718

Glhhonn
Unsworth, L. ( Li d .) . ( 2000) . Researching language in schools and communilk's: h'tmclional linguistics
perspectives. Lond on: Cassell.
van Li er, L. ( 1996) . Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity.
Lond on: Longman,
van Li er, L. (2000). From i nput to afford ance: Soci al-i nteracti ve learni ng from an ecological perspecti ve.
In J. Lantolf ( Ed .) , Sociocultural theory and second language learning ( pp. 245-260). Oxford :
Oxford Uni versi ty Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1978) . Mind in society. Cambri d ge, MA: Harvard Uni versi ty Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1987) . The collected works, Volume 1, including Thinking and speaking. New York:
Plenum.
Walsh, C. ( 1991) . Issues of language, power and schooling for Puerto Ricans. Toronto: OISE Press.
Walsh, C. ( Ed .) . (1996). Education reform and social change: Multicultural voices, struggles and visions.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ ates.
Webster, A., Beveri d ge, M., & Reed , M. ( 1996) . Managing the literacy curriculum. Lond on: Routled ge.
Wegeri f, R. & Mercer, N. (1996). Computers and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and
Education, W(\), 47-64.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn.
Lond on: Hod d er and Stoughton.
Wells, G. ( 1992) . The centrali ty of talk i n ed ucati on. In K. Norman ( Ed .) , Thinking voice: The work of the
National Oracy Project. Lond on: Hod d er and Stoughton.
Wells, G. ( 1996) . Usi ng the tool-ki t of d i scourse i n the acti vi ty of learni ng and teachi ng. Mind, Culture
and Language, 3(2), 74-101.
Wells, G. ( 1999) . Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambri d ge: Cambri d ge Uni versi ty Press.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Bui ld i ng on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee & P.
Smagori nsky ( Ed s.) , Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. Constructing meaning through
collaborative inquiry ( pp. 51-85). Cambri d ge: Cambri d ge Uni versi ty Press.
Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of
inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Hei nemann.
Wi lki nson, A. M. ( 1965) . Spoken English. Bi rmi ngham: Uni versi ty of Bi rmi ngham School of Ed ucati on.
Wood , D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. ( 1976) . The role of tutori ng i n problem solvi ng. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
f
CHAPTER 43
CREATING A MOTIVATING CLASSROOM
ENVIRONMENT
ZOLTAN DORNYEI
The University of Nottingham, UK
ABSTRACT
Thi s chapter addresses the complex question of what makes a classroom envi ronment moti vati ng. It wi ll
be argued that i n ord er to und erstand the psychologi cal tapestry of classroom li fe, we need to ad opt an
i nterd i sci pli nary approach and d raw on research fi nd i ngs from a number of d i fferent areas wi thi n the
soci al sci ences, such as group d ynami cs, moti vati onal psychology, ed ucati onal stud i es, and second
language research. The assumpti on und erlyi ng thi s chapter i s that the moti vati ng character of the learni ng
context can be enhanced through consci ous i nterventi on by the language teacher, and accord i ngly the
mai n facets of the envi ronment wi ll be d i scussed wi th such a proacti ve and practi cal objecti ve i n mi nd .
Key concepts to be ad d ressed i nclud e group cohesi veness and i nterpersonal relations, group norms and
stud ent roles, the teacher's lead ershi p styles, and the process of faci li tati on, as well as the mai n phases of
a proacti ve, moti vati onal teachi ng practi ce wi thi n a process-ori ented framework.
Researchers analyzing the effecti veness of second language (L2) education usually
focus on i ssues such as the quali ty and quanti ty of L2 i nput, the nature of the
language learni ng tasks, and the teachi ng method ology appli ed , as well as vari ous
learner trai ts and strategi es. These are und oubted ly central factors i n L2 learni ng,
and they si gni fi cantly d etermi ne the effecti veness of the process, parti cularly in the
short run. If, however, we consider learning achievement from a longer-term
perspecti ve, other aspects of the classroom experi ence, such as a moti vati ng
classroom cli mate, wi ll also gain i ncreasi ng i mportance. Wlod kowski ( 1986) poi nts
out that although boring lessons can be very unpleasant and sometimes
excruci ati ngly pai nful, bored om i tself d oes not seem to affect the short-term
effecti veness of learning. After all, much of what many of us currently know has
been mastered whi le bei ng exposed to some uni nspi ri ng presentati on or d ull practi ce
sequence. Yet, no one would questi on that attempts to eli mi nate bored om from the
classroom should be high on every teacher's agenda. Why is that? What is the
si gni fi cance of tryi ng to create a more pleasant classroom envi ronment?
