Learning to trust - trusting to learn: Promotion of positive affect through language-learning materials.

Andrew Finch, Ph.D.
Kyungpook National University
December 2002
Based on the author’s Ph.D. Thesis (Manchester, 2000)

Abstract

This paper documents an attempt carried out by the author over three years, in a university in Korea (1997 – 2000), to devise a collection of learning materials for a program which would satisfy Stevick’s assertion that “success depends less on materials, techniques, and linguistic analysis, and more on what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom” (Stevick 1980, p. 4). The aim of the materials was therefore to be disposable; to encourage users to autonomously conduct ongoing needs analyses, to cooperatively take on learning projects seen by them as appropriate, to self-assess, to branch out on their own learning paths, and finally to leave the book at home, as they became fluent in the skills of self-directed learning. In the process of authoring, piloting and evaluating these materials, it became evident that trust was a sine qua non in the establishment of a learning environment conducive to such goals.

1. Introduction

Trust between teacher (T) and students (Ss) is an important affective factor in the EFL classroom, since it determines the relationships between the participants in the learning process, and therefore impacts directly on that process. As with respect, trust is a mutual quality, and must flow in all directions (T-S, S-T, S-S) if affective filters (Krashen, 1981) are to be successfully disabled, and teaching/learning to be efficient and effective. A number of authors (cf. Sano et al. 1984, p. 171; Underhill, 1989, p. 258; Legutke & Thomas 1991, p. 35; Hadfield, 1992) overwhelmingly identify trust as essential to language learning, though in practice (as with the case of communicative classes [Karavas-Doukas, 1996, p. 187]) language classrooms often continue to be threatening environments (Finch, 2001), with teachers imposing their opinions of life and language learning, dictating what, how and when to study, chastising students for using the L1, accusing students of “cheating”, refusing to believe students’ excuses for being late, etc. On a less “obvious” level are the assumptions that the teacher takes into the classroom, and which often lead to micro-managed communicative activities, in which the teacher is the dispenser of communication, and in which traditional roles remain unchanged.

Without a positive learning atmosphere, students may well gain little or nothing from new curricular infusions. (Mantle-Bromley 1995, p. 383).

This paper describes the guiding principles and the observed results of learning materials co-designed by the author for a program carried out in the Language Center of Andong National University during the three academic years of 1997, 1998 and 1999. These materials aimed to promote learning environments based on the establishment of trust, and by doing so, to empower teachers and students to investigate appropriate learning paths, and to avoid the controlled communication” lessons described in the previous paragraph. Research which began as a formative attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of task-based materials was gradually revised in the light of teacher/student feedback, as promotion of positive affect became the guiding principle of the program, and language learning took its place as a by-product of improved attitudes to learning.

2. History of research

Attention to affect as a factor in the language learning process can be seen as originating in educational theories (e.g. the humanist approach to teaching and learning [Holt 1976]), which followed educational and philosophical (not psycholinguistic) rationales, and which were intended for other subject areas (Freire 1970; Stenhouse 1975), though coinciding significantly with views of applied linguists such as Widdowson (1983) and Brumfit (1984) on the open-endedness and creativity of language (White 1988, p. 35). 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 (Young 1990; Crookall & Oxford 1991; Koch & Terrell 1991; Price 1991);
ii. competitiveness (Bailey 1983);
iii. learning styles and personality types (Ehrman & Oxford 1990; Lavine & Oxford 1990);
iv. risk-taking (Ely 1986);
v. beliefs about language learning (1995);
vi. attitudes (Phillips 1990; Price 1991).

Brown (1974) 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. Heron (1992) proposes a multi-modal learning model, with four modes of learning from experience (action, conceptual, imaginal, emotional), at the base of which is the “affective” emotional mode (awareness of learning). Aoki (1999) and Reid (1999) describe the 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, p. 55) describes how affect influences learning by shaping and reshaping the networks of long-term memory and by “cluttering up” processing capacity.
Despite this wealth of “affective” literature, there is little which deals specifically with trust in the language classroom (cf. Legutke and Thomas [1991], who refer to principles of Confluent Education and “Gestalt” therapy). However, the reader is referred to two overviews of the study of affect in language teaching and learning: i) Schumann (1975) offers an excellent review of early SLA research and literature on affective factors (including age); and ii) Arnold & Brown (1999) provide a perspective of the language learner as an individual (experiencing anxiety, beliefs, extroversion/introversion, inhibitions, learner styles, motivation/self-esteem issues, etc.), and as a participant in a socio-cultural situation (empathy, classroom transactions, cross-cultural processes).

