Motivational Potential of Bilingual and Nonbilingual Programmes in Secondary and Tertiary Education

193 Porta Linguarum 36, June 2021 193-212 Motivational Potential of Bilingual and Nonbilingual Programmes in Secondary and Tertiary Education DanieL maDriD ORCID: 0000-0002-2198-7647 University of Granada Received: 16 November 2020 / Accepted: 1 June 2021 DOI: 10.30827/portalin.v0i36.16700 ISSN paper edition: 16977467, ISSN digital edition: 2695-8244 ABSTRACT: The aim of this research is to examine the overall degree of motivation among secondary school students and university students earning a bachelor’s degree in primary education in bilingual and non-bilingual programmes, and the motivational potential of ten dimensions, broken down into 60 variables, which interact in these programmes. To this end, a sample of 485 secondary school students (310 in bilingual programmes and 175 in non-bilingual programmes) and 332 bachelor’s degree students in primary education (160 in the bilingual degree programme and 172 in the non-bilingual programme) participated in the study. The findings indicate that secondary school students in non-bilingual programmes are overall more highly motivated than those in bilingual programmes, assigning a higher score than bilinguals to 21 out the 60 variables examined. While there are no significant differences in terms of overall motivation between the two groups compared in teaching degree programmes, EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction) students assigned a higher motivational value than non-EMI students to 32 variables. Finally, the study presents the resulting motivational potential of the 60 variables included in the ten dimensions analysed. Key words: motivation, bilingual education, bilingual bachelor’s degree, AICLE, CLIL, EMI programmes. Potencial motivador de los programas bilingües y no bilingües en educación secundaria y universitaria. RESUMEN: En este trabajo se ha investigado el grado de motivación global del alumnado de secundaria y de los estudiantes del Grado de Educación Primaria que cursan programas bilingües y no bilingües y el potencial motivador de diez dimensiones desglosadas en 60 variables que interaccionan en dichos programas. Para ello, se ha utilizado una muestra de 485 alumnos de secundaria (310 de programas bilingües y 175 de programas no bilingües) y de 332 alumnos del Grado de Educación Primaria (160 del grupo bilingüe y 172 del grado no bilingüe). Los resultados nos muestran que el alumnado de secundaria de programas no bilingües siente una motivación global más alta que el de programas bilingües y le asigna una puntuación más alta que los bilingües a 21 de las 60 variables estudiadas. En el Grado de Magisterio, aunque no existen diferencias significativas entre los dos colectivos comparados respecto a su motivación global, los estudiantes EMI (de Inglés como medio de instrucción) asignan un potencial motivador más alto que los demás a 32 variables. Por otra parte, el estudio da a conocer el potencial motivador de las 60 variables que integran las diez dimensiones estudiadas. Palabras clave: motivación, educación bilingüe, grado bilingüe, AICLE , CLIL, programas EMI. Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 194 1. IntroductIon It is complex and difficult to observe and define what motivates subjects in educational settings since this is internal to each individual, despite the reciprocity with the environment. Moreover, it is a condition that fluctuates in intensity, and for this reason the term “degrees of motivation” is often used. In the past, research on motivation has been linked to internal processes: needs, interests and goals. The choice of a certain action in a series of possibilities is one indicator of motivation, and consistency in the performance of certain activities is another example of conduct that reflects the degree of motivation. Even changes in academic performance have often been attributed to differing degrees of motivation and to their influence on the degree of persistence, effort and dedication put forth by students in educational settings (Lasagabaster, 2011; Coyle, 2014; Navarro and García Jiménez, 2018). Although they are gaining momentum at all educational levels, from primary school to university, the implementation of bilingual programmes in educational settings is still new and short on experience, which makes it essential to study the degree of motivation among the students participating in them. Thus, it will be possible to detect the potential strengths and the weaknesses of these programmes, and to gradually improve their quality, which is sometimes bitterly criticized in certain sectors (Marías, 2015; de Prada, 2015; Bruton, 2013). While