System 111 (2022) 102948

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Dynamicity of language teacher motivation in online EFL classes

Mehmet Sak
Department of Foreign Language Education, TED University, Ziya Gökalp Street, No: 47-48, 06420, Ankara, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the growing focus on the dynamic nature of second/foreign language (L2) teacher
Language teacher psychology motivation in recent years, the existing work has primarily explored fluctuations in motivational
Language teacher motivation trajectories over macro timescales covering months and years. Micro-scale changes of motivation
Teaching motivation
at the lesson level and the factors underlying such changes have received little attention,
Motivational changes
English language teaching
particularly in the context of online instruction. The present study aims to close this gap by
Online language teaching investigating dynamic changes in teacher motivation in the course of regularly-scheduled online
English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) classes in Turkey, as experienced by two EFL teachers at the
tertiary level. Changes in motivation levels and the reasons for these changes were tracked in
eight 45-min. classes over two weeks. Data were collected via self-ratings of motivational in­
tensity at 5-min. intervals, journal entries, interviews, and lesson plans. The analysis showed
considerable variation in the motivation levels within the participating teachers, with the fluc­
tuations resulting from a complex array of learner-related, course-related, and individual factors.
Overall, the findings provide further insights into the situated complexity of L2 teacher motiva­
tion and suggest that L2 teacher motivation to teach online is characterized by temporal, indi­
vidual, and contextual variation, being open to influences and displaying nonlinear development
over timescales.

1. Introduction

Teacher motivation plays a crucial role in the creation of engaging teaching-learning environments and increasing students’
learning outcomes, as well as being central to teachers’ professional commitment (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), psychological wellbeing
(Han & Yin, 2016), and resilience capacities (Mansfield et al., 2016). Second/foreign language (L2) teacher motivation is no exception
here. In recent decades, we have seen an increase in research on L2 teacher motivation across various sociocultural settings, which has
led to a burgeoning scholarship on what attracts teachers to the profession (Hayes, 2008), their career satisfaction (Karavas, 2010), the
role of teacher motivational strategies in maximizing learning opportunities (Alrabai, 2016), and the key factors underpinning teacher
demotivation (Aydin, 2012). Such growing efforts notwithstanding, there is still a scarcity of research examining aspects of L2 teacher
motivation (Dörnyei, 2018; Guo et al., 2019; Lamb & Wyatt, 2019). Thus, it seems warranted to gain a more comprehensive picture of
this field of inquiry which “cannot yet collectively be thought of as representing a developed, coherent body of work” (Mercer, 2018, p.
507). In particular, while the body of evidence on the dynamic changes and variability in L2 teacher motivation is gradually accu­
mulating, prior work has primarily explored fluctuations in motivational trajectories over extended periods of time covering months
and years in one’s professional lifespan (e.g. Lee & Yuan, 2014; Song & Kim, 2016; Yuan & Zhang, 2017). So far, empirical work
specifically looking at the contextualized ebbs and flows of L2 teacher motivation during the lessons is thin on the ground (e.g. Kimura,

E-mail address: mehmet.sak@tedu.edu.tr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102948
Received 4 April 2022; Received in revised form 28 October 2022; Accepted 3 November 2022
Available online 12 November 2022
0346-251X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

2014; Sampson, 2016). This growing yet still limited body of studies has shed some light on the situated complexity and dynamically
evolving nature of L2 teacher motivation in traditional face-to-face classroom settings. However, no prior research has tackled changes
in L2 teacher motivation in the context of online instruction and thus we know little about the developmental trajectory and dynamics
of L2 teacher motivation in digital settings. This lack of interest stems in part from a general lack of research into teacher motivation to
teach online both within mainstream education and applied linguistics.
In line with appeals for the need to extend the scope of existing scholarship on L2 teacher motivation (e.g. Mahmoodi & Yousefi,
2021; Mercer, 2018), and responding to Kubanyiova’s (2019) call for a more complexity-informed understanding of this topic, this
study aims to explore changes in teacher motivation and reasons for these changes during regularly-scheduled online
English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) classes in Turkey, as experienced by two EFL teachers at the tertiary level. By closely examining
the ups and downs in the participants’ motivation to teach online over micro timescales (i.e. at 5-min. intervals) from a dynamic,
situated perspective, the study expands our knowledge base on the dynamicity and contextual influences of L2 teacher motivation, as
well as offering implications for how to promote motivation towards teaching in online L2 instruction.

2. Literature review

2.1. Conceptualizing teacher motivation

Motivation is believed to explain “why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard
they are going to pursue it” (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003, p. 614). In contrast to people who lack sufficient desire to make effort, motivated
people display higher levels of commitment towards what they do, and this idea of motivation also applies to teachers. It is thus not
surprising that interest in teacher motivation has been widely taken up over the years, with an increasing number of researchers using
social cognitive theories of motivation as a lens to explore the dynamics of teacher motivation (see Hiver et al., 2018). This growing
interest has led to various lines of inquiry which in turn diversified and enriched conceptualizations of the phenomenon. Thus, teacher
motivation is treated as an umbrella term comprising the motives for becoming a teacher, teaching a subject, or embracing professional
development opportunities (Liu, 2020). On these grounds, teacher motivation could be viewed as a complex web of beliefs and values
that can explain the reasons for teachers’ career choices as well as their commitment and persistence in teaching. In line with this,
Mercer (2018) conceived teacher motivation as a dual construct referring to teachers’ “motivation to teach and motivation for their
jobs generally” (p. 507). This study, with its focus on examining how the intensity of teaching motivation fluctuates in online EFL
classes, falls into the former category.
The significance of researching teacher motivation is best summarized in the words of Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011): “if a teacher is
motivated to teach, there is a good chance that [the] students will be motivated to learn” (p. 158). Over the years, the realization of the
complex and multifaceted nature of teaching as a socioculturally situated practice has called for a shift towards complex conceptu­
alizations of teachers and their motivational orientations (see Hoy, 2008). There is now widespread agreement that various con­
stellations of individual, social, and contextual elements shape and influence teacher motivation (Hiver et al., 2018). As Hiver et al.
(2018) pointed out, “Teacher motivation is complex with interconnected personal, relational, experiential, affective and contextual
layers… [displaying] both stable tendencies and variability” (p. 1). Teacher motivation is therefore not an entirely stable attribute but
a dynamically changing and socially mediated phenomenon emergent in context. Indeed, as motivation itself “ebbs and flows in
complex ways” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 6), teacher motivation might remain subject to within-individual changes and might vary
at different points during the lessons. As such, examining temporal variation of teacher motivation at various timescales and levels of
granularity in different contexts including online classes could help capture a more nuanced and complete picture of its evolving
nature, situated complexity, and context-specific dynamics.

