Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

EFL teachers' behavior of using motivational strategies: The case of

teaching in the Korean context
Unkyoung Maeng a, *, Sangmin-Michelle Lee b
a
Graduate School of Education, Ajou University, Worldcup-ro, Suwon 443-749, Republic of Korea
b
School of Global Communication, Kyung Hee University, Deogyeong-daero, Yong-In 446-701, Republic of Korea

h i g h l i g h t s

EFL teachers' use of motivational strategies was investigated based on the ARCS model.

Only one component of ARCS, attention, is found to be effectively utilized.

Motivational strategies are appropriately used only in the beginning phase.

L2 proficiency is positively correlated with the use of motivational strategies.

Teaching experience is negatively correlated with the use of motivational strategies.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: While studies have investigated the role of motivation in learning and teaching, research on teachers'
Received 24 January 2014 motivational strategies remains scarce. This study examined the motivating behavior of in-service
Received in revised form teachers of English in Korea (N ¼ 12). Videotapes of the teachers' classes were analyzed based on Kel-
12 October 2014
ler's ARCS model using NVivo, revealing that the teachers did not effectively utilize motivational stra-
Accepted 21 October 2014
Available online 7 November 2014
tegies or tactics, except for attention. Additionally, teachers' motivational strategies were correlated
positively with their language proficiency but negatively with teaching experience. Finally, teachers'
motivational strategies were shown to be grounded in traditional teacher-centered approaches rather
Keywords:
Motivation
than the promotion of student ownership of learning.
Motivational strategies © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
EFL teacher
Teaching experience
Language proficiency

1. Introduction affects students' English learning achievement (Bernaus & Gardner,

Motivation is a key factor in successful second language (L2)
learning. It is an individualized trait that helps learners persist long
enough to master the L2 regardless of their language aptitude or
cognitive characteristics (Do €rnyei, 2001a; Masgoret & Gardner,
2003). Motivation to learn is acquired through classroom experi-
ences such as direct instruction, modeling, and interaction with the
instructor, as well as general experience (Cheng & Do € rnyei, 2007;
Do€ rnyei, 2001a; Do € rnyei & Csizer, 1998). Moreover, a teacher's
skills and teaching style are positively correlated with student
achievement (Hirsch, 2001; Westwood, 2004). Several studies have
also reported that motivation is an important component of
effective teaching and that teachers' use of motivational strategies
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 31 219 1883; fax: þ82 31 219 2096.
E-mail address: my5329@ajou.ac.kr (U. Maeng).
2008; Hirsch, 2001; Westwood, 2004). Teachers' skills are a crucial
basis for the incorporation of motivational strategies into curricula
and teaching to create motivating learning environments (Do € rnyei,
2001a). However, few motivational studies have been specifically
aimed at the implementation or evaluation of motivational strate-
gies in the classroom (Moskovsky & Alrabai, 2009). To further
support actual L2 teaching practices rather than merely developing
theoretical concepts or components of motivation, then, it is
necessary to focus on teachers and the strategies and techniques
they use to motivate students in the language classroom.
At both the research and classroom levels, teachers' motiva-
tional strategies are not fully utilized. The Korean Ministry of Ed-
ucation (KMoE) has recently emphasized teacher education and
training programs for in-service EFL teachers (KMoE, 2006). During
the practicum for in-service EFL teachers in Korea, it was found that
the teachers did not effectively incorporate motivational strategies
to promote student motivation. Further, there is no teaching model

