Masgoret and Gardner (2003) conducted on Behavioural meta-analysis in order to characterise the relationship between language achievement and the primary components of the socio-educational model, defined as follows:

Integrativeness: An openness to identify with a different language community
Attitude toward the learning situation: The reaction of student in relation to events that occur in the immediate language learning context.
Motivation: The goal directed behaviour.

The total complex of these three components is referred to as Integrative Motivation. Two orientations to language learning are also identified;

Integrative Orientation: Reasons for language learning that emphasise the notion of identification with a community.
Instrumental Orientation: Emphasise the practical reasons for language learning without implying any interest in community integration.

Three major conclusions were drawn from the analysis:
a) All five classes of variable are positively related to achievement in second language learning
b) Motivation is more highly related to second language learning than the remaining variables
c) The findings are not moderated to any great degree by the availability of the target language in the immediate environment or by the age of the learners.

According to the authors, the active variable in the socio-education model is motivation. Whilst broadly accepting this premise, the theoretical model and its operationisation – AMTB, has been questioned by Dornyei (1994) on the basis of conceptual, validity and measurement issues requiring efforts to elaborate the construct of L2 motivation. Whilst a summary version of the AMTB is available, it would seem that there is no updated, elaborated version of an L2 motivation scale. Amongst other things, Dornyei does give credit to Gardner for noting that success in L2 is a function of the learner attitude toward the linguistic community of the target language. This is particularly significant in relation to the semi-rural Ghanaian perception of the British and their legacy.

Additional research questioning the meaning the integrativeness, Nikolev (2001, in Dornyei, 2005, p75) found that although unsuccessful learners shared positive values towards foreign languages, the main reason for their failure concerned the perception of the classroom practices they were exposed to. She stated that the problematic areas related to classroom methods in general and assessment, focus on form and rote learning in particular. For these (Hungarian learners) situation-specific motives overrode attitues towards the L2.

Whilst this situation specific conclusion may not be generalisable to an African context, it does tend to favour the SOLE where methods of learning emerge spontaneously from the group. Furthermore Wu (2003 in Dornyei, 2005, p79) suggests that giving students the freedom in choosing content, methods, performance outcomes all lead to enhanced percieved autonomy. Dornyei (2005) identifies a further concept of vision as a means of connecting contemporary research with the integative motive model of Gardner. According to Dornyei the notion of an ideal self (who has mastered L2 in terms of integrative and instrumental goals) is a profound source of motivation for the learner. In view of the communal nature of traditional society, the situated notion of an ideal-self in Ghana presumably differs from that of a western student. However, it should still provide a resilient source of motivation (at least for the older African students). The relevance of the motivation scale for young children (say 6-9) remains questionable.

On the subject of motivation, aside from a appropriate instrument (child focused), it is also important to understand de-motivation i.e to interview a student dropout on order to understand the precise reasons for failure as a means of characterising the research domain.

Meanwhile in the search for L2 behavioural material, I have found a useful document that assesses L2 acquisition in an African, socio-cultural context (Cleghorn, Rollnick, 2002). In a similar vain to Tedla and the pan-Africanists, the research focuses on the difficulty of learning Science in L2 and in a culture that has a different perception of knowledge and knowledge acquisition than the west (the source of the curriculum). The authors suggest that the problems of learning is often related to the language as opposed to the subject theme. Given the opportunity to discuss, clarify and assimilate ideas and concepts in the traditional L1 (develop socio-cultural meaning) prior to translation into L2, then the chances of successfully crossing the (cultural and knowledge) border are improved. Furthermore, the use of L1 as a means of positive reinforcement in L2 acquisition has already been documented. Once again, this position seems to support the SOLE as a basis for a developing world pedagogy.

In relation to education policy, the authors make the following recommendations: 1) Establish Basic literacy skills in the mother tongue. In rural areas in particular, an emphasis on oral skills in the initial years on schooling may be an excellent precursor to later reading and writing in L2. 2) Developing materials in the local language. The use of rote learning to deliver disconnected facts without meaningful contextualisation undermines the development of authentic L2 skills, particularly for the poor and marginalised, reproducing existing inequalities. 3) Educate Teachers about code switching. 4) Educate teachers about border crossing. This concept joins the cognitive with the social, characterising the conflict in world views that characterises learners moves from home to school and back again.