3. Trust in the classroom

The “business of learning” (Fraser 1986, foreword) is typically carried out in classrooms, where educational goals 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. This learning environment contains learners with their own personal histories, values, assumptions, beliefs, rights, duties, obligations and learning styles (cf. Donato 2000, p. 45), for whom the learning task is a means of perceiving and using linguistic affordances (Van Lier 2000, p. 252) as appropriate, fostered by a climate of cooperative social interaction which “produces new, elaborate, advanced psychological processes that are unavailable to the organism working in isolation” (Vygotsky 1986, p. 61). Research into this learning environment can be traced back to Murray (1938), whose early classroom environment instruments focussed on student perceptions of actual classroom conditions. More recent studies include student perceptions of preferred learning environments and teacher perceptions of actual and preferred environments, the intention being to predict cognitive and affective learning outcomes from these perceptions (Walberg 1968; Anderson & Walberg 1974; Fraser 1981; Fraser & Walberg 1981). 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, which suggests that promotion of classroom environment characteristics such as cohesiveness, goal direction and democracy has consistently positive influences on learning, and that teachers can expect students to achieve more when there is a greater similarity between actual and preferred classroom environments (Fraser 1986, p. 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.
Reid (1999) points to the responsibility of teachers to “provide the scaffolding for more effective and efficient learning” (Reid 1999, p. 305) by raising student awareness of affect, and then listening to the students as they express their needs, beliefs and perceptions. Underhill sees this act of “really listening to the student and to the content of what he or she says” (1989, p. 256) as having a dramatic effect on the learning atmosphere, since “our students don’t necessarily need reassurance, what they need is to be heard” (1989, p. 256). Such a student-centred approach presupposes a learning climate of trust and clarity, which Legutke & Thomas (1991, p. 64) see trust 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 trusting learning climate is generally seen as more facilitating than innovative 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, p. 260).

A learning environment conducive to growth includes an atmosphere of trust. (Legutke & Thomas 1991, p. 43)

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, p. 171)

A number of researchers thus 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, p. iii), and which recognise the place of affect in that process (e.g. Brock 1994, p. 51). All too often, however, curriculum, teaching methodology, textbook, assessment and research, rely heavily and sometimes exclusively on narrowly-defined academic achievement, promoting “education from the neck up” (Rogers 1951) above other learning outcomes. A humanistic view of teaching, on the other hand, has tended to be associated with consideration of affect, reflecting qualities (i.e. genuineness, unconditional acceptance, and empathy) described by Rogers (1951) as being possessed by everyone, but rarely developed in a systematic way:

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

Pine & Boy (1977) list factors that influence and facilitate learning in terms of the classroom environment. They claim that learning is facilitated in an atmosphere (items 1-13) and environment (items 14-22)… :

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;
15. in which the materials provided are perceived as meaningful and relevant to the student;
16. in which there is freedom to peruse personal interests, raise questions, make decisions, explore, and discover;
17. in which provocative interest centres and materials that demand interaction and constant investigation are provided to help bring about self-initiated learning;
18. in which an attitude of competitiveness need not exist;
19. in which the student has the freedom to make mistakes and still feel competent;
20. 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;
21. in which respect, trust, love, and concern for one another are nurtured;
22. in which the teacher’s role is facilitator of learning. (Items 1 – 13, Pine & Boy 1977, p. 122; items 14 – 22, Pine & Boy 1977, p. 1977)

As can be seen in this list, learning for Pine & Boy occurs most effectively in a learning environment in which the teacher is a learning resource (rather than a controller of learning) and in which the learners take responsibility for their learning, in an atmosphere of trust and non-competitiveness. Though mentioned explicitly only twice (numbers 9 & 22), trust is implicit in all the factors, and lies at the heart of the student-centred approach to learning.

