motivation dornyei

8/12/2019 Motivation Dornyei

1/20

Language Teachinghttp://journals.cambridge.org/LTA

Additional services for Language Teaching:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Motivation in second and foreign language learning

Zoltn Drnyei

Language Teaching / Volume 31 / Issue 03 / July 1998, pp 117 - 135

DOI: 10.1017/S026144480001315X, Published online: 12 June 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S026144480001315X

How to cite this article:Zoltn Drnyei (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, pp 117-135doi:10.1017/S026144480001315X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 94.69.94.107 on 07 Feb 2014


2/20

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 07 Feb 2014 IP address: 94.69.94.107

Survey articleMotiva tion in second and foreign language learningZoltan Dornyei Thames Valley University London

IntroductionMotivation has been widely accepted by both teach-ers and researchersasone of the key factors tha t influ-ence the rate and success of second/foreign language(L2) learning. Motivation provides the primary impe-tus to initiate learning the L2 and later the drivingforce to sustain the long and often tedious learningprocess; indeed, all the other factors involved in L2acquisition presuppose motivation to some extent.Without sufficient motivation, even individuals withthe most remarkable abilities cannot accomplishlong-term goals,and neither are appropriate curriculaand good teaching enough on their own to ensurestudent achievement. On the other hand, high moti-vation can make up for considerable deficiencies bo thin one's language aptitude and learning conditions. Intheir seminal work, Gardner and Lambert (1972)emphasise that, although language aptitude accountsfor a considerable proportion of individual variabilityin language learning achievement, motivational fac-tors can override the aptitude effect. In certain lan-guage environments, as Gardner and Lambert pointout, where the social setting demands it (e.g. whenthe LI is a local vernacular and the L2 is the nationallanguage), many people seem to master anL2,regard-less of their aptitude differences.Because of the central importance attached to itby practitioners and researchers alike, L2 motivationhas been the target of a great deal of research duringthe past decades. Until the 1990s this research hadbeen largely dominated by a social psychologicalapproach inspired by the influential work of RobertGardner, Wallace Lambert, Richa rd Clem ent andtheir Canadian associates (notably Peter Maclntyreand Kim Noels) (for reviews, see Gardner, 1985;Gardner & Clement, 1990; Gardner & Maclntyre,1993a).The 1990s brought a marked shift in thoughton L2 motivation as a number of researchers in vari-ous parts of the world attempted to reopen the

Zoltan Dornyei is a Research Fellow at the School ofEnglish Language Education, Thames Valley University,London. Until recently he wa s Associate Professor ofApplied Linguistics at Eotvos University, Budapest, wherehe was also Director of Studies of the Language PedagogyPhD programm e. He has published widely on variousaspectsof second language acquisition and teaching,and heis also the co-author of three language teaching resourcebooks and aresearchmonograph onclassroom dynamics.

research agenda in order to shed new light on thesubject.This renewed interest has lead to a flourish ofboth empirical research and theorising on motiva-tion; while this is a welcome phenomenon, thebroadening of the theoretical scope has also led tothe adoption ofa range of new scientific terms andconcepts (often taken over from mainstream motiva-tional psychology) without sufficient discussion oftheir interrelationship, thus giving L2 motivation anaura of eclecticism and confusion.In view of these new developments there appearsto be a need for taking stock of what we have andwhere we are going in motivation research. In 1993,Language Teaching published a comprehensive reviewarticle on L2 motivation by Robert Gardner andPeter Maclntyre, but the considerable recent devel-opments warrant a follow-up to this summary.Th e current paper takes up the review of L2 motiva-tion research where Gardner and Maclntyre (1993a)left off, by focusing on three issues that seem to becentral to understanding the present situation: (1)W hat is motivation? (2) W hat are the current mo ti-vational paradigms? W her e have they 'com e from'?And how do they relate to the established results inL2 motivation research? 3)W hat are the educationalimplications o f L2 motivation research?A general assumption underlying this overview isthe belief that L2 motivation is a complex, multi-faceted construct, and that the diverse approacheshighlight different aspects of this com plexity. Th us,they do not necessarily conflict, but rather canenrich our understandingboth from a theoreticaland a practical point of view-provided they areproperly integrated.1. What is motivation?Although 'motivation' is a term frequently used inboth educational and research contexts, it is rathersurprising how little agreement there is in the litera-ture with regard to the exact meaning of this con-cept. Researchers seem to agree that motivation isresponsible for determining human behaviour byenergising it and giving it direction, but the greatvariety of accounts put forward in the literature ofhow this happens may surprise even the seasonedresearcher.Thisdiversity is, ofcourse,no accident; asDornyei (1996a) points out, motivation theories ingeneral seek to explain no less than the fundamentalquestion of why humans behave as they do, andtherefore it would be naive to assume any simple and

Lang.Teach. 31,1 17- 135 . Printed in the United Kingdom 1998 Cambridge University Press 117
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/


3/20


Motivation nsecond and foreign language learningstraightforward answer; indeed, every different psy-chological perspectiveonhuman behaviourisassoci-ated with a different theory ofmotivation and, thus,in general psychologyitisnot thelackbutrathertheabundance of motivation theories which confusesthe scene.Furthermore, motivationtolearnan L2presentsaparticularly complex and unique situation evenwithin motivational psychology,due to the multifac-eted nature and rolesoflanguageitself.Languageisatthesame time:(a) acommunication coding system thatcanbetaught asaschool subject; (b)anintegralpart oftheindividual s identity involved in almost all mentalactivities;and also (c) the most important channel ofsocial organisation embedded in the culture of thecommunity whereit isused.Therefore,the motiva-tional basis of language attainment is not directlycomparable to that of the mastery of other subjectmatters in that knowing an L2 also involves thedevelopment of some sort of 'L2 identity'and theincorporation of elements from the L2 culture (cf.Gardner, 1985); thus,inadditionto theenvironmen-tal and cognitive factors normally associated withlearningincurren t educational psychology, L2 m oti -vation also contains featured personality and socialdimensions.

In sum, L2 motivation is necessarily a multi-faceted construct, and describing its nature and itscore features requires particular care. Unfortunately,it is common to findalimited or superficial repre-sentation of motivation in the L2 literature, forexample, when the results of a few questionnaireitems are equated with 'motivation'.It also happensthat researchers take the concept ofmotivation forgranted and refer to it without specifying in whatsense theyuse the term:as affect? cognition? moti-vated behaviour? a personality trait? some kind ofaprocess? mental energy? inner forceorpower? attitu -dinal complex? set of beliefs? stimulus appraisal?behavioural response to stimuli? directional choice?abstraction? latent, aggregated concept?orsimplythescoreofmotivation tests? Because there simply doesnot existanabsolute, straightforward andunequivo-cal concept of'mo tivation', the current overview willstart with the discussion of the basic issue ofwhatmotivation is,looking at various conceptualisationsin mainstream psychology.

Motivation as a processInarecent comprehensive volumeonm otivationineducation, Pintrich and Schunk (1996) draw atten-tion to a fundamental shift that hasoccurredin thefield of motivation during the last two decades,namelythe increasing tendencyofmotivationalpsy-chologists to incorporate cognitive concepts andvariables in their theories.As Pintrich and Schunk(1996:v) conclude,'Explanations of behaviour havemoved away from stimuliand reinforcement contin-118

gencies and instead emphasise learners' constructiveinterpretations of events and the role that theirbeliefs, cognitions, affects,andvalues playinachieve-ment situations'. Motivation is no longer seen as areflection of certain inner forces such as instincts,volition, will, and psychical energy; neither is itviewedin strictly behavioural termsas afunction ofstimuliandreinforcement. Ra ther, cu rrent cognitiveapproaches place the focus on the individual'sthoughtsandbeliefs(andrecently also emotions) thatare transformed into action. Thus , in Pintrich andSchunk's view, motivation involves variousmentalprocesses that lead to the initiation and maintenanceofaction;as they define it, 'Motiv ationis theprocesswhereby goal-directed activityis instigated and sus-tained' (1996: 4). From this process-oriented per-spective, the main disagreements in motivationresearch concern whatmental processesareinvolvedin motivation,how these operate and affect learningand achievement, and bywhat meansthey can beenhancedandsustainedat anoptimal level.Although this process-oriented view of motiva-tion is convincing in many respects,we must notethatitisatodds withthetraditional usageof'motiva-tion' in everyday parlance, where 'motivation' isusu-ally understood as afairly static mentalor emotionalstate (e.g.'hismotivationwas so strong that nothingcould discourage h im '),or as agoal('mymain moti-vationtobecomeadoctoris to beabletohelppeo-ple')but not as aprocess. Drawingonaction controltheory (e.g. Heckhausen, 1991; Kuhl, 1987,1992),Dornyei (1998) attempted to achieve asynthesisofthe staticanddynamic conceptions of motivationbydefiningit as a'process wherebyacertain amountofinstigation force arises, initiates action,andpersistsaslongas no other force comes into playtoweakenitand thereby terminate action, or until the plannedoutcome has been reached'.

