53

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model ofForeign Language Motivation in Japan:

A Synthesis of Research

Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

Abstract: This study reports on a synthesis of studies on foreign

language motivation among Japanese learners of English using the

socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985, 2001). Some researchers

have suggested that the socio-educational model is not applicable in

contexts where English is a foreign language, including Japan. This is

because English is a primary international language and may have no

specific target language community in learners’ minds, which poses

challenges for Gardner’s idea of integrativeness. The present study is

a research synthesis that attempts to investigate the ways in which this

model has been utilized and the applicability of the model in Japan.

Thirty-four unique studies in Japanese as well as non-Japanese journals

and books were synthesized. The results suggested that the majority of

studies investigated participants’ reasons for learning English, and in

some cases when factor analysis was performed one factor was made

up of both integrative and instrumental orientations, precluding a

distinction. On the other hand the relationships between orientations,

motivation and foreign language achievement were not thoroughly

investigated and varied to a great extent. The paper discusses these

varying results and what we can learn from the model.

1. Introduction

One of the so-called individual difference variables in second language (L2) acquisition

which has widely been researched is L2 motivation. Motivation involves “the direction and

magnitude of human behaviour” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 4, original emphasis), and L2

motivation plays an important role in L2 learning. Up until the early 1990s the dominant

54

ICR Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

model was the socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985, 2001). At the heart of this model is

the construct of integrative motivation, which is defined as a motivation “to learn a second

language because of positive feelings toward the community that speaks that language”

(Gardner, 1985, pp. 82-83). This construct consists of integrativeness, attitudes toward the

learning situation, and motivation (quantity). Integrativeness refers to “a genuine interest

in learning the second language in order to come closer to the other language community”

(Gardner, 2001, p. 5), and is comprised of interest in foreign languages, attitudes towards

the L2 community, and integrative orientation (reasons for learning an L2 that are related

to wanting to become similar to valued members of the target language community).

Although Gardner’s main argument was that integrative motivation was one of the most

important constructs closely related to L2 achievement, his model was popular mainly

because of a contrast the model made between integrative orientation and instrumental

orientation (one’s pragmatic reasons for learning an L2, such as getting a better job).

Various empirical studies have been conducted to date (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Gardner,

Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997).

In recent years, a considerable amount of research on L2 motivation has been

conducted in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, where learners study a

language not typically spoken where they live (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). As researchers

applied the socio-educational model to EFL contexts, they realized the limitations of

integrativeness. That is, English is now considered the primary international language,

and for learners in EFL contexts this means that there is no specific target L2 community,

which undermines Gardner’s idea of integrativeness. This shift in theoretical trends in the

international community of L2 motivation researchers has also been felt in Japan, where

research adopting Gardner’s socio-educational model has been gradually accumulating, yet

often yielding inconclusive results. But given that the Gardnerian research accumulated in

Japan is by now substantial, the timing seems ripe for a critical examination of the model

before totally abandoning it.

The present study is an attempt to answer how this model has been utilized and

whether indeed this model is inapplicable in Japan. In order to answer these questions

the methodology of research synthesis (Ortega, 2010) was used. Unlike a single primary

research project with a limited number of participants, a systematic synthesis should

provide accumulated findings, the general applicability of an L2 motivation model in a

given context, and directions for future research.

2. Method

(1) Literature Retrieval

The literature included in this synthesis consisted of articles and book chapters

investigating L2 motivation in the socio-educational model in Japan and published between

1985, when Gardner’s Social Psychology and Second Language Learning was published, and

2010. While synthesists find it advisable to include the so-called “gray literature” (e.g.,

55

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model of Foreign Language Motivation in Japan

Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005), I decided to confine the synthesis to published

studies in order to achieve “an accurate synthesis of exactly those findings from those

studies that are published and reported, and that therefore in many ways define this

research domain” (Norris & Ortega, 2000, p. 432). In order to retrieve relevant articles, I

employed the following two strategies of literature retrieval.

