Group Processes and EFL Learners’ Motivation: A Study of Group Dynamics in EFL Classrooms

Group Processes and EFL Learners’Motivation: A Study of Group Dynamics in EFL Classrooms LILIAN YA-HUI CHANG Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China Thi

Group Processes and EFL Learners’

Motivation: A Study of Group Dynamics

in EFL Classrooms

LILIAN YA-HUI CHANG

Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China

This study explores how group processes, such as group cohesivenessand group norms, influence an individual EFL learner’s motivation Theuniqueness of this research lies in shifting the focus from an analysis ofthe individual’s experience being seen as apart from the group toconsidering the individual’s experience in relation to the socialinteractions within the group Questionnaires were administered to

152 Taiwanese university students from the English Department of auniversity in Taiwan The results from the questionnaires show that therewas a slight to moderate correlation between group processes (groupcohesiveness and group norms) and students’ level of motivation (self-efficacy and autonomy) A dozen students who participated in this studywere asked to share more information in semi-structured in-depthinterviews During those interviews, several students commented thattheir learner class group was indeed important to their learning, asassociating with more motivated classmates and classmates with whomthey get along does positively influence their own motivation On theother hand, being in a class group of stolid learners who areunresponsive and show little interest or concern for each other couldde-motivate an otherwise motivated learner

doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.213780

Z oltan Do¨ rnyei (2001) has observed that ‘‘the term ‘motivation’presents a real mystery’’ (p 7) Understanding it in the context ofdaily classroom experience in language teaching is part of that mystery

As an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher in Taiwan, I wasintrigued by how I could teach exactly the same materials to more thanone class and yet observe very different responses from each of them.Some groups of students seemed to be more motivated, more eager toparticipate in class, for example, volunteering to answer questions andactively engaging in group work Other groups never quite caught on inthe same way, for example, shunning my request to answer questions ordisconnecting during group discussions It appeared that each class

group had its own particular identity that determined a certain kind ofclassroom climate The groups with a more positive identity created asupportive classroom climate that was enjoyable; I looked forward toeach class with those groups and felt fulfilled at the end On the otherhand, groups with a decidedly negative identity seemed disinterestedand created an apathetic classroom climate; more often than not I feltfrustrated by students’ indifference, as I encouraged their attempts toimprove while trying to increase their interest in the English language.Struck by the impact different class groups had on my enthusiasmtoward teaching, I wondered: If my motivation was being influenced byvarious group identities, was individual students’ motivation within thegroup also being influenced? If they were being influenced, was theresomething I, as their teacher, could do to facilitate the group’s ability tohave a more positive influence on individual learners or perhaps simplymitigate against negative influences?

During this same period, I discovered that relevant literature in thearea of group dynamics theory by Zoltan Do¨ rnyei and his colleagues(Do¨rnyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999; Do¨ rnyei & Murphey, 2003) attempted

to answer questions similar to my own As Do¨ rnyei (2007, p 720)affirmed, ‘‘the quality of teaching and learning is entirely differentdepending on whether the classroom is characterized by a climate oftrust and support or by a competitive, cutthroat atmosphere.’’ It appearedthat since most learning situations, especially in classrooms, take place ingroups, the interactions learners have with their teachers and classmatesare bound to have a significant effect on them (Ushioda, 2003) Iwondered whether, within an Asian context where collectivism is moreprevalent than individualism, the group influence would be furtheremphasized In Taiwan, even at the university level, students in the sameclass group take their required courses together They may often stay in thesame classroom and take classes for several hours a day, five days a week.Such close contact for an extended period of time encourages the growth

of a strong group bond within the class group I imagined such a bondmight have the potential to affect individual learners’ second language(L2) motivation