2.2. The complexity and dynamicity of language teacher motivation

In tandem with the growing awareness of the complex and multifaceted nature of teacher motivation in mainstream education
(Hoy, 2008), and given the increasing prominence of adopting a dynamic systems perspective (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) in
exploring individual learner variation in the L2 field, researchers have begun to show an interest in the temporal analysis of L2 teacher
motivation. Hiver et al. (2018) concluded that “L2 teacher motivation is deeply intertwined with both micro and macro contextual
factors and cannot be thought of as solely an internal psychological state” (p. 15). Indeed, a mounting body of empirical work has
sought to highlight the complex and dynamic nature of L2 teacher motivation. One of the earliest attempts in this regard was the study
by Kumazawa (2013) who investigated changes in four novice teachers’ self-concept during their first two years of in-service teaching
in Japan. The teachers’ shifting images of self-as-teacher induced by high workload and classroom realities, along with conflicts in
their possible selves (i.e. ideal, ought-to, and current selves) led to negative shifts in their motivational states. The complex and dy­
namic nature of L2 teachers’ possible selves were also documented elsewhere (e.g. Hiver, 2013). Another glimpse at the dynamic
nature of L2 teacher motivation was offered by Lee and Yuan (2014) who explored motivational shifts during initial language teacher
education using data from six student teachers in Hong Kong. The analysis revealed dynamic changes in the participants’ motivation
towards teaching over time. Growth in self-efficacy and self-regulated skills, positive outcome expectations, interaction with signif­
icant others (i.e. peers and teachers), and successful moments in teaching were the key reasons for positive changes in motivation (for a
similar study, see Yuan & Zhang, 2017). More recently, in yet another examination of L2 teachers’ motivation change, Song and Kim
(2016) analyzed data from two South Korean teachers and found temporal fluctuations in the motivation levels due to changing
teacher beliefs, professional agency, and the sheer volume of workload.

2
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

The studies cited above suggest that there is a growing literature on the complex process of L2 teachers’ motivation change.
However, few empirical studies have been conducted to date that adopted a situated approach and tapped into the dynamic nature of
L2 teacher motivation within classroom contexts as well as the variables responsible for its fluctuations. Situated in the context of
China, Kimura (2014) is one of the few that focused specifically on the contextualized ebbs and flows of L2 teacher motivation.
Working with two middle-school teachers and taking a dynamic perspective, Kimura longitudinally examined how the participants’
motivation changed during the observed lessons and revealed that L2 teacher motivation changes in-situ depending on the professional
life phase and the contextual variables. Of equal relevance to the focus of the present study is Sampson’s (2016) autoethnographic
study which traced fluctuations in a single EFL teacher’s motivation in the L2 classroom over one academic year from a dynamic,
situated perspective. The analysis found changes in the levels of classroom motivation due to such factors as positive student feedback,
administrative duties, and unsuccessful lessons. In sum, it is clear that evidence of the dynamic changes in L2 teacher motivation in-situ
remains scarce and the limited research within this line of inquiry is focused exclusively on the conventional classroom settings. There
is therefore a lack of understanding of the developmental trajectory and dynamics of L2 teacher motivation in online classes.

2.3. Online language teaching

Driven by the arrival of new digitally-mediated communication platforms and globalization, the uptake of synchronous online
teaching has gained momentum worldwide. The differences between teaching in traditional setups and virtual classrooms are widely
established (Hampel & Stickler, 2005), and the assumption that teachers good at traditional teaching can easily adapt to online
teaching is no longer valid. Teaching practices in face-to-face contexts and technology-mediated environments differ in their affor­
dances and challenges (Gacs et al., 2020). The often-cited challenges of teaching online include the lack of interaction among peers,
technical failure of digital platforms, and difficulties in classroom management due to lacking non-verbal cues and overlaps in
turn-taking (Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Sun, 2011), as well as a lack of interpersonal closeness with students due to spatial division
(Schreiber & Jansz, 2020). Besides, L2 teachers are reported to experience higher levels of stress, anxiety, and emotional challenges in
online teaching (e.g. MacIntyre et al., 2020). This suggests that becoming fluent in navigating the expectations and the unique con­
ditions presented by online teaching entails having a specific repertoire of interrelated skills, competences, and approaches.
Successful teachers take on complex roles in traditional classrooms, yet the effective management of virtual classes requires even
more complex roles (Senior, 2010). The key competences required for successful online L2 teaching go beyond the technical level, such
as building a cohesive online learning community, facilitating communicative competence, enhancing creativity in teaching, and
developing a personal teaching style, as well as gaining awareness of the affordances and constraints of the particular softwares used
(Hampel & Stickler, 2005). These efforts to identify the essential competences for online L2 teaching indicate the complex and
changing roles of teachers as they shift into online teaching which, as a non-traditional mode of course delivery, entails a high level of
personal commitment and motivation (Mills et al., 2009). However, as Sun (2011, p. 444) observed, “online language teaching and
learning is dynamic and undergoing changes all the time, just like technologies”. This observation clearly indicates the need for a
careful analysis of how teacher motivation evolves, changes, and develops over time in the complex ecology of online classes. It seems
fair to argue that L2 teacher motivation might undergo changes over shorter and longer timescales in response to the unique contextual
characteristics, challenges, pressures, and demands of online teaching.

3. The present study

The attempts made to account for temporal changes in L2 teacher motivation as manifested during the lessons are rare, and no
attention has been paid to the dynamic aspects of L2 teacher motivation in online classes. This research area warrants closer attention
given the fast-growing popularity of online teaching as an instructional means for teaching languages at all educational levels. In line
with the dynamic, situated perspective toward L2 teacher motivation, the present study taps into the micro-scale ups and downs of L2
teacher motivation by tracing its fluctuations at 5-min. intervals over the course of single online EFL lessons and from one lesson to
another, as well as aiming to identify the factors responsible for such fluctuations. The following research questions were posed:

1. How does L2 teacher motivation change over the course of single online EFL lessons and from one lesson to the next?
2. What factors are responsible for changes in L2 teacher motivation in online EFL lessons?

The current study focuses on carefully-planned and well-designed online teaching rather than on crisis-prompted remote teaching
such as the case in most countries after the COVID-19 pandemic. Further details of the differences between online L2 education in ideal
and crises contexts could be found in Gacs et al. (2020). Additionally, in this study, an “online class” is operationalized as a digital
environment where teachers and students interact in real time (i.e. synchronously) using computer-mediated software applications (e.
g. Zoom).

3.1. Participants

In order to allow for an in-depth, individual-level analysis, the present study was carried out with two Turkish EFL teachers (one
male, one female). At the time of inquiry, both participants, Ben and Tracy (pseudonyms), were working at the English language
preparatory school of two different Turkish universities and actively involved in online L2 teaching as full-time instructors. In January
2022, a call for participation flyer including a brief description of the aims and procedures of the study was shared with a network of

3
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

personal contacts. Upon receiving initial responses and consent to participate, a basic biodata questionnaire was shared electronically
with the initial pool of participants (N = 6) to understand the context of their work along with personal and professional factors, which
might influence their teacher motivation. A screening procedure was then applied to identify those with different backgrounds to
ensure a good mix in the sample in the hope of gaining a holistic picture of teachers’ motivational experiences in online teaching.
Gender balance, career phases, training on online teaching, and length of online teaching experience were the main considerations in
sampling. Finally, the two teachers above were deemed appropriate to join the study (see Table 1).