The first stage was screening four literature databases, as shown in Table 1. I first

conducted keyword searches using the following word combinations: “motivation,” “Japan,”

“language,” and “English.” Several steps were necessary for retrieving relevant studies. First,

since studies on chimpanzees came up in the search results, the word chimpanzees was

added as an exclusion word. Second, some researchers have investigated what demotivates,

rather than motivates, L2 learners. These studies work within a different framework from

the socio-educational model and thus the keywords “demotivation” and “demotivator” were

added as exclusion words. Third, I did not include dissertations or master’s theses. Thus,

the keyword “dissertation” was added as an exclusion word. For the database in Japan (i.e.,

CiNii), only the words “motivation,” “English,” and “language” were used because it was

obvious that studies focused on Japan and it was not possible to add exclusion words.

Table 1

Online Database Search Results

ERIC LLBA PsycInfoCiNii

(Eng.)CiNii (Jpn.)

Total without overlap

(motivation) AND (Japan) AND (language)

AND (English) NOT (chimpanzees) NOT

(demotivation) NOT (demotivator) NOT

(dissertation)

18 (70) 47

(138)

14 (72) --- --- 76

(motivation) AND (English) AND (language) --- --- --- 15(56) 8(17)

Note: Numbers in the parentheses indicate the initial numbers of studies identified, before excluding studies obviously

not related to L2 motivation or the socio-educational model. ERIC=Education Resources Information Center,

LLBA=Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, CiNii =National Institute of Informatics Scholarly and Academic

Information Navigator in Japan.

I then examined the titles and the abstracts of each study, and excluded studies that

clearly did not focus on L2 motivation or on the socio-educational model. This electronic

search stage of the literature retrieval process resulted in the total of 76 potentially relevant

studies.

As a second stage, I pursued manual searches. First, I scanned the tables of contents of

back issues of the 17 journals in the field listed in Table 2 in search for additional relevant

study reports.

56

ICR Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

Table 2

Relevant Articles Found in Journals Through Manual Searches

Journal Potentially relevant Included in final synthesis

Applied Linguistics 0 0

Asian EFL Journal 0 0

English Language Teaching Journal 0 0

International Review of Applied Linguistics

in Language Teaching

1 0

JACET Bulletin 10 0

JALT Journal 4 0

Japanese Psychological Research 0 0

JASTEC Journal 4 2

Language Education & Technology 6 1

Language Learning 0 0

Language Teaching Research 0 0

Modern Language Journal 0 0

RELC Journal 0 0

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 0 0

System 2 0

TESOL Quarterly 0 0

The Language Teacher 1 0

Note. The numbers in this table represent unique hits not uncovered by the electronic searches.

I also retrieved articles cited in Irie (2003), which is a literature review of L2 motivation

studies in Japan covering articles published between 1990 and 2003. Next, I searched

in ProQuest for dissertations which focused on L2 motivation in Japan in order to refer

to their reference sections and search for studies that may be relevant. By screening the

ProQuest database with the same keywords that I used for database search I found a total

of 28 dissertations. Of these, four dissertations dealt with L2 motivation among Japanese

learners of English (Aloiau, 2001; Irie, 2005; Mori, 2002a; Pease, 2006). I checked the

reference sections of these four dissertations for relevant studies. I concluded the manual

search stage with a final thorough check of the reference sections from each of these

studies for further candidates. In the end, I found an additional 65 articles with the four

manual search strategies described above, which I added to the 76 articles found by the

electronic database searches.

57

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model of Foreign Language Motivation in Japan

(2) The Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

After the total 141 studies were retrieved, a systematic process of determining the

eligibility of studies began. To be included in the synthesis, first a study of course needed

to focus on L2 motivation. Second, the study needed to be a primary research report,

which excluded reviews. Third, it had to be conducted in Japan, not just with participants

who were Japanese, because I considered that contextual factors were likely to influence

L2 learners’ motivation. Thus, studies that focused, for example, on Japanese learners in

the study-abroad context were excluded. Fourth, I decided that a study needed to employ

the questionnaire method so that the data type would be comparable across studies. Fifth,

studies needed to work within the framework of the socio-educational model, excluding

studies using other models. Finally, I included only those studies that at least measured

integrative orientation. This is because the main criticism of the socio-educational model

is that researchers found mixed results on integrative orientation in Japan (Irie, 2003) and

that this orientation is irrelevant when English is perceived as an international language.

