Abstract
English in Taiwan, just like the majority of countries in Asia, is treated as a subject for study rather than as a living language to be spoken in daily conversation. Therefore, the EFL classroom context is very different from a natural ESL learning environment. The lack of a surrounding community of English speakers outside the classroom increases the challenge for EFL instructors (Parker, 1995). Pèrez (2004) claimed that the opportunity for communication in authentic situations and settings is a major factor for second-language acquisition by adults. Another important determinant of language learning achievement is motivation (Dornyei, 1994). Chang and Shu (2000) also claimed that there is a positive relationship between the learning environment and student motivation, stating that a good learning environment helps to improve the learning outcomes, and inspires and boosts the learning spirit.
This empirical study, using quantitative methodology, explored the perceptions of students at a Taiwanese technical university concerning its EFL learning environment in three aspects: the physical environment, instructional arrangements, and social interaction. The study also examined the relationship between the learning context and student motivation. Quantitative data revealed that the EFL environment in the three aspects was considered by students to be an obstacle to their learning, and that student motivation positively correlated with the learning environment. The paper concludes with recommendations by the researchers for improving practice. 

Creating an optimal EFL learning environment - the key to successful second language acquisition
People around the world need to be able to communicate with each other as never before for business, social, and academic purposes as a result of globalization. Trade, ideas, knowledge, and technology flow from place to place, and a common language is essential to maintaining and improving the stream of communication (Nwaila, 1997). Since Taiwan is in a region of Asian economic center, proficiency in the English language has been a mark of learning, social status, and success (Kim, 2002).
   However, as in the majority of Asian countries, English in Taiwan is taught in English as Foreign (EFL) classes where it is treated as a subject to be studied study rather than as a living language to speak. The lack of a surrounding community of English speakers outside the classroom increases the challenge for EFL instructors immensely (Parker, Heitzman, Fjerstad, Babbs, & Cohen, 1995) as it is suggested that the opportunity for communication in authentic situations and settings, especially with native speakers, is a major factor for second-language acquisition by adults (Spolsky, 1989). This may explain why so many popular EFL programs and foreign language teaching methods developed over the past half century have tried to replicate the target language environment through immersion camps and programs or bilingual school curricula (Lapkin, Swain, & Shapson, 1990).
   Another crisis resulting from insufficient student interaction with native English speakers is deteriorating English proficiency (Tung, 1984), demonstrated by Taiwan’s low ranking in both TOEFL (Test of English as Foreign Language) and TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication). Tung further pointed out that the difference in these scores can be explained by the environment of English-language usage surrounding students. In 2003-2004, Taiwan was tenth in computer-based total mean scores on TOEFL in Southeast Asia beating only Cambodia, North Korea, Thailand, and Japan (ETS, 2004). The total mean score for Taiwan was 203, well below the world mean score of 215. The highest score for Asia was earned by Singapore, at 252 (ETS, 2004). In 2002-2003, Taiwan was 18th from the bottom worldwide and sixth from the bottom in Asia TOEIC (Chang, 2005). On both tests, students from countries where English is a part of everyday life like Singapore, Philippine, or Hong Kong score consistently 20 to 40 points higher than do Taiwanese students.
   Another important determinant of language learning achievement is motivation (Dornyei, 1994). Dornyei defined motivation as the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes toward learning the language. Su (2003), Sue (2004), and Rueda and Chen (2005) used references to recent studies to advocate stimulating student motivation in order to increase their interest and achievement. These studies showed that “students with greater second/foreign language learning motivation, in most cases, receive higher grades and achieve better proficiency in the target language” (Rueda & Chen, 2005, p. 210). Hsieh (2002) claimed that there is a positive relationship between the learning environment and student motivation. Chang and Shu (2000) echo Hsieh’s idea by stating the following four guiding principles to define an excellent learning environment:

1. A good learning environment helps to improve the learning outcome.
2. A good environment provides the learner with care and support.
3. A good learning environment inspires and boosts the learning spirit.
4. A good learning environment cultivates responsibility in the learner (p. 34).

   In addition, Chang (1999) and Dornyei (1990) also found second-language motivation strongly tied to the contest or where the language is learned. Labrie and Clement (1986) did support the assumption that low learning proficiency is the result of the lack of a true immersion or an authentic environment, which, in turns, results in lack of commitment of Taiwanese students to active learning with the associated motivation and attitude for learning English. That is the reason why a majority of students in Taiwan attribute their low motivation to study English to the lack of an authentic learning environment.
   Various definitions of the learning environment exist in the literature, but many center around the learner’s situation while undergoing the process of learning. Smith, Neisworth, and Greer (1978) defined the learning environment as having five dimensions:

1.  Physical environment, architecture, design, and arrangement considerations for the school and particularly the instructional space.
2.  Instructional arrangements, curriculum content and characteristics, teaching method, and materials and media for instruction.
3.  Social situation, teacher-child, child-child, interactions, group dynamics, classroom, school, and community social aspects.
4.  Evaluation instruments and evaluative practices, placement, summative, and formative devices and procedures used by school psychologists and others.
5.  Supportive services, in-school (health, speech, counseling) and out-of-school (employment counseling, follow-up) facilities (p. 11).

