Transcript
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
1/31
Retrieved from http://www.osaka-gu.ac.jp/php/kelly/papers/motivation.html
Review of Traditional and Current Theories of Motivation in ESL
Curtis Kelly
Overview
Motivation is the great, unspoken problem of English education in Japan. It is
great because it is probably the most difficult single problem classroom teachers face.
Whereas motivation is rarely a problem for ESL students studying in English speaking
countries, it is the major problem for EFL students studying English in their home
countries (Wigzell & Al-Ansari, 1993). In English-speaking countries, frequent
interaction with native speakers and a desire to integrate with the local community
creates a need for language competence, but such stimuli do not exist in Japan. Since
the benefits of mastering English are distant and uncertain (certain employment
opportunities and a chance to communicate with native speakers if one goes abroad)
motivation tends to be slack. Wigzell and Al-Ansari call this problem the problem of
wastage and low productivity in foreign language courses" (p. 303). In Japan, in
particular, where college English students are generally considered lackadaisical and
unmotivated (Wigzell & Al-Ansari, 1993), and where carrot approaches to motivating
students are preferred to stick approaches (Singleton, 1993), classroom teachers are
constantly in need of ways to motivate their students.
And yet the problem of motivation remains unspoken because research has failed
to tell us what it is. Despite raised hopes in the sixties when identification of
integrative, instrumental, intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation made the path of future
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
2/31
research seem clear, little progress was made in the following two decades. Studies
based on these concepts not only failed to provide us with new insights, they also cast
doubt on the validity of these very concepts. Therefore, for the last twenty years,
motivation has been pretty much abandoned as an ESL research construct. Until
recently, that is. New approaches of psychology have led to new models of motivation.
The purpose of this study will be to examine both the traditional and current theories
and suggest possibilities for future areas of research.
Methods of Studying Motivation
Motivation is a soft construct it only can be inferred rather than observed
directly. Pintrich and Schunk (1996) list a number of research paradigms, including
correlational, experimental, qualitative, laboratory, and field; and also a variety of
motivation indexes, which include choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and achievement.
Self-reporting through questionnaires by far the most common method used to assess
motivation in language students (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), but as a number of studies
have shown (Cameron, 1988; Davidman, 1991), self-reporting methods are not always
reliable. This especially seems to be the case with when assessing motivation with
Japanese students (Teweles, 1996). Therefore, although questionnaires are still widely
used, English achievement rates might be more reliable. Students who choose to
engage in a task, expend effort, and persist are likely to achieve at a higher level
(Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Schunk, 1991) (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996, p. 16).
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
3/31
Definition of Motivation
Despite the divergence of the approaches used to study motivation, its definitions
are surprisingly uniform. In simple terms, motivation, based on the Latin verb for
move, is the force that makes one do something. It is a process that involves goals,
physical or mental activity, and is both instigated and sustained (Pintrich & Schunk,
1996, pp 4-5; Williams, 1997). It is characterized in terms of direction, duration and
intensity. Earlier theorists, such as behavioralists, tended to portray motivation
mechanistically, related to needs satisfaction (Altman, Valenzi, & Hodgetts, 1985;
Maslow, 1987; Owens, 1987), while the more recent cognitive psychologists portray
motivation as a product of conscious decision (Williams, 1997).
However, the definition of motivation used in second language (SL) studies is less
uniform. As Crookes and Schmidt (1991) point out, even though almost every text has a
chapter on motivation, it is used more as a general catch-all rather than a precise
construct. They quote McDonough in pointing out that motivation is used as a
general cover term a dustbin to include a number of possibly distinct concepts
(Crookes & Schmidt, 1991). Whatever the case, it has been traditionally equated with
and measured by proficiency. It is also defined as producing engagement in and
persistence with the learning task (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991) This is especially true
amongst teachers rather than second language researchers, who would describe a
student as motivated if he or she becomes productively engaged in learning tasks and
sustains that engagement, without the need for continual encouragement or direction
(Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p. 480).
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
4/31
A summary of definitions offered by Mitchell (1982), even though he is not an SL
researcher, is succinct, modern, and seems to cover the definitions offered in both fields.
It is, in fact, quite similar to the definition offered by Williams and Burden (1997), who
are SL researchers. Mitchells definition is: "Motivation becomes those psychological
processes that cause arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are
goal-related" (p. 81).
As the definitions of motivation in the field of second language education do not
always conform with those in psychology, neither do the theories. Therefore, the
theories in these two fields must be examined separately. Schisms also exist, in both
fields, between current and recent views. Theories of motivation have changed
drastically in the last ten to fifteen years. Therefore, the examination of theories of
motivation has four parts: traditional theories in psychology that dominated the field
up until the mid-eighties; current theories in psychology; traditional theories in second
language education; and current theories in second language education.
Traditional Theories of Motivation in Psychology
The scientific concept of motivation has a long history. Some early theorists have
traced it back to Plato and Aristotle (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), who discuss
willingness. Nineteenth century scholars associated motivation with will, volition, or
instinct, depending on how deterministic their worldview was. The theory that all
behavior was instinctual lost popularity in the 1920s, when it could not stand up to
scientific scrutiny (Altman, et al., 1985). Volition as motivation concurs with many of
todays views, but offers no insight into the process of motivation. Motivation is also
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
5/31
one of the founding constructs of psychology, where Freud discussed trieb, which
means moving force. At the time, the term was translated as instinct but closer in
meaning to drive or motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).
