865409

research-article2019
REL0010.1177/0033688219865409RELC JournalAubrey and Philpott

Research Article

RELC Journal

Inter-cultural and
2021, Vol. 52(3) 440–457
­
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Intra-cultural Contact and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033688219865409
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219865409
the L2 Motivational Self journals.sagepub.com/home/rel

System: An EFL Classroom

Intervention Study

Scott Aubrey
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Andrew Philpott
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan

Abstract
This 13-week study investigated changes in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ motivational
states due to face-to-face inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact treatments in a Japanese EFL
classroom. Drawing on the L2 motivational Self System and International Posture, this quasi-
experimental study took the form of a between-groups design with pre- and post-questionnaire
data. A total of 84 participants (63 Japanese students and 21 international students) were assigned to
Inter-cultural, Intra-cultural, and Comparison groups. Japanese EFL students from the two treatment
groups performed a series of oral tasks with either a Japanese peer (intra-cultural interaction) or a
non-Japanese international student (inter-cultural interaction) while students from the Comparison
group did not perform the tasks. The results revealed that inter-cultural contact led to significant
increases in the variables, L2 learning experience and international posture, with no significant change
in scores for any variables in either the Intra-cultural or Comparison group. Thus, the provision of
inter-cultural contact in the classroom resulted in an improvement in students’ attitudes towards
the classroom environment and their attitudes towards the international community. The findings
are discussed in terms of the use of inter-cultural task-based interaction as a pedagogical tool to
enhance motivation and as a basis for a predeparture study abroad programme.

Keywords
TBLT, intercultural, motivation, EFL, L2 motivational self system, international posture

Corresponding author:
Scott Aubrey, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of
Education, Room 313, Ho Tim Building, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong.
Email: [email protected]
Aubrey and Philpott 441

Introduction
Prominent theories of L2 motivation suggest that motivation to learn a new language is
strengthened when learners develop a social identification with members of the target
language community (Gardner, 1985) or when learners form a cognitive self-representa-
tion of themselves as a speaker of that language (Dörnyei, 2005). For EFL learners
specifically, a vision of themselves as part of the international English-speaking world
generates a similar motivational drive (Yashima, 2013). Thus, it is not surprising that an
inter-cultural encounter with a target language speaker “represents one of the most prom-
inent sources of motivation for many foreign language learners” (Rivers, 2011: 842).
Although inter-cultural contact can take many forms, from a language teaching perspec-
tive, it is useful to delineate two broad categories: interactions that occur inside the class-
room and those that occur outside. While the latter has received much attention (e.g.
Clément et al., 1994; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005; Kormos and Csizér, 2007; Labrie and
Clément, 1986; Noels and Clément, 1996) the former has not. The current study, then,
attempts to capture changes in key motivational variables and provide an example of
how teachers can implement structured task-based inter-cultural contact in their class-
rooms. In doing so, this study adds to the comparatively small pool of L2 motivation
research that has the specific pedagogical goal of increasing learner motivation (see Boo
et al., 2015, for a metanalaysis of papers in the field).

Literature Review
The L2 Motivational Self System and International Posture
The L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS; Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 2009), a prominent
model of learner motivation, draws on the psychological notion of possible selves
(Markus and Nurius, 1986) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). L2MSS, in
broad terms, views L2 learners as deriving their motivation from the creation of future
L2-learning selves and the desire to reduce the gap between their present and future
states. Dörnyei (2005) postulates that three components, the Ideal L2 Self (i.e. a learner’s
idealized version of him/her self in the future), Ought-to L2 Self (i.e. the obligation of the
learner towards others to learn a language), and L2 Learning Experience (i.e. the learner’s
attitude towards their immediate learning environment), which work together to regulate
a learner’s motivated learning behaviour (i.e. their learning effort).
Several large-scale questionnaire studies have tested and validated the L2MSS model
across different age groups (e.g. Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Lamb, 2012) and learning
contexts (e.g. Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013; Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Kong et al., 2018;
Taguchi et al., 2009). To provide more than just a ‘snapshot in time’ of learners’ motiva-
tion, other studies have attempted to deepen our understanding of the developmental
nature of L2MSS (e.g. Aubrey, 2014; Munezane. 2013; Nitta and Asano, 2010). For
example, in the Japanese EFL context, learners have been shown to enhance their L2
ideal self as a result of a visualization treatment (Munezane, 2013) and strengthen the
relationship between L2 learning experience and L2 self during an intensive communica-
tive class (Aubrey, 2014).
442 RELC Journal 52(3)

