esl learners' motivation and task engagement in
TRANSCRIPT
ESL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION AND TASK ENGAGEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY
ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXTS
By
HYUN-GYUNG LEE
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Teaching and Learning
AUGUST 2012
ii
To the Faculty of Washington State University:
The members of the Committee appointed to examine the
dissertation of HYUN-GYUNG LEE find it satisfactory and recommend that
it be accepted.
___________________________________
Joy Egbert, Ph.D., Chair
___________________________________
Thomas Salsbury, Ph.D.
___________________________________
David Johnson, Ph.D.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Joy Egbert, Dr. Tom Salsbury, and Dr.
David Johnson for their guidance and support. I am particularly grateful to my committee chair,
Dr. Egbert for her direction, encouragement, and advice along the whole process of the
dissertation. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to all the participants in the following two
studies and teachers who helped me with the data collection.
iv
ESL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION AND TASK ENGAGEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY
ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXTS
Abstract
by Hyun-Gyung Lee, Ph.D.
Washington State University
August 2012
Chair: Joy Egbert
This dissertation includes two studies: 1) a pilot study on ESL reading motivation and reading
task engagement and 2) a follow-up study on ESL motivation and task engagement. The pilot
study was conducted in 2010 with eight adult ESL students in a university language program
using four data sources: 1) an adapted Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997), 2) classroom observations, 3) Task Engagement Survey (Egbert, 2003), and
semi-structured individual interviews. The study was intended to explore: 1) what motivates
adult ESL learners to read in English, 2) what levels of reading engagement learners perceive
they have during tasks that center on reading skills, and 3) what task characteristics facilitate or
hinder reading engagement in English. In addition, the study also explored a model of L2 reading
motivation and reading task engagement. The second study, which took place with 17 adult ESL
students and a teacher in 2011, was expanded to general L2 motivation and task engagement
involving all language skills and to technology enhanced language learning contexts.
Additionally, the second study attempts to explore how L2 motivation and task engagement are
related.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................iv-v
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... ix
LISTOF FIGURES......................................................................................................................... x
STUDY 1: EXPLORING A MODEL OF ESL READING MOTIVATION AND READING
TASK ENGAGEMENT
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................. 3
Motivation and Engagement ...................................................................................... 3
Motivation ........................................................................................................ 3
L2 Motivation ......................................................................................... 4
Reading motivation ................................................................................. 6
Reading task engagement ................................................................................ 7
Differences in Motivation and Task Engagement ................................................... 10
A Model of L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement ................. 11
Task Characteristics for Reading Task Engagement ............................................... 13
3. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................18
Participants ................................................................................................................18
Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 18
Materials .................................................................................................................. 19
vi
Procedure ................................................................................................................ ..20
Data analysis ........................................................................................................... 21
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 21
4. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 22
ESL Motivation ........................................................................................................ 22
Task Engagement ..................................................................................................... 25
5. INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................................28
Question 1. What Motivates Adult ESL Learners to Read in English? ................... 28
Question 2. What Levels of Reading Task Engagement Do the Adult ESL Learners
Perceive They Have? ................................................................................................ 29
Question 3. What Task Characteristics Facilitate ESL Learners’ Reading Task
Engagement in English? ........................................................................................... 31
Implications .............................................................................................................. 35
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX
A. MOTIVATION FOR READING QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................. 42
B. TASK ENGAGEMENT SURVEY ............................................................................... 45
STUDY 2: ESL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION AND TASK ENGAGEMENT IN
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 48
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 50
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 52
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 52
vii
Task Engagement ...................................................................................................... 55
Distinction between Motivation and Engagement.................................................... 56
Impact of Task Characteristics on Task Engagement .............................................. .59
Technology-supported Engagement .........................................................................62
3. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................ 64
Participants ............................................................................................................... 64
Context ..................................................................................................................... 64
Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 66
Background information surveys ................................................................... 67
ESL motivation questionnaire ........................................................................ 67
Task engagement surveys .............................................................................. 67
Observations .................................................................................................. 67
Interviews ....................................................................................................... 68
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................68
Procedure ................................................................................................................ ..68
Limitations ............................................................................................................... 69
4. RESULTS AND INERPRETION ..................................................................................70
Question 1. What Motivates Adult ESL Learners to Learn English? ...................... 70
Question 2. What Levels of Task Engagement Do Students Perceive They Have?..74
Question 3. What Appears to be the Relationship between Their ESL Motivation and
Task Engagement? ................................................................................................... 77
Q4. What Task Characteristics Facilitate ESL Learners’ Task Engagement? .......... 78
Implications .............................................................................................................. 85
viii
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 87
APPENDIX
A. ESL MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................... 91
B. TASK ENGAGEMENT SURVEY................................................................................ 94
ix
LIST OF TABLES
STUDY 1: EXPLORING A MODEL OF ESL READING MOTIVATION AND READING
TASK ENGAGEMENT
1. Student’s Perceived ESL Reading Motivation..........................................................................22
2. Components of Reading Motivation..........................................................................................23
3. Highest/Lowest ESL Reading Motivator for Each Student.......................................................24
4. Task Engagement Scores for the Three Tasks...........................................................................25
5. Most/Least Engaging Tasks perceived by Each Student...........................................................26
STUDY 2: ESL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION AND TASK ENGAGEMENT IN
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXTS
1. Components of Motivation........................................................................................................70
2. Task Engagement Scores for the Five Tasks..............................................................................75
x
LIST OF FIGURES
STUDY 1: EXPLORING A MODEL OF ESL READING MOTIVATION AND READING
TASK ENGAGEMENT
1. Figure 1; A Model of L2 Reading Motivation and Reading Task Engagement........................12
STUDY 2: ESL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION AND TASK ENGAGEMENT IN
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXTS
1. Figure 1; A Model of L2 Motivation and Task Engagement….................................................57
2. Figure 2; Individual Participants’ Levels of Different Motivation............................................71
3. Figure 3; Comparison between L2 Motivation and Task Engagement Scores..........................77
xi
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents
for their unconditional love and support
1
EXPLORING A MODEL OF ESL READING MOTIVATION AND READING TASK
ENGAGEMENT
Abstract
by Hyun-Gyung Lee, Ph.D.
Washington State University
August 2012
Chair: Joy Egbert
This study explores L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement and attempts to provide
a preliminary model for L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement. Although there
have been some studies on motivation and task engagement in L1 reading reporting positive
effects on students’ reading comprehension, few studies have been conducted on English as a
second language (ESL) reading task engagement and how tasks can help students to be engaged
in natural ESL classroom environments. The purpose of this pilot study is to investigate: 1) what
motivates adult ESL learners to read in English, 2) what levels of reading engagement learners
perceive they have during tasks that center on reading skills, and 3) what task characteristics
facilitate or hinder their reading engagement in English. Data from pre-/post surveys, interviews,
and classroom observations reveal that ESL reading motivation can influence reading task
engagement. However, reading motivation and reading task engagement are different and
students who are less motivated can be engaged under certain task conditions. Although there are
no absolute task elements that facilitate every participant’s ESL reading task engagement,
according to the data, task features that can alleviate ESL learners’ reading difficulties (e.g.,
familiar texts and pre-vocabulary activity) can lead to higher engagement.
2
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
It is an open question whether reading engagement can occur in reading in a second
language (L2). This question is plausible to ask because a key condition for optimal engagement
is a balance between challenge and learners’ abilities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). If English as a
second language (ESL) learners find reading in English too challenging for their current level of
English proficiency, this might prevent them from fully engaging in reading tasks and their
motivation to read might be lowered. McQuillan and Conde’s (1996) study with 87 readers
supports this idea, reporting that only non-native readers with native-like fluency experience
optimal engagement in the reading class. This suggests that language proficiency may be a
possible barrier to optimal engagement in reading in the L2 (Egbert, 2003).
There is a paucity of research on reading motivation and reading task engagement in L2
contexts compared to research in L1 contexts. Thus, it is necessary to study what motivates ESL
learners to engage in tasks that involve reading skills. By uncovering ESL learners’ reading
motivation and task characteristics that can engage them in ESL reading, teachers can better
guide ESL learners to become more deeply immersed in reading tasks and text and make their
reading more enjoyable and effective. In order to fill this gap in the literature, this pilot study
examines what motivates ESL learners, what levels of reading engagement they perceive having,
and what task characteristics facilitate or hinder their reading engagement.
3
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Motivation and Engagement
Although both motivation and engagement are widely used terms in the education
literature, it is not easy to describe them precisely since they have broad and complex meanings
(Dorneyi, 2001; Russell, Ainley, & Frydenberg, 2005). Particularly, L2 learners’ task
engagement was very often used to describe or see their motivation by many researchers because
motivation is difficult to observe (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991). For example, Crookes and
Schmidt write that L2 researchers “would describe a student as motivated if he or she becomes
productively engaged in learning tasks” (p. 480) seemingly regarding motivation and task
engagement as almost identical in which one follows the other. However, Russell et al. assert
that motivated learners are not necessarily engaged in classroom tasks. These two different
perspectives suggest that it is necessary to explore more concrete definitions of motivation and
task engagement.
Motivation. The definition of motivation often becomes confusing because researchers
do not provide a uniform definition of motivation (Dornyei, 2001). Motivation in general is
defined as the will and skills to learn (Paris & Oka, 1986), goal-directed behavior (Heckhausen,
1991), or willingness (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) resulting in learners’ purposeful endeavors
toward a goal (Snow & Farr, 1983). Motivation is not action itself, but “a psychological process
that cause arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal-related” (Michell,
1982, p.81). Thus, it cannot be directly observed, but can be inferred from learners’ classroom
behaviors and choices they made to complete the goal (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Although
researchers have not agreed on a unified definition of motivation, they agree that motivation is
4
related to “the direction and magnitude of the human behavior, that is, 1) the choice of a
particular action, 2) the persistence with it, and 3) the effort expended on it” (Dornyei, 2001, p.8).
Motivation can account for why learners choose to learn something, how long they are willing to
maintain their endeavor, and how hard they are going to work on it. Overall, motivation is a
psychological process that leads to learners’ choices and persistence of their effort and voluntary
action to achieve a goal.
L2 Motivation. In particular, language learners’ motivation, namely L2 motivation,
relates motivational factors to linguistic aptitudes (Gardner & Lambert; 1972). Gardner and
Lambert explain L2 motivation in terms of three psychological concepts: 1) desires, 2) effort,
and 3) attitude. In other words, L2 motivation refers to the L2 learners’ desires to learn the
language, the effort that learners put in the learning, and/or their attitude toward L2 learning.
Gardner (1985) acknowledges two types of L2 motivation: 1) integrative motivation and 2)
instrumental motivation. According to Gardner, integrative motivation occurs when a learner
desires to learn an L2 to communicate with community members in order to be immersed in the
new community, whereas instrumental motivation occurs when a learner desires to learn the L2
for a functional goal such as to have a job promotion or better grades. Gardner (1972) argues that
motivation, particularly integrative motivation in conjunction with instrumental motivation,
directly affects L2 achievement. Gardner (1985) found a consistent positive correlation between
motivation, in particular integrative motivation and L2 achievement in a study with Anglo
French language learners in Canada.
Although researchers agree that L2 motivation is important in L2 learning, research
findings have not been consistent (Ellis, 2008). First, Oller, Baca, and Vigil (1977) showed that
Mexican women in California with negative attitudes toward Anglo people had higher L2
5
achievement than those with a positive attitude. According to the researchers, the negative
feelings might result in a desire to overcome the target language speakers, which may promote
L2 learning. This suggests that integrative motivation is not always positively related to L2
learning achievement. Second, some researchers suggest that motivation might not affect L2
achievement directly, as Gardner argues, but could influence L2 achievement indirectly by
affecting other factors (e.g., L2 learning attitude, orientation, and classroom behavior) that are
closely related to L2 learning achievement. For example, Gliksman (1976) reports that French
language learners in Canada with high motivation clearly showed better classroom engagement
than others. They tried to direct teacher questions and answer the teacher more often and more
accurately, which resulted in positive feedback from the teacher. This suggests that increased L2
learners’ classroom engagement resulted from their high L2 motivation, which positively
influenced performance. Third, researchers (e.g., Dornyei, 2001) accept that under certain
conditions a causative relationship between motivation and L2 achievement occurs in the
opposite direction to Gardner’s claim. According to Dornyei, learners’ success in learning can
lead to higher motivation, namely attributional/resultative motivation, because learners with
better performance are likely to develop motivational intensity. Gardner’s claim does not explain
attributional/resultative motivation. Lastly, Dornyei points out that Gardner’s samples were
collected in a Canadian language learning environment where language learners were more
likely to be motivated by integrative orientation. Thus, it is very difficult for Gardner’s findings
to account for language learning in English as a foreign language context. Overall, the literature
suggests that L2 motivation can influence L2 learning in some way; however, current findings do
not consistently support that L2 motivation directly affects L2 achievement. Instead, based on
the literature, it is equally likely that L2 achievement leads to L2 motivation.
6
Reading motivation. Another line of motivation research took place by relating
motivational factors to specific language skills, in particular reading skill areas. Studies on
reading motivation have been encouraged by L1 researchers Wigfield and Guthrie (1995), who
argue that students have different motivation in different skill areas and thus the nature of
reading motivation should be explained with different motivational components. They break
down reading motivation components into three main categories: 1) competency and reading
efficacy, 2) achievement values and goals, and 3) social aspects of reading. First, competency
and reading efficacy deal with motivation related to reading challenge, reading confidence, and
reading work avoidance. Next, achievement values and goals are about intrinsic motivation (i.e.,
reading curiosity, reading involvement, and importance of reading) and extrinsic motivation (i.e.,
competition in reading, reading recognition, and reading for grades). Intrinsic motivation deals
with behaviors for internal rewards such as pleasure or satisfaction, while extrinsic motivation
refers to external rewards, such as money or good grades (Vallerand, 1997). Third, social aspects
of reading are related to social reasons for reading and reading compliance. According to
Wigfield and Guthrie, reading motivation is multifaceted and every individual has some types of
reading motivation that are stronger than others. For example, a learner’s strongest reading
motivation might be the challenge, while another learner might have the strongest motivation as
curiosity.
Among Guthrie’s three constructs of reading motivation, intrinsic motivation in reading
has received the greatest attention by both L1 and L2 researchers since many believe (e.g.,
Krashen, 1993; Wigfield & Guthrie, 2006) that intrinsically motivated readers can read more
willingly and extensively, which leads to further development of their reading competence and
L2 proficiency. According to Krashen (1993), intrinsically motivated L2 readers are likely to
7
read more and thus have more print exposure, more prior knowledge about various topics and
vocabulary, and more opportunities to practice reading skills, which all together can result in
their higher reading comprehension. Then, with the increased comprehensible input resulting
from more print exposure and higher reading comprehension, their overall language proficiency
improves.
Although researchers seem to accept that increased amounts of reading can result in L2
achievement, they do not fully support Krashen’s argument that L2 learners’ intrinsic motivation
leads to higher reading comprehension and language learning achievement. For example,
Campbell, Voelkl, and Donahue (1997) suggest that reading motivation can indirectly influence
reading comprehension by increasing the amount of text exposure and reading engagement,
which is a critical factor of reading achievement. This suggests that intrinsic reading motivation
might not directly affect L2 reading achievement; however, the effect of intrinsic L2 reading
motivation could be mediated by the amount of reading and reading engagement.