there are numerous methodological options when it comes to examining student motivation, this study focuses on the perceptions of participants in secondary education and teaching degrees, given that their beliefs reflect their inner world and their imagined identity, influencing the kind of motivation they feel and their motivational states (Lorenzo Bergillos, 1997; Navarro Biescas, 1998; Madrid, 1999; Uribe, 2000; Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2001; Madrid, 2002; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009). With this methodological approach, the main objective of this research was to examine the motivational potential of bilingual education programmes (content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) programmes) and non-bilingual programmes (EFL programmes) as well as the overall degree of motivation among secondary school and teaching degree students. To this end, the research was based on the students’ perceptions of how variables in family and educational settings, the personal features of teachers and students, and the teaching and learning processes exerted influence on their motivational states. 2. theoretIcal framework and revIew of the lIterature on motIvatIon Motivation can be understood as an internal state in individuals which is influenced by certain needs or beliefs that generate favourable attitudes and interests towards a goal, and a desire that moves them to achieve it through dedication and continued effort because they enjoy it and feel satisfied when they achieve positive results (Madrid and Pérez Cañado, 2001; Madrid, 2002). Daniel MaDriD Motivational Potencial of Bilingual and... 195 2.1. Review of the concept of motivation and its influence on learning Diverse theories have attempted to define motivation and explain it from different perspectives over the years. In psychoanalysis (Freud, 1915), drives and instinctive needs play a fundamental role in subjects’ behaviour and motivation, in addition to hedonism, or the inclination to search for pleasure and happiness. The drive theory (Hull, 1951) explains individuals’ behaviour through stimuli and incentives that create habits. Subjects can be motivated by encouraging the behaviours prompted by these incentives or stimuli. In the achievement theory (Atkinson, 1964), learners’ expectations of success and their perceptions of their competence and self-efficacy for L2 learning influence their motivation, increasing or decreasing it depending on the success of their experiences during the teaching and learning process (Stipek, 1984; Atkinson, 1964; Nicholls, 1984; Ames and Ames, 1984 & 1985; Weiner, 1989). For proponents of the social learning theory (Rotter, 1954), the first source of motivation is our thoughts and our inner world. In educational settings, the image that individual teachers create of their students and how they externalize this is vitally important: if their achievements and skills are highlighted, students feel motivated and perform better, but if their weaknesses and mistakes are emphasized, this leads to discouragement and poor performance (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968). In this regard, teachers’ expectations often end up being something of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Brophy, 1983). The attribution theory proposed by Weiner (1972, 1989) suggests that motivation is based on three dimensions: the place of the causes or attributions of the subjects, their regularity and consistency, and the responsibility or degree of control over the events. Pinpointing the internal and external causal attributes leads to the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan, Connell & Deci, 1985; Corno and Rohrkemper, 1985). Particularly relevant to this theory is the student’s self-concept, self-esteem and perceptions on their ability to learn the FL (Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) and Dörnyei (2000) have highlighted the dynamic, cyclical and process-oriented nature of motivation. This conceptualization endeavours to integrate three phases of the motivational process: the initial or pre-action motivation, the action (or actional) motivation, and final (or post-action) motivation, which reflects the individuals’ emotional reaction when they have attained the goal more or less successfully (Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2001; Madrid, 2002;). In the late nineties, Schumann (1998, 1999) studied the neurology of L2 motivation (Dörnyei, 2003). This research led to the stimulation evaluation theory which is based on five dimensions: novelty, pleasantness, goal significance, coping potential and social image. In recent years, the imaginary identity