Of relevance to the current study, Aubrey (2014) investigated changes in L2 motiva-

tion for a large group of Japanese learners of English as they completed their first inten-
sive communicative English course at university. In a pretest-posttest design, Aubrey
administered L2MSS questionnaires at the start and end of the semester-long course,
which was used to measure changes in learners’ motivational strength and structure.
Overall, the learners significantly improved along two dimensions: motivated learning
behaviour and ought-to L2 self. This was accompanied by a strengthening in the relation-
ship between L2 learning experience and ideal L2 self, indicating that the learners’ atti-
tudes towards their classroom environment became more congruent with their future
self-concept over the semester. Furthermore, the SEM models generated from the data
were shown to support previous findings in the broader EFL context, namely the weak
contribution of ought-to L2 self to motivated behaviour (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013;
Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Kormos and Csizér, 2008), and the sizeable impact of both L2
learning experience and ideal L2 self on motivated behaviour (e.g. Munezane, 2013;
Papi, 2010). The significance of Aubrey’s (2014) study was that it showed that the
L2MSS is susceptible to partial change in a relatively short amount of time under stimu-
lating learning conditions.
In addition to measuring the three L2MSS components, Aubrey (2014) and others
have also included items that target the variable international posture (Yashima, 2002;
Yashima, 2009). Yashima describes international posture as an “interest in foreign or
international affairs, willingness to go overseas to stay or work, readiness to interact with
inter-cultural partners, and, one hopes, openness or a non-ethnocentric attitude toward
different cultures” (2002: 57). The majority of studies that have incorporated interna-
tional posture into the L2MSS structure have found a strong and significant relationship
between international posture and L2 ideal self (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013; Aubrey,
2014; Csizér and Kormos, 2009; Kim and Lee, 2013; Kormos and Csizér, 2008; Lee and
Ahn, 2013; Xie, 2014; Yashima, 2009). Furthermore, improvements in international pos-
ture has been shown to occur when EFL learners participate in study abroad programmes
(Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide, 2008; Lee, 2018), international volunteer sojourns
(Yashima, 2010), and domestic classes that have a global studies focus (Yashima and
Zenuk-Nishide, 2008).
Extending these lines of inquiry, the current study uses international posture and the
three key components of L2MSS to capture changes in the strength of Japanese EFL
students’ motivation as a result of inter-cultural contact in the EFL classroom.

Inter-cultural Contact in the L2 Classroom

Studies have revealed that inter-cultural contact has a pivotal role in developing learners’
L2 motivation. Research has found that encounters between language learners and rep-
resentatives of the target culture outside of the classroom can lead to increased L2 self-
confidence (Clément et al., 1994; Labrie and Clément, 1986; Noels and Clément, 1996),
an obligation towards others to learn an L2 (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013), decreased L2
anxiety (Kormos and Csizér, 2007), and more positive language learning attitudes
(Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005). Far fewer studies, however, have investigated if similar
Aubrey and Philpott 443

motivational and affective benefits manifest as a result of deliberate efforts inside the
second or foreign language classroom.
To the authors’ knowledge, only one study has looked at the motivational effects of
face-to-face inter-cultural contact inside the Japanese EFL classroom (Aubrey, 2017a;
Aubrey, 2017b). In Aubrey (2017a), questionnaire responses revealed that learners who
experienced inter-cultural task-based interactions had significantly higher flow states
(i.e. emotional engagement) than those who had intra-cultural encounters. Aubrey
(2017a) argues that the immediate, face-to-face nature of these inter-cultural encounters
lead to intense problem-solving around both linguistic and cultural issues, i.e. ‘cultural
rich points’ (Agar, 1994), the resolution of which can result in feelings of connectedness
between interlocutors. In a further analysis of student diaries, Aubrey (2017b) found that
such heightened engagement was also attributed to the challenging nature of inter-cul-
tural interaction, from which learners derived a sense of accomplishment – a dimension
of engagement that grew as students completed more tasks.
The current research is a follow-up to Aubrey (2017a; Aubrey, 2017b), drawing on
previously unpublished questionnaire data to examine how such classroom interactions
may lead to changes in learners’ motivation to learn English from a possible selves per-
spective. It attempts to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. Does inter-cultural contact have an effect on the different components of

Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation?
RQ2. Does intra-cultural contact have an effect on the different components of
Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation?
RQ3. Is there any difference in the effects of inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact
on the different components of Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation?

In this study, the inter-cultural contact is operationalized as face-to-face interaction

between members of different cultural and linguistic communities arising from the per-
formance of oral tasks. Similarly, intra-cultural contact is defined as face-to-face interac-
tion between members of the same cultural and linguistic community arising from the
performance of oral tasks.

Method
Participants and Context
The research was conducted at a large private university in Japan. At the time of the
study, 96.5% of enrolled students were Japanese, with the remaining student population
made up of either short-term or long-term (degree-seeking) international students. A total
of 84 students from this university participated in the study. Sixty-three (36 female, 27
male) of the participants were first-year university Japanese EFL students, while 21 (11
female, 10 male) were short-term study abroad students who had been in Japan for less
than 3 months.
444 RELC Journal 52(3)

Table 1. Summary of Groups.

Gender Speaking Inter-cultural Contact

Proficiency Experience

M SD M SD
Inter-group 13F, 8M 3.14 1.40 5.24 min/week 7.98
Intra-group 11F, 10M 3.05 1.34 4.76 min/week 12.99
Comp. group 12F, 9M 3.10 1.70 5.88 min/week 13.65

Inter- group = Inter-cultural group, Intra- group = Intra-cultural group, Comp. group = Comparison
group.