Conceptualisations of mo tivation inmainstream psychological researchIn earlier papers (Dornyei, 1994a, 1994b), I haveargued thatin psychology there have beentwo dis-tinct traditions of explaining human behaviour:motivational psychologists tended to look for themotors of human behaviour in the individual ratherthanin thesocial being, focusing prim arilyoninter-nal factors (e.g. drive, arousal, cognitive self-appraisal); in contrast, social psychologists tended tosee actionas the function of the social contextandthe interpersonal/intergroup relational patterns,asmeasured by means of the individual's social atti-tudes. The relevant literature in both areasis exten-siveand therefore thecurrent overview will needtobe restricted to what I consider to be the mostimportant current conceptualisations. First I willbriefly coverthemost influential social psychologicalapproach,the theory ofreasoned actionand its exten-


4/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningsion, the theory ofplanned behaviour, then describethree important approaches in motivational psychol-o g y : expectancy-value theories, goal theories, a n d self-determination theory. It needs to be noted at this pointthat during the last few years the gap between socialpsychological and motivational psychologicalapproaches to understanding human behaviour hasdecreased as a growing number of motivational stud-ies have tried to incorporate a social dimension (see,for example, Green, 1995; Mae hr & P intrich, 1995;Urdan & Maehr, 1995;Weiner, 1994); this tendencyis in line with the recent growth of the more generalfield of'social cognition', in which cognitive con-cepts are integrated into traditional social psycholog-ical models.

Ajzen s theories on the directive influence ofattitudes on behaviourIn social psychology a key tenet is the assumptionthat attitudes exert a directive influence on behav-iour since someone's attitude towards a target influ-ences the overall pattern of the person's responses tothe target. Two theo ries in particular detailing howthis process takes place have become well-known,the theory of reasoned action by Ajzen and Fishbein(1980) and its extension, the theory ofplanned behav-iour, put forward by Ajzen (1988). According to thefirst, the chief determ inant of action is a person'sintention to perform the particular behaviour, whichis a function of two basic factors, the 'at titudetowards the behaviour' and the 'subjective norm',the latter referring to the person's perception of thesocial pressures put on him/her to perform thebehaviour in question. If there is a conflict betweenthe two determinants, the relative importance ofatti-tudinal and normative considerations determines thefinal intention. Th e theory of planned behaviourextends this model by adding a further modifyingcom ponent to it, 'perceived behavioural control',which refers to the perceived ease or difficultyof performing the behaviour (e.g. perceptions ofrequired resources and potential impediments orobstacles). Behavioural performance can then be pre-dicted from people's intentions to perform thebehaviour in question and from their perceptions ofcontrol over the behaviour. In situations where aperson has complete control over behaviour, inten-tion alone is sufficient to explain action , as describedby the theory of reasoned action (for a review ofempirical studies testing these models, see Ajzen,1996; for a good critique, see Eagly & Chaiken,1993).

Expectan cy-value theoriesIn motivational psychology the most influential con-ceptualisations during the last four decades havetended to adopt an expectancy-value framework,

beginning with Atkinson's classic achievement moti-vation theory (e.g. Atkinson & Raynor, 1974) andsubsequently further developed in various guises by anumber of researchers (for a review, see Pintrich &Schunk, 1996; Wigfidd, 1994). According to themain principles of expectancy-value theories, moti-vation to perform various tasks is the product of twokey factors: the individual's expectancy ofsuccess in agiven task and the value the individual attaches tosuccess in thattask. The greater the perceived likeli-hood of goal-attainment and the greater the incen-tive value of the goal, the higher the degree of theindividual's positive motivation. Conversely, it isunlikely that effort will be invested in a task if eitherfactor is missing, thatis,if the individual is convincedthat he/she cannot succeed no matter how hardhe/she tries or if the task does not lead to valuedoutcomes. Underlying expectancy-value theories-similarly to most cognitive theoriesis the belief thathumans are innately active learners with an inborncuriosity and an urge to get to know their environ-ment and meet challenges, and therefore the mainissue in expectancy-value theories is not what moti-vates learners but rather what directs and shapes the irinherent motivation.

Expectancy of successHow does an individual develop his/her expectancyfor success^ Researchers emphasise various differentfactors that form the individual's cognitive processes;from an educational point of view, the most impor-tant aspects include processing past experiences{attribution theory), jud gin g one's ow n abilities andcompetence {self-efficacy theory), and attempting tomaintain one's self-esteem {self-worththeory).Attributionalprocessesare one of the most importantinfluences on the formation of students' expectan-cies, and their investigation was the dominant modelin research on student motivation in the 1980s.Theguiding principle in attribution theory is theassumption that the way humans explain their ownpast successes and failures will significantly affecttheir future achievement behaviour. For example,failure that is ascribed to stable and uncontrollablefactors such as low ability decreases the expectationof future success more than failure that is ascribed tocontrollable factors suchaseffort (Weiner, 1979).

Self-efficacy theory refers to people's judgement oftheir capabilities to carry out certain specific tasks,and, accordingly, their sense of efficacy will deter-mine their choice of the activities attempted, as wellas the level of their aspirations, the amount of effortexerted, and the persistence displayed. As Bandura(1993) summarises, people with a low sense ofself-efficacy in a given domain perceive difficult tasks aspersonal threats; they dwell on their own personaldeficiencies and the obstacles they encounter ratherthan concentrating on how to perform the task119


5/20


Motivation n second and foreign language learningsuccessfully. Consequently, they easily lose faith intheir capabilitiesandare likelytogiveup.Incontrast,a strong sense of self-efficacy enhances people'sachievement behaviourbyhelping the mtoapproachthreatening situations with confidence,tomaintainatask- rather than self-diagnostic focus during task-involvement, and to heighten and sustain effort inthe face of failure.It isimportant to note that self-efficacy beliefs are only indirecdy related to actualcompetenceandabilitiesastheyare theproduct of acomplex process of self-persuasion that isbasedoncognitive processing of diverse sources (e.g.otherpeople's opinions, feedback, evaluation, encourage-ment or reinforcement; past experiences and train-ing; observing peers; information about appropriatetask strategies).According to Covington's (1992) self-worth theoryof achievement motivation,the highest humanpri-ority istheneedforself-acceptance andtherefore'inreality,the dynamics of school achievement largelyreflect attempts to aggrandise and protect self-perceptions ofability' (Covington Roberts,1994:161). It follows from this that the basic need forself-worth generatesanumberofunique patternsofmotivational beliefs and behaviours in school set-tings.Forexample,in thecaseofsuccesses, individu -als may play dow norhidethe amount of effort theyhave investedin ataskinordertomake others thinkthat they simply have high ability.A common face-saving strategyis tostriveforunattainable goals thatliterally invite failure, but ' "failure with honour"because so few others can be expected to succeedagainst these odds' (Covington, 1992:74).Alternatively,studentsmayengageinself-handicapping patternsofbehaviour, such as putting off preparation for anexam untilthelast minute: if they the n underachievein the exam, they have a self-protecting excuse(lackof time rather than ability), whereas successfultest-performance underlies their high ability.

ValueThe second component of expectancy-value theo-ries,value,has been labelledin anumber ofwaysbyvarious psychologists: valence, incentive value, attain-me nt value, task value, achievement task value,etc.AsEccles and Wigfield (1995) point out,until recentlymost theorists using the expectancy-value modelhave focused on the expectancy component, whilepaying little attention to defining ormeasuringthevalue component. In an attempt to fill this hiatus,Eccles and Wigfield have developedacomprehensivemodelof task values, defining themin termsoffourcomponents:attainment value(orimportance),intrinsicvalue(orinterest),extrinsicutilityvalue,andcost.

The first three value typesareattracting character-istics, making up the positive valence of the task.Attainment value refersto thesubjective importanceof doing wellon atask wi th reference toone's basic120

personal values and needs. Intrinsic interest valueisthe enjoyment or pleasure that task engagementbrings about, whereas extrinsic utility value referstothe usefulness of the task in reaching future goals.The fourth value type, cost, constitutes the negativevalenceofa task, involving factors suchasexpendedeffort andtime, and emotional costs(e.g.anxiety, fearof failure).The overall achievement value ofa task,then, willbemadeup of the interplay of these fourcomponents,and this valueisbelieved to determinethe strengthorintensity of the behaviour.

Goa l theoriesA great deal of early research on general humanmotivation focused on basic human needs,themostimportant such paradigm being Maslow's (1970)hierarchy ofneeds,which distinguished five classesofneeds: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualisation. In current research the concept of a'need'has been replacedby the more specific con-structofa'goal', whichisseenas the'engine'tofirethe actionandprovidethedirectioninwhichto act.Thus,in goal theories the cognitive perceptions ofgoal properties areseenas thebasisof motivationalprocesses. Duringthe past decadetwo goal-theorieshave become particularly influential, goal-settingtheoryand^oa/orientation theory.

Locke andLatham'sgoal-setting theory(e.g. Locke,1996; Locke Latham, 1994) asserts that humanaction is caused bypurpose,and for action to takeplace, goals have to be set andpursued by choice.There are two particularly important areas wheregoalsmaydiffer, the degree of their specificity anddifficulty. LockeandKristof (1996) report onmeta-analysesofover400studies, which show unam bigu-ously that goals that are both specific and difficultlead to higher performance than do vague goalsorgoals that are specific but easy. Another imp ortan tattribute ofgoalsis their 'intensity',andgoalcom-mitment in particular. Goal-setting theoryis com-patible with expectancy-value theories in thatcommitment is seen to be enhanced when peoplebelieve that achieving the goal is possible (cf.expectancy)andimportant(cf.task values).