4. Trust in the materials

At the time of the initiation of the study (1997), commercially available EFL textbooks in Korea tended to subscribe to teacher-centred presentation of formal concepts (Breen 1987, p. 86), and gave little attention (beyond the contents page) to promotion of autonomy, positive affect, learner training, cultural sensitivity/suitability and critical thinking. It was therefore decided by the author to take the “rocky” path of producing learning materials written “under difficult circumstances by amateurs” (O’Neill 1982), which would recognise the role of the individual learner, emphasise affective rather than cognitive development, de-emphasise the transmission of a fixed body of knowledge, and focus on the capacity to learn independently, to develop effective thinking techniques, and to learn how to learn.
As with Legutke & Thomas’s (1991) project-task typology, therefore, the textbooks went “beyond the experience-activating exercises of the humanistic approaches” (Legutke & Thomas 1991, p. 64), and focused on activities which have a language-teaching orientation:

1. trust-building and relaxation (e.g. TWA page 110, “The Line”; page 162, “A Good Thing”,);
2. awareness and sensitivity training (e.g. TWA page 121, “Eye to Eye”,);
3. information-sharing activities (e.g. TWA page. 111, “Please Fill This In”; page 67, “Norway”);
4. thinking strategies and problem-solving (e.g. TWA page 154, “Eggs”);
5. imagination-gap, fantasy and creative expression (e.g. TWA pages 87/8, “Group Story & Mask-making”; page 95, “A Letter to Myself”);
6. role-playing and creative dynamics (e.g. TWA page 120, “The Best Person for the Job”; page 152, “Meetings Project”);
7. interaction and interpersonality (e.g. TWA pages 38/9, “News Interview”; page 150, “Titanic”);
8. values clarification and discussion (e.g. TWA page 168, “Loudly”; page 55, “Me-Bag”);
9. process evaluation (e.g. TWA pages 201, 182, 209-12).

It must be emphasized that the textbooks were the agents of their own obsolescence; that if they were successful, then the resultant self-directed students would have the skills and the motivation to continue learning without them. The textbooks therefore focused on development of learning-skills, assessment skills, and on the promotion of positive affect (self-esteem) offering students the freedom to select, interpret, seek assistance, and adapt, as they wished, and encouraging teachers to take on the role of language counsellor. Unlike other textbooks, the contents used language as a means rather than as an end, they required students (not teachers) to manage the flow of learning, and positive attitude change was at their core.
The books were culturally sensitive, having been written in Korea by Korean and English co-authors, and therefore did not present white ethnocentric role models or espouse foreign values and life-styles, which might have encouraged students to withdraw from language learning. Instead, regular “Culture Pages” encouraged students to examine their own culture, and to discuss other cultures from this perspective. Chapter 12 of Now You’re Talking (NYT) extended this approach by taking “Cultural Identities and Differences” for its title, and the original (1998) version of Tell Me More! (TMM) used maps of Andong in Chapter 10 (a map of Seoul was substituted in the 2000 version).
An example of the integrated learner-training that occurs in The Way Ahead (TWA) appears in the various “Cassette Journal” entries. This idea grew from a Learning Journal (Finch 1998), which was used in the pilot year of the programme, but which was found to divert student attention away from the conversation sessions. It was therefore incorporated into TWA in the form of reflective instruments and a “cassette journal”. Thus in appendix A, students are encouraged to make a self-profile, using positive words, and to record it on their cassette tape. As well as being a confidence-booster, this activity is one of a number which invite students to make their own learning journal on cassette tape, to make extra additions whenever they wish, and to let the teacher add his/her own input, thus providing an interesting record of developing oral skills over the two semesters of the course.

4.1. Positive affect

A sample page from TWA (figure 1, below) will serve to demonstrate the focus on positive affect. This page comes from the “Drama” project, appearing just after students have chosen a drama, roles and scenes. The fact that students were allowed to choose a Korean drama is part of the trust-building and relaxation that continues with the first activity – “Email”. In this activity, students email each other, using a list of email addresses which they made in the introduction section (TWA p. 15). Students are asked to copy their email message to the teacher, but in similar activities (e.g. “Phone-call”, TWA p. 20), students are trusted to make the call and to talk to each other in English, without “proving” anything to the teacher.

Figure 1: The Way Ahead, p. 87.