The 63 EFL learner participants were students from parallel classes of the same inten-
sive English programme, studying from the same curriculum and coursebook, and could
all be classified as having intermediate English language proficiency (paper-based
TOEFL scores of 430-500). These participants formed three groups in the study: the
Inter-cultural group, the Intra-cultural group, and the Comparison group. The Inter-
cultural and Intra-cultural groups were made up of intact classes of 21 students each,
both taught by the same teacher. The Comparison group, on the other hand, comprised
students randomly chosen from 12 different classes in the same programme. On a back-
ground questionnaire administered prior to the study, all EFL learner participants indi-
cated their weekly inter-cultural contact experience (in minutes) and self-reported their
English speaking proficiency based on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 (very poor)
and 7 (very good). These characteristics for each group, including gender distribution,
are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the participants from each group reported having a
below-average speaking proficiency and reported very little interaction with non-Japa-
nese students on a weekly basis (approximately 5 minutes); however, it should be noted
that the mode length of an inter-cultural encounter was zero minutes for each group.
The 21 international student participants were made up of 13 native English speakers
and eight non-native English speakers. The 13 native English speakers identified as
having the following nationalities: American (n = 10), Singaporean (n = 1), and
Australian (n = 2). The eight non-native English speakers identified as the following
nationalities: Mexican (n = 1), German (n = 2), Lithuanian (n = 1), Indonesian
(n = 1), Norwegian (n = 1), French (n = 1), and Canadian (n = 1). Furthermore, the
non-native English-speaking international students, self-reported speaking the follow-
ing languages as an L1: French (n = 2), Norwegian (n = 1), German (n = 2), Spanish
(n = 1), Indonesian (n = 1), and Lithuanian (n = 1). On a background questionnaire,
the non-native English speaking international student participants, rated their English
speaking proficiency based on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 (very poor) and 7
(very good). The results (M = 6.75, SD = .71) indicated that the non-native English
speaking international student participants self-reported having ‘very good’ speaking
skills. As described in the following section, the inter-cultural contact treatment occurred
when the 21 international students participated in a series of tasks with Japanese EFL
students from the Inter-cultural group.
Aubrey and Philpott 445

Table 2. Design of Experiment.

Note. Inter- group = Inter-cultural Group, Intra- group = Intra-cultural group, Comp. group = Comparison
group.

Design
The research was conducted over a 13-week period as shown in Table 2.
Phase 1 of the research was from Week 2 to Week 6, during which time the EFL learn-
ers performed one oral paired task per week. Thus, a total of five tasks were performed.
During Week 1 (Time 1), a motivation questionnaire was administered to each EFL
learner participant. They were then assigned a task partner during Week 1 and kept the
same partner for all five tasks. However, an odd number of learners in each group (21)
resulted in there being nine pairs and one group of three participants.
Phase 2 of the experiment involved the inter-cultural contact treatment. For the Intra-
cultural group, each EFL learner was paired with another EFL learner from within their
group. Thus, every student from this group had a different Japanese interlocutor from the
one they had in Phase 1. Also during Phase 2, the international students were invited to
the classroom and were paired with Japanese students from the Inter-cultural group only.
Participants from both groups then repeated the tasks in their new pairs from Weeks 7 to
12. The motivation questionnaire (post) was then administered to all EFL learner partici-
pants in Week 13 (Time 2).

Instruments
Tasks. The tasks used in this study provided the context for inter-cultural and intra-­
cultural contact to occur. The tasks had a compound structure (a two-way information
exchange, an opinion gap, and a decision-making component). Input for the tasks was
generated from participants through guided research (task topic and instructions were
446 RELC Journal 52(3)

Table 3. Task Descriptions.

Task Topic Guided Information Gap: Opinion Gap: Decision-making:

Research: Exchange Discuss the Decide. . .
Research. . . Information On. . . Pros/Cons
Task 1 Travel A place you Local language, Travelling Which destination to
would like to famous sites, cost to each travel to and activities
travel to. of living, food, destination. to do.
history.
Task 2 Nature One Appearance, Spending Which animal to spend
endangered habitat, money to money on and how to
animal. population, diet, save each help the animal.
challenges. animal.
Task 3 History A person in Birth/death Meeting the Who to meet if one
history you date, nationality, person. could travel back
would like to accomplishments, in time and what
meet. public opinion, life questions to ask.
events.
Task 4 Careers A job you are Company, duties, Working Which job is more
interested in. responsibilities, in the job interesting and the
qualifications, position. steps needed to get
salary. the job.
Task 5 Celebrations A celebration Location, Participating Which celebration to
you are celebration, origin, in a participate in and what
interested in. purpose, activities. celebration. to do to prepare.

prescribed, but the participants researched the content before the performance). To pre-
serve ecological validity, task topics were aligned with unit topics in the textbook,
although the participants still had control over the informational content and language
they could use when performing tasks. For a description of the tasks, see Table 3.
The tasks were performed in the classroom during regular scheduled classes. When
performing tasks, the participants were instructed to refer to their completed task research
worksheet, which contained the information they would be exchanging. They were given
25 minutes to complete each task and were instructed to use only English. Thus, in total,
students in the inter-cultural group experienced 125 minutes of inter-cultural contact.

