Literature Review: Affect In Language Learning (continued)
Previous pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

3.3.6. The Learning Environment
Mantle-Bromley (1995:383) observes that "without a positive learning atmosphere, students may well gain little or nothing from new curricular infusions". Indeed, whatever the curriculum, the teaching methodology, the textbook, or other institutional factors, the "business of learning" (Fraser 1986:foreword) is typically carried out in classrooms, where goals of education such as concern for community, concern for others, and commitment to the task in hand, must be promoted and modelled if they are to be acquired. All too often, however, assessment and research rely heavily and sometimes exclusively on academic achievement, thereby promoting such achievement above other professed learning outcomes. Thus, in addition to a focus on the learner as a thinking individual (Stevick 1976:110; Sano et al. 1984:172), educationalists cite a constructive learning "climate" (Fraser 1986:182) as a valuable means to learning and a worthwhile end in itself. Legutke & Thomas (1991) quote principles of Confluent Education and "Gestalt" therapy, stressing the importance of trust in the establishment of such an environment:

A learning environment conducive to growth includes an atmosphere of trust, forms of interaction between partners, learning situations which stimulate encounters, and above all, learning arrangements which allow for creative ways of exploration by making contact with both the world inside the learner and the world outside. (1991:43)

Ely (1986a) suggests an inverse relationship between "language class discomfort" and personality traits such as risk-taking and sociability, and Sano et al. (1984) claim that creative production is possible only in a "non-threatening environment" which encourages meaningful learning and the creative use of English. They see learning as dependent on:

... warm-hearted interaction between teachers and learners, as well as among learners themselves. This friendly interaction is, in our opinion, the most essential factor in successful language learning. (Sano et al 1984:171)

Research into the learning environment can be traced back to Murray (1938), who uses the terms alpha press and beta press in a similar manner to the low inference and high inference measures of later researchers. Low inference measures (alpha press) itemise specific phenomena (e.g. the number of student questions), and high inference measures (beta press) and are concerned with perceptions relating to classroom events (e.g. the degree of teacher friendliness) (cf. Medley & Mitzel 1963; Rosenshine & Furst 1973; Dunkin & Biddle 1974; Peterson & Walberg 1979; Fraser 1986:8). Early classroom environment instruments focussed on student perceptions of actual classroom conditions, but more recent studies included student perceptions of preferred learning environments, and teacher perceptions of actual and preferred environments, the intention being to predict cognitive and effective learning outcomes from these perceptions (Walberg 1968; Anderson & Walberg 1974; Fraser 1981; Fraser & Walberg 1981;). Fraser & Walberg (1981) list some advantages of student perceptual measures over observational techniques:

1. Paper-and-pencil perceptual measures are more economical than classroom observation techniques which involve the expense of trained observers.
2. Perceptual measures are based on student's experiences over many lessons, while observational data are restricted to a very small number of lessons.
3. Perceptual measures involve the pooled judgements of all students in a class, whereas observation techniques typically involve only a single observer.
4. Students' perceptions, because they are the determinants of student behaviour more so than the real situation, can be more important than observed behaviours.
5. Perceptual measures of classroom environment typically have been found to account for considerably more variance in student learning outcomes than have directly observed variables.

The Learning Environment Inventory (LEI - Fraser, Anderson & Walberg 1982) and the Classroom Environment Scale (CES - Moos & Trickett 1974), were early attempts to investigate such perceptions, though they excluded some individualised, inquiry-based aspects. The Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ - Fraser 1985b) was developed to measure those factors which differentiate conventional classrooms from those with either open or inquiry-based approaches. Fraser (1986) supplies a list of studies using the ICEQ (table 25, below): 

TABLE 25: STUDIES OF ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT OUTCOMES AND CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT (BASED ON FRASER 1986:91-92) 

These studies (above) suggest that promotion of classroom environment characteristics such as cohesiveness, goal direction and democracy produce consistently positive influences on learning, and that teachers can expect students to achieve better when there is a greater similarity between actual and preferred classroom environments. (Fraser 1986:137), though Moos (1974) makes the point that there is a tendency for individuals to perceive their actual setting as being less favourable than their preferred setting. Fraser acknowledges the tentativeness of these findings, but claims that they provide:

considerable evidence to support the general proposition that the nature of classroom environments does have an important influence on students' achievement of cognitive and attitudinal goals ... (and that there is) consistent support for the predictive validity of student perceptions in accounting for appreciable amounts of variance in learning outcomes, often beyond that attributable to student characteristics such as pretest performance, general ability or both. Furthermore this pattern has been replicated. (1986:118)

Walberg (1975) and Fraser (1981b) urge educators to incorporate classroom environment dimensions into their evaluations, and to view socio-psychological classroom processes as valuable ends in their own right, rather than relying exclusively on standard achievement criteria in curriculum evaluation (Walberg 1975), since classroom variables "have differentiated revealingly among the curricula when a variety of cognitive outcome measures have shown little sensitivity" (Welch & Walberg 1972).