The first three dimensions are directly related to students learning course content. Therefore, this study focuses on the first three dimensions only due to the limits of time available.
   Understanding and optimizing the learning environment of EFL learners in Taiwan has been recognized by Taiwan’s Ministry of Education in the Challenging 2008 National Development Plan to establish an English-speaking environment. However, the literature examining the impact of learning environment on learner motivation to study English and the relationship between both is relatively scarce (Chang, 1999). This study aimed to investigate individual elements in the learning environment of a technical university in Taiwan and their relationships with learner motivation. The elements of the EFL learning environment most easily controlled, and most often encountered, by those participating in the study were closely examined. Those elements included the physical environment, the instructional arrangements, and the social interaction of the members of the environment.

Methodology
Population and Sample
The target population consisted of 3,589 non-English major freshman students required to take English in EFL classes at one private technical university - Chienkuo Technology University (CTU) in central Taiwan. Following the sample size recommendations of Kreijcie and Morgan (1970), the sample for the study was 593 freshman students selected from the population using a two-stage random sampling procedure, combining cluster sampling and random sampling. After the sample was identified, the researcher delivered the study introduction letter to the faculty instructors of the classes containing students chosen for the sample, requesting these faculty members to have their students to complete the study survey during class time. The letter assured participants of their confidentiality and their participation was voluntary. In the first stage, the researcher selected nine, nine, and eight classes, respectively, from the day, evening, and weekend schools using a table of random numbers. In the second stage, 1,233 students in the selected 26 classes were numbered, and a table of random numbers was used to select 593 students (from the 26 classes) for the sample. Out of the sampled participants, 571 responded, resulting in a response rate of 96.3%.

Instrumentation
The researcher created a quantitative data collection instrument based on two existing survey tools, including Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery and the California Foreign Language Project and related literature. The instrument is divided into two major sections with a total 54 survey items. Sections A - motivation for learning English with 20 items asked students how motivated they were to study English, and Section B with 34 items regards characteristics of the EFL learning environment (see Appendix 1).
   The 34 question items in Section B were grouped into three categories - physical environment, instrumental arrangements, and social interaction - and divided into two separate questions for each question item. The first question per item asked students about how much each item was present in their environment (existence) using a five-point Likert scale ranged from “1” indicating not at all to “5” indicating very strongly. The second question asked how important (importance) this item was to their learning by using the same five-point Likert scale.

Data analysis
The researchers used the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the quantitative data. The Cronbach’s Alpha value for this survey was .90, which is considerably higher compared to a minimum required value of .70. Mean score for Section A was calculated to measure student motivation. A series of dependent t tests was computed to determine whether the difference between existence and importance reached the significant level in the three separate categories of the learning environment - physical environment, instructional arraignments, and social interaction. If the mean score for existence was higher than that of the score for importance, or vice-versa, and reached the significance level of .05, the statistics allowed a determination of which variable was an incentive or an obstacle. By using Pearson’s r coefficient, the association between motivation and learning environment was calculated to determine how strongly they were related to each other and whether that correlation was positive or negative.

Results
Descriptive statistics revealed that students had a low motivation with a mean score of 2.88 (M = 2.88) where 3.0 indicates a neutral impression of their own motivation. The combined mean for these three environmental factors was (M = 2.90), which was low to neutral. Student respondent perceptions regarding the extent that environmental factors were present in their school environment (in existence) included three issues -physical, instructional, and social environment. The combined mean for these three environmental factors was (M = 2.90), which was low-moderate. For the instructional environment as a separate issue of the environment, the mean (M = 2.96) was higher than for both the physical (M = 2.83) and social environment (M = 2.84), indicating that the student respondents were more aware of instruction as an EFL environment factor than were the physical or social environment. Finally, respondents rated the importance of the overall environment factors (M = 3.45) as higher than the students perceived factors actually being in existence (M = 2.90) in their EFL environment. Respondents perceived both the physical environmental (M = 3.48) and instruction environment factors (M = 3.48) as more important than the social environment factors (M = 3.37), displayed in Table1.