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.010
0742-051X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
26 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
available to help EFL teachers improve their use of motivational
strategies in the classroom. In addition, there is a lack of empirical
investigation of the differences between the motivational strategies
used by novice and experienced teachers (Bernaus, Wilson, &
Gardner, 2009; Yilmaz, 2011). Moreover, most previous motiva-
tional studies have utilized surveys or self-reported questionnaires
to gather data rather than basing their findings on the actual
observation and evaluation of teachers' classroom motivation
practices (Moskovsky, Alrabai, Paolini & Ratcherva, 2013).
Therefore, it is imperative to develop a teacher-driven motiva-
tional model incorporating practical strategies and tactics for EFL
classrooms. In the classroom, L2 teachers' major interest with re-
gard to motivation is not in the properties or components of
motivation, as it is for most researchers, but rather in the skills that
are required to motivate students. From this perspective, the ARCS
(attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) model (Keller,
1994, 2010) provides effective motivational strategies for class-
room use. This model, unlike many other motivational models,
offers a comprehensive picture of motivation, including both
teachers and students, theory and practice, and broad components
and detailed constructs of motivation. Moreover, the ARCS model is
easily adapted into tools for instructional design, classroom guid-
ance, and teacher evaluation or teacher training on motivational
strategies. Thus, the ARCS model is an adequate tool for examining
motivating behavior in the practice of Korean English teachers to
support the development of an effective motivation training model
for these teachers.
To develop effective motivational strategies and models for the
use of teachers, it is first necessary to examine the status quo of
teacher behaviors in relation to motivational strategies. Hence,
employing the ARCS model, the present study analyzed the moti-
vational strategies that Korean EFL teachers used in their teaching
practice. The study aimed to answer the following research
questions:
Q1: How do Korean English teachers utilize motivational stra-
tegies in their instruction?
Q2: How do these teachers' motivational strategies differ by
instructional phase (beginning, during [the session], or closing)?
Q3: How do teachers' personal characteristics (English profi-
ciency level and teaching experience) influence their use of
motivational strategies?
In the following section, we review theoretical perspectives on
learning motivation and present the theoretical modeldthe ARCS
Modeldthat is used as the analytical framework in this study.
1.1. L2 learning motivation theories
Motivation has drawn a considerable amount of attention in L2
learning, as it is difficult for unmotivated students to accomplish
such a long-term, challenging goal as language learning (Madrid,
2002). As in the area of motivational psychology, scholars have
highlighted the importance of L2 motivation and attempted to
explain it from diverse perspectives (Brown, 2007; Do € rnyei, 2001a,
2001b, 2005; Do €rnyei & Schmidt, 2001). Do €rnyei (1994) proposed a
framework for L2 motivation comprising three levels of compo-
nents: the language level, learner level, and learning situation level. In
a subsequent model based on a process-oriented approach, Do € rnyei
(2001c) proposed the following motivational strategies: a) creating
the basic motivational conditions, b) generating initial motivation, c)
maintaining and protecting motivation, and d) encouraging positive
retrospective self-evaluation. These aspects are dynamic and cyclic;
in other words, the last strategy influences the first in an ongoing
virtuous circle. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) suggested four levels of
L2 motivation: a) the micro level, which concerns motivational ef-
fects on the cognitive processing of L2 stimuli; b) the classroom
level, associated with motivational techniques and activities; c) the
syllabus level, related to content decisions based on an analysis of
needs; and d) the extracurricular level, related to informal, out-of-
class, and long-term factors and to continuing motivation.
Williams and Burden (1997) further distinguished L2 motivational
constructs by contextual influences, including internal and external
factors.
Other motivational studies have explored the factors that in-
fluence the motivational strategies used by teachers. According to
Do€rnyei (2001a, 2001c), motivational components at the learning
situation level are especially associated with situation-specific
motives related to the syllabus, teaching materials and methods,
learning tasks, teacher's personality and behavior, teaching style/
practice, and learner group characteristics. Chacon (2005) discov-
ered that teachers with low self-efficacy for teaching tended to
employ less effective techniques, and Yilmaz (2011) asserted that
teachers' personal characteristics, such as gender, grade level that
the teacher taught, and teaching experience, influence instructional
decisions. He further found a positive relationship between
teachers' sense of self-efficacy and their perceived level of language
proficiency; that is, his study results suggested that more proficient
and efficacious teachers use more effective instructional strategies,
including motivational strategies. By contrast, Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy (2001) indicated that the level of teacher efficacy did not
have an effect on the types of instructional strategies used; Newby
(1991) reported that extrinsically oriented strategies such as re-
wards and punishment were implemented most often by novice
teachers, and Keller (1987b) mentioned that more teaching expe-
rience is required to effectively implement intrinsically oriented
strategies such as confidence-building and relevance strategies.
Finding optimal strategies for motivating students in the class-
room remains a challenging issue for most L2 teachers. Several
studies have identified motivating students as the second-most
serious source of difficulty that teachers encounter in the class-
room (Daniels, 1994; Veenman, 1984), but relatively few studies
have been conducted on how best to motivate learners in an actual
classroom setting (Do €rnyei, 1994, 2001c; Keller, 2008; Williams &
Burden, 1997). Furthermore, prior studies on motivation have
focused primarily on applied-linguistic aspects, such as attitudes
and psychological components (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Do € rnyei,
1994); far less attention has been devoted to L2 motivation in terms
of the various aspects of the learning context (that is, in general, the
classroom context). Even the studies that have investigated moti-
vation in the classroom context have largely focused on students,
for example on their behaviors and perceptions, rather than on
teachers' use of motivational strategies (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008;
Do€rnyei, 2001b).
Many theorists and researchers have proposed theories to
explain motivation, but these have failed to provide an overall
picture of motivation (Do €rnyei, 2001b, 2001c; Wloodkowski, 1988).
Overall, these studies have investigated cognitive characteristics of
individual students and treated motivation as a personal, un-
changeable trait rather than one that is changeable and manage-
able by teacher intervention. Consequently, a majority of the
research on L2 motivation to date has focused on the conceptual
nature of motivation and of its role in L2 learning and on the
perspective of L2 learners, as derived from insights in the field of
cognitive psychology (Do € rnyei, 2001c). Subsequent studies influ-
enced by social psychology have begun to deeply consider the so-
cial context in which learning occurs as well; however, these
studies have still emphasized universal motivational components
in general learning situations rather than specific components
pertaining to foreign language classrooms (Do € rnyei, 2001c). In
 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
other words, early research in this area has not adequately
considered important aspects of L2 motivation from a classroom
perspective, such as teachers, materials, tasks, and instructional
design.
The ARCS model (Keller, 1987a, 1994, 2010) helps address these
gaps by providing a more thorough picture of motivation, including
motivational concepts, roles and strategies, classroom imple-
mentation, material and task integration, and the responsibilities of
the teacher. Moreover, because the model has been widely studied
and tested in various classroom settings, there is abundant
empirical evidence of its usefulness for assisting teachers to
improve their effectiveness (Doyle, 1985; Keller, 1987a, 2010). The
ARCS model is discussed in greater detail in the following section.
1.2. The ARCS model
The ARCS model originated in the macro theory of motivation and
instructional design developed by Keller (1979, 1983); Keller's the-
ory was based in turn on Tolman and Lewin's expectancy-value
theory of motivation, which suggested that people are motivated
to learn when there is value in the knowledge presented and expec-
tation of success. In Keller's original model, these two concepts were
divided into four components: interest, relevance, expectancy, and
outcomes. After years of research and application, this original
model was refined into the ARCS model, and the four components
were renamed attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction
(Keller, 1987a). According to Keller (2010), whereas attention,
relevance, and confidence are the primary components and are
considered the backbone of the theory, satisfaction is dependent on
the other components and is the combined outcome of them and
other environmental and design factors.
Each component is divided into three subcategories (defined in
Table 2 below). Attention refers to the interest displayed by learners
during learning. The subcategories of attention are perceptual
arousal, inquiry arousal, and variability. Relevance can be obtained
through language or examples that are familiar to learners. This
component includes the subcategories of goal orientation, motive
matching, and familiarity. Confidence focuses on establishing posi-
tive expectations for success. As confidence has a strong correlation
with motivation for accomplishing objectives, learning design-
dincluding syllabus, grading policy, and learning timedshould
provide learners with a method for estimating their probability of
success. Keller (2010) suggests three subcategories of confidence:
learning requirements, success opportunities, and personal control.
Finally, satisfaction refers to a sense of achievementda positive
feeling resulting from successfully accomplishing a goal. Satisfac-
tion is a result of learning and, according to Keller, refers to the
reinforcement and conditioning of learning. Keller further sub-
divides satisfaction into intrinsic reinforcement, extrinsic rewards,
and equity.
The ARCS model, beyond merely offering a framework and
fleshing out the concept of motivation, is intended to provide a
bridge between theory and practice and to emphasize the re-
sponsibility of instructional designers and teachers to promote
learner motivation. According to Keller (2010), “[m]otivation is
influenced by the degree to which a teacher and the instructional
materials provide a curiosity arousing and personally relevant set of
stimuli together with challenge levels that encourage feelings of
confidence” (p. 10). Thus, it is imperative for teachers to implement
effective instructional design and motivational strategies to elicit,
direct, and sustain learner motivation. To effectively integrate
strategies to improve motivation into practice, systematic guidance
through the motivational process is essential. More specifically,
Keller provides step-by-step guidance and specific example work-
sheets to train teachers to incorporate ARCS tactics into their
27
lessons successfully. The ARCS model provides blueprints for inte-
grating motivational and instructional strategies into class to train
teachers on how to develop effective lesson plans.
Since research began to focus on L2 motivation from the
perspective of classroom situation, in the 1990s, the ARCS model
has influenced and been adopted into a variety of subsequent
€ rnyei's (1994, 2001c)
studies related to motivation. For instance, Do
four conditions of classroom components (interest, relevance, ex-
pectancy, and satisfaction) are rooted in the work of Keller (1983).
Similarly, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) reaffirmed that Keller's four
dimensions of motivation are important components of EFL class-
room practice. This model provides teachers with effective strate-
gies to improve the motivational aspects of learning environments
and also guidance on how to incorporate such strategies into formal
instruction design and curricula (Keller, 1999, 2008; Kim & Keller,
2008; Song & Keller, 2001). Additionally, a number of other re-
ports and studies (Means, Jonassen, & Dwyer, 1997; Small & Gluck,
1994) have tested Keller's ARCS model and verified its validity.
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
Twelve Korean secondary school teachers of English partici-
pated in the study, ten of whom were enrolled in an intensive in-
service teacher-training program. The cohort comprised eight fe-
males and four males and included nine middle school teachers and
three high school teachers. Their overall teaching experience
ranged from six to twenty years: five teachers had 6e10 years of
experience, four had 11e15 years of experience, and three had
16e20 years of experience. Six teachers perceived their own level of
English proficiency as high, four teachers as moderate, and two
teachers as low.
2.2. Procedures
This research project was centered on an intensive teacher
training program organized for Korean secondary school English
teachers by KMoE to enhance their communicative skills in English
and their teaching skills. The training program contained three
main modules, respectively covering language skills, teaching
methodology, and microteaching. The microteaching course was
designed for teachers to perform microteaching at the end of the
program. All of the microteaching sessions were video-recorded
with teachers' pre-approval to use the videos for educational pur-
poses. The data were collected over a one-year period, and ten
microteaching videos were randomly selected. After data collec-
tion, the target teachers were contacted, the purpose and pro-
cedures of the study were explained, and the target videos were
analyzed. The participants conducted the teaching practice for
45 min per session, with their peer trainees (teachers) playing the
role of students.
Microteaching was selected for the present study for the
following reasons. First, to develop and suggest a desirable moti-
vational strategy model for an in-service teacher training program,
it is worthwhile to investigate the motivational strategies that
teachers have used in similar teaching situations. Moreover,
microteaching is an important practice in and of itself for teachers
to develop and improve their teaching skills, reflect on their
teaching practice, and transfer their skills to actual classroom
teaching. Thus, the current study aimed to offer suggestions to
improve classroom teaching skills, with a focus on teachers' moti-
vational strategies. In addition, it was presumed that the teachers'
microteaching was a reflection of their actual classroom teaching.
28 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36

Table 1
Features of teaching.

