APTITUDE, ATTITUDE AND MOTIVATION AS PREDICTORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING C. Michael Sturgeon
APTITUDE, ATTITUDE AND MOTIVATION AS PREDICTORS IN
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
C. Michael Sturgeon
Sturgeon 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
Aptitude........................................................................................................................... 4 Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................................... 5 Motivation & Attitude..................................................................................................... 7 Foreign Language Learning Motivation / Attitude / Aptitude ...................................... 14 Synthesis………………………………………………………………………………16
References ..................................................................................................................... 18
Sturgeon 3
Introduction “People who are too concerned with how well they are doing will be less
successful and feel less competent than those who focus on the task itself... Some
psychologists call it a conflict between ego-orientation, or between extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation... but in all cases, what counts is whether attention is turned away from the
task at hand and focused on the self and its future rewards, or whether it is instead
trained on the task itself. The latter attitude seems the more fruitful.” Author unknown
“How can I motivate my students to work harder?” is a question posed by most
teachers at most teaching levels on a daily basis. When teachers see students who have
few obvious differences other than their motivation for learning new information,
questions concerning their students’ sources of motivation emerge. Educators accept that
students have individual learning styles and vary in their attitudes toward learning in
general. (Deci & Flaste, 1995; Dornyei, 2005; Skehan, 1989) Attitude affects levels of
motivation and can make a difference in a student’s academic career. For example,
compulsory readings and memorization of terms versus classroom involvement and
social interaction can influence a learner’s attitude.
One area of learning that is unique, when compared to other types of learning, is
foreign language learning. When learning a foreign language, students must take
something that is initially unknown and make it a part of who they are. Techniques in the
field of teaching foreign language differ and can be unique learning experiences. Students
experience diverse emotions, as well as various levels of success, while learning a foreign
language. The difference could be a matter of motivation. Is there more to this puzzling
picture than motivation and attitude? Does the individual difference of aptitude hold a
Sturgeon 4
position in this matrix? Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret (1997) have researched numerous
variables concerning success in foreign language learning. Some researchers (Skehan,
1989) consider aptitude as the number one indicator of success in foreign language
learning. Other researchers see self-efficacy as the true indicator (Dörnyei, 2005).
Aptitude Language aptitude has been suggested as “… one of the central individual
differences in language learning.” (Skehan, 1989, pp. 25, 38 as cited by Harley & Hart, p.
379). It has also been declared to be the most consistent predictor of one’s success in
learning a foreign language (Skehan, 1989 as cited by Harley & Hart, p. 379 and
Dörnyei, p. 61, 2005). Due to the conceptual issues involved, the matter of differentiating
among ability, aptitude, and intelligence must be considered. These terms are commonly
used interchangeably in everyday parlance, and the scientific definition is lost because of
the popular use (Dörnyei, 2005). Ability typically applies in psychology to various traits
which involve thinking, reasoning and the processing of information. Scholars have
distinguished a difference between ability and aptitude but in practical terms, and for the
purpose of language learning, these terms are synonymous in meaning and pedagogical
application (Dörnyei, 2005; Skehan, 1998). Whereas aptitude is commonly used in
reference to a specific area of performance, intelligence carries a broader meaning; it is
not specific to a discipline, but rather entails all areas of learning. The meaning is also
synonymous, to a degree, with abilities. Noticeably, the differences in meaning are
minor in detail (Dörnyei, 2005).
The research on language learning aptitude has primarily focused on the Modern
Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), but researchers are now considering other factors;
Sturgeon 5
therefore, the emphasis has lessened, especially since the early 1990’s (Dörnyei, 2005;
Gardner, 2001; Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L., 1995). Very few specialists in language
learning can discard a tool that is distinctively designed for the purpose of measuring
one’s aptitude, or ability, to learn a second or foreign language (Ehman, M.E., 1996;
Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. 1995). Research reveals that though aptitude is well
established as a general measure, its equivalent determiner in language learning ability is
motivation. This body of emerging research continues to strengthen as more scholars
take this into consideration (Dörnyei, 2001a; 2005; Gardner, 2001). The controversy of
aptitude versus attitude continues even when scholars are proclaiming motivation to be at
least equivalent, instead of superior, to aptitude as a predictor of success in foreign
language learning (Ehrman, M.E. 1996; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000).