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Motivation and Learning Environment

Learning Factors		Mean	SD
Motivation	Motivation (items 1-20)	3.24	.70
Learning Environment – Existence	Physical Environment (items 1-8)	2.83	.67
	Instructional Arrangements (items 9-25)	2.96	.62
	Social Interaction (items 26-34)	2.84	.71
	General Environment (items 1-34)	2.90	.60
Learning Environment – Importance	Physical Environment (items 1-8)	3.48	.64
	Instructional Arrangements (items 9-25)	3.48	.65
	Social Interaction (items 26-34)	3.37	.76
	General Environment (items 1-34)	3.45	.64

   Inferential statistics showed the overall learning environment was perceived by the students as an obstacle because the mean score for existence (M = 2.90) was lower than the mean score for importance (M = 3.45), and reached the significance level of .05, t (498)= -16.82, p = .000. The first dependent-sample t test was performed to determine if the physical environment was perceived to be an obstacle or an incentive. Because the mean difference for the physical environment between its existence and importance was found, and since the difference reached the significant level, t (498)= -16.82, p = .000, physical environment was considered by the students as an obstacle. The second t test was used to determine whether the instructional arrangement was perceived to be an obstacle or an incentive, and the third t test was for the social interaction. Both the instructional arrangement and the social interaction were also considered as obstacles with t (498) = -14.87, p = .000, for instruction arrangement, and t (498) = -13.92, p = .000 for social interaction, displayed in Table 2.

Table 2
Dependent-sample t Tests for Mean Difference between the Existence and Importance based on the Three Dimensions in the Environment

Factors	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.	Difference	t	df	p	Effect Size
Env._Ex._I	2.83	.67	1.00	5.00	Env._Ex._I-	-16.82*	498	.000	.75
Env._Im._I	3.48	.64	1.25	5.00	Env._Im._I
Env._Ex._II	2.96	.62	1.00	4.71	Env._Ex._II-	-14.87*	498	.000	.67
Env._Im._II	3.48	.65	1.35	5.00	Env._Im._II
Env._Ex._III	2.84	.71	1.00	4.89	Env._Ex._III-	-13.92*	498	.000	.62
Env._Im._III	3.37	.76	1.00	5.00	Env._Im._III

* p < .05 (2-tailed); Env._Ex._I: Physical Environment-Existence; Env._Ex._II: Instructional Environment-Existence; Env._Ex._III: Social Environment-Existence; Env._Im._I: Physical Environment-Importance; Env._Im._II: Instructional Environment-Importance; Env._Im._III: Social Environment-Importance.

A positive relationship existed between motivation and overall learning at the .01 level. Significant correlations at the .01 level were also found between motivation and each of the issues - existence and importance in the environment, displayed in Table 3.

Table 3
Summary of Correlations among the Four Learning Factors

	Motivation	Environment (Existence)	Environment (Importance)
Motivation	1.000
Environment (Existence)	.250**	1.000
Environment (Importance)	.573**	.236**	1.000
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Discussion
The most important conclusion drawn from this study was that CTU students considered the overall EFL environment to be an obstacle to their learning. While social interaction was considered to have the least negative impact on their proficiency, the social aspect of the learning environment was not perceived as a learning facilitator. Changing learning environment elements that are under the school’s control will show students that technical universities are working to meet their needs and support students’ optimum learning success. Improving the environment would improve student motivation and thereby student proficiency and achievement. Symbols of institutional and community commitment to an academic program have a strong influence on the perceptions of students, their motivation, and their achievement outcomes. These symbols need to be enhanced to affect student motivation.
   Students have to want to learn, especially when they face the disadvantage of being behind before they begin. Hsieh (2002) found that improving the overall EFL environment improves student motivation: giving students what they need, and letting them know about it, spurs them to do more on their own. If students do not see a link to their own efficacy, they do not consider such an activity an “opportunity” to be used in their learning. Therefore, they do not feel motivated to use the tools and resources provided or to understand their advantages fully. Only in seeing their own improvement in speaking and listening will they understand the benefits of the tools they used to improve.

Without understanding which specific skills they should be learning, students take the path of least resistance. When not confronted by a need to use English outside the classroom on a daily basis, it is easy to see the inside of the room as the only place to speak English. Students and instructors may remember why they want to learn English - to travel, get a job, or to graduate - but they find the motivations that keep challenging them - reading magazines, watching films, talking with friends - convenient only within the bounds of the classroom. When the material is considered to be difficult to access and outside of the place of learning, students fail to recognize their greatest motivational learning tool, using English. By redefining the sense of which places and times are included in the English-learning environment, CTU could help instructors and students redefine their concept of “authentic” interaction. If students are enabled to see the usage of English as a necessary part of an authentic environment, even if accuracy is not the ultimate goal, students will understand that they can improve the environment just by using English, and teachers would not feel so bound by the textbook and traditional teaching methods. In turn, EFL English learners at CTU would understand that the entire world and the entire day is their classroom.