Actual classroom teaching conditions Microteaching conditions

Phase of instruction Teaching Teaching Number of Phase of instruction Teaching skills Teaching Number of
skills time students time peer trainees

High School 3 Phases (beginning, Writing 50 min 30 3 Phases (beginning, Listening and 35e45 min 14
Middle School during, closing) Reading 40 min 35 during, closing) reading/Listening
and speaking

Hence, the data could also potentially be used as a substitute for
actual classroom teaching.
Although the notion that teachers' microteaching practices
represent their actual classes has been hypothesized and supported
by previous studies (Sampath, Pannerselvam, & Santhanm, 2007;
Wallace, 1991), it still requires further confirmation. Hence, prior to
the main analysis, the researchers contacted two Korean EFL teachers
not already involved in the study who voluntarily contributed video
recordings of their actual classes so that they could be compared with
the microteaching videos. The results, shown in Table 1, confirmed
that there was no significant difference between them; in fact,
Wallace (1991) noted that extended types of microteaching are
closer to “real” lessons and focused on more than one teaching skill.
Thus, the results of the current study will provide valuable insight
into teachers' motivational strategies in actual practice.
2.3. Data collection and analysis
A mixed method approach was employed by this study. Among
50 microteaching videos recorded over a year, ten randomly
selected videos and two actual classroom teaching practice videos
were used and analyzed using NVivo 10. The features (motivational
strategies) that emerged were analyzed; coded based on the defi-
nition of motivational strategies reflected in the ARCS model
(Keller, 1987a, 1994, 2010); and categorized into the four compo-
nents of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Each
category consisted of three subcategories (operationally defined in
Table 2). All of the analyzed features (motivational strategies/tac-
tics) were given coded labels; in, for instance A11, A stands for
attention, the first 1 for the subcategory, and the second 1 for the
individual tactics found in the data. All of the features appearing in
the videos were coded accordingly.
Prior to the main analysis, a pilot test was conducted to enhance
the reliability and validity of coding of tactics. First, to confirm val-
idity, the researchers analyzed five videos individually and compared
the results. The pilot test was conducted to identify discrepancies
among the researchers, diagnose the reasons underlying these dis-
crepancies, and reach consensus on the best analysis before the main
analysis was conducted. Some features appearing in the videos were
easily categorized; in other cases, they overlapped across multiple
subcategories or the researchers had different perspectives with
respect to certain features in the videos, which resulted in divergent
groupings. However, ultimately, the researchers came to agreement
regarding the nature of each item and the criteria used to group the
features in the videos. After consensus and final confirmation of the
analysis of the first five videos, the researchers analyzed seven more
videos. In the first stage of the analysis, each researcher analyzed the
videos individually; inter-rater reliability of the main analysis was
found to be .795. In the second stage, the compiled results of analysis
were further analyzed to examine the overall patterns of the features
using NVivo 10. In addition, Friedman's test was conducted to mea-
sure differences in the use of each strategy and the Jonckheer-
eeTerpstra test was administrated to verify the influence of the
designated variables on these differences. For these non-parametric
analyses, SPSS version 20 was used.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Strategy pattern of ARCS components
3.1.1. Attention-getting strategies
In the present study, as summarized in Table 3, the teachers
applied diverse tactics for each attention strategy and they were
frequently observed in all three phases of instruction. Teachers used

Table 2
Operational definitions of motivational strategies.

Major category Subcategory Definition

Attention Perceptual arousal (A1)
Inquiry arousal (A2)
Variability (A3)
Relevance Goal orientation (R1)
Motive matching (R2)
Familiarity (R3)
Confidence Learning requirements (C1)
Success opportunities (C2)
Personal control (C3)
Satisfaction Intrinsic reinforcement (S1)
Extrinsic rewards (S2)
Equity (S3)

Capturing learners' interest by using novel approaches and injecting personal and emotional materials;
any sudden or unexpected change in the environment

Stimulating learners' curiosity to learn by asking questions, creating paradoxes/problem situations,
generating inquiry, and nurturing thinking challenges

Maintaining learners' interest by changing in presentation style, instructional approaches, sequences,
and use of media

Providing statements or examples of the usefulness of the instruction

Making instruction responsive to learners' motives and values by providing personal achievement opportunities,
cooperative activities, leadership responsibilities, and acting as a positive role model

Making materials and concepts familiar by providing concrete examples and analogies tied to the
learners' experience

Helping build positive expectations by explaining the requirements for success and the evaluation criteria

Enhancing learners' beliefs in their own competence by providing many, varied, and challenging experiences
that increase learning success

Helping learners see their success is based upon their own efforts and abilities by using techniques that offer
personal control and providing comments that attribute success to personal effort

Encouraging and supporting learners' success by providing feedback that reinforces positive feelings about
one's efforts and accomplishments

Reinforcing learners' success by praising them verbally and providing real or symbolic rewards and incentives

Building learner perceptions of fair treatment by making performance requirements consistent with stated
expectations and using consistent measurement standards for all learners, tasks, and accomplishments
 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 29

Table 3
Descriptive features of the use of motivational strategies.

Category Strategies Frequency

Phase Proficiency Teaching experience

level

B D C Total H M L 6e10 11e15 16e20

Attention
Perceptual arousal (A1) A11: Using audiovisual aids (video or animation) 3 1 1 5 3 2 0 1 1 3
A12: Using diagrams, concept maps, or flowcharts 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1
to illustrate processes or relationships
A13: Using images or cartoons 9 8 1 18 9 7 2 4 8 6
A1 Subtotal 13 10 2 25
Inquiry arousal (A2) A21: Connecting to prior knowledge 7 2 0 9 5 3 1 5 3 1
- activating prior knowledge (B)
- activating prior linguistic knowledge (D)
A22: Facilitating Q&A activities (interaction) 9 14 2 25 10 14 1 9 13 3
A23: Presenting problem to solve while learning 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0
A2 Subtotal 16 18 2 36
Variability (A3) A31: Changing the types of visual media or 2 14 0 16 6 8 2 8 5 3
presentation style
A32: Changing the language of instruction 10 17 0 27 14 12 1 13 10 4
(i.e., L1 and L2)
A33: Changing the instruction style 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
A3 Subtotal 12 32 0 44
Attention total 41 60 4 105 50 47 8 43 41 21

Relevance
Goal orientation (R1) R11: Explaining to students the benefits of instruction 3 3 0 6 3 3 0 2 3 1
R1 Subtotal 3 3 0 6
Motive matching (R2) R21: Providing a non-competitive context for learning 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 2 3 0
R22: Providing a context for collaborative learning 0 7 0 7 4 2 1 5 1 1
R2 Subtotal 0 12 0 12
Familiarity (R3) R31: Using familiar events, examples, context 5 11 0 16 8 7 1 7 4 5
R32: Connecting familiar concepts to current tasks 2 2 1 5 3 2 0 1 2 2
R3 Subtotal 7 13 1 21
Relevance total 10 28 1 39 23 14 2 17 13 9

Confidence
Learning requirements (C1) C11: Presenting goals and structure to understand 12 2 0 14 7 5 2 7 4 3
the outline of the class
C12: Presenting evaluation criteria to understand 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0
course requirements
C1 Subtotal 13 3 0 16
Success opportunities (C2) C21: Providing content or tasks from simple to complex 1 6 0 7 6 1 0 0 3 4
C22: Controlling the levels of difficulty appropriately 2 2 0 4 3 1 0 1 2 1
C2 Subtotal 3 8 0 11
Personal control (C3) C31: Allowing learners to control the pace of learning 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
C32: Encouraging students to exert efforts toward learning 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
C33: Allowing learners to return to the appropriate 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
point when needed
C3 Subtotal 0 3 0 3
Confidence total 16 14 0 30 21 7 2 12 10 8

Satisfaction
Intrinsic reinforcement (S1) S11: Providing application opportunities 1 4 1 6 4 2 0 3 0 3
S12: Providing feedback to correct students' 0 18 0 18 9 5 4 3 9 6
knowledge and skills
S1 Subtotal 1 22 1 24
Extrinsic rewards (S2) S21: Praising students highly for having the right answer 0 3 0 3 2 0 1 2 1 0
S22: Rewarding students who win 0 5 0 5 1 3 1 2 1 2
S2 Subtotal 0 8 0 8
Equity (S3) S31: Ensuring that performance requirements 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0
are consistent with learning objectives
S3 Subtotal 0 1 1 2
Satisfaction total 1 31 2 34 18 10 6 12 11 11