Following Freud, a number of theories of motivation arose. Early psychological
approaches to motivation have been summarized by a number of scholars (Altman et
al., 1985; Mitchell, 1982; Owens, 1987; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), of which Pintrich and
Schunks is the most informative and up-to-date. A modified version of their catalog is
as follows:
Early Theories. (discussed above) Early theories include Volition/Will Theories,
Instinct Theory, and Freuds theory (pp. 27-31).
Conditioning Theories. All behavior caused by response to stimuli; thus motivation
is subsumed to response. Conditioning theories include Connectionism, Classical
conditioning, and Operant conditioning (pp. 31-37).
Drive Theories. Drive is a force propelling behavior. It is activated by needs and
deactivated with satisfaction. Its charactistics are intensity, direction and persisitence
can still be found in modern definitions. Drive theories include Woodworth's theory,
Systematic Behavior Theory, Incentive Motivation, Mowrer's Theory, and Acquired
Drives (pp. 38-42).
Purposive Behaviorism Theory. This approach is based on Tolmans theory that
behavior is more goal-directed than responsive, the following of cognitive maps based
on expectancies. Learning can occur without reward (pp. 42-43).
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
6/31
Arousal theories. Motivation is construed as emotional arousal, affective processes,
and thus neither behavioral nor cognitive. Arousal theories include James-Lange
Theory, Optimal Level of Arousal, and Schacters Theory of Emotion (pp. 43-48).
Field Theory. In Lewins Field Theory, behavior is a mechanism for restoring
homeostasis in psychological and physical needs as an individual interacts with forces
in the environment (pp. 48-49).
Cognitive Consistency Theories. Cognitive Consistency Theories assume
motivation results from an need to establish consistency between cognitions and
behavior in response to a tension. They include Balance Theory and Cognitive
Dissonance Theory (pp. 49-51).
Trait and Humanistic Theories. These theories are based on the concepts that all
individuals are evolving and striving towards actualization, or completeness.
Motivation is more than a response. It is the continuous everpresent condition that
defines life. Trait and Humanistic Theories are based on Allports Functional
Autonomy of Motives and Rogers Client-Centered Therapy (pp. 51-57).
Although Pintrich and Schunk covered dozens of theories, they were rather brief on
one, Maslows theory, and left another out altogether, an early Expectancy-Valence
Theory. These two theories were dominant in the eighties (Altman et al., 1985; Bolman
& Deal, 1997; Owens, 1987) and are still taught in many education and psychology
courses. Both will be discussed below.
Maslows Needs Hierarchy Theory. Abraham Maslows needs hierachy theory
spans arousal and trait theories. It also represents the content approach to
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
7/31
motivation,what motivates people, versus the process approach, describing how
behavior is initiated, redirected and halted (Altman et al., 1985, p22). One reason for
its popularity was that it deviated from simple stimulus-response mechanism at the
same time cracks began to appear in the monolithic behavioral approach.
Maslow (1987) identifies a hierarchy of five needs: physiological needs, safety
needs, affiliative needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs. Basically, lower
level needs obscure or even restrict upper level needs until they are satisfied. Thus, a
hungry person will focus on food rather than safety, esteem, or actualization. The
theory has been confirmed by research, but also criticized and modified (Altman et al.,
1985; Owens, 1987). Porter (Porter, 1961) added an additional level between esteem and
self-actualization, the need for autonomy. Alderfers ERG theory (Alderfer, 1972;
Alderfer, 1977) simplified the model into three categories Existence Needs (Maslows
physiological and safety needs), Relatedness Needs (Maslows social and esteem
needs), and Growth Needs (Maslows self-actualization needs). Alderfer also
incorporated the concepts of frustration and satisfaction, and delineated a more
accurate series of relationships between the levels.
Other content theories inlude McClellands Need Achievement Theory
(McClelland, 1985), in which he identifies three basic motives for behavior:
Achievement, Power, and Affiliation; and Hertzbergs controversial Two-Factor Theory
(Hertzberg, 1971; Hertzberg, 1982). Hertzberg, as a result of his research on engineers,
discovered that motivation is derived from two sets of factors. He termed experiences
that made the engineers feel good about their job as motivators, which include
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
8/31
recognition, advancement, achievement and other factors. Experiences that caused
dissatisfaction with a job, such as working conditions, salary and relationships with
peers, did not correspond to motivators and so, were named hygeine factors.
Hertzbergs main contribution is the notion that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not
on a continuum, but separate and distinct: two different attitudinal feelings based
upon different dynamics and different origins (Hertzberg, 1982).
It is important to note that while the content/needs approach dominated research
on motivation in the sixties and seventies, according to Pintrich and Schunk (1996), it
has been pretty much abandoned today. Research on needs is plagued by the same
problem as research on instincts. There is no scientifically acceptable way to determine
what a need is, or how it is linked to behavior. The logic of using needs to describe
behavior eventually becomes tautological.
