Language Learners’ Motivational

Profiles and Their Motivated

Learning Behaviour

 By Kata Csizér and Zoltan Dörnyel

Individual-difference (ID) research in L2A is aimed at
identifying dimensions of language learner
characteristics relevant to the mastery of an L2.

In the past variables (language aptitude, L2 motivation,

learning styles) were studied in isolation.

It was less informative about how the different factors

are combined in learners to specify learners types.
This study is based on cluster analysis.

The objective is to identify within subgroups – clusters

– participants who share similar combinations of
characteristics.

The rationale is that there are a number of

subcommunities who share similar cognitive and
motivational patterns.

e.g.16 personality types were identified in

personality psychology.
The focus of the study is on profiling the motivational
disposition of teenage L2 learners in Hungary.

2 independent indicators: the learners’ intended

effort to learn the L2 and their choice of the L2(s).

Large-scale survey (N>8500), 13 and14-year-old

teenagers.

5 target languages: English, German, French, Italian,

Russian.
Motivation
Plays a vital role in academic learning

Integrative motivation with the “ideal L2 self”

 “Ideal self-guides have a promotion focus, concerned with hopes,
aspirations, advancements and accomplishments” (Higgins,1998)

Extrinsic motivation with the “ought-to L2 self”

 “Ought self-guides have a prevention focus, regulating the absence or
presence of negative outcomes, concerned with safety, responsibilities and
obligations” (Higgins, 1998)

L2 learning experience (not addressed in the study)

 Previous research (Dörnyei &Csizéк 2002)

Motives can be described in terms of 7

components:
 Integrativeness (positive outlook on the L2 and its culture, wish to be similar to
the L2 speakers)
 Instrumentality (pragmatic benefits of L2 proficiency)
 Attitudes towards L2 speakers (contacts and travelling to their country)
 Cultural interest (“indirect contact” – films, TV programs, magazines, music)
 Vitality of L2 community (perceived importance and wealth of the L2
communities)
 Milieu (importance of foreign languages in the learners’ environment, e.g.
school)
 Linguistic self-confidence
 Current Research (Csizér & Dornyei 2005)
To shift the focus from motivational variables to the
learners who possess them.

To find distinct learner types in terms of motivation

profiles.

How these profiles affect motivated learning

behaviours.
Participants

 1993 4,765 students (2,377 males and 2,305 females)

 1999 3,828 (1,847 males and 1,997 females)

 Age 13-14 (final year of primary school studies)

 Balanced mixture of places (main region and

settlements)

 2 surveys (1993 and 1999) to compare results and

analyze the changes
 Instrument
 A questionnaire consisting of 37 items, 5-point scales, 5 target languages (English, German,
French, Italian and Russian) and 6 L2 communities (The United States, The UK, Germany,
France, Italy and Russia).
 Orientations (various reasons for learning a given language)
 Attitudes toward the L2
 Intended effort (the amount of effort the student is willing to put into the given language)
 Parents’ language proficiency
 Attitudes toward the L2 community
 Contact with the L2 and its speakers
 Attitudes toward L2 learning at school
 Contact with foreign languages through watching TV
 Fear of assimilation (L2 may lead to the loss of L1 and culture)
 Self-confidence
 Language learning milieu (parents’ support and friends’ attitudes)
 Language choice (what languages they want to learn)
 Personal variables (sex, language learning background)
Data Analysis
 2 types of cluster analysis: hierarchical and nonhierarchical
clustering

 Hierarchical: merging the closest clusters(sample

members) until one single cluster appears. Thus subgroups
are defined.

 Nonhierarchical: sample members are put into predefined

number of clusters

 The hierarchical clustering was performed on 3% of

samples = > the number of clusters was defined = >
nonhierarchical clustering was performed
Results

 There are no absolute criteria. Straightforward and commonsense grouping

approach.

 4 cluster groups for the 5 target languages:

 Group 1 – least motivated students
 Group 2 - no homogeneous distribution of the variables
 Group 3 – no homogeneous distribution of the variables
 Group 4 – the most motivated students
Group 2 and 3 differ in terms of their motivational intensity and the
structure of their motivational profiles.
Intended effort and Language choice

The higher the group number, the higher the performance.

Why do Group 2 students exceed those in
Group 3 despite a higher level of motivation in
group 3?
 Group 2 members are superior on the affective side (positive attitudes toward the
L2 community and culture) whereas Group 3 members are superior on the
pragmatic side (relevance of L2 proficiency).

 The motivational profile of Group 2 is “ideal L2 self”. They have positive attitudes
toward L2, but they don’t see it as a part of their professional life.
 The motivational profile of Group 3 is “ought-to self”. They have strong instrumental
motives.
Size and Gender Variations
Conclusion
 4 motivational profiles that characterize learners regardless of the specific
target language
 Group 1 – the least motivated learners, not interested in foreign languages
and cultures, and language learning.
 Group 4 – the most motivated learners with salient ideal L2 self
 Group 2 – the learners with more positive attitudes toward the L2 culture
and community. Lack of professional relevance of L2.
 Group 3 – the learners superior on instrumental aspects. Motivation
determined by the ought-to L2 self.
 1/5 of students didn’t qualify for the most motivated learner group in any
languages. Thus the most of the Hungarian schoolchildren have an ideal L2
self.