To summarize, current motivation literature supports motivation as an important factor
in L2 achievement; however, there is not enough empirical evidence supporting that L2 learners’
reading motivation directly affects L2 achievement. It is more likely that it affects the amount of
reading and reading task engagement, which is a critical factor of reading achievement.
Reading task engagement. Most studies related to reading task engagement have been
in the field of general education and teaching reading in L1, which reports reading task
engagement as an essential and central element for reading performance and academic
achievement (e.g., Cambourne, 1995; Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006). Although the term “task
engagement” has been variously described, according to Meltzer and Hamann (2004), task
engagement has been primarily described in educational research as flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
8
1990) and involvement (Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006).
Csikszentmihalyi describes task engagement as flow - learners’ states in which they
become absorbed in a task to the extent that they lose track of time and place. According to
Csikszentmihalyi, learners’ optimal engagement in a task occurs when the task is challenging
and when the required skills are balanced. For example, if a reading task is not challenging
enough, learners will be bored, while if a task’s challenge is too great, they will be frustrated and
work avoidance will occur. When learners reach balanced states between task challenge and
reading skills, reading task engagement can occur and learners can experience concentration,
interest, and enjoyment simultaneously during the task, which combine to push their reading
performance higher. Thus, even intrinsically motivated learners can fail to engage in a reading
task if they do not have the required skills to perform the task (Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985).
Guthrie (2001) also states that learners’ ability to perform the reading task, as well as motivation,
is necessary to be engaged in the task.
Lutz, Guthrie and Davis (2006) define task engagement more broadly using
“involvement.” They define task engagement as a multi-dimensional construct which includes
affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social involvement in a task in the classroom. For example
with a reading task, when learners are emotionally engaged, they show affective reactions such
as enjoyment and enthusiasm. When learners are behaviorally engaged, they depict active
participation in a reading task. When learners are cognitively engaged, they demonstrate depth of
cognitive processing such as effective use of reading strategies to deepen reading comprehension.
When they are socially engaged in a reading task, they are socially interactive and capable of
sharing what they read with others. Overall, task engagement can be described as the learners’
deep involvement in a task that results in higher cognitive processing and concentration, and
9
more enjoyment and interaction for learners during the task.
It is widely accepted by both L1 and L2 researchers that reading task engagement -
engagement in a task that centers on a reading or reading skills - leads to reading achievement
(Krashen, 1993; Meltzer & Hamman, 2004; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). For example, Guthrie
(2001) states that learners engaged in a reading task enjoy being involved in the task, spend more
time on it, and are able to use required skills more strategically to comprehend text, thus they
gain higher reading achievement. Likewise, in the L1 research there has been growing evidence
which supports the positive effects of reading task engagement on learners’ reading performance.
For example, a national sample in the US indicates that nine, thirteen, and seventeen year old
students who rated high in reading task engagement (e.g., high frequency in reading for their
own enjoyment and use of social interaction to discuss what they read) had higher reading
achievement than those who rated low in reading task engagement (Campbell, Voelkl, &
Donahue, 1997). In addition, in a cross-age comparison, 13-year-old students with high reading
task engagement achieved higher levels of reading comprehension than 17-year-old students with
low reading task engagement. In the same vein, results from Miller and Meece’s (1999) and
Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and Walpole’s (2000) studies on reading engagement also demonstrate
similar results. For example, Miller and Meece found that even low achievers benefit from
engagement, resulting in higher reading comprehension scores. More recently, research
conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2006) on
the reading achievement of 15-year-olds in 27 countries revealed that the level of a student’s
reading task engagement is a strong predictor of literacy performance. To conclude, both L1 and
L2 researchers believe that reading task engagement can result in higher reading comprehension
and language learning achievement in the long term and strongly suggest that students’
10
engagement in a reading task has a positive effect on their reading comprehension and literacy
achievement.
Differences in Motivation and Task Engagement
A review of literature on definitions of motivation and task engagement suggests that,
although the terms motivation and engagement are related and often used interchangeably, there
are clear differences between the two concepts (Russell, Ainley, & Frydenberg, 2005). First of all,
although motivation is described as producing task engagement (Meltzer & Hamann, 2004;
Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), based on the literature, motivated learners are not always engaged in a
task (e.g., Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985; Guthrie, 2001). For example, motivated learners might
not be engaged in a task if they do not have the required skills to perform the specific task
because a balance between learners’ skills and the task’s challenge is a key element for task
engagement. That is, motivation can occur even with difficult tasks if learners have a good
reason or ample reward for completing the task; however, task engagement, in a real sense, can
not occur if learners’ skills and a task’s challenge are not balanced (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Similarly, Russell et al. contend that students who are motivated but not engaged can often be
observed in the classroom contexts in which classroom tasks are boring and unstimulating. For
example, in Russell, Mackay, and Jane’s (2003) recent large Australian study with primary and
secondary students (grades 5 to 9), although the students in general had high motivation to learn,
they showed low levels of engagement in their classroom work because they found the classroom
tasks boring. The researchers point out that despite the students’ high motivation in general, the
students were unlikely to perform well in classroom tasks because of their low task engagement.
These two examples emphasize the importance of task characteristics in order to engage learners
in a task. They suggest motivated learners do not always engage in a task and it is more likely
11
that task characteristics such as task difficulty and task stimuli influence task engagement more
directly than motivation.
Moreover, Marciano (2004) suggests that learners can still be engaged in a task even if
they lose motivation. Marciano contends that motivation will not be maintained if goals or
rewards disappear because motivation is a “goal-directed behavior” and goals and rewards are
key elements that sustain learners’ voluntary action. However, task engagement can be
maintained even when the rewards disappear if the task itself orients and maintains learners’ task
engagement. Marciano used the example of two employee groups working on a project. Both
groups are very motivated and work hard since they have a potential reward for completing the
project successfully. In addition, the second group becomes highly engaged in the project for
some reason. However, when they cannot possibly finish it by the deadline due to a sudden
technical problem, the first group gives up and goes back home because they would not have the
potential reward if they cannot finish the work by the deadline; however, the second group stays
and figures out what more they can do for the sake of the project. Thus, Marciano suggests that
engagement can be sustained for the sake of a task even if the learner loses motivation,
concluding that task engagement can be more enduring and long-term than motivation to involve
learners in tasks.
A model of L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement. A review of the
relationship between L2 reading motivation, reading task engagement, and L2 reading
achievement is summarized and visualized in Figure 1.
12
Figure 1. A Model of L2 Reading Motivation and Reading Task Engagement
For the relationship between L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement, the literature
suggests that they share similarities and can influence each other; however, they are not identical.
A review of the literature on each definition reveals that although both reading motivation and
reading task engagement are related to learners’ attitude toward, interest in, and efficacy with L2
reading or tasks centering on reading skills, they are distinguished from each other because tasks
are a crucial element to reading task engagement and not to reading motivation. That is, L2
reading motivation is the L2 learners’ desire, choice, or persistent effort to read in L2 in order to
achieve a goal or reward, while L2 reading task engagement is related to learners’ task
involvement or flow experience (e.g., skill/challenge balance, concentration, and enjoyment)
oriented to the task itself. Thus, if the task is too challenging or not enjoyable, motivated learners
can become disengaged in the task. Conversely, the literature also suggests that learners can be
engaged even when they are demotivated if the task is engaging. Therefore, it is reasonable to
13
state that L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement are factors of each other; however,
they do not necessarily directly lead to each other (Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985). In regard to L2
achievement, based on the review of literature, it is not reading motivation, but reading task
engagement that is more likely to lead to reading achievement. L2 reading motivation can
influence L2 achievement in some way; however the literature fails to support that it directly
leads to language learning achievement. Instead, L2 motivation literature supports that it is more
likely that language learning achievement can lead to L2 motivation. More importantly, based on
the literature, it appears that task characteristics (e.g., task difficulty and task stimuli) influence
task engagement more directly than motivation, suggesting it is necessary to explore task
characteristics in relation to reading task engagement.
Task Characteristics for Reading Task Engagement
A task is a goal-oriented and meaning-based activity (Nunan, 1991; Willis, 1996). Tasks
are shaped by combining and sequencing multiple task characteristics and elements which affect
task difficulty and complexity (Robinson, 2007). In L1 reading, there has been much research on
what tasks elements can influence learners’ engagement in reading and understanding text (e.g.,
Miller & Meece, 1999; Turner, 1995). First of all, considering the balance between the task
difficulty and learners’ skills as a crucial element for engaging tasks (Csikszentmihalyi,1990),
easy tasks with a lack of challenge are not engaging, as exemplified by findings from Turner’s
(1995) research with 84 first-graders in six basal classrooms using open/closed tasks. The data
from the interviews and observation revealed that students were engaged more in open tasks,
which are generally considered as more challenging than closed tasks because according to the
participants, open tasks they performed provided opportunities for (1) challenge and self-
improvement, (2) learner autonomy, (3) pursuing personal interests, and (4) social collaboration.
14
This shows the importance of matching the appropriate level of challenge to the learners’
abilities in reading engagement. In addition, the data suggest that task characteristics related to
learner interaction/collaboration, their interests in the task, and their control over a task play an
important role in task engagement.
Similarly, Miller and Meece’s (1999) study on reading engagement indicates that
providing learners with reading tasks with appropriate challenge, particularly in regard to task
complexity, is of great importance to engage learners. Miller and Meece provided high challenge
tasks involving extended reading or writing and peer collaboration, contrasted with simple or
low-challenge tasks involving little reading or writing and requiring solitary work. They found
that, over time, high challenge tasks resulted in increased engagement and achievement,
particularly for low achievers. This suggests that traditional reading tasks typically used in the
classroom are not complex enough to provide an appropriate level of challenge for the students
to be engaged in reading. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
Child Care Research Network (NICHD ECCRN, 2005) also points out that traditional reading
tasks, such as rote vocabulary exercises and read-aloud by the teacher or students to other
classmates are low in complexity. NICHD ECCRN’s research with 780 third-grade classrooms
revealed that learners who performed analytic and inferential reading tasks were engaged more
and read better than those who performed basic reading skill tasks. Similarly, Taylor, Pearson,
Clark, and Walpole (2000) found more complex tasks, requiring higher cognitive demand,
elicited higher engagement in reading tasks than less complex tasks. In the study, learners given
reading tasks with questions requiring them to integrate text with their knowledge were more
engaged in tasks and gained higher levels of reading achievement than those with basic reading
skill tasks.
15
In the L2 learning context, how to engage learners in reading tasks is even more complex.
There is currently a lack of research in this area. It is not clear what kinds of challenges are
appropriate to promote students’ engagement and whether learners have enough fluency to fully
engage in reading (Egbert, 2003). McQuillan and Conde (1996) suggest that it might be difficult
for ESL learners to be engaged in reading in English due to insufficient language skills, noting
that in their study only non-native English speaking students with native-like fluency felt optimal
engagement in reading class. Nevertheless, some researchers suggest that specific task
characteristics can help L2 learners to be engaged in reading tasks (Egbert, 2003). Egbert’s
(2003) research on Flow Theory and Meltzer and Hamann’s (2004) meta-analysis on ESL
learners’ academic language development suggest that L2 learners’ reading task engagement can
also be enhanced given certain task conditions.
First, both studies found that tasks that are connected to L2 learners’ lives help to support
their reading task engagement because L2 learners’ content/background knowledge interacts
with their language skills while they are involved in a reading task and alleviates their reading
comprehension difficulties (Peregoy & Boyle, 2000). For example, Egbert’s (2003) research on
Flow Theory with Spanish language learners showed that L2 learners’ task engagement was
maximized when they were given a task familiar to them. Meltzer and Hamann also reported that
Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Falk’s (1995) study showed that the use of students’ own
autobiographies at the Beginning program of New York City’s International High School
increased students’ engagement in tasks in which texts responding to their input and their own
lives were used.
Second, Meltzer and Hamann’s study also suggested that it is important to support L2
learners’ autonomy to engage them in a task, as had similarly been shown in L1 reading
16
engagement research. Meltzer and Hamann stress that the support of learner autonomy is
particularly important with L2 task engagement since L2 learners’ feelings of insecurity can
cause their refusal to participate in a task, thus lowering their task engagement. For example, in
Darling-Hammond’s study, tasks that included students’ texts could actively engage L2 learners,
not only because they were relevant to their lives, but also because the tasks allowed learners
some control and their autonomy was, therefore, supported. Likewise, Egbert (2003) found that
learners had high task engagement when they were involved in tasks allowing them control of
the topics and timing.
Third, another task condition that is of importance to enhance L2 learners’ reading task
engagement is that the task should promote interaction with other learners as well as with the text,
as in text-based discussion and collaborative learning. According to Meltzer and Hamann (2004),
discussion after reading a text can lower learners’ reading comprehension difficulties and help
them increase understanding, resulting in active task involvement. Also, Egbert’s (2003) study
showed that, overall, L2 learners were engaged with a text-based chatting task, suggesting that
tasks involving text-based interaction supported learners’ task engagement. To conclude, the
review of the L2 task engagement literature suggests that, although complex to explain, task
engagement exists in the foreign language classroom with the right tasks and with the teachers’
guidance providing interesting and appropriately challenging tasks for low proficiency learners.
Also, although engaging task characteristics for L2 learners are similar to those for L1 learners,
the literature suggests that what is key to L2 learners’ task engagement is to design a task that
alleviates their reading comprehension difficulties for the skill/challenge balance and to support
learner autonomy for learner empowerment and active task involvement.
However, there have been limited studies on L2 task engagement and task conditions to
17
alleviate L2 learners’ reading comprehension difficulties. Therefore, in order to fill the gap in the
literature, the research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What motivates adult ESL learners to read in English?
2. What levels of reading task engagement do the adult ESL learners perceive they have?
3. What task characteristics facilitate ESL learners’ reading task engagement in English?
18
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants were eight adult ESL students from Korea, China, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia,
and Libya in a reading class, taught by the same teacher, in a university ESL program which
prepares them for university entrance. Except for one student, the whole class participated in this
study. Some participants had studied in the program for over three months at the time of the
study and the others were new to the program. All students’ language proficiencies were at
intermediate levels based on placement scores on tests developed by the institution. Only one
student was female.
Data Collection
Four sources were used for data collection. First, closed-ended reading motivation
questionnaires were given to the participants to see what components affect participants’ general
reading motivation in English. This questionnaire was adapted from Wigfield and Guthrie’s
(1997) Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) with eight questions about technology
support added to the 54 original questions that group into 11 themes. Responses were made on a
four-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Second, the researcher
observed the classes while the participants were doing three different reading tasks. Field notes
were taken using the process checklist and the task observation chart, pilot-tested by Egbert
(2003). Third, after each of the tasks, the participants were asked to fill-out validated Task
Engagement Surveys with 16 closed-ended and eight open-ended questions also adapted from
Egbert’s (2003) study. The closed-ended questionnaires required participants to make their
responses on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely/always). Fourth, four
19
students were chosen for semi-structured interviews based on data from the surveys and
observations. For example, one interview question was “on the survey, you marked that task 1
and 3 were not very engaging. What does this mean to you?.”
Materials
Participants were using the textbook Key Concepts for the course and two handouts,
which were given to students during the study. One handout was developed by the teacher based
on the textbook and the other, based on what the participants wrote. A “task” in this study refers
to a task cycle including a pre-task as an introduction to the main task, a main task, and
sometimes an additional post-task. Students in pairs/groups or individually performed three
tasks: 1) a survey and predict task, 2) a quiz task, and 3) a reading paragraphs task.