To explore this issue, this article uses the theory of group dynamics as

an analytical tool to investigate the relationship between group processes(such as group cohesiveness, group norms) in an EFL classroom andindividual learners’ L2 motivation (such as their self-efficacy andautonomy) Although the shift from focusing on the individual’sexperience apart from the group to looking at the individual embeddedwithin the social interactions of the whole class group has received someattention (e.g., Do¨ rnyei, 2007; Do¨ rnyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999; Do¨ rnyei

& Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Do¨ rnyei, 1998; Hadfield, 1992), relevantstudies in an Asian context remain scarce One attempt at a study on

group dynamics in an Asian context was made by Chang (2007), whoexplored the effects of group processes on learner autonomy Thisarticle expands the scope from Chang’s emphasis on learner autonomy

to L2 motivation, in an effort to broaden our understanding of theeffects of the class group on individual learners

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section discusses four strands essential to this research Two arefrom the area of group processes: group cohesiveness and group norms.The other two come from the field of L2 motivation: self-efficacy andlearner autonomy While serving as evaluative measurements within thequestionnaire used to conduct the research discussed in this article,these four strands also interweave to form the theoretical framework ofthis study, which sought to understand the ways in which groupprocesses may affect individual learners’ L2 motivation

Group Processes

Group processes in this article derive from group dynamics theory asapplied to language classrooms (for thorough reviews, see Do¨rnyei &Malderez, 1997; Ehrman & Do¨rnyei, 1998) Researchers of group dynamicsdefine the term group in accordance with the definition established insocial psychology—the whole teacher-led class of students in school settingsbeing one group This is distinct from smaller groups within the class,which teachers might configure during a lesson’s task activities The termgroup members refers to classmates within that same whole entity

The two group-related processes integral to this study are groupcohesiveness and group norms

Group Cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness refers to how well group members get along.Members of a cohesive group show a strong connection by sharing ideaswith each other, participating in group-related activities, or workingeasily together (Do¨ rnyei & Murphey, 2003) Groups lacking cohesivenessdisplay an aversion to group interaction of their own volition

Even though research on group cohesiveness in other contexts (e.g.,business groups, sport groups, therapy groups) has demonstrated itsimportance (Mullen & Copper, 1994), research on group cohesiveness

in language learning classrooms remains scant The infrequent studies

of group cohesiveness conducted in language classrooms have shownpromise: Group cohesiveness affects learners’ positive evaluation of their

learner group (Cle´ment, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994), a cohesive grouplearns more efficiently because the members feel more at ease whenspeaking and sharing ideas with peers (Senior, 1997), and a relationshipexists between the time group members spend together and theirdevelopment of group cohesiveness (Hinger, 2006) Such studies point

to the relevance of group cohesiveness in language learning and thushelped motivate this study’s exploration of the relationship of groupcohesiveness to motivation in the language classroom

Group Norms

Group norms are group rules accepted and respected by all groupmembers; they enable group members to act in accordance withnormally accepted group behaviors (Ehrman & Do¨ rnyei, 1998) Groupnorms promote an effective learning environment in two ways: (1)reinforcing group members’ desire and need to perform well (Levine &Moreland, 1990), and (2) facilitating learning by acting as anappropriate boundary (Do¨rnyei & Malderez, 1997, 1999) Positivelyreinforcing norms, such as handing in assignments on time or coming toclass fully prepared, can bring positive pressure to bear on groupmembers Positive norms can mediate the development of individuallearners’ motivation, since learners may adjust behavior to conform togroup norms Group norms, acting as an appropriate boundary, mightfacilitate the learning of individual members within the group: A group

of learners, who have established the norm of using only the targetlanguage, English, in an L2 class, could persuade a member violatingthis norm (or boundary) to attune her behavior to the group by creating

an unpleasant experience for her, such as giving her the cold shoulder

‘‘We should not underestimate the power of the group: It may bringsignificant pressure to bear and it can sanction—directly or indirectly—those who fail to conform to what is considered acceptable’’ (Do¨rnyei &Malderez, 1999, p 161) The literature on motivation indicates that ahighly cohesive group having positive norms could be a stimulus to one’slearning Building on this idea, this study sought to investigate the ways

in which an individual student’s motivation might be impelled by alanguage learning group through these two group processes: groupcohesiveness and group norms