...almost any behavior can be referenced to a need as the cause of the
behavior, and in turn, when someone has these needs, they cause thebehavior. The logic is circular and does not provide any real explanationof the behavior (p. 207).
By contrast, process theories, focus on goals, expectancies and self-efficacy instead
of needs, and tend to analyze the strength of the motivation. Traditional process
theories include the Goal-Setting Theory, Equity Theory and the Expectancy-Valence
Theory (Altman et al., 1985; Mitchell, 1982).
Goal-Setting Theory. In 1979, Latham and Locke reported two studies in which
specific goals were set for loggers and productivity increased. Based on these findings,
they presented the Goal-Setting Theory. The basic premise is that conscious objectives
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
9/31
will influence an employees work behavior. The goals must be specific, as opposed to
doing your best, short-term rather than long term, challenging rather than easy, with
feedback on performance, and without punishment for failure. Goals not only fit the
current cognitive and social orientations towards behavior better than needs, they are
also better research constructs, and the results of numerous studies have supported the
Goal-Setting Theory (Latham & Yukl, 1979).
Equity Theory. The equity approach to motivation is homeostatic. People are
motivated by a sense of fairness (Mitchell, 1982). If a person perceives and inequity
between the amount of effort they are providing (inputs) and rewards (outcomes), they
will be motivated to do more, or less, work (Adams, 1963). Key components of the
theory are that internal comparisons occur and that they are based on perceived rather
than real values. Although somewhat simplistic, this approach opened discussion on
the cognitive aspects of the intensity of motivation; in other words, why we make some
goals stronger than others.
Expectancy-Valence Theory. Expectancy theories continued this discussion, the
best known of which is the Expectancy-Valence Theory (Owens, 1987). The Expectancy-
Valence Theory was based on the earlier work of Tolman and Lewin, but is generally
associated with Vroom, Lawler, Hackman and Porter (Altman et al., 1985). Basically,
the theory says that people are motivated to do something if they see something in it
for themselves (Altman et al., 1985). Effort, or motivation, is presented as a
relationship between three factors (Lawler, 1969): expectancy x instrumentality x valence.
Expectancy represents effort-reward probability (Lawler, 1969, p. 161); in other words,
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
10/31
the belief that a behavior will result in a first-level outcome. For example, a clerk might
believe that working harder will result in better sales. Instrumentality represents the
strength of correlation between a first level, or immediate, outcome, and a second level,
or ulimate personal, outcome. Better sales might result in a pay raise. Valence
represents the degree of preference that one has for a potential outcome (Owens,
1987), or how highly the ultimate result is valued. The relationship is multiplicative
rather than summative, meaning that if any factor is low or absent, motivation will not
be present (Lawler & Porter, 1967). Although eclipsed and transformed by modern
theories, this theory was popular until recently because instead of contradicting other
existing theories, it provided a means to bring them together in one model.
Since process theories focus on goals, choices and social influences rather than
needs, they are more compatible with cognitive, social cognitive (Pintrich & Schunk,
1996), and social constructivist (Williams, 1997) theories of psychology. Most current
theories of motivation are based on process models.
Current Theories of Motivation in Psychology
Current theories include the impact of self efficacy, attributions, social conditions,
classroom factors, and provide a better understanding of the role of goals. Since they
are based in cognitive psychology, they focus on purposeful rather than elicited
behavior (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), and since they are related to social cognitive and
social constructivist theories (Williams, 1997), they place a greater emphasis on self-
efficacy and social influences.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
11/31
Expanding on a model devised by Atkinson in the late fifties, Eccles and Wigfield
offer a social cognitive expectancy-value model of motivation composed of the
following relationships: Influences from the social world (cultural milieu; socializers
behavior; and past performances and events); cognitive processes (perceptions of social
environment; and interpretations/attributions for past events); and motivational beliefs
(goals interacting with task-specific self-concept and perceptions of task difficulty to
create task value and expectancy); interact to result in achievement behavior(choice,
persistence, quantity of effort, cognitive engagement, and actual performance) (Pintrich
& Schunk, 1996). As with the expectancy-valence model, expectancy and task value are
the key predictors, but a difference can be found in how expectancy and task value
originate. The model adds the important factors of self-efficacy, attributions, and social
perspective.
Self-efficacy is the perception of ones own competence, a construct that Bandura
recognized was of critical importance and plays a major role in his social cognitive
model of behaviors (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Williams, 1997). Efficacy theory also
includes the construct, outcome expectations, which refers to the expected rewards or
punishments for performance. The interaction of these constructs shapes the type of
behavior one exhibits. For example, high self-efficacy with low outcome expectations
will result in protest and grievance, while low self-efficacy with high outcome
expectations will result in self-devaluation and depression (Bandura, 1982; cited in
(Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Research has shown that self-efficacy plays a critical role in
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
12/31
both motivation and achievement, especially in relation to learning (Pintrich & Schunk,
1996).