Self-Efficacy
According to Alderman (1999), motivation can be influenced by self-perception
(Zimmerman, 2000). Self-perception can destroy one’s motivation to accomplish a given
task based on the belief that the ability to do the task is lacking; or the motivation is
suppressed because of the belief that the task lacks challenging components (Alderman,
1999; Bandura, 1997; Calder & Staw, 1975). Research indicates that students perceive
themselves as more, the more challenging the goals they pursue will be (Zimmerman,
Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992). According to Zimmerman (2000), research during the
past two decades has revealed that self-efficacy is a highly successful predictor of a
student’s motivation and learning.
Self-efficacy is a performance-based measure of one’s perceived ability and
therefore differs theoretically from motivational constructs such as outcome expectations
Sturgeon 6
or self-concept (Zimmerman, 2000). Frequently, the terms self-efficacy and self concept
are misunderstood to have the same meaning. Self-efficacy pertains to one’s perceived
abilities to accomplish a specific task; whereas, self concept is a composite look at
oneself believed to have been formed from one’s experiences and accepted evaluations
from family and / or friends. Self-concept and self-efficacy may both be used outside the
context of learning (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). The role self-efficacy plays in
one’s motivation and attitude toward language learning is an important one having
influence on one’s performance (Bandura, 1997; Dörnyei, 2001a; Ehrman, 1996). When
looking at language learning many learners feel they have to be risk-takers because their
self is put before others to perform. Those with low self-efficacy perceive tasks of
difficulty as threats; these are people that dwell on their deficiencies and remember the
obstacles they encounter when pursuing challenging tasks (Dörnyei, 2001a). There is a
reason for connecting the concept of self-efficacy with the motivation to learn an
additional language. For students to be able to focus on the task of learning with all their
might and determination, they must have a healthy view of themselves as learners
(Dörnyei, 2001).
Although prior successes combined with other general measures of one’s ability
are considered exemplary predictors of achievement, (Zimmerman, 2000) many studies
suggest that self-efficacy beliefs add to the predictability of these measures. One such
study was that of students’ self-monitoring. The findings pointed to the fact that the
efficacious students monitored their working time more effectively and were more
persistent. The study also indicated the more efficacious students to be better at solving
problems than inefficacious students of equal aptitude (Zimmerman, 2000).
Sturgeon 7
Zimmerman & Bandura (1994) did a path analytic study for writing and found
that self-efficacy for writing was a considerable predictor of college students’ standards
for the quality of writing measured as self-satisfying. The self-efficacy beliefs also
motivated the students’ use of learning strategies. According to Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons (1992), there was a substantial relation between efficacy beliefs and strategy use
across the grade levels being studied. The greater the motivation and self-regulation of
learning in students with a high self-efficacy “…the higher the academic achievement
according to a range of measures.” (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 88) Another study Zimmerman
(2000) notes illustrates a finding of an overall effect size of .38 which this indicates that
self-efficacy accounts for approximately 14% of the variance in students’ academic
outcome across various sets of student samples and criterion measures. Concerning the
effects of perceived self-efficacy on persistence, research has shown that it influences the
learner’s skill acquisition by increasing persistence (Schunk, 1981; 2003; Zimmerman,
2000). Observably, self-efficacy plays a mediational role in motivation, persistence and
academic achievement. The findings signify evidence of the validity of self-efficacy
beliefs and their influence on a student’s method of learning and motivational process
(Zimmerman, 2000).
Motivation & Attitude Educators continue to have concerns about student success and the motivation
that is required to accomplish the academic goals set before their learners. They voice
concerns about how to make classes more inspiring, how to encourage students to be
more diligent and how to provide appropriate incentives; the list continues, as it has for
decades (Ames & Ames, 1984; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dörnyei, 2000; 2001; 2005;
Sturgeon 8
Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Numerous motivational concepts have emerged over the
years designed to motivate the learner and ultimately produce the types of student
behavior desired by instructors. Motivation is referred to by Dörnyei (2005, p. 1) as “...an
abstract, hypothetical concept that we use to explain why people think and behave as they
do.” The meaning of the term, motivation, is vague but we use it because it is the best
way known to describe the abstract concept (Dörnyei, 2005).