Finally, Pine & Boy (1977) list factors that influence and facilitate learning in terms of the classroom environment[1]. They claim that learning is facilitated in an atmosphere:

1. ... which encourages people to be active;
2. ... that facilitates the individual's discovery of the personal meaning of ideas;
3. ... that emphasises the uniquely personal and subjective nature of learning;
4. ... in which difference is good and desirable;
5. ... that consistently recognises the right to make mistakes;
6. ... that tolerates ambiguity;
7. ... in which evaluation is a co-operative process with emphasis on self-evaluation;
8. ... which encourages openness of self rather than concealment of self;
9. ... in which people are encouraged to trust in themselves as well as in external sources;
10. ... in which people feel they are respected;
11. ... in which people feel they are accepted;
12. ... which permits confrontation.
13. ... in which the teacher creates conditions by which he loses the teaching function.
14. ... in which instruction is carefully personalised in an attempt to meet the individual needs, interests, and abilities of students.

Pine & Boy (1977) also claim that learning is facilitated in an environment:

1. ... in which the materials provided are perceived as meaningful and relevant to the student;
2. ... in which there is freedom to peruse personal interests, raise questions, make decisions, explore, and discover;
3. ... in which provocative interest centres and materials that demand interaction and constant investigation are provided to help bring about self-initiated learning;
4. ... in which an attitude of competitiveness need not exist;
5. ... in which the student has the freedom to make mistakes and still feel competent;
6. ... in which opportunities are provided for the student to grow socially, emotionally, and intellectually though working as an individual, and as part of a wide variety of group and peer learning situations;
7. ... in which respect, trust, love, and concern for one another are nurtured;
8. ... in which the teacher's role is facilitator of learning.

3.3.7. Affect in the classroom - conclusion.
Investigation into the "effect of affect" (Scovel 1978) is an  extension of a question at the heart of much SLA research (why some learners learn better than others), which Stevick  answers in terms of internal processes: "success depends less on materials, techniques, and linguistic analysis, and more on what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom" (1980:4). Some of the strongest correlations between affective variables and achievement measures involve anxiety, and research into anxiety and fear (fear of failure and fear of success) shows that affect can have negative influences on the learning situation, as well as positive ones (Gardner 1985). Attention to affective aspects therefore also means investigating how negative emotions can be overcome, since anxiety, fear, stress, anger, depression, and negative reactions can harm the learning environment, making teaching techniques useless (Arnold & Brown 1999:2):

Disruptions of existing mental constructs, particularly those relating to oneself, often entail strong feelings ... the necessity of acknowledging ignorance and imperfection ... the fear that one will be inadequate to fill the gaps, are sufficient reasons to feel distress (Bernstein 1989; Curran 1972; Stevick 1980; Sussman 1989). Interpersonally, learners face the risk of shame before others (and self) for perceived inadequacy (Elson 1989; Morrison 1989) (Ehrman 1999:79).

Dickinson (1987:26) claims that a self-instructional mode can help to control affective factors through promoting empathy, reducing inhibition, and increasing self-assessment and individualisation (cf. Underhill: 1989:258).

Recent research on affective variables has focused on naturalistic enquiry (Bailey 1983; Horwitz et al. 1986; Price 1991) and on the interaction between language anxiety and various moderator variables: i) classroom activity and test type (Scott 1986; Lavine & Oxford 1990; Young 1990; Crookall & Oxford 1991; Koch & Terrell 1991; Madsen et al 1991; Price 1991); ii) competitiveness (Bailey 1983); iii) learning styles and personality types (Ehrman & Oxford 1990; Lavine & Oxford 1990); iv) risk-taking (Ely 1986a); v) beliefs about language learning (Horwitz & Sadow, submitted); and vi) attitudes (Phillips 1990; Price 1991). Brown (1973) also discusses ethnocentric factors such as the learner's willingness or unwillingness to take on a new identity related to the target language; and social factors such as empathy. Aoki (1999) and Reid (1999) describe the classroom political implications of affect, Schumann (1999) investigates the neuro-physiology of affect and learning, Kohonen (1999) and others look into implications of incorporating affect into assessment procedures, and Stevick (1999:55) describes how affect influences learning by shaping and reshaping the networks of long-term memory and by "cluttering up” processing capacity. Heron (1992) proposes a model of multi-modal learning with four modes of learning from experience (action, conceptual, imaginal, emotional), at the base of which is the "affective” emotional mode (awareness of learning).

