l\tlotivation Research and SLA: Bringing it

into the Classroom

Eowyn Crisfield and Joanna White

Abstract This study addresses the variable of motivation, which is of prime

concern to EFL/ESL teachers. Specifically, it was undertaken to assess the
hypothesized association between student-perceived course usefulness and inter-
est/motivation level in mandatory general and specific purposes (ESP) English
second language courses. The study was conducted at one Canadian post-sec-
ondary institution over three semesters (N = 615). The participants were enrolled
in four course levels and two fields of study. Data collection was undertaken using
a one-page questionnaire consisting of ten Likert-scale questions and two-short
answer questions. The results indicate that ratings of usefulness and interest are
significantly higher for ESP than general ESL courses. Furthermore, there is a
significant relationship between usefulness and interest. This relationship varies
significantly by level, but not by field of study. The confirmation of a connection
between usefulness and interest is pertinent to any adult ESL/EFL situation, par-
ticularly in situations where the courses are mandatory and the students therefore
not necessarily intrinsically motivated. As interest has already been established as
a precursor for motivation, it follows tha~ increasing the usefulness of content
would also increase motivation for this target population.

1 Introduction

As any language teacher can tell you, keepmg • students mo tivated

. is . one of thed
mo st important elements of a successful language class. Unmotivated students t~n
not to actively participate in the classroom an d therebY lose out on learnmg

E. Crisfield (121) . J. White

Concord ia University Montreal Canada
em
· ai·1: ecrisfield@yahoo.ca
' '

217
M. Pawt k ( . •d I Diffierences h.
in Language
Learnin a ded.), New Perspectives
.
on Ind1v1 ua I
· and Teac mg,
Doi- g an Teaching, Second Language Learnmg B Jin Heidelberg 2012
· lO.I007/978-3-642-20850-8_14, © Springer-Verlag er
 E. Crisfield and J. White
218
. . th what is being done in the area of motivation
opportunities. This bemg . e cha~e,quest to increase student motivation? Second
t h lp teachers m t elf . •
researc h O e . . rove their knowledge m this area have a host of
langu_age teachers. seekinght~ i:~posal. They can examine social-psychological
theones and studies at t elf . . h · •
. . • t mentality theones, eqmty t eones or remforcement
theones need theones, ms ru . •h
. ' . fiew However research dealmg wit second language
theones, Just to name a • , . .
• • • h
acqmsitlon as no t always been easily transferable
. to second
. or foreign .language
c1assroom pedagogy. Whi .le this may not seem immediately problematic from a
research perspective, when one considers that a central goal of SLA research is to
illuminate and improve second and foreign language pedagogy (Dornyei 2001a;
McGroarty 2001 ), it becomes clear that greater effort must be made to translate
theory into practice: "From a practicing teacher's point of view, the most pressing
question related to motivation is not what motivation is but rather how it can be
increased. It is an unflattering indication of the detachment of research from
classroom practice that very little work has been done in the L2 field to devise and
test motivational strategies systematically" (Dornyei 2001a:. 51).
This study is based on Domyei's tripartite model of motivation and takes its
cues from the Leaming-Situation Level, which is the area in which teachers have
the most opportunity to affect the motivation level of their students. Dornyei draws
from a variety of theories to create a tripartite model for investigating SLA
motivation. This model contains elements of motivation that affect L2 learning in a
format which shows their relevance to the L2 classroom. Using this model
(Table 1), teachers can clearly identify the different areas of motivation, as well as
factors that have potential to affect the motivational level of their students.

2 Interest, Relevance and Motivation

As Schiefele (2001 · 172) 0 · t " . . .