Task 1, the survey and predict task, was a semi-open task which required students to
work in groups or pairs to quickly scan one academic article in the textbook and to make a
prediction of the information they were going to receive from the text based on the clue words or
phrases they identified. Task 1 was comprised of three sub-tasks: one pre-task, one main task,
and one post task. The pre-task was an agree/disagree task in which students in small groups
debated on five statements related to the article they were going to read for the main activity. In
the main task, they scanned the article very quickly to make predictions and then wrote their
predictions with clue words or phrases from the text. This was followed by a whole classroom
discussion in which they discussed their groups’ predictions and checked whether their
predictions were correct.
Task 2, the quiz task, was a closed task having three sub-tasks, one at home and the other
two in the classroom. Every week, the teacher assigned the students to study vocabulary for the
chapter from Key Concepts using four types of activities: giving definitions, finding synonyms,
20
cloze activities, and changing word forms using their dictionaries. As a next step, they discussed
their answers with the teacher and peers before the quiz. Last, the students were given a weekly
vocabulary quiz with 15 questions, 13 short answer and 2 multiple choice, devised by the teacher
based on the four types of vocabulary activities in the textbook. Once they finished, they
submitted the test papers and waited until every student was done. The teacher returned the
papers after grading them.
Task 3 was the reading paragraphs task. During task 3, after the teacher’s simple
introduction, the students, in small groups or pairs, were required to read their peers’ writings
and to identify the topical and supporting sentences in each paragraph. The task handout had six
paragraphs that the students had written in their writing class. The teacher did not specify who
had written each paragraph. After the small group discussion, they checked their groups’ answers
with their peers and the teacher.
Tasks 1 and 3 were not directly graded; although students’ task performance might affect
their final grade through classroom performance scores since the syllabus indicated that students’
classroom task performance would be observed and evaluated by the teacher and included in
their final grades.
Procedure
The study took place during five classes over two weeks. On day one, the researcher
explained the research and gathered consent from participants. Then, participants completed the
MRQ. Next, on days two and three, the researcher observed two ESL reading lessons with three
different tasks and filled out the task observation sheets. At the end of each observed lesson, the
students were asked to complete a post-Task Engagement Survey. On days four and five, four
students volunteered for one-on-one semi-structured interviews. The researcher asked about their
21
responses on the surveys in more detail. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for data
analysis.
Data Analysis
The data from the MRQ and the Task Engagement Surveys were analyzed by running
descriptive statistics to identify, from among 11 categories in the MRQ, what motivated
participants to read most, to what levels they perceived to be engaged in each reading task, and
what in the tasks engaged them. Both individual and overall participant scores were analyzed to
identify the biggest motivator and most engaging task for students in general and specifically.
Then, the answers for open-ended questions on the Task Engagement Survey, the data from the
field notes, and the interview transcripts were coded according to the 16 themes in the Task
Engagement Surveys in order to identify patterns from the data and to better understand and
describe the participants’ motivation and engagement.
Limitations
There were some limitations in the study design. The first limitation comes from the
participant size. There were only eight participants, which made it difficult to obtain sizable data.
In order to reduce this limitation, the researcher tried to have in-depth data about each individual
participant through individual interviews and classroom observations. Second, since the
participants’ language proficiency was intermediate level, they could have had a problem with
comprehending the questionnaires and the surveys or expressing themselves on them. Thus, the
researcher read the questionnaires and surveys to them and explained unfamiliar vocabulary in
the text. Also, students were given choices to write in their most comfortable language on the
surveys and their comments in their first language were later translated by native speakers of
their language.
22
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
ESL Motivation
This section will present data from pre-/post surveys, interviews, and observations in a
chronological order to present findings from general to more specific. Table 1 shows the
participant’s general ESL motivation.
Table 1
Student’s Perceived ESL Reading Motivation (N=8)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Average
3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.9
On average, participants’ perceived motivation was 2.9, indicating their motivation was
relatively high. Individual student data suggest that there is difference in the degree of their ESL
reading motivation. For example, student 5 indicated the highest ESL reading motivation (over
3) while students 7 and 8 rated the lowest ESL reading motivation (2. 5). Also, students 8’s
relatively low motivation was observed during the classes when he was often late for them. On
the other hand, student 5 was always punctual and showed active classroom participation. In
addition, in the interview, student 5 emphasized that learning English is “very important” to him
to get a decent job.
Similarly to student 5, the data from the MRQ survey indicate that students in general felt
their perception of the importance of English as the strongest motivator in learning English
among the eleven reading motivation constructs, as shown in Table 2.
23
Table 2
Components of Reading Motivation (N=8)
Components of reading motivation Average
Reading Efficacy 2.8
Reading Challenge 2.8
Reading Curiosity 3.1
Involvement / Aesthetic Enjoyment 2.6
Importance of Reading 3.5
Reading Recognition 2.8
Reading for Grades 3
Social Reasons for Reading 2.8
Reading competition 3
Compliance 2.7
Reading Work Avoidance 2.5
Total 2.9
Table 2 demonstrates how students perceived each of the eleven motivation constructs.
Generally, students perceived that all eleven components affected their reading in English since
the average scores for each component are larger than 2. However, the large differences among
the average scores for each component, ranging from 3.5 to 2.5, suggest that students believed
that some components influenced their ESL reading motivation more than others. According to
the data, the students perceived “the importance of reading” as the biggest motivator in their ESL
reading while “reading work avoidance” was the smallest motivator.
24
Looking more closely, Table 3 shows that each student perceived differently what
motivates them to read in English most or least and to what degree.
Table 3
Highest/Lowest ESL Reading Motivator for Each Student (N=8)
Student
Highest Lowest
Component Score Component Score
Student 1 Importance 3.7 Social reasons 1.8
Student 2 Curiosity 3.7 Aesthetic enjoyment,
Challenge, & Compliance
2.5
Student 3 Importance 4 Compliance 2.7
Student 4 Importance 3.4 Challenge 2.4
Student 5 Challenge 4 Grade 2.5
Student 6 Importance 3.4 Work avoidance 2
Student 7 Importance 3.4 Social reasons 2
Student 8 Competition 3.4 Social reasons 1.5
Table 3 indicates that although more than a majority of the students perceived “importance of
reading” as one of the most influential factors in their ESL reading motivation, the eight students
in the study had different highest or lowest scores for each of the reading motivation constructs.
In other words, each student marked different motivation constructs as being most or least
influential for their ESL reading motivation on the survey. For example, student 5 ranked
“reading challenge” as highest while students 2 and 4 ranked it as lowest. Additionally, each
student had different ranges on the reading motivation scores for the eleven components. For
25
example, for student 1, the scores ranged from 1.8 to 3.7, which represents the highest and the
lowest scores; while those for student 4 ranged from 2.4 to 3.4, with the smallest gap. On the
other hand, none of the students rated “social reasons for reading” highest, while three students
ranked it as lowest.
Task Engagement
The overall data from the Task Engagement Surveys showed that participants perceived
all three tasks as engaging to some extent, as Table 4 shows.
Table 4
Task Engagement Scores for the Three Tasks (N=8)
Engagement score
Task Range Average
Task 1 2.7 ~ 4.3 3.4
Task 2 3.3 ~ 4.3 3.7
Task 3 2.9 ~ 4.1 3.5
Total 2.7 ~ 4.3 3.5
For example, the overall range of engagement scores was from 2.7 to 4.3, with all of the scores
above 2, suggesting that all students found the tasks at least slightly engaging. Also, the different
ranges of engagement scores for each task indicate that the students’ perceptions of task
engagement for task 1 are the least consistent and the most widely dispersed, covering the
complete range of task engagement scores in the study. Meanwhile, the students’ engagement
scores for task 2 were the most consistent, with the smallest difference between the highest and
the lowest scores in task engagement. Also, the average engagement scores for each task in
26
Table 3 demonstrate that, in general, students found task 2 to be the most engaging and task 1 the
least engaging although the differences among their perceived engagement for each task were
not remarkable.
However, it appears that not all students found task 2 to be the most engaging since
some students found task 1 or 3 most engaging and task 2 least engaging as Table 5 shows.
Table 5
Most/Least Engaging Tasks perceived by Each Student (N=8)
Highest Lowest
Student Task Task engagement Task Task engagement
Student 1 Task 1 3.8 Task 2 3.5
Student 2 Task 2 4 Task 1 3.8
Student 3 Task 2 4.1 Task 1 3.3
Student 4 Task 2 3.5 Task 1 3.1
Student 5 Task 1 & 2 4.3 Task 3 4.1
Student 6 Task 1 3.6 Task 2 3.1
Student 7 Task 2 & 3 3.3 Task 1 3.2
Student 8 Task 2 4.1 Task 1 2.7
Most students, except for students 1 and 6, marked task 2 as most engaging. Data from the open-
ended survey and the interview give several reasons for this result. For example, in the survey,
student 2 wrote that “finding synonym was easy so I solved it without pressure” although “taking
test was not interesting.” Also, five students in the open-ended survey and in the interview
expressed their interest in “learning new vocabulary”, which made them think task 2 was most
27
engaging.
In contrast, Table 4 also shows that students 1 and 6 found task 2 to be the least engaging.
In the interview, one student said questions from the “fill in the blank” activity in task 2 did not
allow people to think differently since it was a closed task. According to him, it was difficult to
choose only one right answer that best fit the blanks of the sentences, stating, “because this must
be one word” and “maybe someone choose this, and someone choose this. It’s different between,
between person.” For this reason, he added, he enjoyed task 1 mostly due to the open-ended
activities that it included. He commented, “If I wrote something agree or something, nobody says
this is wrong or this is right or something. This is your opinion.”
On the other hand, Table 5 suggests that student 7 found task 3 most engaging. In the
interview, he said “reading other classmates’ were very funny and interesting” and allowed him
to see “how the classmates thinking and organize the writings.”
Regarding the ranges of each student’s task engagement scores for the three tasks,
student 5 had the least difference between the highest and lowest task engagement scores for
each task, while student 8 had the largest ranges. According to the data from the survey, student
5 experienced deep engagement with all three tasks and his task engagement did not change
much depending on the tasks. He explained the reason for this in the interview, as shown below.
S5: Yeah, yeah, because I enjoy English. It doesn’t matter what this article. English, I
will enjoy because this is in my mind….
I: I see. So the task doesn’t matter?
S5: No, it doesn’t matter.
This suggests that types of texts or tasks “doesn’t matter” to him because he had intrinsic interest
in learning English, which engaged him in tasks.
28
CHAPTER FIVE
INTERPRETATIONS
This section will discuss some interpretations of the study based on the findings
discussed in the Results section. The format follows the three research questions:
Question 1. What Motivates Adult ESL Learners to Read in English?
The data show that the students generally have relatively high ESL reading motivation.
Also, overall, it appears that the adult ESL students in the study tend to have four major ESL
reading motivators: importance of reading, reading curiosity, reading competition, and reading
for grades. This tendency was also shown in most of the individual participants’ data. What is
most interesting is that more than half of the participants found importance of reading as the
biggest motivator for their ESL reading. Particularly, it appears that instrumental orientations
play a major role in their high value of English, as was seen in some students who expressed
their desires to be proficient in English for their work or studies. As previously shown in the
Results, student 5, who was highly motivated to learn English, said that his learning English is
related to his ambition to become a “professional” in this field. Similarly, student 7 commented
as follows:
Because I come here, I came here not about English language, I come here to study
another subject that in English language.… I think about English about English to learn
new… get my Ph.D. or Master degree…. So I didn’t think about English as an English
language. I think about what help me in my Ph.D. or master degree…. I think about what
will help me to in my study.
This shows that the student thinks English is a tool to learn knowledge or to perform well in the
workplace, suggesting instrumental orientation for L2 motivation.
29
However, the individual participants’ data also suggests that four most indicated
motivational factors do not apply to all students, with the eleven motivational factors clustered
differently for every student. This is consistent with Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) who argue that
every individual has some types of reading motivational constructs that are stronger than others
since reading motivation is multifaceted. In the study, there was one student, student 5, who
perceived “reading challenge” as the most motivating and “reading for grade” as the least
motivating component for ESL reading, which is unusual considering that the overall data
indicates “reading challenge” is one of the least influential components in ESL reading
motivation. In the same vein, “reading for grades,” his lowest ESL reading motivator, does not
follow the overall ESL motivation tendency in the study, which was found to be a major ESL
reading motivator. The discord between the general tendency and the specific data suggests that
there are no absolute reading motivators that work for every student. Some reading motivation
components might work for most students but might work in the opposite way for other groups
of students.
Question 2. What Levels of Reading Task Engagement Do the Adult ESL Learners Perceive
They Have?
Both overall and individual students’ data strongly support the idea that ESL learners’
reading engagement exists. However, in general, the levels of ESL reading engagement are not
considerably high and mostly did not reach the state of extreme reading engagement. Also,
participants’ level of reading task engagement varied among the individual participants and
between the tasks.
As seen in the data (See Table 4 & 5), only some participants experienced deep
engagement with certain tasks, which suggests that it is worth probing deeper with the
30
participants, student 5 and 8, who perceived to experience the highest and lowest ESL reading
task engagement. Student 5’s data shows that his high L2 reading motivation helped him to
engage in the tasks. As has been shown, student 5 exhibited his high L2 reading motivation and
instrumental orientations in many ways. He rated the highest L2 reading motivation among the
students on the questionnaires. Also, after the interview, student 5 explained that his eagerness to
learn English was caused by his experience of having been fired because of his low English
proficiency when he was working for an oil company in Saudi Arabia, which made him come to
the US to study English. Findings from the surveys show that student 5 experienced deep reading
task engagement with all three tasks. In the open-ended questions on the surveys, the student
wrote that what focused him on the task was “aim to learn English” or “his ambition,” which he
explained in the interview as becoming a “professional” who could speak “correct form” of
English. This suggests that his high L2 reading motivation and instrumental orientation
contribute to his deep reading task engagement, supporting the idea that instrumental orientations
can support L2 motivation (Masgoret & Gardner, 2002), which in turn may influence ESL
reading engagement (Meltzer & Hamann, 2004).
On the other hand, student 8 was described as seemingly less motivated. He was the
youngest of all, had just graduated from high school in Korea, and had newly joined this program
to prepare for his undergraduate program in the US, which suggests no such bitter work
experience as student 5. In addition, his lack of punctuality to the class and off-topic chats with
the teacher during the classroom observation demonstrate that he did not appear to take learning
English as seriously as student 5. Although he did not appear very motivated and showed the
lowest task engagement overall, he experienced deep reading engagement with task 2. In the
interview, he said he was so focused that “nothing disturbed” him and that he “could not hear
31
anything” during task 2. For that reason, he explained that even though he arrived late for task 2,
the quiz task, he became engaged in the task because the teacher assigned homework to study
vocabulary for the quiz and he “studied last night before the test.” This suggests that studying at
home alleviated the students’ language difficulties with task 2 so that his language skills and the
task challenge could be balanced, which led to the students’ increased reading task engagement.
This suggests that students with relatively low motivation can be engaged in a task if a task fits
their language proficiency level. Therefore, two conflicting examples from students 5 and 8
suggest that although L2 reading motivation is an important factor in L2 reading task
engagement, the former is not an essential element to the latter and less motivated learners can
be engaged in a task if appropriate tasks are given to them.
Question 3. What Task Characteristics Facilitate ESL Learners’ Reading Task Engagement
in English?
