Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom

Author(s): Zoltan Dornyei

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 273-284
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language
Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330107
Accessed: 12/09/2008 13:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
Motivation and
Motivating
in th e
Fore ign Language Classroom
ZOLTAN DORNYEI
De partme nt of English ,
Eitvos
Unive rsity
1146
Bud ape st, Ajtosi
Dire r sor
19,
Hungary
Email:
d ornye i@lud e ns.e lte .h u
MOTIVATION IS ONE OF THE MAIN DETER-
minants of
se cond /fore ign language
(L2)
le arning
ach ie ve me nt
and ,
accord ingly,
th e last
th re e d e cad e s h ave se e n a consid e rable amount
of re se arch th at
inve stigate s
th e nature and role of
motivation in th e L2
le arning proce ss.
Much of
th is re se arch h as be e n initiate d and
inspire d by
two Canad ian
psych ologists,
Robe rt Gard ne r
and Wallace Lambe rt
(se e 34), wh o,
toge th e r
with th e ir
colle ague s
and
stud e nts,
ground e d
motivation re se arch in a social
psych ological
frame work
(for
re ce nt
summarie s,
se e
33; 35).
Gard ne r and h is associate s also e stablish e d sci-
e ntific re se arch
proce d ure s
and introd uce d
stand ard ise d asse ssme nt
te ch nique s
and instru-
me nts,
th us
se tting h igh
re se arch stand ard s and
bringing
L2 motivation re se arch to
maturity.
Alth ough
Gard ne r's motivation construct d id
not
go unch alle nge d
ove r th e
ye ars (se e 2; 44),
it was not until th e
e arly
1990s th at a marke d
sh ift in
th ough t appe are d
in
pape rs
on L2 mo-
tivation as re se arch e rs trie d to
re ope n
th e re -
se arch
age nd a
in ord e r to sh e d ne w
ligh t
on th e
subje ct (e .g.,
10; 19; 51; 52).
Th e main
proble m
with Gard ne r's social
psych ological approach
appe are d
to
be ,
ironically,
th at it was too influ-
e ntial. In Crooke s and Sch mid t's
word s,
it was
"so d ominant th at alte rnative
conce pts
h ave
not be e n
se riously
consid e re d "
(p.
501).
Th is
re sulte d in an unbalance d
picture , involving
a
conce ption
th at
was,
as Ske h an
put
it,
"limite d
compare d
to th e
range
of
possible
influe nce s
th at e xist"
(52:
p.
280).
Wh ile
acknowle d ging
unanimously
th e fund ame ntal
importance
of
th e Gard ne rian social
psych ological
mod e l,
re -
se arch e rs we re also
calling
for a more
prag-
matic,
e d ucation-ce ntre d
approach
to motiva-
Th e Mod e rn
Language Journal,
78,
iii
(1994)
0026-7902/94/273-284 $1.50/0
?1994 Th e Mod e rn
Language
Journal
tion
re se arch ,
wh ich would be consiste nt with
th e
pe rce ptions
of
practising
te ach e rs and
wh ich would also be in line with th e curre nt
re sults of mainstre am e d ucational
psych ologi-
cal re se arch .
It must be note d th at Gard ne r's
(32)
motiva-
tion
th e ory
d oe s includ e an e d ucational d ime n-
sion and th at th e motivation te st h e and h is
associate s
d e ve lope d ,
th e
Attitud e /Motivation
Te st
Batte ry (AMTB) (31),
contains se ve ral
ite ms
focusing
on th e le arne r's e valuation of th e
classroom
le arning
situation.
Howe ve r,
th e
main
e mph asis
in Gard ne r's mod e l-and th e
way
it h as be e n
typically
und e rstood -is on
ge ne ral
motivational
compone nts ground e d
in th e so-
cial milie u rath e r th an in th e
fore ign language
classroom. For
e xample ,
th e AMTB contains a
se ction in wh ich stud e nts' attitud e s toward th e
language
te ach e r and th e course are te ste d .
Th is
may
be
appropriate
for me asure me nt
pur-
pose s,
but th e d ata from th is se ction d o not
provid e
a d e taile d
e nough d e scription
of th e
classroom d ime nsion to be
h e lpful
in
ge ne rat-
ing practical guid e line s.
As Gard ne r and MacIn-
tyre (35) re ce ntly
state d
conce rning
th e le arn-
ing situation-spe cific
se ction of th e
AMTB,
"atte ntion is d ire cte d toward
only
two
targe ts,
large ly
be cause
th e y
are more
ge ne ralisable
across d iffe re nt stud ie s"
(p.
2). Finally,
Gard -
ne r's motivation construct d oe s not includ e d e -
tails on
cognitive aspe cts
of motivation to
le arn,
wh e re as th is is th e d ire ction in wh ich e d uca-
tional
psych ological
re se arch on motivation h as
be e n
moving d uring
th e last fifte e n
ye ars.
Th e
purpose
of th is
pape r-following
Crooke s
and Sch mid t's and Ske h an's initiative -is to
h e lp
foste r furth e r
und e rstand ing
of L2 motiva-
tion from an e d ucational
pe rspe ctive .
A num-
be r of re le vant motivational
compone nts (many
of th e m
large ly une xploite d
in L2
re se arch )
will
be
d e scribe d ,
and th e se will th e n be
inte grate d
into a multile ve l L2 motivation construct. In
274
ad d ition,
a se t of
practical guid e line s
on h ow to
apply
th e re se arch re sults to actual
te ach ing
will
be
formulate d ;
I be lie ve th at th e
que stion
of
h ow to motivate stud e nts is an are a on wh ich L2
motivation re se arch h as not
place d
sufficie nt
e mph asis
in th e
past.
Inte re stingly,
a
ve ry
re ce nt
pape r by
Oxford
and Sh e arin se ts out to
pursue
similar
goals
to
th ose of th e curre nt
auth or,
by d iscussing
mo-
tivational th e orie s from d iffe re nt branch e s of
psych ology-ge ne ral,
ind ustrial, e d ucational,
and
cognitive d e ve lopme ntal psych ology-and
by inte grating
th e m into an
e xpand e d
th e ore ti-
cal frame work th at h as
practical
instructional
implications.
Th is
ve ry compre h e nsive
and in-
sigh tful stud y, toge th e r
with th e works cite d
above and th e auth or's curre nt
d iscussion, may
provid e
a firme r basis for ne w d ire ctions of re -
se arch in L2 motivation.
At th e
outse t,
I would like to
acknowle d ge
once
again
th e se minal work of Robe rt Gard ne r
and h is
colle ague s.
Gard ne r's
th e ory
h as
pro-
found ly
influe nce d
my th inking
on th is
subje ct,
and I sh are Oxford and Sh e arin's asse rtion th at:
Th e curre nt auth ors d o not inte nd to ove rturn th e
id e as nor
d e nigrate
th e
major
contributions of re -
se arch e rs such as Gard ne r, Lambe rt, Lalond e ,
and
oth e rs,
wh o
powe rfully brough t
motivational issue s
to th e atte ntion of th e L2 fie ld . We want to main-
tain th e be st of th e
e xisting
L2
le arning
motivation
th e ory
and
push
its
parame te rs
outward
(p.
13).
Ind e e d ,
th e re will be an
atte mpt
in th is
pape r
to
inte grate
th e social
psych ological
constructs
postulate d by
Gard ne r, Cle me nt,
and th e ir asso-
ciate s into th e
propose d
ne w frame work of L2
motivation.
THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF L2
MOTIVATION
One
re curring que stion
in re ce nt
pape rs
h as
be e n h ow "social" a L2 motivation construct
sh ould be and wh at th e
re lationsh ip
be twe e n
social attitud e s and motivation is. To start
with ,
it must be re alise d th at "attitud e s" and "motiva-
tion" te nd not to be use d
toge th e r
in th e
psy-
ch ological
lite rature as
th e y
are consid e re d to
be
ke y
te rms of d iffe re nt branch e s of
psych ol-
ogy.
"Attitud e " is use d in social
psych ology
and
sociology,
wh e re action is se e n as th e function
of th e social conte xt and th e
inte rpe rsonal/
inte rgroup
re lational
patte rns.
Motivational
psych ologists,
on th e oth e r
h and ,
h ave be e n
looking
for th e motors of h uman be h aviour in
th e ind ivid ual rath e r th an in th e social
be ing,
focusing trad itionally
on
conce pts
such as in-
Th e Mod e rn
Language
Journal
78
(1994)
stinct, d rive , arousal, ne e d ,
and on
pe rsonality
traits like
anxie ty
and ne e d for
ach ie ve me nt,
and
more
re ce ntly
on
cognitive appraisals
of succe ss
and
failure ,
ability,
se lf-e ste e m,
e tc.
(53; 54).
L2
le arning pre se nts
a
unique
situation d ue
to th e multiface te d nature and role of
language .
It is at th e same time :
a)
a communication
cod ing
syste m
th at can be
taugh t
as a sch ool
subje ct,
b)
an
inte gral part of
th e ind ivid uals
id e ntity
in-
volve d in almost all me ntal
activitie s,
and also
c)
th e most
important
ch anne l
ofsocial
organisation
e mbe d d e d in th e culture of th e
community
wh e re it is use d .
Th us,
L2
le arning
is more com-
ple x
th an
simply maste ring
ne w information
and
knowle d ge ;
in ad d ition to th e e nvironme n-
tal and
cognitive
factors
normally
associate d
with
le arning
in curre nt e d ucational
psych ol-
ogy,
it involve s various
pe rsonality
traits and so-
cial
compone nts.
For th is
re ason,
an
ad e quate
L2 motivation construct is bound to be
e cle ctic,
bringing toge th e r
factors from d iffe re nt
psy-
ch ological
fie ld s.
