation through autobiographic essays: retrospective reconstruction. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 29(1): 37–68.

16.

Kong

Han

Kim

Park

Kim

Park

(2018) L2 motivational self system, international posture and competitiveness of Korean CTL and LCTL college learners: a structural equation modeling approach. System 72(1): 178–89.

17.

Kormos

Csizér

(2007) An interview study of inter-ethnic contact and its role in language learning in a foreign language environment. System 35(2): 241–58.

18.

Kormos

Csizér

(2008) The relationship of intercultural contact and language learning motivation among Hungarian students of English and German. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29(1): 30–48.

19.

Labrie

Clément

(1986) Ethnolinguistic vitality, self-confidence and second language proficiency: an investigation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7(4): 269–82.

20.

Lamb

(2012) A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning 62(4): 997–1023.

21.

Lee

(2018) The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, international posture, and L2 willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39(8): 703–14.

22.

Lee

Ahn

(2013) English learning motivation and English academic achievement of Korean elementary school students: the effects of L2 selves, international posture, and family encouragement. Modern English Education 14(1): 127–52.

23.

Markus

Nurius

(1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41(9): 954–69.

24.

Munezane

(2013) Motivation, ideal L2 self and valuing of global English. In: Apple

Da Silva

Fellner

(eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 152–68.

25.

Nakahira

Yashima

(2012) Toward the development of the instruments to assess motivation based on the L2 motivational self system. JACET Journal 55: 31–48.

26.

Nitta

Asano

(2010) Understanding motivational changes in EFL classrooms. In: Stoke

(ed.) JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 186–96.

27.

Noels

Clément

(1996) Communication across cultures: social determinants and acculturative consequences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 28(3): 214–28.

28.

Papi

(2010) The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: a structural equation modeling approach. System 38(3): 467–79.

29.

Rivers

(2011) Evaluating the self and the other: imagined intercultural contact with a native-speaker dependent foreign language context. International Journal of International Relations 35(6): 842–52.

30.

Spencer-Rodgers

McGovern

(2002) Attitudes towards the culturally different: the role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26(6): 609–31.

31.

Taguchi

(2013) Motivation, attitudes and selves in the Japanese context: a mixed methods approach. In: Fellner

Da Silva

Fellner

(eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 129–51.

32.

Taguchi

Magid

Papi

(2009) The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: a comparative study. In: Dörnyei

Ushioda

(eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 66–97.

33.

Xie

(2014) L2 self of beginning-level heritage and non-heritage postsecondary learners of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals 47(1): 189–203.

34.

Yashima

(2002) Willingness to communicate in L2: the Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal 86(1): 54–66.

35.

Yashima

(2009) International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In: Dörnyei

Ushioda

(eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 144–63.

36.

Yashima

(2010) The effects of international volunteer work experiences on intercultural competence of Japanese youth. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(3): 268–82.

37.

Yashima

(2013) Imagined L2 selves and motivation for intercultural communication. In: Apple

Da Silva

Fellner

(eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 35–53.

38.

Yashima

Zenuk-Nishide

(2008) The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and L2 communication: creating an imagined international community. System 36(4): 566–85.

39.

Yashima

Zenuk-Nishide

Shimizu

(2004) The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning 54(1): 119–52.