Recommendations for improving practice
The recommendations emerging from the study results and conclusions are as follows:

1. The EFL learning environment at a technical university has a powerful effect on learning motivation and perceived relevance of learning English, but students and the school can avoid learning contexts that decrease student motivation by using available resources and can mitigate them by hiring more teachers, generating peer interaction, adding multimedia equipment to all classrooms, or making sure the language lab is staffed.

2. Installing modern multimedia in all classrooms, especially overhead-mounted computer projectors and speakers, will arouse all CTU students’ interest to learn English.

3. Before instructors can apply the techniques of cooperative and communicative learning, such as scaffolding, they must ensure that the activities fall within their own and students’ comfort zones. Students need to understand the boundaries, the goals, and expectations of the task in order to stay on track and produce quality work. This will help teachers control small groups, pair work, or discussions in large-group settings and help students understand the point of the exercise. Faculty needs to engage students in dialogue about the changing global society and the role of English language in it.

4. Both teachers and students need to be taught how to set and meet learning goals. While the GEPT remains an important part of the curriculum and instrumental motivation, individualized learning goals and integrative motivation also must be addressed.

5. The English Corner can provide a valuable resource if students can be enticed into participating in a nurturing setting. If teachers make one visit mandatory per semester, the students will have a reason to visit with a friend, making it less intimidating. Also, the English Corner needs to be staffed by a faculty member or an upper-class English major. Including alternate, non-academic locations and activities in the English Corner program, such as restaurants, arcades, karaoke, or bowling, would keep the situation low-pressure and help students understand the more casual uses of English.

6. The greatest desire of students was to have more contact with native speakers. If instructors are not able to bring foreigners to the classroom, they could assign students to conduct their own interviews with foreigners living in the community. There is also the option of using technology to allow two-way audio and video conferencing with native English speakers. The students will need some basic guidance in finding native speakers, and teachers can direct them to the locations where students may be the most likely to encounter them, such as department stores, churches, and expatriate pubs and restaurants. Technical institutions that want to make progress need to increase the availability of native English language speakers in their campus community.

7. Including opportunities for fun extracurricular activities is another recommendation meant to encourage students to use English in non-academic settings. Inviting foreign bands, English language speakers, or hosting English language plays, karaoke, or films on a regular basis will attract students looking for fun and a chance to practice their English.

8. A smaller class with a proper student-to-teacher ratio and expanding the hours of English classes in a daily schedule will create a more comfortable physical situation as well as allow teachers longer blocks of time to attempt more CLT and cooperative teaching methods.

9. By offering grade-based or economic-based incentives for participation in English-language activities, CTU can boost student motivation by helping them demonstrate the link between efficacy and reward. Extra credit, scholarships for passing the GEPT, or reimbursement for exchange-student expenses would help fuel student motivation.

References
Chang, J. H. (2005, Jan. 9). TOEFL, Taiwan is the last 18th from the bottom in the global ranking. United Daily News.

Chang, C. P., & Shu, M. Z. (2000). The experiment research for English teaching with small class of junior high school. (The Ministry of Education, The 2000 Academic Year Research Project of Taiwan High School Technician Conference).

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.

Hsieh,Y. T. (2002) A study on the adults' motivation toward the participation in English learning. Chia-Yi, Taiwan: National Chung Cheng University.

Kim, J. K. (2002). English as a Magic Wand: Socially Constructed Perceptions and Attitudes Toward English among Learners of English as a Foreign Language, Humanizing Language Teaching, 4(5). Retrieved February 05, 2006, from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/sep02/start5.htm

Lapkin, S., Swain, M., Shapson, S. (1990). French immersion research agenda for the 90s. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46(4), 639-673.

Nwaila, C. (1997). Black English education in South Africa: an investigation, Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria.

Parker, J. E., Heitzman, S. M., Fjerstad, A. M., Babbs, L. M., Cohen, A. D. (1995). Exploring the role of foreign language in immersion education.

Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Milcham, J., Weber, R. R. (Eds.). Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. (pp. 235-253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pérez-Leroux, A. T., A. Munn, C. Schmitt and M. DeIrish. (2004)  Learning definite determiners:  genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish.  Boston University Conference on Language Development 28, Proceedings Supplement.
http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/supp.html

Rueda, R., & Chen, C. Y. B. (2005). Assessing motivational factors in foreign language learning: Cultural variation in key constructs. Educational Assessment, 10(3), 209-229.