B: beginning phase; D: during phase; C: closing phase.

a variety of multimedia materials, such as video clips, Microsoft
Power Point files, and pictures, to capture students' attention in all
three stages. However, they used audiovisual materials most often in
the beginning phase of instruction, where the ability of these ma-
terials to help attract students' attention without requiring exces-
sive cognitive demand was most useful. The teachers also provoked
deeper curiosity in students by activating students' prior
knowledge, asking certain types of questions for scaffolding, and
engaging them in solving a problem (see Appendix 1).
Furthermore, the tactics used to evoke prior knowledge in the
beginning phase were largely derived from world or general
knowledge, and more varied types of tactics were used, whereas
the tactics used in the during phase focused more on the linguistic
domain, and less varied types were utilized. For instance, in
30 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
teaching new vocabulary, the participants used cognates, word
families, or verbal context rather than presenting the word in visual
context. During discussion and comprehension checkups, the
teachers provided more language input through questioning. A very
few questioning and answering tactics were used in the end stage
of instruction to review the target content, expressions, and words.
However, most questions appearing during microteaching were
superficial, asked merely in order to check the target expression or
listening/reading comprehension; as a result, questions were rarely
found to provoke deeper curiosity or engage higher thinking skills,
as some types of questions, for example stimulating mental conflict,
do (see Appendix 1).
To maintain students' attention, various types of visual media and
materials such as pictures, CDs, worksheets, maps, photos, and an
overhead projector were used. In addition, teachers also employed
the language of instruction; such changes have been found to play an
important role in the English classroom. Although the primary
instructional language required in microteaching was English, the
majority of the teachers used both Korean and English. Teachers used
the L1 for various purposes (repeating instructions, confirming or
describing meanings or words; giving suggestions, directions or
explanations; explaining grammar; translating; and facilitating) and
the degree of L1 use varied among the teachers depending on their
English proficiency. That is, the less English-proficient teachers
tended to use the L1 more often and to use the L2 for giving short,
simple instructions. Interestingly, however, we found no large dif-
ference in the effectiveness of the use of the L1 between language
proficiency groups as shown in the following excerpts.
Excerpt 1) Teacher B (L-Level)
T: There are three expressions. pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (expressions). One,
in Korean, twemutnɨn pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (requesting). The other,
tajashan pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (various expressions). twemutnɨn
pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (requesting). First, “I'm sorry.”
Ss: I'm sorry.
Excerpt 2) Teacher A (M-Level)
T: What is it in this picture? What do you call this one? me:rago
purəjo? (What do you call this?)
S: mor3 ʃigje (hourglass)
T: In English.
S: Sand.
T: Sand what?
Excerpt 3) Teacher D (H-Level)
T: Actually, in the last class, we learned this expression. cinan
sigane i:pʰyohjəndɨlɨl p3 ewətc'ijo (In the last class, we learned this
expression) Do you remember?
Ss: Yes.
T: OK. Let's look at the first expression. “What's the problem?”
“What's the problem?” Uh, where can you hear this expression?
Ss: Hospital.
T: Hospital? Or since you are at school so [pause]?
The above excerpts illustrate that more proficient teachers used
more complicated and longer L2 sentences than less proficient
teachers, but most teachers in all groups used the L1 merely to
restate what they had already mentioned in the L2. Although a few
teachers code-switched between the two languages more effec-
tively without producing redundant utterances in either of them,
most used one language to translate the other.
3.1.2. Relevance-producing strategies
The types of tactics under relevance were quite limited, and they
were used mostly in the beginning and during phases as shown in
Table 3. Among the three subcategories of relevance, goal orienta-
tion appeared in the beginning and during phases and motive
matching in the during phase. Familiarity tended to be widespread
across all three phases but was mainly found in the beginning and
during phases. It is well known that students are more motivated to
learn when they understand how the target knowledge, skills, or
activities will help them achieve a goal in the present or future
(Keller, 2010). However, in the present data only four teachers
explained the benefits of the lesson and how the objectives were
related to the activities and to evaluation.
The teachers used the motive matching strategy to create a non-
competitive, comfortable learning environment in order to lower
the anxiety often found in the language classroom. The most
frequently used tactic was the pursuit of collaborative learning
through pair or group work (see Appendix 2). Four teachers
attempted to reduce students' anxiety by fostering comfortable
learning environments (excerpt 4) or by offering assistance (excerpt
5). Other teachers provided individual or group games (excerpt 6).
Excerpt 4) Teacher C (H-Level)
Answer each question with T or F …. You can do it with your pair
(partner) …. You don't need to try to get the right answers. Just
use your knowledge and common sense about koalas. [pause]
We are going to find the answer at the very end of this class … .
Excerpt 5) Teacher H (H-Level)
If you don't know how to translate, please get help from your
friends or the teacher. You can ask me or your friends … .
Excerpt 6) Teacher H (H-Level)
T: I am going to play the audio file now. You are going to find out
which word it is. We will do “Catch a Fly” game. What's this?
Ss: [laugh]
T: … there are ten flies. While you are listening to the audio file
…. So a person who catches as many flies as possible will be the
winner. I will choose three students from each group … .
In addition to comfortable learning context, familiarity plays a
key role in providing students with a sense of relevance. Although
the use of unexpected or novel events often effectively draws stu-
dents' attention and curiosity, most students are more interested in
familiar content that has a connection with their previous experi-
ences or immediate interests (Keller, 2010). The teachers in this
study frequently utilized familiar contexts and concrete and
authentic examples to introduce new vocabulary, expressions, and
concepts, as shown in the following excerpt.
Excerpt 7) Teacher A (M-Level)
T: These items are we used it every day. kəɨy m3 il sajoshanɨn
mulgəndɨlijejo (we use these items almost every day). “One-time
use” ragohaɟijo (we say “one-time use”). mwəɟijo? (What is it?)
Ss: ilhwejos (disposable).
T: Ne ilhwejos mulgəndɨlijejo mwəga mwəga pojəjo? (Yes, they
are disposable materials. What materials do you see?) … .
T: Plastic bottles, kɨeɟjo (Yes!) … . i:gətdɨlɨl pʰjəllihage
sajoshanɨnde mwəga munɟeɟjo? (These disposable items give
comfort, but what is the problem?)
Ss: ojəm (pollution).
 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 31