3.2. Teaching context

This study was situated in the context of Ben and Tracy’s engagement with online L2 teaching in their institutions in the spring
semester of 2021–22 academic year. Of the two teachers, Ben had 20 h of weekly teaching (4-h teaching per day), working with two
pre-intermediate level (roughly A2 in terms of Common European Framework) classes, each having approximately 22 students aged
18–21. Likewise, Tracy had 20 h of weekly teaching (4-h teaching per day), working with two upper-intermediate level (roughly B2 in
terms of Common European Framework) classes, each with an average of 20 learners aged 18–23. In both institutions, English lessons
were organized around thematic units (content-based) and integrated four main language skills based on successive units from the
coursebooks, with Turkish occasionally used to facilitate understanding. The present study was situated in two groups of online classes,
one being instructed by Ben (Group 1) and the other by Tracy (Group 2). Each class was taught by a single instructor (2-h teaching per
day; 10-h teaching per week) and composed of a mixture of students pursuing different majors. All pedagogical decisions regarding the
teaching methods, materials, and assessment procedures were made centrally by the administrations within both institutions.

3.3. Data collection

The study was conducted over the period of two weeks in March 2022, and it involved four 45-min. online EFL classes instructed by
each participant. In total, changes in motivation levels were tracked in eight online EFL classes and teachers’ mother tongue (Turkish)
was used in all data collection instruments for better self-expression and to ward off potential misunderstandings. Informed by prior
work on the dynamicity of individual difference factors in the L2 pedagogy (e.g. Pawlak, 2012; Pawlak et al., 2016; Pawlak &
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2015; Waninge et al., 2014), data collection consisted of the following:

• A grid where the participants indicated their motivation to teach online at 5-min. intervals on a scale of 1 (minimum) to 10
(maximum) in response to a prerecorded sound using a printed chart. Upon hearing the beep sound from a pre-set nearby device,
the participants self-rated how motivated they were to teach at that particular moment. It is worth noting that the analytic focus
was on the participants’ motivational dispositions rather than on their active, behavioral engagement in teaching (for a useful
comparison of “motivation” and “engagement” constructs, see Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). Self-ratings were completed when a
particular class was in progress. A similar instrument was used in earlier studies to capture the complex process of change in L2
motivation (e.g. Pawlak, 2012; Waninge et al., 2014), and thus was deemed suitable to be adapted to the present study. Time was
indicated on the horizontal axis of the chart in 5-min. intervals while the vertical axis showed the scale to self-rate the levels of
motivation.
• Reflective journal entries kept to provide a rationale for the periods of change indicated on the charts and to record instances of
motivational ups and downs. 8 journal entries were submitted in total (four entries per participant; average one page each).
• In-depth interviews carried out after the second and fourth lessons to obtain the participants’ overall views and evaluation of the
lessons. The interviews, each lasting 40 min. on average, were conducted via Zoom and voice-recorded. Some interview questions
were aimed at elaborating on the insights gained from the journal entries.
• The lesson plans providing information about the consecutive activities performed in each lesson, along with the teachers’ com­
ments on their implementation. Details about the progression of each lesson are provided in the Appendix.

3.4. Data analysis

The data were subjected to a combination of qualitative and, though to a lesser extent, quantitative analysis. In the case of the latter,

Table 1
Information about the participants.
Feature/Participants Ben Tracy

Age 27 35
Gender Male Female
Major English Language Teaching English Language Teaching
Degree BA and MA in ELT BA in ELT
Teaching experience 4 years 11 years
Online teaching experience 2 years 5 years
Training on online teaching Limited to a BA-level course 3-month-long in-service training
Career phase Early-career Mid-career

Note: Career phases were determined based on Day et al.’s (2007) model of teachers’ professional life phases.

4
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

numerical data from the grids where the participants indicated changes in their motivational intensity were entered into Excel sheets
and transformed into line graphs to obtain a visual illustration of the changes in motivational trajectories over time. To do so, the data
points for each online class were listed for each participant. Two different graphs were created, showing dynamic fluctuations in the
levels of motivation both within and across the lessons (RQ1). The means of the self-ratings of motivation levels at the initial, middle,
and final stages of the lessons were also calculated for each participant. In what follows, variations in the levels of motivation were
related to the particular stages and activities of the lessons to identify their potential influences on the motivational ups and downs. The
qualitative analysis entailed identifying and categorizing recurring themes in the journal entries and interviews in relation to the
factors responsible for motivational fluctuations (RQ2). Journal entries and verbatim transcripts from the recorded interviews were
read iteratively and coded line-by-line based a general data-driven inductive approach (Thomas, 2006). An inductive stance towards
analysis was useful to capture any meaningful details of the teachers’ motivational experiences. After multiple readings of the raw data
during which the author also kept analytic memos to record any immediate patterns, the data segments were grouped into meaningful
units and assigned into categories based on thematic similarity. Next, the emergent categories were compared to identify overlaps and
facilitate data reduction. Finally, the factors underlying changes in motivational trajectories were identified and labelled. After
completing these procedures, the data to be presented were translated into English by the author. To improve credibility, a draft of the
initial findings was discussed with the participants in a member-check interview for their comments. This was done to ensure that the
findings were not biased and reflected well the participants’ experiences. Besides, a fragment of the qualitative data was coded by an
external researcher and high inter-coder agreement (0.93) enhanced trustworthiness, with discrepancies discussed until agreement.

4. Findings

This section begins by presenting findings related to dynamic changes and variability in the motivation levels (RQ1) based on the
insights gained from the motivation charts, followed by an examination of the factors underpinning such changes (RQ2) drawing on
data from journal entries and interviews. The findings are presented case-by-case for an in-depth, individual-level analysis.

4.1. The case of Ben

4.1.1. Changes in motivation levels

Some fluctuations in the levels of motivation measured at 5-min. intervals over the course of the lessons were observed within both
participants, with considerable differences in this respect between the two. The overall patterns of change in the self-reported
motivational intensity of Ben that took place over two weeks are shown in Fig. 1. In general, Ben displayed a rather moderate (a
mean of 5.41) and diminishing levels of motivation, each session being characterized by a falling trend. It is of note, however, that
several sequences during the sessions were not reflective of this general pattern. The level of motivational intensity was quite high at
the initial stages (i.e. minutes 5–15) of the lessons while the ending stages (i.e. minutes 35–45) were characterized by low motivation
(7.25 and 4.25, respectively). The analysis of data also revealed some periods of relative stability (e.g. Session 3, minutes 20–25;
Session 4, minutes 10–15 and 20–25). Looking at fluctuations in the first two successive lessons, Ben displayed the highest level of
motivation at the beginning of the sessions (9 and 8, respectively). In the first session, Ben had the lowest motivation during a grammar
practice (minute 35). He felt the least motivated in Session 2 while managing a pair-work speaking activity conducted in Zoom
breakout rooms (minute 25). As for the last two sessions, the moderate level of motivation at the beginning of the Session 3 was
followed by a sudden increase in time intervals devoted to a whole-group reading practice (minutes 10–15), yet the final stages of the
reading practice (minute 20) was again defined by a moderate level of motivation. In the Session 3, Ben felt the least motivated towards
the end of the time period when vocabulary teaching was the main focus (minute 35). Besides, Ben reported relatively high levels of
motivation both at the beginning and the end of the Session 4 (7 and 7, respectively). Regarding the final session, results also showed
that Ben had the lowest motivation during a writing practice and while giving instructions for a take-home writing task (minutes
30–40).