In other words, evidence bearing on integrative orientation is an essential factor when

examining the applicability of the socio-educational model. Thus, I excluded, for example,

studies that investigated only instrumental orientation or only motivational intensity

and desire to learn English. In the end, forty reports remained as the candidates for the

synthesis, 34 of which were independent studies.

(3) Coding Procedures

After retrieving and selecting the studies that met my inclusion criteria, I proceeded to

code and classify the 34 sample studies according to different features.

One salient feature I noticed when reviewing each study was that not many studies

used the full version of Gardner’s test battery, Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB). I

found great diversity in what individual researchers reported regarding questionnaire items

and any underlying constructs measured by them. For example, some mentioned that they

directly adopted and translated items from the AMTB. Others mentioned that they worked

within the socio-educational model but did not mention whether they directly applied the

items from the AMTB, or if they created items of their own. Thus, in order to accommodate

such diversity, I classified studies according to the variables they seemed to measure.

For those studies that included correlations between at least integrative orientation

(plus possibly other motivational variables) and L2 achievement/proficiency variables, I

coded those correlations for quantitative meta-analysis. This was to examine the extent

to which motivational variables, in particular integrative orientation, were related to L2

achievement.

3. Results

Because of space limitations I only discuss some key features of the synthesis here.

58

ICR Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

(1) Methodological Features

Table 3 shows that about 71% of the studies investigated L2 motivation among

university students. However, given Japanese learners’ exam-oriented reasons for learning

English (Berwick & Ross, 1989), more studies should be conducted with high school

students, who study towards university entrance exams. Furthermore, given that compulsory

“foreign language activities” started in 2011, studies with elementary school students will be

promising in the coming years.

Table 3

Publication and Sample Characteristics

Study feature Code # Studies

Publication year 1985-1990 2

1991-1995 9

1996-2000 8

2000-2005 10

2006-2010 5

Publication type International journals 6

Japanese journals 25

Others 3

Institutional level Elementary school 1

Junior high school 8

High school 5

Junior college/ university 24

Other 1

Sample size Mean 294.18

Max 1417

Min 34

Standard deviation 306.89

(2) Substantive Features

By examining what constructs were investigated, as presented in Table 4, I found the

following three patterns: (a) the majority of studies, or 67.4%, investigated integrative

and instrumental orientations; (b) a few studies, or 26.5%, simultaneously investigated

integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, and motivational intensity; and (c)

the investigation of only integrative orientation and motivation or of only integrative

orientation was practically non-existing (with one study in each category). As explained

59

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model of Foreign Language Motivation in Japan

earlier, Gardner made a distinction between “motivation” and “orientation,” each meaning

motivational intensity or amount of effort and reasons for studying an L2. In other words,

the model postulated that motivation was made up of both quantity and quality. However,

approximately 71% of the studies did not include items on motivational quantity.

Table 4

Study Characteristics

Study feature Code # Studies

Construct(s)integrative orientation plus:

Instrumental orientation: y, motivation: y 9

Instrumental orientation: y, motivation: n 23

Instrumental orientation: n, motivation: y 1

Instrumental orientation: n, motivation: n 1

Research questions Identifying motivational bases 22

Investigating differences among groups 17

Investigating relationships with dependent variables 15

Investigating longitudinal change in motivation 5

Others 3

Variable Type Motivation as independent variable 15

Motivation as dependent variable 19

Motivation neither as independent nor dependent variable 8

One possible reason for this trend is because of the researchers’ interests. Sixty-five

percent of the studies investigated the motivational bases among participants, examining

participants’ reasons for learning English, without much focus on how much effort

participants make in studying English. That is, there seems to be much more interest in

orientations than in motivational quantity, and so many researchers did not include items

on motivational quantity.

(3) Results Features

As can be seen in Table 5, most studies employed factor analysis, correlations, or

ANOVAs, with factor analysis being the one dominant statistical analysis performed in more

than half of the studies. This is understandable, considering that researchers have tried to

tap into what shapes L2 motivation among Japanese learners of English.

60

ICR Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

Table 5

Statistical Analysis Characteristics

Study feature Code # Studies

Statistical Analysis Purely descriptive 2

Correlational analysis 16

T-test 4

Chi-square test 4

Factor Analysis 22

ANOVA 11

MANOVA 2

Regression 5

Others 5

Factor Analysis: factor loading from both integrative & instrumental orientations?