.ng -s th . · P ms
leaml 1 e mam source of b · · · · out, (. · .) and if 1t 1s agreed that the content of
that interest is the central cond~•~g mtn~s•~all! moti~at~d to learn, then it follows
1
builds on the pre-establ" h d h~n of ~ntnnsic mot1vat10n to learn". This study
is e re1attonsh1ps b t · •
vation. Until the middle of h . e ween mterest, relevance and motl-
investigated mainly under t~ e tw:ntie th century,_ the concept of motivation was
maintained that the most im :rt::t rell~ ter_m of mterest and most psychologists
Pintrich and Schunk 2002 )p m~ttva_tional factor was interest (Krapp 1999;
• . . · In studies mvest· - . .
re1ationsh1p, mterest has b '-' iga1mg the mterest-ach1evement
. een iound to hav . .
quantity and quality of learn. .. e a s1gmficant effect on both the
1
show strong evidence for a mg. n ad~•~•on, results of reviews and meta-analysis
. . general positive r I 1· h. . .
mo tivation, and academic 1 . ea 10ns 1p between interest intnns1c
In educational contexts ~ammg ~Schiefele 2001). '
T h . ' mterest is used
eac ers wish to interest th · as a central term for obvious reasons.
· . eir students · h . .
view• motivated students are th m t e subject matter they teach. In thelf
Keller's education-based Mot· os~ who appear to enjoy the content being taught.
1vattonal D •
- esign model (Keller 1983) includes four
 Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it into th e c1assroom
219
Components of foreign language learmng
. (Domye1
.. . 1994: 28)
Table 1
1,evel Motivational components
Language Level Integrative motivational subsystem
Instrumental motivational subsystem
Learner Level Need for self-achievement
Self-confidence
• Language use anxiety
• Perceived L2 competence
• Causal attributions
• Self-efficacy
Learning Situation Level
Course specific motivational Interest
Components Relevance
Expectancy
Satisfaction
Teacher-specific motivational Affiliative motive
Components Authority type
Direct socialization of student motivation
• Modeling
• Task presentation
• Feedback
Group-specific motivational Goal-orientedness
Components Norm and reward system
Group cohesion
Classroom goal structure

motivational components: interest, relevance, expectancy, satisfaction. These

general categories subsume more specific elements of motivation and are meant to
be a guideline for improving curriculum design to optimize motivation. The first
two elements of this model are of particular importance for this study. Firstly,
according to Keller, interest must be stimulated in order to increase attention and
active-learning behaviours. The pedagogical difficulty here lies in the fact that it is
a _considerable challenge to stimulate interest in a large class of students with
widely varying personalities and interests (Brophy 1998; Covington 1999). Most
~-SUEFL curricula make some attempt to tap into student interest, but they are
mdered by these factors.
The second element, relevance, has also been investigated in terms of
potential for increasing student motivation. In fact some curricula, including
LSP _and CBI are based on this hypothesis. Research has supported the sup-t
nd
position that students can find content relevant without fi mg it mtereS mg
(Valentine and Repath-Martos 1997) and that there is a demonstrate_d rela-
ltonship between increased relevance and increased motivation (Frymter and
Shu.Iman 1995). Thus relevance also offers possibilities for pedagogical mter-
Ventio n to mcrease
• '
motivation.
220 E. Crisfield and J. White

3 Context of Study

In order to understand the motivational and pedagogical context for this .study, it is
necessary to understand the Quebec Cegep sy st~m. T~e acronym CEGEP stands
for 'college d'enseignement general et profess1onnel (College of General and
Professional Education) and is often transformed to the proper noun 'Cegep'. The
education system in the province of Quebec is unique in i~s approach to secondary
and post-secondary education. Students complete their secondary studies in
5 years. Students wishing to go to university are required to complete 2 years of
general studies at a Cegep. Students who do not wish to go to university may
choose to do a three-year career program, known as a 'technique', at a Cegep.
Students in the pre-university and technical programs attend the same institutions
and many of the same classes. Each program has two components: General
Education, and Specific Education. All students, regardless of their orientation or
program, must take the same General Education Courses. The General Education
courses are further divided into three sections: Formation Generale Commune
(A-Block), Formation Generale Propre (B-Block) and Formation Generale
Complementaire (C-Block-electives). The Specific Education courses are spe-
cialized by program. The goal of this structure is to provide all students with a
well-rounded education.
The General Education courses include two mandatory ESL courses. The
Ministere de !'education (MEQ) is responsible for providing the curriculum
guidelines for all Cegep programs. In the ESL courses, students are placed into one
of four levels (100-mis-a-niveau, 101-intermediate, 102-upper-intermediate
and 103-advanced), and after completing their first course (A-Block), they move
horizontally to their second course (B-Block) at the same level.
The A-Block course is part of General Education. Students from all disciplines
and types of programs are in the same class. The B-Block course is meant to be
complementary to the students' Specific Education, that is, to be linked to their
st
field of udy or future profession in some way. At the Cegep where this study was
nd
u e~ken, the B-Bl~ck courses are divided into two groups: Pre-university or
Technical. Th~ exception to this is the 103-level (bilingual). There are not enough
students at this level to allo 10 I· I • · d
. w r mu hp e courses so the pre-umversity an ·
technical students are in the B-Block together. In th; other levels, the A-Block/
B-Block system allows teachers som fl 'b'l• • 'fi & r
h h .
t e tee nical/pre-U groups but 1·t d e ex1 i ity m making the courses speci c 10
' oes not allow for highly specialized courses.

