Propensities involve personal preference and consequently are more fluid (de thay doi)

MOTIVATION

– affective factor/ adaptable/ accounting for less of the variance in learner’s achievement scores

_ teachers recognize the importance of motivations both extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation.

- 1st serious study of motivation:

Lambert and Gardner’s work on the social psychology of language learning in the bilingual
context of Canada. (Gardner, 1985). This work suggested that integrate motivation correlated
most strongly with measures of L2 achievement but subsequent research has shown that in
some teaching contexts (Philippines/ India) an instrumental motivation was more important.
In his later publications: both motivations are important and can co-exist in the same learner
population.
Orientation: long-range goals that learners have for learning a language.
Motivation: “motivational intensity” (i.e. the effort learners were prepared to make to learn a
language and their persistence in learning)
- Further research in Canada : francophone learners display a number of different orientations
On using a sample drawn from the same population,
(Kruidenier and Clement, 1986): different orientations: travel/ friendship/ prestige/
knowledge.these orientations change over time, reflecting both shifting societal patterns and
technological development.
- Belmechri and Hummel )1988): same orientations ( travel/ friendship…) + some new ones (e.g.
self understanding and instrumental)
- Other studies: some learners: lack of any orientation at the beginning/ develop orientations
during it.
->> learners’ orientations are varied, depending on the situational and temporal context, and
also dynamic.
The extent to which learners are prepared to pursue their learning goals (motivational
intensity and perseverance) is much more important than what orientation this or that learner
has.

-1990s

he sociopsychological perspective on motivation was challenged due to

+ failing to acknowledge the resultative dimension of motivation.

Gardner viewed motivation as causative (i.e. it led to L2 achievement) >< a number of studies indicated
that in some learners, motivation resulted from success in learning)
+ presenting motivation in too static a way, failing to acknowledge that motivation was dynamic, shifting
all the time as a result of learners’ learning experiences ( countless other purely personal factors)

+ (from a pedagogic perspective): the sociopsychological perspective was seen as too deterministic –
motivation was treated as something that learners brought to the task of learning an L2 that determined
their success. It did not allow for the possibility that learners could develop intrinsic interest in the
process of their attempt to learn.  the theory was seen as lacking in pedagogic relevance( Crookes
&Schmidt, 1991).

Subsequent developments in the study of motivation have attempted to address these criticisms.

General trend in applied linguistics: the confines of SLA itself to consider theories of motivation from
general psychology.  enrich our understanding of the role that motivations plays in language learning
& led to a bewildering array of theoretical positions.

Dornyei (2001): identifies 10 “contemporary motivation theories) of potential relevance to L2 learning ,

noting that “the list is far from complete). His point is that classrooms are such complex places that no
single motivational principle can account for what goes on in them  in order to understand why
students behave as they do, we need a detailed & most likely eclectic construct that presents multiple
perspective  danger: the construct will lack of clarity and coherence. Little to be gained by simply
listing motivational principles.

Recent developments in theories of L2 motivation :

+ the first concerns an attempt to build a theory that acknowledge the dynamic, multidimentional
nature of motivation. Dornyei’s (2001) process of model learning motivation for the L2 classroom
distinguishes a “ preactional stage” involving “choice motivation” which related closely to the idea of
orientation, an “actional stage”involving “executive motivation”, which concerns the effort of learner is
prepared to invest to achieve the overall goal and heavily influenced by the quality of learning
experience; and a “postactional stage” involving “motivational retrospection” where learners form
attributions out of the learning experience which influence the preparedness to continue.  account for
how motivation changes over time and is far superior to the static models of motivation that have
dominated research to date.

+ the second: concerns the important distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

Noels et al.(2000) provide a detailed model for these two types of motivation.

- “ extrinsic motivation: those actions carried out to achieve some instrumental end”

3 types:

+ external regulation: behavior motivated by sources external to the learner such as

tangible benefits and costs
 + introjected regulation: behavior that results from some kinds of pressure that
individuals have incorporated into the self

+ identified regulation: behavior that stems from personally relevant reasons.