Questionnaire. The sole data collection instrument for this research was a motivation
questionnaire. Thirty-six items were initially created which targeted the variables ideal
L2 self, ought-to L2 self, L2 learning experience, international posture, and motivated
learning behaviour. The items consisted of statements to which the participants were
asked to rate their agreement on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (absolutely untrue)
and 7 (absolutely true) (See Appendix for the complete questionnaire). As shown in
Table 4, items were either adapted or taken directly from previous literature.
Once the draft English questionnaire was composed, it was translated into Japanese
by a bilingual Japanese professor and back-translated into English by a bilingual Japanese
graduate student. Any discrepancies between the original and back-translated version of
the questionnaire were resolved through discussion with the translators in order to ensure
Aubrey and Philpott 447

Table 4. Sources for Motivation Questionnaire Items.

Variable Item Source of Item Change to Source

Motivated learning behaviour 1–5 Taguchi et al. (2009) Adapted item 1
Ideal L2 self 6–10 Nakahira and Yashima (2012) Adapted all items
L2 learning experience 11–15 Taguchi et al. (2009) Taken directly
Ought-to L2 self 16–20 Taguchi et al. (2009) Taken directly
International posture 21–36 Yashima et al. (2004) Taken directly

no meaning was lost in the process. The motivation questionnaire was then administered
to the Inter-cultural group (N = 21), the Intra-cultural group (N = 21), and the
Comparison group (N = 21) in Week 1 and then again in Week 13.

Analysis
The questionnaire data analysis was done using SPSS version 23 and AMOS version 22.
The actual version of the questionnaire had been administered to Japanese students and
validated by the first author (Aubrey, 2014). However, the authors acknowledge that
each context is different, so the construct validity was again examined using learners
from the same university, programme, and year as those used in the Inter-, Intra-, and
Comparison groups. To do this, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted,
which tested the validity of the specified relationships between the variables and the
actual 36 questionnaire items that assess them. Data for the CFA were based on the
administration of the questionnaire to a sample of 203 EFL learners who did not partici-
pate in the study (i.e. not part of the Inter-cultural group, Intra-cultural group or
Comparison group). During the CFA process, modifications were made in order to sat-
isfy the basic validity requirements of the model. Two items on the scale ought-to L2 self
were found to be loading very low (less than .35), and as a result were deleted (these two
items are indicated by a * in the Appendix). After the two items were removed from the
analysis, the modified model was a satisfactory fit for the data collected at Time 1 and
Time 2. Thus, the remaining 34 items were used to measure the five motivation varia-
bles. Table 5 shows the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for each administration
and each group.
A repeated measures mixed-model ANOVA (3 x 2) was conducted on the mean
scores for each variable to test for the comparative effects of the treatments, with time
as the within-subjects factor (Time 1, Time 2) and group as the between-group factor
(Inter-cultural group, Intra-cultural group, Comparison group). The determination of
any interaction effect (time-by-group) on each motivation variable is pertinent to the
research questions of this study. Any significant interactions were subjected to a post-
hoc analysis.

Results
Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of each variable measured at Time 1 and Time 2.
448 RELC Journal 52(3)

Table 5. Cronbach Alpha Coefficients for Each Scale.

Scales Group Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α

(N = 21) (Time 1 = Week 1) (Time 2 = Week 13)
Motivated Inter- group .77 .86
learning Intra- group .75 .80
behaviour Comp. group .82 .86
Ideal L2 self Inter- group .90 .88
Intra- group .80 .90
Comp. group .91 .92
Ought-to L2 Inter- group .68 .77
self Intra- group .69 .70
Comp. group .75 .80
L2 learning Inter- group .86 .89
experience Intra- group .79 .86
Comp. group .86 .89
International Inter- group .86 .87
Posture Intra- group .81 .80
Comp. group .86 .92

Note. Inter- group = Inter-cultural group, Intra- group = Intra-cultural group, Comp. group = Comparison group.

Table 6. Mean Scores for Each Variable.

Variable Group Time 1 Time 2

(N = 21) Mean SD Mean SD

Motivated Inter- 4.50 .92 4.62 1.10
learning Intra- 4.40 .54 4.44 .77
behaviour Comp. 4.52 .92 4.59 1.06
Ought-to L2 Inter- 3.33 .93 3.44 1.61
self Intra- 3.85 1.15 3.73 1.05
Comp. 3.65 1.34 4.10 1.55
Ideal L2 self Inter- 4.41 1.03 4.91 1.08
Intra- 4.23 .71 4.48 1.09
Comp. 4.35 1.19 4.35 1.26
L2 learning Inter- 5.38 1.00 5.88 1.11
experience Intra- 5.49 .84 5.44 .92
Comp. 5.14 .96 5.03 1.18
International Inter- 4.99 .77 5.27 .84
Posture Intra- 5.06 .72 5.09 .77
Comp. 4.69 .91 4.58 1.02

Note. Inter- = Inter-cultural group, Intra- = Intra-cultural group, Comp. = Comparison group.