Smith, R. M., Neisworth, J. T., & Greer, J. G. (1978). Evaluating educational environments. Columbus, OH: C.E. Merrill Pub. Co.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Consider for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Su, M. L. (2003). Comparison of English learning attitudes, motivation and strategies between vocation-oriented students and college- oriented students. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University.

Sue, S. W. (2004). A study of vocational high school student's EFL difficulties and the solutions - based on national Taiwan commercial and vocational senior high school. Taiwan, Taiwan: National Cheng Kung University.

Tung, C. M. (1984). Essential points on English teaching. Paper presented at The Proceedings of the First International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan, 327-339.

 

Perceptions of the Motivation and the Learning Environment—A Survey for EFL Students in Taiwan

This survey asks your opinions about your study of English as a Foreign Language. Your opinions are important to help educators understand how to improve EFL programs. The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. Thank you for contributing to this educational research.

A. Motivation for Learning English
     Directions: Please circle the number at the right of each question to indicate your opinion suing the following guide.

Not at All	Very Little	Moderately	Strongly	Very Strongly
1	2	3	4	5

How motivated are you to study English to…

Get a job that requires English?	1     2     3     4     5
Increase your chances of future career advancement?	1     2     3     4     5
Travel to foreign lands where English is an essential tool for communication?	1     2     3     4     5
Pass English-related tests (i.e., GEPT, TOEFL, TOEIC)?	1     2     3     4     5
Get a good grade that will benefit your grade-point average?	1     2     3     4     5
Get through the required course?	1     2     3     4     5
Become a more knowledgeable person?	1     2     3     4     5
Meet your family’s expectations?	1     2     3     4     5
Be competitive with others in varied fields?	1     2     3     4     5
Earn social respect of peers who have not yet mastered English?	1     2     3     4     5
Satisfy your own interest in English?	1     2     3     4     5
Establish relationships on the Internet with more and different people?	1     2     3     4     5
Be included in relationships with others who use English?	1          2          3          4          5
Be part of the global society that uses English?	1          2          3          4          5
Understand and appreciate another culture by reading literature in its original language?	1     2     3     4     5
Understand the news from native English-speakers’ perspective?	1     2     3     4     5
Learn more about people who speak English?	1     2     3     4     5
Meet and communicate with English-speaking foreigners?	1     2     3     4     5
Be proficient in English?	1     2     3     4     5
Satisfy your desire to learn as much as English as you can?	1     2     3     4     5

B. Learning Environment in EFL
Directions: Please circle one number at right of each statement to indicate your opinion. Be sure to answer both columns for each statement.
For example, if your teacher requires you to listen to the news in English once a week, for the statement “Listening to English-language radio,” you may rate the first column as a “5.” But, if you don’t like listening to the news in English and do not think it is important, you might rate it as a “1” for the second column.

Not at All	Very Little	Moderately	Highly	Very Highly
1	2	3	4	5

	How much is each of the following a part of your EFL Program?	How important is each of the following to your learning in the EFL Program?
A comfortable setting in the classroom (i.e., good lighting/air conditioning)	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Flexible classroom furnishings to allow small-group work	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Modern classrooms and buildings	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A small enough student-to-teacher ratio to allow teachers and students to become well acquainted	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A place on campus to practice English outside of class time	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A language lab with audio/visual materials for independent study	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Ample space for multiple class-time activities	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Bilingual signs and English learning bulletin board on campus	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A practical and useful curriculum for future career development	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A curriculum focused on meeting the needs of daily life	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A variety of teaching activities for learning	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
My teachers' instruction focused on two-way communication	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Teachers' use of authentic, real-life related materials for learning	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Opportunities to talk with native English speakers	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Time to practice English with my peers in class	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
The use of real-world, current-affairs learning materials	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Commercial movies/TV in English	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
A focus on students’ real-life issues in English conversation	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Teachers' introduction to Western cultures in class	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
The use of current computer and teaching technologies	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Quality printed-text materials in English	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Learning strategies taught by teachers to make individual mastery of English easier	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Regular in-class drill and practice	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Regular translation of English into Mandarin	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Requirement for students to engage in English conversation during most classes	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Class activities suggested by the students	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Opportunities to actually use English in my   community	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
My teacher’s awareness of my level of use	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Small-group discussion to accomplish English-learning tasks	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Peer tutoring	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
My peers’ positive attitudes toward studying English	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
My teacher’s enthusiasm for teaching English	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Support for EFL from campus administration	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5
Small-group tasks focused on collaboration among members	1  2  3  4  5	1  2  3  4  5