T: … hwangjəsojəm (environmental pollution) environmental goals in detail as they spoke to the students, provided the key
problem. kɨr3 sə i:gətdɨlɨl (So these) “disposable item” ɨl təl s'əjaɟjo concepts in Korean at the end, and checked the students' under-
(Let's use these disposable items less) … . kɨr3 sə mwəga and- standing, as shown in excerpt 9.
weɟjo? (So what is the problem?) Ne (yes) “decompose” ga As shown in excerpt 8 above, the language and method used to
andwe bunh3 ga andwejo. (They are not decomposed) … Which present objectives were not creative or customized to students;
one do you think it will take the shortest time? …. Plastic bag rather, they were largely copied from the teachers' manual. Thus,
[writing on the board] …. most of the objectives were stated in similar language and in a
similar manner. Furthermore, evaluation criteria, which are
essential to building student confidence and decreasing learning
Overall, the teachers were successful in generating external goal
anxiety, were rarely given (Keller, 2010).
orientation and utilitarian motivation, but they failed to respond to
The teachers used tactics related to success opportunities more
students' personal motives or allow them space to control their
frequently and in more varied ways than they did the other tactics,
own learning. Tactics related to this issue were not found, but might
whereas the use of tactics related to personal control was very
have included providing different levels of goals, allowing students
limited (see Appendix 3). Diverse tactics, such as organizing the
to choose the types of tasks performed, presenting evaluation
content in a clear sequence, sequencing tasks from simple to
criteria to understand course requirements, allowing learners to
difficult, setting overall challenge levels appropriate for students,
begin from different points based on their abilities, and aligning
and providing exercises that were consistent with objectives and
testing with learning content, which can enhance student moti-
methods, were used in an elaborative manner (see Appendix 3). For
vation. Other strategies suggested in the ARCS model for creating a
instance, to sequence tasks from simple to complex, the teachers
non-competitive and collaborative learning context, such as
employed various tactics, such as beginning the lesson by review-
providing preparation time, using silent reading techniques,
ing the previous lesson, building a short paragraph beginning with
employing risk-taking strategies, or using humor to alleviate lan-
target words and expressions, providing many clues at the begin-
guage anxiety, were not used in the microteaching course.
ning of the lesson and then decreasing them over the course of the
lesson, providing worksheets with different difficulty levels, and
developing the main ideas based on target words and phrases. The
3.1.3. Confidence-building strategies
following excerpt exemplifies how the teachers presented a task
The results of this study showed that the range of confidence-
that progressed from simple to complex.
related tactics was narrow and that their content was superficial
and did not appeal to students' personal interests. In addition, these Excerpt 10) Teacher G (H-Level)
tactics appeared only in the beginning and during phases, not in the
T: Today we are going to some food. I'll show you some picture
closing phase. Learning requirements and success opportunities
and its ingredients.
were used in both the first two phases, but personal control-related
tactics were used only in the during phase. Ss: Yes. [silent].
Without exception, the teachers articulated the expected
T: What's this? [Pointing at a slide of pictures of food (t'əkbokgi)
learning objectives at the beginning of the lesson, and the majority
with ingredients t'ək (rice cake), eggs, apples written next to the
of the teachers described the lesson objectives. However, they used
pictures of the relevant items. Underneath these pictures, the
rigid, teacher-language rather than student-friendly language;
following sentence is given: I need____ but I don't need_______.]
thus, the students were unable to clearly understand the goals, as
shown in excerpt 8: Ss: t'əkbokgi.
Excerpt 8) Teachers M (M-Level) T: Do you like t'əkbokgi? [Pointing at the picture].
Our objective …. Today's objective is students will be able to ask Ss: Ye-s ….
and answer questions about new vocabularies. And second, you
T: We learned last class … [pause] …. And … what's this?
will be able to predict the story and present it. And third, things
[Pointing at the slide: pictures of pizza with ingredients written
read in the textbook loudly and arrange strips of the story.
next to the picture. Underneath these pictures, the following
Excerpt 9) Teachers N (H-Level) sentence is given: I need_______.]
[Looking at the Power Point slide that shows steps 1e4 of “How Ss: Pizza! Pizza.
to write a shape poem”] kɨr3 sə (so), so, today what you need to
T: What do you need to make a pizza? Use these ingredients.
do is, first one, try to decide the subject which you want to ex-
OK?
press in your shape poem as a group. And then, next one, yes, try
to get some ideas …. And then, next one is, yep, you need to have T & Ss: [Teacher initiates, and students follow immediately] I
a kind of topic sentence about that. And … . last one will be, yep, need some flour and cheese, but I don't need any chocolate. …
make, put all these things into an ima … image. That is the steps
T: And … this is the last picture. What is this? [Pointing at the
what you're going to do … cʰasɨyɟəkɨro s'ɨrjəgo cʰwed3 han i:ldan
slide, which shows only pictures of kimppap].
norjək ɨn i:ldan haʃimjən twegetsɨpnida (Try to write as creatively
as possible) … i:ldanɨn joge (Well, this) that is the process of Ss: kimpap … kimpap.
making “Shape Poem.” Any questions? [monitoring students'
T: What do you need to make kimpap … ? First, kim (dried laver)
response] i:h3 haʃigetsɨpnik'a? (understand?) [Looking at stu-
… [pointing at the picture to elicit a response from students].
dents] me:hanɨnɟi hokʃi i:h3 ga andweʃinɨn pun … ? (Well, anyone
who does not understand?) Ss: kim (dried laver) … kim (dried laver) ….
T: Seaweed … seaweed …. Laver … [Pointing at the next picture
Like in excerpt 8, many of the teachers presented the goals from to elicit another response from students].
a third-person perspective, as if they were being described in the
Ss: [immediately] Rice…. …
teachers' manual. By contrast, however a few of them explained the
32 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
T: And …
Ss: …
T: So, how can you express … uh … when I ask like this: what do
you need to make kimpap?
T & Ss: [Altogether. Students initiate, and then teacher repeats] I
need some pickled radish, seaweed, …, rice, but I don't need any
… [pause and one students says] chocolate.
T: Yeah …. Good …. Then, let's start today's class ….
In the excerpt above, the teacher began with an example
incorporating sentence structure cues that were familiar to the
students, and then moved to other words with a gradually reduced
number of sentence structure cues. Finally, the students were led to
create their own sentences, without any structural cues. As the
teacher led the students to complete the task, she facilitated stu-
dent learning through scaffolding, confirmational feedback, and
elicitation of techniques/questions.
3.1.4. Satisfaction-generating strategies
Among the four components of ARCS, the fewest tactics were
observed for satisfaction. As satisfaction comes about as a result of
the other components (Keller, 2010; Song & Keller, 2001), the
majority of the tactics related to satisfaction appeared in the later
phases. As shown in Table 3 teachers used diverse intrinsic rein-
forcement tactics, which could be gained through application op-
portunities and praise (Keller, 2000, 2010; Song & Keller, 2001),
whereas they used few tactics related to extrinsic rewards or equity.
In the current study, the teachers attempted to provide appli-
cation opportunities, but they were usually confined to behavior-
istic, monotonous exercises, such as drills, short answers, recited
role-play, memorization activities, and completing questions or
fill-in-the-blank sheets focusing merely on form rather than
authentic, meaningful applications (see Appendix 4). Only four
teachers conducted games, projects, or story-writing activities.
However, many teachers effectively mixed corrective, direct, indi-
rect, positive, and negative feedback, attempting to avoid any
detrimental effect on students' confidence. In the following excerpt,
the teacher provides both corrective feedback on the student's
incorrect pronunciation and a compliment on the student's
answers.
Excerpt 11) Teacher N (H-Level)
T: You guys are really, really quiet [silent].
S: Ah … Teacher [calling].
T: Uh-huh.
S: What opposite [pause].
T: What opposite word to … [rising intonation].
S: What opposite word to crea-tive [wrong pronunciation].
T: creative [correcting pronunciation].
S: creative.
T: Boring animjən ci:nbuhan (or trite)? Monotonous.
S: hmm …
T: plain pʰjəsbəmhan (plain) [silent] Oh, calhanɨnd3 (doing well).
In conjunction with intrinsic reinforcement, the teachers
sometimes offered extrinsic rewards such as verbal praise or
tangible rewards. Finally, the teachers used only a minimal number
of tactics related to equity. In ARCS, equity strategies are those that
help students find value and satisfaction in their learning outcomes
despite their different personal values and situations. Because it is
impossible to assess outcomes in isolation, the best tactic for
fostering equity is to ensure that learning activities and outcomes
are consistent with goals, objectives, and criteria proposed in
advance. However, as mentioned earlier in the paper, most of the
teachers articulated goals and objectives only superficially, and
furthermore, they seldom presented criteria for the course or tasks;
hence, it would have been difficult to build perception of fair
treatment on the part of the learners.
3.2. Effects of variables on strategy use
Table 4 shows the statistical results for the motivational stra-
tegies the teachers used in the microteaching sessions. Overall, the
teachers' use of motivational strategies from each component of the
ARCS model showed a statistically distinctive pattern by instruc-
tional phase. Attention-getting strategies appeared most often,
followed in order by relevance, satisfaction and confidence-
building strategiesda statistically significant difference, as shown
in Table 4. Furthermore, teachers used motivational strategies most
frequently in the during phase and least frequently in the closing
phase (Beginning Phase: M ¼ 5.67, SD ¼ 2.84, Mean Rank ¼ 2.00;
During Phase: M ¼ 11.00, SD ¼ 4.35, Mean Rank ¼ 3.00; Closing
Phase: M ¼ .583, SD ¼ .669, Mean Rank ¼ 1.00, c2 ¼ 24.00,
p ¼ .000).
More specifically, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the teachers used
all three types of attention-getting strategies in the beginning and
during phases of instruction, but the use of these strategies was
relatively rare in the closing phase. Unlike attention-getting stra-
tegies, all three subcategories of each of the other catego-
riesdrelevance-producing strategies, confidence-building
strategies, and satisfaction-generating strategiesdwere used only
in the during phase of instruction. Overall, attention-getting stra-
tegies were the most frequently used regardless of instructional
stage. In the beginning phase, confidence and relevance followed
attention, in that order; in the during and closing phase, satisfac-
tion and relevance followed attention. Among the subcategories of
four motivational components, A3, A2, A1, S1, R3, C1, R2 and C2/S2
were used most often, in that order (Mean Rank ¼ 9.96, 9.50, 8.63,
8.42, 7.33, 7.21, 6.25, 5.04; c2 ¼ 63.254, p ¼ .000), while R1, C3, and
S3 were used least often (Mean Rank ¼ 3.92, 3.54, 3.17; c2 ¼ 63.254,
p ¼ .000).
The study showed that the frequency of use of motivational
strategies was positively affected by increased English proficiency
level of the teacher but not by teaching experience. As shown in
Table 5, the frequency of use of confidence-building strategies was
affected by teachers' L2 proficiency; teachers with high English
proficiency used confidence-building strategies most frequently,
and those with low English proficiency least frequently. Moreover,
the frequency of use of confidence-building strategies in the during
phase was statistically significantly influenced by teachers' L2
proficiency. Along with this partial positive influence, a potential
possibility of the effect of teachers' L2 proficiency on their use of
motivational strategies across all instruction phases, revealed by
the frequency data shown in Table 3, supports the view that the
higher teachers' L2 proficiency, the more they use motivational
strategies.
In addition, though the difference in motivational strategy use
by teaching experience was not statistically meaningful (A:
p ¼ .603, R: p ¼ .763, C: p ¼ .642, S: p ¼ .153), the frequency shown
in Table 3 indicates the possibility that it has a negative influence on
the use of motivational strategies; more specifically, teachers with
 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 33