The question of how self-efficacy beliefs arise is answered by the attribution theory,
a theory to which Bernard Weiner made the greatest contributions in the eighties. The
theory, which describes processes directly linked to expectancy beliefs, is summarized
by Pintrich and Schunk (1996): The theory makes two assumptions. First, it assumes
that individuals are motivated by the goal of understanding and mastering themselves
and their environment; and second, that people use meta-scientific methods to
understand the causal determinants of their own and others behavior, in other words,
why things happen. The reasons an individual construes for an event are the
attributions, whether they be ability, luck, effort, fatigue, or any one of an infinite
number of other possibilities. In the attribution process the perceived causes might be
influenced by antecedent conditions of environmental factors and personal factors,
which might be social norms, causal schema, etc. Once made, the attributions have the
psychological force to influence, first, expectancy for success, self-efficacy, and affect,
and thereby, behavioral consequences, such as effort or persistence.
There is no limit to the number of possible attributions, but they can be aligned to
three causal dimensions: stability, locus and control. Stability refers to how stable an
attribution is over time; locus refers to whether the cause of the event is perceived as
internal or external; and control refers to whether it is perceived as controllable or
uncontrollable. Attributional theory and research have shown that it is the stability
dimension that is most closely related to expectancy for success (Weiner, 1986; cited in
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
13/31
(Pintrich & Schunk, 1996, p.111). In other words, a student who continues to think he
or she is weak at math, despite high scores, is likely to have low expectations for success
later as well. Esteem seems to be related to locus; so one feels proud if one believes his
or her own efforts caused a success. Social affects, such as guilt or shame, are related to
the control dimension; one feels guilt for events that one perceives could have been
controlled.
As Pintrich and Schunk (1996) point out, attributions themselves do not explain
motivation, but they provide insight into the key factor of motivation, expectancy
beliefs. In addition, the theory is well-suited to research and theory-building. First, the
number of possible attributions are unlimited, allowing new theories to arise, but the
number of dimensions are small, allowing comparison. The theory is particularly well-
suited to studies on achievement.
The impact of social effects on motivation is another recent addition to the theory of
motivation and is related to social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory focuses on
how people acquire strategies, beliefs, and emotions through their interactions with and
observations of others (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996, p. 195). Social influences such as
modeling, social comparison, conformity and compliance seem to affect motivation
through self-efficacy, while other social influences, such as social facilitation, social
loafing, and cooperative learning seem to affect motivation directly (Pintrich & Schunk,
1996). One result of the social cognitive theory is that researchers have been inspired to
examine group motivation as well. After all, we live in a world of relationships. One
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
14/31
can no more separate the influence of peers or teachers from motivation than influence
of the goals themselves (Williams, 1997).
Related to social influences, but little researched, are cultural influences. People in
different cultures have vastly different construals of self and others. These construals
can influence, and in many cases determine, the very nature of individual experiences,
including cognition, emotion and motivation (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p.224). How
the concept of self influences motivation is especially pertinent to Japanese. The
Japanese concept of self is interdependent rather than independent, as with Americans,
and thus influences self-efficacy and goal orientation.
Latham and Locke have done further work on their Goal-Setting Theory,
considering the role of self-efficacy. More recent research has shown that specific,
proximal (near future), and high goals have a positive influence on motivation (Pintrich
& Schunk, 1996). Researchers have also discovered that goal committment, mediated
by personal and contextual factors, has a positive effect on achievement.
Contextual factors often studied are classroom conditions. Numerous studies
(Clment, Drnyei, & Noels, 1994; Olshtain, Shohamy, Kemp, & Chatow, 1990; Pintrich,
Roeser, & De Groot, 1994; Wigzell & Al-Ansari, 1993) have found that teacher attitudes,
teaching styles, materials, means of assessment, individual vs group work, and other
classroom context effects influence not only achievement, but also many aspects of
motivation, including goal orientation, self-efficacy, task value, and mastery vs.
performance orientations.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
15/31
Goal Orientation Theories were developed specifically for explaining achievement
behavior. Motivation to achieve is far more complicated than the explanation given by
the simple behavioral reinforcement model. Feedback, competition, and group factors
play roles in motivation, rewards sometimes decrease it, and even mood must be taken
into account (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). The two dimensions of goal orientation
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are widely used constructs. Intrinsic motivation is
related to engaging in an activity for its own sake, for mastery and learning purposes;
while extrinsic motivation is related to engaging in a task as a result of external rewards
or punishments. For a student, this means a concern about grades, pleasing others, or
besting others (cf. Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Harter, 1981) (Pintrich et al., 1994, p. 141).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is also associated with performance vs. mastery goals:
...the concept of goal is itself more complex than might at first appear.Cognitive psychologists have come to make a distinction between twotypes of goal orientation, which have variously been described as
performance vs mastery goals (Ames 1992),performance vs learning goals(Dweck and Leggett 1988), and ego involvement vs task involvement (Nichols1979). Although there are differences in these approaches, they areessentially similar in distinguishing betweenperformance, where the primeconcern is to look good, or, at least, not to look stupid, and learning, wherethe goal is to increase knowledge, skill or understanding. (Williams, 1997,p. 131)
In short, in prior decades, the directionality behind motivation wasseen simply as needsatisfaction. However, the more recent construct ofgoal,from cognitive psychology, which has replaced need, is far more robust.Not only can more dimensions be attached to goals, but they are also moreeasily researched.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
16/31
Traditional Theories of Motivation in Second Language Education
Instrumental and Integrative Motivation. Second Language (SL) research on
motivation has followed a different track and has been dominated by one theory in
particular (Clment et al., 1994; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Gardner, Day, & MacIntyre,
1992; Ramage, 1991). In 1959, Gardner and Lambert divided the motivation to learn a
language into two types, instrumental motivation and integrative motivation. Integrative
motivation is characterized by a positive attitude towards the speakers and culture of
the target language, while instrumental motivation is characterized by learning the
language for practical purposes, such as gaining employment or passing a test.