Intrinsic motivation: “ motivation to engage in an activity because it is enjoyable and satisfying to do

so”

3 types:

+ knowledge ( the motivation derived from exploring new ideas and knowledge)

+accomplishment ( the pleasant sensation aroused by trying to achieve a task or goal)

+ stimulation: ( the fun and excitement generated by actually performing a task)

Amotivation: the absence of any motivation to learn.

A factor analytic study based on responses to a questionnaire by Anglophone learners of L2 French in

Canada largely confirmed this model of motivation, clearly distinguished the extrinsic and the intrinsic
motivations.

Amotivation was negatively correlated with measures of perceived competence and intention to
continue study.The measures of intrinsic motivation were more strongly correlated with the criterion
measures than the measures of extrinsic motivation.

Noel interpret the results in terms of self-determination theory. (the more self-determined a learner’s
motivation is, the greater the achievement.

 general claim that “ intrinsic motivation contributes strongly to L2 learning”

 Promise for language pedagogy.

+ provide the conditions that promote intrinsic motivation.
+ how teacher can motivate their students.
 Dornyei(2001) proposes 35 strategies for the language classroom.
+ developing the basic motivational conditions
+ generating initial motivation
+ maintaining and protecting motivation
+ encouraging positive self-evaluation
“although the efficacy of many of these strategies remains to be confirmed, “ there is no
doubt that student motivation can be consciously increased by using creative techniques”
MOTIVATION: REOPENING THE RESEARCH AGENDA

Aims: - review the limitations in what the SL research community has general termed “motivation”

- Note the difference between the way the term has been used by SL researchers and how it is
used by teachers.
- Review the educational and psychological research on the topic that should influence SL studies.
- Set out an agenda for research that might improve the current understanding of this topic in the
SL field.

THE TRADITIONAL SL APPROACH TO MOTIVATION

All the approaches to describing the role of motivation in SL learning share 2 limiting features

- Social-psychological. Motivation has been consistently linked with attitudes toward the
community of speakers of the target language. (Gardner &Lambert and their associates in
Canada)
+Other models of the relationship between motivation and SL learning, all of which have
been heavily influenced by the work of Gardner and Lambert and which maintain the social-
psychological (Schumman, Giles and his associates, Krashen)
- Despite the traditional tripartite distinction between cognition, motivation/ and affect (Isen
1984)  SL research have tended to group affect (attitudes + motivation) . There is no general
agreement on definitions of motivation and attitudes or of their relation to one another. (Ellis,
1985)
- GARDNER’S APPROACH TO MOTIVATION
Motivation: learner’s orientation toward the goal of learning a second language

Gardner & Lambert (1959) first made the distinction between integrative motivation and
instrumental motivation

+ integrative motivation: positive attitudes toward the target language group and the potential for
integrating into that group, or at the very least at interest in meeting and interacting with members
of the target language group..  superior support for language learning

+ instrumental motivation refers to more functional reasons for learning a language: to get a better
job or a promotion, or to pass the required examination.

Gardner (1979) suggested a link between integrative motivation and additive bilingualism/
instrumental motivation and subtractive bilingualism.

In a number of studies, Gardner found that success or failure in learning French in Canada was
associated with whether students wanted to be a part of French culture, as opposed to learning
French for only instrumental reasons..
 The development of a battery of testing instruments, The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
( Gardner, 1979,1985)  stimulated a number of empirical studies  socioeducational model
( gardner, 1979,1980,1985,1988)
Socioeducational model:
+ stress that language are unlike other school subjects in that they involve learning aspects of
behavior typical of another cultural group  attitudes toward the target language community
will at least partially determine success in language learning.
+ differentiate among
Cultural beliefs arising from social milieu.
Motivation as a source of individual differences in language learning.
Formal and informal learning situations
Linguistic and nonlinguistic outcomes.
*Au (1988), the socioeducational model can be summarized in terms of 5 hypotheses
+ the integrative motive hypothesis: an integrative motive will be positively associated
with SL achievement.
+ the cultural belief hypothesis: cultural beliefs influence the development of the
integrative motive and the degree to which integrativeness and achievement are related.
+ the active learner hypothesis: integratively motivated learners are successful because
they are active learners.
+ the causality hypothesis: integrative motivation is a cause, SL achievement: the effect
+ the two-process hypothesis: aptitude and integrative motivation are independent
factors in 2nd language learning
(3 empirical studies have been made to synthesize research findings ( oller (1981), Au (1988) and
Gardner (1985).
(___________________) are the two that got a lot of criticism.