The understanding of the term motivation is quite broad in that it includes an
endless range of meanings. The range of meanings for motivation go from financial
incentives such as a raise, which would bringing about a new level of life-style, to what
some may perceive as a freedom that is seemingly idealistic, (i.e. release from prison)
which one could possibly be driven to attain (Dörnyei, 2005). Though these two
examples have little in common, they have an influence on behavior. Because of the
seemingly limitless ways of interpreting motivation, is seen as a broad umbrella term that
covers a number of meanings (Alderman, 1999; Calder, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner & Lambert, 1972).
Motivation theory started with Sigmund Freud, well known within psychoanalytic
psychology. In 1914 and 1915 he postulated that behavior can be reduced to a number of
drives; otherwise known by Freud as instinct theory. In empirical psychology it is
suggested that motivation theory started with Hull’s drive theory in 1943 (Deci & Ryan,
1985). The drives on which Hull based his theory were hunger, thirst, sex and avoidance
of pain. Today we have a much more complex world and, therefore, a more complex
understanding of motivation and motivational behavior. The motivation seen in people,
as presently practiced, appears to be primarily to avoid punishment or receive rewards
Sturgeon 9
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dornyei, 2001;
2001a; 2005; Weiner, 1979; 1990). Deci & Ryan (2004) have suggested that human
needs are quite different. They remark that the needs are relatedness to others,
competence, and autonomy.
Frequently, a distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The
understanding of extrinsic motivation is that the goal providing satisfaction is
independent of the activity, whereas intrinsic motivation finds the satisfaction within the
activity itself (Calder & Staw, 1975; Covington & Dray, 2002; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975;
Deci & Flaste, 1995; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement,
R., & Vallerand, R. J., 2000). The assumption commonly accepted is that extrinsic
rewards such as money fulfill a basic human need. Obviously this societal based
motivation system is effective in accomplishing the set goals of bringing about desired
behaviors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Ryan; 1985). Many researchers are
considering not only behaviors based on external rewards, but also behaviors that are
acted out based on the activity or behavior itself. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; 1991; 1997;
2000; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
One of the more prominent paradigms in motivational psychology has been
presented by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand, 1997 as cited in
Dörnyei, 2001). Self-determination theory places the types of regulations on a continuum
between self-determined (intrinsic) and controlled (extrinsic) forms (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
2004; Dörnyei, 2001). For the purposes of this literature review, the terms self-
determination and intrinsic motivation will be used interchangeably.
Sturgeon 10
Where one is placed on this continuum is dependent on how ‘internalized’ the form of
motivation is and “…how much the regulation has been transferred from outside to inside
the individual” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 47). According to Dörnyei (2001) there are five
categories which have been identified on this continuum. They are identified as:
1. external regulation, meaning that the motivation comes strictly from outside
sources, from rewards to avoidance of punishment;
2. introjected regulation, which is following imposed rules in order to avoid feeling
guilty;
3. identified regulation; an example of this would be where one engages in an
activity because of a perceived usefulness;
4. integrated regulation which involves choice made behavior(s) based on the
individual’s values, needs and identity;
5. intrinsic motivation where the individual is involved in the activity for the sake of
the activity and nothing more.
Observably, motivation is a complex concept. For this writing, the term will be
defined as a drive that influences behavior, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as
well as other constructs based on motivational theory.
A substantive amount of research regarding motivation for language learning has
been conducted over previous decades, especially in how it is related to perceived locus
of control, attitude, self-efficacy and anxiety (Atkinson, 1957; Dörnyei, 2001; Gabillon,
2005; Gardner & Tremblay, 1994; Weiner, 1972). The years of research have brought
about data allowing language instructors to have an understanding of the learner;
therefore, potentially improving the language learner’s outcomes (Hsieh, 2004).