The data reveal, as expected, that there are no absolute engaging tasks for every adult
ESL learner. Some tasks might be engaging to most students but not to all. Regarding engaging
tasks in general, the data from the interview and from the open-ended Task Engagement Surveys
suggest that most students found task 2 the most engaging for several reasons. First, students
seemed to be engaged because task 2 had a test which would be applied to their final grades. This
result contradicts Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassabgy (1996) who state that people are motivated to
“engage in activities that they enjoy and that do not arouse anxiety” (p.55), but it resonates with
the results from Egbert’s (2003) research on Flow Theory which found that optimal stress or
anxiety is necessary for optimal engagement to occur. In the open-ended survey during the study,
student 2 wrote that “because it’s test, I focused hard” and student 6 wrote “grades” as a major
contributor to the student’s reading engagement with task 2. Student 2, during the interview,
32
explained that it was because he had to “get test level B.” This suggests that students might fail if
they get a grade below B, which could put students under pressure. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to conclude that some pressure and competition from the test resulted in the students’
high reading task engagement with task 2 in general. Second, lowering the difficulty of the text
and task by pre-studying vocabulary might have engaged students with task 2 as was seen in
student 8’s case earlier. This is supported by Hsueh-chao and Nation (2000), who found that text
with 98 percent of known vocabulary is easy enough to be read for pleasure; less than 98 percent
is too stressful to be read for fun. Unlike tasks 1 and 3, students were told to study vocabulary at
home before they performed task 2 in class. According to student 3 in the open-ended Task
Engagement Survey, this pre-vocabulary activity at home helped him focus on task 2. This
implies that pre-studying unknown vocabulary lowered the task difficulty, which balanced the
task difficulty with his reading proficiency level, and thus engaged him in the ESL reading tasks.
In addition to the pre-vocabulary activity, the relatively low task difficulty appears to be a major
contributor to engagement in task 2. This makes much sense, considering that task 2 is mainly
focused on teaching the use of vocabulary and sentence-based reading, while tasks 1 and 3 use
single or multiple paragraphs to teach reading skills/strategies as well as vocabulary, thus making
them more complex and challenging.
However, as seen in the data, task 2 was the least engaging among the three tasks for
some students because of the closed-ended nature of the quiz task (See Table 5). Student 6, for
example, found task 2 the least engaging because the quiz activity only offered absolute answers
to the questions. He expressed his preference for the open-ended activities in task 1. Similarly,
some students favored task 3 because it was based on reading text developed by students,
concurring with Meltzer and Hamann’s (2004) study that tasks including texts created by
33
students are more engaging because they are related to students’ real lives and represent
students’ input. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that there are no absolute engaging task
features for all adult ESL students, although it is true that there are some that appeal to the
majority of the students.
What is most interesting from the data is that less motivated students seem to be more
reactive to the task characteristics than highly motivated students. Student 8, perceiving the
lowest ESL reading motivation based on the data from the MRQ, experienced the widest range
of ESL reading task engagement on the three tasks. Conversely, student 5 with the highest ESL
motivation from the MRQ did not perceive much change in reading task engagement among the
tasks and maintained deep reading task engagement with all three tasks. The data from the Task
Engagement Surveys demonstrated that student 5 perceived to be engaged in reading whatever
tasks were given during the study. The dramatic change in student 8’s task engagement,
depending on the tasks, suggests that it might be more important to focus on what can engage
ESL students who are less motivated than those with high motivation when preparing ESL
reading tasks. The data suggest that less motivated L2 students in particular contexts can also be
engaged in a task and can succeed in language learning if they are given a task that is engaging
to them.
To conclude, this study is meaningful and practical because it attempts to illustrate what
might motivate individual learners to read in English and what task features engage them in ESL
reading in real ESL classroom environments. From the data, it is appropriate to conclude that
practice-based activities like quizzes can result in reading task engagement if the task has certain
appropriate characteristics (e.g., pre-vocabulary activities). This resonates with Jones’ (1998)
suggestion that “even drills and practice can help maintain a level of involvement on the part of
34
learners” (p. 207). This is very interesting because it is commonly accepted that practice-based
activities are boring and less effective in language learning than authentic tasks with a real life
goal. On the contrary, the findings also suggest that tasks related to students’ real lives, such as
self-developed text and open-ended tasks, more strongly engaged a small group of students than
practice-based tasks.
Next, the findings suggest that optimal task anxiety and competition seem to facilitate
ESL reading engagement. According to the data, although students were under pressure to
compete or to achieve a higher grade during the quiz task, they were highly engaged because
they felt it was manageable.
The data also reveal possible barriers to ESL reading engagement, such as task/text
difficulty and complexity beyond the optimal levels for the learners. Although it is difficult to
pinpoint what levels of challenge and complexity are optimal levels for reading task engagement,
the general tendency in the data indicates that tasks that can alleviate L2 learners’ reading
difficulties using, for example, pre-vocabulary activities or familiar texts created by the students
themselves, can lead to higher engagement.
Last, the data suggest that individual students’ reading motivations can influence their
L2 reading task engagement. However, data from students who are less motivated suggest that
motivation and task engagement are different and students who are not very motivated can be
engaged in a task if they were given a task that fits their language level and that has engaging
task characteristics for the learners. This result supports the model of L2 reading motivation and
reading task engagement provided earlier (See Figure 1), which distinguished L2 reading task
engagement from L2 reading motivation.
35
Implications
This study provides some important implications to ESL/EFL teachers and researchers.
First, engaging tasks in general are not necessarily engaging or motivating to all adult ESL
learners. The data shows that some tasks might appeal to most students; however, they might not
appeal to other students in terms of reading engagement. It is possible that some students’
reading motivators or task engagement characteristics do not match those in general but might
conflict with them. Thus, there is a danger for many teachers who can be misguided by
quantitative data, relying too heavily on task features that engage “most ESL students.” Thus, it
is the teachers’ role to know and effectively apply what engages both the general group of
students and those who do not belong to the group.
Moreover, teachers might consider more deeply that it is the less motivated ESL students
in particular contexts who might benefit the most from more focus when they are preparing for
ESL classes since their reading engagement is more easily changed depending on task features.
The data in the study indicates that highly motivated ESL learners’ task engagement is not very
flexible to different task characteristics. However, this study suggests that less motivated learners
in particular contexts can achieve higher reading task engagement, which can lead to higher
levels of reading competence if a teacher can provide engaging tasks. Thus, it is not always wise
for teachers to stick to traditionally popular tasks since the popularity comes from the general
student groups. It is recommended for teachers to consider what tasks can engage less motivated
readers in particular contexts by trying new task elements such as new technologies or resources
that attract their attention. Teachers also can give students choices in topics and type of tasks
they want to do.
For researchers, this study presents a need for future studies with more female students
36
and teachers. With only one female participant, the findings are likely to be limited to male ESL
learners and thus, it is difficult to explain ESL reading task engagement and motivation for both
male and female students. Therefore, future studies should include more participants with a
greater balance of genders or with a focus on female students specifically.
Overall, the findings appear to support the literature and the proposed preliminary model
(See Figure 1) of L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement. This study appears to
show that L2 reading motivation can influence task engagement in some way; however, as in the
literature, student 8’s example questions their direct relationship because student 8, with the
lowest motivation, experienced deep reading task engagement in task 2. Thus, this study suggests
that L2 reading motivation and reading task engagement can influence each other; however it
also suggests that motivation and task engagement are different and motivation does not always
lead to task engagement. The findings suggest that if a task is engaging to the learners and
supports their skill/challenge balance, students who are not highly motivated can still be engaged
in the task, which can lead to L2 learning achievement.
37
REFERENCES
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper & Row.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty
years of inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182-192.
Campbell, J.R., Voelkl, K.E., & Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic
progress (NCES Publication No. 97985r). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main1996/97985r.pdf
Corno, L. & Rohrkemper, M. (1985). The intrinsic motivation to learn in classroom. C. Ames
& R. Ames, (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. New York: Academic Press.
Crooks, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Language learning motivation: reopening the research agenda.
Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic Assessment in Action. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Essex, UK: Pearson.
Egbert, J.L. (2003). A study of Flow Theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 87(4), 419-518.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitude and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Gliksman, L. (1976). Second language acquisition: the effects of student attitudes on classroom
38
behavior. (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Western, Ontario.
Guthrie, J.T. (2001, March). Contexts for engagement and motivation in reading. Reading
Online, 4(8). Retrieved from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/guthrie/i
ndex.html
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer.
Hsueh-chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading
comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430.
Jones, M. (1998, February). Creating electronic learning environments: Games, flow, and the
user inter-face. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations,
National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology (AECT).
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Lutz, S.L., Guthrie, J.T., & Davis, M.H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary
school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3-20.
Marciano, P. (Producer). (2009, September 6). Motivation vs. engagement. Podcast retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J6nM9pzKmM
Masgoret, A.M. & Gardner, R.C. (2002). Attitude, motivation and second language learning:
A mata analysis of studies by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-
163.
McQuillan, J., & Conde, G. (1996). The conditions of flow in reading: Two studies of optimal
experience. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 17, 109-135.
39
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E.T. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent
English language learners through content area learning: Part one: Focus on
motivation and Engagement. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown
University.
Miller, S., D., & Meece, J. L. (1999). Third graders’ motivational preferences for reading
and writing tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100, 19-35.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network. (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality
and teacher and student behavior. Elementary School Journal, 105, 305-323.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2),
279-295.
Oller, J., Beca, L., & Vigil, A. (1977). Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: a
sociolinguistic study of Mexican Americans in the southwest. TESOL Quarterly, 11,
173-183.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Where immigrant
students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003.
OECD briefing note for Germany. Retrieved from Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development website: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/37/36665011.pdf
Paris, S.G. & Oka, E.R. (1986). Self-regulated learning among exceptional children.
Exceptional Children, 53, 103-108.
Peregoy, S.F., & Boyle, O.F. (2000). English Learners Reading English: What We Know,
What We Need to Know. Theory into Practice, 39( 4), 237-247.
Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
40
application. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogical tasks. M. P. Garcia
Mayo, (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Russell, J., Jane, G., & Mackay, T. (2003). Messages from MYRAD: improving the middle years
of schooling: a research and development monograph. Jolimont, Victoria: IARTV.
Russell, J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Issues Digest: Motivation and engagement.
Australian Government: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved
from Australian Government: Department of Education, Science, and Trading website:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issu
es_digest/
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal
structure and external connections. R. Oxford, (Ed.), Language learning motivation:
Pathways to the new century. Manoa: University of Hawai'i Press.
Snow, R.E. & Farr, M.J. (1983). Cognitive-affective processes in aptitude, learning, and
instruction: An introduction. R.E. Snow and M.J. Farr, (Eds.), Aptitudes, learning,
and instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and
accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low income
schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-165.
Turner, J.C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(23), 410-441.
Vallerand, R.J.(1997). Towards a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
41
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29: 271-360.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children’s motivations for reading: An
initial study (Research Rep. No.34). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the
amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420-
432.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task based learning. UK: Longman.
42
APPENDIX A
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (Student Name: _______________________)
Please mark the one answer for each statement that most closely corresponds to your opinion.
Does Not
Apply
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I know that I will do well in reading English
this year.
1 2 3 4
2. I like hard, challenging books in English. 1 2 3 4
3. If the English teacher discusses something
interesting I might read more about it in
English.
1 2 3 4
4. I read stories about fantasy and make-believe
in English.
1 2 3 4
5. It is very important to me to be a good reader
in English.
1 2 3 4
6. My friends sometimes tell me I am good in
English reading.
1 2 3 4
7. I look forward to finding out my English
reading grade.
1 2 3 4
8. I often read in English to my brothers or
sisters.
1 2 3 4
9. I like being the only one who knows an
answer in something we read in English.
1 2 3 4
10. I do as little schoolwork as possible in
reading English.
1 2 3 4
11. I don’t like reading in English when the
words are too difficult.
1 2 3 4
12. I am a good reader in English. 1 2 3 4
13. I like it when the questions in English books
make me think.
1 2 3 4
14. I read in English to learn more about my
hobbies.
1 2 3 4
15. I like mysteries in English. 1 2 3 4
16. In comparison to other activities I do, it is
very important to me to be a good reader in
English.
1 2 3 4
17. I like hearing the teacher say I am a good
English reader.
1 2 3 4
18. Grades are a good way to see how well you
are doing in English reading.
1 2 3 4
19. I sometimes read in English to my parents. 1 2 3 4
20. I like being the best at reading in English. 1 2 3 4
21. I don’t like vocabulary questions. 1 2 3 4
22. I learn more from reading in English than 1 2 3 4
43
most students in the class.
23. I usually learn difficult things by reading
English resources.
1 2 3 4
24. I read in English to learn new information
about topics that interest me.
1 2 3 4
25. I read a lot of adventure stories in English. 1 2 3 4
26. Being good on the computer is important to
learning English.
1 2 3 4
27. I am happy when someone recognizes my
English reading ability.
1 2 3 4
28. I read in English to improve my grades in
English reading.
1 2 3 4
29. I like to help my friends with their
schoolwork in English reading.
1 2 3 4
30. It is important for me to see my name on a list
of good English readers.
1 2 3 4
31. I always do my English reading work exactly
as the teacher wants it.
1 2 3 4
32. Complicated stories in English are no fun to
read.
1 2 3 4
33. In comparison to my other academic subjects,
I am best at reading in English.
1 2 3 4
34. If the project is interesting, I can read difficult
material in English.
1 2 3 4
35. I like to read about new things. 1 2 3 4
36. I make pictures in my mind when I read in
English.
1 2 3 4
37. My parents often tell me what a good job I
am doing in English reading.
1 2 3 4
38. My parents ask me about my reading grade. 1 2 3 4
39. I talk to my friends about what I am reading
in my English class.
1 2 3 4
40. I try to get more answers right than my
friends.
1 2 3 4
41. Finishing every English reading assignment is
very important to me.
1 2 3 4
42. I read in English because I have to.
1 2 3 4
43. Computers help me to be good at English. 1 2 3 4
44. If a book in English is interesting I don’t care
how hard it is to read.
1 2 3 4
45. If I am reading about an interesting topic in
English, I sometimes lose track of time.
1 2 3 4
46. I feel like I make friends with people in good
books written in English.
1 2 3 4
47. I like to get compliments for my English 1 2 3 4
44
reading.
48. Studying English with a computer helps me
keep high grades in English reading.
1 2 3 4
49. I don’t like it when there are too many people
in the story in English.
1 2 3 4
50. I like to finish my reading in English before
other students.
1 2 3 4
51. I always try to finish my English reading
work on time.
1 2 3 4
52. I don’t like to do English reading exercises on
the computer.
1 2 3 4
53. I enjoy reading books in English about people
in different countries.
1 2 3 4
54. I like working on the computer in reading
English.
1 2 3 4
55. Using the computer I can show how good my
English reading ability is.
1 2 3 4
56. I like to tell my family about what I reading
in English.
1 2 3 4
57. I am willing to work hard to read in English
better than my friends.
1 2 3 4
58. I only use the computer in English reading
when my teacher asks me to.
1 2 3 4
59. Using the computer to learn English makes it
more interesting.
1 2 3 4
60. I enjoy a long, involved stories or fiction
books in English.
1 2 3 4
61. I visit the library often with my family or
with friends.
1 2 3 4
62. Using the computer to read in English helps
me to read better than other students.
1 2 3 4
63. I like to interact in English on line. 1 2 3 4
64. My friends and I like to trade things to read in
English.
1 2 3 4
45
APPENDIX B
Task Engagement Survey (Student Name: ______________)
Section 1.
Instructions: Circle one
response for each item.