Coming
from
Canad a,
wh e re
language
le arn-
ing
is a fe ature d social issue -at th e crux of th e
re lationsh ip
be twe e n th e
Angloph one
and
Francoph one
communitie s-Gard ne r and
Lambe rt we re
particularly
se nsitive to th e social
d ime nsion of L2 motivation. Th e
importance
of
th is d ime nsion is not re stricte d to Canad a. If we
consid e r th at th e vast
majority
of nations in th e
world are
multicultural,
and most of th e se are
multilingual,
and th at th e re are more
bilinguals
in th e world th an th e re are
monolinguals
(32),
we cannot fail to
appre ciate
th e imme nse social
re le vance of
language le arning
world wid e .
Inte grative ne ss
and
Instrume ntality.
Gard ne r's
motivation construct h as ofte n be e n und e r-
stood as th e
inte rplay
of two
compone nts,
inte -
grative
and instrume ntal motivations. Th e for-
me r is associate d with a
positive d isposition
toward th e L2
group
and th e d e sire to inte ract
with and e ve n be come similar to value d me m-
be rs of th at
community.
Th e latte r is re late d to
th e
pote ntial pragmatic gains
of L2
proficie ncy,
such as
ge tting
a be tte r
job
or a
h igh e r salary.
It
must be
note d , h owe ve r,
th at Gard ne r's th e ory
and te st
batte ry
are more
comple x
and re ach
be yond
th e
instrume ntal/inte grative
d ich ot-
omy.
As Gard ne r and
Maclntyre
state ,
"Th e im-
portant point
is th at motivation itse lf is
d y-
namic. Th e old ch aracte rization of motivation
in te rms of
inte grative
vs. instrume ntal orie nta-
tions is too static and re stricte d "
(p.
4).
Th e
popularity
of th e
inte grative -instru-
me ntal
syste m
is
partly
d ue to its
simplicity
and
intuitive ly
convincing ch aracte r,
but
partly
also
Zoltd n
D6rnye i
to th e fact th at
broad ly
d e fine d "cultural-
affe ctive " and
"pragmatic-instrume ntal"
d i-
me nsions d o
usually e me rge
in
e mpirical
stud ie s of motivation.
Howe ve r,
in th e last d e c-
ad e ,
inve stigations
h ave sh own th at th e se d ime n-
sions cannot be
re gard e d
as
straigh tforward
uni-
ve rsals,
but rath e r as broad te nd e ncie s-or
subsyste ms-comprising conte xt-spe cific
clus-
te rs of
loose ly
re late d
compone nts.
As Gard ne r
and
MacIntyre
conclud e d ,
it is
simplistic
not to
re cognise e xplicitly
th e fact th at sociocultural
conte xt h as an
ove rrid ing
e ffe ct on all
aspe cts
of th e L2
le arning proce ss, includ ing
motivation.
Cle me nt and Kruid e nie r found in th e ir Cana-
d ian re se arch th at in ad d ition to an instrume ntal
orie ntation,
th re e oth e r d istinct
ge ne ral
orie nta-
tions to le arn a L2
e me rge d , name ly knowle d ge ,
frie nd sh ip,
and trave l
orie ntations,
wh ich h ad trad i-
tionally
be e n
lumpe d toge th e r
in
inte grative ne ss.
More ove r,
wh e n L2 was a
fore ign
rath e r th an a
se cond
language
(i.e .,
le arne rs h ad no d ire ct
contact with th e L2
community),
a
fourth ,
socio-
cultural,
orie ntation was also id e ntifie d .
Inve stigating young
ad ult le arne rs in a for-
e ign language le arning
situation in
Hungary,
D6rnye i (26)
id e ntifie d th re e
loose ly
re late d d i-
me nsions of a
broad ly
conce ive d
inte grative
motivational
subsyste m: 1)
inte re st in
fore ign
lan-
guage s,
culture s, and
pe ople
(wh ich
can be associ-
ate d with Cle me nt and Kruid e nie r's "socio-
cultural
orie ntation"); 2)
d e sire to broad e n one s
vie w and avoid
provincialism
(cf.,
Cle me nt and
Kruid e nie r's
"knowle d ge orie ntation");
and
3)
d e sire
for
ne w stimuli and
ch alle nge s (sh aring
much in common with Cle me nt and Kruid e nie r's
"frie nd sh ip"
and "trave l
orie ntations").
A
fourth
d ime nsion,
th e d e sire to
inte grate
into a ne w
community (cf.,
"trave l
orie ntation"),
ove rlappe d
with th e instrume ntal motivational
subsyste m.
Inve stigating se cond ary
sch ool
pupils
in th e
same
conte xt, Cle me nt,
D6rnye i,
and Noe ls
found
th at,
in th is
population,
instrume ntal and
knowle d ge
orie ntations cluste re d
toge th e r,
and
th e y
id e ntifie d four oth e r d istinct
orie ntations,
xe no-
ph ilic (similar
to
"frie nd sh ip orie ntation"),
id e n-
tification, sociocultural,
and
English
me d ia. In an-
oth e r
fore ign language le arning
conte xt,
among
Ame rican
h igh
sch ool stud e nts
le arning
Japane se ,
Oxford and Sh e arin also found th at
in ad d ition to
inte grative
and instrume ntal
orie ntations,
th e le arne rs h ad a numbe r of
oth e r re asons for
le arning
th e
language ,
rang-
ing
from
"e njoying
th e e litism of
taking
a d iffi-
cult
language "
to
"h aving
a
private
cod e th at
pare nts
would not know"
(p. 12).
Th e se stud ie s confirm Ske h an's
(51) argu-
275
me nt th at th e most
pre ssing d ifficulty
motiva-
tion re se arch e rs face is th at of
"clarifying
th e
orie ntation-conte xt links th at e xist. Th e re
would se e m to be a wid e r
range
of orie ntations
h e re th an was
pre viously suppose d ,
and th e re is
consid e rable
scope
to
inve stigate
d iffe re nt con-
te xtual circumstance s
(outsid e Canad a!) by
varying
th e L1-L2
le arning re lationsh ip
in d if-
fe re nt
ways" (p. 284).
To
put
it
simply,
th e e xact
nature of th e social and
pragmatic
d ime nsions
of L2 motivation is
always d e pe nd e nt
on wh o
le arns wh at
language s
wh e re .
FURTHER COMPONENTS OF L2 MOTIVATION
Alth ough
th e
majority
of
past
re se arch h as
te nd e d to focus on th e social and
pragmatic
d ime nsions of L2 motivation,
some stud ie s h ave
atte mpte d
to e xte nd th e Gard ne rian construct
by ad d ing
ne w
compone nts,
such as
intrinsic/
e xtrinsic motivation
(9; 10),
inte lle ctual curi-
osity
(41),
attribution about
past
succe sse s/
failure s
(26; 52),
ne e d for ach ie ve me nt
(26),
se lf-confid e nce
(13, 15, 40),
and classroom
goal
structure s
(38),
as we ll as various motive s re -
late d to
le arning situation-spe cific
variable s
such as classroom e ve nts and
tasks,
classroom
climate and
group
coh e sion,
course conte nt
and
te ach ing
mate rials,
te ach e r
fe e d back,
and
grad e s
and re ward s
(9-11; 14; 19; 25; 37; 38; 41;
46; 51; 52).
In th e
following
d iscussion,
I will
give
an ove rvie w of th e se motivational are as and
th e n outline a L2 motivation construct th at at-
te mpts
to
inte grate
th e se
compone nts.
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation and Re late d Th e o-
rie s. One of th e most
ge ne ral
and we ll-known
d istinctions in motivation th e orie s is th at be -
twe e n intrinsic and e xtrinsic motivation. Extrin-
sically
motivate d be h aviours are th e one s th at
th e ind ivid ual
pe rforms
to re ce ive some e xtrin-
sic re ward
(e .g., good grad e s)
or to avoid
pun-
ish me nt. With
intrinsically
motivate d be h av-
iours th e re ward s are inte rnal
(e .g.,
th e
joy
of
d oing
a
particular activity
or
satisfying
one 's
curiosity).
De ci and
Ryan argue
th at intrinsic motiva-
tion is
pote ntially
a ce ntral motivator of th e e d -
ucational
proce ss:
Intrinsic motivation is in e vid e nce wh e ne ve r stu-
d e nts' natural
curiosity
and inte re st
e ne rgise
th e ir
le arning.
Wh e n th e e d ucational e nvironme nt
pro-
vid e s
optimal ch alle nge s,
rich source s of stimula-
tion,
and a conte xt of
autonomy,
th is motivational
we llspring
in
le arning
is
like ly
to flourish
(p.
245).
Extrinsic motivation h as
trad itionally
be e n
se e n as
some th ing
th at can und e rmine intrinsic
276
motivation;
se ve ral stud ie s h ave confirme d th at
stud e nts will lose th e ir natural intrinsic inte re st
in an
activity
if
th e y
h ave to d o it to me e t some
e xtrinsic
re quire me nt
(as is ofte n th e case with
compulsory re ad ings
at
sch ool).
Brown
(10)
points
out th at trad itional sch ool
se ttings
with
th e ir te ach e r
d omination,
grad e s
and
te sts,
as
we ll as "a h ost of institutional constraints th at
glorify
conte nt,
prod uct,
corre ctne ss,
compe t-
itive ne ss" te nd to cultivate e xtrinsic motivation
and "fail to
bring
th e le arne r into a collabora-
tive
proce ss
of
compe te nce build ing" (p.
388).