The basic assumpti on und erlyi ng thi s chapter is that long-term, sustained
learni ngsuch as the acquisition of an L2cannot take place unless the ed ucational
context provi d es, i n ad d i ti on to cogni ti vely ad equate i nstructi onal practi ces,
suffi ci ent inspiration and enjoyment to bui ld up conti nui ng moti vati on in the
learners. Bori ng but systemati c teachi ng can be effecti ve in prod uci ng, for example,
good test results, but rarely d oes it i nspi re a li felong commi tment to the subject
720
Do'rnvei
matter. Thi s chapter wi l l focus on how to generate t hi s ad d i t i onal i nspi rati on, that i s,
how to create a moti vati ng classroom envi ronment.
The characteri sti cs of the learni ng context can be stud i ed from a number of
d i fferent perspecti ves. In ed ucati onal psychology there has been an establi shed li ne
of research focusi ng on a multi d i mensi onal concept d escri bi ng the psychologi cal
cli mate of the learni ng context, termed the classroom environment ( cf. Fraser &
Walberg, 1991). Ed ucati onal researchers have also focused on aspects of classroom
management as an anteced ent of the overall classroom cli mate (e.g., Jones & Jones,
2000) . Ad opti ng a d i fferent perspecti ve to d escri be classroom reali ty, soci al
psychologi sts have looked at the d ynami cs of the learner group as part of the vi vi d
d i sci pli ne of group d ynami cs (e.g., Schmuck & Schmuck, 2001) . Moti vati onal
psychologists have taken yet another approach by focusi ng on the moti vati onal
teachi ng practi ces and strategi es employed in the classroom ( for example, Pi ntri ch &
Schunk, 2002) . Whi le all these li nes of i nvesti gati on represent slightly d i fferent
pri ori ti es and research parad i gms, i n the end they concern the same larger pi cture
and therefore show a considerable overlap. In the followi ng overview, I wi ll
synthesi ze the vari ous approaches by focusi ng on the d i fferent psychologi cal
processes that und erli e and shape classroom li fe.
TOWARD A COHESIVE LEARNER GROUP
One of the most sali ent features of the classroom envi ronment is the quali ty of the
relati onshi ps between the class members. The quali ty of teachi ng and learni ng is
enti rely d i fferent d epend i ng on whether the classroom i s characteri zed by a cli mate
of trust and support or by a competi ti ve, cutthroat atmosphere. If learners form
cli ques and subgroups that are hosti le to each other and resi st any cooperati on, the
overall cli mate wi ll be stressful for teachers and stud ents ali ke, and learni ng
effecti veness is li kely to plummet. How d o such negati ve relati onshi p patterns
d evelop? And , once establi shed , how can they be changed ? These questi ons have
been stud i ed extensi vely wi thi n the fi eld of group d ynami cs ( for a revi ew, see
Forsyth, 1999), and recent work on the topi c i n the L2 fi eld has prod uced d etai led
recommend ati ons on how to d evelop cohesi veness i n the language classroom (e.g.,
Dornyei & Malderez, 1999; Dornyei & Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Dornyei, 1998;
Seni or, 1997,2002) .
Intermember relati ons wi thi n a group are of two basi c types: attraction and
acceptance. Attracti on i nvolves an i ni ti al i nsti ncti ve appeal, caused by factors such
as physical attractiveness, perceived competence, and similarities in attitudes,
personali ty, hobbi es, li vi ng cond i ti ons, etc. An i mportant tenet i n group d ynami cs is
that d espi te thei r i ni ti al i mpact, these factors are usually of li ttle i mportance for the
group in the long run, and group d evelopment can result in strong cohesi veness
among members regard less of, or even in spite of, the initial intermember likes and
d i sli kes. In a "healthy group," i ni ti al attracti on bond s are grad ually replaced by a
d eeper and stead i er type of i nterpersonal relati onshi p, acceptance.
Acceptance i nvolves a feeli ng toward another person whi ch is non-evaluati ve in
nature, has nothi ng to do wi th li kes and d i sli kes, but entai ls an uncond i ti onal
posi ti ve regard toward the i nd i vi d ual (Rogers, 1983), acknowled gi ng the person as a
complex human bei ng wi th many ( possi bly confli cti ng) values and i mperfecti ons.