Not at all
Partially/ Slightly
Somewhat
A great deal
Completely/ Always
1. This task was
interesting to me.
1
2
3
4
5
2. The content of this task addressed my
interests.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I will use the things I
learned in this task
outside of the classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
4. The content of this
task was meaningful
to me.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I was challenged by
this task.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I had the skills to complete this task.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I had the knowledge I needed to succeed
at this task.
1
2
3
4
5
8. I received the help
that I needed to do this task.
1
2
3
4
5
46
Section 1.
Instructions: Circle one
response for each item.
Not at all
Partially/
Slightly
Somewhat
A great
deal
Completely/
Always
9. This task engaged me.
1
2
3
4
5
10. During this task I
thought about things
not related to this task.
1
2
3
4
5
11. During this task I was
aware of distractions.
1
2
3
4
5
12. During this task I was so absorbed in what I
was doing that time
seemed to pass quickly.
1
2
3
4
5
13. During this task I
controlled my learning.
1
2
3
4
5
14. During this task I could make decisions about
what to do.
1
2
3
4
5
15. I could express myself
freely during this task.
1
2
3
4
5
16. I understood the rules
for this task.
1
2
3
4
5
47
Section 2.
Instructions: Please answer the questions below as completely and concisely as possible. 1.
a. What in this task you did you find challenging?
b. What did you find that was boring or too easy?
c. What was too hard or that you didn’t have the appropriate skills or knowledge for?
2. What made this task interesting or not interesting to you?
Section 2, continued.
Instructions: Please answer the questions below as completely and concisely as possible. 3.
a. What helped you to focus on this task?
b. What, if anything, made you lose focus during this task?
c. What parts of the task did you have control over?
d. What parts of the tasks could you not control?
48
ESL LEARNERS’ MOTIVATION AND TASK ENGAGEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY
ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXTS
Abstract
by Hyun-Gyung Lee, Ph.D.
Washington State University
August 2012
Chair: Joy Egbert
In the field of L2 research, researchers have often used the terms motivation and engagement
interchangeably, with little research clearly explaining what they are and how they are different.
Furthermore, there has been a paucity of research that deals with L2 motivation and task
engagement in classroom contexts, particularly in technology-enhanced language learning
contexts. Therefore, in order to fill this gap in the literature, this study explores adult ESL
learners’ motivation and task engagement. It does so by asking: 1) What generally motivates
adult ESL learners to learn English? 2) What levels of task engagement do they perceive and how
does motivation influence their task engagement? and 3) What task characteristics facilitate their
task engagement and how does technology help them to engage in tasks? Data from
questionnaires, surveys, classroom observations, and interviews indicate that, as in the previous
literature, the level of task engagement can vary depending on the students, their motivation, and
task characteristics. Additionally, motivation and task engagement appear to influence each other
since they have some elements in common; however, they should be considered distinct concepts.
This implies that teachers should focus more on how to engage L2 learners in classroom tasks
than on how to motivate the individuals themselves because learners’ high L2 motivation cannot
49
guarantee their high task engagement. Furthermore, based on the findings, this study provides a
preliminary model of motivation and task engagement to help researchers and teachers to further
understand important concepts of motivation and task engagement.
50
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Many adult international students come to English-speaking countries to study English.
Often these students are willing to sacrifice their time, money, and lives with their families to
come to those English-speaking countries because there are good reasons for them to learn
English, for example, to have a decent job or to pass university entrance exams. This implies that
they are likely to have high motivation for learning English.
It might be worth asking how their high ESL motivation influences their task
engagement in classroom contexts. Some teachers might assume that they will do well and show
high task engagement because they are very motivated to learn English. However, many
experienced teachers are more careful to answer this question because ESL learners’ task
engagement involves complex classroom contexts and learner characteristics, and it thus cannot
be fully explained only by the degree of students' general ESL motivation.
However, in the field of L2 research, researchers have often used the terms "motivation"
and "engagement" interchangeably, with little research clearly explaining what they are and how
they are different from each other. The research has heavily focused on L2 motivation, which
appears to be based on the idea that L2 motivation can lead to task engagement, a crucial element
for learning to occur (Cambourne, 1995) and there has been a paucity of research that deals with
L2 learners' motivation and task engagement, particularly in technology-enhanced language
learning contexts. Therefore, in order to fill the gap in the literature and to better guide teachers in
how to engage their students in classroom tasks, it is necessary to explore what L2 motivation
and task engagement are and what engages adult L2 learners in classroom tasks.
This paper presents a qualitative study beginning with a literature review on the
51
distinctions between the terms motivation and engagement as they relate to L2 learning. Then,
this is followed by a description of the study design and the limitations, the research findings and
interpretations, the conclusions, and implications for further research.
52
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Motivation
The terms "motivation" and "engagement" are often used interchangeably by educators.
In educational research, many researchers have also described motivation and engagement in
similar ways. First of all, motivation "is a very important, if not the most important factor in
language learning” (Van Lier, 1996, p.98), without which even gifted learners cannot learn a
language successfully, even if they are taught by a good teacher with excellent classroom
materials. Heckhausen (1991) broadly defines motivation as goal-directed behavior. To be more
specific, Gardner (1985) defines second language (L2) motivation as "the extent to which the
individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction
experienced in this activity" (p. 10). According to Gardner, when L2 learners are motivated, they
make a conscious effort to achieve a goal, desire to learn the target language, and feel satisfaction
with language learning.
Similarly, Williams and Burden (1997) describe L2 motivation as the "state of temporary
or prolonged goal-oriented behavior which individuals actively choose to engage in" (p.94). They
emphasize a dynamic nature of motivation and present a three stage model of motivation: 1) a
state of cognitive and emotional arousal by having reasons for doing something, 2) a conscious
decision to act, and 3) a period of sustained intellectual and/or physical effort in order to attain a
previously set goal or goals as learners’ motivation develops. For example, if learners find
learning the L2 to be interesting or have a high value for the goals or output, they will be aroused
to engage in the learning and some learners might make extra effort. This definition of motivation
is broad and suggests that motivation does not necessarily lead to learners’ engagement and
53
performance. For example, if the student’s motivation stays in stage 1 (a state of cognitive and
emotional arousal) and is not significant enough to push them to stage 2 (a conscious decision to
engage in learning), the learners’ motivation might not result in their task engagement or
language learning achievement.
Researchers also propose theoretical distinctions in types of motivation, for example,
intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and integrative versus instrumental motivation. Intrinsic
motivation is defined by Dornyei (2003) as “motivation to engage in an activity because that
activity is enjoyable and satisfying to do” (p.38); while extrinsic motivation is motivation to
carry out actions “to achieve some instrumental end, such as earning a reward or avoiding a
punishment” (p. 38-39). Traditionally extrinsic motivation has been viewed as a less significant
motivator than intrinsic motivation or as something that undermines intrinsic motivation;
however, a current view of motivation acknowledges that extrinsic motivation does not always
undermine intrinsic motivation and can enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Gardner & MacIntyre, 1995). Deci and Ryan’s study shows that extrinsic motivation can lead to
intrinsic motivation if the learning environment supports learner autonomy and attributional
motivation, for example, by providing information about learners’ developing competence. In
addition, Van Lier (1996) writes that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are interdependent since
although they might start separately, they converge and become so closely intertwined that
distinguishing one from the other is almost impossible. This implies that extrinsic motivation
could also facilitate intrinsic motivation.
Another significant distinction is between integrative and instrumental motivation,
which both depend on the learner’s purpose for L2 learning. Integrative motivation refers to the
learner's desire to learn a language in order to become closer to the target language community,
54
while instrumental motivation refers to the learner's desire to learn a language for practical
purposes such as having a job or traveling (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Gardner (1985), based on
samples from Canadian L2 learners, argued that motivation, particularly integrative motivation
in conjunction with instrumental motivation, directly affects L2 learners’ language attitude and
L2 achievement. For example, Gardner (1985) reported that Native Americans’ integrative
motivation to become truly part of the American culture positively influenced their attitudes
toward learning English. However, his argument is not supported by consistent findings. For
example, Oller, Baca, and Vigil (1977) showed that Mexican women in California with negative
attitudes toward Anglo people had higher L2 achievement than those with positive attitudes. This
suggests that integrative motivation is not always positively related to L2 learning achievement.
Also, Silverstein’s (1999) report on a Mexican born immigrant, Rodriguez, suggests that L2
learners’ instrumental motivation can enhance L2 achievement more than integrative motivation
in some conditions. Rodriguez, who had failed to learn English fluently after having stayed in the
US for 20 years, became fluent in Hebrew because he wanted to be promoted for financial
reasons while working as a dishwasher in a Hebrew restaurant. Likewise, in Lee’s (2011) pilot
study with eight adult ESL learners, it was shown that an ESL learner with high instrumental
motivation was engaged in classroom tasks regardless of the texts and the types of the tasks.
According to the learner, he was desperate to learn English because his lack of English language
skills caused him to lose his job in his country. Another counter argument to Gardner (1985)
comes from researchers (e.g., Dornyei, 2001) who accept that, under certain conditions, a
causative relationship between motivation and L2 achievement occurs in the opposite direction
to Gardner’s argument. According to Dornyei, learners with better performance are likely to
develop motivational intensity, and thus learners’ success in language learning can lead to higher
55
L2 motivation - attributional/resultative motivation.
To summarize, based on the literature, the definition of L2 motivation is broad. Overall,
the presented literature on motivation suggests that motivation can be defined as a desire or
choice to learn L2, which can possibly lead to learners’ efforts and actions to learn the L2. The
literature suggests that L2 motivation is an important factor in L2 learning; however, it is not
certain that L2 motivation, in particular integrative motivation, directly affects L2 achievement
and it is more likely that L2 achievement can lead to L2 motivation.
Task Engagement
Engagement is an essential element in learning, without which no learning can possibly
occur (Cambourne, 1995). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) defines task engagement as a learner’s deep
involvement in a task to the extent that they lose track of time and place. When learners are
deeply engaged in a task, they experience flow, heightened consciousness, which can push them
to produce better output. Cambourne describes engaged learners as being attentive, holding a
purpose or need, and being actively involved in classroom tasks. More recently, Lutz, Guthrie and
Davis (2006) stated that learners can be engaged in four ways: 1) emotionally engaged (e.g.,
positive affective reactions), 2) behaviorally engaged (e.g., active participation 3) cognitively
engaged (e.g., effective use of learning strategies), or 4) socially engaged (e.g., exchanging their
text interpretations). Thus, this suggests that, like motivation, engagement is a multi-faceted
construct that is related to learners’ emotions, consciousness, attitudes, and social behaviors.
Many engagement studies (e.g., Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), mostly conducted in L1
learning contexts, suggest that students’ engagement is related to students’ learning achievement.
For example, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) state that engaged learners can understand text better
because they read more effectively using higher reading strategies. Miller and Meece’s (1999)
56
study supports this. In their study, they found that students who usually had low achievement
increased their reading comprehension scores when they were highly engaged in reading tasks.
This suggests that learners’ increased engagement positively affected their learning performance.
Distinction between Motivation and Engagement
Although motivation and task engagement appear to be similar, some researchers suggest
that they need to be distinguished one from the other. According to Russell, Ainley, and
Frydenberg (2005), students can be motivated but disengaged, which is a major challenge for
teachers and one which needs to be well understood. They cite, for example, the large Australian
study by Russell, Mackay, and Jane (2003) in which fifth to ninth grade students, who had
generally high motivation to learn, showed low levels of engagement in their classroom work.
The researchers point out that despite the students’ high motivation, the students were unlikely to
perform well in classroom tasks with low levels of task engagement. This suggests that
motivation and task engagement are different and motivated learners can be disengaged if their
classroom tasks are not interesting.
Another distinction in the definitions of motivation and engagement comes from the
field of employee education. Marciano (2009) points out that the biggest difference between the
two terms resides in the orientations of motivation and engagement. Motivation is oriented by the
employee’s goals and gains while engagement is oriented by his/her commitment to the task.
Thus, when employees are motivated, they attempt to make efforts to be productive in order to
achieve the target outcome and rewards; while, when they are engaged, they show their
commitment and devotion to the tasks. Marciano shows an example of highly motivated
employees working on a project. When a sudden technical problem occurred on the day before
the deadline makes it impossible for them to complete it on time, there are two groups of people
57
with different behaviors. One employee group gives up and goes home, while the other group
tries to do what they can for the sake of the project. Marciano explains that the employees in the
second group are people with high task engagement. They perform the task regardless of the
reward. The employees in the first group give up the project because they would not be able to
achieve a goal – completion of the project by the deadline – and thus obtain the reward. Marciano,
therefore, suggests that task engagement is probably more enduring and long-term to involve
people in tasks than motivation.
Based on the literature, Figure 1 conceptualizes the distinctions between motivation and
engagement and the relationships between the two.
Figure 1. A Model of L2 Motivation and Task Engagement
As discussed above, the model shows that L2 motivation and task engagement are not
identical, but they can influence each other because they share some characteristics. The
58
literature suggests that both L2 motivation and task engagement often refer to learners’ emotions,
attitudes, interests, and self-efficacy (Lutz, Guthrie & Davis, 2006; Dornyei, 2003). For instance,
the definition of L2 motivation is closely related to the learner’s attitude toward the language,
language anxiety/inhibitions, interest in learning the language, and overall confidence/self-
efficacy in L2 learning. Likewise, the definition of L2 task engagement includes the learner’s
specific positive affective reactions based on the task, positive attitude towards the task, interest
in the task, and belief in their abilities with L2 tasks.
However, as Figure 1 illustrates, task engagement has task characteristics as a key
element that influences L2 learners (Marciano, 2009). In other words, when learners are
interested in a task, they enjoy performing it, become actively involved in the task, and focus on
the task. Often, when students are optimally engaged, they have a state of heightened
consciousness, which pushes them to become more creative, productive, and in control of their
actions, thus they learn more successfully (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Learners’ successful
language learning experience can boost their self-confidence and interest in language learning,
which can lead to a higher level of L2 motivation (Dornyei, 1998). Then, highly motivated
learners do not just desire to learn the language, but also make a decision to actively engage in
the language learning, possibly making persistent efforts to achieve a goal (Williams & Burden,
1997); the research suggests that this motivational process can positively influence L2 learners’
task engagement. Therefore, the relationship between L2 motivation, task engagement, and
language learning achievement suggests that it is significant for teachers to distinguish between
L2 motivation and task engagement for successful language teaching to occur. It is not
necessarily motivation but, more likely, task engagement that is more closely related to L2
learners’ language achievement and more accessible to teachers. Furthermore, according to the
59
literature, task characteristics should be more deeply explored because they play an important
role in L2 learners’ task engagement and successful language learning.
Impact of Task Characteristics on Task Engagement
A task refers to a goal-oriented and meaning-based activity (Nunan, 1991). Willis (1996)
describes tasks as “activities where the target language is used by the learners for a
communicative purpose in order to achieve an outcome” (p.23). Thus, according to Willis,
grammar exercises are not tasks since they do not involve a meaningful way of using the target
language, although grammar exercises can be part of task cycle used to teach grammar skills, for
example, in preparation for the main task. Ellis (2003) writes that there are a variety of tasks,
depending on how the teacher broadly sequences four task characteristics: 1) the nature of input
(e.g., pictoral or oral), 2) the way information is presented (e.g., one or two way), 3) required
discourse (e.g., monologic or dialogic), and 4) the nature of task outcome (e.g., closed or open).