Re ce nt re se arch on
intrinsic/e xtrinsic
mo-
tivation h as sh own th at und e r ce rtain circum-
stance s-if
th e y
are
sufficie ntly se lf-d e te rmine d
and inte rnalise d -e xtrinsic re ward s can be com-
bine d
with ,
or e ve n le ad
to,
intrinsic motiva-
tion. Th e
se lf-d e te rmination
th e ory
was introd uce d
by
De ci and
Ryan
as an e laboration of th e
intrinsic/e xtrinsic
construct. Se lf-d e te rmi-
nation
(i.e .,
autonomy)
is se e n as a
pre re quisite
for
any
be h aviour to be
intrinsically re ward ing.
In th e
ligh t
of th is
th e ory,
e xtrinsic motiva-
tion is no
longe r re gard e d
as an
antagonistic
counte rpart
of intrinsic motivation but h as
be e n d ivid e d into four
type s along
a continuum
be twe e n se lf-d e te rmine d and controlle d forms
of motivation
(24):
Exte rnal
re gulation
re fe rs to
th e le ast se lf-d e te rmine d form of e xtrinsic mo-
tivation,
involving
actions for wh ich th e locus of
initiation is e xte rnal to th e
pe rson,
such as re -
ward s or th re ats
(e .g.,
te ach e r's
praise
or
pare n-
tal
confrontation).
Introje cte d re gulation
involve s
e xte rnally impose d
rule s th at th e stud e nt ac-
ce pts
as norms th at
pre ssure
h im or h e r to be -
h ave
(e .g.,
"I must be at sch ool on
time ,"
or "I
sh ould h ave
pre pare d
for
class"). Id e ntifie d re gula-
tion occurs wh e n th e
pe rson
h as come to id e n-
tify
with and
acce pt
th e
re gulatory proce ss
se e -
ing
its use fulne ss. Th e most
d e ve lopme ntally
ad vance d form of e xtrinsic motivation is inte -
grate d re gulation,
wh ich involve s
re gulations
th at
are
fully
assimilate d with th e ind ivid ual's oth e r
value s, ne e d s,
and id e ntitie s. Motive s trad i-
tionally
me ntione d und e r instrume ntal motiva-
tion in th e L2 lite rature
typically
fall und e r one
of th e last two
cate gorie s-id e ntifie d re gula-
tion or
inte grate d re gulation-d e pe nd ing
on
h ow
important
th e le arne r consid e rs th e
goal
of
L2
le arning
to be in te rms of a value d
pe rsonal
outcome .
Proximal
goal-se tting.
Th e th e orie s
pre se nte d
above
may sugge st
th at e xtrinsic
goals
such as
te sts and e xams sh ould be avoid e d as much as
possible
since
th e y
are d e trime ntal to intrinsic
motivation. Band ura and
Sch unk, h owe ve r,
Th e Mod e rn
Language Journal
78
(1994)
point
out th at te sts and e xams can be
powe rful
proximal
motivators in
long lasting,
continuous
be h aviours such as
language le arning; th e y
function as
proximal subgoals
and marke rs of
progre ss
th at
provid e
imme d iate
ince ntive ,
se lf-
ind uce me nts,
and fe e d back and th at
h e lp
mo-
bilise and maintain e ffort. Proximal
goal-
se tting
also contribute s to th e e nh ance me nt of
intrinsic inte re st
th rough
favourable ,
continue d
involve me nt in activitie s and
th rough
th e satis-
faction d e rive d from
subgoal
attainme nt. At-
tainable
subgoals
can also se rve as an
important
ve h icle in th e
d e ve lopme nt
of th e stud e nts' se lf-
confid e nce and
e fficacy-two conce pts
th at
will be
analyse d
be low.
Oxford and Sh e arin
argue
th at in ord e r to
function as e fficie nt
motivators,
goals
sh ould be
spe cific,
h ard but
ach ie vable ,
acce pte d by
th e
stud e nts,
and
accompanie d by
fe e d back about
progre ss.
As th e auth ors
conclud e ,
"Goal se t-
ting
can h ave
e xce ptional importance
in stimu-
lating
L2
le arning
motivation,
and it is th e re -
fore
sh ocking
th at so little time and
e ne rgy
are
spe nt
in th e L2 classroom on
goal se tting"
(p. 19).
Cognitive compone nts of
motivation. Since th e
mid -1970s,
a
cognitive approach
h as se t th e d i-
re ction of motivation re se arch in e d ucational
psych ology. Cognitive
th e orie s of motivation
vie w motivation to be a function of a
pe rson's
th ough ts
rath e r th an of some
instinct, ne e d ,
d rive ,
or
state ;
information e ncod e d and trans-
forme d into a be lie f is th e source of action.
In h is
analysis
of curre nt th e orie s of motiva-
tion,
We ine r
(53)
lists th re e
major cognitive
conce ptual syste ms:
attribution
th e ory,
le arne d
h e lple ssne ss,
and
se lf-e fficacy th e ory.
All th re e con-
ce rn th e ind ivid ual's
se lf-appraisal
of wh at h e or
sh e can or cannot
d o,
wh ich
will,
in
turn,
affe ct
h ow h e or sh e strive s for ach ie ve me nt in th e
future . Th e ce ntral th e me in attribution
th e ory
is
th e
stud y
of h ow causal
ascriptions
of
past
fail-
ure s and succe sse s affe ct future
goal e xpe ct-
ancy.
For
e xample ,
failure th at is ascribe d to
low
ability
or to th e
d ifficulty
of a task d e cre ase s
th e
e xpe ctation
of future succe ss more th an
failure th at is ascribe d to bad luck or to a lack of
e ffort. In h is
e xploratory stud y among
Hun-
garian
L2
le arne rs,
th e curre nt auth or
(26)
id e ntifie d an
ind e pe nd e nt
"attributions about
past
failure s"
compone nt
to L2 motivation and
argue d
th at such attributions are
particularly
significant
in
fore ign language le arning
con-
te xts wh e re "L2
le arning
failure " is a
ve ry
com-
mon
ph e nome non.
Le arne d
h e lple ssne ss
re fe rs to a
re signe d , pe ssi-
Zoltd n
Dornye i
mistic,
h e lple ss
state th at
d e ve lops
wh e n th e
pe rson
wants to succe e d but fe e ls th at succe ss is
impossible
or
be yond
h im or h e r for some re a-
son,
th at
is,
th e
probability
of a d e sire d
goal
d oe s not
appe ar
to be incre ase d
by any
action
or e ffort. It is a
fe e ling
of "I
simply
can't d o
it,"
wh ich ,
once
e stablish e d ,
is
ve ry
d ifficult to
re ve rse .
Se lf-e fficacy
re fe rs to an ind ivid ual's
jud ge me nt
of h is or h e r
ability
to
pe rform
a
spe cific
action.
Attributions of
past accomplish me nts play
an
important
role in
d e ve loping se lf-e fficacy,
but
pe ople
also
appraise e fficacy
from obse rva-
tional
e xpe rie nce s (e .g., by
obse rving pe e rs),
as
we ll as from
pe rsuasion,
re inforce me nt,
and
e valuation
by
oth e rs,
e spe cially
te ach e rs or
par-
e nts
(e .g.,
"You can d o it!" or "You are
d oing
fine !") (49).
Once a
strong
se nse of
e fficacy
is
d e ve lope d ,
a failure
may
not h ave much
impact.
Oxford and Sh e arin
e mph asise
th at
many
stu-
d e nts d o not h ave an initial be lie f in th e ir se lf-
e fficacy
and "fe e l lost in th e
language
class"
(p.
21);
te ach e rs th e re fore can and sh ould
h e lp
th e m
d e ve lop
a se nse of
se lf-e fficacy by provid -
ing me aningful,
ach ie vable ,
and succe ss-
e nge nd e ring language
tasks.
Se lf-confid e nce .
Se lf-confid e nce -th e be lie f
th at one h as th e
ability
to
prod uce
re sults,
ac-
complish goals
or
pe rform
tasks
compe te ntly-
is an
important
d ime nsion of
se lf-conce pt.
It
appe ars
to be akin to
se lf-e fficacy,
but use d in a
more
ge ne ral
se nse . Se lf-confid e nce was first
introd uce d in L2 lite rature
by
Cle me nt
(13)
to
d e scribe a
se cond ary, me d iating
motivational
proce ss
in multi-e th nic
se ttings
th at affe cts a
pe rson's
motivation to le arn and use a L2. Ac-
cord ing
to h is
conce ptualisation,
se lf-confi-
d e nce includ e s two
compone nts, language
use
anxie ty (th e
affe ctive
aspe ct)
and se lf-e val-
uation of L2
proficie ncy
(th e cognitive aspe ct),
and is d e te rmine d
by
th e
fre que ncy
and
quality
of inte re th nic contact
(cf., 15; 40).
Alth ough
se lf-confid e nce was
originally
con-
ce ptualise d
with
re gard
to multi-e th nic
se ttings,
Cle me nt,
D6rnye i,
and Noe ls sh owe d th at it is a
major
motivational
subsyste m
in
fore ign
lan-
guage le arning
situations as we ll
(i.e .,
wh e re
th e re is no d ire ct contact with me mbe rs of th e
L2
community).
Th is is in line with th e
impor-
tance attach e d to
se lf-e fficacy
in th e e d uca-
tional
psych ological
lite rature .
Ne e d
for
ach ie ve me nt. A ce ntral e le me nt of clas-
sical ach ie ve me nt motivation
th e ory,
ne e d
for
ach ie ve me nt is a
re lative ly
stable
pe rsonality
trait
th at is consid e re d to affe ct a
pe rson's
be h aviour
in
e ve ry
face t of
life ,
includ ing language
le arn-
277
ing.
Ind ivid uals with a
h igh
ne e d for ach ie ve -
me nt are inte re ste d in e xce lle nce for its own
sake ,
te nd to initiate ach ie ve me nt
activitie s,
work with
h e igh te ne d inte nsity
at th e se
tasks,
and
pe rsist
in th e face of failure . Oxford and
Sh e arin
provid e
a d e taile d
analysis
on h ow ne e d
th e orie s in
ge ne ral migh t
be re le vant to L2 mo-
tivation
re se arch ,
and in an e arlie r
pape r
(26)
I
h ave
argue d
th at in
institutional/acad e mic
conte xts,
wh e re acad e mic ach ie ve me nt situa-
tions are
ve ry
salie nt,
ne e d for ach ie ve me nt will
play
a
particularly important
role .
MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS THAT ARE
SPECIFIC TO LEARNING SITUATIONS
Since th e e nd of th e 1980s more
importance
h as be e n attach e d in th e L2 motivation lite ra-
ture to motive s re late d to th e
le arning
situation
(e .g.,
9-11; 14; 19; 25; 37; 38; 51; 52).
In ord e r to
grasp
th e
array
of variable s and
proce sse s
in-
volve d at th is le ve l of L2
motivation,
it
appe ars
use ful to
se parate
th re e se ts of motivational
compone nts
(motive s
and motivational cond i-
tions): 1)
course -spe cific
motivational
compone nts
conce rning
th e
syllabus,
th e
te ach ing
mate rials,
th e
te ach ing
me th od ,
and th e
le arning
tasks;
2)
te ach e r-spe cific
motivational
compone nts
conce rn-
ing
th e te ach e r's
pe rsonality, te ach ing style ,
fe e d back,
and
re lationsh ip
with th e
stud e nts;
and
3)
group-spe cific
motivational
compone nts
con-
ce rning
th e
d ynamics
of th e
le arning group.
Course -spe cific
motivational
compone nts.
Base d
on Ke lle r's motivational
syste m-wh ich
is
par-
ticularly compre h e nsive
and re le vant to class-
room
le arning-Crooke s
and Sch mid t
postu-
late four
major
motivational factors to d e scribe
L2 classroom motivation:
inte re st, re le vance ,
e xpe ct-
ancy,
and
satisfaction.
Th is frame work
appe ars
to
be
particularly
use ful in
d e scribing
course -
spe cific
motive s.
Th e first
cate gory,
inte re st,
is re late d to intrin-
sic motivation and is ce ntre d around th e ind i-
vid ual's inh e re nt
curiosity
and d e sire to know
more about h im or h e rse lf and h is or h e r e n-
vironme nt. Re le vance re fe rs to th e e xte nt to
wh ich th e stud e nt fe e ls th at th e instruction is
conne cte d to
important pe rsonal
ne e d s, value s,
or
goals.
At a
macrole ve l,
th is
compone nt
coin-
cid e s with
instrume ntality;
at th e le ve l of th e
le arning
situation,
it re fe rs to th e e xte nt to
wh ich th e classroom instruction and course
conte nt are se e n to be cond ucive to
ach ie ving
th e
goal,
th at
is,
to
maste ring
th e L2.
Expe ctancy
re fe rs to th e
pe rce ive d
like lih ood of succe ss and
is re late d to th e le arne r's se lf-confid e nce and
278
se lf-e fficacy
at a
ge ne ral
le ve l;
at th e le ve l of th e
le arning
situation,
it conce rns
pe rce ive d
task
d ifficulty,
th e amount of e ffort
re quire d ,
th e
amount of available assistance and
guid ance ,
th e te ach e r's
pre se ntation
of th e
task,
and fa-
miliarity
with th e task
type . Satisfaction
conce rns
th e outcome of an
activity, re fe rring
to th e com-
bination of e xtrinsic re ward s such as
praise
or
good
marks and to intrinsic re ward s such as e n-
joyme nt
and
prid e .
Attainable
proximal
sub-
goals
(as d iscusse d
above )
are re late d
primarily
to th is
compone nt.
Te ach e r-spe cific
motivational
compone nts.
Pe r-
h aps
th e most
important
te ach e r-re late d motive
h as be e n id e ntifie d in e d ucational
psych ology
as
affiliative
d rive
(3),
wh ich re fe rs to stud e nts'
ne e d to d o we ll in sch ool in ord e r to
ple ase
th e
te ach e r
(or
oth e r
supe rord inate figure s
like
pare nts)
wh om
th e y
like and
appre ciate .
Al-
th ough
th is d e sire for te ach e r
approval
is an
e xtrinsic
motive ,
it is ofte n a
pre cursor
to in-
trinsic inte re st
(5),
as is atte ste d
by good
te ach e rs wh ose stud e nts be come d e vote d to
th e ir
subje ct.
A se cond te ach e r-re late d motivational com-
pone nt
is th e te ach e r's
auth ority type ,
th at
is,
wh e th e r h e or sh e is
autonomy supporting
or
controlling. Sh aring re sponsibility
with stu-
d e nts,
offe ring
th e m
options
and
ch oice s,
le t-
ting
th e m h ave a
say
in
e stablish ing prioritie s,
and
involving
th e m in th e d e cision
making
e nh ance stud e nt se lf-d e te rmination and intrin-
sic motivation
(23, 24).
A th ird motivational
aspe ct
of th e te ach e r is
h is or h e r role in d ire ct and
syste matic
socializa-
tion
of
stud e nt motivation
(8),
th at
is,
wh e th e r h e or
sh e
active ly d e ve lops
and stimulate s le arne rs'
motivation. Th e re are th re e main ch anne ls for
th e socialization
proce ss:
1) Mod e lling:
te ach e rs,
in th e ir
position
as
group
le ad e rs,
e mbod y
th e
"group
conscie nce "
and ,
as a
conse que nce ,
stu-
d e nt attitud e s and orie ntations toward
le arning
will be mod e lle d afte r th e ir
te ach e rs,
both in
te rms of e ffort
e xpe nd iture
and orie ntations of
inte re st in th e
subje ct. 2)
Task
pre se ntation:
e ffi-
cie nt te ach e rs call stud e nts' atte ntion to th e
purpose
of th e
activity th e y
are
going
to
d o,
its
pote ntial
inte re st and
practical
value ,
and e ve n
th e
strate gie s
th at
may
be use ful in
ach ie ving
th e
task,
th us
raising
stud e nts' inte re st and
me tacognitive
aware ne ss.
3)
Fe e d back: th is
proc-
e ss carrie s a cle ar
me ssage
about th e te ach e r's
prioritie s
and is re fle cte d in th e stud e nts' mo-
tivation. Th e re are two
type s
of fe e d back: infor-
mational
fe e d back,
wh ich comme nts on
compe -
te nce ,
and
controlling
fe e d back,
wh ich
jud ge s
Th e Mod e rn
Language Journal
78
(1994)
pe rformance against
e xte rnal stand ard s. Of th e
two,
th e forme r sh ould be d ominant. For e xam-
ple , praise -a type
of informational fe e d back-
sh ould attribute succe ss to e ffort and
ability,
im-
plying
th at similar succe sse s can be
e xpe cte d
in
th e future . Praise sh ould
avoid , h owe ve r,
th e in-
clusion of
controlling
fe e d back
(e .g.,
th e com-
parison
of th e stud e nts' succe ss to th e succe sse s
or failure s of
oth e rs) (7).
Ame s
points
out th at
social
comparison,
wh ich is consid e re d
ve ry
d e trime ntal to intrinsic
motivation,
is ofte n im-
pose d
in a
varie ty
of
ways
in th e
classroom,
in-
clud ing
announce me nt of
grad e s (some time s
only
th e
h igh e st
and
lowe st),
d isplays
of se le cte d
pape rs
and
ach ie ve me nts,
and
ability grouping.
Group-spe cific
motivational
compone nts.
Class-
room
le arning
take s
place
with in
groups
as
organisational
units;
th e se units are
powe rful
social e ntitie s with a "life of th e ir
own,"
so th at
group d ynamics
influe nce stud e nt affe cts and
cognitions
(for
a
re vie w,
se e
30; 50).
In ad d i-
tion,
group goals
and th e
group's
commitme nt
to th e se
goals
d o not
ne ce ssarily
coincid e with
th ose of th e
ind ivid ual,
but
may
re inforce or
re d uce th e m.
With
re spe ct
to L2
motivation,
four
aspe cts
of
group d ynamics
are
particularly
re le vant:
1) goal-orie nte d ne ss,
2)
norm and re ward
syste m,
3) group
coh e sion,
and
4)
classroom
goal
structure s.
A
group goal
is be st
re gard e d
as a
composite
of
ind ivid ual
goals,
th at
is,
an "e nd state d e sire d
by
a
majority
of th e
group
me mbe rs"
(50:
p.
351).
Groups
are
typically
forme d for a
purpose ,
but
th e "official
goal" may
not be th e
only group
goal
and in e xtre me case s
may
not be a
group
goal
at all. For
e xample ,
th e
goal
of a
group
of
stud e nts
may
be to h ave fun rath e r th an to
le arn. Th e e xte nt to wh ich th e
group
is attune d
to
pursuing
its
goal
(in
our
case ,
L2
le arning)
is
re fe rre d to as
goal-orie nte d ne ss.
Th e
group's
norm and re ward
syste m
is one of
th e most salie nt classroom factors th at can af-
fe ct stud e nt motivation. It conce rns e xtrinsic
motive s th at
spe cify appropriate
be h aviours re -
quire d
for e fficie nt
le arning.
As h as be e n d is-
cusse d
e arlie r,
e xtrinsic
re gulations
sh ould be
inte rnalise d as much as
possible
to foste r intrin-
sic motivation. Re ward s and
punish me nt (typ-
ically e xpre sse d
in
grad e s)
sh ould
give way
to
group
norms,
wh ich are stand ard s th at th e ma-
jority
of
group
me mbe rs
agre e
to and wh ich
be come
part
of th e
group's
value
syste m.