4.1.2. The factors underlying motivational changes

The inductive approach to analyze data from journal entries and interviews led to the identification of a range of individual and

Fig. 1. Changes in the levels of motivation during the sessions (Ben). Note. W = week.

5
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

contextual factors triggering a rise or fall in the intensity of motivation while some factors were more pronounced than others. Ben
attributed positive changes in his motivation to successful teaching moments, positive student feedback, active student participation,
topical knowledge, and perceptions of student progress while drops in motivation were associated with such issues as the learning
activities involved, student misbehavior, the sense of inadequate control over students, and the contextual obstacles of teaching online.
As regards the first two sessions; active student participation, perceptions of student progress, and positive student feedback served as
facilitating factors in Ben’s motivational trajectory:
In the warm-up stage [Session 1], many were eager to share ideas about the innovations. They seemed to have enjoyed the
discussion and the amount of interaction made me become more motivated (reflection 1).
During grammar practice [Session 1], most students gave correct responses but this wasn’t the case in earlier weeks. Some hate
grammar and they are not much interested in improving their grammar. This week was different … Even those who hate
grammar answered the questions correctly. This, of course, improved my teaching motivation (reflection 1).
While discussing answers at the end of the first lesson, some students said the activity was very useful to revise active and
passive voice. Ceren [pseudonym] wrote in the chat box that she understood the topic better after my explanations. It feels good
to hear such comments. This helped me start the next session [Session 2] with high motivation (reflection 2).
The interview data provided more detailed insights into the above points. When asked to explain why “the amount of interaction”
in the warm-up made him feel more motivated, Ben remarked that “for me, spoken competence is the most important part of a stu­
dent’s proficiency” (interview 1). This suggests that Ben views interaction as the ultimate goal of a language study and therefore
students’ high interactional engagement with the warm-up appeared to fit well with his professional identity, thus leading to growth in
his motivation. Likewise, the motivational value attached to student progress appeared to resonate well with his altruistic (i.e. a desire
to benefit someone) orientation in joining the teaching profession: “I became a teacher to help students succeed” (interview 1). Ben
added that positive student feedback helped him “build higher self-confidence and feel more competent”. Accordingly, the origin of a
sense of improved motivation appeared to be rooted in his enhanced self-efficacy beliefs driven by a positive comment. As for the last
two sessions, Ben noted the important role of topical knowledge/familiarity and successful teaching moments in boosting motivational
intensity. As stated earlier, the sequences defined by the highest motivation in Session 3 coincided with the conduct of a whole-group
reading practice. Ben explained the reason as follows:
Reading is boring and stressful when the reading topic is irrelevant … My background knowledge on technological innovations
facilitated my work this time as I am personally interested in this topic and I read some books … It was enjoyable. I wanted to
talk even after the reading was over (reflection 3).
His prior knowledge of and familiarity with the reading topic turned out to be a motivational force which made Ben willing to talk
even after the activity was over. It emerged that Ben conceived content familiarity as “the key factor” that “facilitates the teaching of
reading” (interview 2). As for the final session, there was mention of the moment when Ben felt optimistic about the success of his
instructions which he believed helped students handle the activity with ease. This successful teaching moment appeared to strengthen
his motivation:
Students started to do what I explained without asking questions … They did well in the breakout rooms. I think this was thanks
to my clear instructions. I felt more confident in giving instructions. That’s why I rated my motivation high at the beginning of
the class (interview 2).
Turning now to the negative sources leading to a decline in motivational intensity, the data showed that student misbehavior and
contextual obstacles of teaching online posed impediments to Ben’s motivation to teach in the first two sessions. Below are several
representative excerpts where such concerns are disclosed:
One student made a phone call during the class [Session 1] without muting audio and I got distracted. This was when we were
doing vocabulary practice. This happened twice. I kindly warned him after the first and he apologized. But it happened again
after a while. I warned him again, but he didn’t respond and kept talking. I got crazy (reflection 1).
I visited each pair during the speaking practice [Session 2] and some pairs did not even open their cameras. I don’t understand
why they do so. This is not good for communication and such pairs are disrespectful towards each other … It isn’t easy to feel
motivated while teaching black screens (reflection 2).
The above comments show that Ben’s loss of motivation during the vocabulary practice in the first session was due to disruptive
talking that continued even after his multiple warnings, which in turn interfered with the teaching process and made him “crazy”. Ben
said: “Such rude and insensitive behaviors are frustrating, not just for me, but also for the other students” (interview 1). However, the
lowest level of motivation in the first session was indicated during the grammar practice. When asked to explain the reason, Ben made
the following point: “I just failed to regain my motivation after what happened at the beginning [i.e. disruptive talking]. Namely, after
the occurrence of a particular misbehavior, his motivation settled into a gradually decreasing pattern in the first session. Ben main­
tained that he must “learn how to tackle such behaviors in online teaching”. This seems to indicate a perceived lack of self-efficacy in
coping with student behaviors in digital settings. Besides, Ben viewed the lack of control over student behaviors as an inherent
challenge of teaching online, which decreased his capacity of agency: “The issue of closed camera in Zoom isn’t something we can
avoid … It is easier to manage and monitor students in face-to-face classes” (interview 1).

6
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

The analysis identified the inappropriacy of the activities and the sense of inadequate control over teaching as the causal factors of feeling
demotivated at times in the last two sessions. Ben reported the lowest level of motivation towards the end of the vocabulary teaching in
Session 3. Ben attributed this loss of motivation to the particular features of the activities performed:
I like teaching vocabulary communicatively by introducing the forms of words in their context. But the vocabulary activities in
the coursebook are too mechanical and meaningless with no communicative purpose. This is not my teaching philosophy, but I
have to follow the rules. This is something that demotivates me most (reflection 3).
As noted before, Ben attached a motivational value to the interactional involvement of students and this was in keeping with his
professional identity. Relatedly, the above comment seems to imply that activities performed as part of vocabulary teaching con­
tradicted with Ben’s professional identity. This was clear when he noted that such “mechanical” and “meaningless” activities did not
align with his “teaching philosophy”, which in turn led to a substantial drop in his motivation. As for the last session, the sudden drop
in motivation levels between the minutes 30–40 was due to Ben’s perceived lack of control over his teaching in the online class. The
following comment serves to highlight this concern:
It is almost impossible to give individual feedback on writing during the online classes … I wasn’t sure if they really did well or
not. This made me feel sad and influenced my motivation. Similarly, I gave the instructions for the assignment, but when I asked
“Is it clear?” only some of them responded. Perhaps the others didn’t understand. I don’t know. If we were in a face-to-face class,
I would understand this even by looking at their faces (reflection 4).
The challenges of online teaching in terms of checking students’ understanding and progress came out as a powerful negative
resource and appeared to reduce Ben’s sense of agency. When asked to elaborate on this, Ben explicitly used the term “control” to
indicate why he felt a loss of motivation: “I don’t know if they really learn or not. Most of them have their cameras off. I feel like I’m not
in control” (interview 2). The excerpt above also suggests that limited non-verbal communication in online teaching served as
undermining the sense of control over teaching.