One of the most i mportant characteri sti cs of a good group i s the emergence of a hi gh
level of acceptance between members that powerful enough to overri d e even
Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment
721
negati ve feeli ngs between some. Thi s accepti ng cli mate, then, forms the basi s of a
more general feature of the group, group cohesi veness.
Group cohesi veness refers to the closeness and "we" feeli ng of a group, that i s,
the i nternal gelli ng force that keeps the group together. In certain groups it can be
very strong, whi ch is well i llustrated by reuni on parti es held even several d ecad es
after the closure of the group. Cohesi veness is, obvi ously, bui lt on i ntermember
acceptance, but it also i nvolves two other factors that contribute to the group's
internal bind ing force: the members' commitment to the task/purpose of the group
and group pri d e, the latter referri ng to the presti ge of group membershi p ( cf., eli te
clubs) .
How can we promote acceptance and cohesiveness? There are a vari ety of
methods, and from an L2 teaching perspective, Dornyei and Murphey (2003) list the
followi ng mai n factors:
1. Learni ng about each other: Thi s is the most crucial and general factor fos-
tering intermember relationships, involving the students' sharing genuine
personal i nformati on wi th each other. Acceptance si mply d oes not occur
wi thout knowi ng the other person well enoughenemy images or a lack of
tolerance very often stem from i nsuffi ci ent knowled ge about the other
party.
2. Proxi mi ty, contact, and i nteracti on: Proxi mi ty refers to the physi cal d istan-
ce between people, contact to si tuati ons where learners can meet and com-
muni cate spontaneously, and i nteracti on to speci al contact si tuati ons in
whi ch the behavi or of each person i nfluences the others'. These three fac-
tors are effecti ve natural gelli ng agents, whi ch hi ghli ght the i mportance of
classroom i ssues such as the seating plan, small group work, and ind epen-
dent stud ent projects.
3. Di ffi cult ad mi ssi on: This explai ns why exclusi ve club membershi p is usual-
ly valued very hi ghly, and the same pri nci ple is intuitively acted upon in
the vari ous initiation ceremonies for soci eti es, teams, or mi li tary groups.
4. Shared group hi story: The amount of ti me people have spent together and
"Remember when we..." statements usually have a strong bond i ng effect.
5. The reward ing nature of group activities: Rewards may involve the joy of
performi ng the acti vi ti es, approval of the goals, success in achi evi ng these
goals, and personal benefi ts ( such as grad es or pri zes) .
6. Group legend : Successful groups often create a ki nd of group mythology
that includes giving the group a name, inventing special group characteris-
ti cs ( for example, d ress cod e) , and group ri tuals, as well as creati ng group
mottoes, logos, and other symbols such as flags or coats of arms.
7. Publi c commi tment to the group: Group agreements and contracts as to
common goals and rules are types of such publi c commi tment, and weari ng
school colors or t-shi rts is another way of achi evi ng thi s.
8. Investi ng in the group: When members spend a consi d erable amount of ti-
me and effort contri buti ng to the group goals, this increases thei r commi t-
ment toward these goals. That i s, psychologi cal membershi p correlates wi th
the actual acts of membershi p.
9. Extracurri cular acti vi ti es: These represent powerful experi encesi nd eed ,
one successful program i s often enough to "make" the group, partly becau-
722 D/irnyei
se d uri ng such outi ngs stud ents lower t hei r "school fi lter" and relate to each
other as "ci vi li ans" rather than stud ents. Thi s posi ti ve experi ence wi ll then
prevai l i n thei r memory, ad d i ng a fresh and real feel to thei r school rela-
ti onshi ps.
10. Cooperati on toward common goals: Superord i nate goals that requi re the co-
operati on of everybod y to achi eve them have been found to be the most
effecti ve means of bri ngi ng together even openly hosti le parti es.
11. Intergroup competi ti on ( that is, games i n whi ch small groups compete wi th
each other wi thi n a class) : These can be seen as a type of powerful collabo-
rati on in whi ch people uni te in an effort to wi n. You may want to group
stud ents together who would not normally make fri end s easily, and mi x up
the subteams regularly.