L2 Motivation

For several decades, motivation has been considered an importantfactor in learners’ successful acquisition of their second language.Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) social psychology perspective

dominated L2 motivation research for nearly 30 years Then, in the1990s, L2 researchers (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Oxford & Shearin,1994) began investigating the limitations of the social psychologicalperspective, expanding from a focus on the social psychologicalapproach to encompass various motivational theories from educationalpsychology: equity theories, expectancy-value theories, need theories,self-efficacy theory, attribution theory, and cognitive developmentaltheory (for an overview, see Do¨ rnyei, 2001, 2005).

Currently, L2 motivation is often seen as an intricate constructcomprised of multilevel aspects, such as the cognitive aspect, the processaspect, and even the neurobiological aspect Examining the full range ofaspects discussed in current L2 motivation literature is beyond the scope

of this review Only those two aspects relevant to this study—self-efficacyand learner autonomy—will be discussed These two representativeaspects were chosen because (1) both generate considerable discussion

in L2 motivation literature, particularly in an Asian context (e.g., Chan,2001; Wu, 2003; Yang, 1999), and (2) both provide a well-constructedquantitative measure from other studies (e.g., Chan, Spratt, &Humphreys, 2002; Riggs & Knight, 1994) appropriate for this study.Having only two measures of L2 motivation is certainly not sufficient

to fully explore a language learners’ L2 motivational spectrum However,these two measures can serve as useful measures for a preliminaryexploration into the relationship between group processes and L2motivation, the results of which could aid the design of morecomprehensive research in this area in the future

Self-Efficacy

Learners’ motivation can be influenced by perceptions of themselves,such as their introspective judgment of their ability to perform, that is,their self-efficacy Some research (Schunk, 1991; Wood & Locke, 1987;Yang, 1999) suggests that self-efficacy is a strong indicator of motivationdue to self-efficacious learners being more readily engaged in challen-ging tasks, adopting effective learning strategies, investing more effort,and feeling less frustrated Zimmerman (2000) echoes these conclu-sions: ‘‘Self-efficacy beliefs have also shown convergent validity ininfluencing such key indices of academic motivation as choice ofactivities, level of effort, persistence, and emotional reactions’’ (p 86).According to Oxford and Shearin (1994), learners with high self-efficacyset more challenging goals for themselves, which in turn generates inthem stronger motivation to achieve those goals; conversely, learnerswith low self-efficacy lack confidence, which can lead to lower levels ofmotivation and can compromise their ability to achieve

Learner Autonomy

Autonomy is not so much an essential component of motivation, likeself-efficacy, as a reflection of motivation; in many respects, autonomyand motivation act as intertwined forces affecting L2 learning and itsoutcomes Deci and Ryan (1985) explain the link between autonomyand motivation as follows:

When conditions are created that facilitate intrinsic motivation [emphasisadded], in particular those that are autonomy [emphasis added] supporting,students’ learning, especially conceptual learning and creative thinking,increases dramatically (p 261)

Various researchers of autonomy in language learning (Benson, 2001;Dickinson, 1987, 1995; Gremmo & Riley, 1995; Holec, 1981; Little, 1991,1995; Littlewood, 1996, 1999; Ushioda, 1996) do not dispute thefundamental principle of learner autonomy—learners taking charge ofand becoming responsible for their learning When the locus of controllies within learners themselves to make decisions on how and what theywant to learn, they are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation Someresearchers (Dickinson, 1995; Ushioda, 1996) point out that autono-mous learners are also motivated learners, since both kinds of learnersshow responsibility toward and interest in their learning, consequentlyleaving more in charge of their own learning