theory, or self-system theory (Norton, 2000), which takes into account the students’ ideas, world and life views, their dreams for the future and their imaginary world, has become widely accepted (Markus & Nurius, 1986). The aim here is to bear in mind what Lave and Wenger (1991) dubbed the imagined communities of L2 speakers, because these are what guide the students’ learning process and afford them an imagined identity. The most important types of identities for motivation are: 1) The Ideal Self, which refers to the ideal image they would like to have in the future, 2) the Ought-to L2 Self, which represents an image with the traits and qualities they believe they should Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 196 have, and 3) the L2 Learning Experience, which refers to specific situational reasons related to the immediate learning environment (Dörnyei 2005 & 2009; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Dörnyei, Muir & Ibrahim, 2014). Another innovative concept proposed by Dörnyei, Muir and Ibrahim (2014) is something they call directed motivational current. This is a drive capable of stimulating and supporting long-term motivational behaviour with regard to L2 learning. This process involves the individuals’ views and their imagined reality, the perception of control over behaviour and progress, and the satisfaction of accomplishing a goal, which nourishes the students’ motivational state. The concept of motivation has also been enriched by Coyle’s process model (2011, 2014) and learning-oriented critical incident technique (LOCIT). The process model consists of the learning environment, which must be stimulating, collaborative and supportive, and the students’ degree of commitment. The LOCIT process engages teachers and students in a collaborative, dialogic process (Mercer, 2000; Wells, 1999). Several theories on L2 learning have acknowledged the importance of motivation and the role it plays in learning. For example, Krashen’s monitor theory (1982, 1985) features the affective filter, which is based on the importance of emotional factors and the motivation of the subjects, as essential elements regulating the learning processes. Both Lambert’s pyscho-social model (1974) and Clément’s social context model (1980) show that motivation is a key factor in L2 learning, which depends on the subjects’ attitudes toward learning and their degree of motivation. Finally, in Gardner’s socio-educational model (1985), the subjects’ individual differences, including their degree of motivation, partially explain the final outcomes of learning. This author has also shown that there is a strong positive correlation between motivation and the desire to learn the L2 and the desire to live and become integrated into the country where the L2 is spoken (Uribe, Gutiérrez-Pérez and Madrid (2013). 2.4. Studies on motivation in EFL contexts As several studies have shown (Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Lorenzo Bergillos, 1997; García Sánchez, 1999; Uribe, 2000), the classroom as a microsystem can modify students’ motivational thinking. In this educational setting, Skehan distinguishes four essential sources of motivation (1989, p. 49-50): learning and teaching activities, learning outcomes, punishment and rewards, and their effect on students’ extrinsic motivation (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Madrid, 2002). Numerous studies have discussed the most relevant sources of motivation for secondary school students in English class (Madrid, 1996; Manzaneda and Madrid, 1997, Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2001; Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2014; Navarro & García Jiménez, 2018). Madrid (1999, p. 56) emphasizes that overall motivation among secondary school students in English class is quite high (m=4.1, on a scale of 1 to 5 points). Girls (m=4.3) tend to display a greater degree of motivation than boys (m=3.8), although in certain cases these differences are not significant. This same study also reveals that the main sources of motivation in the classroom are, in order of importance: the instrumental value of English in today’s society (m=4.5), the personal and didactic features of the English teachers (m=4.18), the type of tasks done in class and the teaching method used (m=4.1). Daniel MaDriD Motivational Potencial of Bilingual and... 197 In the studies conducted on the teacher as a source of motivation (Madrid, Robinson et al. 1993 & Madrid, 1996), secondary school students indicated that what motivated them the most was when the teacher gave clear explanations, was pleasant and kind, had good knowledge of English and good pronunciation. However, strictness and severity, unpleasantness