Integrative motivation is highly correlated with achievement, so of the two
orientations, integrative motivation has usually been held as superior (Crookes &
Schmidt, 1991). This is not necessarily Gardners position since he states the social
context might make an instrumental orientation better in some situations and an
integrative orientation better in others (Williams, 1997). Au (cited in Crookes, &
Schmidt, 1991, p. 473) notes that the theories related to integrative motivation, most of
which imply its superiority, can be summarized as five hypotheses:
1. The integrative motive hypothesis: an integrative motive will be positivelyassociated with SL achievement.
2. The cultural belief hypothesis: cultural beliefs influence the development of the
integrative motive and the degree to which integrativeness and achievement arerelated.
3. The active learner hypothesis: integratively motivated learners are successfulbecause they are active learners.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
17/31
4. The causality hypothesis: integrative motivation is a cause; SL achievement,the effect.
5. The two-process hypothesis: aptitude and integrative motivation areindependent factors in second language learning.
Gardners theories have influenced virtually all SL-related research in this area
(Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p. 471), but have also been criticized, especially in regard to
the integrative motive hypothesis and the causality hypothesis. Interpretation of the
empirical data from research to validate these theories is controversial, since various
studies have produced different results. Clearly, other factors impinge. Some factors,
such as age, can be controlled for, but others, such as cultural values, cannot. Gardners
chief critic, Oller, suggests that the relationship between affective factors and language
learning may be an unstable non-linear function of high variability (Crookes &
Schmidt, 1991) p. 48].
In his 1988 defense of the theory, Gardner indicated that across a large number of
studies, there have been significant corellations between integrative attitudes and
language proficiency, and in his own later study (1992), he found a strong correlation
with the learning of vocabulary items. Integrative motivation has been also correlated
with persistence; Ramage (1991) conducted a study to find what relationship exists
between various motivations and the likelihood of a student to continue in a program.
She found that an interest in the foreign culture and in learning the language, but not
for instrumental reasons, thoroughly distinguished those students who would continue
in a program from those who would not.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
18/31
The strong correlation between integrative motivation and achievement implies
causality, but, as in all correlations, making such an assumption is speculative.
Integrativeness and achievement might both be products of another, not yet identified
cause. Savignon and Strong (cited in Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p. 474), have even
proposed that the causality might work in reverse as well. Rather than a positive
attitude towards the target language leading to proficiency, proficiency and success in
the second language might cause a positive attitude, while failure produces a negative
attitude (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991).
So where does the theory stand now? Gardner has recently attempted to expand
upon the original theory to include other factors. His socio-educational model is
operationally defined in terms of a composite of variables including measures of
integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation, and motivation (Gardner et
al., 1992, p. 198) but most scholars still associate his name with the original dichotomy.
Others, such as Clment, Drnyei, and Noels (1994), have concluded that integrative
and instrumental orientations are entwined rather than separate, and that to attempt to
pose them as antithetical is fruitless. Whatever the case, there is still a widespread
agreement that integrativeness is one of a number of factors closely tied to achievement
and proficiency (Benson, 1991; Clment et al., 1994; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Gardner
et al., 1992; Ramage, 1991; Skehan, 1991; Spolsky, 1988). Even in a context where
foreign language learning is largely an academic matter, student motivation remains
socially grounded. (Clment et al., 1994, p.421).
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
19/31
Current Theories of Motivation in Second Language Education
Other Interpretations of Social Factors. The social grounding mentioned above,
has become one of the major directions of SL research on motivation. Spolsky, a leading
authority on language learning, indicated that a key factor in the learning is the social
context (Spolsky, 1988). Included in his definition of context are exposure to language
roles and a general perception of the value of language, for these factors influence
learner attitudes in two ways: attitude toward the language and motivation.
Language also plays an important role in socialization. It is an expression of who
we are. It is related to learner empowerment. "Language experience provides options,
expands the range of what speakers can do, and of what they mean" (Savignon, 1995) p.
13]. These influences might be stronger with Japanese youth, whose psychosocial
adaptation is highly dependent on the social context. According to Hiroshi Kida,
former director of the National Institute for Educational Research, rather than having an
identity that is socially defined, Japanese youth develop a "flexible, portable identity
and set of skills" (White, 1987, p.174).