4.2. The case of Tracy

4.2.1. Changes in motivation levels

The ups and downs in Tracy’s motivational trajectories within and across the sessions are shown in Fig. 2, the patterns being very
similar with the increases and decreases occurring at almost the same time. Even if some sequences during the sessions deviated from
this general pattern, Tracy demonstrated relatively high (a mean of 7.61) levels of motivation, each session being marked by a U-
shaped motivational trajectory. The high levels of motivational intensity at the initial stages (i.e. minutes 5–15) of the sessions were
followed by a decrease towards the middle. The slightly above-average motivation level in the middle stages (6.50) was then followed
by a clear increasing trend till the end of the sessions. Tracy’s overall level of motivation at the initial stages amounted to 7.66 while the
ending stages were identified by even higher levels in general (8.66). As was the case for Ben, the graphic also revealed some sequences
when the level of motivation remained unchanged (i.e. Session 1, minutes 5–10 and 15–20; Session 2, minutes 5–10 and 40–45; Session
3, minutes 5–10, 15–20, and 35–45; Session 4, minutes 20–25). In Session 1, Tracy was the least motivated towards the end of the
grammar teaching part (minute 25) while she had the lowest level of motivation in Session 2 during the vocabulary teaching (minute
25). As for the last two sessions, it was during a reading practice (minutes 11–20) when Tracy reported the lowest motivation level in
Session 3. In the final session, the time slot where the level of motivation was indicated as the lowest coincided with the conduct of a
writing practice in pairs (minute 30) in Zoom breakout rooms. In sum, in terms of motivational intensity, Tracy underwent both
changes and sequences of relative stability throughout the study.

4.2.2. The factors underlying motivational changes

The analysis of Tracy’s responses yielded similar findings compared to the case of Ben. The dynamic fluctuations over time in the
intensity of motivation were due to a range of interrelated factors which were contextual and personal in nature. Yet some differences
were still in place. For instance, Tracy started all the sessions with a high degree of motivational intensity. When asked to explain the

Fig. 2. Changes in the levels of motivation during the sessions (Tracy). Note. W = week.

7
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

rationale for this uniform pattern, Tracy provided a reason of a highly personal nature: “Starting the lessons with a positive mood is my
regular teaching routine and it is part of my personality as a teacher” (reflection 1). Her strong personal commitment to starting lessons
with high motivation seems to be shaped by Tracy’s understanding of herself as a teacher: “I have been teaching for years and, as an
experienced teacher, I believe this is what my role entails” (interview 1). Apparently, Tracy positions herself as an experienced teacher
who must display positive motivational orientations and this belief seems to be an essential part of her professional identity. As shown
below, the analysis also found evidence that the factors contributing to positive changes in Tracy’s motivation in the first two sessions
were related to positive group dynamics among students and a moment of positive teacher-student relationship:
What made me happy and feel more motivated was that in some groups all the cameras were open and students were talking
without interrupting each other. They were listening carefully and respecting the ideas of others. They were constructive in
their comments (reflection 1).
I value each of my students and I feel they respect me … During vocabulary practice, one student wrote me why her camera was
closed and why she didn’t contribute to discussions. She didn’t have to, but she did. This put a smile on my face. I became more
motivated … I said “no worries, it is okay” to make her relieved (reflection 2).
Positive emotional climate within some groups served as an important motivational function and reinforced Tracy’s motivation.
Likewise, Tracy seemed to feel a sense of being valued and respected upon receiving a chat box message to which she responded kindly
as an expression of affection. Arguably, this short episode of mutual respect and understanding was a momentary cue of social
connectedness (Walton et al., 2012) and created a “relational stance” (i.e. psychological connectedness; Rodgers & Raider–Roth, 2006,
p. 274), which in turn led to a positive shift in her motivation. The importance she gives to social relations is also evident in what
follows: “I have strong bonds with my students and this makes me feel good” (interview 1). Regarding the last two sessions, student
engagement and enhanced self-efficacy beliefs emerged as the primary facilitating factors in Tracy’s motivational trajectory. Above all,
a gradual increase in the intensity of motivation after the middle stages seemed to be led by Tracy’s activation of agency as she took the
initiative in changing some of the activities involved with an eye toward increasing the efficacy of her teaching. Such agentive acts
appeared to reinforce Tracy’s self-efficacy beliefs, thus giving rise to an overall increase in her motivation:
In the first lesson [Session 3], the reason for my high motivation was the students’ interest in the activities. Many of them
seemed to enjoy the lesson. They were eager to speak and answer the questions … During the speaking practice, all pairs were
quite active and they put forward brilliant ideas. This was exactly what I wanted in an ideal class (reflection 3).
During the interview, Tracy reported that in Session 3 she “used a different reading text taken from a novel as the one in the
coursebook was full of technical information”, which she believed “would not be meaningful for the students”. Tracy added that she
“enjoyed the class very much as the new text worked well and some students even asked the name of the novel”. This was also the case
for the last session when she “designed a new speaking activity about the challenges of living in a hot country” (reflection 4). She
maintained that she “designed the activity just before the class, but it worked well” (interview 2). The success of the newly designed
activity seemed to give Tracy a strong sense of efficacy:
Some activities are really bad and I sometimes change them … It is very motivating to see my alternative activities worked
better than the ones in the coursebook. Such things make me feel more confident and capable (reflection 4).
As for the negative motivational dynamics, physical/emotional fatigue and technical issues were the major causal factors of feeling
demotivated at times during the first two sessions:
Even if I’m trying to do my best to keep my motivation high, online teaching is more tiring than face-to-face, both mentally and
physically. In the first session, I felt a bit tired towards the middle. I had difficulty concentrating. It was temporary, but I felt a bit
demotivated (reflection 1).
While teaching vocabulary [Session 2], I lost my internet connection for a while and I didn’t realize until students said they
couldn’t hear me. It happened twice within ten minutes … It was frustrating and distracting. So I had lower motivation in this
period (reflection 2).
As shown above, Tracy positions herself as a highly motivated teacher, but she still remains cognizant of the general state of
weariness and tiredness caused by online teaching, which resulted in a drop in her motivational intensity in Session 1. During the
interview, there were instances showing that the symptoms of physical and mental exhaustion were evident in the case of Tracy: “It is
quite challenging to teach 20 h online in a week. This makes me feel overwhelmed at times and gives me headaches” (interview 1).
Similarly, the lack of a strong and stable internet connection was revealed to make an occasional negative influence on Tracy’s
motivation. As for the last two sessions, Tracy did not report any specific negative motivational dynamics regarding the Session 3 as
this session was characterized by high levels of motivation in general. Yet some evidence emerged that Tracy felt a loss of motivation
during the writing practice in the last session due to self-efficacy doubts induced by student disengagement:
Some of the pairs in the writing practice seemed not interested. Some pairs were talking about something different rather than
doing the activity. They said they didn’t understand what they should do. This was demotivating for me as I thought everything was
clear. I questioned what was wrong in my instruction (reflection 4).