4 Research Questions

As Chambers (1999: 37) points t "'f

then relevance has to b th ou ' 1 the teacher is to motivate pupils to learn,
the relationship betwee: the red _t~read permeating activities. If pupils fail to see
e activity and the world in which they live, then the
Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it into the classroom 221

int of the activity is likely to be lost on them" The goal f th· d .

IS stu y IS to
Po . . , · 0
invesugate the percepttons of _Cegep students regarding the A-Block and B-Block
English courses.
. .The .pedagogical
. bl goal of the B-Block courses is directl yme
1- k d to
the lea~mg s~~uatI~n vana _e of relevance in Domyei's tripartite model of L2
motivation (Do~ye1 1994), m that the curriculum is designed to be relevant to
their future studi~s and/or careers. Keller (1983) identified relevance and interest
as major determmants of motivation, both of which are necessary for sustained
motivatio~. He further refined ~elevan~e to include instrumental needs. By this, he
is suggestmg that the most basic need 1s for students to find a match between what
they are learning in the course and what they believe they need to learn. This idea
is also supported by Chambers ( 1999), who claims that relevance is essential in
that students must see a relationship between instructional activities and their own
world in order to be motivated. Working from this, the variable being investigated
in this study is not the entire concept of relevance, which is quite broad, but an
element of relevance that is identified as usefulness. In the broader sense, rele-
vance applies to anything that the students find germane to their lives, whether
linked to their studies or not. Usefulness, as employed for the purposes of this
study, applies to content that can be perceived as directly useful to the students'
future studies or career, therefore meeting an instrumental need.
One of the two main issues investigated in this study is the students' percep-
tions of the relevance of the A- and B-Block English courses. The teachers of
B-Block courses plan their courses with the mandate of making the content
'useful' to the students in their future studies and careers, as dictated by the MEQ
guidelines. Since no needs-based analyses are done in Cegeps, it is possible that
there may be different interpretations of usefulness on the part of the students and
the teachers. This in turn may lead to discrepancies between the actual curriculum
and the students' perceptions of usefulness, relevance and applicability. The sec-
ond issue that this study endeavors to clarify is the possible motivational aspects of
usefulness, by attempting to discern whether the students' perceptions of useful-
ness affect their interest level in the A-Block and B-Block courses. If, as has
previously been supported by research in other areas of education, interest can be
st
directly linked to motivation (Keller 1983; Maehr 1984; Brophy 1987),_the~ u-
dent levels of interest in their ESL course can be seen to be linked to motivation as
1
well. In addition, the study will investigate the extent to w~ich course level_ ( OO,
l0l, 102, 103) and/or field of study (Pre-university or Techmcal) have a beanng _on
nd
students' perceptions of usefulness or interest in the A- a B-Block En~h~h
. h their career and are withm
courses. Students in techmcal programs have c osen '
. . . . h k th ·r B-Block course. Conversely,
2 years of fimshmg thelf studies when t ey ta e ei . chosen a career
. h t necessanly
t
s udents who are in a pre-university program . aveh no
d of them before entenng . the
t
Ye and have several more years of schooling a ea
workforce. For this reason it is possible that students in tec_hnica~ prohgramsfiarlde
abl ' tent m their c osen e
e to see the practical applications of the course co~ h ld · tum increase
~ore clearly than those in pre-university programs, whic. c~~fli r:nt levels have
interest. Finally, it could be hypothesized that students m i e

j
222 E. Crisfield and J. White

• abTty
differing perceptions due to their 1 to handle field-specific activities. These
issues have led to four research que stwns:
tions of usefulness of course content of
1. Do students have the same .percep . th to use English in their future
A-Block and B-Block regardmg prepanng em
studies/career? . f f lness and interest?
2 Is there a relationship between perceptions O use u .
· · d
3. Do technical program stu ens t demonstrate greater percept10ns of the
h useful-
.
ness of and mterest . the B-Block courses over A-Block courses w en com-
m
pared to pre-university students?
4. Do the students at a111eve1s have th e same perceptions of the usefulness of and
interest in the B-Block courses?

5 Method

A study of B-Block Cegep students was undertaken to asses~ the hypot~esi~ed

association between student-perceived course usefulness and mterest/mot1vat1~n
level. Specifically, the study evaluated student perceptions of ~e usefulness, .m
terms of relevance and applicability to future careers or studies, of A- versus
B-Block English courses and the relationship between the perceived usefulness of
and student interest in these courses. The study was conducted at one Montreal-
area Cegep over three semesters.