A number of researchers draw attention to the importance of the teacher in promoting learning environments "which are cognitively and affectively expanding, ... which enable the learner to become a more adequate and knowledgeable person” (Pine & Boy 1977:iii), and which recognises the place of affect in that process (e.g. Brock 1994:51), though research has indicated that teachers' attitudes are "the one variable in the dynamic of curricular innovation least susceptible to change" (Young & Lee 1987). Stanley (1999), building on work by Dewey (1933) and Schön (1983; 1987; 1991), stresses the need for an affective approach to teaching, proposing three basic principles for developing a reflective teaching practice:

1.  Teachers tend to have emotional reactions during teaching-learning situations.

2. Teachers are the agents of their reflective processes.

3.  Teachers learn reflection through relationship (Stanley 1999:123).

Reid calls attention to the responsibility of teachers to "provide the scaffolding for more effective and efficient learning" (Reid 1999:305; cf. Guild 1994) by raising student awareness of affect, and then listening to the students as they express their needs, beliefs and perceptions. In fact Underhill sees the act of "really listening to the student and to the content of what he or she says" (1989:256) as the most dramatic effect on the learning atmosphere, since "our students don't necessarily need reassurance, what they need is to be heard" (1989:256). Such an emphasis on the student presupposes a learning climate of trust and clarity, which Legutke & Thomas (1991:64) see as an indispensable goal, governing teachers' choices and preceding the learning process, though depending on that process for its practical realisation. Awareness of the need for this learning climate is generally seen as more facilitating than tasks, techniques, or principles, since "doing the same things with a different awareness seems to make a bigger difference than doing different things with the same awareness” (Underhill 1989:260).

Carl Rogers (1951) points out that people are always motivated,  and that the general direction is towards health and growth (Pine 1977:111). Thus all learners regard themselves as learning a language for some special purpose (Breen & Candlin 1980:94), though they may be unsure of or unable to articulate this purpose. Raising awareness of the importance of affect for the students will promote the development of personal autonomy and the improvement of learning efficiency (Dickinson 1987:35), producing mutually supportive self-motivators who are "able to participate fully in society, both freely and responsibly: students ready for change" (Reid 1999:306). Aoki (1999:153-4) and Rogers (1980:294) draw attention to a political interpretation of such a situation, in that changes in the "power of control in interpersonal relationships" and "the effects of such power-oriented actions on individuals or on systems" (Rogers 1980:294) are political concepts, and that a student-centred holistic approach to teaching and learning, which recognises the importance of affect and attempts to help students become aware of this, will necessarily involve such shifts of power. However, there is still much research to be done (cf. Reid 1999), including research into the implementation of affect in the language classroom, into the entire field of "affect and learning", the validity and reliability of self-report (and other) instruments, the neurophysiological bases for cognitive and affective learning styles and strategies, "and even the commonly accepted definitions for such terms as learning, motivation, student-centered, ... and even anxiety" (Reid 1999:298). Reid also warns of the need to work toward "changing current mindsets that prevent affect from being integrated into language programs, curricula, and lesson plans" (Reid 1999:298), and Schumann (1975:232) calls for "new and varied research paradigms [to] be explored", especially in the affective domain.

A humanistic view of teaching has tended to be associated with consideration of affect, reflecting qualities described by Carl Rogers (1951) as being possessed by everyone, but rarely developed in a systematic way: genuineness; unconditional acceptance; and empathy:

... there is no substitute for personal warmth, tolerance and a positive attitude to people, to oneself and to others. (Legutke & Thomas 1991:35)

Education becomes a meaningless endeavour unless the education acquired has some impact on the human condition. (Pine & Boy 1977: 237)

The more the teacher humanises his teaching, the more teaching humanises him. The more the teacher cares for his students, the more they will care for him. The more the teacher frees his students to grow, the more he frees himself to grow. (Pine & Boy 1977: 237)

However, just as a classroom with no consideration of affect "is mere mechanical manipulation" (Stevick 1999:56), the same author also warns that attention only to affect "is mere sentimental manipulation". If a balance can be found between feelings and purposes ...:

... something both beautiful and effective can emerge. This will still not be the philosopher's stone of the alchemists, but it may enable some wonderful chemistry among the people in the classroom. (Stevick 1999:56)