In
classe s
wh e re ,
for
e xample , d oing
h ome
assign-
me nts and
pre paring
for te sts
conscie ntiously
h ave not be come
acce pte d group
norms,
bad
grad e s
and oth e r
punitive
me asure s will not be
Zoltd n
Dornye i
e fficie nt in
ge tting
stud e nts more
e ngage d
in
th e ir h ome stud ie s. On th e oth e r
h and ,
once a
norm h as be e n inte rnalise d and h as be come a
se lf-e vid e nt
pre -cond ition
for th e
group
to
function,
th e
group
is
like ly
to
cope
with d e via-
tions
by putting pre ssure
on me mbe rs wh o vio-
late th e norm. Th is
may
h appe n th rough
a
range
of
group
be h aviours-from
sh owing
ac-
tive
support
for te ach e r's e fforts to h ave th e
norms
obse rve d ,
to
e xpre ssing ind ire ctly
d is-
agre e me nt
with and d islike for d e viant me m-
be rs,
and e ve n to
ope nly criticising
th e m and
putting
th e m in "social
quarantine ."
Group
coh e sion is th e
"stre ngth
of th e re lation-
sh ip linking
th e me mbe rs to one anoth e r and to
th e
group
itse lf"
(30: p. 10).
In a
me ta-analysis,
Evans and Dion found a consiste nt
positive
re la-
tionsh ip
be twe e n coh e sion and
group pe rfor-
mance ,
and th e
find ings
of
Cle me nt,
D6rnye i,
and Noe ls confirme d th at
pe rce ive d group
co-
h e sion is an
important
motivational
compone nt
in a L2
le arning
conte xt. Th is
may
be d ue to th e
fact th at in a coh e sive
group,
me mbe rs want to
contribute to
group
succe ss and th e
group's
goal-orie nte d
norms h ave a
strong
influe nce
ove r th e ind ivid ual.
Classroom
goal
structure s can be
compe titive , coope ra-
tive ,
or ind ivid ualistic. In a
compe titive
structure ,
stud e nts work
against
e ach oth e r and
only
th e
be st one s are re ward e d . In a
coope rative
situa-
tion,
stud e nts work in small
groups
in wh ich
e ach me mbe r sh are s
re sponsibility
for th e out-
come and is
e qually
re ward e d . In an ind ivid u-
alistic
structure ,
stud e nts work
alone ,
and one 's
probability
of
ach ie ving
a
goal
or re ward is ne i-
th e r d iminish e d nor e nh ance d
by
a
capable
oth e r. Th e re is consiste nt e vid e nce from
pre -
sch ool to
grad uate
sch ool
se ttings
th at,
com-
pare d
to
compe titive
or ind ivid ualistic
le arning
e xpe rie nce s,
th e
coope rative goal
structure is
more
powe rful
in
promoting
intrinsic motiva-
tion
(in th at it le ad s to le ss
anxie ty, gre ate r
task
involve me nt,
and a more
positive
e motional
tone ),
positive
attitud e s toward s th e
subje ct
are a,
and a
caring,
coh e sive
re lationsh ip
with
pe e rs
and with th e te ach e r
(36; 42). Julkune n
(38) analyse d
th e e ffe cts of th e se th re e
goal
structure s on L2 motivation and h is re sults
sup-
porte d
th e
supe riority
of
coope rative le arning.
SUMMARY OF THE L2 MOTIVATION
CONSTRUCT
Th e
varie ty
of re le vant motivation
type s
and
compone nts
d e scribe d above is in accord ance
with th e e arlie r claim th at L2 motivation is an
279
e cle ctic,
multiface te d construct. In ord e r to in-
te grate
th e various
compone nts,
it
appe ars
ne c-
e ssary
to introd uce d iffe re nt le ve ls of motiva-
tion,
similarly
but not in
e xactly
th e same
way
as
was d one
by
Crooke s and Sch mid t.
Base d on th e re se arch lite rature
pre se nte d
above and th e re sults of
Cle me nt,
D6rnye i,
and
Noe ls's classroom
stud y-in
wh ich a
tripartite
L2 motivation construct
e me rge d comprising
inte grative
motivation, se lf-confid e nce ,
and th e
appraisal
of th e
te ach ing
e nvironme nt-we
may
conce ptualise
a
ge ne ral
frame work of L2 mo-
tivation. Th is frame work consists of th re e le ve ls:
th e
Language
Le ve l,
th e Le arne r
Le ve l,
and th e
Le arning
Situation Le ve l
(se e Figure
I).
Th e th re e
le ve ls coincid e with th e th re e basic constitue nts
of th e L2
le arning proce ss
(th e L2,
th e L2
le arne r,
and th e L2
le arning
e nvironme nt)
and
also re fle ct th e th re e d iffe re nt
aspe cts
of lan-
guage
me ntione d e arlie r
(th e
social
d ime nsion,
th e
pe rsonal
d ime nsion,
and th e e d ucational
subje ct
matte r
d ime nsion).
Th e most
ge ne ral
le ve l of th e construct is th e
Language
Le ve l wh e re th e focus is on orie nta-
tions and motive s re late d to various
aspe cts
of
th e
L2,
such as th e culture it
conve ys,
th e com-
munity
in wh ich it is
spoke n,
and th e
pote ntial
use fulne ss of
proficie ncy
in it. Th e se
ge ne ral
motive s d e te rmine basic
le arning goals
and e x-
plain language
ch oice . In accord ance with th e
Gard ne rian
approach ,
th is
ge ne ral
motiva-
tional d ime nsion can be d e scribe d
by
two broad
motivational
subsyste ms,
an
inte grative
and an
instrume ntal motivational
subsyste m,
wh ich ,
as h as
be e n
argue d
be fore ,
consist of
loose ly
re late d ,
conte xt-d e pe nd e nt
motive s. Th e
inte grative
motivational
subsyste m
is ce ntre d around th e
ind ivid ual's L2-re late d affe ctive
pre d isposi-
tions,
includ ing
social, cultural,
and e th -
nolinguistic compone nts,
as we ll as a
ge ne ral
inte re st in
fore ignne ss
and
fore ign language s.
Th e instrume ntal motivational
subsyste m
con-
sists of we ll-inte rnalise d e xtrinsic motive s
(id e n-
tifie d and
inte grate d re gulation)
ce ntre d
around th e ind ivid ual's future care e r e n-
d e avours
(cf., 26).
Th e se cond le ve l of th e L2 motivation con-
struct is th e Le arne r
Le ve l,
involving
a
comple x
of
affe cts and
cognitions
th at form
fairly
stable
pe rsonality
traits. We can
id e ntify
two motiva-
tional
compone nts und e rlying
th e motivational
proce sse s
at th is
le ve l,
ne e d for
ach ie ve me nt and
se lf-
confid e nce ,
th e latte r
e ncompassing
various as-
pe cts
of
language anxie ty, pe rce ive d
L2
compe -
te nce ,
attributions about
past e xpe rie nce s,
and
se lf-e fficacy.
Th e Mod e rn Language Journal 78
(1994)
FIGURE I
Compone nts
of
Fore ign Language Le arning
Motivation
LANGUAGE LEVEL
Inte grative
Motivational
Subsyste m
Instrume ntal Motivational
Subsyste m
LEARNER LEVEL Ne e d for Ach ie ve me nt
Se lf-Confid e nce
*
Language
Use
Anxie ty
*
Pe rce ive d L2
Compe te nce
*
Causal Attributions
*
Se lf-Efficacy
LEARNING SITUATION LEVEL
Course -Spe cific
Motivational Inte re st
Compone nts
Re le vance
Expe ctancy
Satisfaction
Te ach e r-Spe cific
Motivational Affiliative Drive
Compone nts Auth ority Type
Dire ct Socialization of Motivation
*
Mod e lling
*
Task Pre se ntation
*
Fe e d back
Group-Spe cific
Motivational Goal-orie nte d ne ss
Compone nts
Norm & Re ward
Syste m
Group
Coh e sion
Classroom Goal Structure
Th e th ird le ve l of L2 motivation is th e Le arn-
ing
Situation
Le ve l,
mad e
up
of intrinsic and e x-
trinsic motive s and motivational cond itions
conce rning
th re e are as.
1)
Course -spe cific
motiva-
tional
compone nts
are re late d to th e
syllabus,
th e
te ach ing
mate rials,
th e
te ach ing
me th od ,
and
th e
le arning
tasks. Th e se are be st d e scribe d
by
th e frame work of four motivational cond itions
propose d by
Crooke s and Sch mid t:
inte re st,
re le -
vance ,
e xpe ctancy,
and
satisfaction.
2)
Te ach e r-
spe cific
motivational
compone nts
includ e th e
affilia-
tive d rive to
ple ase
th e
te ach e r,
auth ority
type ,
and
d ire ct socialization
of
stud e nt motivation
(mod e lling,
task
pre se ntation,
and
fe e d back). 3) Group-
spe cific
motivational
compone nts
are mad e
up
of
four main
compone nts: goal-orie nte d ne ss,
norm
and re ward
syste m, group
coh e sion,
and classroom
goal
structure .
HOW TO MOTIVATE L2 LEARNERS
In th is last
se ction,
a list of
strate gie s
to moti-
vate
language
le arne rs will be
pre se nte d ,
d raw-
ing partly
on th e auth or's own
e xpe rie nce
and
partly
on
find ings
in e d ucational
psych ological
re se arch
(for
two e xce lle nt
ove rvie ws,
se e
6; 39).
Th e re ad e r is also re fe rre d to Oxford and
Sh e arin's article me ntione d
above ,
wh ich con-
tains
ve ry
use ful
practical
instructional
implica-
tions of th e th e orie s
d iscusse d ,
as we ll as to
Brown's re ce nt book
(9),
wh ich includ e s d e -
taile d d iscussion on h ow to
capitalise
on th e
stud e nts' intrinsic motivation in th e se cond lan-
guage
classroom.