As previously observed (post 18-08-10), the objectives are related to distinct areas of research 1) what is learned i.e improvement in L2 communication. 2) how learning was achieved. Only relevant to the SOLE (as the direct teaching associated with the monitorial method is underpinned by behavioral theory).

James has suggested that Obj. 2 could be undertaken as post-doctoral research. However in order to define the methodology, it is important that I understand theories related L2 acquisition and the means of directing the assessment based on an appropriate toolset. This process is complicated by the specific nature of the SOLE environment:

a) no teacher: the lessions are focused on the computer
b) no predefined tasks: the learning is by nature Self Organised loosely based the immersion approach to L2 acquisition (as opposed to formal learning) as described by Krashen. In this context, Hammerly (1987) has provided a negative critique of outcomes. One has to refer to Krashen’s Natural Approach for a more definitive description.
c) No theory exists to describe SOLE. The Social Cultural approach to learning. (with or without computers) is based on specifically designed tasks and promoted by scaffolding. Simply putting children together does not necessary promote learning (Piaget). It should be noted however that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (n+1) is not dissimilar to Vygotsky’s theory of peer learning
d) Context: The research is being undertaken in a difficult developing world context (as opposed to a conventional school environment).

Furthermore, little beyond On-Off task comparison has yet been found in relation to Behavioural analysis of the different learning approaches. It probably time to seek some assistance.

Theories associated with L2 learning are listed as follows (Krashen, 1983):

1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: There are 2 ways of developing langauge competence. a) formal learning. b) language acquisition through subconscious processes.
2) Natural Order Hypothesis: grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order.
3) Monitor Hypothesis: conscious learning has a limited function in adult learning; it can only be used as a monitor/editor of output.
4) Input (and net) Hypothesis: Language acquisition is achieved by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of competence (i+1). Listening comprehension and reading are considered of primary importance. Acquisition is achieved through context and extra-linguistic information. According to Krashen (1983), optimal input maybe simply be ensuring that the students understand what is being said or read. Total Physical Response (TPR) is a derivative of the input hypothesis
5) Affective Filter Hypothesis: affective/attitudinal stance of the student is related to L2 achievement.

The Natural Approach combines a number of theory in a context-related, language acquisition technique that primarily dependent on the following factors: a) the quantity of comprehensible input. b) the strength of the affective filters. The goals of NA are to improve communicative (priority and focused on functional language) and linguistic (pronunciation, morphology and syntax) competency.

L2 acquisition activities associated with the Natural Approach have the following aims:

1) introduce new vocabulary
2) provide the comprehensible input the students will utilise for acquisition (develop listening skills is a priority, pp97). Adjustment of L2 to level is considered important though I wonder how individual children are able to learn L2 through TV and radio.
3) create opportunities for oral production
4) instill a sense of group belonging and cohesion that will contribute to lowering the affective filter

General Communicative Format
1) Personal Identification Stage: Students learn how to describe themselves and their family and friend in L2
2) Experiences: Students talk about themselves and their experiences.
3) Opinions: Students discuss political issues, current affairs etc.

The validity of language proficiency testing (p165) is judged in terms of the following criteria: a) relevance b) acceptability.
c) comparability d) economy. The tests can be classified as tests of linguistic competency or communicative competency.

Krashen suggests the following the following test structure in relation to the NA to L2 acquisition:

1) Listening Comprehension: a) pre-speaking stage: vocabulary recognition, true/false statements. b) single word stage: what…?, how many..? questions c) elementary discourse stage: listening comprehension as a result of media-based activities (audio and visual)

2) Speaking: Oral exams focused on subjective ratings (Callaway, 1980) of language characteristics such as fluency, nativeness, grammar, vocabulary, content, comprehension etc. Contexts for testing speech include a) conversational interchange. b) narrating, recounting events, giving instructions. c) formal talks and speeches. d) debating and arguing.

3) Reading & Writing: Testing is context-based can be delivered in terms of the following forms of text. a) signs/advertisements and check comprehension. b) newspapers and general interest reading. For pleasure reading the standard tests used to evaluate the scanning and gist reading skills in the L1 are useful in adapted form; the student reads a text and answers related questions. c) academic reading; detailed reading of the passage.

The writing test depends on the nature of the task, as follows i.e filling-in forms, personal letter, business letters, personal narratives etc. Writing samples are then evaluated in several ways: a) an indication of the learning competency acquired (linguistic or communicative or both). b) Measure of monitor efficiency.