There are four mechanismsby which goals affectperformance: (a) they direct attention and efforttowards goal-relevant activities at the expense ofactions thatare not relevant;(b) they regulate effortexpenditure in that people adjust their effort to thedifficulty level requiredby thetask;(c) they encour-age persistence until the goal is accomplished;(d)they promote thesearchfor relevant action plansortask strategies.It isimportant to note that goalsarenot only outcomestoshootfor butalso standardsbywhich to evaluate one's performance. Thus,in thecase of long-lasting, continuo us activities such aslan-guage learning w here there is only a rather distal goaloftaskcompletion (i.e.m asteringtheL2),thesetting


6/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningofproximal subgoals (e.g. taking tests, passing exams,satisfying learning contracts) may have a powerfulmotivating function in that they mark progress andprovide imm ediate incentive and feedback. Attainablesubgoals can also serve as an important vehicle in thedevelopment of the students' self-efficacy.Goal orientation theorywas specifically developed toexplain children's learning and performance inschool settings. Currently it is probably the mostactive area of research on s tudent motiva tion in class-rooms (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). As Ames (1992)summarises, the theory highlights two contrastingachievement goal constructs, or orientations, thatstudents can adopt towards their academic work:they can follow amastery orientationand pursue mas-tery goals (also labelled as task-involvement or l earn -ing goals) with th e focus on lea rning the content; orthey can follow aperformance orientation in pursuit ofperformance goals (or ego-involvement goals) withthe focus on demonstrating ability, getting goodgrades, or outdoing other students.Thus, mastery andperformance goals represent different success criteriaand different reasons for engaging in achievementactivity. Central to a mastery goal is the belief thateffort will lead to success and the emphasis is onone's own improvement and growth. In contrast, aperformance orienta tion views learning only as away to achieve a goal and the accompanying publicrecognition. Ames argues that mastery goals are su-perior to performance goals in that they are associatedwith a preference for challenging work, an intrinsicinterest in learning activities, and positive attitudestowards learning.

Self-determination theoryOne of the most general and well-known distinctionsin motivation theories is that ofintrinsicversusextrinsicmotivation-as Vallerand (1997) reports, the paradigmhas been explored in over 800 publications to date.The first type of motivation deals with behaviourperformed for its own sake, in order to experiencepleasure and satisfaction such as the joy of doing aparticular activity or satisfying one's curiosity. Thesecond involves performing a behaviourasa means toan end, that is, to receive some extrinsic reward (e.g.good grades) or to avoid punishment.

Although intrinsic motivation has typically beenseen as a unidimensional construct,Vallerand and hiscolleagues (see Vallerand, 1997) have recently positedthe existence of three subtypes: intrinsic motivation(a) tolearn (engaging in an activity for the pleasureand satisfaction of understanding som ething new, sat-isfying one's curiosity and exploring the world); (b)towards achievement (engaging in an activity for thesatisfaction of surpassing oneself, coping with chal-lenges and accomplishing or creating something);and (c)to experience stimulation(engaging in an activi-ty to experience pleasant sensations).

Extrinsic motivation has traditionally been seen assomething that can undermine intrinsic motivation;several studies have confirmed that students will losetheir natural intrinsic interest in an activity if theyhave to do it to meet some extrinsic requirement (asis often the case with compulsory reading at school).However, research has shown that under certain cir-cumstances-if they are sufficiently self-determinedandinternalised-extrinsic rewards can be combined with,or can even lead to, intrinsic m otivation. Th e self-determination theorywas introduc ed by Deci andRyan (1985) as an elaboration of the intrinsic/,extrinsic paradigm. According to Deci and Rya n, theneed for autonomyisan innate hum an need, referringto the desire to be self-initiating and self-regulating ofone's actions. Therefore self-determination, that is,engaging in an activity 'with a full sense of wanting,choosing, and personal endorsement' (Deci, 1992:44), is seen as a prerequisite for any behaviour to beintrinsically rewarding. This view is shared by manyother researchers, and Paris and Turner's (1994) asser-tion well expresses the current Zeitgeist: 'The essenceof motivated action is the ability to choose amongalternative courses of action, or at least, to choose toexpend varying degrees of effort for a particular pur-pose'(1994:222).In the light of self-determination theory, extrinsicmotivation is no longer regarded as an antagonisticcounterpart of intrinsic motivation but has beendivided into four types along a continuum betweenself-determined and controlled forms of motivation(Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & R yan, 1991). Externalht2.psregulation refers to the least self-determinedform of extrinsic motivation, coming entirely fromexternal sources such as rewards or threats (e.g.teacher's praise or parental confrontation). Introjectedregulation involves externally imposed rules that thestudent accepts as norms he/she should follow inorder not to feel guilty. Identified regulation occurswhen the person engages in an activity becausehe/she highly values and identifies with the behav-iour, and sees its usefulness.The most developmental-ly advanced form of extrinsic motivation is integratedregulation,which involves choiceful behaviour that isfully assimilated with the individual's other values,needs and identity (e.g. people deciding to learn alanguage which is necessary for them to be able topursue their hobbies or interests).2. Mo tivation to learn a second/foreignlanguageHaving surveyed the most influential mainstream psy-chological constructs of m otivation, let us now turn toresearch focusing on motivation to learn second/foreign languages. Judg ing by the numerous articlesthat have come ou t in the 1990s, we may concludethat this decade has brought about a revival of inter-est in L2 motivation.A significant proportion of the

121


7/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningpublished works are characterised by some sort of'paradigm seeking', that is, making attempts toextend the scope of existing motivational constructsby either setting up or importing new paradigms inthe h ope of better explaining the particular contextsanalysed. Some ofthesestudies also contain compre-hensive reviews of the literature with the explicitpurpose of surveying the available constructs in vari-ous branches of psychology in order to be able toselect the most adequate paradigms for describing L2motivation (e.g. Crookes & Schmidt,1991;Dornyei,1994a; Fotos, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994, 1996;Schmidt, Boraie and Kassabgy, 1996; Skehan, 1989,1991;Williams & B urden, 1993, 1997). A secondgroup of studies are less concerned with motivationper se but rather are descriptive in nature, examiningthe learners' motivational patterns in a given socio-cultural or educational environm ent. Th e followingoverview will begin by summarising the first group,that is, the theoretical contributions (models andapproaches) to conceptualising L2 motivation.

RobertGardner ssocial psychologicalapproachAs mentioned in the introduction, the originalimpetus in L2 motivation research came from socialpsychology. This is understandable since learn ing thelanguage of another community simply cannot beseparated from the learners' social dispositionstowards the speech com munity in question. Th estarting point in Gardner's theory is, therefore,that 'students' attitudes towards the specific languagegroup are bound to influence how successfulthey will be in incorporating aspects of that lan-guage' (Gardner, 1985: 6). This means that, unlikeseveral other school subjects, a foreign languageis not a socially neutral field. In Williams's words(1994:77):

Th ere is no q uestion that learning a foreign language is differ-ent to learning o ther subjects.This is mainly because of the socialnature of such a v enture. Language, after all, belongs to a person'swhole social being: it is part of one's identity, and is used toconvey this identity to o ther peop le. Th e learning ofa foreignlanguage involves far more than simply learning skills, or a sys-tem of rules, oragrammar; it involves an alteration in self-image,the adoption of new social and cultural behaviours and ways ofbeing, and therefore has a significant impact on the social natureof the learner.We must not forget that most nations in the worldare multicultural and that the majority of people inthe world speak at least one second language, whichunderscores the importance of the social dimensionof L2 motivation.Gardner (1985: 10) defines L2 motivation as 'theextent to which an individual works or strives tolearn the language because ofa desire to do so andthe satisfaction experienced in this activity'; morespecifically, motivation is conceptualised to subsumeth ree componen ts ,motivational intensity,desire to learn12 2

the language, and an attitude towards the act oflearningthe language. Thus, according to Gardner's theory,'motivation' refers to a kind of central mental'engine' or 'energy-centre' that subsumes effort,wa nt/w ill (cognition), and task-enjoyment (affect).Gardner argues that these three components belongtogether because the truly motivated individual dis-plays all three ;ashe contends,'My feeling is that sucha mixture is necessary to adequately capture what ismeant by motivation' (Gardner, 1995: 100), and 'it isthe total configuration that will eventuate in secondlanguage achievement' (Gardner, 1985:169).One particular strength of Gardner's theory is thatit has originated from, and was extensively tested byempirical research, and, indeed, one can clearly feelthe assessment-oriented nature ofhis conceptualisa-tion. In line with the saying 'The proof of the pud-ding is in the eating', the proof of motivation is indisplaying it in action-hence the importance of the'desire' measure, which directly taps into the individ-ual's wish to perform the action; and, even moredirectly, the 'motivational intensity' measure thatexplicitly focuses on m otivated behaviour.