8
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

5. Discussion

This study tapped into dynamic changes and variability in L2 teacher motivation in a series of eight online EFL classes over two
weeks, as experienced by two Turkish EFL teachers at the tertiary level (RQ1). The study also set out to examine the factors under­
pinning such changes in the levels of motivation (RQ2).
In relation to RQ1, the analysis showed that the overall trajectories of the participants’ motivation underwent substantial fluc­
tuations both during a single lesson and series of lessons as the result of the complex interplay of a network of social, individual, and
contextual factors. There was also considerable variation in the motivation levels within each participant. Ben’s motivational pro­
gression over time was identified by a falling trend while patterns of motivational intensity in the case of Tracy were somewhat more
complex as the overall motivation levels were typically higher at the initial and final stages of the sessions compared with those at the
middle stages. Both teachers had a tendency to experience motivational fluctuations, yet Tracy seemed less susceptible to have such
fluctuations and she reported higher levels of motivation in general. This can perhaps be attributed to her enhanced self-efficacy
beliefs, professional identity as a teacher, and display of agentic efforts in resolving emergent motivational tensions. These points
are discussed in detail in the next paragraphs. Overall, such disparities highlight the dynamic and complex nature of L2 teacher
motivation to teach online and indicate the uniqueness of individual experiences in that respect.
Also related to RQ1, the patterns of motivational shifts on the charts suggest that L2 teacher motivation in online settings is in a
state of constant flux and experiences fluidity. This finding extends earlier work where L2 teachers’ motivational development was
shown to display nonlinear trajectories with temporal ups and downs in the class (Kimura, 2014; Sampson, 2016). Besides, this finding
accords with Hiver et al. (2018) who claimed that teacher motivation as a complex psychological state goes through numerous dy­
namic changes over time and displays variability. Such portrayal of L2 teacher motivation as a dynamic and variable attribute also
seems to be valid in digital contexts. Also of note was the identification of several sequences that were not reflective of the participants’
general motivation patterns. Even if such findings do not lend themselves to easy interpretations, it appears that aggregate data may
fail to capture variations within an individual (Boudreau et al., 2018) as calculated averages are likely to flatten individualistic
behavior, thus failing to reflect the dynamics of the variables in focus in their full richness (Kruk, 2019).
With regards to RQ2, changes in teachers’ motivational trajectories appeared contingent upon combinations of learner-related and
course-related factors along with the participants’ personal characteristics and the unique constraints associated with online pedagogy.
Some of these factors were at times difficult to tease apart. Of note is that, aligning with the findings of Sampson (2016), the two
participants’ motivational progression was contextually bound to and shaped by particular class groups, suggesting that teacher
motivation to teach online not only involves a temporal dimension but is also characterized by contextual variation. The similar
contexts in which the participants were teaching did not seem to have influenced them in the same way. In the case of Ben, in line with
the findings of Aydin (2012) and Sugino (2010), student misbehavior emerged as a negative source leading to a decline in his
motivation. In addition, the lack of access to non-verbal cues was identified as serving a negative motivational function. As stated
earlier, limited non-verbal communication in online settings poses constraints in managing classes (Hampel & Stickler, 2005). Giving
partial support to this, Ben felt a loss of control over his students and teaching because of “teaching black screens”, which introduced
further limitations in checking students’ level of understanding and progress.
The analysis showed as well that teaching materials’ being “too mechanical and meaningless with no communicative purpose” had
an adverse effect on Ben’s motivational progression. This finding, again, mirrors those of Sugino’s (2010) study which showed that
teaching materials are one of the factors demotivating L2 teachers most in their workplace. In the case of Tracy, physical/emotional
fatigue was reported as causing demotivation at times. Tracy viewed online teaching more tiring than face-to-face teaching both
mentally and physically. Notably, Akbana and Dikilitaş (2022) found “tiredness” as one of the key sources of EFL teachers’ online
teaching anxiety. Insights from Tracy’s case suggest that it may also serve a strong demotivating function. The other obstacles to
Tracy’s motivation included technical issues and student disengagement. Perhaps not surprisingly, Tracy felt troubled by the lack of
good internet connectivity (Sun, 2011) and this breakdown, albeit being temporal, led to a substantial decrease in her motivation,
suggesting that the provision of sufficient infrastructural facilities including high-quality internet connection is key to protecting and
sustaining teacher motivation to teach online. As for the latter, demotivating role of student disengagement corroborates earlier work
(e.g. Sampson, 2016; Tardy & Snyder, 2004) that emphasized the centrality of seeing students engaged in inspiring motivation in L2
teachers.
As for the positive motivational factors, the results showed that active student participation and engagement facilitated motiva­
tional progression in the case of both participants. This finding supports previous research where the role of active student involvement
in promoting L2 teacher motivation was documented (Sampson, 2016; Tardy & Snyder, 2004). Other factors emerging from the data
were perceptions of student progress and successful teaching moments (Ben) along with positive teacher-student relationships (Tracy).
Such findings did not come as a surprise as there is evidence that student progress (Song & Kim, 2016), feeling optimistic about the
success of the teaching practices (Lee & Yuan, 2014), and dialogical engagement between teachers and students (Tardy & Snyder,
2004) contribute positively to L2 teachers’ motivational trajectory. The final point here deserves particular mention. According to
Walton et al. (2012), motivation needs to be conceived “as arising collectively among networks of individuals connected to one another
in social relationships” (p. 530). This stance is of particular relevance to classrooms given their social and interpersonal nature. The
analysis showed that a moment of close personal contact between Tracy and one of her students where they both employed positive
interpersonal behaviors stimulated a momentary positive climate and led Tracy to feel a sense of connecting (Korthagen et al., 2014),
which then sparked a period of heightened motivation that is relationally directed. This finding suggests a relational aspect of teacher
motivation to teach online arising in interactions with students in the shared virtual space.
Notably, motivational changes in both participants were largely mediated by self-efficacy beliefs, (non)display of agency, and the