Research on task characteristics and task engagement was initiated in L1 learning
contexts, which resulted in a number of studies that explored task characteristics in relation to
task engagement. Turner (1995), for example, compared 84 first-graders’ engagement in open
tasks and closed tasks. The results indicate that they were more engaged in open tasks than in
closed tasks. The students explained that the open tasks they performed provided opportunities
for challenge, self-improvement, and learner autonomy, allowed them to pursue their own
interests, and involved the students in collaboration.
Miller and Meece (1999) found similar results from their intervention research. In their
study, students’ engagement with more complex and challenging tasks was higher than their
engagement with less complex tasks. Their findings showed that students in the intervention
class who worked in groups with more complex tasks were more engaged than those in other
60
classes who worked individually with simple traditional tasks such as rote vocabulary exercises.
This reveals that appropriate challenge, complexity of the task, and opportunities for social
collaboration can be important characteristics for engaging tasks.
Looking at adolescents, Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, and Shernoff’s (2003)
longitudinal study with 526 high school students showed similar results to both the Turner (1995)
and the Miller and Meece (1999) studies. Shernoff et al. found that students were more engaged
in tasks that required interaction, provided opportunities for them to make their own choices, and
which, additionally, provided appropriate challenge, thus positively affecting their sense of self-
efficacy. They were found to be disengaged in passive one-way tasks that only transmit
information such as listening to lectures and watching videos. After a review of the engagement
literature, Kamil, Borman, Kral, Salinger, and Torgesen (2008) from the U.S department of
Education, listed three engaging task characteristics: 1) providing a positive learning
environment that promotes students' autonomy in learning; 2) making literacy experiences more
relevant to students' interests, everyday life, or important current events; and 3) promoting
students’ self-directed learning and collaborative learning to increase engagement and conceptual
learning for students.
Until Egbert’s (2003) research on Flow Theory, engagement has not had much attention
in the field of L2 education. Although McQuillan and Conde (1996) were not positive about the
existence of flow - a state of optimal engagement - in foreign language classroom contexts due to
the imbalance between the learners’ language skills and challenge, Egbert found that flow does
exist even with foreign language tasks. Similar to the literature on L1 task engagement, Egbert
found that language learners were more engaged in tasks that 1) were familiar to them, 2)
allowed them to make their own choices for the topics and timing, and 3) connected to real life.
61
These findings suggest that L2 learners can be engaged in language learning tasks in a similar
way to L1 learners’ engagement with other learning tasks.
In the same vein, data from Meltzer and Hamann’s (2004) meta-analysis supports
Egbert’s findings, showing that both adolescent ESL learners and L1 learners in mainstream
classes did not have much difference in which task characteristics they found engaging. Both
groups perceived that tasks which provided appropriate challenge, opportunities for social
collaboration, and supported learner autonomy were more engaging and helpful for them to
achieve higher reading comprehension and academic speaking skills.
However, interestingly, findings from Lee’s (2011) pilot study suggest that L1 and L2
learner’s task engagement is different in some ways. Although much L1 literature (e.g., Turner,
1995) supports open tasks as being more engaging than closed tasks, the results from Lee’s pilot
study with eight adult ESL intermediate level learners revealed that the learners’ showed higher
engagement in closed tasks than in open tasks. Considering the importance of the balance
between learners’ skills and task challenge in task engagement, this discrepancy between L1 and
L2 studies might be related to language proficiency. Thus, the researcher suggests that L2
learners’ task engagement with open and closed tasks needs to be explored further with learners
at different levels of language proficiency. This suggests that although L2 learners’ task
engagement is similar to L1 learners in many ways, there might be differences or difficulties
(e.g., language proficiency) that interfere with L2 learner’s task engagement.
To summarize, the L1 literature suggests task characteristics contribute to engaging
learners (e.g., tasks with opportunities for challenge, social collaboration, self-improvement, and
learner autonomy). However, because there are only a few studies on L2 learners’ task
engagement in a classroom context, it is not yet clear which tasks are engaging to L2 learners
62
and how being a L2 learner may affect task engagement.
Technology-supported Engagement
Some researchers argue that technology incorporation into classroom tasks can benefit
L2 learner engagement. Prensky (2001) describes 21st-century learners as being interested in and
comfortable at playing with computers, video games, and the Internet, and thus the use of the
technology in classroom contexts can make their learning more enjoyable. Similarly, Egbert,
Akasha, Huff, and Lee (2011) state that technology incorporation into language learning can
support both L1 and L2 learner’s engagement due to its multimodality and fun elements.
According to them, appropriately used technology enhanced language learning tasks that connect
L2 learners to their lives outside the classroom are more engaging than decontextualized
technology enhanced language learning tasks. A number of studies support their argument. For
example, in the L1 literature, McMillan and Honey (1993) and Fuchs and Woessman (2004)
report that writing tasks incorporating technology, such as using emails, engaged students by
enabling them to communicate persuasively with the effective use of vocabulary and to organize
their ideas effectively. Similarly, in the L2 literature, Meskill and Mossop (2000) reported that
ESL learners’ task engagement increased as a result of technology use. They conducted a study
with 800 ESL teachers and with two classes of ESL learners over two years and found that tasks
using animated stories and multimedia presentation promoted ESL learners’ cognitive
engagement and identity investment. This suggests that use of technology can potentially help L2
learners to engage in tasks.
To summarize, current L2 literature has not focused much on task engagement since task
engagement has not been considered separately from L2 motivation. However, the literature on
motivation and engagement indicates that motivation and engagement might not be the same,
63
which suggests that motivated L2 learners may not necessarily be engaged in tasks. Thus, it is
necessary to further explore what motivation and engagement are and what engages L2 learners
in tasks. Therefore, the research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What motivates adult ESL learners to learn English?
2. What levels of task engagement do they perceive they have?
3. What appears to be the relationship between their ESL motivation and task
engagement?
4. What task characteristics facilitate ESL learners’ task engagement?
64
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
This section describes the design of this qualitative study and how data was collected
and analyzed in detail.
Participants
In this study, participants were a convenience sample of 17 students - eleven male and
six female - and their teacher in a natural classroom setting. Upper-intermediate level learners,
based on their test scores on the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency and a speaking
test developed by the institution, were particularly chosen for this study in order to have
participants with higher language proficiency than those in the pilot study (Lee, 2011). The
participants were part of an eight-week long Monday/Wednesday/Friday multimedia-based
listening and speaking course in an intensive university ESL program. The topic of the course
was “health care systems.” Participants were from a variety of places, including Asia (i.e. China,
Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan), South America (i.e., Guatemala, Ecuador, and Brazil), and
Arabic speaking countries (i.e., Saudi Arabia and Libya). The teacher was female and indicated
that she was very interested in incorporating technology into her language teaching.
Context
During the study, five tasks - two technology-incorporated tasks and three tasks without
the use of technology - were observed in order to see different task characteristics in both
technology-enhanced and traditional language classroom activities. A “task” in this study refers
to a task cycle including 1) a pre-task – introduction to the topic and the main task or warm-up
and 2) a main task – task performance and reporting their performance. The descriptions of the
five tasks are as follows:
65
Task 1 was a combination of listening and creating a dialogue, performed for an hour on
the second day of the study, which happened to be April Fool's Day. Without knowing it was a
joke, as a pre-task, participants listened to an NPR audio clip on a new eye surgery that implants
three-dimensional lenses; participants discussed the pros and cons and then they found out it was
a joke. Afterwards, the participants watched another joke video from Gmail Motion. This video
introduced supposed new Gmail Motion (http://mail.google.com/mail/help/motion.html)
technologies that allowed users to communicate through motions instead of keyboards.
Pretending it was real, the participants worked in pairs to create their own dialogue following
Gmail’s guidelines on different body language expressions. Then, as the teachers asked for some
volunteers to present their dialogues, two pairs volunteered to present and the rest of the
participants guessed what they meant.
Task 2 was performed on the same day as task 1. Task 2 was a compare and contrast
discussion task, performed over a 50 minute period. On the previous class day, participants were
told to research Republican and Democrat positions on health care and the types of health care
systems they support. Participants worked in groups to compare both parties and discuss the
similarities and differences between their positions on the health care policies in order to
complete a Venn diagram. Then, as a whole class, they repeated the discussion and modified
their group’s Venn diagram of the two parties’ positions on the American health care system and
submitted it to the teacher.
Task 3 was a pros and cons discussion task, which took place over 70 minutes on the
third day of the study. Before the class, each student chose one country, the UK, France, or
Canada, and researched the country’s health care system. In the class, the teacher gave each
country group a 2-3 page article about the topic to read together and to discuss the pros and cons
66
of the country’s health care system and write them down for submission. Then, as a whole class,
the teacher let the three groups report their lists of the pros and cons while the teacher wrote
them down on the whiteboard for the students to share.
Task 4 was a debate task, which started on the fourth day of the study and ended on the
following class day. All together this task took about 3 hours and 20 minutes. Participants were
informed that 10% of their total grade would be based on their debate performance. Participants
in each country group from task 3 had group debates on the advantages of their chosen country’s
healthcare system. Each member had to present their argument on the topic at least once. While
two groups among the three were having a debate, the other group filled out peer feedback forms.
Then they switched roles so that each group could debate twice. Afterwards, one group was
chosen as a winner based on peer/teacher feedback scores.
Task 5 was a listening task, started on the third day immediately following task 3. It was
finished on the sixth day of the study. Every week, the teacher showed part of Michael Moore’s
documentary film, Waiting Room, teaching new vocabulary before the participants watched. The
participants then watched the film clip several times and discussed it with their partners to
answer questions on the worksheets. Then, they discussed the questions as a whole class and
modified their answers before submitting the completed worksheets to the teacher. This time, the
task was performed between other tasks over three class days, taking a total of 50 minutes.
At the end of each task, the worksheets with the student’s work (e.g., Venn diagrams and
listening notes) were collected and graded by the teacher for participants’ general classroom
performance.
Data Collection
Five data sources were tapped for this study. Except for the interviews, data was
67
collected during the two-hour long class time on Wednesdays and Fridays from the 2nd
to the 4th
week of the program, as explained in detail below.
Background information surveys. On the first day of the study, in order to help the
researcher to analyze other data, participants were asked to complete background information
surveys, providing their personal information (age, education, and first language), language
learning experience (e.g. how long have you stayed in the US?), language skills most important
to them, and reasons for learning English. For example, to a question “what is your biggest
reason to learn English?” participants were asked to choose one among five multiple-choice
answers: 1) to study in English speaking countries, 2) to get a job, 3) to make friends, 4) for self-
satisfaction, and 5) other.
ESL motivation questionnaire. After the background surveys, participants were asked
to fill out an ESL motivation questionnaire adapted from Wigfield and Guthrie’s (1997)
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire to address motivation for language learning (See
Appendix A). On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the participants
rated 66 questions related to five different types of motivation: 1) sense of self-efficacy, 2)
importance of English, 3) intrinsic motivation, 4) extrinsic motivation, and 5) social aspects of
L2 motivation.
Task engagement surveys. From day 2 to day 6, after each task, participants were asked
to fill out task engagement surveys with 17 closed-ended questions and eight open-ended
questions adapted from Egbert (2003) (See appendix B). The participants answered specifically
about the task they had just completed.
Observations. The researcher observed the class while participants were involved in the
five tasks previously described and took field notes using the process checklist topics (e.g.,
68
looking around, checking a clock), which were pilot-tested for validity by Egbert (2003).
Interviews. Nine participants and their teacher volunteered to participate in semi-
structured interviews in which they were asked about why they answered in certain ways on the
motivation questionnaires and the task engagement surveys. One example of the interview
questions was “On the survey, you wrote task 2 was too difficult and boring. Can you explain a
little more in detail?”
Data Analysis
Data was triangulated using multiple data sources, including multiple voices, such as
those of the students and the teacher, as well as the researcher. For the data analysis, first, data
from both the motivation questionnaires and closed-ended task engagement surveys were
analyzed by running descriptive statistics to find the average degree of participants’ perceived
ESL motivation, task engagement, and the relationship between their ESL motivation and task
engagement. Next, data from background information surveys, open-ended task engagement
surveys, field notes, and interview transcripts were coded according to 17 themes in the task
engagement surveys to identify influential task characteristics for task engagement. Then, the
researcher organized the data according to the research questions and looked for patterns in the
data.
Procedure
The data was collected over four weeks, which included seven class days and three
interview days. On day 1, the researcher introduced the research and obtained consent from the
participants. Participants also filled out the motivation questionnaire and background information
surveys at this time. From day 2 to day 6, participants were asked to complete the task
engagement surveys after each task performance. Then, seven participants voluntarily
69
participated in email interviews while two participants and the teacher engaged in face-to-face
interviews.
Limitations
Some data collection methods revealed limitations. The researcher attempted to
minimize the limitations using various techniques. First, since the data was collected over a short
time with relatively a small number of participants, it was difficult to obtain a sizable amount of
data. Therefore, the researcher tried to obtain in-depth data on individual participants through
interviews, open-ended questions on the task engagement surveys, and classroom observations.
Second, although more students volunteered for email interviews than oral interviews, email
interviews revealed some problems. Some participants missed answering certain questions or
forgot to reply to the email interview questions. For interviewees who were forgetful, the
researcher reminded them to respond to the interviews or invited them to have oral interviews
instead. Those who did not answer all the interview questions were asked to answer the missing
questions. Third, another possible limitation was that the self-reporting methods used on the
questionnaires and surveys might not always be reliable. The researcher tried to control for this
problem by collecting data from the teacher interview and classroom observations.
70
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
This chapter presents the findings and the interpretations organized by research
questions, beginning with general information first and more specific and important detail next.
Question 1. What Motivates Adult ESL Learners to Learn English?
Data from the ESL motivation questionnaires described the level of participants’
perceived motivation. The data are presented by the different motivation categories and
subcategories in Table 1.
Table 1
Components of Motivation (N=17)
Motivation category Sub-categories Average scores (1-4)
Individual's sense of
efficacy
Efficacy 2.84
2.75
2.91
Challenge 2.97
Work avoidance (reversed) 2.46
Importance of L2 learning Importance of L2 learning 3.31 3.31
Intrinsic motivation
Curiosity 3.25
3.15
Involvement 3.06
Extrinsic motivation
Recognition 3.02
2.86
Grades 2.64
Competition 2.92
Social aspects of
L2 learning motivation
Compliance 2.87
2.84
Social reasons 2.81
71
The total average ESL motivation score (i.e., 2.91) in Table 1 indicates that the participants rated
their ESL motivation relatively high. Among the five motivation categories, as in the pilot study
(2011), they generally rated importance of L2 learning as the highest, followed by intrinsic
motivation, with a relatively small difference. This shows that the participants’ appreciation of
the value of English motivated them to learn English in general. On the other hand, they rated
their sense of efficacy lowest mostly because of their tendency to put off completing their work,
which is consistent with the results from the pilot study that also indicated the lowest average
score in work avoidance among the 11 subcategories.
Looking more closely, individual participants’ data (presented with pseudonyms) suggest
that all participants had moderate or high levels of motivation, as their motivation ranges show in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Individual Participants’ Levels of Different Motivation (N=17)
For example, Amy, with the lowest motivation score among all participants, still had an overall
72
moderate level of motivation. Meanwhile, the student with the highest L2 motivation score was
Megan. Although Megan’s self-efficacy score was slightly below 3, she had scores over 3 for the
other four motivation categories. This data is interesting because the data from the observation
rated her as the least participating student during the class time, while Amy was one of the
students who actively participated in classroom tasks. Thus, it appears that it might not be easy
for teachers to directly relate L2 learners’ motivation to their classroom behaviors and
engagement because, as in Megan’s case, she did not look very engaged in classroom tasks
although she rated highest on L2 motivation among all participants.