At first sight, the attitude component may seemout of place because task-enjoyment is not alwaysassociated with strong motivation (i.e. we can becommitted to carrying something out whilst grittingour teeth; note, however, that Gardner, 1985, talksonly about the "truly motivated individual' display-ing all three motivational compo nents, and someonegritting his/her teeth may not qualify for this).Th erationale for including this attitude component,however, does not necessarily lie in the 'pleasure'aspect; rather, I see it as a reflection ofthesocial psy-chological foundation of Gardner's approach. Asdescribed above, social psychologists assume a direc-tive influence of attitudes on behaviou r, and,asAjzenand Fishbein (1977) argue, the more direct the cor-respondence between the attitudinal and behaviouraltargets, the higher the correlation between attitudeand action. In other words, attitudes correlate moststrongly with behaviour 'when they are assessed atthe same level of generality and specificity as thebehavioural criterion' (Ajzen, 1996: 385), that is,when we assess attitudes towards something which isin close relationship with the behaviour we are inter-ested in (e.g.attitude towards blood dona tion and theactual act of donatingblood).This means that w e canexpect the highest assessment accuracy when theattitudinal target is the actionitself, in our case, lan-guage learning. Indeed, Gardner's attitude compo-nent focuses on the very 'act of learning thelanguag e', thus ensuring high predictive capacity.

The motivation 'engine' made up of effort, willand attitude can be switched on by a number ofmotivational stimuli such as a test to be taken or aninvolving instructional task, but Gardner (1985:169)states that 'the source of the motivating impetus isrelatively unimportant provided that motivation is


8/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningaroused'.We need to comprehend this basic tenet ofGardner's theory in order to understand his objec-tion to the common misinterpretation ofhis theoryas merely consisting of a dichotomy of integrativeand instrumental motivation. 'Motivation' inGardner's theory does not contain any integrative orinstrumental elements. The re does exist an integra-tive/instrumental dichotomy in Gardner's model butthis is at the orientation(i.e. goal) level, and as such, isnot part of the core motivation component; rather,the two orientations function merely as motivationalantecedents that help to arouse motivation and directit towards a set ofgoals,either with a strong interp er-sonal quality (integrative) or a strong practical quality(instrumental).Gardner's motivation theory has three particularlywell developed areas: (a) the construct of the integra-tive motive; (b) the Attitude /Motivation Test Battery(AMTB), which, apart from being a frequently usedstandardised instrument with well documented psy-chom etric properties, also offers a com prehensive listof motivational factors that have been found to affectlearning achievement significantly in past empiricalstudies (including classroom-specific factors such asthe appraisal of the teacher and the course); and (c)thesocio-educationalmodel,which is a general learningmodel that integrates motivation as a cornerstone.These were all described in detail in the 1993 prede-cessor of this paper (Gardner & Maclntyre, 1993a)and will therefore not be discussed here. The re is,however, one issue that should be addressed, namelythe common misconception that Gardners theoryconcerns only the social dimension of L2 motiva-tion. Wh ile the emphasis of this dimension is certain-ly a featured element in Gardner's approach, he andhis associates have carried out extensive empiricalresearch on a number of motivational determinantsnot tied to the social milieu, such as pedagogical fac-tors (e.g. the effects of the classroom environment,instructional techniques and attitudes towards thelanguage teacher and course), language anxiety andparental influence (for reviews, see Gardner, 1985;Gardner & Maclntyre, 1993a). Furthermore, theimportance attached to the learning situation inGardner's model is underscored by the fact thatthe 'Attitudes towards the Learning Situation' areseen as one of the key constituents ofthe integrativemotive.

For further analyses of the integrative /instrume ntaldichotomy and discussions of the integrative motive,see Dornyei (1994a, 1994b), Gardner (1996),Gardner and Maclntyre (1991), and Gardner andTremblay (1994a, 1994b). For a detailed statisticalanalysis of the construc t and predictive validity of theAMTB, see Gardner and Maclntyre (1993b). For arecent study investigating an extended version of thesocio-educational model (also including variablessuch as learning strategy use and field indepen-dence), see Gardner, Tremblay and Masgoret (1997)

and Gardner (1996). For an interesting study adapt-ing the socio-educational model to the study ofstatistics,seeLalonde and Gardner (1993).

Richard CI6ment s concept o f linguisticself-confidenceAlthough no real expectancy-value model has beenproposed in L2 motivation research, several compo-nents of the expectancy-value theory have beenincorporated into L2 constructs (e.g. attributions byDornyei, 1990, and Skehan, 1989; self-efficacy byEhrman, 1996; attributions and valence by Tremblay& Gardner, 1995). Over the last two decades,Richa rd Clem ent and his colleagues have conducteda series of empirical studies examining the interrela-tionship between social contextual variables (includ-ing ethnolinguistic vitality), attitudinal/motivationalfactors, self-confidence and L2 acquisition/accultur-ation processes (Clement, 1980; Clement, Dornyei &Noels, 1994; Clement, Gardner & Smythe, 1977;Clem ent & Kruidenier, 1985; Labrie and Clem ent,1986; Noels & Clement, 1996; Noels, Pon &Clem ent, 1996). These are, from our perspective,particularly important in that the linguistic self-confi-denceconstruct they conceptualised bears many simi-larities to self-efficacy theory discussed above.Self-confidence in general refers to the belief thata person has the ability to produce results, accom-plish goals or perform tasks competently. It appearsto be akin to self-efficacy, but is used in a more gen-eral sense (i.e. self-efficacy is always task-specific).Linguistic self-confidence was first introduced in th eL2 literature by Clement et al. (1977), and can bedescribed as 'self-perceptions of communicativecompetence and concomitant low levels of anxietyin using the second language' (Noels etal.1996:248).The concept was originally used to describe a pow-erful mediating process in multi-ethnic settings thataffects a person's motivation to learn and use the lan-guage of the other speech community. Clement andhis associates provided evidence that, in contextswhere different language communities live together,the quality and quantity of the contact between themembers will be a major motivational factor, deter-mining future desire for intercultural communica-tion and the extent of identification with the L2group. Thus, linguistic self-confidence in Clem ent'sview is primarily a socially defined construct(although it also has a cognitive component, theperceived L2 proficiency). Recently, Clement et al.(1994) have extended the applicability of theself-confidence construct by showing that it is also asignificant motivational subsystem in foreign lan-guage learning situations, in which there is littledirect contact with members of the L2 communitybut considerable indirect contact with the L2 culturethrough the media, for example, as is the case withworld languages suchasEnglish.

123


9/20


Motivation n second and foreign language learningSelf-determination theoryin L2 researchBecause of the widespread influence of Deci andRyan's (1985) theory on intrinsic/extrinsic motiva-tion and self-determination in mainstream psycholo-gy,several attempts have been made in L2 research toincorporate some of the elements of the theory inorder to better understand L2 motivation. DouglasBrown (1981,1990,1994) has been one of the mainproponents of emphasising the importance of intrin-sic motivation in the L2 classroom. He argues thattraditional school settings cultivate extrinsic motiva-tion, which, over the long haul, 'focuses students tooexclusively on the material or monetary rewards ofan education rather than instilling an appreciation forcreativity and for satisfying some of the more basicdrives for knowledge and exploration' (Brown, 1994:40). In contrast,'an intrinsically oriented school canbegin to transfer itself into a more positive, affirmingenvironment [...] The result: an appreciation of love,intimacy, and respect for the wisdom ofage' (Brown,1994: 41). The same book also offers a number ofstrategies on how to achieve such an optimal state.

Another aspect of self-determination theory thathas been applied to the L2 field has been the empha-sis on fostering learner autonomy in L2 classrooms inorder to increase the learners' motivation. Thisemphasis is relatively new; however, a number ofrecent reviews and discussions (e.g. Benson Voller,1997; Dickinson, 1995; Ehrman Dornyei, 1998;Ushioda, 1996b) provide evidence that L2 motiva-tion and learner autonomy go hand in hand, that is,'enhanced motivation is conditional on learnerstaking responsibility for their own learning [...] andperceiving that their learning successes and failuresare to be attributed to their own efforts and strategiesrather than to factors outside their control'(Dickinson, 1995:173-4).These self-regulatory con-ditions are characteristics of learner autonomy, andthus, as Ushioda (1996b: 2) explicitly states,'Autonomous language learners are by definitionmotivated learners'.

The most explicit treatment of self-determinationtheory in L2 contexts has been offered recently byKim Noels and her colleagues. Noels, Pelletier,Clement and Vallerand (1997) argue that the self-determination paradigm offers several advantagesover other motivational paradigms available in L2research. First, it provides a comprehensive frame-work within which a large number of L2 learningorientations can be organised systematically. This isan important point, particularly in the light ofreports that highlight the diversity of different goalslearners might pursue when learning an L2 (e.g.Clement Kruidenier, 1983; Coleman, 1995;Oxford Shearin, 1996). The self-determinationparadigm, as Noels etal.(1997) argue, is also useful inthat by offering a continuum of self-determinationalong which the motives lie 'it suggests a process by124

which motivational orientation may change'. Byapplying various statistical procedures, the authorsalso provided empirical evidence that the motiva-tional complex of language learners could be validlydescribed using the intrinsic/extrinsic subtypes.

In a second study, Noels, Clement and Pelletier (inpress) examined the relationship between students'intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and their languageteachers' communicative style, and found empiricalevidence for several meaningful links, for example,that a democratic (autonomy-supporting) teachingstyle fosters intrinsic motivation.