9
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

sense of professional identity. This further testifies to the intricate nature of L2 teacher motivation to teach online. The major role of
higher self-efficacy in boosting teacher motivation is well-established in the literature (e.g. Lee & Yuan, 2014; Song & Kim, 2016).
Indeed, positive student feedback constituted a key source of Ben’s enhanced self-efficacy (see Yuan & Zhang, 2017), thus stimulating
his motivation. The opposite also held true for both participants. Self-efficacy doubts stemming from a perceived lack of competence in
resolving conflicts generated by non-compliant student behaviors (Ben) and from student disengagement (Tracy) resulted in a loss of
teaching motivation. Likewise, in the hope of increasing the efficacy of her teaching, Tracy’s exercise of agency in changing some of the
activities bolstered her self-efficacy as newly introduced activities proved useful to get students more interested in the topic and this
made her feel more confident and capable, thus acting as a catalyst for greater motivation.
Referring to “teachers’ efforts to make choices within a host of contexts… in adapting themselves to the diverse requirements of
their working contexts” (White, 2018, p. 196), teacher agency is recognized as closely related to teacher identity (Vähäsantanen,
2015). Ben’s ought-to teacher self (Kubanyiova, 2009) imposed by the institution he was teaching in restrained him from resolving the
motivational tensions arising from the perceived inappropriacy of a teaching activity as he felt obliged to “follow the rules” and thus
remained committed to meeting external obligations. Even if the “mechanical” activity contradicted with his teacher identity as a
“communicative teacher”, he did not engage in agentive efforts to make instructional changes and therefore experienced demotivation.
Besides, the challenges of online teaching in relation to controlling students’ behaviors and checking their understanding and progress
appeared to have undermined Ben’s sense of agency. In contrast, while Tracy had the same institution-related normative pressures, she
appeared to have a stronger ideal teacher-self (Kubanyiova, 2009) given her positioning of herself as an experienced teacher
committed to displaying high motivation. In accordance with this, Tracy chose to act in ways that would better reflect her professional
identity and her attempt to exercise agency in adopting new teaching materials helped her maintain a positive motivational trajectory.

5.1. Implications

Since this study represents one of the initial attempts to investigate changes in L2 teacher motivation in digital spaces, it does not
aim to reach generic conclusions, and it is clearly immature to draw up concrete recommendations. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable
to suggest a handful of pedagogical implications that could help us promote motivation to teach in online instruction. First of all, given
that the study highlights the key role of self-efficacy beliefs in mediating motivational changes, teacher educators should embrace self-
efficacy as a potential factor that might be conducive or detrimental to the efficacy of online teaching and teacher education programs
should find proactive ways to help teachers build up their self-efficacy about teaching online. In this way, teachers can feel capable
enough of tackling the realities and challenges of online teaching as well as to resolve emergent motivational tensions. Specifically, via
continuous (re)training, it would be useful to equip teachers with the sufficient knowledge and strategies to help them become more
resilient in coping with the needs and pressures of online teaching. This may also prove useful for setting up positive outcome ex­
pectations (Bandura, 1977) for their future practices. Besides, an explicit focus on improving teachers’ critical awareness of their
potential for enacting agency to reflect on policy decisions and make pedagogical changes through renegotiating their professional
identity (Ashton, 2022) seems essential. Such awareness could assist teachers in their endeavors to become better motivated online
teachers and attain the intended outcomes with critical analysis of contexts.

6. Conclusions

By examining the micro-scale ebbs and flows of teacher motivation at 5-min. intervals in online EFL classes, this study showed that
L2 teacher motivation to teach online not only fluctuates within single lessons but also from one lesson to the next, with the fluctu­
ations originating from a complex array of learner-related, course-related, and personal factors. The sense of professional identity,
(non)display of agency, and self-efficacy beliefs appeared central in mediating motivation changes. There was also substantial vari­
ation in the motivational ups and downs both within and across the participants. These findings indicate that L2 teacher motivation to
teach online is a dynamic process and characterized by temporal, individual, and contextual variation, being open to influences and
displaying nonlinear development over timescales.
While this investigation has made a novel contribution towards broadening the current scholarship on the dynamic nature of L2
teacher motivation, it has several limitations. Firstly, the interest in exploring the dynamicity of L2 teacher motivation within digital
spaces has not yet been widely taken up and thus the present study remains highly exploratory. For this reason, the findings presented
here represent just a partial aspect of a complex puzzle. Additionally, using a micro-scale approach drawing on data from two par­
ticipants does not allow for generalizations to a wider population. The analysis yielded valuable insights into changes in levels of L2
teacher motivation in online classes and the reasons for such changes, yet more research is needed that documents evidence for further
discussion in this area. Such work that would target teachers at other educational levels in various locations and with different amounts
of teaching experience could help us generate a more comprehensive picture of the nonlinearity and complexity of L2 teacher
motivation to teach online. Equally important would be to investigate individual trajectories in experiencing motivational fluctuations
in a more longitudinal manner by complementing the micro-perspective adopted here with a macro-perspective through collecting
data over the broader timescales of months, academic term, or year, employing a wider range of data collection tools (e.g. observa­
tions, diaries), and considering the influence of such factors as identity, agency, and self-efficacy.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

10
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

Conflict of interest disclosure

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval statement

Prior to the study, ethical approval was obtained from the researcher’s academic institute, and consent of the participants was
granted.

Author statement

All contributions to the paper have been made by the corresponding author.

Appendix. Progression of the lessons

Sessions Group 1 (Ben) Group 2 (Tracy)

Session • Minutes 1–5: Warm-up (whole-group) • Minutes 1–5: Revision (whole-group)

1 • Minutes 6–20: Vocabulary practice (whole-group)
• Minutes 21–30: Listening to a short text and answering questions
(whole-group)
• Minutes 31–40: Grammar practice: Active & passive voice
(completing sentences individually)
• Minutes 41–45: Discussing answers (whole-group)
Session • Minutes 1–10: Grammar practice (cloze-test; whole-group)
2 questions (whole-group)
• Minutes 11–20: Brainstorming ideas before speaking (whole-group)
• Minutes 21–35: Speaking practice in breakout rooms (pair-work)
• Minutes 36–45: Discussion over the pairs’ ideas (whole-group)
Session • Minutes 1–10: Brainstorming ideas before reading (whole-group)
3 • Minutes 11–20: Reading a text about technological innovations and
answering questions (whole-group)
•Minutes 21–35: Vocabulary teaching (verbs and nouns that go
together; whole-group)
•Minutes 36–40: Student examples of verbs and nouns that go together
(whole-group)
• Minutes 41–45: Vocabulary matching activity
Session • Minutes 1–10: Writing practice in breakout rooms (writing
4 sentences; pair-work)
• Minutes 11–20: Sharing sentences with others (whole-group)
• Minutes 21–35: Writing task (individually)
• Minutes 36–40: Instructions for take-home writing activity
• Minutes 41–45: Wrap it up all
• Minutes 6–10: Warm-up (whole-group)
• Minutes 11–25: Grammar teaching (relative clauses; whole-group)
• Minutes 26–35: Grammar practice (group-work)
• Minutes 36–45: Listening to a text about bungee jumbing and answering
questions (group-work)
• Minutes 1–10: Listening to a short text about cheese roll and answering
• Minutes 11–20: Vocabulary teaching (Adverb collocations; whole-
group)
• Minutes 21–35: Fill-in-the-blanks vocabulary
• Minutes 36–45: Discussion over the answers (whole-group)
• Minutes 1–10: Brainstorming ideas before reading (whole-group)
• Minutes 11–20: Reading a text about the coldest place in the world
(whole-group)
• Minutes 21–30: Answering reading comprehension questions (whole-
group)
• Minutes 31–40: Speaking practice in breakout rooms (pair-work)
• Minutes 41–45: Pairs’ sharing their ideas with the rest (pair-work)
• Minutes 1–10: Speaking activity about the people living in hot countries
(whole-group)
• Minutes 11–20: Speaking activity about the challenges faced in cold
countries in breakout rooms (pair-work)
• Minutes 21–35: Writing practice in breakout rooms (pair-work)
• Minutes 36–45: Conclusion
• Minutes 41–45: Wrap it up all