It must be
e mph asise d
th at th e
following
strate gie s
are not rock-solid
gold e n
rule s,
but
rath e r
sugge stions
th at
may
work with one
te ach e r or
group
be tte r th an anoth e r and th at
migh t
work
tod ay
but not tomorrow as
th e y
lose
th e ir
nove lty.
Ne ve rth e le ss,
such a list
provid e s,
in
Broph y's
word s,
"a 'starte r se t' of
strate gie s
to se le ct from in
planning
motivational e le -
me nts to includ e in instruction"
(p.
48).
Th e
strate gie s
will be
organise d accord ing
to th e cat-
e gorie s
introd uce d in th e
propose d
L2 con-
struct above . As can be
e xpe cte d ,
most of th e
strate gie s
will conce rn th e
Le arning
Situation
Le ve l. Motive s
be longing
to th e
Language
and
Le arne r Le ve ls te nd to be more
ge ne ralise d
and
e stablish e d and , th e re fore ,
d o not le nd th e m-
280
Zoltd n
Dornye i
se lve s as
e asily
to
manipulations
or mod ifica-
tions.
Language
Le ve l.
1)
Includ e a sociocultural
compone nt
in th e L2
syl-
labus
by sh aring positive
L2- re late d
e xpe rie nce s
in
class,
sh owing
films or TV
re cord ings, play-
ing
re le vant
music,
and
inviting inte re sting
na-
tive
spe aking gue sts.
2)
De ve lop
le arne rs' cross-cultural aware ne ss
syste m-
atically by focusing
on cross-cultural similaritie s
and
notjust
d iffe re nce s,
using analogie s
to make
th e
strange
familiar,
and
using
"culture te ach -
ing"
id e as and activitie s
(such
as th e one s in-
clud e d ,
for
e xample ,
in
12; 20; 21; 27; 28; 47).
3)
Promote stud e nt contact with L2
spe ake rs by
ar-
ranging me e tings
with L2
spe ake rs
in
your
country;
or,
if
possible , organising
sch ool
trips
or
e xch ange programs
to th e L2
community;
or
find ing pe n-frie nd s
for
your
stud e nts.
4)
De ve lop
le arne rs' instrume ntal motivation
by
d is-
cussing
th e role L2
plays
in th e world and its
pote ntial
use fulne ss both for th e mse lve s and
th e ir
community.
Le arne r Le ve l.
5)
De ve lop
stud e nts'
se lf-confid e nce by trusting
th e m and
proje cting
th e be lie f th at
th e y
will
ach ie ve th e ir
goal; re gularly provid ing praise ,
e ncourage me nt,
and
re inforce me nt;
making
sure th at stud e nts
re gularly e xpe rie nce
succe ss
and a se nse of
ach ie ve me nt;
h e lping
re move un-
ce rtaintie s about th e ir
compe te nce
and se lf-
e fficacy by giving
re le vant
positive e xample s
and
analogie s
of
accomplish me nt;
counte r-
balancing e xpe rie nce s
of frustration
by
involv-
ing
stud e nts in more
favourable ,
"e asie r" activ-
itie s;
and
using confid e nce -build ing
tasks
(for
e xample ,
se e
22).
6)
Promote th e stud e nts'
se lf-e fficacy
with
re gard
to
ach ie ving le arning goals by te ach ing
stud e nts
le arning
and communication
strate gie s,
as we ll
as
strate gie s
for information
proce ssing
and
proble m-solving, h e lping
th e m to
d e ve lop
re al-
istic
e xpe ctations
of wh at can be ach ie ve d in a
give n pe riod ,
and
te lling
th e m about
your
own
d ifficultie s in
language le arning.
7)
Promote
favourable se lf-pe rce ptions of compe te nce
in L2
by h igh ligh ting
wh at stud e nts can d o in th e
L2 rath e r th an wh at
th e y
cannot
d o,
e ncouraging
th e vie w th at mistake s are a
part
of
le arning,
pointing
out th at th e re is more to communica-
tion th an not
making
mistake s or
always
find -
ing
th e
righ t
word ,
and
talking ope nly
about
your
own
sh ortcomings
in L2
(if
you
are a non-
native
te ach e r)
or in a L3.
8)
De cre ase stud e nt
anxie ty by cre ating
a
sup-
portive
and
acce pting le arning
e nvironme nt in
281
th e L2 classroom,
avoid ing h ype rcritical
or
pu-
nitive
tre atme nt,
and
applying spe cial anxie ty-
re d ucing
activitie s and
te ch nique s
(for
a sum-
mary,
se e
55).
9)
Promote
motivation-e nh ancing
attributions
by
h e lping
stud e nts
re cognise
links be twe e n e ffort
and
outcome ;
and attribute
past
failure s to con-
trollable factors such as insufficie nt e ffort
(if
th is h as be e n th e
case ),
confusion about wh at to
d o,
or th e use of
inappropriate strate gie s,
rath e r th an to lack of
ability,
as th is
may
le ad to
le arne d
h e lple ssne ss.
10) Encourage
stud e nts to se t attainable
subgoals
for
th e mse lve s th at are
proximal
and
spe cific (e .g.,
le arning
200 ne w word s
e ve ry
we e k). Id e ally,
th e se
subgoals
can be
inte grate d
into a
pe rson-
alise d
le arning plan
for e ach stud e nt.
Le arning
Situation Le ve l:
Course -spe cific
motiva-
tional
compone nts.
11)
Make th e
syllabus of
th e course re le vant
by
bas-
ing
it on ne e d s
analysis,
and
involving
th e stu-
d e nts in th e actual
planning
of th e course
programme .
12)
Incre ase th e attractive ne ss
of
th e course conte nt
by using
auth e ntic mate rials th at are with in stu-
d e nts'
grasp;
and unusual and e xotic
supple -
me ntary
mate rials,
re cord ings,
and visual aid s.
13)
Discuss with th e stud e nts th e ch oice
of te ach ing
mate rials for th e course
(both
te xtbooks and
supple me ntary
mate rials),
pointing
out th e ir
strong
and we ak
points
(in
te rms of
utility,
at-
tractive ne ss,
and
inte re st).
14)
Arouse and sustain
curiosity
and atte ntion
by
introd ucing une xpe cte d ,
nove l, unfamiliar,
and
e ve n
parad oxical
e ve nts;
not
allowing
le ssons to
se ttle into too
re gular
a
routine ;
pe riod ically
bre aking
th e static ch aracte r of th e classe s
by
ch anging
th e inte raction
patte rn
and th e se at-
ing
formation and
by making
stud e nts
ge t up
and move from time to time .
15)
Incre ase stud e nts' inte re st and involve me nt in th e
tasks
by d e signing
or
se le cting
varie d and ch al-
le nging
activitie s;
ad apting
tasks to th e stu-
d e nts'
inte re sts;
making
sure th at
some th ing
about e ach
activity
is ne w or
d iffe re nt;
includ -
ing game -like
fe ature s,
such as
puzzle s, prob-
le m-solving, avoid ing traps, ove rcoming
obsta-
cle s,
e le me nts of
suspe nse ,
h id d e n
information,
e tc.;
includ ing imaginative
e le me nts th at will
e ngage
stud e nts'
e motions;
le aving
activitie s
ope n-e nd e d
and th e actual conclusion unce r-
tain;
pe rsonalising
tasks
by e ncouraging
stu-
d e nts to
e ngage
in
me aningful e xch ange s,
such
as
sh aring pe rsonal
information;
and
making
pe e r
inte raction
(e .g., pair
work and
group
work)
an
important te ach ing compone nt.
282
16)
Match
d ifficulty of
tasks with stud e nts' abilitie s
so th at stud e nts can
e xpe ct
to succe e d if
th e y
put
in re asonable e ffort.
17)
Incre ase stud e nt
e xpe ctancy of taskfulfillme nt by
familiarising
stud e nts with th e task
type ,
suffi-
cie ntly pre paring
th e m for
coping
with th e task
conte nt,
giving
th e m d e taile d
guid ance
about
th e
proce d ure s
and
strate gie s
th at th e task re -
quire s, making
th e crite ria for succe ss
(or
grad -
ing)
cle ar and
"transpare nt,"
and
offe ring
stu-
d e nts
ongoing
assistance .
18)
Facilitate stud e nt
satisfaction by allowing
stu-
d e nts to cre ate finish e d
prod ucts
th at
th e y
can
pe rform
or
d isplay, e ncouraging
th e m to be
proud
of th e mse lve s afte r
accomplish ing
a
task,
taking
stock from time to time of th e ir
ge ne ral
progre ss, making
a wall ch art of wh at th e
group
h as
le arne d ,
and
ce le brating
succe ss.
Te ach e r-spe cific
motivational
compone nts.
19) Try
to be
e mpath ic, congrue nt,
and
acce pting;
accord ing
to th e
principle s
of
pe rson-ce ntre d
e d ucation,
th e se are th e th re e basic te ach e r
ch aracte ristics th at e nh ance
le arning
(48).
Em-
path y
re fe rs to
be ing
se nsitive to stud e nts'
ne e d s,
fe e lings,
and
pe rspe ctive s. Congrue nce
re fe rs to
th e
ability
to be h ave
accord ing
to
your
true
se lf,
th at
is,
to be re al and auth e ntic with out
h id ing
be h ind facad e s or role s.
Acce ptance
re fe rs to a
nonjud gme ntal, positive re gard , acknowle d ging
e ach stud e nt as a
comple x
h uman
be ing
with
both virtue s and faults.
20)
Ad opt
th e role
of
a
facilitator
rath e r th an an
auth ority figure
or a "d rill
se rge ant," d e ve lop-
ing
a warm
rapport
with th e stud e nts.