Similarly to all participants’ data in Table 1, Figure 2 shows that the 11 participants rated
the importance of L2 learning category as the highest. In the motivation questionnaires, every
participant agreed or strongly agreed to “It is very important to me to be good in English” and all
except for one agreed or strongly agreed to “In comparison to other activities I do, it is very
important to me to be good in English.” This demonstrates that whatever the reasons are for their
appreciation of the importance of L2 learning, whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic, the
participants’ high value for the English language and English learning activities is a strong
motivator for their English learning.
According to Figure 2, the motivation category rated highest by the second largest
number of participants was intrinsic motivation. Five participants rated intrinsic motivation as
the highest. Also, most participants rated intrinsic motivation over 3, higher than extrinsic
motivation, suggesting that they were more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated. The main
contributor for their relatively high intrinsic motivation seems to have been the participants’
curiosity in learning English. In the motivation questionnaires, all participants agreed or strongly
agreed to “I like to learn about new things” and “If the English teacher discusses something
73
interesting I might learn more about it.” This suggests that participants’ curiosity for something
new or interesting seems to motivate them to learn English more willingly.
Similarly to all participants’ data in Table 1, which shows extrinsic motivation scores
highest after importance of L2 learning and intrinsic motivation categories, individual participant
data in Figure 2 also reveal that most students indicated they had relatively high extrinsic
motivation. Particularly, Brian rated extrinsic motivation, along with importance of L2 learning,
higher than intrinsic motivation. Data from the questionnaire indicated that winning and
competition triggered his relatively high extrinsic motivation. In a casual classroom conversation,
Brian, who was going to be a senior university student in South Korea, emphasized his strong
need to improve his English in order to compete with other applicants in English job interviews
and in English proficiency tests. For this reason, he chose to spend his whole break after his
mandatory military service studying English in the US, suggesting that his instrumental
motivation inter-played with his extrinsic motivation.
Data from the background information surveys also supported that the participants’
instrumental motivation is likely to be related to their extrinsic motivation. The data from the
surveys showed that all participants answered that their biggest reason to learn English is for
instrumental purposes. For example, among the five choices, 1) to study in English speaking
countries; 2) to get a job; 3) to make friends; 4) for self-satisfaction; and 5) others, ten students
answered that they were learning English to study in English speaking countries; four students to
get a decent job; two students chose both. One student, Mia added self-satisfaction to the other
two - to study in English speaking countries and to get a job. This suggests that participants’
instrumental motivation can be one of the biggest motivators in learning English.
Contrary to most students with relatively high extrinsic motivation, the data in Figure 2
74
show that there was great variation in participants’ extrinsic motivation, covering the total range.
For example, some students (i.e., John, Jane, and Mia) rated extrinsic motivation lowest and
intrinsic motivation highest among the four. Particularly, according to Mia’s note in the
motivation questionnaire, “grades aren’t important” to her because “some students have excellent
grades but they don’t know what the topic is about.” This suggests that her low value of external
rewards versus intrinsic rewards resulted in her low extrinsic motivation.
To conclude, the data revealed several things related to question 1. First, the individual
participants had different types and levels of motivation; however, most participants indicated
that their high value of English language learning is a strong motivator for their English learning.
Also, most participants were perceived to be intrinsically motivated to learn English. In
particular, the data suggest that all participants perceived that they are willing to learn English
because they are curious about new things. Next, according to the data, the participants’
instrumental motivation seemed to affect their extrinsic motivation because strong instrumental
motivation can often make them desire to win competitions or gain others’ recognition. These
findings support motivation as a multiple construct as discussed earlier in the literature review.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between data from the researcher’s classroom observations and
Megan and Amy’s motivation scores suggest that it might not be easy for teachers to directly
relate L2 learners’ motivation to their classroom behaviors since a student like Megan did not
look very motivated although she rated herself the highest on L2 motivation among all
participants.
Question 2. What Levels of Task Engagement Do Students Perceive They Have?
Data from the task engagement surveys indicate that participants generally found all five
tasks engaging, as their average task engagement scores were all over 3, suggesting moderately
75
high engagement as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Task Engagement Scores for the Five Tasks (N=17)
Task Range (1-5) Average
Task 1 (Gmail Body Dialogue) 3.12-4.18 3.73
Task 2 (Politics Discussion) 2.88–4.59 3.59
Task 3 (Health System Discussion) 3–4.18 3.64
Task 4 (Debate) 2.94 - 4.29 3.84
Task 5 (Documentary listening) 2.88–4.59 3.53
Particularly, the data in Table 2 show that participants perceived deep engagement with task 4,
which was rated as the most engaging overall, followed by Task 1. Task 5 was found to be the
least engaging among the tasks; although there was not much difference in the engagement
scores for the five tasks. For example, Amy, whose engagement score for task 4 was 4.18,
described her deep engagement with task 4:
…Who wants to lose?...We were strongly bonded together like soldiers against our
enemies…We prepared a lot as a group before and after the class…we were so involved in
the discussion we didn’t know the class already started. But it was very fun…
Her comment explains not only her engagement but also her group members’ group engagement
in task 4 by the phrase “bonded together like soldiers.” Since her group members wanted to win
the debate they worked so hard, even during the break, that they lost track of time. Group
engagement was created, which, in turn, led to individual participants’ high engagement.
However, individual participant data indicates that not all participants experienced deep
76
engagement. In fact, only 10 participants had task engagement scores over 4 - deep task
engagement - on at least one of the five tasks, and none had scores over 4 with all five tasks,
meaning that none of the participants was deeply engaged in all of the tasks. Moreover, the total
range, 2.88 – 4.59 (See Table 2) indicates that some participants (i.e., Mary and John) had scores
below 3, meaning that they did not perceive themselves to be engaged on some tasks. For
instance, Mary, who had the lowest total engagement scores among the all participants, rated
three tasks (2, 4, and 5) below 3, indicating that she was somewhat disengaged in those tasks.
Her comments on those tasks on the survey, included: “not interesting,” “boring,” and “I give
up,” suggesting her disengagement in the tasks. She gave the following reasons in the interview:
…There has many words that I can’t understand and it’s politics, I am not interesting in
politics…I wanted to chat with my group members, they said don’t talk and do some
job…
This describes that she was demotivated to do the task because the topic was uninteresting to her
and included difficult vocabulary; thus, she felt frustrated. For this reason, she was disengaged
and, as a result, her group members were unhappy about her distracted behavior. However, she
rated her engagement for task 1 close to 4, suggesting that she felt relatively deep engagement
with the task. Although she wrote on the survey that “the listening clips were not easy,” she also
said “I really like it because it is very interesting and I feel very happy to learn this part,”
expressing her high motivation to do this task. Additionally, according to her interview, one of
the reasons she liked doing the task was her partner, John. She said, “I loved working with John.
He’s great. He’s very funny and help me a lot.” Her engagement in task 1 was also shown
through her classroom performance. In the class, she voluntarily presented a body language
dialogue with her partner John in front of the class, which made other participants laugh a lot and
77
clap after their presentation. A comparison of her different task engagement levels for tasks 1 and
2 suggests that task characteristics, liking her group members, and the topic for the task all
positively influenced her task performance.
To conclude, although participants’ engagement scores for the five tasks did not show
much difference in general, the individual participants’ data indicated that task characteristics
affected participants’ task engagement differently. Therefore, it appears that even less motivated
L2 learners can be deeply engaged in a task, which may lead to their better task performance (as
seen in Amy and Mary’s case) if the task is appealing to them. The findings further suggest that
group engagement can possibly benefit L2 learners with low motivation through social
collaboration, which will be discussed more in the next section.
Question 3. What Appears to be the Relationship between Their ESL Motivation and Task
Engagement?
Individual participants’ L2 motivation and task engagement scores from the data were
compared to identify how they were related to each other, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Comparison between L2 Motivation and Task Engagement Scores (N=17)
78
The uneven gap between the two lines for L2 motivation and task engagement, along
with their different shapes, could be because of faulty instruments or small participant numbers,
but it is more likely that they are not directly related, as the previously reviewed literature
indicated. Although some participants’ (e.g., Tom’s and Emily’s) L2 motivation and task
engagement scores appeared to be positively related to each other, other participants mostly did
not. For example, although Mary had a high general L2 motivation score of close to 3 (See
Figure 2), she had the lowest total task engagement score. Similarly, Megan’s and Harry’s L2
motivation scores were the highest and second highest, but their task engagement scores were
lowest, behind Mary and Brendon. This indicates that highly motivated L2 learners do not
necessarily always have high task engagement. Alternatively, Amy’s task engagement score
stayed in the middle of the group although her L2 motivation score was the lowest of the
participants. Likewise, Mia’s task engagement score was the second highest while her motivation
score fell in the middle of the group. This suggests that L2 learners with relatively low L2
motivation scores can still be deeply engaged in tasks.
Therefore, the findings appear to support that L2 motivation and task engagement are
not directly related, as described in a model of L2 motivation and task engagement (See Figure
1). This suggests that teachers should focus more on how to engage L2 learners in classroom
tasks than how to motivate them because learners’ high L2 motivation cannot guarantee their
high task engagement.
Q4. What Task Characteristics Facilitate ESL Learners’ Task Engagement?
Data from the task engagement surveys and participants’ interviews revealed that there
were some task characteristics that helped participants to focus on the tasks. The findings seem
to support some engaging task characteristics found in previous studies: 1) appropriate task
79
difficulty and complexity, 2) task familiarity, 3) learners’ control over task conditions, 4)
interesting texts, 5) authenticity of tasks, and 6) multimodal text (Egbert, 2003; Egbert, Akasha,
Lee, & Huff, 2011; Kamil et al., 2008; Turner, 1995). For example, the data from the task
engagement surveys clearly show that the participants were more engaged in open tasks (i.e.,
tasks 1 and 4) and less engaged in a completely closed task (i.e. task 5). This supports the
findings from the L1 literature (e.g., Turner, 1995) that suggest open tasks to be more engaging
than closed tasks because open tasks tend to be more complex, and thus are more likely to
provide students with greater challenge, opportunities for self-improvement, and social
collaboration than closed tasks. However, this result conflicts with the findings of Lee’s (2011)
pilot study with ESL learners with intermediate proficiency, which demonstrated that learners
engaged more with closed tasks. The difference suggests two things. First, that one type of task is
not absolutely more engaging than other types. Although previous research suggests that open
tasks are more engaging, depending on task conditions, closed tasks can be engaging as well. For
example, in Lee’s study, findings suggest that students’ competition and preparation contributed
to their high engagement in a quiz task. Second, it is important to provide a task with appropriate
task difficulty, as well as appropriate task complexity, in order to engage ESL learners with a task.
Participants’ higher engagement in open tasks than closed tasks in this study is likely to be
because they had higher English proficiency than participants in the pilot study. In the pilot study,
the participants’ language proficiency was not high enough to engage them in open tasks such as
discussion after reading a long reading text because of an imbalance between task challenge and
language skill level (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Influences of task difficulty on the participants’
task engagement revealed that authentic academic texts and authentic academic tasks were often
difficult for the participants due to lack of language or content skills. For example, several
80
participants, particularly those from Asian countries, commented on the surveys that listening to
the documentary in task 5 was too difficult because “they speak too fast” and there were
“difficult words,” including medical terms. Jane said in the interview, “it’s my second week in
the US. So, listening is the hardest part.” Mary said, “sometimes, it’s so hard, I give up.”
Regarding content skills, several participants pointed out that although they enjoyed task 4, their
own or peers’ misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of debate skills sometimes interfered with
their engagement in the task. For instance, on the survey, Mia wrote that task 4 was “boring”
because “it was hard to focus on someone’s opinion” especially when others talked about
something “not related with the subjects because the person did not understand how to make an
argument properly.” In the interview, Jane said that she doubted her classmates understood what
“own argument” and “counter argument” were. The teacher explained in the interview that this
was because it was their first time to do a debate in class and that the levels of difficulty and
complexity for task 4 were the highest among the five tasks. This suggests that the imbalance
between their skills and task challenge interfered with their task engagement. Therefore, it can be
interpreted that tasks that fit L2 learners’ language and content skills are more engaging.
Otherwise, providing pre-tasks that gradually teach skills needed in the main task would benefit
the L2 learners, as in the Gradual Release of Responsibility model (Pearson and Gallagher, 1993)
which indicates that the responsibility for task completion shifts gradually over time from the
teacher to the student to optimize learning
The second engaging task characteristic found from the data is task familiarity, as
several participants mentioned familiarity with the topic and the task as a reason for their high or
low task engagement, supporting Egbert’s (2003) findings. For example, 11 participants
indicated on the survey that lack of background knowledge in American politics was the reason
81
they felt that the task was difficult and they lost focus. Alternatively, Tom said in the interview he
was very engaged in task 2 because he had “good background knowledge” about American
politics. According to him, he is very interested in the topic and usually reads internet
newspapers about it in his first language. This suggests that it might be important for teachers to
link topics that are familiar or related to students’ background to new or unfamiliar topics in
order to engage the students in tasks including texts or topics not familiar to them. Regarding the
familiarity with tasks, Craig noted in the interview that his familiarity with sign language
engaged him in creating the body language dialogue. As a special education major, he was quite
good at a sign language. However, Terry said repetitious tasks, like task 5, were “boring” because
they were performed almost every week in the course. Thus, this implies that it is also important
for the teacher not to overuse similar topics or tasks.
In addition to task familiarity, the participants seemed to feel that their control over some
task conditions influenced their task engagement. In the interview some participants expressed
their concerns with tasks 3 and 4 because they felt disadvantaged when the teacher grouped and
assigned them topics for the debates. Amy said, “As you know, France and UK’s systems are not
bad, right? But in Canada, people wait too long for health insurance. So we felt we were
disadvantaged.” This implies that she did not want to be assigned in a topic group with the
Canadian health care system because she felt she could not win the debate. Again, for task 2,
John said in the interview “I don’t like to discuss about politics, I think we could choose other
kind of topics.” This implies that John wanted more control over the choice of the topics. Thus,
it appears that teachers might engage the participants more by providing tasks which allow them
to make their own choices on topics and groupings (e.g., Egbert, 2003; Kamil et al., 2008).
Another finding that supports previous studies is that several participants pointed out on
82
the surveys and the interviews that the interesting topics and humor in task 1 were why they were
more engaged. For example, Amy suggested on the survey that the joke made her engaged in the
task. Mia also commented on the survey that she found this task interesting because she could
practice English “even though there is not really serious subject.” This was also shown during
the observation of task 1, as the participants looked really happy when they were involved and
very active in the joke body language dialogue. The teacher also affirmed in the interview that
participants like jokes because “they can be fun and educational.” This result also confirms
findings in the literature (Kamil et al., 2008) that tasks with fun and humor can be engaging.
Fifth, the data suggest that the authenticity of all five tasks engaged learners in the tasks.
Craig said in the interview that the Gmail and NPR clips were interesting because they were
“real.” Also, Alex said he was focused on the reading in tasks 3 and 4 because it was “essential to
read” this kind of material to study in an American university in the future. He also said in an
interview that the debate in task 4 was interesting because a debate is a real life task that people
“do often in school.” This suggests that he was engaged in those tasks because the materials and
the tasks reflected what real American students read and do in university. In the interview, the
teacher also said that the participants prefer tasks similar to those in real university classroom
because “they are not going to have drills in their university classroom.” This suggests that L2
learners had greater engagement with real life tasks (Egbert, 2003).