References

Akbana, Y. E., & Dikilitaş, K. (2022). EFL teachers’ sources of remote teaching anxiety: Insights and implications for EFL teacher education. Acta Educationis Generalis,
12(1), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2022-0009
Alrabai, F. (2016). The effects of teachers’ in-class motivational intervention on learners’ EFL achievement. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 307–333. https://doi.org/
10.1093/applin/amu021
Ashton, K. (2022). Language teacher agency in emergency online teaching. System. , Article 102713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102713
Aydin, S. (2012). Factors causing demotivation in EFL teaching process: A case study. Qualitative Report, 17, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1696
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.84.2.191
Boudreau, C., MacIntyre, P. D., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Enjoyment and anxiety in second language communication: An idiodynamic approach. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.7
Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers Matter: Connecting work, lives and effectiveness. Open University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2018). Motivating students and teachers. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), vol. 7. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 4293–4299). Wiley.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 589–630). Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Longman.
Gacs, A., Goertler, S., & Spasova, S. (2020). Planned online language education versus crisis-prompted online language teaching: Lessons for the future. Foreign
Language Annals, 53(2), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12460
Guo, Q., Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2019). Language teacher education research in System. System, 82, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.001

11
M. Sak System 111 (2022) 102948

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
Han, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Educ., 3, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2331186X.2016.1217819
Hayes, D. (2008). Becoming a teacher of English in Thailand. Language Teaching Research, 12(4), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808097160
Hiver, P. (2013). The interplay of possible language teacher selves in professional development choices. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1362168813475944
Hiver, P., Kim, T.-Y., & Kim, Y. (2018). Language teacher motivation. In S. Mercer, & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Multilingual mattersLanguage teacher psychology (pp. 18–33).
Hoy, A. W. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2008.06.007
Karavas, E. (2010). How satisfied are Greek EFL teachers with their work? Investigating the motivation and job satisfaction levels of Greek EFL teachers. Porta
Linguarum, 14, 59–78. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/31944.
Kimura, Y. (2014). ELT motivation from a complex dynamic systems theory perspective: A longitudinal case study of L2 teacher motivation in Beijing. In K. Csizer, &
M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 310–329). Multilingual Matters.
Korthagen, F. A. J., Attema–Noordewier, S., & Zwart, R. C. (2014). Teacher–student contact: Exploring a basic but complicated concept. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 40, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.006
Kruk, M. (2019). Dynamicity of perceived willingness to communicate, motivation, boredom and anxiety in Second Life: The case of two advanced learners of English.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35, 190–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1677722
Kubanyiova, M. (2009). Possible selves in language teacher development. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 314–332).
Multilingual Matters.
Kubanyiova, M. (2019). Language teacher motivation research: Its ends, means and future commitments. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), Palgrave
Macmillan handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 389–407). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kumazawa, M. (2013). Gaps too large: Four novice EFL teachers’ self-concept and motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2013.02.005
Lamb, M., & Wyatt, M. (2019). Teacher motivation: The missing ingredient in teacher education. In S. Walsh, & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English
language teacher education (pp. 522–535). Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford.
Lee, I., & Yuan, R. (2014). Motivation change of pre-service English teachers: A Hong Kong study. Language Culture and Curriculum, 27(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07908318.2014.890211
Liu, H. (2020). Language teacher motivation. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of teacher education (pp. 1–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_
124-1.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2020). Language teachers’ coping strategies during the Covid- 19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress,
wellbeing and negative emotions. System, 94, Article 102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352
Mahmoodi, M. H., & Yousefi, M. (2021). Second language motivation research 2010–2019: A synthetic exploration. Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09571736.2020.1869809. Epub ahead of print 13 January 2021.
Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Broadley, T., & Weatherby-Fell, N. (2016). Building resilience in teacher education: An evidenced informed framework. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 54, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.016
Mercer, S. (2018). Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher. Language Teaching, 51(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444817000258
Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
Mills, S. J., Yanes, M. J., & Casebeer, C. M. (2009). Perceptions of distance learning among faculty of a college of education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5
(1), 19–28. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no1/mills_0309.htm.
Pawlak, M. (2012). The dynamic nature of motivation in language learning: A classroom perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 249–278.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2012.2.2.7
Pawlak, M., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of classroom willingness to communicate. System, 50, 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.system.2015.02.001
Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Bielak, J. (2016). Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language
Teaching Research, 20, 654–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609615
Rodgers, C. R., & Raider–Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 12, 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500467548
Sampson, R. J. (2016). EFL teacher motivation in-situ: Co-Adaptive processes, openness and relational motivation over interacting timescales. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.6
Schreiber, B. R., & Jansz, M. (2020). Reducing distance through online international collaboration. ELT Journal, 74(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz045
Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding effective language teaching in face-to-face and online learning communities. RELC Journal, 41(2),
137–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210375775
Song, B., & Kim, T. Y. (2016). Teacher (de)motivation from an Activity Theory perspective: Cases of two experienced EFL teachers in South Korea. System, 57,
134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.006
Sugino, T. (2010). Teacher demotivational factors in the Japanese language teaching context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 216–226. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.036
Sun, S. Y. H. (2011). Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: International Journal, 3(3), 428–447. https://doi.
org/10.34105/j.kmel.2011.03.030
Tardy, C. M., & Snyder, B. (2004). ‘That’s why I do it’: Flow and EFL teachers’ practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.118
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1098214005283748
Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 47, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006
Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102,
513–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025731
Waninge, F., Dörnyei, Z., & De Bot, K. (2014). Motivational dynamics in language learning: Change, stability, and context. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3),
704–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12118
White, C. (2018). Language teacher agency. In S. Mercer, & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 196–210) (Multilingual Matters).
Yuan, E. R., & Zhang, L. J. (2017). Exploring student teachers’ motivation change in initial teacher education: A Chinese perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education,
61, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.010

12