5.1 Participants and Procedures

Potentially eligible participants for this study included all students who were
enrolled in level 100 (mis-a-niveau), l0l(intermediate), 102 (upper-intermediate)
and 103 (advanced) B-Block English courses at the Cegep investigated in this
study during the data collection periods. The three rounds of data collection
resulted in three samples of participants: 177 (28.8% of total participants) from the
fall of 2001, 161 (26.2%) from the winter 2002 semester and 277 (45.0%) from the
winter 2003 semester. The three sets of data were combined, as there were no
apparent differences between the students included in each of the three samples or
the B-Block courses ·given in each of the three semesters. Data collection was
conducted during the 13th or 14th week of each semester and therefore at the same
point in the course curriculum .. During the remaining class or classes, students took
their final exams. Since the B-Block course was nearly completed by the time the
students filled out the questionnaires, they were able to compare it to their A-Block
course.
There ':ere no pedagogical changes made to the B-Block courses between the
fall and wmter terms. There were no modifications to the questionnaire and study
Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it into the classroom
223
procedures fr?I_TI one ~ata collection to the next. Thus, the final combined sample
of study participants mcluded 615 students who were in the final weeks of their
B-Block courses. This represents the majority of the B-Block students in each
semester, but not the full count, as not all teachers were able to collect data from
their students, due to time constraints.
Of the 615 participating students, 131 (21.3%) were enrolled in the B-Block
level 100, 177 (28.8%) in level 101, 273 (44.4%) were enrolled in the B-Block
level 102 and 34 (5.5%) in level 103. Three hundred and fifty-two (57.2%) of
students were in a Pre-University program compared to 221 in a Technical
(35.9%) program. Forty-two (6.8%) students did not indicate their program of
study.
Teacher participation was limited to assistance with data collection. The
researcher undertaking the study has taught at this Cegep and therefore has the
requisite knowledge of curriculum in the A- and B-Block courses. All teachers
engaged in B-Block English courses-levels 100 through 103 inclusively-during
the study time period were asked to encourage their students to participate in the
study. After three semesters of data collection, there were eight participating
teachers spread over four levels of courses. The teachers were instructed to inform
the students that the questionnaire was not a course-evaluation and would not be
seen or used in any way by the classroom teacher. This was done in order to
minimize any potential bias in student response due to a belief that their survey
answers would have an impact on their final course grades. The completed
questionnaires were placed by the students in a designated envelope, which was
then sealed and given directly to the researcher.

5.2 Materials and Measurement

Data collection was undertaken by means of a one-page questionnaire designed by

the researcher for the purposes of this study. The survey is in French, which is the
language of instruction at the Cegep and the first language of the majority of the
students. Student responses were anonymous-students were not required to
provide any identifying information on their completed surveys. The questionnaire
consisted of ten Likert-scale type questions and two short-answer questions. Four
response choices were provided for each of the Likert-scale questions: pas du ~out
(or rien), peu, assez and beaucoup. These responses were coded on an ordmal
numeric scale of zero to three, with zero representing pas du toutlrien, one ~ep-
resenting peu, two representing assez, and three representing beau_coup. Quest10ns
one through five and six through ten were to be answered regardmg the A-Block
and B-Block courses respectively. . . . .
The Likert-scale questions were constructed with certam key pomts m mmd,
namely, to measure student perceptions of various aspects of course usefuln~ss, as
Well as their level of interest in the A- and B-Block English courses. Questions 2
(A-Block) and 7 (B-Block) ask students to provide judgments of the usefulness of
224 E. Crisfield and J. White

the skills they have acquired in each course. Student ratings of course usefulness
as measured by the relevance of course materials are recorded on questions
3 (A-Block) and 8 (B-Block). Questions 5 and 10 ask for student judgments of
course usefulness in terms of the future applicability of their acquired knowledge.
Students rate their interest level in each course on questions 4 and 9. Questions J
and 6 ask students to rate how much they have learned in each course; these
questions have not been analyzed for the current study. The other eight Likert scale
questions were analyzed quantitatively. The two short answer questions asked for
students' perceptions of how they will (or will not) use English in their future
studies or career and which English course they preferred and why.

6 Data Analysis

The same questionnaire was used to elicit quantitative and qualitative data from all
three data cohorts. The three cohorts were collected over three terms. This was
done in order to maximize the sample size, as well as to ensure an adequate variety
of participating teachers. Quantitative measurements included the students' self-
reported: 1) estimate of amount learned in each course, 2) judgments towards the
content of the A-Block and B-Block courses in terms of relevance, applicability
and usefulness, and 3) assessment of interest in each course. For the purposes of
this article, the results relating to the qualitative data will not be reported on.