Sturgeon 11
Motivation by itself appears to be understood, but language learning is quite
different compared to other areas of study, in the matter that learners will potentially face
anxiety and social distress (Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999). According to Saito, Horwitz
and Garza (1999), the learner’s experience of anxiety can have a debilitating impact on
their ability to learn to communicate in the second language. Moreover, the anxiety
experienced in the classroom environment has been suggested to have a negative impact
on the motivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Kitano, 2001). Because anxiety is an
unpleasant experience, behaviors associated with anxiety reduction would be reinforced
since the avoidance of pain or unpleasantness is one of the primary drives according to
drive
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The problem Deci & Ryan (1985) note in this theory is that
typically, exploratory behaviors are associated with excitement not fear and anxiety. The
avoidance of anxiety does not appear to be a motivator for exploration or curiosity driven
behaviors (Deci & Ryan 1985). Collectively, there are at least two factors that can either
eliminate or diminish motivation. These are anxiety and self-efficacy. Interestingly,
anxiety is not as commonly found in learners that have a high self-efficacy as in those
who do not (Bandura, 1997). When a learner experiences diminished motivation,
academic success is impacted. The thought of past failures brings about anxiety and, in
turn, the self-efficacy is affected (Atkinson, 1974; 1983; Bandura, 1997; Ehrman, 1996).
Ehrman (1996) and Bandura (1997) reiterate the reality that emotions play an important
role in the learners’ lives. These concepts are interrelated in a learner and have potential
to enhance a learner’s motivation and performance, as well as the reverse.
Sturgeon 12
Attitudes and motivation in language learning materialized as an area of research
in the late 1950’s, and continues to be a topic of research into the 21st century (Dörnyei,
2001). Gardner & Lambert (1972) began research on the topic during his doctoral studies
in 1957. Aptitude had been accepted as the answer for why some individuals seemed to
be better at language learning than others. Yet, when a culture wants to keep an original
language alive, they learn it and pass it on to the children to know it as well as the spoken
language (Dörnyei, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The question Gardner and
Lambert approached was that of attitude toward a culture and if it had an impact on the
learner’s motivation to learn the new culture’s language. He later termed this motivation
construct as integrative motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005).
Gardner has continued research in this direction as other researchers strongly suggest the
motivational framework to be expanded (Gardner & Tremblay, 1994; Noels, Clément &
Pelletier, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Dörnyei (1994) remarks that Gardner’s works
are of great value to linguists and instructors of language; yet, there is a need to go
beyond the social psychology of motivation and language learning. Gardner saw that
there was more than aptitude involved in the success of learning a foreign language;
therefore, he positioned most of his research in the direction of discovering other factors
(Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner, 1960; 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). “To say that one has to
have ‘an ear for languages’ is to give an excuse rather than an answer, since it is too easy
to transfer mysteries to biology, either as the source of one’s linguistic difficulties or as
the source of one’s linguistic genius” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Based on the years of
research, Gardner was accurate on this matter; yet, there still appears to be more
questions than answers as to the source of one’s abilities, or the lack of it, in learning a
Sturgeon 13
foreign language (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 1994; 2001; Gardner & Lambert,
1972; Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2000; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Dörnyei
(1994) notes that Gardner & Lambert’s works (1972) are a necessary contribution to the
academy, yet the motivational construct of Gardner’s excludes cogitative aspects of
motivation to learn. From the time of Gardner’s founding of the Gardnerian motivational
theory for second-language learning till now, focus has changed from behaviorist to more
cognitive concepts (Dörnyei, 1994; 2001; 2001a). A variety of new approaches toward
motivation and second-language acquisition came about in the 1990’s. Gardner educated
many international scholars from his in-depth research (Dörnyei, 1994). Gardner &
Tremblay (as cited in Dörnyei, 1994) called the 1990’s a ‘motivational renaissance’. The
first three decades of research in the field of motivation and second-language learning
was inspired by the three Canadian psychologists, Robert Gardner, Wallace Lambert, and
Richard Clement. With their accomplishments, scholars had a solid foundation from
which to work (Dörnyei, 1994; 2001; Gardner, 1994). Research bodies established
motivation as the principle determinant of second language acquisition. Motivation and
how it impacts the learner’s aptitude is also considered well researched since the 1990’s