Yes 6

No 12

(4) Inspection of Results from Factor Analyses and Correlations

In order to examine the applicability of the socio-educational model in Japan, I

investigated the researchers’ findings by performing factor analysis. Researchers in

22 studies out of 34 (65%) performed factor analysis. Of these 22, 20 measured both

integrative and instrumental orientations. Eighteen out of the 20 studies analyzed the

results at item-level. Thus, I closely examined the factor analysis results in these 18 studies.

As shown in Table 6, in some studies one factor was made up of both integrative and

instrumental orientations, which could potentially be a sign of the inapplicability of the

model in Japan. Results should be interpreted cautiously, however, as there may be other

potential reasons for this pattern of factor loadings. First, many studies did not directly

employ the AMTB, but combined items from the socio-educational model and one or more

other models. Thus, the degree to which the various partial modifications of the AMTB

or new questionnaire items actually tapped into integrative and instrumental orientations

reliably and validly remains uncertain. Second, in factor analysis if certain items load highly

on one factor, it means that these items performed similarly for participants. Thus, the

fact that a factor was made up of both of the two orientations may also mean that these

orientations are still distinct and valid but that participants had similar levels of both of

these orientations. Thus, it is difficult to reach a definitive conclusion with regards to the

applicability of the model simply from the results of factor analyses attempted in Table 6.

61

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model of Foreign Language Motivation in Japan

Table 6

Results of Factor Analysis

Study Measure Purpose

Results (Yes: one factor was made up of integrative & instrumental orientations; No: no factor was made up of these orientations)

Apple (2005) AMTB To answer RQ No

Koga (2010) Not AMTBTo validate the questionnaire

No

Hojo (2000) Not AMTB To answer RQ No

Hojo (1998a) Not AMTB To answer RQ Yes

Hojo (1998b) Not AMTB To answer RQ No

Hojo (1997) Not AMTB To answer RQ No

Takanashi (1992) AMTB To answer RQ No

Takanashi (1994) AMTB To answer RQ No

Kimura, Nakata, & Okumura (2001)

Not AMTB To answer RQ Yes

Koizumi & Matsuo (1993) Not AMTB To answer RQ Yes

Konishi (1990) Not AMTB To answer RQ No

Matsuoka (2004) Not AMTB To answer RQ Yes

Miyahara et al. (1997) Not AMTB To answer RQIntegrative orientation did not emerge

Neff (2007) Not AMTBTo validate the questionnaire

Yes

Tsuchihira (1993) AMTB To answer RQ No

Koizumi & Kai (1992) Not AMTB To answer RQ No

Yamamoto (1993) Not AMTB To answer RQ No

Yashima (2000) Partially AMTB To answer RQ No

In order to examine the relationships between motivational constructs and L2

achievement/proficiency scores I checked the correlations between them, as presented

in Table 7. It should be noted, however, that only four out of the ten studies had both

orientation and motivation variables as predictor variables. Thus, I decided that the

number of studies was too small to average the effect sizes and instead tried to conceptually

understand the numbers.

As presented in Table 7, the correlations do not seem to systematically differ

depending on whether one of the correlated variables represented integrative orientation,

instrumental orientation, or motivational intensity. The coefficients range from as low as

-.32 to as high as .42. The small number of studies that had both orientation and motivation

variables as predictor variables made it impossible to investigate Gardner’s main claim that

62

ICR Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

it is motivation, not orientation, which is highly related to L2 achievement. This is, however,

an important finding in that not many studies in Japan have directly tested the applicability

of the socio-educational model by examining at the same time the correlations of L2

achievement/proficiency scores with orientations and with motivation.

