2016
DOI: 10.1353/hpn.2016.0055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microevaluating Learners’ Task-specific Motivation in a Task-based Business Spanish Course

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, we measured learners’ motivation for each task version, as differences in task‐specific motivation may affect the amount of interaction (e.g., Dörnyei & Kormos, ). As such, upon completion of each task, participants filled out a post‐task motivation questionnaire to gather information on how relevant, satisfying, and engaging they found each task version (see Torres & Serafini, ) Results of an independent samples t test, t (115) = .93, p = .354, revealed no significant differences between participants’ ratings of Task A ( M = 32.06, SD = 5.21) and Task B ( M = 32.88, SD = 4.42). Therefore, any differences in interactional moves between both task versions are not due to learners’ task‐specific motivation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Further, we measured learners’ motivation for each task version, as differences in task‐specific motivation may affect the amount of interaction (e.g., Dörnyei & Kormos, ). As such, upon completion of each task, participants filled out a post‐task motivation questionnaire to gather information on how relevant, satisfying, and engaging they found each task version (see Torres & Serafini, ) Results of an independent samples t test, t (115) = .93, p = .354, revealed no significant differences between participants’ ratings of Task A ( M = 32.06, SD = 5.21) and Task B ( M = 32.88, SD = 4.42). Therefore, any differences in interactional moves between both task versions are not due to learners’ task‐specific motivation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the study investigates a group of learners enrolled in advanced Spanish content courses. While the design of differentiated language courses for HL learners has been on the rise (Beaudrie, ), both L2 and HL learners often reconvene in advanced content courses such as Business Spanish (e.g., Torres & Serafini, ). Second, we tested pair types composed of HL–L2 and HL–HL learners to examine the role of prior language experience on peer collaboration.…”
Section: Research Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Task-specific motivation has been studied since it can affect the amount of interaction (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000) as well as the processes by which students control and appraise their actions so that they can successfully carry out a writing task (Yanguas, 2011). The Likert-scale questionnaire used in the current study has been adopted in previous studies (Torres & Serafini, 2016). Our results revealed that the AudSCMC (M= 34.0, SD= 8.1), VidSCMC (M= 34.6, SD= 3.3) and TxtSCMC (M= 34.0, SD= 3.4) groups did not significantly differ with regards to their task-specific motivation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, some gaps may be of low instructional priority because they may have little bearing on larger goals such as increasing students’ functional skills and reversing language shift. What is more, for gaps that are deemed to be worthy of instruction, linguistic research has not shed light on the “how” of instruction—that is, the types of interventions that result in measurable gains in grammatical accuracy (see, for example, Torres and Serafini () and Torres () for how learning is impacted by task design), let alone other aspects of linguistic competency such as fluency.…”
Section: Research and Pedagogy: Where We Are And Where We Need To Bementioning
confidence: 99%