“Group Story”
The next activity is a group story, placed here to encourage students to think about making the script for their drama. One student in the group makes a sentence, and then the others make new sentences in turn, gradually constructing a story. In addition to involving all the members of the group in decision-making about the direction their own drama will take, students can explore possibilities in what can become a group brainstorming session. The final activity on p. 87 of TWA is an introduction to the mask-making activity on the next page (p. 88).

Mask-building promotes positive affect, since students can fashion their own personality for their role in the drama. Use of English also becomes more meaningful, through its association with tangible items (glue, string, plates, paper, scissors), as students instruct each other in the making of masks. The explanation about mask-making on page 87 is a further example of the trust that is extended to students on every page of the books. Whatever the activity, (including assessment) the students are trusted to perform it and to succeed in their efforts.

4.2 Assessment

In the Junior year of the ANU language programme, assessment was process-based and reflective, the mid-term and final evaluation sessions functioning as signposts along the learning path, stimulating discussion and reflection on achievement of learning goals, and promoting planning for future learning. These evaluations were therefore “learning tools” rather than tests of proficiency, and could be incorporated into any stage of the project-making process. This self-assessment through “learning conversations” (Harri-Augstein & Thomas, 1991) was an integral part of the reflective cycle that was a feature of the conversation course in the Junior year.

Figure 2: TWA p. 202

As can be seen in the illustration of the final evaluation session, (figure 2, TWA, p. 202), there is encouragement of positive affect in this evaluation session, as well as promotion of autonomy. Test-anxiety is lowered by allowing students to attend in self-selected groups, bringing their textbooks (which they can refer to) and their cassette journals (which they can invite the teacher to comment on and add to). The teacher can use self-assessment sheets (TWA pp. 196-200) to stimulate discussion if necessary, and he/she can (later) record input (e.g. about the student’s individual progress over the semester) onto the cassette journals if the students wish

In part 1 of the evaluation session (see illustration above), students talk about their initial learning goals (TWA page 21) and whether these have changed over the semester. In part 2, they then discuss the projects they devised and performed during the semester. Marking criteria are available online prior to the evaluation session, and the teacher is allowed to join in the conversation to offer advice on issues that arise. Students are thus encouraged to see this as a useful (and painless) learning tool rather than a proficiency test.
The evaluation session was flexible in design, and could be viewed as an “Alternative Schedule” for assessment. Students were free to devise their own evaluation session if they wished (cf. McClean 1995). This occurred with some classes in the second semester of 1999, when devising how and what to assess took on the nature of an “evaluation project”.
Self-assessment was integral to the Junior program, but was not a part of the final grade in the Freshmen year, though teachers were encouraged to let students fill in their own participation sheets and therefore to determine up to 75% of their grade. This was difficult for some teachers to agree with, and opened up debate about the validity of self-assessment, providing a valuable opportunity for discussing this topic and the associated one of fostering a trust-based relationship in the classroom. In the author’s experience (in this study and while in the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong), students who were allowed to assign their own participation mark each lesson became more aware of why interaction was important for language learning, and were noticeably more responsible, seeing value in participating and in being on time. In other words, they were being “heard”:

Our students don’t necessarily need reassurance, what they need is to be heard. (Underhill, 1989, p. 256)

5. Positive attitude change

As the program progressed, it was noticeable that the ethos of trust between teachers and students was an effective factor in promoting positive affect, in terms of confidence, motivation and independence. In fact, these three factors (CMI) became core concepts of the program as their existence became more and more obviously indispensable to effective learning. Teachers were asked to reflect on their lessons, not in terms of whether students had learned any language, but in terms of whether students had become more confident, more motivated, and more independent as a result of the day’s lessons.
A number of research instruments were used in triangulation during 1998 and 1999, in order to investigate the effect on learning of the CMI, trust-based approach (Finch, 2000). These included student self-assessments, students evaluations of the program, interviews between the researcher and randomly selected students, and interviews between the researcher and the teachers. These teacher-interviews showed the most startling results, in that the positive attitude change that was evident in them was most unexpected. Where students were generally unsure about changes in CMI, teachers reported

I see trust in the students. The trust inspires confidence, the confidence inspires motivation, and the motivation inspires learning. (Finch, 2000, p. 420)

I’ve seen noticeable increases in their willingness to have conversations in English, and some classes have gone from not being particularly interested … to being pretty hungry for it. Now they always come to class on time and are very enthusiastic and are rightfully proud of their accomplishments. (Finch, 2000, p. 423)