(Gardner, 1994). Approaching the new millennium the boundaries of second language
(L2) motivation were pushed even further with researchers adopting complex
perspectives (Dörnyei, 2001a). Studies in motivation would include: motivation from a
process-oriented perspective; task motivation; self-determination theory and the
neurobiological basis of motivation (Dörnyei, 2001a). Dörnyei (2001) suggests that L2
motivation as a situated construct will be one of the primary research areas of the future
and that there is a need to focus research on temporal motivation. The study of temporal
Sturgeon 14
motivation will be particularly useful because “…it allows researchers to discuss both
preactional ‘choice motivation’ (i.e., the motives leading to selecting goals and forming
intentions) and volitional/executive factors during the actional phase (i.e., motives
affecting ongoing learning behaviors) in a unified framework.” (Dörnyei, 2000; 2001)
To focus on intrinsic motivation allows for a detailed review and the inclusion of
various points of view. In the book “why we do what we do”, Deci & Flaste (1995) stated
that we often either experience or see others experience extrinsic motivation controlling
and forcing the focus to be on the outcomes, and that can ultimately lead to shortcuts that
may be undesirable. It is difficult to compete with extrinsic motivation, for human
behavior leads us to naturally seek gratification which is frequently offered as a reward
for the display or performance of an attained skill (Atkinson, 1974; Deci & Ryan, 1985).
The growing interest in cognitive processes since the early 1930s has had an influence on
the field of motivation. All of the cognitive theories from the 1930s till now direct our
attention to the concept of choice, which is directly related to motivation and even more
so to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R.,
& Vallerand, R. J., 2000).
Foreign Language Learning Motivation / Attitude / Aptitude
Language learning research continues to view the learner, the learning, and the
instructing from a plethora of angles that include a multitude of factors (Dörnyei, 2005;
Ehrman, 1996). This paper will focus on the factors; motivation, attitude, and aptitude.
The theories specific to motivation and language learning and/or motivation for learning
a foreign language are plentiful. There is one that is of interest for this particular
literature review and that is attitude and motivation for language learning (Gardner &
Sturgeon 15
Lambert, 1972). However, there are gaps within Gardner’s theory, as it is focused
primarily on the social psychological underpinnings (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei,
1994; 2001b; 2003; 2005; Dörnyei & Csizér 1998; Gardner, 1994; Gardner & Lambert,
1972; Oxford, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). According to Dörnyei (1994; 2005) there
is a need to research outside the realm of social psychology and second language
learning. The situation Gardner’s theory is based on is quite unique in the sense that the
community observed spoke, and continues to speak, two different languages (Dörnyei,
1994; 2005). Some community members speak French, some speak English, and some
speak both; therefore his study was on the social aspects of how people were motivated,
or not motivated, to learn French if they were native English speakers (Gardner, 1960;
Dörnyei, 1994, 2005; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Oxford & Shearin (1994) reiterated the
need to expand the framework of motivation and language learning. The attitude aspect
that Gardner included was specific to the learners’ attitude toward the French speaking
culture (Dörnyei, 1994; Gardner, 1960; 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972).
Seeing the narrowness of Gardner’s research, other researchers took on the tasks
of expanding the focus of research on motivation for language learning; considering
factors of attribution, self-determination, locus of control, self-efficacy and many more
(Dörnyei, 2001b; 2003; 2005; Ehrman, 1996; Oxford & Shearin 1994). The L2 research
needs seemingly continue to grow in the area of motivation and attitude, while at the
same time there is continuous research occurring on the matter of aptitude for language
learning (Dörnyei, 2005; Skehan, 1989). Skehan (1998) makes reference to Carroll’s
writing’s of the ‘60s, at the time the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) was being
designed by Carroll, suggesting that under moderate quality instruction and conditions of
Sturgeon 16
time pressure, that aptitude would be a good predictor of L2 success. Later Skehan (1998)
suggests there are L2 learners that are “less gifted” therefore need more time to put into
their learning and more effort. A number of researchers of language learning have made
apparently changed their ways of thinking about aptitude and are deciding that motivation
with aptitude is a predictor of success in learning a second language (Ehrman & Oxford,
1995; Skehan, 1998). At this time Skehan (2002 as cited by Erlam, 2005) is suggesting
that the determiner of one’s success at foreign/L2 language learning is the individual’s
general learning mechanisms. Moreover he (Skehan, 2002 as cited by Erlam, 2005)
suggests that language learning aptitude is modular in that one’s aptitude for L1 learning
is different from L2 language learning in the perception, analysis, storage and retrieval of
information.