21)
Promote le arne r
autonomy by allowing
re al
ch oice s about alte rnative
ways
to
goal
attain-
me nt;
minimising
e xte rnal
pre ssure
and control
(e .g.,
th re ats,
punish me nts); sh aring re spon-
sibility
with th e stud e nts for
organising
th e ir
time ,
e ffort and th e
le arning proce ss; inviting
th e m to
d e sign
and
pre pare
activitie s th e m-
se lve s and
promoting pe e r-te ach ing; includ ing
proje ct
work wh e re stud e nts are in
ch arge ;
and
giving
stud e nts
positions
of
ge nuine auth ority.
22)
Mod e l stud e nt inte re st in L2
le arning by
sh ow-
ing
stud e nts th at
you
value L2
le arning
as a
me aningful e xpe rie nce
th at
prod uce s
satisfac-
tion and e nrich e s
your
life ,
sh aring your pe r-
sonal inte re st in L2 and L2
le arning
with th e
stud e nts,
and
taking
th e stud e nts'
le arning
proce ss
and ach ie ve me nt
ve ry se riously
(since
sh owing
insufficie nt commitme nt
yourse lf
is
th e faste st
way
to und e rmine stud e nt motiva-
tion).
23)
Introd uce tasks in such a
way
as to stimulate
intrinsic motivation and
h e lp
inte rnalise e xtrinsic mo-
Th e Mod e rn
Language Journal
78
(1994)
tivation
by pre se nting
tasks as
le arning oppor-
tunitie s to be value d rath e r th an
impose d
d e -
mand s to be
re siste d ,
proje cting inte nsity
and
e nth usiasm,
raising
task inte re st
by conne cting
th e task with
th ings
th at stud e nts
alre ad y
find
inte re sting
or h old in
e ste e m,
pointing
out ch al-
le nging
or e xotic
aspe cts
of th e
L2)
calling
at-
te ntion to
une xpe cte d
or
parad oxical aspe cts
of
routine
topics,
and
stating
th e
purpose
and util-
ity
of th e task.
24)
Use
motivating fe e d back by making your
fe e d back informational rath e r th an control-
ling; giving positive compe te nce
fe e d back,
pointing
out th e value of th e
accomplish me nt;
and not
ove rre acting
to e rrors
(for
a
summary
of e rror corre ction with out
ge ne rating anxie ty,
se e
55).
Group-spe cific
motivational
compone nts.
25)
Incre ase th e
group's goal-orie nte d ne ss by
initiat-
ing
d iscussions with stud e nts about th e
group
goal(s),
and
asking
th e m from time to time to
e valuate th e e xte nt to wh ich
th e y
are
approach -
ing
th e ir
goal.
26)
Promote th e inte rnalisation
of
classroom norms
by e stablish ing
th e norms
e xplicitly righ t
from
th e
start,
e xplaining
th e ir
importance
and h ow
th e y
e nh ance
le arning, asking
for th e stud e nts'
agre e me nt,
and e ve n
involving
stud e nts in for-
mulating
norms.
27) He lp
maintain inte rnalise d classroom norms
by
obse rving
th e m
consiste ntly yourse lf,
and not
le tting any
violations
go
unnotice d .
28)
Minimise th e d e trime ntal
e ffe ct of
e valuation on
intrinsic motivation
by focusing
on ind ivid ual im-
prove me nt
and
progre ss, avoid ing any e xplicit
or
implicit comparison
of stud e nts to e ach
oth e r,
making
e valuation
private
rath e r th an
public,
not
e ncouraging
stud e nt
compe tition,
and
making
th e final (e nd
of
te rm/ye ar/
course )
grad ing
th e
prod uct
of
two-way ne go-
tiation with th e stud e nts
by asking
th e m to e x-
pre ss
th e ir
opinion
of th e ir ach ie ve me nt in a
pe rsonal
inte rvie w.
29)
Promote th e
d e ve lopme nt of group
coh e sion and
e nh ance inte rme mbe r re lations
by cre ating
class-
room situations in wh ich stud e nts can
ge t
to
know e ach oth e r and sh are
ge nuine pe rsonal
information
(fe e lings,
fe ars, d e sire s, e tc.),
organising outings
and e xtracurricular activ-
itie s,
and
includ ing game -like inte rgroup
com-
pe titions
in th e course .
30)
Use
coope rative le arning te ch nique s by
fre -
que ntly includ ing groupwork
in th e classe s in
wh ich th e
group's-rath e r
th an th e ind ivid -
ual's-ach ie ve me nt is e valuate d
(for
L2 te ach -
ing-spe cific guid e line s,
se e
17; 18; 42).
Zoltd n
Dirnye i
CONCLUSION
Th e inte nt of th is
pape r
was to make L2 mo-
tivation re se arch more
"e d ucation-frie nd ly,"
th at
is,
"congrue nt
with th e
conce pt
of motiva-
tion th at te ach e rs are convince d is critical for
SL
[se cond
language ]
succe ss"
(19: p.
502).
Drawing
on a
long
succe ssion of re se arch in se c-
ond
language acquisition,
as we ll as on
impor-
tant
find ings
in
ge ne ral
and e d ucational
psy-
ch ology,
an
atte mpt
was mad e to outline a
compre h e nsive
motivational construct re le vant
to L2 classroom motivation. Th is construct
comprise s
th re e broad
le ve ls,
th e
Language
Le ve l,
th e Le arne r
Le ve l,
and th e
Le arning
Situation
Le ve l;
th e se le ve ls
corre spond
to th e th re e basic con-
stitue nts of th e L2
le arning proce ss
(L2,
L2
le arne r,
and L2
le arning
e nvironme nt),
and re -
fle ct th e th re e d iffe re nt
aspe cts
of
language
(th e
social
d ime nsion,
th e
pe rsonal
d ime nsion,
and th e e d ucational
subje ct
matte r
d ime nsion).
Base d on th e
compone nts
of th is
mod e l,
a num-
be r of
practical
motivational
strate gie s
we re
liste d th at
may h e lp language
te ach e rs
gain
a
be tte r
und e rstand ing
of wh at motivate s th e ir
stud e nts in th e L2 classroom.
Alth ough
th e
propose d
d ivision of le ve ls of
motivation
appe ars
to be
parsimonious,
and th e
construct
inte grate s many
line s of
re se arch ,
it is
at th is
stage
no more th an a th e ore tical
possi-
bility
be cause
many
of its
compone nts
h ave
be e n ve rifie d
by ve ry
little or no
e mpirical
re -
se arch in th e L2 fie ld . In
fact,
only
th e
compo-
ne nts at th e
Language
Le ve l and th e se lf-
confid e nce construct at th e Le arne r Le ve l h ave
be e n
analyse d syste matically, notably by
Gard -
ne r, Cle me nt,
and th e ir associate s. Th e re is
cle arly
a ne e d for much furth e r re se arch on L2
motivation;
th is
pape r
is inte nd e d to be
part
of
a d iscussion th at will
h ope fully
re sult in a more
cle arly
d e fine d and e laborate mod e l of motiva-
tion in
fore ign language le arning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Ame s,
Carole . "Classrooms:
Goals,
Structure s and
Stud e nt Motivation."
Journal of
Ed ucational
Psy-
ch ology
84
(1992):
267-71.
2.
Au,
Sh un Y. "A Critical
Appraisal
of Gard ne r's
Social-Psych ological Th e ory
of Se cond -
Language (L2) Le arning." Language Le arning
38
(1988):
75-100.
3.
Ausube l,
David
P.,
Jose ph
D. Novak & He le n Hane -
sian. Ed ucational
Psych ology:
A
Cognitive
Vie w. 2nd
e d . Ne w York:
Holt, Rine h art,
1978.
283
4.
Band ura,
Albe rt & Dale Sch unk.
"Cultivating
Com-
pe te nce , Se lf-Efficacy,
and Intrinsic Inte re st
Th rough
Proximal Se lf-Motivation."
Journal of
Pe rsonality
and Social
Psych ology
41
(1981):
586-98.
5.
Blume nfe ld ,
Ph yllis
C. "Classroom
Le arning
and
Motivation:
Clarifying
and
Expand ing
Goal
Th e ory." Journal of
Ed ucational
Psych ology
84
(1992):
272-81.
6.
Broph y, Je re . "Synth e sis
of Re se arch on
Strate gie s
for
Motivating
Stud e nts to Le arn." Ed ucational
Le ad e rsh ip
45,2 (1987):
40-48.
7.
-
& Th omas L. Good . "Te ach e r Be h avior and
Stud e nt Ach ie ve me nt." Hand book
of
Re se arch on
Te ach ing.
Ed . Me rlin C. Wittrock. Ne w York:
Macmillan,
1986: 328-75.
8.
-
& Ne e lam Kh e r. "Te ach e r Socialization as a
Me ch anism for
De ve loping
Stud e nt Motivation
to Le arn." Th e Social
Psych ology ofEd ucation-Cur-
re nt Re se arch and
Th e ory.
Ed . Robe rt S. Fe ld man.
Cambrid ge : Cambrid ge
Univ.
Pre ss,
1986: 257-
88.
9.
Brown,
H.
Douglas. Te ach ing by Principle s. Engle wood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Pre ntice
Hall,
1994.
10. . "M & Ms for
Language
Classrooms? An-
oth e r Look at Motivation."
Ge orge town Unive rsity
Round Table on
Language
and
Linguistics
1990. Ed .
Jame s
E. Alatis.
Wash ington,
DC:
Ge orge town
Univ.
Pre ss,
1990: 383-93.
11. . "Affe ctive Factors in Se cond
Language
Le arning."
Th e Se cond
Language
Classroom: Dire c-
tions
for
th e
Eigh tie s.
Ed .
J.
E.
Alatis,
H. B. Altman
& P. M. Alatis. Ne w York: Oxford Univ.
Pre ss,
1981: 111-29.