The repeated measures mixed-model ANOVA was conducted on the mean scores for
each of the five variables. The assumption of homogeneity of variance (as tested by
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances and Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance
Aubrey and Philpott 449

Table 7. Univariate Tests (Mixed-model ANOVA) of 3 (Group) x 2 (Time) Design.

Variable Effect F df Sig. Eta Squared

Motivated Time .687 1 .410 .011
learning Group .199 60 .820 .007
behaviour Time x Group .064 60 .938 .002
Ought-to L2 Time 1.051 1 .309 .017
self Group 1.018 60 .368 .033
Time x Group 1.415 60 .251 .045
Ideal L2 self Time 5.958 1 .018 .090
Group 2.065 60 .136 .064
Time x Group .665 60 .518 .022
L2 learning Time 1.308 1 .257 .021
environment Group 1.875 60 .162 .059
Time x Group 3.946 60 .025 .116
International Time 1.308 1 .257 .021
Posture Group 2.379 60 .101 .073
Time x Group 3.701 60 .030 .110

Table 8. Results of One-way ANOVA Comparing Means between Groups.

F df Significance Post-hoc Tests

L2 learning experience
Time 1 .739 2 .482
Time 2 3.274 2 .045 Inter- > Comp.
International Posture
Time 1 1.253 2 .293
Time 2 3.517 2 .036 Inter- > Comp.

Note: Inter- = Inter-cultural group, Intra- = Intra-cultural group, Comp. = Comparison group.

Matrices) was not violated; therefore, Wilks’ Lambda was reported for significant val-
ues. Table 7 shows the results of the univariate tests.
Both L2 learning experience, F(2,60) = 3.946, p = .025, η2 = .116, and international
posture, F(2,60) = 3.701, p = .030, η2 = .110, reached a level of significance, indicating
that the changes in mean scores over time for these variables are not equivalent between
the three groups. Thus, changes in mean scores for L2 learning behaviour and interna-
tional posture for each group need to be explored further.
A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the group means at each time for the
two variables where an interaction was observed. Table 8 presents the results of the mean
comparisons. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment were used for post-hoc
analysis.
For L2 learning experience, there was no statistical difference between the groups at
Time 1; however, at Time 2, there was a significant difference between the groups
(p = .045). Post-hoc analyses of Multiple Comparisons (with Bonferroni adjustment)
450 RELC Journal 52(3)

indicated that the Inter-cultural group had significantly higher mean scores than the
Comparison group (p = .039, d = .760), but the Intra-cultural group did not differ signifi-
cantly from either the Inter-cultural group (p = .573, d = .442) or the Comparison group
at Time 2 (p = .664, d = .397). Similarly, for international posture, there were no statisti-
cal differences between the groups at Time 1; however, at Time 2, there was a significant
difference (p = .036). Post-hoc analyses revealed the Inter-cultural group scored signifi-
cantly higher than the Comparison group (p = .039, d = .757), but the Intra-cultural
group did not significantly differ from the Inter-cultural (p = 1.00, d = .229) or
Comparison group (p = .194, d = .578). This is shown visually in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1. Changes in mean scores for L2 learning experience.

Note. Inter- = Inter-cultural group, Intra- = Intra-cultural group, Comp. = Comparison group.

Figure 2. Changes in mean scores for international posture.

Note. Inter- = Inter-cultural group, Intra- = Intra-cultural group, Comp. = Comparison group.

Two one-way within-groups (repeated measures) ANOVAs were conducted to inves-

tigate whether the change in L2 learning experience and international posture between
the two time periods was significant for each group. Since two ANOVAs were repeated,
Aubrey and Philpott 451

Bonferroni adjustment was applied and an α level of .25 was used for claiming .05 level
significance per family. The results revealed that the Inter-cultural group significantly
increased their L2 learning experience scores from Time 1 to Time 2, F(1,20) = .949,
p = .006, d = .485, whereas the Intra-cultural group and the Comparison group did
not: Intra-cultural group: F(1,20) = .079, p = .781, d = -.058; Comparison group:
F(1,20) = .427, p = .521, d = -.105. The effect size indicates the inter-cultural contact
had a medium effect on learners’ L2 learning experience. Similarly, the Inter-cultural
group also significantly increased their international posture scores from Time 1 to Time 2,
F(1,20) = 5.970, p = .024, d = .356, whereas the Intra-cultural and the Comparison
group did not: Intra-cultural group: F(1,20) = .128, p = .724, d = .041; Comparison
group: F(1,20) = .986, p = .332, d = -.117. The effect size reveals that the inter-cultural
contact treatment also has a medium effect on international posture.