Table 7

Correlations Between Integrative Orientation, Instrumental Orientation, Motivation, and Dependent

Variables

Study N Correlation of achievement/proficiency scores with

integrative orientation instrumental orientation motivation

Brown et al. (2001) 320 - .05 - .13 .01

Koizumi & Kai (1992) 300 .10 .21 NA

Neff (2007) 41 .31 .42 NA

Takanashi (1991) 201 .24 - .32 NA

Takanashi (1992) 163 .05 .13 NA

Takanashi (1994) 169 .21 - .01 NA

Tsuchihira (1993) 96 .29 .16 .28

Yamamoto (1993) 268 .05 .38 NA

Yashima (2000) 372 .20 .31 .37

Yoshitomi (1990) 47 .26 .23 .22

Note: NA= not applicable

4. Discussion and Conclusion

This synthesis demonstrated that, although L2 motivation has widely been researched

in the Japanese context using the socio-educational model, the existing research has not

addressed the issue of the applicability of the model, and instead has utilized parts of the

model. The majority of the studies focused on instrumental and integrative orientations,

or the quality of motivation, and did not focus much on the quantity of motivation. The

distinction between integrative and instrumental orientations remains unclear, as can

be seen in the results of the factor analyses. Furthermore, there has not been much

examination of the relationship between L2 motivation and L2 achievement.

Even with these perplexing results there are things we can learn from the model. First,

as the model proposes, more should be investigated not only on the quality of motivation

but also on the quantity of motivation. This focus on the quality of L2 motivation is in

accordance with the trends in the wider community researching L2 motivation. That is,

there has been much research on L2 learners’ quality of motivation and/or the changes

63

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model of Foreign Language Motivation in Japan

in it, particularly by way of qualitative methods (e.g., Ushioda, 2001; Williams & Burden,

1999). However, the quantity of motivation is also important, and as the socio-educational

model proposes, ultimately we should examine the interrelationships among motivational

quantity, motivational quality, L2 achievement, and other surrounding variables.

Second, the application of the socio-educational model in EFL contexts, including

Japan, has led to the recent propositions of a motivational model as well as other

surrounding variables, including the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009) and

the variable of international posture (Yashima, 2002, 2009). In part this was made possible

because of the inconclusive results of the application of the socio-educational model, as

presented in this study. By building upon the socio-educational model, taking into account

the wider social contexts, as well as exploring the notion of “self”, future research on L2

motivation has the potential to demonstrate the dynamic interplays of individual and social

variables.

Studies SynthesizedAdachi, R. (2009). Motivation of young Japanese EFL learners and effect factors. JASTEC Journal, 28, 43-64.Apple, M. T. (2005). Extensive reading and the motivation to read: A pilot study. Doshisha Studies in Language

and Culture, 8, 193-212.Benson, M. J. (1991). Attitudes and motivation towards English: A survey of Japanese freshman. RELC

Journal, 22, 34-48.Brown, J.D., Robson, G., & Rosenkjar, P. R. (2001). Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and language

proficiency of Japanese students. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt. (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 361-398). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Higuchi, T., Kunikata, T., Miura, I., Kitamura, T., Nakamoto, M., & Moriya, M. (1994). The effects of English learning at an early stage on attitudes and motivation toward English and foreign language learning. JASTEC Journal, 13, 35-48.

Hojo, R. (1997). A study of learning strategies used by Japanese EFL students (3). Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 17, 269-281.

Hojo, R. (1998a). A study of learning strategies used by Japanese EFL students (5). Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 18, 219-231.

Hojo, R. (1998b). A study of learning strategies used by Japanese EFL students (4). Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 17, 749-762.

Hojo, R. (2000). A study of learning strategies used by Japanese EFL students (9). Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 20, 177-189.

Kelly, M. (2005). Motivation, the Japanese freshman university student and foreign language acquisition. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 9, 32-47.

Kimura, Y. (1999). Gaikokugo gakushu ni okeru dokizuke [Foreign language learning motivation]. Naruto English Studies, 12/13, 1-12.

Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL learners in Japan – a cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT Journal, 23, 47-68.

Koga, T. (2010). Dynamicity of motivation, anxiety and cooperativeness in a semester course. System, 38, 172-184.

Koizumi, R., & Kai, T. (1992). Chugaku 3nenkan no eigo gakushu ni okeru gakushu taido, doki, oyobi noryoku jikohyotei no henka [Changes in attitudes, motives, and perceived attainments in learning

64

ICR Chika KOJIMA TAKAHASHI

English: A cross-sectional study in seventh through ninth grade]. Bulletin of Fukuoka University of Education, Part IV, 297-307.

