I wanted to know why this development of communication in English with Germans was taking place and if this was only a development particular to the Netherlands, or Limburg, or were other cultures also experiencing the same. However, yearning to know the answer is one thing, but having the opportunity to study this phenomenon is another.
Little is known about the effects of different instructional approaches on learner affect in oral interaction in the foreign language classroom. In a randomized experiment with Dutch pre-vocational learners (N = 147), we evaluated the effects of 3 newly developed instructional programs for English as a foreign language (EFL). These programs differed in instructional focus (form-focused vs. interaction strategies- oriented) and type of task (pre-scripted language tasks vs. information gap tasks). Multilevel analyses revealed that learners’ enjoyment of EFL oral interaction was not affected by instruction, that willingness to communicate (WTC) decreased over time, and that self-confidence was positively affected by combining information gap tasks with interactional strategies instruction. In addition, regression analyses revealed that development in learners’ WTC and enjoyment did not have predictive value for achievement in EFL oral interaction, but that development in self-confidence did explain achievement in EFL oral interaction in trained interactional contexts.
Study goal: This study was carried out to answer the following research question: which motivation do healthy volunteers have to participate in phase I clinical trials? - Methods: A literature search was done through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier, followed by three interviews with volunteers who had recently concluded their participation in a (non-commercial) phase I trial. - Results: Our literature search revealed mainly commercial motives for volunteers to participate in phase I clinical trials. The interviews (with volunteers in a non-commercial trial) showed that other factors may also play a decisive role, such as: (1) wish to support the investigator (2) wish to contribute to science, (3) access to more/better health care (4) sociability: possibility to relax and to communicate with other participants (5) general curiosity. Precondition is that risks and burden are deemed acceptable. - Conclusions: financial remuneration appears to be the predominant motive to participate voluntarily in a clinical trial. Other reasons were also mentioned however, such as general curiosity, the drive to contribute to science and the willingness to help the investigator. In addition, social reasons were given such as possibility to relax and to meet other people. Potential subjects state that they adequately assess the (safety) risks of participating in a trial as part of their decision process.
