Strengthening the visions of students as proficient L2 speakers: A teaching proposal for the EFL classroom
Over the past ten years, research on second language motivation has been dominated by Dörnyei’s influential motivational paradigm, the L2 Motivational Self System. This theoretical construct is comprised of the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self and the L2 learning experience. Students’ imagined visualisations are central components in this theory, as this holds that students who have an explicit ideal self-image with an L2 component are more likely to be motivated to learn a language than other students that have not established a desired future state goal for themselves. To enhance students’ future-self-images, L2 lecturers can create adequate L2 learning experiences, where methodologies and materials fit in with the students’ needs, and where their visions as proficient users of the L2 are regularly sustained and strengthened by productive and realistic tasks. This article offers a teaching proposal that uses multimodal TED conferences as classroom artefacts to embolden students in the foreign language classroom to speak in public. These students might, if able to visualise their desired language selves portrayed in TED speakers, be motivated to spread their ideas worth spreading.
Al-Shehri, A. H. (2009). Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self, imagination and visual style. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp.164-171). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Archer, A. (2010). Multimodal texts in Higher Education and the implications for writing pedagogy. English in Education, 44, 201-213.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Center, Y., Freeman, L., Robertson, G., & Outhred, L. (1999). The effect of visual imagery training on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening comprehenders in Year 2. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(3), 241-256.
Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse Intonation in L2: From Theory and Research to Practice. J. Benjamins.
Cohen, A. (1987). The use of verbal and imagery mnemonics in second-language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 43-6.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self-System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self-images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437-46.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, E.T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Language, gesture, action! A test of the Gesture as Simulated Action framework. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 245-257.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodal ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ on screen. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315-322.
Kim, T.Y. (2009). Korean elementary school students’ perceptual learning style, Ideal L2 self, and motivated behaviour. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 9(3), 261-286.
Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2011). The effect of Korean secondary school students’ perceptual learning styles and ideal L2 self on motivated L2 behaviour and English proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11 (1), 21-42.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969
Markus, H. & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 211–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McClave, E. (2000). Linguistic Functions of Head Movements in the Context of Speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 855-78.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Norris, S. (2004). Analysing Multimodal Interaction: A methodological framework. New York: Routledge.
Pink, D. (2019, July). Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation are [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.
Ruvulo, A. & Markus, H. (1992). Possible selves and performance: The power of self - relevant imagery. Social cognition, 10, 95-124.
Ryan, J., Scott, A., & Walsh, M. (2010). Pedagogy in the multimodal classroom: An analysis of the challenges and opportunities for teachers. Teachers & Teaching, 16(4), 477-489.
Shen, H. H. (2010). Imagery and verbal coding approaches in Chinese vocabulary instruction. Language Teaching Research, 14(4) 485-499.
Sinek, S. (2009, September). Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.
Sugimoto, C., & Mike T. (2013). Scholars on Soap Boxes: Science Communication and Dissemination via TED Videos. The Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 64(4), 663-74.
Unsworth, L. (2011). Image-language interaction in online reading environments: Challenges for students' reading comprehension. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(2), 181-202.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London/New York: Routledge.
Copyright (c) 2019 The International Education and Learning Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.Those authors who have been published in this journal accept the following terms:
- Authors will keep the moral copyright of the work and they will transfer the commercial rights. In this way, the author will only be able to upload the author’s original version into his/her personal Website or into the university (or research center) institutional archive, but the publisher’s version won’t (copyright, commercial rights). You can see a explanation of the author’s original version and publisher’s version here.
- After two years in publication, publisher’s version shall thereafter become in open access online from our editorial website, but our review will retain the work’s copyright. In other words, publisher’s version will be accesible for everyone and permanently from our editorial Website, but it may not be upload in any other website. Anyone wanting to read or to download publisher’s version must visit our editorial website. In this way, if you want to reference publisher’s version in your personal website or into any institutional archive, you may link to our editorial website to reference publisher’s version.
- In case authors wanting to get publisher’s version in order to their works could freely circulate (for example,to upload publisher’s version in their personal’s website or into any institutional archive) they can do it on condition that they will have to pay an 85€ fee. In this case, our editorial will permanently assign to the publisher’s version. In such a way, an open license Creative Commons (CC) will be assigned by us. This license will allow for a free work circulation by the Internet, without anybody being able to appropriate it at no time. The authors may choose the type of license they wish, but it’s important to decide soundly which type of license they want. If you choose this option, we would be glad to offer free advisory service soyoy can safely choose the one that is best for you and for your particular case.