The educational shiftof the 1990sPart of the revival of interest in L2 motivation in the1990s was prompted by a large number of studiesthat attempted to reopen the research agenda with a'new wave' educational focus (e.g. Brown, 1990,1994; Clement, Dornyei Noels, 1994; CrookesSchmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994a, 1994b; Julkunen,1989, 1993; Oxford Shearin, 1994; Skehan, 1989,1991; Ushioda, 1994, 1996a; Williams, 1994). Thisnew movement cannot be specifically tied to anyparticular school or scholars because, as the above listshows, a number of researchers in different parts ofthe world appeared to come up with similar ideas ataround the sametime.The most influential pioneer-ing article in this vein is usually considered to beCrookes and Schmidt (1991), and a good summaryof the various positions is provided by the ModernLanguage Journal debate' (Dornyei, 1994a, 1994b;Gardner Tremblay, 1994a, 1994b; Oxford, 1994;Oxford Shearin, 1994).The reform papers sharedthree underlying themes:

(a) There was a conscious effort to complementthe social psychological approach with a number ofconcepts that were seen as central to mainstreampsychology but had not received significant attentionin L2 research. These attempts have sometimes beenseen as a 'counterreaction' to Gardner's work but, infact, a closer reading of the articles in question revealsthat none oft heauthors rejected the relevance of thesocial dimension of L2 motivation. The general claimwas that in certain educational contexts this dimen-sion may not be the only important one and may noteven be the most important one-a claim that doesnot contradict Gardner's theory since the 'attitudestowards the learning environment' (and towards theteacher and the course in particular) have alwaysbeen regarded as a principal factor in Gardner'sapproach and have been conceptualised as a key con-stituent of the integrative motive (see before).

(b) Researchers were trying to conceptualisemotivation in such a way that it would have explana-tory power with regard to specific language learningtasks and behaviours and not just broad, whole-community-level social tendencies. Thus, attemptswere made to conceptualise situation- or task-specific


10/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningmotivation (for reviews, see Julkunen 's 1989 pio-neering study, and Dornyei's 1996a overview of theemergence ofa situation-specific focus in L2 moti-vation research; for a theoretical discussion, seeTremblay, Goldberg & Gardner's 1995 analysis oftraitvs.state motivation).We have seen that the focusin Gardner's model has not been on elaborating onthe range of possible motivational antecedents but ondetermining whether motivation has been arousedand specifying the learning consequences of thisarousal. As a reaction to Gardner's conclusion that thesource of motivation is relatively unimportant pro-vided motivation is aroused, Oxford and Shearin(1994: 15) summarise well the rationale behind thenew approach:

While this conclusion might be true for researchers, quitepossibly the source of motivation is very imp ortant in a practicalsense to teachers who want to stimulate students' motivation.Without knowing where the roots of motivation lie, how canteachers water tho se roots?(c) Related to the above point, the reform articlesexpressed an explicit call for a more pragmatic,education-centred approach to motivation researchwhich would be more relevant for classroom applica-tion . Th e main focus shifted from social attitudes tolooking at classroom reality, and identifying andanalysing classroom-specific motives. As Crookes and

Schmidt (1991: 502) concluded in their article: 'Inbrief, we seek to encourage a program of researchthat will develop from, and be congruent with theconcept of motivation that teachers are convinced iscritical for SL [second language] success'.

Dornye i s(1994a) extended frameworkIn order to examine motivation in a context wherethe social dimension might be less featured, Clementet al. (1994) examined Hungarian EFL learners whostudied English in a school context without any sub-stantial contact with members of the L2 community.The analysis ofthe data pointed to the existence ofatripartite motivation construct amongst these learn-ers, consisting of integrativeness,linguistic self-confidence,and the appraisal of the classroom environment. Theemergence of the first two components was notunexpected and confirmed the validity of earlierresearch findings also in a foreign language context.Th e third, the classroom-specific com pon en t-w hichsubsumed the evaluation of the teacher and thecourse (in a similar way to the AMTB) and alsoincluded a novel element, the evaluation of the learn-er group in terms of its cohesiveness-corresponded tothe 'attitudes towards the learning situation factor' inGardner's (1985) integrative motive construct, andalso provided empirical support for the validity of the'pedagogical extension' of motivation research.

Taking the above tripartite framework as a basis,the author developed a more general framework of

Table1 . Compon ents of foreign language learningmotivation (Dornyei, 1994a: 280)Language LevelLearner Level

Learning S ituation LevelCourse-SpecificMotivational Components

Teacher-SpecificMotivational Components

Integrative Motivational SubsystemInstrumental M otivational SubsystemNeed for AchievementSelf-Confidence* L anguage Use Anxiety* Perceived L2 Com petence* Causal Attributions* Self-EfficacyInterestRelevanceExpectancySatisfactionAffiliative MotiveAuthority TypeDirect Socialisation of M otivation* Modelling*Task Presentation* Feedback

Group-Specific Goal-orientednessMotivational ComponentsN orm & Reward SystemGroup CohesionClassroom Goal Structure

L2 motivation (Dornyei, 1994a) that attempted tosynthesise various lines of research by offering anextensive list of motivational components cate-gorised into three main dimensions, the LanguageLevel, the Learner Level, and the Learning SituationLevel see Table1).The most elaborate part of the framework is thelearning situation level, which is associated with situ-ation-specific motives rooted in various aspects oflanguage learning in a classroom setting. Course-specific motivational components are related to the syl-labus, the teaching materials, the teaching methodand the learning tasks, and can be well describedwithin the framework of four motivational condi-tions proposed by Keller (1983) and subsequently byCrookes and Schmidt (1991):intrinsicinterest;th e rele-vance of the instruction to the learner's personalneeds, values, or goals; expectancy of success; andsatisfaction in the outcome of an activity and the asso-ciated intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Teacher-specific motivational components concern the teacher'sbehaviour, personality and teachingstyle,and includethe affiliative motive to please the teacher, authoritytype (authoritarian or democratic teaching style),anddirect socialisation ofstudent motivation (modelling,task presentation, and feedback). Finally,group-specificmotivational components are related to the groupdynamics of the learner group (for an overview, seeDornyei and Malderez, 1997, in press; Ehrman andDornyei, 1998) and includegoal-orientedness,thenormand reward system andclassroom goal structure(competi-tive, cooperative or individualistic).

A detailed framework of this type is useful in125


11/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningTable 2. Williams and Burden's (1997) frame work of motivation in language learningInternal factors External factorsIntrinsic interest of activity arousal of curiosity

optimal degree of challengePerceived value of activity personal relevance anticipated value of outcom es intrinsic value attributed to the activitySense of agency locus of causality locus of control RE process and outcomes ability to set appropriate goalsMastery feelings of com petence awareness of developin g skills and m astery in a chosen area self-efficacySelf-concept realistic awareness of persona l strengths and weaknesses in skills require d personal definitions and judgem ents of success and failure self-worth conce rn learned helplessnessAttitudes language learning in general to the target language to the target language commun ity and cultureOther affective states confidence anxiey, fearDevelopm ental age and stageGender

Significant others parents teachers peersThe nature of interaction with significant others mediated learning experiences the nature and amoun t of feedback rewards the nature and amo unt of appropriate praise punishm ents, sanctionsThe learning environment comfort resources time of day, week, year size of class and scho ol class and school ethos

The broader context wider family networks the local education system conflicting interests cultural norms societal expectations and attitudes

emphasising the multidimensional nature of L2motivation, pulling together a number of differentlines of research and providing an elaborate enoughspecification of relevant motives for the purpose ofin-depth analysis of particular learning situations anddesign of intervention techniques to enhance them.An example of the analysis is Dornyei (1997b),which examines the motivational basis of coopera-tive language learning; regarding the second point,motivational enhancement, classroom strategiesbased on the framework have been provided byDornyei (1994a) and Dornyei and Csizer (in press)(see later for more detail).Dornyei's list, however, lacks an indication of anyrelationships between the components and thereforecannot be seen as a motivation m odel proper; what ismore, the components listed are quite diverse innature and thus cannot be easily submitted to empir-ical testing. The framework also lacks a goal co mpo -nent and does not reflect sufficiently recent findingsin self-determination theory. Finally, the integrative/instrumental motivational dichotomy at the languagelevel is obviously misleading in providing a simplifi-cation of the intricate processes determining thesocial dimension of L2 motivation.

Williams and Burden s(1997) extendedframeworkAnother comprehensive attempt to summarise themotivational components that are relevant to L2

instruction has been recently m ade by Williams andBurden (1997) as part of a larger overview of psy-chology for language teachers. Th e authors areamong the few L2 motivation researchers who pro-vide an elaborate definition of motivation (Williams& Burden, 1997:120):Motivation may be construed as a state of cognitive and emo-tional arousal, which leads to a conscious decision to act, andwhich gives rise to a period of sustained intellectual and/orphysical effort in order to attain a previously set goal (or goals).