A Call for Revision. Although during the sixties, the decade after Gardner and
Lambert introduced their theory, a large number of papers were published on SL
motivation, the discussion markedly dropped off in the seventies and eighties (Crookes
& Schmidt, 1991). The issue of motivation was often avoided by using the term
interest in its place. Likewise, literature in the field of second language acquisition
generally abandoned motivation as instrumentation and established a new base of
knowledge on the behavior and attitudes of good language learners (Crookes &
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
20/31
Schmidt, 1991). In the nineties however, the discussion on motivation is becoming
lively again (Williams, 1997, p. 118). Weaknesses in the instrumental - integrative
model, and new theories of motivation from cognitive psychology, have led key
scholars to call for a new theory that better fits L2 education (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991;
Skehan, 1991; Williams, 1997). Two new models that integrate a number of factors other
than integrativeness have recently been proposed: (1) Clment, Drnyei, and Noels ILA
model (1994); and (2) Williams and Burdens social constructivist model. These will be
examined later.
It was earlier stated that integrativeness is one of a number of factors closely tied to
achievement and proficiency, but what are the rest? A number of factors have been
suggested by various scholars, but they are not aligned along the same dimensions.
Some are affective, some are attitudinal and some are social.
Affective and Attitudinal Factors. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) counterbalance
psychosocial factors of motivation with attitudinal factors, particularly those found in
the classroom, such as attitudes towards language study, or affect. Krashens well-
known Monitor Model of Second Language Acquisition fits this orientation, since
motivation is considered a part of the affective filter. Research on classroom attitudes,
stemming from Good Learner Theories in second language acquistion (SLA), have
identified positive classroom behavior as related to achievement and more importantly,
the relationship of self-image and task engagement (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991). In
particular, learners tend to avoid tasks that they perceive as too challenging or not
challenging enough. These latter views parallel the self-efficacy and goal-related
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
21/31
theories in psychology. Most of the current theories of SL motivation include self-
confidence as a construct (Clment et al., 1994; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Gardner et al.,
1992; Spolsky, 1988).
One study (Benson, 1991), conducted on Japanese college students, expanded the
instrumental - integrative motivation model by adding personal motivation, which is
neither integrative nor instrumental. Japanese study English for the pleasure of being
able to read English, and the enjoyment of entertainment in English (p.36 ).
Social Factors. Giles and Byrne (1982, cited in Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p. 476), in
their Speech Accomodation Theory, introduce the ethnolinguistic vitality and the
relationship to the learners self-concept, thereby expanding social factors to include
group identification and boundaries. A study by Pierce (1995) found that social identity
has a strong relationship to motivation, although she prefers to call it investment
rather than motivation (p. 17). Finally, as mentioned above, Spolskys social context
(1988) also introduces family, home community and state as factors as well (Pierce,
1995). Ellis (cited in Williams & Burden, 1997) even includes friendship as a motivating
factor and Bailey notes the influence of competitiveness (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p.
495)
Post-behaviorist psychologists of the eighties, such as Keller; Maeher and Archer
associate motivation with choice, in terms of (1) direction, (2) persistence, (3)
continuance and (4) activity level. They also identify motivation with needs, both
external and internal, as in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991).
Although previously, the emphasis has been placed on researching intrinsic factors of
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
22/31
motivation, since research showed the ineffectiveness of extrinsic factors, such as grades
(Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), some current theorists hold that intrinsic and extrinsic
factors are interactive rather than separate. Popular writers like Underhill (1997)
suggest the external classroom atmosphere we create causes internal psychological
changes in students. Humanistic attitudes, empowerment, feedback, creating relaxed
alertness, playfulness, humor, and other classroom behaviors must also be considered
as factors of motivation.
Cognitive Factors. Interest in a cognitive approach to motivation is growing
(Williams, 1997) and as the cognitive theories become more refined in psychology, we
can expect their implementation in SL research. Cognitive theories focus on choice,
goals and styles.
Within the last ten years, extensive SL research has been done on the relationship
between achievement and learning styles (also referred to as learning strategies). A
number of studies on learning styles show correlations with attitude and achievement
(LoCastro, 1994; Oxford, 1990; Reid, 1987). In a study done by Ellis, for example, the
learning styles seemed closely connected to a positive affective orientation (p. 259)
towards language study. Although the relationship between learning styles and
motivation has so far only been implied, it is safe to assume that since achievement and
motivation are closely related, and since discussion on motivation is increasing,
learning styles will soon be recognized as an important factor.
As the above discussion indicates, whereas once motivation was generally
considered along two dimensions, as being integrative or instrumental, recognition of
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
23/31
other factors has made the issue much more complex. Within the last few years, two
models have been introduced that try to incorporate these additional factors in the
theory of SL motivation. Past models of motivation tended to be formed along two
tracks: either by pure theory and review of the literature, as in Maslows Hierarchy of
Needs; or by experimental research and analysis of the results, as in Hertzfields two
factor Motivation-Hygiene Theory. The two theories below follow these tracks as well.
The ILA model is based on the results of a specific study while the Constructivist model
is a compilation of other theories.
The ILA Model. Clment, Drnyei, and Noels (1994) conducted research on
motivational factors and created the ILA model from the results. SL motivation consists
of three interacting components: (a) integrative motivation, which is not separate from
instrumental motivation; (b) linguistic self-confidence, defined by attitude and effort;
and (c) appraisal of the classroom environment, noting that group cohesion leads to a
positive appraisal. Their research confirms the power of the integrative motive, and
also shows that it is connected to linguistic self-confidence, but they also found that
both of these components are separate from the students evaluation of the teaching
environment.