Koizumi, R., & Matsuo, K. (1993). A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in learning English among Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 1-11.

Konishi, M. (1990). Changes in motivation for English language learning; A series of four measurements. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 4, 1-23.

Matsuoka, R. (2004). Motivation constructs in learning English among Japanese college students. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 8, 195-212.

Miyahara, F., Namoto, M., Yamanaka, S., Murakami, R., Kinoshita, M., & Yamamoto, H. (1997). Konomamade yoika daigaku eigokyoiku [Current status of university English education: Comparison of university students’ ability in English and learning behavior in China, Korea, and Japan]. Tokyo: Shohakusya.

Mori, S. (2002b). Redefining motivation to read in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 91-110.

Mori, S., & Gobel, P. (2006). Motivation and gender in the Japanese EFL classroom. System, 34, 194-208.Neff, P. E. (2007). The roles of anxiety and motivation in language learner task performance. Doshisha Studies

in Language and Culture, 10, 23-42.O’Donnell, K. (2003). Uncovering first students’ language learning experiences, attitudes, and motivations

in a context of change at the tertiary level of education. JALT Journal, 25, 31-62.Sakuragi, T. (2008). Attitudes toward language study and cross-cultural attitudes in Japan. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 32, 81-90.Takada, T. (2003). Learner characteristics of early starters and late starters of English language learning:

Anxiety, motivation, and aptitude. JALT Journal, 25, 5-30.Takagi, A. (2003). The effects of early childhood language learning experience on motivation towards

learning English: A survey of public junior high school students. JASTEC Journal, 22, 47-71.Takanashi, Y. (1991). Eigogakushu ni okeru togoteki dokizuke to doguteki dokizuke no yakuwari [Role

of integrative and instrumental orientations in English learning]. Bulletin of Fukuoka University of Education, Part I, 40, 53-60.

Takanashi, Y. (1992). Eigogakushu ni okeru joiteki yoin no yakuwari [Role of affective factors in English learning]. Bulletin of Fukuoka University of Education, Part I, 41, 59-68.

Takanashi, Y. (1994). Eigogakushu ni okeru gakushu doki, gakushu horyaku, eigogakuryoku no kankei [Relationships among learning motivation, learning strategies, and English proficiency in English learning]. Bulletin of Fukuoka University of Education, Part I, 43, 45-61.

Teweles, B. (1996). Motivational differences between Chinese and Japanese learners of English as a foreign language. JALT Journal, 18, 211-228.

Tsuchihira, T. (1993). Motivation and personalities in introducing communicative English teaching in the Japanese context. Tsukuba Eigo Kyoiku, 14, 233-250.

Usuki, M. (2001). From the learners’ perspectives: The needs for awareness-raising towards autonomy and roles of the teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction No ED 455694)

Yamamoto, H. (1993). Identifying how components of motivation as well as attitudes affect Japanese college students’ learning of EFL. Bulletin of Seinan Jo Gakuin University, 40, 1-14.

Yashima, T. (2000). Orientations and motivation in foreign language learning: A study of Japanese college students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121-133.

Yoshitomi, A. (1990). Attitudes and motivation of Japanese high school students in learning English as a foreign language. Sophia Linguistica, 28, 111-127.

ReferencesAloiau, E. K. W. (2001). Enhancing student motivation in an intensive English language program. Retrieved from

ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3031494)Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English still alive after

exam hell? JALT Journal, 11, 193-210.

65

Investigating the Socio-Educational Model of Foreign Language Motivation in Japan

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London:

Edward Arnold.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, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362.

Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning motivation of university students in Japan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal, 25, 86-101.

Irie, K. (2005). Stability and flexibility of language learning motivation: A multimethod study of Japanese junior high school students. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3176834)

Mori, S. (2002a). The relationship between motivation and the amount of out-of-class reading. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3040345)

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Ortega, L. (2010). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 111-126). London: Continuum.

Pease, E. J. (2006). The role of affect in Japanese adolescents learning English. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3206883)

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.) (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt. (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 93-125). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1999). Students’ developing conceptions of themselves as language learner. Modern Language Journal, 83, 193-201.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66.

Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 144-163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.