Criticism Gardner’s addressing

- It is not clear that the superiority of
integrative motivation is supported by
the empirical evidence, because
contradictory results have emerged
from studies in different contexts.
+ as summarized by Oller and Au, the
results from such studies have
included every possible relationship
between various measures of
integrative motivation and measures
of proficiency: positive, nil, negative,
and uninterpretable or ambiguous
(Au, 1988)
+ (oyama, 1978; Purcell & Suter, 1980)
have found correlations that
disappeared when other influences
such as age were statistically
Acknowled that the patterns of relationships
among attitudinal and motivational variables
and learning outcomes found in various studies
have been relatively unstable and agreed that
no link necessarily exists between integrative
attitudes and language learning, because, ‘not
everyone who values another community
positively will necessarily want to learn their
language”
- Gardner (1988) continues to maintain
that across a large number of studies,
there have been, in most cases,
significant correlations between at
least some aspects of the integrative
motive and some aspects of SL
proficiency
- Acknowledging that integrative
 controlled.
- Oller (1981) suggested that such
results indicate that the relationship
between affective factors and
motivation/ language learning is “an
unstable nonlinear function that
varies greatly across individuals,
contexts, and learning tasks”
motivation “is not the only factor
involved in SLA and it does not account
for all the variance in second language
achievement (by a long shot)
- Does not currently claim that
integrative motivation is superior to
instrumental or any other type of
motivation, but simply that those who
are integratively motivated will
probably be more successful in
language learning than those who are
not so motivated.

Causality hypothesis:
Numerous researchers have proposed that “no support for the notion that achievement
achievement might actually be the cause influences the nature and amount of attitude
instead of the effect of attitude (Savignon, change” (Gardner, 1985)
1972;, Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen,
&Hargreaves, 1974; Blackman, 1976;
Hernmann, 1980; strong, 1984). Successful SL
learners might tend to acquire positive
attitudes toward both language learning and
the target language community as a result of
doing well, whereas relatively unsuccessful
learners might acquire negative attitudes.

CURRENT VERSION OF THE SOCIOEDUCATIONAL MODEL

Motivation for language learning includes not only goal orientation, but also
+ the desire to learn the language—whatever the reason.
+ attitudes toward the language-learning situation and the activity of language learning
+ effort expended achieving such goals
+ “integrative motive” is no longer equivalent to attitudes toward the language community and
is not equivalent to a score on the integrative orientation subscale of the AMTB or any other
subscale of the AMTB
There is no constant definition of integrative motivation across studies, and in any particular
study the contribution of “integrative attitudes” to what is called “integrative motivation” may
be quite small. (Gardner, 1985, p62-74)
“motivational intensity” scale of AMTB appears to be a poor measure of the degree to which
learners are actually motivated to learn. (co vd cu the)(Chappelle &Roberts(1986) (Schumann
(1978b)
OTHER APPROACHES TO MOTIVATION AND SL LEARNING
1. Speech Accomodation Theory:
 Similarities to Gardner’s: a social-psychological approach to the relationship between
motivation and SL learning. Giles & Byrne (1982) have presented a model in which motivation,
in terms of identification with the target language community, is crucial for SL learning.
Contrast to Gardner’s:
Gardner’s model is intended to account for language learning in a school context.
Speech accommodation theory is not limited to the educational context, but restricted to
explaining the linguistic behavior of members of subordinate groups.
+ stresses ethnolinguistic vitality and its relationship to an individual learner’s self
concept.
The particular contribution of the model : the delineation of theoretical scenarios for
success or failure in SL learning, based on factors related to in-group identification, in-
group vitality, and group boundaries.
Drawback: has not been sufficiently tested to permit evaluation, and no studies dealing
with the motivational component of the model, or its effects on acquisition.