6.1 Exclusions

Participants who did not respond to all questions were only excluded from the data
analysis on the items where data were missing; they were not excluded from the
other analyses. All respondents were included in the samples for the following
reason: The focus of the study was on the B-Block curriculum, and all respondents
were completing the B-Block course in the Cegep under study. As the A-Block
curriculum remains stable across Cegeps, it was not considered necessary, there-
fore, to exclude any students who had taken their A-Block course at another Cegep
from the samples. In contrast, respondents who did not indicate a field of study
were excluded from the analyses involving field of study, as it was not possible
without this information to place them in the pre-university or technical categories.

6.2 Analysis Procedures

Data entry and descriptive and statistical analyses of the quantitative data obtained
in this study were conducted using SPSS Version 11 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.,
2003). Missing values were not replaced in the data. In the case of a missing
response to any one question, the student was excluded from that analysis.
Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it into the classroom
225
Sections 1 and 2 of the survey included five items each, scored on a four-point
scale. Items 1 and 6 were rated as rien (nothing) = 0, peu (little) = 1, assez
(enough) = 2 and beaucoup (a l~t) = 3. Items 2-5 and 7-10 were rated as pas du
tout (not at all) = 0, peu (httle) = 1, assez (enough) = 2 and beaucoup
(a lot) = 3.
Differences in student judgments on the three items measuring usefulness of the
A- versus B-Block courses were tested for statistical significance using the Wil-
coxon Signed-Ranks test. After establishing the internal reliability of the items
measuring usefulness by calculating the Chronbach' s alpha coefficient, the three
usefulness items were then combined and used in all further analyses.
The hypothesized association between course usefulness and student interest
level was examined and tested using Spearman' s rho correlations. The mean of the
three usefulness items was correlated with the students' ranking of interest in the
course. This analysis was conducted within and not between Blocks, thus the
associations of interest and usefulness were tested for each Block separately, with
no comparisons made of A-versus B-Block. The numeric value of the Spearman's
rho correlation coefficient provides an estimate of the strength of the relationship
between two factors.
Two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOV A) and one-way ANOV A pro-
cedures were used to assess potential differences in student-ranked course use-
fulness and interest level by program (Pre-University or Technical) and by course
level (100, 101, 102, 103) respectively.

7 Results

The findings are reported for each research question in their original order. The
three discrete elements of usefulness (relevance, applicability and usefulness) were
combined to become the variable called overall course usefulness. This was based
on a Cronbach's alpha of 0.7 273 for the A-Block course items (2, 3 and 5) and
0.7 988 for the B-Block course items (7, 8 and 10). Results higher than 0.7 000 are
acceptable in scales of this size (Domyei, 2001 b; Dornyei and Csizer 2002).
Because nine separate statistical analyses were conducted, increasing the p~oba-
hility of a Type I error, Bonferroni's procedure was used and resulted m an
operational alpha level of 0.005 (0.05/9).
Research question J: Do students have the same perceptions of usefulne~s ~f
course content of A-Block and B-Block regarding preparing them to use English m
their future studies/career? d
The rationale behind this question was to verify the extent to which the surveye
students recognized the underlymg. design
. of the use fulness of the B-Block course
.
curriculum and also to confirm the researcher's definition of usefulnes~ as b~ng
"that which is relevant and applicable to the students, future studd1es . an thor
career ,, . Student-perceived usefulness of course content ' as assesse usmg e

t
__j
226 E. Crisfield and J. White

Table 2 Comparison of student-perceived usefulness of A-Block versus B-Block, mean values

of student rankings of course usefulness
Measurement N Mean (SD) Minimum Maximum
Relevance of course material
A-Block (Q3) 610 1.52 (0.85) 0.00 3.00
B-Block (Q8) 608 2.08 (0.78) 0.00 3.00
Future applicability
A-Block (Q5) 608 1.69 (0.75) 0.00 3.00
B-Block (Ql0) 613 2.08 (0.75) 0.00 3.00
Course usefulness
A-Block (Q2) 609 1.80 (0.72) 0.00 3.00
B-Block (Q7) 611 2.18 (0.70) 0.00 3.00
Overall course usefulness
A-Block (Q2, 3, 5) 600 1.67 (0.62) 0.00 3.00
B-Block (Q7, 8, 10) 603 2.12 (0.63) 0.00 3.00

three measurements of usefulness, was greater for the B-Block English course than
for the A-Block.
Table 2 shows the mean values and standard deviations of the student rankings
of relevance of course materials, future applicability and overall usefulness. The
mean differences between these course usefulness ratings were all statistically
significant. Given that the differences are significant between all three pairs of
items, the answer to the first research question is affirmative. The students do
indeed report perceptions of B-Block course as being more useful than the
A-Block course. In addition, the strength of the mean reliability coefficients pro-
vided by the Cronbach's alpha scores for the two sets of variables lends credence
to the use of the term usefulness in the manner defined above. Of the three
variables, the greatest difference was noted between relevance of A- versus B-
Block content (z = -12.31, p < 0.005), followed by applicability (z = -11.10,
p < 0.005), and then usefulness (z = -10.71, p < 0.005).

