Boredom in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Micro-Perspective

121 Pages·2020·1.959 MB·

by  Mirosław Pawlak, Joanna Zawodniak, Mariusz Kruk

Second Language Learning and Teaching
Mirosław Pawlak
Joanna Zawodniak
Mariusz Kruk
Boredom in
the Foreign
Language
Classroom
A Micro-Perspective
Second Language Learning and Teaching
Series Editor
Mirosław Pawlak, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz
University, Kalisz, Poland
The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and
teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs
and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes
underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language
learningininstructedandnon-instructedsettings,todifferentfacetsoftheteaching
process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and
evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas,
they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research
paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic
and classroom second languageacquisition, including researchers, methodologists,
curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate
students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt
and taught.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10129
ł
Miros aw Pawlak Joanna Zawodniak
(cid:129) (cid:129)
Mariusz Kruk
Boredom in the Foreign
Language Classroom
A Micro-Perspective
123
MirosławPawlak JoannaZawodniak
Faculty of Pedagogy andFineArts University of ZielonaGóra
AdamMickiewicz University ZielonaGóra, Poland
Kalisz, Poland
State University of AppliedSciences
Konin, Poland
Mariusz Kruk
University of ZielonaGóra
ZielonaGóra, Poland
ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic)
Second LanguageLearningandTeaching
ISBN978-3-030-50768-8 ISBN978-3-030-50769-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50769-5
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
You’ll find boredom where there is the
absence of a good idea.
Earl Nightingale
Preface
Aforeignlanguage(L2)classroomisauniquekindoflearningtheaterwherefrom
the very outset students find themselves in a stressful, face-threatening situation
of the individuals whose range of L2 resources is limited and whose immature
command of a new language is subject to constant evaluation. They bring into the
classroom different beliefs, expectations and motivations which are more or less
skillfully responded toby theteacher. The extent towhichstudents are successful,
satisfied and determined to pursue their goals depends to a great extent on a con-
stellationofindividualdifference(ID)factorsinfluencingthelearningprocess(e.g.,
Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Pawlak, 2017, 2020a). While there has been an evident
tendencyinrecentyearstoshifttheemphasistothepositiveaspectsofL2learning,
primarilyundertheinfluenceofpositivepsychology(e.g.,MacIntyre,Gregersen,&
Mercer, 2016; Mercer & MacIntyre, 2014), it is clear that negative emotions have
alwaysplayedacrucialroleinlanguageclassrooms.Oneofthemisboredomwhich
hasbeenreportedtobethemostpervasivelyexperiencedemotioninschoolsettings
(Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020; Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, & Perry, 2010) and
which therefore constitutes an overarching concept that guides this volume.
Boredom is among the most neglected, insufficiently understood and underex-
plored emotions, and at the same time, it is referred to as one of the most deacti-
vating, disturbing and aversive human experiences. Although it occupies an
importantplaceineducationalpsychology,inappliedlinguisticsitisstillsomething
ofaterraincognitathatnecessitatesanddeservessystematicattentionfromtheorists,
researchers and teachers. The main reason is that for more than several decades,
appliedlinguistshavebeenpreoccupiedwithexaminingother,moreconspicuousID
factors, such as motivation, anxiety, aptitude, age, or learning strategies, not real-
izing how devastating boredom can be for students’ work and achievement. This
being the case, the purpose of this volume is to approach the phenomenon of
boredom from the interconnected theoretical, empirical and pedagogical perspec-
tivesintendedtoenhancetheunderstandingofthiscomplexemotionanditsplacein
the process of teaching and learning a foreign or second language. The book is
composed offour chapters. Chapter 1 presentsthe concept of boredom in the light
of theories elaborating on its definitions, causes and typologies as well as with
vii
viii Preface
respecttodisengagementasitsmajormanifestation.Chapter2providesanoverview
of boredom-related research which is first discussed with reference to educational
psychologyand,second,mostimportantly,withrespecttothemainlinesofinquiry
focused on the L2 classroom. The theoretical considerations are followed by
Chapter3whichoutlinesthemethodologicalunderpinningsofthestudyconducted
for the purpose of this publication whose aim was to shed light on the nature of
boredominL2classrooms,itsfluctuationsaswellasthecausesofsuchchangesin
twogroupsofPolishstudentsmajoringinEnglishfollowingidenticallessonplans.
This empirical investigation approaches boredom from a micro-perspective, where
this negative emotion is examined in a situated manner in the course of naturally