2. Schumann’s Accuturation Model (Schumann 1975, 1978a, 1978b, 1986)

Restricted to SL learning in a naturalistic setting, emphasizes the importance of some level of
integrative motivation, predicting that learners will acquire the second language only to the
degree that they acculturate to the SL community.
Instrumental/ integrative motivation is seen as one of many social and psychological factors
contributing to the construct of acculturation in this model.
Schumann argued that
+ Alberto failed to learn English because of psychological and socio distance from target
language speakers
+ learners with limited functional reasons for language learning (instrumental motivation) are
likely to develop the type of pidginized language exhibited by Alberto.
Other studies undertaken within the context of the acculturation model have failed to provide
strong support for the model.
Schumann (1986) suggested 2 reasons for this:
1. It may be impossible to gain consensus on the definitions and relative importance of
the numerous variables subsumed under “acculturation” to test the model.
2. The effects of affect may be indirect and variable, and thus difficult to test.
Further criticism: Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991) ( McLaughlin)

Schumann appears to have abandoned his earlier claimed that acculturation is the major
causal variable in SLA, demoting the concept to one that acts only as a remote cause in a chain of
factors.

His current view (Schumann, 1986) (which focus on input) : the importance of acculturation ,
including the factor of motivation is that it brings the learner into contact with target language speakers;
verbal interaction with those speakers results in the negotiation of appropriate input, the immediate
cause of language acquisition
Schumann’s acculturation model which focuses on input can be linked to Krashen’s well-known Monitor
Model of SLA (Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985) and particularly to that part of the model known as the ‘input
hypothesis”

Krashen’s:

+ does not see the primary role of motivation in SLA as tied to the provision of comprehensible input.

+ motivation is seen as a component of the ‘affective filter’

+ motivation (as in Schumann’s model) is treated as a component of some more encompassing concept,
and that once again, it is seen as affect.

“affective filter” has been considered to be the weakest part of Krashen’s theory of SLA because

+ from the point of view of theoretical adequacy, the affective filter hypothesis may make the
monitor unfalsifiable.

+ Krashen has provided no explanation of why the filter is hypothesizedto operate in adults but
not in children.

+ the concepts appears close to that of a “mental block” and thus has more connections to
popular than scientific psychology.

INTERIM SUMMARY

- The popularity of the integrative-instrumental contrast, together with the existence of

standardized measures, has meant that this particular concept of motivation has tended to
dominate all other ways of looking at the idea in the SL field.
- The past works focused primarily on social attitudes, a distal factor, rather than on motivation.
- Research on the question of integrative versus instrumental attitudes, motivation ( not directly
measured) and proficiency has produced results that are mixed and difficult to interpret.
- Different attitudes and goal orientations seem to be important , but in ways that vary from
situation to situation.
- Ellis (1985) : it is not at all clear how motivation affects learning. Schumann’s valuable comment
is that motivation is important because it spurs learners to interact with target language
speakers.
- Crookes and Schmidt agree with Gardner’s focus on the active learner. Gardner has pointed out
that the essential difference between his model of motivation and Krashen’s concept of the
affective filter “That is, rather than assume that integratively-motivated individuals somehow
find it easier to take in linguistic material. It seems more parsimonious to hypothesize that they
simply put more of themselves into the language learning task” ( Gardner, 1988)
- In the past, the focus within SL learning theory are acquisition orders, developmental
sequences, the role of Universal Grammar (biologically specified), and other matters over which
language learners are presumed to exercise no choice.
 - There are many aspects of SL learning that one can choose. In various learning contexts, one
may be able to choose to take a course or not, to pay intention in class or not, …..
- In the future, the field seems likely to accept that the successful SL learners is very involved in
learning, both at the meta cognitive level at which general executive functions or strategies such
as planning (Crookes, 1988, 1989) and the allocation of attention (Schmidt, 1990) apply, as well
as the level of task-specific, cognitive strategies(…)
- As these issues receive increasing attention, it seems reasonable that motivation, as it controls
engagement in and persistence with the learning task, should also be considered worthy of
renewed scrutiny.

IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT CONCEPTS OF MOTIVATION FOR SLA

Current Relevant limitations to SL research and theory: the lack of attentions to classroom
learning and the shortage of long term studies.

Crookes and Schmidt see SL learning as an extended process, often taking place both inside and
outside the classroom over a number of years; and above all, as one in which the learners take an
active role at many levels of the process.

Crookes and Schmidt will review the connection between motivation and SL learning, analysed in
terms of the following levels:

1. The micro level dealing with motivational effects on the cognitive processing of SL stimuli;
2. The classroom level, dealing with techniques and activities in motivational terms
3. The syllabus level, at which content decisions come into play
4. Considerations relevant to informal, out of class, and long term factors.

THE MICRO LEVEL

Schmidt (1990) has claimed that attention to input is a necessary condition for language learning and
that what learners attend to and become aware of (i.e notice) is what becomes intake (Corder, 1967)

The link between attention and motivational is extremely close; indeed, definitions of motivation (e.g
Maehr & Archer, 1987) often refer to attention and persistence as the behavioral manifestations of
motivation. Organizing, planning, and completing tasks (other aspects of motivation) equally imply the
allocation of attentional resources

THE CLASSROOM LEVEL

Preliminaries: at the opening stage of a lesson, Keller’s factor of “interest” may have particular
implications for classroom practice. It is possible that interest may be engendered in students partly by
remarks the instructor makes about the forthcoming activities. Crookes and Schmidt even the straight
forward framing remarks initiating an activity or the presentation stage of a lesson deserve to be
assessed in the light of motivational considerations.
Activities:

The various recent “communicative approaches” are characterized by a fairly extensive use of group
work, which has been said to result in greater motivation among students ( Long &Porter, 1985)

Interest is closely related to curiosity, and given standard SL teaching practices, developing curiosity
means using less orthodox teaching techniques and/ or materials.

Change is an essential part of maintaining attention, because otherwise habituation will set in.
Therefore, a too-regular pattern of classroom routine (as may be produced by adherence to the many
tradition SL texts that use the same format for each unit) should probably be avoided.

Feedback:

Whereas an emphasis on external evaluation may momentarily enhance performance, it may negatively
affect continuing motivation by ruling out the establishment of more intrinsic, task-related goals.

In SL classrooms, teachers may need to discourage a concern with grades because otherwise unsolicited
participation and risk-taking will be low.

For teacher feedback to be most efficiently used, it needs to be provided not only at the end of the
activity, but also at the onset of a similar, subsequent activity (Keller, 1893). In addition, teacher’s
feedback should be informational, directing student’s attention to what he or she did that resulted in
success. In providing feedback, instructors also need to take into account the cultural variation in
acceptability or praise or criticism of individuals.

Effects of Students’ self-perceptions

Students’ expectation of self and self-evaluations of likelihood of success appear to have important
motivational effects. As a result of their experiences, some students develop the impression that events
are under their control, and that effort will lead to academic success.

Using cooperative rather than competitive goal structures. In cooperative learning, (e.G Slavin, 1990)
groups of students work on learning activities structured so that there is positive interdependence;
typically, all parties have information or a specific role, and for success to be achieved all must
collaborate. In addition, often the reward or grade for the work is assigned on the basis of the overall
group performance.

Materials:

More recent textbooks increasingly use varied typographical layouts, colour illustrations, photographs,
and often page formats that have been borrowed from the world of journalism

Besides format, materials writers consider the interest of content, both with regard to age and culture.

THE SYLLABUS/ CURRICULUM LEVEL

ESL course design has paid explicit attention to the concept of needs analysis, on the reasonable
assumption that a program which appears to meet the students’ own expressed needs will be more
motivating, more efficient and thus more successful.