Sixth, regarding to the use of technology, some participants’ engagement appears to
benefit from the multimodality of the video clips. For instance, Alex, Craig, Emily, and Jane
wrote on the survey that using the documentary video helped them focus on the listening task
better than the audio clips. Jane said in the interview that multimodal material is “more
interesting” and she could “be more focused on the listening” when she “had both audio and
83
video.” According to the teacher, academic listening about the “health care system,” the program
topic, is very challenging; thus, using a multimodal text as their main listening material helped
the participants since multimodal text “supports different styles of learning, having the visual and
auditory aspects.” Thus, it appears that first, multimodal texts can be more interesting to L2
learners than monomodal texts since they support different styles of learning; and second,
multimodal texts help L2 learners to focus on ESL listening, as Egbert et al. (2011) suggest.
Interestingly, apart from the multimodality of video clips, participants did not mention what
technology helped them engage or made them lose focus. Most of the comments on the
technology-based tasks, tasks 1 and 5, were more related to how to use the technology-based
materials than what type of technology engaged them. For example, the participants found task 5,
a documentary video listening task, least engaging in general, not because of the use of video,
but because of difficult vocabulary and the low frequency of classroom interaction. Also, as
discussed previously, participants were engaged in the YouTube video clips, not just because the
teacher used YouTube video clips, but because they liked the joke and humor that the content
delivered to them. These findings imply that participants were more concerned with the use of
the technology than what technology itself they were taught with. Therefore, this suggests that
teachers should work on how to effectively use technology to engage L2 learners more in tasks,
focusing on whether the text or contents of the technology enhanced tasks are engaging.
In addition, this study reveals some findings in relation to group engagement. The data
from the task engagement survey revealed that group engagement seemed to positively influence
individuals’ task engagement. For example, on the survey participants were asked to answer “I
was interested in this task because other participants in the class were interested,” which directly
referred to their group engagement in the tasks. Results showed that task 1 had the highest group
84
engagement, followed by task 4, task 3, task 2, and task 5. This follows almost the same order
for the most engaging tasks in general in the study except for the switched positions for task 1
and task 4. This suggests that group engagement could positively influence individual L2
learners’ task engagement. Furthermore, Mary and Amy’s data below also support this as well.
Mary, who rated her group engagement as a 5 (strongly agree) for task 1 on the survey, indicated
remarkably higher task engagement on task 1 than other tasks. Also, she volunteered for a
presentation, followed by good feedback from the other students and the teacher partly because
of her partner, John, as we discussed earlier in Question 2. John’s data from the survey also
seemed to support this. John, who rated his group engagement as a 5 for task 1, like Mary, had an
individual engagement score of over 4 for task 1, indicating that he was deeply engaged in the
task. This suggests that Mary and John’s group engagement might have enhanced their individual
task engagement and performance.
Similarly, as discussed earlier in Question 2, Amy’s interview excerpt described how
competition created group engagement, which helped her to engage in task 4 and produced a
better performance. According to Amy, who rated a 5 for her group engagement score on task 4,
her group members felt focused on their group work to the extent that they “didn’t know the
class already started” while they were involved in group discussion for the debate. As a result,
the teacher chose them as a winning group. This suggests that students’ group engagement,
through social collaboration and competition, can result in the group members’ higher
engagement and better performance. However, in the interview, Amy also showed her concerns
regarding too much competition: “Too much competition sometimes brought negative effects. I
think some students became too serious about winning the debate. They asked strange questions
to other groups…They were just being difficult and unhelpful to other groups…”
85
In fact, during the observation, there was tension between two groups when Brian, in the
France group, asked Tom, in the UK group, “where did you find the source of your argument?”,
Tom said “I don’t understand” and “can you speak more clearly?.” Alex, in the Canada group
who was observing the two groups’ argument, commented that Tom was “avoiding answering the
question and pretending” he did not understand his question in order to make Brian feel
uncomfortable; he felt this was because Tom did not have a supporting source for his argument.
This kind of behavior can lower students’ engagement by ruining both groups’ feelings. This
suggests that, although competition can enhance L2 learners’ group engagement, stressing
competition too much can hinder their group engagement. Therefore, it is appropriate to
conclude that teachers should focus on how to create group engagement and how to make L2
learners’ social collaboration more interesting and engaging because group engagement can help
less motivated L2 learners in particular contexts to engage in the task and perform better.
Implications
The results of this study on L2 motivation, task engagement, and task characteristics
suggest some important implications for ESL teachers and researchers. First, this study fills a gap
in the literature and confirms a proposed model of L2 motivation and task engagement. Although
much previous literature treated motivation and task engagement almost in the same way, data
from this study show that L2 motivation and task engagement are not the same concepts and they
are not directly related. In other words, according to the findings, many people’s assumption that
task engagement comes naturally with motivation is not necessarily true. Therefore, L2
researchers should focus on what task engagement is and how to increase task engagement in
order to better guide L2 teachers in the classroom context.
The second implication is that the overall findings from this study support previous
86
studies on engaging task characteristics: 1) appropriate task difficulty and complexity, 2) task
familiarity, 3) learners’ control over task conditions, 4) interesting texts, 5) authenticity of tasks,
and 6) multimodal text (Egbert, 2003; Egbert, Akasha, Lee, & Huff, 2011; Kamil et al., 2008;
Turner, 1995). Additionally, the findings suggest that group engagement can help even less
motivated L2 learners to focus and better perform on tasks. Therefore, it is recommended that
teachers should promote L2 learners’ social collaboration and the optimal level of competition to
more effectively support L2 learners’ group engagement.
To conclude, although engaging tasks and their characteristics were discussed, there are
no tasks that engage every L2 learner. One type of task is not absolutely more engaging than
other types, and thus it might not be very meaningful to conclude that open tasks are more
engaging than closed tasks. Depending on task design and task conditions with similar types of
tasks, learners’ task engagement can change. In addition, although this study lists engaging task
characteristics that generally appeal to L2 students, the data also suggest that every individual
has a different level and type of motivation and engagement. Therefore, it is essential for
teachers to employ classroom tasks after first considering who the students are and what interests
them. For example, teachers can find out what their students’ likes and dislikes are through
student interest surveys at the beginning of the course and include topics related to their interests
in the tasks, or teachers can allow students to choose the task they want to perform in order to
more effectively engage them in the classroom tasks.
87
REFERENCES
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty
years of inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182-192.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement in everyday life. New
York: Basic Books.
Deci, L. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Essex, UK: Pearson.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003) Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning. Malden, Mass:
Blackwell Publishing.
Egbert, J. (2003). A study of Flow Theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language
Journal, 87(4), 419-518.
Egbert, J., Akasha, O., Huff, L., & Lee, H. (2011). Moving forward: Anecdotes and evidence
guiding the next generation of CALL. International Journal of Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-15.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Fuchs, T., & Woessman, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: Bivariate and multivariate
evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESIFO
Working Paper, No. 1431. Retrieved Oct 22, 2011, from www.cesifo-group.de/.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Language Learning: the Role of Attitudes and
Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
88
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Gardner, R.C. & MacIntyre, P.D. (1995). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who
says it isn’t effective?. H.D. Brown, & S. Gonzo, (Eds.). Readings in second language
acquisition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. M.L. Kamil, P.B.
Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr, (Eds.). Handbook of reading research. New
York; Erlbaum.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008).
Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A
Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
Lutz, S.L., Guthrie, J.T., & Davis, M.H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary
school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3-20.
Lee, H-G. (2011). Exploring a model of ESL motivation and engagement. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Washington State University, Pullman.
Marciano, P. (Producer). (2009, September 6). Motivation vs. engagement. Podcast retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J6nM9pzKmM
McQuillan, J., & Conde, G. (1996). The conditions of flow in reading: Two studies of optimal
experience. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 17, 109-135.
Mcmillan, K., & Honey, M. (1993). Year one of project pulse: Pupils using laptops in science
89
and English. New York: Center for Technology in Education.
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E.T. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent
English language learners through content area learning: Part one: Focus on
motivation and Engagement. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.
Meskill, C., & Mossop, J. (2000). Electronic texts in ESOL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 34,
585-592.
Miller, S., D., & Meece, J. L. (1999). Third graders’ motivational preferences for reading and
writing tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100, 19-35.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2),
279-295.
Oller, J., Beca, L., & Vigil, A. (1977). Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: a
sociolinguistic study of Mexican Americans in the southwest. TESOL Quarterly, 11,
173-183.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Russell, J., Mackay A., & Jane, G. (2003). Messages from the Myrad: Improving the
middle years of schooling. Jolimont, Victoria: IARTV.
Russell, J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Issues Digest: Motivation and engagement.
Australian Government: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved
from Australian Government: Department of Education, Science, and Trading
website:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_
90
issues_digest/
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176.
Silverstein, S. (1999, December 8). Crossing language barriers. The Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved October 1, 2003, from www.latimes.com.
Turner, J.C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(23), 410-441.
Tremblay, P.F. & Gardner, R.C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning.
The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505-518.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and
Authenticity. London: Longman.
Williams, M. & Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social
Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task based learning. UK: Longman.
91
APPENDIX A
ESL Motivation Questionnaire (Student Name: _______________________)
Please mark the one answer for each statement that most closely corresponds to your opinion.
Does Not
Apply
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I know that I will do well in English. 1 2 3 4
2. I am a good reader in English. 1 2 3 4
3. I am a good writer in English. 1 2 3 4
4. I speak English well. 1 2 3 4
5. I understand English when it is spoken to
me.
1 2 3 4
6. I learn more from my English class than
most students in the class.
1 2 3 4
7. In comparison to my other academic
subjects, I am best at English.
1 2 3 4
8. Computers help me to be good at English. 1 2 3 4
9. I like hard, challenging tasks in English. 1 2 3 4
10. I like it when the questions in my English
class make me think.
1 2 3 4
11. I usually learn difficult things by
consulting English resources.
1 2 3 4
12. If the project is interesting, I can read or
listen to difficult material in English.
1 2 3 4
13. If a book in English is interesting I don’t
care how hard it is to read.
1 2 3 4
14. If the English teacher discusses something
interesting I might learn more about it.
1 2 3 4
15. I use English to learn more about my
hobbies.
1 2 3 4
16. I use English to learn new information
about topics that interest me.
1 2 3 4
17. I like to learn about new things. 1 2 3 4
18. If I am learning about an interesting topic
in English, I sometimes lose track of time.
1 2 3 4
19. I enjoy reading books in English about
people in different countries.
1 2 3 4
20. Using the computer to learn English makes
it more interesting.
1 2 3 4
21. I like television in English. 1 2 3 4
22. I make pictures in my mind when I read in
English.
1 2 3 4
92
23. I feel like learning English opens up the
whole world to me.
1 2 3 4
24. I like working on the computer in English. 1 2 3 4
25. I enjoy a long, involved activity in
English.
1 2 3 4
26. I like to chat with native English speakers. 1 2 3 4
27. It is very important to me to be good in
English.
1 2 3 4
28. In comparison to other activities I do, it is
very important to me to be good in
English.
1 2 3 4
29. Being good on the computer is important
to learning English.
1 2 3 4
30. My friends sometimes tell me I am good in
English.
1 2 3 4
31. I like hearing the teacher say I use English
well.
1 2 3 4
32. I am happy when someone recognizes my
English ability.
1 2 3 4
33. My peers often tell me what a good job I
am doing in English.
1 2 3 4
34. I like to get compliments for my English. 1 2 3 4
35. Using the computer I can show how good
my English is.
1 2 3 4
36. I look forward to finding out my English
grade.
1 2 3 4
37. Grades are a good way to see how well
you are doing in English.
1 2 3 4
38. I use English often to improve my grades. 1 2 3 4
39. My peers ask me about my reading grade. 1 2 3 4
40. Studying English with a computer helps
me keep high grades.
1 2 3 4
41. I often speak English with friends. 1 2 3 4
42. I sometimes read in English to my friends. 1 2 3 4
43. My friends and I like to trade things to
read or listen to in English.
1 2 3 4
44. I talk to my friends about what I am
learning in my English class.
1 2 3 4
45. I like to help my friends with their
schoolwork in English.
46. I like to tell my family about what I
learning in English.
1 2 3 4
93
47. I like to chat or send text messages in
English.
1 2 3 4
48. I like to interact with native speakers on
line.
1 2 3 4
49. I like being the only one who knows an
answer in English class.
1 2 3 4
50. I like being the best at English. 1 2 3 4
51. It is important for me to see my name on a
list of students with high ability in English.
1 2 3 4
52. I try to get more answers right than my
friends.
1 2 3 4
53. I like to finish my English tasks before
other students.
1 2 3 4
54. I am willing to work hard to use English
better than my friends.
1 2 3 4
55. Using the computer to study English helps
me to use English better than other
students.
1 2 3 4
56. I do as little schoolwork as possible in
English.
1 2 3 4
57. I take English because I have to. 1 2 3 4
58. I always do my English work exactly as
the teacher wants it.
1 2 3 4
59. Finishing every English assignment is very
important to me.
1 2 3 4
60. I always try to finish my English work on
time.
1 2 3 4
61. I only use the computer in English when
my teacher asks me to.
1 2 3 4
62. I don’t like using English when the words
are too difficult.
1 2 3 4
63. I don’t like vocabulary questions. 1 2 3 4
64. Complicated stories are no fun to read or
listen to.
1 2 3 4
65. I don’t like it when there are too many
people in the story.
1 2 3 4
66. I don’t like to do English exercises on the
computer.
1 2 3 4
94
APPENDIX B
Task Engagement Survey (Student Name: ______________)
Section 1. Instructions: Circle one
response for each item.
Not at all
Partially/
Slightly
Somewhat
Completely/
Always
1. This task was interesting to me.
1
2
3
A great deal
5
2. The content of this
task addressed my
interests.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I will use the things I
learned in this task outside of the
classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
4. The content of this
task was meaningful to me.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I was challenged by this task.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I had the skills to
complete this task.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I had the knowledge
I needed to succeed
at this task.
1
2
3
4
5
8. I received the help that I needed to do
this task.
1
2
3
4
5
9. I was interested in this task because
other students in the
class were interested.
1
2
3
4
5
95
Section 1.
Instructions: Circle one response for each item.
Not at all
Partially/ Slightly
Somewhat
A great deal
Completely/ Always
10. This task engaged me.
1
2
3
4
5
11. During this task I
thought about things not related to this task.
1
2
3
4
5
12. During this task I was aware of distractions.
1
2
3
4
5
13. During this task I was
so absorbed in what I
was doing that time seemed to pass quickly.
1
2
3
4
5
14. During this task I controlled my learning.
1
2
3
4
5
15. During this task I could
make decisions about
what to do.
1
2
3
4
5
16. I could express myself
freely during this task.
1
2
3
4
5
17. I understood the rules for this task.
1
2
3
4
5
Section 2.
Instructions: Please answer the questions below as completely and concisely as possible. 4.
a. What in this task did you find challenging?
96
b. What did you find that was boring or too easy?
c. What was too hard or that you didn’t have the appropriate skills or knowledge for?
5. What made this task interesting or not interesting to you?
Section 2, continued.
Instructions: Please answer the questions below as completely and concisely as possible.
6.
a. What helped you to focus on this task?
b. What, if anything, made you lose focus during this task?
7.
a. What parts of the task did you have control over?
b. What parts of the tasks could you not control?