Having discussed the inherent conflict of the staticand process-oriented conceptualisations of motiva-tion earlier, we can appreciate the care with whichthis definition has been formulated in order toachieve a compromise.After reviewing a wide range of relevant moti-vational theories,Williams and Burden (1997) drawthem together in a highly detailed framework ofmotivational factors (Table 2). This is similar toDornyei's (1994a) list in that it does not offer anydirectional relationships between the listed items,but some aspects of it (e.g. external, contextualfactors) represent the most detailed treatment ofthe particular issue in the L2 literature. It is alsoclear when looking at the framework that theauthors used primarily mainstream rather than L2motivational theories as their sources, which placestheir work very much in line with the 'paradigm-seeking spirit' of the reform movements in the1990s.126


12/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningLANGUAGE ATTITUDES- Attitudes towardL2 speakers- Integrativeorientation- Interest inforeign languages- Attitude towardthe L2 course- Attitudes towardthe L2 teacher- Instrumentalorientation

FRENCHLANGUAGEDOMINANCE

/

t

GOALSALIENCE- Goal spec ificity- Goal frequency

VALENCE- Desire to learnL2- Attitudes towardlearning L2

SELF-EFFICACY- Performance

expectancy- L2 use anx iety- L2 class anxiety

ADAPTIVEATTRIBUTIONS

MOTIVATIONALBEHAVIOUR- Attention- Motivationalintensity- Persistence

ACHIEVEMENT

M O T I V A T I O NFig.1Tremblay and Gardners (1995) model of L2 motivation

TremblayandGardner s (1995) extendedmodelIn response to calls for the 'adoption of a widervision of motivation' (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995:505), Tremblay and Gardner e xtended Gardner'ssocial psychological construct of L2 motivation byincorporating into it new elements from expectan-cy-value and goal theories. Figure 1 presents theirproposed extended model, which is fairly straightfor-ward in suggesting a language attitudes-* motivationalbehaviours achievementsequence.The novel element isthe inclusion of three mediating variables betweenattitudes and behaviour:goal salience,valence andself-efficacy.Thus, the m odel offers a synthesis of Gardner'searlier, socially motivated construct and recent cog-nitive motivational theories, and demonstrates thatadditional variables can be incorporated intoGardner's socio-educational model of L2 learningwith out damaging its integrity.

In line with Gardner's past approach, the newmodel has also been empirically tested, and in asample of 75 Canadian students learning French astatistically adequate goodness of fit index wasdemonstrated. Th e firm em pirical grounding and thetheoretical clarity of the model make the Gardnerand Tremblay (1995) study a particularly importantdata-based investigation, and one that will undoubt-edly inspire further research.

Schumann s neu robiological mo delDu ring the last decade, John Schumann and hiscolleagues have been pursuing a very novel line ofresearch by examining L2 acquisition from a neuro-biological perspective (Jacobs & Schumann, 1992;Pulvermiiller & Schumann, 1994; Schumann, 1990,1994, 1998, in press). As a result, Schum ann hasdeveloped a model of sustained deep learning (as herefers to long-term learning experiences such asmastering an L2) based on a number of stimulusappraisalprocesses. According to the model, the brainevaluates the stimuli it receives and this leads to anemotional response. Based on a comprehensive reviewof the relevant literature, Schumann (1998) postulatesfive dimensions along which stimulus appraisals aremade:novelty (degree of unexpectedness/familiarity),pleasantness (attractiveness), goal/need significance(whether the stimulus is instrumental in satisfyingneeds or achieving goals),coping potential (whetherthe individual expects to be able to cope with theevent),andself and social image (whether the event iscompatible with social norms and the individual'sself-concept).

The connections between this neurobiologicalapproach and other motivational constructs discussedabove are obvious, and Schumann (1998) convinc-ingly demonstrates that L2 motivation 'consists ofvarious permutations and patterns of these stimulus127


13/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningappraisal dimensions and, in fact, if one does an itemby item analysis of motivation questionnaires, theitems can quite readily be classified according to theappraisal categories ' (Schum ann, in press). Thus,Schumann's model is a reductionist one in the sensethat it collapses different concepts at the psyc hologi-cal level into five appraisals at the neurobiologicallevel.

Further data-based motivational constructsBesides the constructs presented above, there exist anumber of further conceptualisations of motivationthat are the result of submitting empirical data tostatistical analyses. One particularly important suchcontribution is Schmidt etal. (1996), which presentsthe analysis of a detailed motivation questionnaireadministered to over 1500 Egyptian learners ofEnglish. Interestingly, when different statistical pro-cedures were applied, different underlying constructsemerged: by factor analysing the data, a matrix ofnine main factors emerged (see below for details),while multi-dimensional scaling produced a moreparsimonious construct of three components thatwere labelled as affect, goal-orientedness andexpectancy. Th e resemblance of this latter constructto major psychological approaches is particularlyinteresting, although we must note that in multi-dimensional scaling the labelling of the scales is farmore ambiguous than the labelling of factors in fac-tor analysis.Schmidtet al.(1996) also conducted a comparativeanalysis of their results with two other data-basedstudies, Dornyei (1990) and Julkunen (1989).Motivated by a similar goal to summarise differentconceptualisations, Dornyei (1996b) presented a syn-thesis of 13 different constructs, wh ich included allthe ones discussed above plus Laine's (1995) generalmodel of 'national language attitudes', which is aunique socially-based model that uses a paradigmdifferent from Gardner and his associates' conceptu-alisation. Table 3 presents the main motivationaldimensions underlying the various constructs.

Descriptive studies of motivation in particularsociocultural contextsNumerous studies have been written in the 1990swith the purpose of describing the motivation oflanguage learners in specific sociocultural, ethnolin-guistic and educational contexts . These descriptionsprovide further evidence of the fact, pointed out bymany, that motivation is subject to considerable con-textual variation.The most notable descriptions of learning con-texts have concerned European environments: nofewer than four European studies have beenconducted in the 1990s involving over 1,000 partici-128

Table 3. Main m otivational dimensions underlying 13L2 motivation constructs (based on Dornyei. 1996b) 1) Affective/integrative dimensionIntegrativemotive:Clementetal. (1994), Dornyei (1990,

1994a), Gardner (1985), Gardner's AM TB Julk une n (1989)Affectivemotive:Schmidtet al. (1996: MDS)Languageattitudes:Laine (1995); Schmidtet al.(1996: FA),Tremblay & Gardner (1995),Williams & Burd en (1997)Intrinsicmotive/Attitudes towardL 2learning/Enjoyment/Interest:AMT B, Dornyei (1990,1994a), Gardner (1985),Julkunen(1989),Schmidtetal.(1996: FA),Schumann (1998),Tremblay & Gardner (1995)*, Williams & Burden (1997) 2) Instrumental/pragmatic dimensionAMTB,Dornyei (1990,1994a), Oxford & Shearin (1994),Schmidtet al. (1996: FA), Schumann (1998),Tremblay &Gardner (1995)*, Williams & Burde n (1997)3) Macro-context-related d imension (multicultural/

intergroup/ethnolinguistic relations)Laine (1995),Tremblay & Gardner (1995)4) Self-concept-related dimen sion (generalised/trait-likepersonality factors)

Self-concept:Laine (1995), Schumann (1998),Williams &Burden (1997)Confidence/self-efficacy:Clementet al. (1994), Dornyei(1994a), Schum ann (1998),Tremblay & Gardner (1995),Williams & Burden (1997)Anxiety/inhibitions:AM TB Julk une n (1989), Laine (1995),Oxford & Shearin (1994), Schmidtetal. (1996: FA),Williams & Burden (1997)Success/failure-related (attributional)factor.L)ornye\ (1990,1994a),Julkunen (1989), Schmidtet al. (1996: FA, MD S),Schum ann (1998),Tremblay & Gardner (1995),Williams &Burden (1997)Expectancy:Oxford & Shearin (1994), Schmidtet al. (1996:MDS)Need orachievement:Dornyei (1990,1994a), Oxford &Shearin (1994)5) Goal-related dimen sionOxford & Shearin (1994), Schmidt et al. (1996: MD S),Schumann (1998),Tremblay & Gardner (1995),Williams &Burden (1997)6) Educational context-related d imension (learning/classroom/school environment)

Clement at al. (1994), Dornyei (1994a),Julkunen (1989),Laine (1995),Williams & Burd en (1997) 7) Significant others-related dimension(parents, family,friends)AMT B, Williams & Burden (1997)AMT B=Gardner's Attitude/M otivation Test Battery;MDS=Multi-dimensional scaling; FA=Factor analysis* Includedasa subcomponent of a main factorpants. In a particularly large-scale study includingover 25,000 participants and focusing on severalaspects ofL2learning, Colem an (1994, 1995, 1996)investigated the L2 motivation of British universitystudents as compared to students in Ireland,Germany, Italy, Portugal, Austria and France. Thereports of this project contain a wealth of datadescribing the proficiency, background, attitudes andmotivations of the samples, and provide variouscomparative analyses.Dornyei, Nyilasi and C lemen t (1996) conducted a