More recent empirical research indicates that motivation is essentialfor fostering autonomy (Chan, 2001; Spratt, Humphreys, & Chan, 2002),and motivation is one of the key elements in determining whether or notlearners are autonomous (Chan, 2001) Wu’s (2003) quasiexperimentalstudy supporting Deci and Ryan’s (1985) notion that an autonomy-supporting environment helps develop learners’ intrinsic motivationfurther highlights the connection between autonomy and motivation

To conclude, theoretical evidence and empirical research strate the interrelatedness of autonomy and motivation in forming avirtuous cycle of learning in the foreign language classroom Therefore,

demon-it is important to include learner autonomy wdemon-ithin this study onmotivational research

To sum up what has been discussed, my own teaching experienceindicated that a class group had its own group identity, which helpedshape a distinct group climate that in turn may have affected individuallearners’ L2 motivation Group processes (e.g., group cohesiveness andgroup norms) discussed in group dynamics theory provided anappropriate analytical tool for exploring the characteristics of a classgroup The literature (Do¨ rnyei & Malderez, 1999; Senior, 1997)indicates that a highly cohesive group or a group having positive norms

could have an impact on the learning of individuals within that group.

In view of the fact that motivation is a key element of one’s learning, ahighly cohesive group with positive norms may impact a learner’s L2motivation as well, since without sufficient motivation learning does nottake place (Do¨rnyei, 2001) As a result, it seems logical to form thefollowing hypothesis: There appears to be a relationship between thecohesiveness and norms of a class group and an individual learner’s L2motivation The study discussed here aimed to test this hypothesis and toextend beyond the hypothesis by exploring the role the class group plays

in an individual learner’s L2 motivation

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This was a two-phase, sequential mixed-methods study (Creswell,2003) with quantitative survey data being collected first, followed bysemistructured qualitative interview data The survey component of thestudy was intended to test the hypothesis, derived from the literature,regarding how factors such as group cohesiveness and group normscorrelate with individual learners’ L2 motivation in terms of self-efficacyand learner autonomy Semistructured interviews were employed todescribe, from the learners’ point of view, the role the class group plays

in an individual learner’s L2 motivation

Four class groups (ranging from 32 to 44 learners) at the junior andsenior levels of an undergraduate program participated in the survey(see later section for further details on participants) During thequantitative phase of the study three research questions were proposed

to test the hypothesis: There appears to be a relationship between thecohesiveness and norms of a class group and an individual learner’s L2motivation The descriptive research question proposed was: What areeach group’s level of cohesiveness, norms, self-efficacy, and autonomy?The two inferential research questions proposed were as follows:

1 Do these four class groups have different levels of group processes (groupcohesiveness, norms) and L2 motivation (self-efficacy and autonomy)?

2 Do group cohesiveness and group norms correlate with self-efficacy, andautonomy?

Although the survey questionnaire may provide data to accept or rejectthe hypothesis through answering the above questions, solely relying onquantitative data to grasp the dynamic and possibly elusive relationshipbetween group processes and L2 motivation may not be sufficient.Confirming the hypothesis itself would not explain how these twovariables are related, because it does not provide opportunities for theselearners to illustrate their own learning experiences As Bryman (2004)explains, ‘‘one of the problems that frequently confront quantitative

researchers is how to explain relationships between variables’’ (p 460).Triangulating quantitative survey data with a more detailed illustrationfrom the language learners through interviews allows the researcher togather qualitative data to ‘‘explain or build upon initial quantitativeresults’’ (Creswell & Clark, 2007, p 71) These learners’ elaboration onthe influences of the class groups might be particularly important fordeveloping a more intimate view (Creswell, 2003) Such a view is ‘‘oftenmore revealing,’’ because it discloses the ‘‘perspectives of the people[researchers] are studying’’ (Bryman, 2004, pp 458–459) In this regard,the aim of this mixed-methods study was for complementarity (discoveringdifferent facets of an event), where the researcher looks for elaborationand illustrations in the results of one method and interweaves thoseresults with another method (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989,

pp 258–259)