The ILA model is powerful because it is simple and parsimonious. It might be
weak, however, in that it does not consider all the factors discussed above as separate
components.
The Constructivist Model. Williams and Burden (1997) take social constructivist
position, in which it is assumed that each person is motivated differently and choice
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
24/31
plays an important part. They reviewed the current theories in cognitive psychology
and integrated them into a process-oriented theory with the decision to act at the center.
Influencing the individuals decision are two sets of dimensions, internal factors and
external factors. The internal factors interact dynamically in a non-linear fashion, and
affect the level and extent of learners motivation to complete a task or maintain an
activity (Williams, 1997, p. 137). These factors, while affecting each other are also
subject to influence from the other set of dimensions, external factors, where again, the
interaction is dynamic. Both sets of factors can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Willams and Burdens constructivist model, slightly modified (Williams,
1997, p. 140).
The strengths and weaknesses of the constructivist model are just the opposite of
those of the ILA model. The constructivist is more complete, but weaker in parsimony.
Research on Japanese English Students
Most studies of motivation done on Japanese focus on integrativeness and use a
questionnaire approach. In 1996, Teweles did a comparative study with Japanese and
Chinese college students studying English. Their motivational levels were assessed by
questionnaire. Japanese scored higher than their Chinese counterparts on integrative
measures, with 75% showing high levels of motivation. However, he also found that
general tests of English were a better predictior of performance than motivational
assessment. This reflects Chihara and Ollers well-known study in 1978 (Teweles, 1996,
p. 221), in which the weaknesses of attitudinal surveys were uncovered. These two
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
25/31
studies throw the validity of using questionnaires to assess motivation into question, at
least when conducted with Japanese. Crookes and Schmidt at the University of Hawaii,
however, and thus familiar with Japanese students, support the intuitive approaches,
such as self-reporting and questionnaires (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991).
In a questionnaire study done with 311 Japanese college freshmen, Benson (1991)
also found a high level of integrativeness. Results show that the top two reasons the
students said they study English were closely related to foreign travel. Number one, at
18.25%, was, Knowing English makes it easier to get along in other countries while
number two, at 15.35%, was Knowing English allows me to understand how foreigners
think (p. 41). Note that these reasons ranked well above school or work-related
reasons. In fact, Passing exams,reading textbooks, and personal satisfaction were
firmly rejected as reasons.
Benson also identified a third type of motivation, termed personal, which he
claims is neither neither instrumental nor integrative, although the interpretation might
be his alone. Examples of personal motivation are the pleasure of being able to read
English, and the enjoyment of entertainment in English (p.36), reasons implying
intrinsic motivation as related to self-concept. Benson also cites Chihara and Ollers
1978 study in 1978, when it was observed that Japanese value integrative and personal
reasons the most highly, rather than instrumental reasons. He also cites a 1989 study of
Japanese freshmen by Berwick and Ross, in which the overall intensity of motivation
was found to be low. These latter authors also note a high level of interest in studying
abroad (p.37).
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
26/31
In 1993, Kitao also conducted a questionnaire study on Doshisha students preparing
to study abroad. She found the number one reason Doshisha students signed up for the
program was integrative, to make foreign friends and the number two reason,
instrumental, to improve English ability. A more recent study (Ono, 1996) shows that at
least from the students perspective, these goals can be achieved. Upon their return,
the 23 third year students who spent twelve weeks in Canada became more positive
about Canadians, their English ability, and English as a subject of study.
Student Types, Classroom Conditions, Motivation, and Achievement
Most studies on motivation address what conditions influence motivation and how
motivation effects achievement, but recently, some interesting research examines
motivation from the other direction. In what way do learner characteristics, such as
cognitive ability, L1 linguistic aptitude, mastery orientation, etc., influence motivational
beliefs? Pintrich, Roeser and De Groot (1994) found that students who focus on
learning and mastery are more likely to have higher self-efficacy, less test anxiety, and
show higher levels of motivation. Even more important, they are more willing to study
in ways that lead to deeper learning:
...students who had positive motivational beliefs, which included a generalintrinsic orientation focused on learning and mastery, positive perceptions of ofinterest and value regarding course material, and high self efficacy beliefs, weremore likely to report using self-regulated learning strategies that will result indeeper processing of the material and better understanding. At the same time,students who reported higher levels of test anxiety were less likely to be self-regulating." (p. 155-6)
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
27/31
In asking whether positive motivational beliefs drive cognitive engagement or
whether it occurs the other way around, the researchers found that these two factors are
probably reciprocal. Of even greater import was their finding that both of these
conditions are not fixed learner characteristics, but can be influenced by the classroom
context. Interesting materials, some choice of tasks, good explanations, and the chance
to work with other students was more likely to result in the students focusing on
mastery and learning. In other words, teachers can influence motivation.