Not every student, but … examples of students have taken off. At first they came in a little unsure of what they were doing, and by the end of the term they were self-correcting, and telling their classmates who were not working as hard as they should be to ‘let’s finish this … let’s move on’ and so I really was quite surprised. I wasn’t expecting so much … peer moderation. (Finch, 2000, p. 423)

[In the class I had for a whole year] they think themselves much better [with an] average 20% increase on the self-assessment instrument. In that class there are some attitude changes for the better. (Finch, 2000, p. 424)

Most of the [Junior] students do have good attitudes now … Generally, they enjoy the projects. (Finch, 2000, p. 424)

Some classes didn’t work co-operatively as much as they did before. I was a little worried, but actually they were learning to be a little bit more independent. (Finch, 2000, p. 424)

Yes. After several classes, a few students start to accept more responsibility [and] begin activities and “the class” without instructor prompting. Eventually, more and more of the students come to understand and accept this new responsibility in their English classroom. (Finch, 2000, p. 425)

I noticed an extreme attitude change in some of my classes from the first semester to the second semester. (Finch, 2000, p. 424)

It is noticeable in these excerpts that teachers perceive positive attitude change, in contrast to their students: “They don’t trust themselves, … but certainly I can see the difference” (Finch, 2000, p. 424). While the programme can be said to have succeeded in the sense that teachers identified such positive trends in the students, it is important that the students perceive these changes as well and such results point to the need for greater communication between teachers and students on this topic.
Teachers also had interesting observations to make about their own attitude change:

Yea. My confidence in the programme and my confidence as a teacher have increased. (Finch, 2000, p. 425)

Yes. From the first semester to the second. … At first, I wasn’t sure of myself … however, the more I just let go and relaxed … I think now I’m feeling pretty confident. (ibid. p. 425)

Once I got used to it, I suppose I was more motivated, once I started to understand what the programme was. (ibid. p. 426)

I started to relax. I enjoyed the classes a lot more. (ibid. p. 426)

I do trust the students a little more than I did at the beginning. (ibid. p. 426)

There is no longer [any] fear of periods of uncertainty. … When I first came here, I felt the need to correct. … I’m less threatened. … I see the purpose of having the students fill in the gap themselves. … I think it has given me more motivation and independence and confidence. (ibid. p. 427)

6. Conclusion

Establishment of classroom relationships based on trust was a major factor in the ANU programme, and central to the development of CMI, though there remains remarkably little on this topic in the literature. However, just as a classroom with no consideration of affect “is mere mechanical manipulation” (Stevick 1999, p. 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, p. 56)

The materials for the language program at ANU were an attempt to make such a balance, in that promotion of positive affect (feelings) was integrally linked with students becoming autonomous learners and determining their own learning goals (purpose).
Rogers (1951, cited in Pine & Boy 1977, p. 111) points out that people are always motivated, and that the general direction is towards health and growth. Raising awareness of the importance of affect in teachers and students enhances the development of personal autonomy and the improvement of learning efficiency (Dickinson 1987, p. 35), producing mutually supportive self-motivators who are “able to participate fully in society, both freely and responsibly: students ready for change” (Reid 1999, p. 306).