and frequent scolding, and setting homework and exams had a discouraging effect. The two environmental factors that have the strongest influence on student motivation are the school and teachers (m=4.3) and parents (m=4.1) (Madrid, 1996, p. 146). The main personal reasons that lead students to be motivated to study English include: benefiting from a fuller education and training (m=4.45), having better options of finding a good job in Europe (m=4.4), an interest in becoming acquainted with a foreign language and culture (m=4.35), the ability to expand their knowledge at university (m=4.2), and understanding TV and cinema in English (m=4.1) (Madrid, 1999, p.58). Madrid (2002) analysed the motivational potential of eighteen classroom motivation strategies in a sample of 89 compulsory secondary school students and 114 post-compulsory secondary students. The results showed that the strategies and resources with the greatest potential to motivate in the classroom are (p. 412): the use of new technologies, group work, responding to and meeting students’ needs and interests, student participation in class, getting good grades, meeting student’s expectations, and praise and rewards for work well done. On the other hand, the aspects that motivate them the least are: passive listening without participating in class and, surprisingly, frequent use of the L2 in class (Rubio Gómez, 1997; Lorenzo Bergillos, 1997, Navarro Biescas, 1998; Coyle, 2014 & Kubanyiova, 2014). 2.5. Studies on student motivation in CLIL contexts For Coyle (2006), there are several factors that may activate motivation in CLIL type classes. For example, motivated teachers often foster the students’ interest by making the content more relevant and the learning more fun, introducing activities in an attractive way, and bolstering students’ self-esteem and self-confidence. Cabezas Cabello (2010) and Lancaster (2016) have documented that bilingual programmes enhance the cognitive, cultural, social, affective and intellectual development of the participating students and considerably increase their motivation for L2 learning. Perez Cañado (2018a) has concluded that bilingual programmes have a positive impact on students’ confidence, motivation and participation in CLIL classes and, according to Dalton-Puffer (2008, 2009) and Ruiz de Zarobe (2011), CLIL programmes improve the understanding and use of the L2, students’ overall communication skills, their oral comprehension and expression, and the vocabulary, creativity and motivation of the learners. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009) conducted a study with 287 secondary school students and their findings showed that CLIL programmes helped create positive attitudes toward language learning in general and that students taking part in CLIL programmes showed more positive attitudes toward the English language used as a means of instruction than the EFL students. Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2014) have studied the aspects of CLIL classes that motivate and discourage secondary school students, finding that, while the students acknowledge that studying the curriculum in another language (English) is more difficult and requires additional effort, they are highly motivated. However, they highlight the difficulty Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 198 of these programmes compared with those taught in the native language and the amount of work that must be done to progress (p. 124). Some of the aspects they like the most are their linguistic progress in English, the variety of activities performed, watching videos and films, and group activities (p. 126). The aspects they find most discouraging are exams, the difficulty of studying in English and the approach of certain activities (p. 128). In another study, Lasagabaster and Doiz (2017) researched the influence of the CLIL approach on affective factors among secondary school students. Their findings revealed that motivation persists over time in non-CLIL programmes but they observed a considerable drop in the affective dimensions of the youngest CLIL students. They also found significant differences with regard to anxiety and, while the intrinsic, instrumental and integrative motivation of older students was high, as was their interest in languages, their interest and motivation dropped because of their anxiety levels. Arribas (2016) has examined the attitudes, motivation and receptive vocabulary outcomes of CLIL and non-CLIL students. The findings indicate that CLIL students showed better receptive vocabulary outcomes due to their higher degree of motivation. However, the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL students were not significant. Pérez