retrieved from http

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


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).


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).


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


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).


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

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


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


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,


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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 &


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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)


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

retrieved from http

Documents