Discussion
This research looked at the impact of intra-cultural and inter-cultural contact in an EFL
classroom on the components of Japanese EFL learners’ L2 motivation over one semes-
ter (13 weeks). The findings lend support to inter-cultural contact being the more advan-
tageous condition in terms of stimulating learners’ motivation to study English. Learners
receiving the inter-cultural treatment (Japanese/non-Japanese interaction) in the class-
room significantly increased their scores for L2 learning experience (p = .006, d = .485)
and international posture (p = .024, d = .356). In contrast, those receiving the intra-
cultural contact treatment (Japanese/Japanese interaction) did not significantly change
their mean scores on any scale. There was only one time-by-group interaction for the
three groups (L2 learning experience), which was due to a marginal decrease in L2 learn-
ing environment for the Inter-cultural group and Comparison group. Thus, the findings
suggest the inter-cultural treatment had a significant positive effect on learners’ attitudes
towards their learning environment (L2 learning experience) and attitudes towards the
international community (international posture) but did not aid in developing their self
guides (L2 future self, ought-to self) or motivated learning behaviour.
The considerable positive impact of inter-cultural contact on L2 learning experience
aligns with the findings of Aubrey (2017a; Aubrey, 2017b), who found that learners expe-
riencing inter-cultural interactions had elevated levels flow (i.e. heightened engagement).
Dörnyei (2005) conceptualized L2 learning experience differently than other variables in
his model, describing this component as the trigger for initial motivation, which comes
from engagement in the learning process rather than the generation from internal or exter-
nal self guides. In this study, learners’ engagement in the learning process came from intra-
cultural task interaction (Intra-cultural group), inter-cultural task interaction (Inter-cultural
group), or other classroom activities (Comparison group). Inter-cultural contact, therefore,
was most effective in improving learners’ engagement. Overall, mean scores for L2 learn-
ing experience were the highest among all variables for all groups, which supports Taguchi
et al.’s (2009) claim that for Japanese students, situation-specific factors such as class
atmosphere – and in this case, the kind of contact – seem to be powerful motivators.
The finding that inter-cultural contact significantly increased international posture,
supports Yashima’s (2009) argument that international posture can be enhanced when L2
452 RELC Journal 52(3)

learning is linked to communicating in an international area and when L2 learners inter-

act with more advanced speakers. Empirical evidence has shown that international pos-
ture can be strengthened as a result of inter-cultural contact during study abroad and
volunteer abroad programmes (Lee, 2018; Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide, 2008; Yashima,
2010). However, this is the first study to the authors’ knowledge to provide evidence that
international posture can be enhanced through face-to-face inter-cultural contact in an
EFL classroom. It is encouraging, therefore, to see significant gains when learners in the
Inter-cultural group received relatively little contact – at least in comparison with learners
experiencing contact in a foreign country. Perhaps this is indicative of the efficacy of
generating inter-cultural interaction in a supportive learning environment that is scaf-
folded through a task-based framework. Additionally, intra-cultural contact also caused
an increase in mean international posture scores – albeit a non-significant one – which
lends partial support to Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide’s (2008) finding that imagined inter-
cultural contact (i.e. indirect contact via the integration of a global/cultural issues com-
ponent) facilitates positive attitudes towards the international community.
It is somewhat unexpected that inter-cultural contact did not cause any significant
change for ideal L2 self. This result is in line with Taguchi et al. (2009), who argues that
Japanese learners can have a healthy attitude towards English speakers in the global
community but still lack an awareness of how English can be useful in real life. This may
also reflect the reality that, despite the contact opportunities that are afforded in the class-
room, the world outside the classroom’s walls is still very monolingual, which invariably
dictates what is personally relevant for the learner. There was, however, a significant
time effect for the ideal L2 self, which was due to no change in ideal L2 self scores for
the Comparison group and increases in ideal L2 scores self for both the inter- and intra-
cultural groups. This suggests the tasks themselves (rather than the type of contact) may
have encouraged learners to imagine themselves as proficient English speakers. Perhaps
if the treatment were longer, ideal L2 self may have shown a significant development.
Additionally, inter-cultural contact did not cause any changes in motivated learning
behaviour. This is unexpected as both international posture and L2 learning experience
have been described as a strong predictor of motivated learning behaviour (e.g. Lamb,
2012). This finding, therefore, indicates that the positively perceived classroom environ-
ment does not directly affect the amount of effort students are willing to exert to learn
English. This finding echoes Taguchi’s (2013) warning that unless activities carefully
align with learners’ personal goals for learning English, the classroom environment will
not affect behaviour that leads to long-term motivation. An alternative explanation for
this is that L2 learning experience (and international posture) capture attitudes, which are
more susceptible to short-term change, whereas changes in motivated learning behaviour
are adjustments in behaviour, which require students to reprioritize their time and effort
and so may take longer to occur. Again, perhaps a longer treatment would have caused
positive changes in this variable.
The findings of the present study have clear pedagogical implications for EFL class-
rooms. EFL teachers who want to invite English-speaking interlocutors into their class-
room may, understandably, feel that the resulting interactions may be anxiety-inducing
and generally overwhelming (Chen and Starosta, 2005; Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern,
2002). This research provides an example for teachers on how inter-cultural contact can
Aubrey and Philpott 453