Cañado (2018b) has also demonstrated, in several discriminant analyses with primary school subjects, that the differences between the groups were better explained in terms of motivation (particularly lack of interest) than in terms of other variables and, in secondary school motivation becomes an even more relevant factor. One can conclude from the findings by Navarro and García Jiménez (2018) that CLIL students are more motivated to learn English than non-CLIL students and that motivation plays a more important role in CLIL programmes than in non-CLIL ones (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017; Arribas, 2016). While all these studies have contributed to a better understanding of motivation in CLIL and non-CLIL (or EFL) secondary school students, there is still little research on motivation among these two types of students at university level enrolled in programmes using English as the language of instruction (EMI students). The study presented below aims to fill this gap somewhat by exploring the motivational power of today’s bilingual programmes and comparing it with the effect of non-bilingual programmes on the students’ degree of motivation at both secondary and university levels. 3. the study This study is an example of applied, empirical-descriptive research, which aims to explore the degree of motivation among students in bilingual and non-bilingual programmes at the compulsory secondary school and university levels. The research is cross-sectional in nature, given that the data collection process took place at a specific time (halfway through the school year) and, as seen below, combines the quantitative and the qualitative approaches through a final open item. 3.1. Aims As indicated in the introduction, the general objective of this paper is to examine the motivational potential of bilingual and non-bilingual programmes in secondary school and Daniel MaDriD Motivational Potencial of Bilingual and... 199 university education, based on the students’ perceptions of these teaching approaches. This overall aim has been broken down into several specific aims: 1) Understanding the overall degree of motivation of students in bilingual and nonbilingual programmes in secondary school and in primary education teaching degree programmes. 2) Examining the motivational potential of the variables involved in the dimensions studied: the family and educational/institutional settings, the personal features of the teachers and students, and the teaching and learning processes in the classroom. 3) Understanding the reasons why students feel less motivated by certain variables. 3.2. Sample The characteristics of the sample used to conduct this study are detailed in Table 1: Table 1. Characteristics of the sample SeconDary eDucation (n=485) eDucation Degree (n=332) Type of programme Bilingual (CLIL students) 310 63,9% Bilingual (EMI students) 160 48,2% Non bilingual (EFL students) 175 36,1% Non bilingual (Non EMI students) 172 51,8% School year Year 2 86 17,7% Year 1 105 31,6% Year 3 106 21,9% Year 2 94 28,3% Year 4 293 60,4% Year 3 74 22,3% Year 4 59 17,8% Gender Boys 234 48,2% Boys 71 21,3% Girls 251 51,8% Girls 261 78,6% The secondary school students are from the region of Andalusia and the education degree students attend the University of Granada. 3.3. Context: the bilingual and non-bilingual educational programmes examined The non-bilingual secondary school students attended school under the system regulated by Decree 1105/2014 (Official Gazette of Spain No. 3, 3/1/2015), Decree 111/2016 (Official Gazette of the Regional Government of Andalusia No. 22, 28/6/2016), and the Order of the Regional Government of Andalusia dated 14 July 2016 (Official Gazette of the Regional Government of Andalusia, 28/7/2016), which develops the curriculum for compulsory secondary education in the Autonomous Region of Andalusia. Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 200 The secondary school students in bilingual programmes followed the system regulated under Order 28 June 2011 (Official Gazette of the Regional Government of Andalusia No. 135, dated 12/7/2011), which governs bilingual education in the schools of Andalusia. According to this regulation, at least 40%-50% of the curriculum was taught in L2 at all the schools (Jáimez & López Morillas, 2011). The studies of university students in the non-bilingual program earning a degree from the School of Education at the University of Granada are governed by the Resolution of the Secretary of State for Universities and Research dated 17 December 2007, which establishes the conditions that must be met in the curricula of primary education teaching programmes, and by Order ECI/3857/2007, of 27 December, which sets the requirements for verification of primary education teaching degrees (Madrid Manrique & Madrid, 2014). Students in the bilingual degree program earned the same degree but 50% of the courses were taught in English (Madrid and Julius, 2020b). 