Before conducting semistructured interviews, the survey was firstadministered to allow this researcher to gather complementary data forthe following advantages:

1 Survey questionnaire data could provide ‘‘significant (or nonsignificant)results, outlier results,’’ or ‘‘surprising results’’ (Creswell & Clark, 2007,

p 72) to follow up during interviews

2 Survey questionnaires would provide a means to select interviewees based

on their questionnaire answers, which is one of ‘‘the chief ways in whichquantitative research can prepare the ground for qualitative research’’(Bryman, 2004, p 457) Further details about interviewees’ selectioncriteria can be found in the Research Site and Participants section.The need to explore the relationship between group processes and L2motivation from the perspective of language learners led to the necessity

of conducting semistructured interviews to address the qualitativeresearch question: How would individual learners describe the role ofthe class group in their L2 motivation?

Research Site and Participants

This research was conducted in a department of applied English at anational university of science and technology in Kaohsiung County,Taiwan All student research participants were majoring in English as aforeign language at the time of the study This sample pool was aconvenience sample, because I was working at this site during thisresearch and had access to groups of students who matched the study’sselection criteria Because this study focused on the effects groupprocesses have on learners’ L2 motivation, it was essential to have theclass group as the basic unit of the study, rather than individual learners.Four groups, comprising a total of 152 participants, were chosen as

follows: junior year Group 3A (32 students); junior year Group 3B (35students); senior year Group 4A (44 students); and senior year Group 4B(41 students).

Students in these four groups all attended the two-year, upper-divisionprogram of the university, designed for students already possessing anassociate’s degree and those wishing to obtain a bachelor’s degree.Hence the junior year groups, Group 3A and Group 3B, were actually intheir first year together as a group of classmates The senior year groups,Group 4A and Group 4B, being in the second year, had been together asclassmates during the previous year and remained classmates in theirsenior year To define this more specifically, being together means thatclassmates in the same class groups take all required courses with thosesame classmates—at my research site that would be 9 hours per week forjuniors and 3 hours per week for seniors (who as juniors had spent 9hours of classes per week together as a single class group)

All these students filled out the survey questionnaire first Then threequestionnaire respondents from each group were chosen for the in-depth semistructured interviews based on their questionnaire answers Arespondent with a positive view of the group, one with a neutralobservation, and one with a negative opinion were selected from each ofthe four class groups, for a total of 12 interviewees The rationale forselecting interviewees with differing questionnaire results was that suchdiversity might assist in garnering a wider range of opinions, thusproviding a fuller examination of the dynamic interplay between groupprocesses and L2 motivation

Procedures

The Questionnaire

A four-section questionnaire was devised by the researcher and filledout by 152 research participants Items were written in both English andChinese To account for validity and reliability issues, the acceptedconvention is to adapt questions from prior questionnaires to suit theneeds of one’s own set of research circumstances Questionnaire itemsdeveloped for this questionnaire follow that convention Section A of thequestionnaire measured individual learners’ level of motivation from theaspect of autonomous beliefs versus autonomous behaviors Adaptedfrom Chan et al.’s (2002) questionnaire developed during their pilotingprocess, Section A of this questionnaire had respondents replying tostatements in two parallel measurement columns: one for their beliefs—how responsible the respondent felt toward a particular deed, that is, 1(no responsibility) to 4 (mainly my responsibility)—and a secondcolumn asking them to reply to the same item for their behaviors—to

what extent the respondent actually engaged in the deed, that is,1 (not

at all) to 4 (very much) (See Table 1.)