12. Defi ni ng the group against another: Emphasi zi ng the d i scri mi nati on
between "us" and "them" is a powerful but obvi ously d angerous aspect of
cohesi veness. Whi le sti rri ng up emoti ons against an outgroup i n ord er to
strengthen i ngroup ti es is d efi ni tely to be avoi d ed , it mi ght be OK to occa-
si onally allow stud ents to reflect on how special thei r class and the ti me
they spend together mi ght be, relati ve to other groups.
13. Joi nt hard shi p and common threat: Strangely enough, goi ng through some
d i ffi culty or calami ty together ( for example, carryi ng out some tough phy-
sical task together or being in a common pred i cament) has a benefi ci al
group effect.
14. Teacher's role mod eli ng: Fri end ly and supporti ve behavior by the teacher i s
i nfecti ous, and stud ents are li kely to follow sui t.
TOWARD A PRODUCTIVE NORM AND ROLE SYSTEM IN THE
CLASSROOM
When people are together, in any functi on and context, they usually follow certai n
rules and routi nes that help to prevent chaos and allow everybod y to go about thei r
busi ness as effecti vely as possi ble. Some of these rules are general and apply to
everybod y, i n whi ch case we can speak about group norms. Some others, however,
are speci fi c to certain people who fulfi ll speci ali zed functi ons, i n whi ch case they
are associated wi th group roles.
Group Norms
In ed ucati onal settings we fi nd many classroom norms that are expli ci tly i mposed by
the teacher or mand ated by the school. However, the majori ty of the norms that
govern our everyd ay li fe are not so expli ci tly formulated , and yet they are there,
i mpli ci tly. Many of these i mpli ci t norms evolve spontaneously and unconsci ously
d uri ng the i nteracti ons of the group members, for example, by copyi ng certain
behavi ors of some i nfluenti al member or the lead er. These behavi ors then become
soli d i fi ed i nto norms, and these "unoffi ci al" norms can actually be more powerful
than thei r offi ci al counterparts. The si gni fi cance of classroom norms, whether
offi ci al or unoffi ci al i n thei r ori gi n, lies in the fact that they can consi d erably
enhance or d ecrease stud ents' acad emi c achi evement and work morale. In many
contemporary classrooms, for example, we come across the norm of med i ocri ty that
Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment 723
refers to the peer pressure put on stud ents not to excel or else they wi ll be called
names such as "nerd", "swot", "brai n", and so on.
One norm that is parti cularly i mportant to language learni ng si tuati ons i s the
norm of tolerance. The language classroom is an i nherently face-threateni ng
envi ronment because learners are requi red to take conti nuous ri sks as they need to
communi cate usi ng a severely restri cted language cod e. An establi shed norm of
tolerance ensures that stud ents wi ll not be embarrassed or cri ti ci zed if they make a
mi stake and , more generally, that mi stakes are seen and welcomed as a natural part
of learning.
How can we make sure that the norms in our classroom promote rather than
hi nd er learning? The key issue is that real group norms are inherently social
prod ucts, and in ord er for a norm to be long-lasti ng and constructi ve, i t need s to be
explicitly d i scussed and accepted as ri ght and proper. Therefore, Dornyei and
Mald erez (1997) have proposed that i t is benefi ci al to i nclud e an expli ci t norm-
bui ld i ng proced ure early in the group's li fe. They suggest formulati ng potenti al
norms, justi fyi ng thei r purpose i n ord er to enli st support for them, havi ng them
d i scussed by the whole group, and fi nally agreeing on a mutually accepted set of
class rules, wi th the consequences for vi olati ng them also speci fi ed . These class
rules can then be d i splayed on a wall chart.
Our norm-bui ld i ng effort wi ll really pay off when someone breaks the norms, for
example, by mi sbehavi ng or not d oing something expected . It has been observed
that the more ti me we spend setting, negoti ati ng, and mod eli ng the norms, the fewer
people wi ll go astray. And when they d o, it is usually the group that bri ngs them
back in li ne. Havi ng the group on your si d e i n copi ng wi th d eviations and
mai ntai ni ng d i sci pli ne is a major help: members usually bri ng to bear consi d erable
group pressure on errant members and enforce conformi ty wi th the group norms.
Group Roles
Role as a technical term ori gi nally comes from sociology and refers to the shared
expectation of how an i nd i vi d ual should behave. Roles d escribe the norms that go
wi th a parti cular posi ti on or functi on, speci fyi ng what people are supposed to d o.