3.4. Data collection instruments The data relating to the students’ degree of motivation in the controlled variables were obtained from the items in the survey in Appendix 1, which covers the following dimensions: 1. Variables in family and educational/institutional settings (v1-v4). 2. Variables related to personal features of teachers and students: personality traits, capabilities, commitment to teaching, linguistic and didactic training (v5-v14). 3. Variables linked to the process of teaching and learning the curriculum contents and the L2 (v15-60): planning and coordination (v15-v18), linguistic and communicative skills (v19-v24), classroom activities and teaching techniques (v25-v45), materials and resources (v46-v49), students’ grouping (v50-v52), evaluation techniques (53v55), extra-curricular activities (v56-v58), results (v59-v60) and global motivation (v61). For CLIL and EMI students, the items in Survey 1 referred to the bilingual program they were taking part in. For non-bilingual EFL students in both secondary school and university levels, the items referred to the non-bilingual program and to the subject of English as a second language. At the end of the survey, the students were asked to explain in writing why they felt less motivated by the variables to which they had given a score of less than three points. The survey implemented was validated in the studies by Madrid and Julius (2017) and Madrid and Roa (2018), and Cronbach’s alpha was used to calculate the reliability of the scale. However, when the survey was conducted, it was necessary to explain the meaning of several items to the secondary school groups because the technical wording of some items was difficult for these students to understand. 3.5. Techniques used to analyse the data The SPSS 20 statistics software was used for the data analysis and statistical calculations carried out. Basic descriptive statistics were calculated (mean and standard deviation), then Daniel MaDriD Motivational Potencial of Bilingual and... 201 they were evaluated to see if there were any significant differences among the student groups. To do this, the Student’s T-test or the Mann-Whitney U test were applied, depending on whether the score distributions were parametric or nonparametric, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05, that is, 95%. To verify the degree of statistical significance, Cohen’s d effect size was also calculated. The students’ explanations about the low degree of motivation in certain variables were indicated based on the remarks deemed by the author to most clearly illustrate the students’ opinions. 4. results and dIscussIon Cronbach’s alpha was used to calculate the reliability of the scale used in the surveys conducted on the four cohorts, showing the following results: Table 2. Reliability of the survey scale tyPe of Programme Programa cronbach aLPha n Secondary EFL students 0,93 175 Secondary CLIL students 0,94 310 EMI education students 0,95 160 EFL education students 0,96 172 As seen above, the scores are highly reliable, which indicates that there is a high degree of consistency and accuracy in the data supplied by the survey designed. 4.1. Secondary school students Secondary school students in non-bilingual programmes, consisting of EFL students, showed higher motivation overall (m=4) than CLIL students (m=3.66). As seen below, these differences are significant in favour of EFL students. These students gave high scores to: v4. The importance of bilingualism in society (m=4,31), v6. Students’ interests for the study program (m=4,18 ), and v1. Family support (m=3,96). However, the order of priority in CLIL students was: v4. The importance of bilingualism in society (m=4,20), v4. Family support (m=4,16), v6. Students interests for study program (m=3,85) and v13. Teachers subject preparation (m=3,84). 4.1.1. Differences between CLIL and EFL students By applying the Mann-Whitney U test, it was verified that, in addition to higher overall motivation, non-CLIL secondary school students feel significantly more motivated than those Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 208 Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Longman. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018a). The evolution of bilingual education in monolingual settings: an Andalusian case study. In P. Ronanowski & M. Jedynak (Eds.), Current research in bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 207-241). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-9239-3-12 Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018b). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction 57, 18-33. DOI: 10.1016/j. learninstgruc.2017.12.002. Rosenthal, R. Y. & Jacobson, L. (1968): Pygmalion in the classroom. Holt, Rinehart &Winston. Rotter, J. B. (1954): Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. Rubio Gómez, A. J. (1997). La motivación una vez más. Análisis de aspectos motivadores. In A. Martínez, P. Barros, J. A. De Molina & J. M. Becerra (Eds.), Enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras (pp. 353-360). Universidad de Granada. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into Applied Linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts, (pp. 129-53). Peter Lang. Ryan, R. M., Connell, J.P. & Deci, E.L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, vol 2: The classroom milieu (pp.13-47). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Schumann, J. H. (1998). The neurology of affect in language learning. Blackwell. Schumann, J. H. (1999). A neurobiological perspective on affect and methodology in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 28-42). Cambridge University Press. Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. I. (2008). Motivation and self-regulating learning: Theory, research and application. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. Edward Arnold. Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581. Stipek, D. J. (1984). The development of achievement motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, (vol 1): Student motivation (pp. 145-174). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Uribe, D. (2000): Actitudes de dos muestras de hispanohablantes de California y Andalucía hacia la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la lengua inglesa. Doctoral dissertation: University of Granada. Uribe, D., Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. & Madrid, D. (2013). Attitudes of Mexican-American students towards learning English as a second language in a structured immersion program. Porta Linguarum, 20, 205-221. Weiner, B. (1972): Theories of Motivation: from Mechanism to Cognition. Rand McNally. Weiner, B. (1989): Human Motivation. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. Daniel MaDriD Motivational Potencial of Bilingual and... 209 APPENDIX 1 Motivational potential of bilingual and non-bilingual education SeconDary eDucation (age: 15-16 ) uniVerSity StuDentS (eDucation Degree) CLIL students Non-CLIL students EMI students Non-EMI students VariabLeS MSDMSDMSDMSD 1. CONTEXT VARIABLES 1. Family support and involvement in the bilingual programme. 4,16 ,91 3,96 ,96 4,44 ,77 4,37 ,90 2. School management support 3,33 1,07 3,03 1,14 3,01 1,09 3,10 1,09 3. Support from the education authorities 3,14 1,07 3,23 1,11 3,04 1,07 3,04 1,07 4. Importance of bilingualism in society for people’s education and to find a good job. 4,20 1,02 4,31 ,84 4,61 ,64 3,99 1,03 1. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 5. Students’ general capacity, intelligence and abilities. 3,26 1,09 3,57 ,95 4,03 ,65 3,84 ,77 6. Students’ interest and enthusiasm for the study programme. 3,85 1,07 4,18 ,93 4,27 ,77 4,24 ,83 7. The attention and interest that teachers pay to the students’ learning styles and multiple intelligences. 3,35 1,05 3,26 1,12 3,39 1,08 3,43 1,09 8. Students’ personality traits: extroversion, sociability, risk-taking, perseverance,… 3,54 1,07 3,67 1,00 4,04 ,82 4,10 ,80 9. Teachers’ motivation and personal commitment to the programme. 3,39 ,98 3,34 1,03 3,56 ,97 3,58 1,08 10. Teachers’ personal qualities and personality traits. 3,35 1,02 3,55 1,03 3,63 ,88 3,60 ,99 11. Teachers’ linguistic preparation and second language level. 3,47 ,94 3,60 1,10 3,81 ,95 3,50 1,01 12. Teachers’ didactic training in CLIL. 3,39 ,99 3,49 ,97 3,69 1,00 3,66 1,08 13. Teachers’ preparation in non-linguistic subject contents to be taught. 3,84 1,00 3,25 1,23 4,11 ,83 3,91 ,928 Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 210 14. Involvement of native teachers in the programme. 3,11 1,22 3,64 1,05 3,74 1,37 3,31 1,13 2. TEACHING PLANNING AND COORDINATION 15. Preparation and implementation of adequate language projects planned in cooperation by teachers. 3,03 1,04 3,34 1,00 3,61 1,04 3,47 ,91 16. Integrated academic planning of linguistic and non-linguistic content. 3,05 ,99 3,34 ,96 3,65 ,92 3,47 ,81 17. Coordination, monitoring and control of the CLIL programme. 3,08 1,11 3,25 ,99 3,51 ,99 3,47 ,96 18. Balanced integration of subject contents and linguistic aspects of L2 in class. 