be scaffolded via a task-based framework to alleviate some of these anxieties. However,

despite the positive classroom atmosphere generated, there was little change in moti-
vated behaviour. Thus, in designing tasks and classroom activities, teachers may want to
choose topics and design tasks that are congruent with students’ goals for learning
English. If learners can personally relate to the topics, situations, and goals of the tasks,
they are more likely to endorse a successful vision of themselves as English users and put
more effort into achieving those goals. Finally, providing inter-cultural contact opportu-
nities, as done in this study, may form the basis for a study abroad preparation pro-
gramme. Not only would an improvement in learners’ attitudes towards the international
community be useful in lowering cultural shock, but learners could more easily map their
pre-departure inter-cultural experiences onto their future L2 self concept. This may fos-
ter the development of learners’ future L2 selves as well as positive changes in motivated
learning behaviour.

Conclusion
Instead of testing the theoretical validity of a motivational theory or describing motivation
in a specific context, the goal of this study was pedagogically driven, using the L2MSS to
measure the impact of inter-cultural and intra-cultural contact on Japanese EFL learners’
motivation. Inter-cultural contact provided via a series of classroom tasks proved to be the
more motivating condition for learners in this study, with L2 learning experience and inter-
national posture significantly increasing during the treatment period. Intra-cultural contact,
on the other hand, did not have any significant impact on the variables measured.
This study is not without its limitations. It is important to emphasize that data collec-
tion for this investigation relied solely on questionnaire data to investigate changes in
motivation. Questionnaire items were intentionally simple so learners could easily
understand and respond appropriately. The disadvantage of this, however, is that the
research instrument did not require learners to think deeply about their motivational
dispositions; therefore, the data may not have captured some of the more interesting dif-
ferences between the three groups. Furthermore, a pre- and post- questionnaire design is
not revealing of the ebbs and flows of motivation during the treatment period (i.e. moti-
vation as a process). It is conceivable that each separate task experience had a different
impact on learners’ attitudes towards the class, their attitudes towards English in general,
and ultimately on their ability to see themselves as successful future English speakers.
Future longitudinal research should investigate such motivational trajectories. Finally,
we do not claim that inter-cultural contact is a panacea for all classrooms or learners. In
fact, we acknowledge that the classroom reality is much more nuanced than the averaged
data presented in this study. Consequently, the next efforts to investigate inter-cultural
contact in the L2 classroom need to consider individual learners’ experiences, going
beyond the inferential statistics and giving learners a voice on this important topic.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was partly funded from Kwansei Gakuin University’s
individual lecturer research fund.
454 RELC Journal 52(3)

References
Agar M (1994) The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(2):
221–37.
Aubrey S (2014) Development of the L2 motivational self system: English at a university in Japan.
JALT Journal 36(2): 153–74.
Aubrey S (2017a) Inter-cultural contact and flow in the Japanese EFL classroom. Language
Teaching Research 21(6): 717–34.
Aubrey S (2017b) Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: learners’ perceptions of inter- and intra-
cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly 51(3): 661–92.
Aubrey S and Nowlan A (2013) Effect of intercultural contact on L2 motivation. In: Apple MT, Da
Silva D, and Fellner T (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters, 129–51.
Boo Z, Dörnyei Z, and Ryan S (2015) L2 motivation research 2005–2014: understanding a publi-
cation surge and a changing landscape. System 55: 145–57.
Chen GM, Starosta WJ (2005) Foundations of Intercultural Communication. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Clément R, Dörnyei Z, and Noels KA (1994) Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in
the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44(3): 417–48.
Csizér K, Kormos J (2009) Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: a
comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners
of English. In: Dörnyei Z, Ushioda E (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 98–119.
Dörnyei Z (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei Z (2009) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dörnyei Z, Csizér K (2005) The effects of intercultural contact and tourism on language atti-
tudes and language learning motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24(4):
327–57.
Gardner RC (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and
Motivation. London, Ontario: Edward Arnold.
Higgins ET (1987) Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review 94(3):
319–40.
Kim T, Lee Y (2013) Korean students’ English learning motivation and demotivation through
autobiographic essays: retrospective reconstruction. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics
29(1): 37–68.
Kong J, Han E, Kim S, Park H, Kim Y, and Park H (2018) L2 motivational self system, interna-
tional posture and competitiveness of Korean CTL and LCTL college learners: a structural
equation modeling approach. System 72(1): 178–89.
Kormos J, Csizér K (2007) An interview study of inter-ethnic contact and its role in language
learning in a foreign language environment. System 35(2): 241–58.
Kormos J, Csizér K (2008) The relationship of intercultural contact and language learning moti-
vation among Hungarian students of English and German. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 29(1): 30–48.
Labrie N, Clément R (1986) Ethnolinguistic vitality, self-confidence and second language pro-
ficiency: an investigation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7(4):
269–82.
Aubrey and Philpott 455