occurring classes with the help of both quantitative and qualitative data collection
instruments.Chapter4isdedicatedtothepresentationofthefindingsoftheresearch
project as well as the discussion of these findings, attempting to account for the
observed patterns of the experience of boredom and its dynamics, but also
addressing some inevitable limitations of the conducted study. Finally, the conclu-
siontothismonographbrieflysummarizesthemainoutcomesofthestudy,discusses
the directions offuture research concerning boredom in L2 learning and teaching,
both with respect to their goals and methodology, and offers a handful of peda-
gogicalrecommendations that could help minimize theoccurrence ofthis negative
emotionoraidteachersincombatingit.Weareconfidentthatthisvolumewillpave
the way for numerous studies helping us further delve into the secrets of boredom
andthatitwillalsoprovidefoodforthoughtforteacherswhoneedtocometoterms
with its inevitability in educational contexts and actively seek ways of helping
students face upto and overcome this distressingcondition.
Kalisz, Poland Mirosław Pawlak
Zielona Góra, Poland Joanna Zawodniak
Zielona Góra, Poland Mariusz Kruk
Acknowledgements Theauthors wouldlike to express their deep gratitude toProf. Aleksandra
Wach (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland) whose insightful comments and sugges-
tionshavehelpedimprovethequalityofthefinalversionofthepresentwork.
Contents
1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Boredom in Philosophy and Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 The Challenge of Defining Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 The Typological Description of Boredom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.1 State Boredom Versus Trait Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.2 Various Intensities of Boredom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 The Antecedents of Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Dis/Engagement in Relation to Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 Ways of Coping with Boredom in Educational Settings . . . . . . . . 12
1.8 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Approaching Boredom from an Empirical Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Research on Boredom in Educational Psychology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Research on Boredom in L2 Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.1 Boredom as an Indirect Object of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2 Boredom as a Direct Object of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3 Design of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Aims and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4 Description of the Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.4.1 Class 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.4.2 Class 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.5 Data Collection Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.6 Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ix
x Contents
4 Findings of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 Changes in Overall Boredom Levels in Group 1 and Group 2. . . . 51
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations
in Group 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3.1 Overall Changes in Boredom Levels
in the Two Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3.2 Changes in Boredom Levels During Individual Classes . . . 58
4.3.3 Changes in Boredom Levels Within Individual
Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3.4 Participants’ Evaluation of the Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.4 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations
in Group 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.1 Overall Changes in Boredom Levels
in the Two Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.2 Changes in Boredom Levels During Individual Classes . . . 71
4.4.3 Changes in Boredom Levels Within Individual
Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.4.4 Participants’ Evaluation of the Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.5 Factors Responsible for Changes in the Levels of Boredom
in Group 1 and Group 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.6.1 RQ1:WhatAretheDifferencesintheLevelsofBoredom
in the Classes Taught in Both Groups? What Can
They Be Attributed to?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.6.2 RQ2: How Does the Experience of Boredom Change
and What Patterns Can Be Identified in This Respect?. . . . 86
4.6.3 RQ3:WhatAretheDifferencesRegardingtheExperience
of Boredom for Individual Students?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.6.4 RQ4: What Influences Are Responsible
for the Changes in Boredom Levels?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.6.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5 Conclusions, Directions for Future Research and Pedagogical
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Appendix A... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 99
Appendix B... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 101
Appendix C... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 105
References.... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 107