This perspective slightly differs from one proposed by Wigzell and Al-Ansari, who
claim that "High achievers are usually driven by a strong inner desire to learn and
generally learn successfully in any kind of learning environment" (p. 313), but this latter
point of view comes from personal observation rather than research. What Wigzell and
Al-Ansaris research did find, however, concurs with Pintrich, Roeser and De Groots
findings. Low achievers, however, tend to be much more sensitive variables in their
learning environment, such as teacher attitudes, materials, means of assessment, etc.
They suggest that successful instruction requires the teacher to give less attention to
managing the environment and more attention to fostering a desire to learn (p. 313).
Olshtain, Shohamy, Kemp, and Chatow (1990) examined how cognitive variables of
aptitude, L1 ability, IQ, and other individual features influence EFL achievement. In
particular, they compared disadvantaged students based on an Israeli govermental
classification with regular students. Their research found that certain types of
English test items, such as error completion, synonyms and register were more useful
for distinguishing between these types of learners, which, to some degree, supports the
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
28/31
view that L2 achievement is strongly influenced by L1 aptitude. It also supports, to
some degree, the deficit theory, which states that poor language ability reflects poor
cognitive ability, especially in relationship to the specialized type of language used in
schools (elaborated code) and the way L2 proficiency is measured: discrete item
language tests that measure syntactic accuracy rather than basic communication skills.
In short, in the L2 classroom, even native language proficiency must be considered a
factor of motivation and achievement.
These studies indicate that if future research is continued along these lines, and the
relationship between cognition, motivation and achievement brought into focus, that
whole new sets of dimensions for the motivation model might arise. Neither cognitive
dimensions nor the previously described cultural dimensions of construal of self, are
included in any of the current models, even Williams and Burdens expansive model.
Obviously, the question of motivation and where it comes from is far from settled.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
29/31
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 67(5), 422-436.
Alderfer, C. l. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs inorganizational settings. New York: The Free Press.
Alderfer, C. l. P. (1977). A critique of Salancik and Pfeffer's examination of need-satisfaction theories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 658-669.
Altman, S., Valenzi, E., & Hodgetts, R. (1985). Organizational behavior: Theory andpractice. Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.
Benson, M. (1991). Attitudes and motivation towards english: A survey of japanese
freshmen. RELC journal: A journal of language teaching and research in southeast asia,22(1, June 1991), 34-48.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations. (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, C. (1988). Identifying learning needs: Six methods adult educators canuse. Lifelong Learning, 11(January), 25-28.
Clment, R., Drnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and groupcohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3, Sept), 417-448.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512.
Davidman. (1991). Learning style: The myth, the panacea, the wisdom. Phi DeltaKappan(May), 641-645.
Gardner, R. C., Day, J. B., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). Motivational integrativemotivation, reduced anxiety, and language learning in a controlled environment.Studies in second language acquisition, 14(1, March), 197-214.
Hertzberg, F. (1971). The motivation-hygiene theory. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.),Organizational theory . New York: Penguin.
Hertzberg, F. (1982). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human. (2nded.). Salt Lake City:UT: Olympus.
Latham, G., & Yukl, G. (1979). A review of the research on the application of goalsetting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 824-845.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
30/31
Lawler, E. (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology, 22,426-435.
Lawler, E., & Porter, L. (1967). Antecedent attitudes of effective managementperformance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 122-142.
LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOLQuarterly, 28(2), 409-414.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition,emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and personality. (3rd ed., revised by R. Frager, J.Fadiman, C. McReynolds, & R. Cox ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Mitchell, T. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research and practice.Academy of Management review, 7(1), 80-88.
Olshtain, E., Shohamy, E., Kemp, J., & Chatow, R. (1990). Factors predicting EFLsuccess among culturally different learners. Language Learning, 40(1), 23-44.
Owens, R. G. (1987). Organizational behavior in education. (3rd ed.). EnglewoodCliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oxford, R., L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Pierce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOLQuarterly, 29(1), 9-33.
Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R., & De Groot, E. (1994). Classroom and individualdifferences in early adolescents' motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 14(2), 139-161.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, researchand applications. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Porter, L. W. (1961). A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middlemanagement jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 1-10.
Ramage, K. (1991). Motivational factors and persistence in second languagelearning. Language Learning, 40(2, June 1990), 189-219.
7/31/2019 Retrieved From Http
31/31
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly,21(1), 87-111.
Savignon, S. (1995, ). Language, social meaning, and social change: The challengefor teachers. Paper presented at the 22nd annual JALT international conference on
language teaching/learning, Nagoya, Japan.
Singleton, J. (1993). Gambaru: A Japanese cultural theory of learning, In JamesShields (Ed.) Japanese Schooling: Patterns of Socialization, Equality and PoliticalControl. pp 8-15. : University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.
Spolsky, B. (1988). A general theory of second language learning. TESOL Quarterly,22(3), 377-396.
Teweles, B. (1996). Motivational differences between Chinese and Japanese learnersof Englsish as a foreign langaige. Japan Association of Language Teachers Journal,18(2), 211-228.
White, M. (1987). The Japanese educational challenge. New York: Free Press.
Wigzell, R., & Al-Ansari, S. (1993). The pedagogical needs of low achievers.Canadian Modern Language Review, 49(2), 302-315.
Williams, M. B., Robert. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: a social
constructivist view: New York: Cambridge.
top related