Synthesis
In the foreign language learning context, learner’s motivation and attitude have
been suggested to have an influence on the student’s success in L2 learning (Csizér &
Dörnyei, 2005; Dornyei, 2003; 2005; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Gardner, 1960; Gardner
& Lambert, 1972). Self-efficacy is a belief that one has about one’s capabilities to
complete a task and at what level of success in doing so. It has been suggested that a
learner’s self-efficacy influences his or her learning motivation (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995;
Horwitz, 1988; Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999). Although many studies have looked into
the students’ attitude and there have been studies conducted evaluating the position of
motivation in language learning, and even studies into language learning and self-
efficacy, there has not been a study that makes the connections between the three and
compares their strengths to aptitude. Because these various aspects are important to
Sturgeon 17
success in language learning, understanding students’ various perceptions, motivations
and attitudes can offer a path to understanding the reasoning of their successes and
failures. By studying and further elucidating the attitudes, perceptions and motivations of
the learners, my hope is that this study will contribute to the research in language learning
as well as educational psychology in a significant manner; therefore helping instructors
identify destructive beliefs and attitudes that students may have. This recognition would
make it possible for instructors of language to help sustain the learners’ motivation.
Sturgeon 18
References Alderman, M. K. (2003). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and
Learning: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Goal structures and motivation. The Elementary School
Journal, 85(1), 38-52.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64(6), 359-372.
Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington, D.C.:
V. H. Winston & Sons.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control: WH Freeman New York. Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 599-605.
Covington, M. V. & Dray, E. (2002). The development of course of achievement
motivation: A need-based approch. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.),
Development of Achievement Motivation (First ed., pp. 33-56). Ann Arbor:
Academic Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work
and Play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sturgeon 19
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners' motivational profiles and their
motivated learning behaviour. Language Learning, 55(4), 613-659.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Penguin Books.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research: University
of Rochester Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. England: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom: Cambridge
University Press New York.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). New themes and approaches in second language motivation
research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning:
Advances in theory, research, and applications: Blackwell Synergy.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition: L. Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners:
results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203-229.
Sturgeon 20
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. London:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning
Success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in
second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147-172.
Gardner, R. C. (1960). Motivational Variables in Second-Language Acquisition.
Unpublished dissertation, Graduate Studies and Research of McGill University.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language
learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation, research agendas, and
theoretical frameworks. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 359-368.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language
Journal, 81(3), 344-362.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.
Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1-
19). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2000). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in
classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19(03), 379-400.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University
Foreign Language Students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.
Sturgeon 21
Hsieh, P.-H. (2004). How college students explain their grades in a foreign language
course: The interrelationship of attributions, self-efficacy, language learning
beliefs, and achievement. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Lepper, M. R., Green, D. & Nisbett, R. E., (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic
interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the" overjustification" hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137.
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative
orientations of French Canadian learners of English. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 424-442.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you
learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination
theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57-85.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 202-218.
Schunk, D. (1981). Modeling and attributional feedback on children’s perceived self-
efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93-105.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: influence of modeling, goal
setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
Sturgeon 22
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Great Britain:
Chapman and Hall, Inc.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning: Oxford University Press
New York.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational
process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. Achievement, stress
and anxiety, 93-125.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing
course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
Academic Attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: L. Erlbaum Associates
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: L. Erlbaum Associates.