Table 4
Results of Friedman's test on the use of motivational strategies.

Friedman's test

Phase Overall Beginning During Closing

A R C S A R C S A R C S A R C S

N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
M 8.75 3.25 2.42 2.83 3.42 .83 1.33 .08 5.00 2.33 1.08 2.58 .33 .08 e .17
SD 4.27 1.71 1.50 1.64 1.78 1.03 .65 .29 3.49 1.16 1.08 1.51 .651 .289 e .389
Mean rank 4.00 2.13 1.79 2.08 3.88 2.08 2.75 1.29 3.67 2.25 1.46 2.63 2.13 1.88 e 2.00
c2/(df)/p 23.865/(3)/.000 28.431/(3)/.000 20.009/(3)/.000 1.000/(3)/.602

fewer than 10 years' teaching experience used more motivational observed that questioning serves not only as an effective way to
strategies than those with more than 16 years of teaching provide language input for and elicit language use among students
experience. but also as a stimulus to arouse deep curiosity and sustain moti-
vation (Keller, 2010); nevertheless, in the current study, questions
were rarely found to provoke deeper curiosity or engage higher
4. Discussion
thinking skills (for instance by stimulating mental conflict).
Another important strategy to maintain attention, particularly
The present study focused on Korean secondary English teach-
in the language classroom, is changing the language of instruction.
ers' use of motivational strategies in the classroom on the basis of
Ensuring variation in the instructional language can serve as a good
Keller's (2010) ARCS model, which has been a largely unexplored € rnyei, 2008; Keller, 2010).
motivational strategy (Guilloteaus & Do
area to date. The results indicated that the teachers utilized a va-
Prior studies have argued for various positive effects of the use of
riety of strategies and tactics to motivate student learning; how-
the L1 in the language classroom: to arouse students' interest, to
ever, it also turned out that some strategies suggested by the model
build good rapport between a teacher and students (Lin, 2000), and
to be necessary to student motivation were not found and some
to reduce students' language anxiety. An L1 can also make L2 input
strategies found during teaching were not effectively used.
more salient if it is properly used (Cook, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett,
The quantitative analysis conducted confirmed that the differ-
2002) and can help students understand their lessons. However,
ence in frequencies of strategies used in each component was
according to some research (Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001; Turnbull
statistically meaningful. Attention-related strategies were the most
& Arnett, 2002), this last strategy is not always efficacious, as stu-
frequently found. Attention is a prerequisite for learning, and good
dents may expect L1 interpretation immediately after L2 and thus
instruction should help students pay attention (Rosenshine, 2012;
will not pay attention to L2, reducing their L2 intake. In short, rather
Westwood, 2004). Numerous studies have reported that using
than merely using the L1 to interpret the L2, code-switching be-
new technology and audiovisual resources also helps to increase
tween languages is most effectively used to help sustain students'
student interest and attention (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008; Bernaus
motivation. The teachers in the current study often switched the
et al., 2009; Madrid, 2002). The teachers who participated in this
instructional language, but a close examination revealed that the L1
study seemed to be aware of the importance of attention and uti-
was used repetitively and redundantly. From this perspective,
lized diverse strategies and media to draw students' attention and
teachers' strategies related to L1 use were not implemented in a
inspire their curiosity. As the use of audiovisual resources was re-
way that could effectively raise student motivation.
ported to be effective not only in increasing students' initial interest
Relevance-related strategies were second in frequency to
but also in maintaining this interest throughout the learning period
attention-getting strategies, but compared to the latter they were
(Gilakjani, 2012; Shelly & Cunter, 2006), it is fair to say that the
limited in both type and quality. In an EFL situation, it is not
teachers effectively utilized this type of strategy.
possible to immediately use language skills acquired in the class-
Evidence from our quantitative analysis confirmed that teachers
room; therefore, linking objectives to future use or jobs can help
also adopted tactics that activated students' prior knowledge and
students perceive the value of the lessons, increasing their moti-
asked questions to elicit their curiosity. With regard to prior
vation. As Keller (2000) explained, “even if curiosity is aroused,
knowledge, the teachers effectively recalled students' background
motivation is lost if the content has no perceived value to the
knowledge and connected it to the lesson, in terms of both topics
learner” (p. 2). In other words, this sense of relevance occurs only
and target language components. In contrast, however, questions,
when the learning content is personally meaningful to students.
the most frequently found tactic in the study, turned out to be
However, although all the teachers in the study presented lesson
basically superficial; students were merely asked to check target
goals to students, they did so only mechanically, without
expressions or listening/reading comprehension. It has been

Table 5
JonckheereeTerpstra test of variable influences.