Section B of the questionnaire measured individual learners’ level ofmotivation with respect to self-efficacy and operated much like Section

A These statements (e.g., "I am proud of my English ability and skills")were based on measures developed from Riggs and Knight’s (1994) andJinks and Morgan’s (1999) research on self-efficacy Respondents wereasked to rate these statements from 1 (not true) to 4 (very true).The second part of the questionnaire measured group cohesivenessand norms Nine group cohesiveness statements (Section C), such as,

"Compared to other groups like mine, I feel my group is better thanmost," and "This class is composed of people who fit together," wererated This study chose to adopt questionnaire items in this section fromthe study by Cle´ment et al (1994), because their study shared a similarbackground—learners’ perceptions of group cohesiveness in foreignlanguage classrooms As with Sections A and B, the participantsindicated their level of agreement with the statements

The 10 group norms statements (Section D), such as, "speak onlyEnglish in the class all the time," and "Fully participate during the class,"were formulated by this researcher The participants once again selectedthe option that best captured his or her level of agreement with thestatements One resource for these statements was the relevant literature

on group processes mentioned in the literature review section; otherstatements evolved from classroom observation notes made whenobserving the target groups

The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s a) was checked onSPSS (2002) for all these multistatement sections and reached above thesatisfactory level ( 0.70) Any problematic statements were eliminatedduring the piloting stage

The Interviews

The relationship between group processes and L2 motivation wasfurther explored during semistructured interviews, which started with a

TABLE 1

Sample Questionnaire Items From the Questionnaire Section A

How responsible for Statements To what extent

1 2 3 4 1 Identify my own strengths and

list of probe questions followed by unanticipated questions in reply tointerviewees’ responses (Bryman, 2004) The interview probe questionswere formed based on the qualitative research question: How wouldindividual learners describe the role of the class group in their L2motivation? Several resultant banks of probe questions were formedbased on this research question; some questions explored learners’general opinions on the role of the class group, such as

N ‘‘In your opinion, is the learner group important to your learning?’’[11 out of 12 respondents answered affirmatively]

N ‘‘If so, in what ways?’’

N ‘‘Out of all the factors that could influence your motivation, whichone is the most important one to you?’’

In addition, more specific questions invited learners to talk abouttheir past experiences, such as

N ‘‘Have you ever been in a ‘good’ (‘bad’) learner group?’’ [Allrespondents replied positively to this question.]

N ‘‘How did being in that group influence your learning? Anyexamples?’’

Such qualitative interview questions attempted to illuminate a morecohesive picture of the role the class group played in learners’ L2motivation than the quantitative data alone could provide

Data Collection

Before data collection, consent from administrators and teachers wasobtained, and students were informed that participation in this study wascompletely voluntary The data collection period lasted 10 months, fromSeptember 2004 to June 2005 Questionnaires were administered to all

152 participants first (of which 127 valid questionnaires were received).Then, based on the questionnaire data, 12 interviewees were chosen toparticipate in the semistructured interviews, which were conducted inthe interviewees’ native language (Mandarin Chinese) Each interviewlasted approximately 30 min

Data Analysis

All of the 127 valid questionnaires were coded and keyed into SPSSfor statistical analysis Some simple descriptive statistical procedures(means, minimum, maximum, standard deviation) were conducted first.Then, t-tests were performed to explore the differences between thetarget groups A Pearson’s correlation test at two-tailed significance level

was also administered to test the study’s hypothesis, which looked atwhether group processes (group cohesiveness, norms) correlate withsome aspects of L2 motivation (self-efficacy, autonomous beliefs, andautonomous behaviors).

As for the qualitative interview data, all the interviews were transcribedfirst, then the transcripts were translated into English before the codingprocess began Sample coding categories, such as participants’ views of theinfluences of a learner group on their learning and the important components ofthe participants’ own motivation were developed from the sample probequestions discussed earlier: ‘‘In your opinion, is the learner groupimportant to your learning?’’ and ‘‘Out of all the factors that couldinfluence your motivation, which one is the most important one to you?’’While most of the coding categories seemed to follow closely with theinterview probe questions, the researcher also looked for emergentthemes by analyzing across the interview data to explore whether therewere any unexpected themes arising from the interview data Twounexpected themes were identified and coded, and one of them—the agefactor—is particularly relevant to the focus of this article; hence it will bediscussed later