3,15 1,00 3,34 ,95 3,70 ,93 3,35 ,96 3. LINGUISTIC COMPONENTS AND COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS 19. Emphasis on interactive and oral communication activities. 3,17 1,07 3,28 ,99 3,94 ,86 3,76 ,94 20. Emphasis on reading activities and the types of texts to be read. 3,13 1,05 3,17 1,02 3,66 ,99 3,56 ,94 21. Emphasis on written expression and the types of texts to be written. 3,05 1,22 3,29 1,00 3,68 ,93 3,67 ,94 22. Attention to cultural and intercultural aspects. 3,23 1,10 3,37 1,00 3,79 1,07 3,71 ,95 23. Emphasis on linguistic components: grammar, vocabulary, spelling, etc. 3,43 1,13 3,69 1,01 3,67 1,07 3,68 ,94 24. To care for pronunciation and oral expression in class. 3,28 1,06 3,43 1,02 3,69 1,16 3,64 1,09 4. TEACHING ACTIVITIES AND TECHNIQUES 25. Attention dedicated to practical activities of both linguistic and non-linguistic content. 3,02 1,16 3,32 ,91 3,96 1,00 3,76 ,97 26. Systematic repetition of instructions in class activities to facilitate learning. 3,44 1,03 3,61 1,11 3,94 ,94 3,73 ,99 27. Songs and game like activities. 2,76 1,39 2,87 1,26 3,81 1,22 3,30 1,35 28. Use of outlines, graphics & charts to facilitate learning 3,35 1,18 3,33 1,12 3,97 1,04 3,71 1,12 Daniel MaDriD Motivational Potencial of Bilingual and... 211 29. Speaking clearly to students in class. 3,65 1,05 3,75 1,03 4,37 ,77 3,88 1,17 30. Use of gestures and non-verbal communication to facilitate learning. 3,51 1,08 3,51 1,02 4,20 ,83 3,86 ,93 31. Adequate treatment of students’ errors in class 3,22 1,04 3,34 1,13 3,99 1,01 3,74 1,01 32. Providing feedback to students about their learning process. 3,18 1,06 3,38 1,09 4,21 1,00 3,78 1,07 33. Use of L1 to clarify concepts when unclear in L2. 3,66 1,18 3,65 1,06 4,20 ,98 3,49 1,03 34. Use of L2 by teachers in at least 50% of the subjects. 2,80 1,16 3,06 1,18 4,22 ,91 3,45 1,12 35. Frequent use of the L2 by students in communicating with their classmates. 2,11 1,14 2,72 1,20 3,75 1,10 3,20 1,05 36. Working with tasks and projects related to everyday life. 2,82 1,18 3,13 1,12 4,11 1,15 3,87 1,04 37. Affective relationship among teachers and students (Rapport). 3,12 1,14 3,23 1,15 3,71 1,10 3,49 1,06 38. Keeping discipline and classroom control 3,16 1,05 3,33 1,00 3,80 ,88 3,66 ,89 39. Input adaptation for comprehension in class according to the students’ diversity. 3,03 ,99 3,23 ,85 3,94 ,97 3,60 ,97 40. Employing a diversity of approaches, activities, exercises and tasks. 3,12 1,07 3,29 1,11 4,00 1,04 3,85 ,97 41. Homework 3,24 1,23 3,44 1,20 2,96 1,12 3,19 1,19 42. Incorporation of innovation projects to improve results. 3,08 1,12 3,36 1,10 3,97 ,97 3,66 1,04 43. Use of a portfolio as a learning and evaluation tool. 2,58 1,23 3,02 1,17 3,40 1,06 3,38 1,00 44. Emphasis on and attention paid to subject contents.3,14 1,05 3,44 1,03 3,80 ,87 3,57 ,90 45. Motivating students in class by highlighting successes and downplaying mistakes. 2,92 1,28 3,23 1,26 4,23 1,07 3,79 1,14 5. MATERIALS AND RESOURCES 46. Availability of academic materials and human resources. 3,59 1,10 3,65 1,04 4,35 ,84 3,91 ,91 Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 212 47. Variety of audiovisual material and “realia”. 3,52 1,14 3,49 1,01 4,32 ,75 3,87 ,94 48. Use of ICTs to facilitate learning activities 3,22 1,26 3,34 1,20 4,22 ,87 3,83 ,93 49. Effective tutorial system for bilingual subjects. 3,07 1,24 3,25 1,23 4,34 ,87 3,97 ,82 6. STUDENTS GROUPING IN CLASS 50. Students’ individual work 3,57 1,09 3,55 1,06 3,99 ,91 3,76 ,99 51. Pair work 3,47 1,08 3,53 ,935 4,04 ,90 3,82 ,94 52. Student’s and teachers’ cooperative and group work. 3,45 1,12 3,53 1,12 4,06 1,09 4,01 7. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES 53. Application of ongoing evaluation system. 3,49 1,11 3,42 1,13 4,07 ,96 3,95 54. Periodic evaluation and control by tests.3,27 1,29 3,32 1,15 3,66 1,02 3,48 55. Application of student self-evaluation in student marks. 2,72 1,30 3,30 1,16 3,89 1,19 3,72 1,13 8. EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES WHICH ENCOURAGE LEARNING 56. Participation in suitable extracurricular activities. 2,81 1,38 3,20 1,39 4,20 1,08 3,46 1,27 57. Living in English-speaking countries. 2,69 1,50 3,07 1,43 4,47 ,99 3,47 1,31 58. Language exchanges with native speakers. 3,13 1,43 3,10 1,45 4,45 ,98 3,48 1,34 9. ACADEMIC RESULTS 59. Obtaining a good academic achievement in non-linguistic subjects. 3,44 1,08 3,71 1,10 4,57 ,71 3,88 1,04 60. Achieving a good level of English (A2 in Primary and B2 in Secondary). 3,11 1,31 3,46 1,28 4,64 ,65 3,81 1,04 61. Your global motivation: degree of interest, and general motivation 3,66 ,98 4,00 ,73 3,90 ,85 3,88 ,89 In case you have assigned a score of less than 3 points to some variables, explain your personal reasons why these aspects do not motivate you: …………………………….