Group variable Phase: overall Phase: during

Proficiency A R C S A R C S

N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
M 8.75 3.25 2.42 2.83 5.00 2.33 1.08 2.58
SD 4.267 1.712 1.505 1.642 3.490 1.155 1.084 1.505
Proficiency level 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Observed JeT statistics 18.000 11.500 7.500 22.500 24.500 13.000 9.000 24.000
Mean JeT statistics 22.000 22.000 22.000 22.000 22.000 22.000 22.000 22.000
SD of JeT statistics 6.559 6.484 6.301 6.484 6.459 6.311 6.225 6.484
Stand. JeT statistics .610 1.619 2.301 .077 .387 1.426 2.088 .308
Asymp. sig (two-tailed) .542 .105 .021 .939 .699 .154 .037 .758
34 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
connecting them to student interests, thus not much benefiting
student learning. Therefore, EFL teachers should place added
emphasis on linking learning content to students' lives, for
example, by clearly stating how the content will be used in their
lives, visualizing the process of learning and achieving, or pre-
senting specific role models.
Another relevance-related emphasis of the ARCS model, namely
creating a non-competitive, comfortable, and anxiety-free learning
environment, was facilitated by the teachers through familiarity
and motive matching. Because students' anxiety is particularly high
in the language classroom and L2 anxiety and motivation to learn
English are negatively correlated with one another, this subcate-
gory is particularly important in the language classroom
(Hashimoto, 2002; Liu & Huang, 2011; Macintyre, 1999; Yang, Liu, &
Wu, 2010). The teachers linked new knowledge to familiar contexts
and contents, lowering student learning anxiety. They also utilized
group work, collaborative learning, and games to reduce anxiety
and raise curiosity. However, they did not utilize motive matching
related tactics adequately to address students' personal motives or
allow them space to control their own learning. The results of this
scrutiny indicate that teachers did not exercise the full potential of
the relevancy-related strategies suggested in the ARCS model.
Confidence-related strategies, ranked the least frequent in this
study, were found to be used in an ineffective manner. It is
important to present objectives clearly for students to understand
what is expected of them, because knowledge of objectives is
closely linked with success in learning (Keller, 2010). In the current
study, as mentioned above, all the participants articulated the ex-
pected learning objectives at the beginning of the lesson, but only
superficially, following the teacher's manual. Furthermore, Keller
(2010) notes that students' confidence can be enhanced by
reducing anxiety and developing realistic expectations; when stu-
dents understand what they will be doing and how they will be
evaluated, they tend to focus their efforts on their work and exhibit
improved confidence (Keller, 2010); however, in these data, only
one teacher presented evaluation criteria for a task. In addition,
only two of the teachers attempted to allow learners to control
their pace of learning according to their efforts and abilities.
Although confidence is strongly associated with perception of
control (Keller, 2008, 2010; Yeigh, 2007), in most cases in the
present study control remained in the hands of the teachers. Thus,
in short, tactics in this subcategory were seldom observed in this
study. Among the subcategories of confidence, only strategies and
tactics for success opportunities were productively used, as the
teachers controlled difficulty levels, gradually introduced the target
language, and provided tasks in order from simple to complex.
Since many EFL students struggle with low confidence levels,
teachers should help them become more confident by creating a
less stressful learning environment, setting up attainable goals for
language learning, and providing space for students to do their own
learning. Therefore, teachers need to focus more on making
learning goals more understandable and meaningful to students,
providing clear criteria for tasks, and giving students the oppor-
tunity to plan and evaluate their learning.
The frequency of strategies related to satisfaction appeared
similar to that of strategies related to confidence, although more by
a small margin. Given that Korea is an EFL context in which stu-
dents do not have much opportunity to use L2 skills outside of the
classroom, it is important for English classes to serve as vehicles for
meaningful application of skills (Kouraogo, 1993; Schmidt, 1993).
Also, as shown by Paechter, Maier, and Macher (2010), students
view skills for the application of knowledge as equally important as
acquiring subject-matter knowledge and skills. Despite the
importance of opportunities for application, the teachers were not
very successful in creating them, being still mostly limited to
behavioristic practice. On the other hand, the teachers employed a
variety of feedback strategies that seemed quite effective for the
correction of errors, creation of studenteteacher rapport, reduction
of negative effects on the students' affective domain, and
enhancement of students' intrinsic motivation. The teachers also
offered extrinsic rewards as well as intrinsic reinforcement; when
appropriately used, extrinsic rewards can complement intrinsic
reinforcement, double student satisfaction, and encourage students
to continue working hard during learning (ChanLin, 2009; Williams
& Stockdale, 2004). The present participants, by offering diverse,
timely intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement, effectively supported
student learning. Additionally, prior studies emphasize the
importance for satisfaction of a feeling of control over learning
(ChanLin, 2009; Keller, 2010); however, the present teachers did
not use any pedagogy and tactics related to personal control to
influence student satisfaction and support students' self-directed
learning. They also rarely used strategies or tactics related to eq-
uity. Therefore, in short, these teachers needed to further develop
their motivational strategies related to satisfaction.
The patterns of use of motivational strategies over instructional
phases in the current study seem reasonable quantitatively but not
qualitatively. In the beginning phase, the teachers utilized diverse
strategies to elicit motivation in their students. This stage is mainly
devoted to focusing students' attention on the objectives of the
lesson (Johnson, 1996; Richard & Farrell, 2011) and teachers utilized
all four components of ARCS adequately to meet this need. Since
the during phase is devoted to practice through various types of
activity, motivational strategies related to relevance and confidence
are more required than in any other phases. However, in the during
phase of the present study these strategies were used only to a
limited degree, as mentioned above, and less than attention-related
strategies. Ideally the closing phase “should leave the students
feeling that they have successfully achieved a goal that has been
established for the lesson and that the lesson was a worthwhile and
meaningful lesson” (Richard & Farrell, 2011, p. 80). In keeping with
this need, teachers seemed to use satisfaction-related approaches
often in the closing phase, although there is still room for
improvement, as discussed above. Considering the flow of
instructional phases and the characteristics of each component of
the ARCS model, it can be said that overall the teachers used
motivational strategies appropriately only in the beginning phase
of instruction.
Another important finding of the study was the effect of
teachers' L2 proficiency on their use of motivational strategies.
Although only the difference in confidence appeared statistically
meaningful, the frequencies among the components showed a
distinctively different pattern. This result, along with qualitative
results, indicates that teachers with higher English proficiency
utilized motivational strategies and tactics more often and more
effectively. In addition, the study revealed no statistically signifi-
cant effect of teaching experience, but a careful examination of
frequencies among the components and qualitative data rendered
the possibility of a negative correlation between teaching experi-
ence and use of motivational strategies. This result is inconsistent
with previous research suggesting that more experienced teachers
employ more and better instructional and motivational strategies
(Chacon, 2005; Keller, 1987b; Newby, 1991; Yilmaz, 2011). Two
reasons can be conjectured to explain these results. First, it is
possible that more experienced teachers might have already
established a more or less set teaching practice. Prior research has
noted that teachers' experience contributes the most to student
learning during their first few years in the classroom, but additional
experience does not make a difference after the first few years
(Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Goe, 2007; Rice, 2003). Second,
teaching experience is closely interwoven with teachers' L2
 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
proficiency and age in Koreadin brief, more experienced Korean
teachers of English tend to have less English proficiency, whereas,
because the Korean government has greatly emphasized the
importance of speaking skills for English teachers and reinforced
these skills on its teacher certification exam in the last several
years, recently certified teachers exhibit better English proficiency.
Therefore, taking into account the effects of both L2 proficiency and
teaching experience on motivational strategies, it can be concluded
that unlike the results of previous research (Keller, 1987b; Newby,
1991), EFL teachers might not come to use motivational strategies
more effectively as their teaching experience increases. It can also
be concluded that the effect of teachers' L2 proficiency on their use
of motivational strategies is stronger than that of teaching experi-
ence. Therefore, teachers should receive active training in motiva-
tional strategies, in conjunction with which it is also imperative to
enhance pre- and in-service EFL teachers' language proficiency,
which has a positive relationship with effective use of motivational
strategies.
5. Conclusion and implications
The significance of the current study lies in its exploration of the
motivational strategies of in-service teachers. Whereas previous
studies primarily focused on student motivation to learn or teacher
motivation to teach, the present study investigated how teachers
employed motivational strategies in EFL classrooms. Although the
analyses in the present study were based on cross-sectional rather
than longitudinal data, the study nevertheless revealed the in-
depth dynamics of the participating EFL teachers' motivational
strategies by conducting both quantitative and qualitative analyses,
under the ARCS model. The findings indicate that although teachers
employed a variety of motivational strategies and tactics across
instructional phases, there remains much room for improvement.
In terms of ARCS, the teachers exhibited strong, diverse strategies
related to attention, but they did not demonstrate strength or di-
versity in their strategies related to the other components. Strate-
gies related to goal orientation under relevance, learning
requirements and personal control under confidence, and equity in
satisfaction require improvement. Particularly, the use of both the
L1 and the L2 together must occur in a more strategic and sophis-
ticated manner. The teachers in this study tended to use the L1
merely to interpret what they had just said in the L2 rather than to
provide scaffolding to help the learner understand concepts and
terms, which would have been more helpful for language learning.
Based on the findings, the current study proposes the following
suggestions for in-service EFL teacher training.
1) Intentionally and systematically teach motivational strategies.
Motivational strategies may not be used, unless they are
explicitly and intentionally adopted. Since teachers' motiva-
tional strategies have a great influence on student motivation