Both quantitative data and qualitative data results will be presented indetail in the following section In the interest of brevity, qualitative datafrom various coding categories have been synthesized to present overallfindings relevant to the research focus

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Statistics of Each Class Group

Simple descriptive statistical procedures (means, minimum, maximum,standard deviation) were performed to answer the quantitative descriptiveresearch question exploring each group’s level of cohesiveness, norms,and motivation in terms of self-efficacy, autonomous beliefs, andautonomous behaviors Those results are seen in Tables 2 through 5

TABLE 2

Group 3A (Junior Group) Likert Scale Item Results

Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance Autonomous beliefs ( a 5 0.79) 28 1.20 2.80 4.00 3.55 0.33 0.11 Autonomous behaviors ( a 5

0.79)

28 2.10 1.50 3.60 2.83 0.49 0.24 Self-efficacy ( a 5 0.84) 29 1.80 1.70 3.50 2.71 0.48 0.23 Group cohesiveness ( a 5 0.83) 29 2.00 1.75 3.75 3.00 0.52 0.27 Group norms ( a 5 0.71) 26 1.70 1.90 3.60 2.63 0.38 0.14 Note SD 5 standard deviation.

As stated earlier, with alpha above the benchmark level (a 5 0.70)for all the multistatements sections (as shown in Tables 2–5), thestatements in each section correlate well with one another to give areliable overall measurement for each section The top three sections –autonomous beliefs, autonomous behaviors, and self-efficacy – explorethe questionnaire respondents’ perceptions of their L2 motivation; thebottom two sections – group cohesiveness and group norms – investigateperceptions concerning the characteristics of their class group.

Tables 2 and 3 provide descriptive statistics for the two junior groups

In both Tables 2 and 3, the highest mean score occurs in the firstsection, autonomous beliefs: Group 3A5 3.55, Group 3B 5 3.43 Thepicture that emerges indicates that the participants agreed with thestatements in this section, that is, they agreed that, along with theteacher, their own responsibility toward learning is a determinant intheir learning process There appears not to be a wide variation in thecombined mean of the motivation sections for Groups 3A and 3B(Group 3A5 3.03, Group 3B 5 2.95) However, there is a greater range

in the combined mean of the group characteristics sections for Groups3A and 3B (Group 3A5 2.82, Group 3B 5 3.00) Students in Group 3Bseemed to have a more positive view of their group than students inGroup 3A This could be due to students in Group 3B having had agreater sense of belonging to their group, or perhaps they shared thesame views about what constitutes appropriate behavior in the classroom.Tables 4 and 5 display the descriptive statistics for the two seniorgroups As with the junior groups, the highest mean score for the seniorgroups in both Tables 4 and 5 is the first section, autonomous beliefs:Group 4A5 3.51, Group 4B 5 3.56 This indicates that the students inthe senior groups, like those in the junior groups, agreed that theyshould take responsibility for their own learning This similarity is alsoseen in the combined mean score for Groups 4A and 4B with respect tothe motivation section (Group 4A5 2.94, Group 4B 5 2.98) However,

in the case of the group characteristics section, there was a differencebetween the junior and senior groups The senior groups were virtuallyalike in their responses (Group 4A5 2.70, Group 4B 5 2.69), whereas,

TABLE 3

Group 3B (Junior Group) Likert Scale Item Results

Sections N Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance Autonomous beliefs ( a 5 0.83) 31 1.67 2.22 3.89 3.43 0.37 0.14 Autonomous behaviors (a 5

0.78)

31 2.20 1.40 3.60 2.70 0.44 0.20 Self-efficacy (a 5 0.82) 31 1.80 2.00 3.80 2.71 0.46 0.20 Group cohesiveness ( a 5 0.79) 31 1.67 2.33 4.00 3.15 0.42 0.18 Group norms ( a 5 0.72) 29 1.60 2.00 3.60 2.85 0.37 0.14