14/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningnational survey in Hungary examining over 4,7008th grade school children in terms of their motiva-tion to learn five different target languages: English,German, French, Italian and Russian. One of themany results obtained was that in this contextEnglish was by far the most popular L2, followed byGerman. In spite of the British English traditions inthe region, learners were mainly attracted to theEnglish language because of sociocultural aspectsassociated with the US (see also Dornyei, 1997a, fora review of motivation research conducted inHungary). Laine (1995) compared two officiallybilingual countries, Finland and Belgium, in terms ofthe ethnic groups' (Finns and Swedo-Finns; Flemishspeakers of Dutch and Walloon speakers of French)motivation to learn the other speech community'slanguage. Th e analysis of the data obtained from1951 15-18-year-old learners sheds light on a num-ber of important issues concerning the relationshipbetween ethnolinguistic vitality, language-attitudesand L2 learning achievement both from the majorityand the minority groups' perspective. Kuhlemeier,Bergh and Melse (1996) conducted a survey amongover 1100 Dutch learners of German and found that,contrary to their expectations, attitudes towardsGerman did not prove to have a direct effect on thelearners'finalcourse achievement. Ano ther interestingresult of their study was that students w ho were taughton a communicative course had more favourable atti-tudes towards the course than those who followed agrammatically oriented curriculum . Julkunen andBorzova (1997) administered a detailed questionnaireto 423 learners in two towns not too distant from eachother on either side of the Finnish-Russian border,investigating the similarities and the differences in thestuden ts' motivation to learn English. Finally, JelenaMihaljevic Djigunovic conducted a series of studies(Mihaljevic, 1991; Djigunovic, 1996, in press) toobtain a better understanding of the attitudinal andmotivational patterns of Croatian language learners.Descriptive studies, although involving smallersamples, were also conducted in other parts of theworld. Gardner,Tremblay and Castillo (1997) investi-gated language learners in The Philippines byreanalysing (via LISREL) data obtained in the 1960s.No con (1995) examined the attitudes of Americanuniversity students on the US-Mexico bordertowards learning Spanish in view of the very low sta-tus they attached to the local Mexican population.Dodick (1996) analysed American high school stu-dents' motivation to learn French, and Wen (1997)examined Asian and Asian-American students learn-ing Chinese in the US. MacFarlane and Wesche(1995) provided further evidence about the positiveexperiences learners can gain in Canadian immer-sion programmes; in their study, the attitudes of thosestudents who also had some extracurricular contactwith Francophones besides being exposed to Frenchin the programme showed particular improvement.

The unique ethnolinguistic setup of the MiddleEast has inspired several studies. In an investigation ofthe study ofArabic among Israeli high school stu-dents, Kraemer (1993) successfully demonstrated thatGardner's motivation model also works in environ-ments that are considerably different from theCanadian context where it originated. In a series ofstudies, Abu-Rabia (1996a, 1996b) and Abu-Rabiaand Feuerverger (1996) analysed and compared threedifferent social contexts : Israeli Arab students learn-ing Hebrew, Israeli Jewish students learning English,and Canadian Arab students lea rning E nglish. Twofurther countries in the region have been subject toinvestigation: Fahmy and Bilton (1992) provided asocially sensitive description of university TEFL stu-dents in Oman, and in a large-scale study alreadydescribed, Schmidt et al. (1996) looked into themotivation and learning strategy use of adultEgyptian learners of English.

Finally, the growing importance of learningEnglish in the Far East has also warranted a numberof motivational studies. Besides dealing with generalmotivational issues, Fotos's (1994) overview (men-tioned earlier) also gives a summary of the motiva-tional disposition of Japanese language learners. In alongitudinal study of Japanese school children,Koizumi and Matsuo (1993) found that the partici-pants' motivation dropped after the initial stage ofthe learning process, and the study attempts toexplain this phenomenon. Nakata (1995a, 1995b)highlighted an important individual difference vari-able among Japanese learners, namely internationalorientation, which involved a general cosmopolitanoutlook. Tachibana, Matsukawa and Zh ong (1996)provided a comparison ofJapanese and Chinese highschool student's motivation to learn English.

Other issues investigatedIn this last section I review a number of studieswhich focused on important issues not covered inearlier sections of this paper. Gender differences inlearner motivation are often reported in the litera-ture, but two articles, by Julkunen (1994) andDjigunovic (1993), have specifically focused on thisissue. In line with the 'educational shift', a number ofstudies investigated the role of classroom-specificvariables in shaping learner motiva tion: Green (1993)looked at the relationship of task enjoyment withtask effectiveness and Peacock (1997) examined theeffects of authentic teaching materials. Using instru-ments originally developed by Gardner and his asso-ciates, two studies (Djigunovic, 1994; Mihaljevic,1992) analysed how the appraisal of the languageteacher and the course influenced Croatian learners'motivation, producing similar findings to thoseobtained in Canadian contexts (see Gardner, 1985).

In a recent study, Gardner, Masgoret and Tremblay(1997) looked into the effects of parental influence129


15/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningon motivation. Although in the 1980s Gardner(1985) devoted a whole chapter to the topic in hisseminal book, and Colletta, Clement and Edwards(1983) also provided a detailed analysis of the ques-tion, this issue has been somewhat neglected duringthe past decade relative to its paramount importancein shaping learner motivation.The interrelationship of motivation and learnerstrategy use has received a great deal of attention ineducational psychology (e.g. Corno ,1993; Garcia &Pint rich, 1994; Pint rich & Garcia, 1994; Pressley, El -Dinary, Marks, Brown & Stein, 1992), which isunderstandable since the voluntary use of strategiesto facilitate one's own learning process presupposes agreat deal of commitment. Accordingly, there hasbeen an increasing amount of interest in the topic inthe L2 field as well;see,for exam ple, Gardner (1991),Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret (1997), Ma clntyreand Noels (1996), Okada, Oxford and Abo (1996),and Schmidtet al. (1996).Finally, I would like to highlight two areas-group-specific motivationandteacher motivation--that I considerextremely important and which,Ifeel, have not beengiven due attention in L2 research. Swezey, Meltzer,and Salas (1994) point out that most theories ofmotivation in mainstream psychology attempt toexplain motivational processes at the individual level,even though action conducted within groups mightshow motivational characteristics which stem fromthe group as a social unit rather than from the indi-vidual members. In response to this recognition, agrowing number ofstudies in social and educationalpsychology have recently looked into group-specificcognitive constructs (such as efficacy; e.g. Little &Madigan, 1997; Silver & Bufanio, 1996; Stroebe,Diehl & Abakoumkin 1996; Weldon & Weingart,1993). In the L2 field, individual-level motives havebeen traditionally supplemented by motives associat-ed with the larger speech communities (cf. the socialpsychological approach), but motivation associatedspecifically with learner groups has been analysedvery little. Some exceptions are Dornyei's (1994a)model of L2 motivation, which includes a set ofgroup-specific motivational c omponents (see Table1);Clement et a/.'s (1994) investigation into the rela-tionship between learner motivation and groupcohesiveness; and Hotho-Jackson's (1995) analysis ofthe role of the group context in the learners' tenden-cy to give up their language studies.

The second issue to be highlighted, teacher moti-vation, has been a largely uncharted area in the L2field, an important exception being the work doneby Martha Pennington on work satisfaction, motiva-tion and commitment in teaching English as a sec-ond language (for a review, see Penning ton,1995).Asfar as I am aware, no L2 study has explicitly linkedthe level of teacher motivation with that of students,and the topic of teacher motivation has also receivedlittle attention in general educational psychology.130

This is all the more surprising since the teacher'slevel of enthusiasm and commitment is one of themost important factors that affect the learners' moti-vation to learn (see,for example, Dornyei and Csizer,in press). Readers interested in this issue should referto a very recent edited volume by Bess (1997), inwhich some of the most well-known motivationalpsychologists analyse 'faculty mo tivation'.3. Educational implica tions of L2motivation researchWith motivation being as important a factor inlearning success as argued earlier, teacher skills inmotivating learners should be seen as central toteaching effectiveness. Although the educational-ori-ented motivation articles in the 1990s typically con-tained summaries of relevant classroom-specificmotives, these did not offer a sufficiently serviceableguide to practitioners: they helped L2 teachersunderstand what was going on motivationwise intheir classrooms, but the lists of motives themselveswere not readily applicable. What teachers usuallywant to know is how they can intervene, that is,whatthey can actually do to m otivate their learners.Although the above may sound self-evident, untilthe mid-1990s there were absolutely no attempts inthe L2 literature to design motivational strategies forclassroom application. Recently, a number of publi-cations have analysed and described motivationaltechniques (e.g. Brown, 1994; Cranmer, 1996;Dornyei, 1994a; Oxford & Shearin, 1994;Williams &Burden,1997),yet the amount of research devoted tomotivating learners has been rather meagre relativeto the total amount of research on L2 motivation.The same tendency can be noted ifwe look at gen-eral motivational psychology: far more research hasbeen conducted on identifying various motives andvalidating motivational theories than on developingtechniques to increase mo tivation. As Good andBrophy (1994: 212) summarise, 'motivation [in theclassroom] did not receive much scholarly attentionuntil recently, so that teachers were forced to rely onunsystematic 'bag-of-tricks' approaches or on advicecoming from questionable the orising'.There have, however, been some valuable excep-tions to this generalisation; examples include Burden(1995), Good and Brophy (1994), Jones and Jones(1995),McC omb s (1994), Raffini (1993,1996); par-ticularly noteworthy works in this vein are Brophy's(1987) synthesis of research on motivational strate-gies, the comprehensive overview of motivation ineducation by Pintrich and Schunk (1996) alreadymentioned, and a highly accessible summary of howto motivate hard-to-reach students by McCombsand Pope (1994), sponsored by the AmericanPsychological Association.