(Bernaus et al., 2009), it is imperative that teachers understand
the components of motivation and integrate effective motiva-
tional strategies and tactics into their teaching. Therefore, it is
necessary to train teachers on how to incorporate motivational
strategies into their teaching, particularly the effective use of
strategies related to relevance and confidence.
2) Provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on their use of moti-
vational strategies. While it is important for teachers to use
motivational strategies effectively in each instructional phase, it
is difficult for them to evaluate their motivational strategies and
tactics in the classroom; hence, they should be given opportu-
nities for analysis, evaluation, and reflection during their
training program. Comments and feedback of instructors and
35
peers can serve as valuable sources of revision and enrichment
for their motivational strategies.
3) Customize the model and instruction according to teachers' L2
proficiency. As shown in this study, motivational strategies vary
depending on teachers' proficiency levels. Therefore, it is
necessary to provide diverse models and to elaborate various
levels of motivational strategies in order to meet the needs of
individual teachers with different levels of language proficiency.
In addition, instruction should be provided to improve teachers'
L2 proficiency where it is low, since this variable is strongly
related to effective motivational behavior in the EFL context.
The present study has several limitations, however. First,
because the study employed a cross-sectional research method,
strategies such as those related to long-term teaching practices, for
instance semester goals, tests, and application of knowledge, could
not be easily identified. Second, although the study utilized in-
depth qualitative data on the teachers' speech and actions, the
data set was not sufficiently large to generalize these findings.
Finally, the study did not directly measure the effectiveness of the
motivational strategies used by the teachers in student learning;
instead, it evaluated the teachers' motivational strategies based
only on the theoretical framework of ARCS; however, it may be that
some of these strategies would have different influences on student
learning under different theoretical evaluations, depending on the
local learning context, immediate situation, and learners involved.
Therefore, future research should develop various motivational
models to accommodate the needs of individual teachers in diverse
situations. It will also be fruitful for researchers to integrate such
models into teacher training programs and to investigate their
effectiveness. As Moskovsky et al. (2013) noted, the time factor has
a strong positive effect on most motivational strategies; thus, a
longitudinal study would also be useful. Finally, not all of the
motivational strategies improved student learning outcomes, and
teachers' beliefs may not always be consistent with student pref-
erences and perceptions (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008); thus, future
research could benefit by investigating student perceptions and
learning outcomes in relation to the motivational strategies
employed by teachers.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.010.
References
Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. C. (2008). Teacher motivation strategies, student per-
ceptions, student motivation, and English achievement. The Modern Language
Journal, 92, 387e401.
Bernaus, M., Wilson, A., & Gardner, R. (2009). Teacher's motivation, classroom
strategy use, students' motivation and second language achievement. Porta
Linguarum, 12, 25e36.
Brown, L. V. (2007). Psychology of motivation. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers' perceived efficacy among English as a foreign lan-
guage teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(3), 257e272.
ChanLin, L. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a web-based course. In-
novations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 91e103.
Cheng, H. F., & Do € rnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language
instruction: the case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. International Journal of Inno-
vation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153e174.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the
assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4),
778e820.
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). London:
Arnold.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda.
Language Learning, 41(4), 469e512.
36 U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36
Daniels, R. (1994). Motivational mediators of cooperative learning. Psychological
Reports, 74(3), 1011e1022.
Do€ rnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.
The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273e284.
Do€ rnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Do€ rnyei, Z. (2001b). New themes and approaches in L2 motivation research. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43e59.
Do€ rnyei, Z. (2001c). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman.
Do€ rnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Do€ rnyei, Z., & Csize r, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language
learners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203e229.
Do€ rnyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Doyle, W. (1985). Recent research on classroom management: implications for
teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 31e35.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). The significant role of multimedia in motivating EFL learners'
interest in English language learning. I. J. Modern Education and Computer Sci-
ence, 4, 57e66.
Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research
synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality.
Guilloteaus, M., & Do € rnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: a classroom-
oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student
motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55e77.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of
reported L2 use. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29e70.
Hirsch, G. (2001). Helping college students succeed: A model for effective intervention.
Minneapolis: Brunner-Routledge.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivational and instructional design: a theoretical perspective.
Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26e34.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp.
383e434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational
design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2e10.
Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance &
Instruction, 26, 1e8.
Keller, J. M. (1994). Motivation in instructional design. In T. Husen, &
T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed.). (pp.
3943e3947). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. Educational Tech-
nology International, 1(1), 7e30.
Keller, J. M. (2000, February). How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson
planning: The ARCS model approach. Paper presented at VII Semanario, Santiago,
Cuba.
Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance.
Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6(2), 79e104.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model
approach. New York: Springer.
Kim, C. M., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional email
messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students' moti-
vation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(1), 36e51.
Kouraogo, P. (1993). Language learning strategies in input poor environment. Sys-
tem, 21(2), 165e173.
Lin, J. (2000). Reform in primary and secondary school administration in China. In
C. Dimmock, & A. Walker (Eds.), Future school administration: Western and Asian
perspectives (pp. 291e309). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English
learning motivation. Education Research International, 12, 1e8.
Macintyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: a review of literature for language
teachers. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language
learning (pp. 24e43). New York: Mc Graw Hill Companies.
Madrid, D. (2002). The power of the FL teacher's motivational strategies. Cauce, 25,
369e422.
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.
Language Learning, 53(Suppl. 1), 167e210.
Means, T. B., Jonassen, D. H., & Dwyer, R. M. (1997). Enhancing relevance: embedded
ARCS strategies vs. purpose. Educational Technology, Research and Development,
45(1), 5e18.
Moskovsky, C., & Alrabai, F. (2009). Intrinsic motivation in Saudi learners of English
as a foreign language. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2, 1e10.
Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S., & Ratcheva, S. (2013). The effects of teachers'
motivational strategies on learners' motivation: a controlled investigation of
second language acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 34e62.
Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation: strategies of first-year teachers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(2), 195e200.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students' expectations of and experi-
ences in e-learning: their relation to learning achievements and course satis-
faction. Computer and Education, 53, 222e229.
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Richard, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Practice teaching: A reflective approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: research-based strategies that all
teachers should know. American Educator, (Spring), 12e39.
Sampath, K., Pannerselvam, A., & Santhanm, S. (2007). Introduction to educational
technology (5th ed.). New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In
G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21e42). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Shelly, C., & Cunter, C. (2006). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology
and digital media in the classroom (4th ed.). Boston: Thomson Course Technol.
Small, R. V., & Gluck, M. (1994). The relationship of motivational conditions to
effective instructional attributes: a magnitude scaling approach. Educational
Technology, 34(8), 33e40.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-
assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Tech-
nology, Research and Development, 49(2), 5e22.
The Korean Ministry of Education. (2006). Polices on reforms to English education in
Korea. School policy sector. Seoul: KMoE.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language
teaching, but …. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531e540.
Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers' uses of the target and first language in
second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
22, 204e218.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 54, 143e178.
Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Westwood, P. (2004). Learning and learning difficulties. Hong Kong: ACER Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. L., & Stockdale, S. L. (2004). Classroom motivation strategies for pro-
spective teachers. The Teacher Educator, 39(3), 212e230.
Wloodkowski, R. (1988). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Yang, L., Liu, M., & Wu, W. (2010). An investigation of Chinese undergraduate non-
English majors' English learning motivation. In Z. Lu, W. Zhang, & P. Adams
(Eds.), ELT at tertiary level in Asian context: Issues and researchers (pp. 48e62).
Beijing, China: Tsinghua University.
Yeigh, T. (2007). Information-processing and perceptions of control: how attribu-
tion style affects task-relevant processing. Australian Journal of Educational &
Developmental Psychology, 7, 120e138.
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and
instructional strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(1), 91e100.