References

Anderson, G.J. & Walberg, H.J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.). Evaluating Educational Performance: A Sourcebook of Methods, Instruments, and Examples. Berkeley, California: McCutchan.
Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy. In J. Arnold (Ed.)., pp. 142-154.
Arnold, J. (Ed.). (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Arnold, J. & Brown, H.D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.).(1999), pp. 1-24.
Bailey, K.M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: looking at and through the diary studies. In H.W. Seliger and M.H. Long (Eds.). Classroom Oriented Research in Second Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 67-103.
Breen, M.P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design, part I. Language Teaching, 20/2, 81-91.
Brock, M.N. (1994). Reflections on change: implementing the process approach in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 25/2, 51-70.
Brown, H.D. (1974) Affective variables in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 23, 231-243.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Key issues in curriculum and syllabus design for ELT. In C.J. Brumfit (Ed.). General English Syllabus Design. ELT Documents No. 118. London: Pergamon Press & The British Council.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: investigating learner beliefs. System 23/2, 195-205, 2000);
Crookall, D. & R.L. Oxford. (1991) Dealing with anxiety: some practical activities for language learner and teacher trainees. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.)., pp. 141-50.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27-50.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R.L. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 73, 311-327.
Ely, C. (1986a). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36, 238-244.
Finch, A.E. (1998). This is my Journal. Unpublished reflective learning journal.
Finch, A.E. (2000). A formative evaluation of a Task-based EFL programme For Korean university students. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Manchester Univeristy: UK.
Finch, A.E. & Hyun, T. D. (2000a). Tell Me More! Seoul: Hakmunsa Press.
Finch, A.E. & Hyun, T. D. (2000b). Now You’re Talking! Seoul: Hakmunsa Press.
Finch, A.E. & Hyun, T. D. (2000c). The Way Ahead. Seoul: Hakmunsa Press.
Finch, A. E. (2001). The Non-threatening Learning Environment. Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 4/1, 133 - 58.
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Australian research on classroom environment: State of the art. Australian Journal of Education. 25, 238-268.
Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom Environment. London: Croom Helm.
Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J. & Walberg, H. J. (1981). Assessment of Learning Environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (third version). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Fraser, B. J. & Walberg, H. J. (1981). Psychosocial learning environment in science classrooms: a review of research. Studies in Science Education, 8, 67-92.
Hadfield, J. (1992). Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harri-Augstein S. & Thomas, L. (1991). Learning Conversations: The Self-Organised Learning Way to Personal and Organisational Growth. London: Routledge.
Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and Personhood: Psychology in Another Key. London: Sage.
Holt, J. (1976). Instead of Education. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Horwitz. E. K. & Young, D. J. (Eds.). (1991). Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70/2, 125-132.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. English Language Teaching Journal, 50/3, 187-198.
Koch, A.S. & Terrell, T.D. (1991). Affective reactions of foreign language students to natural approach activities and teaching techniques. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.). , pp. 109-126.
Kohonen, V. (1999). Authentic assessment in affective foreign language education. In J. Arnold (Ed.)., pp. 279-294.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lavine, R.E. & R.L. Oxford (1990). Dealing with affective issues in the foreign or second-language classroom. Paper, Modern Language Association Annual Meeting, Chicago (1990).
Legutke, M & Thomas. H. (1991) Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. Harlow: Longman.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive Attitudes and Realistic Beliefs: Links to Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 79/3, 372-386.
McClean, J.M. (1995). Negotiating a Spoken-English Scheme with Japanese University Students. In J.D. Brown & S.O. Yamashita (Eds.). Language Testing in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Association for Language Teaching. Ch. 15, 136-147.
Moos, R.H. & Trickett, E.J. (1974) Classroom Environment Scale Manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Moos, R.H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: an Overview. Palo Alto California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, R. (1982). Why use textbooks? English Language Teaching Journal, 36, 104-111.
Phillips, E.M. (1990). Anxiety and oral proficiency tests. Paper, Modern Language Association Annual Meeting. Chicago 1990.
Pine, G.J. & Boy, A.V. (1977). Learner Centered Teaching: a Humanistic View. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Co.
Price, M.L. (1991). The subjective experiences of foreign language anxiety: interviews with anxious students. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young, (Eds.).. pp. 101-108.
Reid, J. (1999). Affect in the classroom: problems, politics and pragmatics. In J. Arnold (Ed.). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 297-306.
Rogers, C.R. (1951). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sano, M., Takahashi, M. & Yoneyama, A. (1984). Communicative language teaching and local needs. English Language Teaching Journal, 38/3, 170-177.
Schumann, J.H. (1975). Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25/2, 209-235.
Schumann, J.H.(1999). A neurobiological perspective on affect and methodology in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.).. pp. 28-42.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
Stevick, E.W. (1980). Teaching Languages: a Way and Ways. Rowley, M.A.: Newbury House.
Stevick, E.W. (1999). Affect in learning and memory: from alchemy to chemistry. In J. Arnold (Ed.)., pp. 43-57.
Underhill, N. (1989). Process in humanistic education. English Language Teaching Journal, 43/4, 250-260.
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245-60.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962, 1986). Thought and Language Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Walberg, H.J. (1968). Teacher personality and classroom climate. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 163-9.
White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum, Design, Innovation and Management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Widdowson, H.G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, D.J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. In Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539-53.