Lamb M (2012) A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in
urban and rural settings. Language Learning 62(4): 997–1023.
Lee JH (2018) The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, international posture, and L2
willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39(8):
703–14.
Lee Y, Ahn K (2013) English learning motivation and English academic achievement of Korean
elementary school students: the effects of L2 selves, international posture, and family encour-
agement. Modern English Education 14(1): 127–52.
Markus H, Nurius P (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41(9): 954–69.
Munezane Y (2013) Motivation, ideal L2 self and valuing of global English. In: Apple MT, Da
Silva D, and Fellner T (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 152–68.
Nakahira S, Yashima T (2012) Toward the development of the instruments to assess motivation
based on the L2 motivational self system. JACET Journal 55: 31–48.
Nitta R, Asano R (2010) Understanding motivational changes in EFL classrooms. In: Stoke AM
(ed.) JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 186–96.
Noels KA, Clément R (1996) Communication across cultures: social determinants and accultura-
tive consequences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 28(3): 214–28.
Papi M (2010) The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: a structural
equation modeling approach. System 38(3): 467–79.
Rivers DJ (2011) Evaluating the self and the other: imagined intercultural contact with a native-
speaker dependent foreign language context. International Journal of International Relations
35(6): 842–52.
Spencer-Rodgers J, McGovern T (2002) Attitudes towards the culturally different: the role of
intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes and per-
ceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26(6): 609–31.
Taguchi T (2013) Motivation, attitudes and selves in the Japanese context: a mixed methods
approach. In: Fellner MT, Da Silva D, and Fellner T (eds) Language Learning Motivation in
Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 129–51.
Taguchi T, Magid M, and Papi M (2009) The L2 motivational self system among Japanese,
Chinese and Iranian learners of English: a comparative study. In: Dörnyei Z, Ushioda E (eds)
Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 66–97.
Xie Y (2014) L2 self of beginning-level heritage and non-heritage postsecondary learners of
Chinese. Foreign Language Annals 47(1): 189–203.
Yashima T (2002) Willingness to communicate in L2: the Japanese EFL context. The Modern
Language Journal 86(1): 54–66.
Yashima T (2009) International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In:
Dörnyei Z, Ushioda E (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, 144–63.
Yashima T (2010) The effects of international volunteer work experiences on intercultural com-
petence of Japanese youth. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(3): 268–82.
Yashima T (2013) Imagined L2 selves and motivation for intercultural communication. In: Apple
MT, Da Silva D, and Fellner T (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters, 35–53.
Yashima T, Zenuk-Nishide L (2008) The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and
L2 communication: creating an imagined international community. System 36(4): 566–85.
Yashima T, Zenuk-Nishide L, and Shimizu K (2004) The influence of attitudes and affect on
willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning 54(1):
119–52.
456 RELC Journal 52(3)

Appendix
Motivation Questionnaire Items
1. If an English course was offered at university or somewhere else in the future, I
would like to take it.
2. *It will have a negative impact on my life if I don’t study English.
3. I find English really interesting.
4. I am not much interested in overseas news.
5. I think I am doing my best to learn English.
6. I’d rather avoid the type of work that sends me overseas frequently.
7. Learning English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do
so.
8. I would rather stay in my hometown after graduation.
9. Compared to my classmates, I think I study English relatively hard.
10. I want to work in a foreign country.
11. In the future, I can imagine myself as a person who uses English in his or her
daily life.
12. I want to participate in a volunteer activity to help foreigners living in the sur-
rounding community.
13. I would like to have more English classes at university.
14. I have a strong interest in international affairs.
15. In the future, I can imagine myself as a person who understands English movies
or music without Japanese subtitles.
16. I really enjoy learning English.
17. I want to work at an international organization such as the United Nations.
18. In the future, I can imagine myself as a person who has the ability to express his
or her opinions or thoughts accurately in English.
19. *I study English because close friends of mine think it is important.
20. I often read and watch news about foreign countries.
21. In the future, I can imagine myself as a person who does not hesitate to speak
English.
22. I wouldn’t mind sharing an apartment or room with an international student.
23. I try to avoid talking to foreigners if I can.
24. I am prepared to expend a lot of effort in learning English.
25. I always look forward to English classes.
26. I think that time passes faster while studying English.
27. I often talk about situations and events in foreign countries with my family and/
or friends.
28. I want to make friends with international students studying in Japan.
29. I would feel somewhat uncomfortable if a foreigner moved in next door.
30. I don’t think what’s happening overseas has much to do with my daily life.
31. I am working hard at learning English.
32. I have to study English, because, if I do not study it, I think my parents will be
disappointed with me.
Aubrey and Philpott 457

33. In the future, I can imagine myself as a person whose strength is being competent
in English.
34. I would talk to an international student at university if I saw an opportunity.
35. I am interested in an international career.
36. My parents believe that I must study English to be an educated person.

Note. Items marked with an asterisk (*) were not included in the final analysis.