12. Ce lce -Murcia, Marianne ,
Zoltan
D6rnye i
& Sarah
Th urre ll. "Communicative
Compe te nce :
A Pe d -
agogically
Motivate d Frame work with Conte nt
Spe cifications"
(submitte d
for
publication).
13.
Cle me nt,
Rich ard .
"Eth nicity,
Contact and Com-
municative
Compe te nce
in a Se cond Lan-
guage ." Language :
Social
Psych ological Pe rspe ctive s.
Ed . H.
Gile s,
W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith .
Oxford :
Pe rgamon,
1980: 147-54.
14.
,,
Zoltan
D6rnye i
&
Kimbe rly
A. Noe ls. "Mo-
tivation,
Se lf-confid e nce and
Group
Coh e sion
in th e
Fore ign Language
Classroom."
Language
Le arning
(in
pre ss).
15.
-
& Bastian G. Kruid e nie r.
"Aptitud e ,
Atti-
tud e and Motivation in Se cond
Language
Pro-
ficie ncy:
A Te st of Cle me nt's Mod e l."
Journal of
Language
and Social
Psych ology
4
(1985):
21-37.
16.
-
& Bastian G. Kruid e nie r. "Orie ntations on
Se cond
Language Acquisition:
1. Th e Effe cts of
Eth nicity,
Milie u,
and th e ir
Targe t Language
on th e ir
e me rge nce ." Language Le arning
33
(1983):
273-91.
17.
Coope rative
Language Le arning;
A Te ach e r's Re source
Book. Ed .
Carolyn
Ke ssle r.
Engle wood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Pre ntice Hall
Re ge nts,
1992.
18.
Coope rative
Le arning.
Ed . Danie l D. Holt.
Wash ington,
DC: Ce nte r for
Applie d Linguistics
& ERIC Cle ar-
ingh ouse
on
Language s
and
Linguistics,
1993.
284
19.
Crooke s,
Grah am & Rich ard W. Sch mid t. "Motiva-
tion:
Re ope ning
th e Re se arch
Age nd a."
Lan-
guage Le arning
41
(1991):
469-512.
20. Culture Bound . Ed .
Joyce
M. Vald e s.
Cambrid ge :
Cambrid ge
Univ.
Pre ss,
1986.
21.
Dame n,
Louise . Culture
Le arning:
Th e
Fifth
Dime nsion
in th e
Language
Classroom.
Re ad ing,
MA: Ad d i-
son-We sle y,
1987.
22.
Davie s,
Paul & Mario Rinvolucri. Th e
Confid e nce
Book. Lond on:
Longman,
1990.
23.
De ci,
Ed ward L. & Rich ard M.
Ryan.
Intrinsic Mo-
tivation and
Se lf-De te rmination
in Human Be h avior
Ne w York:
Ple num,
1985.
24. -, Robe rt
J.
Valle rand ,
Luc G. Pe lle trie r &
Rich ard M.
Ryan.
"Motivation and Ed ucation:
Th e Se lf-De te rmination
Pe rspe ctive ."
Ed uca-
tional
Psych ologist
26
(1991):
325-46.
25.
D6rnye i,
Zoltan.
"Analysis
of Motivation
Compo-
ne nts in
Fore ign Language Le arning." Pape r,
9th World
Congre ss
of
Applie d Linguistics,
Th e ssaloniki-Halkid iki, Gre e ce ,
April
1990
[ERIC
DOC ED 323 810].
26. .
"Conce ptualizing
Motivation in
Fore ign-
Language Le arning." Language Le arning
40
(1990):
45-78.
27. - & Sarah Th urre ll.
"Te ach ing
Conve rsa-
tional Skills
Inte nsive ly:
Course Conte nt and
Rationale ."
ELTJournal
48
(1994):
40-49.
28. &- Sarah Th urre ll. Conve rsation and
Dialogue s
in Action. He me l
He mpste ad :
Pre ntice
Hall,
1992.
29. Evans,
Ch arle s R. & Ke nne th L. Dion.
"Group
Coh e sion and
Pe rformance ;
A
Me ta-Analysis."
Small
Group
Re se arch 22
(1991):
175-86.
30.
Forsyth ,
Done lson R.
Group Dynamics.
2nd e d . Pa-
cific
Grove ,
CA:
Brooks/Cole ,
1990.
31.
Gard ne r,
Robe rt C. Th e Attitud e /Motivation Te st Bat-
te ry:
Te ch nical
Re port.
Lond on,
ON: Univ. of We st-
e rn
Ontario,
1985.
32. . Social
Psych ology
and Se cond
Language
Le arn-
ing:
Th e Role
of
Attitud e s and Motivation. Lond on:
Ed ward
Arnold ,
1985.
33. - & Rich ard Cle me nt. "Social
Psych ological
Pe rspe ctive s
on Se cond
Language Acquisi-
tion." Hand book
of Language
and Social
Psych ology.
Ed . H. Gile s & W. P. Robinson. Lond on:
Joh n
Wile y,
1990: 495-517.
34.
- & Wallace E. Lambe rt. Attitud e s and Motiva-
tion in Se cond
Language Le arning. Rowle y,
MA:
Ne wbury
House ,
1972.
35. - & Pe te r D.
MacIntyre .
"A Stud e nt's Contri-
butions to
Se cond -Language Le arning.
Part II:
Affe ctive Variable s."
Language Te ach ing
26
(1993):
1-11.
36.
Joh nson,
David W. &
Roge r T.Joh nson. "Coope ra-
tive
Le arning
and Classroom and Sch ool Cli-
mate ." Ed ucational Environme nts. Ed .
Barry J.
Frase r & He rbe rt
J. Walbe rg.
Oxford : Pe r-
gamon,
1991: 55-74.
37.Julkune n,
Kiosti. "Situation- and
Task-Spe cific
Motivation in
Fore ign-Language Le arning
and
Th e Mod e rn
Language Journal
78
(1994)
Te ach ing."
Diss.,
Univ. of Joe nsuu. Disse rtation
Abstracts 52
(1991):
716C.
38. . Situation- and
Task-Spe cific
Motivation in For-
e ign-Language Le arning
and
Te ach ing.
Joe nsuu:
Univ.
ofJoe nsuu,
1989.
39.
Ke lle r,
Joh n
M. "Motivational
De sign
of Instruc-
tion." Instructional
De sign
Th e orie s and Mod e ls: An
Ove rvie w
of
th e ir Curre nt Status. Ed . C. M.
Re ig-
e lruth .
Hillsd ale ,
NJ:
Lawre nce
Erlbaum,
1983:
383-434.
40.
Labrie ,
Normand & Rich ard Cle me nt. "Eth -
nolinguistic Vitality,
Se lf-Confid e nce and Se c-
ond
Language Proficie ncy:
An
Inve stigation."
Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural
De ve lopme nt
7
(1986):
269-82.
41.
Laine ,
Ee ro
J. "Fore ign Language Le arning
Mo-
tivation: Old and Ne w Variable s."
Proce e d ings of
th e 5th
Congre ss of
lAssociation inte rnationale d e lin-
guistique applique e .
Ed .
Je an-Guy
Savard & Lorne
Laforge .
Que be c:
Le s Pre sse s d e l'Unive rsite
Laval,
1981: 302-12.
42.
McGroarty, Mary. "Coope rative Le arning
and Se c-
ond
Language Acquisition." Coope rative Le arning.
Ed . Danie l D. Holt.
Wash ington,
DC: Ce nte r for
Applie d Linguistics
& ERIC
Cle aringh ouse
on
Language s
and
Linguistics,
1993: 19-46.
43.
Mille re t,
Margo. "Coope rative Le arning
in th e
Portugue se -for-Spanish -Spe ake rs
Classroom."
Fore ign Language
Annals 25
(1992):
435-40.
44.
Oile r,
Joh n
W.
Jr.
"Can Affe ct Be Me asure d ?"
IRAL 19
(1981):
227-35.
45.
Oxford ,
Re be cca &
Jill
Sh e arin.
"Language
Le arning
Motivation:
Expand ing
th e Th e ore ti-
cal Frame work." Mod e rn
Language
Journal
78
(1994):
12-28.
46.
Ramage ,
Kath e rine . "Motivational Factors and
Pe rsiste nce in
Fore ign Language Stud y."
Lan-
guage Le arning
40
(1990):
189-219.
47.
Robinson,
Gail L. Crosscultural
Und e rstand ing.
He -
me l
He mpste ad :
Pre ntice
Hall,
1988.
48.
Roge rs.
Carl. Fre e d om to Le arn
for
th e 80s.
Columbus,
OH:
Me rrill,
1983.
49.
Sch unk,
Dale H.
"Se lf-Efficacy
and Acad e mic Mo-
tivation." Ed ucational
Psych ologist
26
(1991):
207-31.
50.
Sh aw,
Marvin E.
Group
Dynamics.
3rd e d . Ne w York:
McGraw-Hill,
1981.
51.
Ske h an,
Pe te r. "Ind ivid ual Diffe re nce s in Se cond -
Language Le arning."
Stud ie s in Se cond
Language
Acquisition
13
(1991):
275-98.
52. . Ind ivid ual
Diffe re nce s
in
Se cond -Language
Le arning.
Lond on: Ed ward
Arnold ,
1989.
53.
We ine r,
Be rnard . "Motivation."
Encyclope d ia of
Ed u-
cational Re se arch . 6th
e d .,
vol. 3. Ne w York: Mac-
millan,
1992: 860-65.
54. .
"History
of Motivational Re se arch in Ed u-
cation."
Journal of
Ed ucational
Psych ology
82
(1990):
616-22.
55.
Young, Dolly J. "Cre ating
a
Low-Anxie ty
Class-
room Environme nt: Wh at Doe s
Language
Anx-
ie ty
Re se arch
Sugge st?"
Mod e rn
Language Journal
75
(1991): 426-39.