Reflecting on the potential usefulness of motiva-tional strategies, Gardner and Tremblay (1994a)


16/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learningTable 4. Ten Com man dme nts for Motiva tingLanguage Learners (Dornyei Csizer, in press)

1. Set a personal example with you r own behav iour.2. Create a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere in the classroom.3. Present the tasks properly.4. Develop a good relationship with the learners.5. Increase the learner's linguistic self-confidence.6. Make the language classes interes ting.7. Promote learner autonomy.8. Personalise the learning process.9. Increase the learners' goal-orientedness.10. Familiarise learners with the target language culture.

emphasise that intuitive appeal without empiricalevidence is not enough to justify strong claims infavour of the use of such strategies from a scientificpoint of view. They therefore recomm end that suchstrategies be considered hypotheses that could betested, and they also highlight possible pitfalls toavoid in such research. Un til very recently,Ihad beenaware of only one study (and even that is unpub-lished),by Reilly (1994), that attempted to verify theusefulness ofL2 motivational strategies by means ofan experimental research design. Reilly's results indi-cated that intrinsic goal orientation did indeedincrease in the experimental group that receivedmotivational treatment.

In response to Gardner and Tremblay's (1994a)call, Dornyei and Csizer (in press) conducted a sur-vey in which an extensive list of potentially usefulmotivational strategies was evaluated in terms oftheir classroom relevance by a sample of200practis-ing teachers working in various teaching institutions.The main purpose of the study was to draw up a setof motivational macrostrategies to which teacherscould pay special attention when trying to imple-ment a motivation-conscious teaching approach. Th eneed for such a concise list, as expressed by teachersin various teacher-training courses, motivatedDornyei's (1996c) earlier attempt to generate the'Ten Commandments for Motivating LanguageLearners', and the Dornyei and Csizer study was anattempt to revise the original list by basing the 'com-mandm ents' on empirical data concerning the beliefsand practices of language teachers.The revised list ispresented in Table 4.

ConclusionThe main conclusion emerging from this overviewis that motivation is indeed a multifaceted ratherthan a uniform factor and no available theory has yetmanaged to represent it in its total complexity. Thisimplies that researchers need to be particularly care-ful when conceptualising and assessing motivationvariables, and should be well aware of the fact thatthe specific motivation measure or concept they arefocusing on is likely to represent only a segment of a

more intricate psychological construct. As Williams(1994: 84) succinctly states: 'there is no room forsimplistic approaches to such com plex issues as mo ti-vation'.Looking at the two main sections of thisarticlethe brief sum mary of the m ost infuential atti-tudinal/motivational approaches in mainstream psy-chology and the overview of research on L2motivation in the 1990sit is evident that, in theireffort to develop language-specific motivation con-structs, the main approaches in the L2 field haveincreasingly adopted concepts originally introducedin related disciplines. Due to the standards set byGardner, Clem ent and their associates, L2 m otivationresearch has always been strong on empirical research,and the 1990s have brough t alongawelcome tenden-cy to incorporate contemporary theoretical conceptsinto established L2-specific frameworks and modelsan approach which is likely to remain a fertile groundfor future research.As a result, the main componentsof the prevailing motivational approaches (expectan-cy-value theories, goal theories and self-determina-tion theory) have all been validated in certain L2contexts, and it is hoped that future models of L2motivation will demonstrate an increasingly elaboratesynthesis of the various constituents.This overview has already presented a number ofpotentially productive directions for future research.Rather than reiterate these here, I would like tohighlight an area which I believe may present per-haps the greatest challenge for L2 motivationresearchers: the analysis of the temporal organisation ofmotivation, that is, drawing up a model that portraysmotivational processes as they happen in time.Although mainstream psychological approaches haveincluded some time elements, for example w hen dis-cussing past attributions of future goals (e.g Karniol& Ross, 1996; Raynor & Roeder, 1987), I am notaware of any studies that have analysed the interplayof subsequent motivational patterns in sustainedlearning activities such as the mastery of an L2.Furtherm ore, a process-oriented perception of moti-vation (as proposed at the beginning of this paper)requires an explicit description of the various stagesof this process. Key components in such a process-oriented representation might include planning,intention-formulation, the appraisal of the situationand the generation of concrete tasks, prioritisingbetween multiple tasks, the enactment of intentions,and the evaluation of outcomes.The various stages ofthe decision-making, action-implementation andaction-controlling process would also need to beconnected to a number of learner-internal andexternal variables such as personality traits andmacro/m icro-en vironm ental factors (e.g. socialmilieu or the affect of significant others).

Finally, a process-oriented conception of motiva-tion also has important consequences for measure-ment purposes. Different items tap into different131


17/20


Motivation in second and foreign language learninglevels (forexample thebelief levelorthe intentionlevel)ofthe motivational process anditis nounam-biguous task to decide which items canbesimplypooledtoforma composite score and which shouldbe kept separate because they are associated withmental activitiesandlearning behaviours belongingto different levels.In sum, these are indeed exciting timesinmotiva-tion research, with enough foodforthoughtforbothresearchers focusingon theoretical and measurementissues andmethodo logists interested in classroomimplications and applications.AcknowledgementsIamgrateful toRichard Clement, Rob ert Gardner,Peter MacIntyre.John Schumann and Sarah Thurrellfor their insightful commentsandsuggestionson anearlier draft of this paper.BibliographyABU-RABIA,S. (1996a). Attitudes and cultural backgroundandtheir relationshipto reading comprehension in asecondlan-guage: a comparison of thre e different social contex ts.InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics,6,81-107.ABU-RABIA,S. (1996b). Factors affecting the learning of Englishasa second languageinIsrael.JournalofSocialPsychology, 136,589-95.ABU-RABIA,S. & FEUERVERGER, G. (1996).Toward unde rstand-

ing the second language learning of Arab studentsinIsrael andCanada: the relationshipofattitudesandcultural backgroundto reading comprehension.Canadian Modern LanguageReview,52,359-85.AJZEN, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. Chicago:Dorsey Press.AjZEN,I.(1996). Th e directive influence ofattitudesonbehav-iour.InP.M. Gollwitzer& J. A. Bargh (eds.),The psychology ofaction:Linking cognitionandmotivationtobehaviour,385-403.AJZEN,I.& FISHBEIN, M. (1977). Attitude-behaviour relations:atheoretical analysis and review of empirical research.PsychologicalBulletin,84,888-918.AJZEN,I. FISHBEIN, M. (1980).Understanding attitudes and pre-

dicting socialbehaviour.Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.ALATISJ.E.(ed.) (1990).Georgetown University round tableonlan-guageand linguistics 1990. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.ALATISJ. E .ALTMAN.H.B.&ALATIS,P.M. (eds.) (1981).T he sec-on d language classroom: directions for theeighties. NewYork:Oxford University Press.AMES,C. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures, and student mo ti-vation.JoMmo/ofEducationalPsychology,84,267-71.ARNOLD, J.(ed.) (inpress). Affective language learning.New York:Cambridge University Press.ATKINSON,J.W. RAYNOR.J. O. (eds.) (1974).Motivation an dachievement.Washington,DQW inston & Sons.BANDURA,A. (199 3). Perceived self-efficacy incognitive devel-opmen t and functioning.EducationalPsychologist,28,117-48.BENSON, P.&VOLLER,P. (eds.) (1997).Autonomyandindependencein languagelearning.Harlow: Longman.BESS.J.L.(ed.) (1997).Teaching welland liking it:motivating facultyto teach effectively. Baltimore, MA : Joh n Hopk ins UniversityPress.BROPHYJ.E. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategiesformoti-vating students to learn.EducationalLeadership,45,2 ,40-8 .BROWN,H .D. (1981). Affective factorsinsecond language learn-

ing.In J.E. Alatis, H.B.Altman &P. M.Alatis(eds.),Vie secondlanguageclassroom: directions o rtheeighties,111-29.BROWN, H. D. (1990). M&Msforlanguage classrooms? A noth erlook atmotivation.InJ. E. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown Universityround tableon languageand linguistics 1990,383-93.BROWN, H.D.(1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.BURDEN, P.R . (1995).Classroom management an ddiscipline. NewYork:Longman.

CASTILLO,E.S. (ed.) (1997).AlaysaWilka:Essays inhonorofFeT.Otanes on her 67thbirthday. Manila: The Linguistic Societyofthe Philippines.CLEMENT, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact andcommunicativecompetenceinasecond language.InH. G iles,W.P.Robinson& P. M. Smith (eds.),Language:social psychological perspectives,147-54.CLEMENT,R.&KRUIDENIER, B. (1983). Orientationsonsecondlanguage acquisition: l.The effects ofethnicity, milieu,andtheir target language ontheir em ergence.Language Learning,33,273-91.CLEMENT,R. &KRUIDENIER, B.G.(1985).Aptitude, attitude andmotivationinsecond language proficiency:a testofClement'smodel._/onrna/ofLanguageand SocialPsychology,4 ,21-37.CLEMENT,R.,DORNYEI,Z. NOELS,K. A. (1994). Motivation,self-confidence, and group cohesionin theforeign languageclassroom.LanguageLearning,44,417-48.CLEMENT, R. , GARDNER, R. C. SMYTHE, P. C. (1977).Motivational variablesinsecond language acquisition:astudyof francophones learning English. Canadian JournalofBehaviouralScience,9 ,123-33.COLEMAN,J. A. (1994). Wh at motivates British students ofGerman?An interim report on astudy oflearners' progress,background andattitudes. Fremdsprachen un d Hoclischule, 42,39-50.COLEMAN,J. A. (1995). Progress,proficiency an dmotivation amongBritish university languagelearners.CLCS Occasional Paper No.

40. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language andCommunication Studies.COLEMAN,J.A. (1996).Studying languages: asurvey ofBritish an dEuropeanstudents.Lo nd

motivation dornyei

Documents