Research question 2: Is there a relationship between perceptions of usefulness and

interest?
The aim of this question was to identify the motivational consequences of use-
fulness. As previous research has shown that increased interest in subject matter is
linked to increased motivation (Covington 1999; Krapp 1999; Schiefele 2001 ), the
variables of usefulness and interest were analyzed to verify that such a relationship
exists in the context of this study. This was done using the combined overall
usefulness mean scores (questions 2, 3 and 5 for A-Block and 7, 8 and 10 for B-
Block), and the question rating interest in the course (question 4 for A-Block and 9
for B-Block).
When the hypothesized association of student-perceived course usefulness afid
interest level was examined, a significant relationship was found (Table 3). _~or
both the A- and B-Block courses, there was a statistically significant pos1uve
association between the level of student interest in the course and the degree to
 Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it into the classroom
227
Table 3 Mean values of
Measurement
student interest level and Mean (SD)
student perceived usefulness Interest in course
of the A-Block and B-Block A-Block 579 1.75 (0.66)
courses B-Block 582 1.91 (0.67)
Overall course usefulness
A-Block 600 1.67 (0.62)
B-Block 603 2.12 (0.63)

which they perceived the course to be useful, as assessed by the usefulness

measure. This indicates that, as the ranking of course usefulness rose, so did
interest level. As shown by the numeric value of the correlation coefficient , these
associations were stronger for the B-Block (rho = 0.567) than for the A-Block
course (rho = 0.501).
Consequently, the answer to the second research question is also affirmative.
There is a demonstrated link between perceptions of usefulness of the course and
interest. This is in line with educational theory that claims that in order for stu-
dents' interest in an academic subject to increase, the content must be seen to be
useful or relevant to them (Keller 1983; Brophy 1998).
Research question 3: Do technical program students demonstrate greater per-
ceptions of the usefulness of and interest in B-Block courses over A-Block courses
when compared to pre-university students?
A two-way mixed ANOVA was used to compare students' perceptions of A-Block
courses to B-Block courses and to identify potential differences in their percep-
tions of course usefulness by stream of study - Pre-University or Technical. No
significant differences were noted between the Technical and Pre-University stu-
dents in terms of their judgments of course usefulness. Irrespective of course of
study, however, all students perceived B-Block courses to be significantly more
useful than A-Block courses.
A two-way mixed ANOV A was also used to investigate differences between
fields in terms of expressed interest in the A- and B-Block courses. As shown in
Table 4, no significant differences were found between the Pre-university and
Technical students in terms of ratings of interest. However, both groups of students
rated the B-Block course as significantly more interesting than the A-Block course.
The answer to both parts of the third research question then is negative. The
~tudents in technical programs showed no greater rating of either usefulness of or
mterest in the B-Block course than the pre-university students.
Research question 4: Do students at all levels have the same perceptions of use-
fulness of and interest in B-Block courses?
Potential differences in student perceptions of course usefulness and interest by
course level were assessed through comparison of the mean rankings for each
measure of course usefulness and were tested using a one-way ANOV A. The
r~sults of the one-way ANOVA for usefulness revealed that there are statistically
significant differences in usefulness ratings between levels. Results from a
 E. Crisfield and J. White
228

. d ANOV A for interest

Table 4 Two-way m1xe
SS df MS F p
Source
Between subjects
1 4.18 4.83 0.028
Group 4.18
Error 491.18 567 0.87
Within subjects
A to B 6.58 6.58 20.69 0.000
AB x Group 0.16 1 0.16 0.50 0.479
Error 180.40 567 0.32

Table 5 Tukey HSD post hoc tests usefulness by level

Mean Level 102 100 101 103
2.00 102
2.16 100
2.21 101 *
2.40 103 *
*p < 0.05

Table 6 Tukey HSD post hoc tests interest by level

Mean Level 102 100 103
101
1.63 102
1.89 100 *
1.92 101 *
2.32 103 * * *
*p < 0.05

post-hoc Tukey test (Table 5) show statistically significant differences in t_he

usefulness rating between the students enrolled in course level 1O1 and 102, with
the 101 students rating the usefulness of the B-Block course significantly higher
than the 102 level students. The 103 level students also rated the B-Block course as
significantly more useful than the 102 level students. Overall, the 102 level
students assessed the B-Block course with the lowest rating of usefulness of the
four levels. There were no significant results pertaining to the level 100 students.
The one-way ANOV A for interest also indicated significantly different ratings
of interest between levels. Tukey post-hoc tests (Table 6) reveal that the 103 level
students rate the B-Block course significantly higher in terms of interest than the
other three levels. In addition, the level 100 and 101 students rate course intereSt
higher than the level 102 students. Again, the level 102 students show the loweSt
ratings of interest of the four levels. The rankings of interest are identical to the
rankings of usefulness, in descending order: level 103, 101, 100, 102.
 1
t

Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it into th e c1assroom

229
The answer to the final question, then, is that the stude .
not have the same perceptions of the usefulnes f d ~ts at d1~erent levels do
• s O an mterest m the B Bl k
course. While the results were not identical for th t . b . . . - oc
. e wo vana les, 1t 1s mteresting to
note that the 1eve1s rated both mterest and useful ness 10· the same manner within
groups.

8 Discussion and Implications

The results of this study c?ntribute to our understanding of ESL/EFL pedagogy

and the factors t~at may mfluence motivation in English for specific purposes
contexts. The findmgs are largely applicable to curriculum developers in any post-
secondary educational institutions where students are required to successfully
complete second or foreign language courses in order to graduate. The confir-
mation of a link between usefulness and interest is important in that it provides
support for one element of the Learning Level in Domyei's model of motivation.
Not only is this important in terms of advancing our understanding of motivation,
it also offers practical applications in the L2 classroom, an element that has been
lacking in most motivation research to date. In addition, the results provide support
for the role that teachers can play in motivation research in SLA.
The findings confirm that there is a link between usefulness, as a sub-category
of relevance, and interest, and suggest that usefulness of content may contribute to
increasing interest, and therefore motivation, in ESL students. This applies to
students of all levels, although to varying degrees. Therefore, the findings support
the implementation of curricula designed to be relevant and useful to ESL/EFL
students' future careers or studies.
This study was designed to gather information relative to one element ?f
Domyei's tripartite SLA model for motivation (Table 1). It was s~ccessful 1?
doing this, and it also provided information pertaining to ?ther theones _of mot~-
vation. In terms of Dornyei's Learning Situation Level, this study has given evi-
dence that two of the identified variables, interest and relevance, as defined by
rt' · ated in this study showed a
usefulness, are related. The students whO pa icip d h' .
.h t that was useful to them, an t 1s m
pattern of preference for a course . wit conten
. h .
se Given that IDterest . wt'de1Y
ts
st i
tum was linked with increased •~ter_e ID t e_ co:n 999 ; Krapp 1999), it would
considered an indicator of mottv~tton (~ovIDg . th t dents' motivation. The
appear that usefulness is linked ~• th ~n 1~cr~ase ID e findings of the present
1
results are in line with other studies wit~ sim•~:r :;: :herefore motivation, can be
study may be interpreted to mean that IDtere 'h through interest in content.
increased through usefulness of co~tent ra~her / : t0 other motivation theories.
The results also indicate some mtereS tIDgfi •~ . s part of the instrumentality
· by de muon, •
The element of content usefu1ness is, . d 1 It is clear that potentia1
. . . · ducat10na1 mo e · ·h
category of mot1vat10n m the socio-e tudies/career correlated wit
usefulness of the activities in terms of futThure \ore it can be considered that,
. . . . tudents ere1, '
mcreased interest in the part1c1patmg s ·
230
E. Crisfield and J. White

at least for these students, instrumental motives did have an effect on their
motivation. This is an important result, notably as the research took place in
Quebec, where the dominance of the integrative motive was first established [see,
for example, Gardner and Lambert (1959); Gardner, Clement et al. (1979). This
study did not allow for comparison of the instrumental nature of usefulness with
respect to the students' level of integrativeness. Despite this, it does support work
conducted elsewhere which encourages a closer look at the strength of the
instrumental motive (Dornyei and Csizer 2002; Irie 2003). This also supports the
links that Noels et al. (2000) have found between instrumental motivation and
external regulation. The students who participated in this study fall into the
external regulation category in that they are taking ESL courses because they are
obligatory for finishing their chosen diplomas. The fact that they are motivated by
an instrumental factor, usefulness, supports the notion that instrumentality is a
valid paradigm to enhance motivation in students who are required to take second
language courses. In this case, whether intrinsic motivation is superior to extrinsic
motivation is a moot point as the students who are in obligatory classes are not
there due to intrinsic motivation. Therefore, teachers can only work within the
instrumentality paradigm to increase motivation.
Although he has proposed several new paths for research, Dornyei himself has
mentioned that the main weakness of motivation research in SLA in the last
decade is lack of empirical support for new theories. This study then is a step in the
right direction in terms of finding evidence to support Dornyei's Motivational
Components model for SLA motivation. While achieving its main goal of sup-
porting a focus on the usefulness of content to increase motivation in obligatory
SLA contexts, the study also demonstrates links to other motivational theories.
This corroborates the idea that motivation research in SLA should not be based on
only one theory, but rather needs to refer to a variety of theories in order to
respond to the needs of SL teachers. This study also confirms the author's position
that SLA research can have practical implications for classroom teachers and
provides
curricula. guidance for these teachers in developing and implementing their

References

nd
Ames, RE.'. a Press.
Academic C.E. Ames, eds. 1984. Research on motivation in education. Vol. 1. Orlando:

Brophy: J. 1987. On motivating students. Occasional Paper No. 101. East Lansing: Michigan
Institute tor R:e~ch _on Teaching, Michigan State University.
998
Brophy, J. 1 . otzvatm~ students to learn. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Chambers,
C0 II' G.N. 1999. Motivating language learners. Clevedo . M ltir al Matters. .
JM d W M ·k d n. u mgu m
ms, · ·• an · essic • e s. 2001. Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap
theory and measurement. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Covington_, :-1-V. 1999._ Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of subject-matter
appreciation. Educational Psychologist 34: 127-136.
 Motivation Research and SLA: Bringing it int0 th e c1assroom
231
Domyei, Z. 1994. Motivation and motivatin in the .
Language Journal 78: 273-284. g foreign language classroom. Modern
Domyei,. Z. if
2001a.
A 1·New
d .themes and approaches in second 1anguage motivaf
Review o pp ze Lmguistics 21: 43-59. ion research. Annual
Domyei, Z. 200 I b. Teaching and researching m ( (
Domyei, Z., and K. Csizer. 2002. Some dynamic: ~;1~:n·u~arlo~: Pearson Edu~ati?n Limited.
nd
of a_longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguis!cs g;/~~~~~; motivation: Results
Domye1, A., and R.W. Schmidt, eds. 2001. Motivation a d d. 1 . ..
(Technical Report #23). Manoa: Second Language T n /econ d angu~ge acqu1S1twn
Honolulu University of Hawai'i. eac mg an Cumculum Center,
Frymier, A.B., and ?· S~ul~an. 1995. What's in it for me? Increasing content relevance to
enhance students motivation. Communication Education 44: 40-50.
Gardner, ~ -C., and W.E. Lambert. 1959. Motivational variables in second language ac uisition.
Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266-272. q
Gardner, R.C., R. Clement, P.C. Smythe, and C.L. Smythe. 1979. Attitudes and motivation test
battery: Revised manual. Research Bulletin No. 15. London/Ontario: University of Western
Ontario.
Irie, K. 2003. What do we know about the language learning motivation of university students in
Japan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal 25: 86-100.
Keller, J. I 983. Motivational design of instruction. In ed. C.M. Reigeluth, 289-320.
Krapp, A. 1999. Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective.
European Journal of Psychology of Education 14: 23-40.
Maehr, M.L. 1984. Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In eds.
R.E. Ames, and C.E. Ames, 115-144.
McGroarty, M. 2001. Situating second language motivation. In eds. A. Domyei, and R.W. Schmidt,
69-92.
Noels, K.A., L.G. Pelletier, R. Clement, and R.J. Vallerand. 2000. Why are you learning a second
language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Leaming 50:
57-85.
Pintrich, P.R., and D.H. Schunk, eds. 2002. Motivation in education. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Reigeluth, C.M., ed. 1983. Instructional design theories and models: Hillside: Lawrence Er~baum.
nd
Schiefele, U. 2001. The role of interest in motivation and learning. In eds. J.M. Colhs, a
W. Messick, 163-194. . t n eds. 1997. The content-based classroom: Perspectives
. on
Snow, MA . ., an d D . B nn o ,
integrating language and content. White Plains: Longman._ l v ce? In eds. M.A. Snow,
18
Valentine, J.F., and L.M. Repath-Martos. 1997. How relevant re e an ·
and D. Brinton, 233-247.