There is a general agreement that roles are of great i mportance wi th regard to the li fe
and prod ucti vi ty of the group: if stud ents are cast in the ri ght role, they wi ll become
useful members of the team, they wi ll perform necessary and complementary
functi ons, and at the same ti me they wi ll be sati sfi ed wi th thei r self-i mage and
contri buti on. However, an i nappropri ate role can lead to personal confli ct and wi ll
work agai nst the cohesiveness and effecti veness of the group. Thus, a hi ghly
performi ng class group wi ll d i splay a balanced set of complementary and
constructi ve stud ent roles.
Although listing all the possi ble roles is impossible ( partly because some of them
are speci fi c to a parti cular group's uni que composition or task) , some typi cal
examples i nclud e the lead er, the organi zer, the i ni ti ator, the energizer, the
harmoni zer, the i nformati on-seeker, the complai ner, the scapegoat, the pessimist, the
rebel, the clown, and the outcast. How do these roles emerge? They may evolve
naturally, in whi ch case it is to some extent a question of luck whether the emerged
roles add up to a balanced and functi onal tapestry. Alternati vely, by their own
communi cati ons or through usi ng certain teaching structures, teachers mi ght
encourage stud ents to explore and assume d i fferent roles and ad opt the ones that suit
724
D/irnyei r
Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment
725
them best for strategi es and acti vi ti es. The most subtle way of encouragi ng role
taki ng i s to noti ce and rei nforce any tentati ve role attempts on the stud ents' part, and
someti mes even to hi ghli ght possi ble roles that a parti cular margi nal learner may
assume. Alternati vely, teachers can make sure that everybod y has somethi ng to
contri bute by assi gni ng speci fi c roles for an acti vi ty, such as chai r, ti me-keeper,
task-i ni ti ator, clari fi er, provocateur, synthesi zer, checker, and secretary ( Cohen,
1994; Dornyei & Murphey, 2003) . Havi ng expli ci tly marked roles i n the lessons has
the further ad vantage that teachers can prepare the stud ents to perform these roles
effecti vely, i nclud i ng provi d i ng the speci fi c language routi nes that typi cally
accompany a role.
TOWARD AN OPTIMAL LEADERSHIP STYLE
Language teachers are by d efi ni ti on group lead ers and as such they d etermi ne every
facet of classroom li fe. The stud y of vari ous lead ershi p styles and thei r i mpact has a
vast li terature, but all the d i fferent accounts agree on one thi ng: lead ershi p matters.
As Hook and Vass ( 2000) succi nctly put it, "Lead ership is the fabled eli xi r. It can
turn fai li ng schools i nto centers of excellence ... It is the process by whi ch you
allow your stud ents to become wi nners" (p. 5) .
The stud y of group lead ershi p goes back to a classi c stud y more than 60 years
ago. Worki ng wi th Ameri can chi ld ren i n a summer camp, Lewi n and hi s colleagues
( Lewi n, Li ppi tt, & Whi te, 1939) were i nterested to fi nd out how the parti ci pants
would react to three very d i fferent group lead ershi p styles:
1. Autocratic (or authoritarian) lead ershi p, whi ch mai ntai ns complete control
over the group
2. Democratic lead ershi p, where the lead er tri es to share some of the
lead ershi p functi ons wi th the members by i nvolvi ng them i n d eci si on-
maki ng about thei r own functi oni ng
3. Laissez-faire lead ershi p, where the teacher performs very li ttle lead ershi p
behavi or at all
The results were stri ki ng. Of the three lead ershi p types, the lai ssez-fai re style
prod uced the least d esi rable outcomes: the psychologi cal absence of the lead er
retard ed the process of formi ng a group structure, and consequently the chi ld ren
und er thi s cond i ti on were d i sorgani zed and frustrated , experi enced the most stress,
and prod uced very li ttle work. Autocrati c groups were found to be more prod ucti ve,
spend i ng more ti me on work than d emocrati c ones, but the quali ty of the prod ucts i n
the d emocrati c groups was jud ged superi or. In ad d i ti on, i t was also observed that
whenever the lead er left the room, the autocrati c groups stopped worki ng whereas
the d emocrati c groups carried on. From a group perspecti ve, the most i nteresti ng
results of the stud y concerned the compari son of i nterpersonal relati ons and group
cli mate i n the d emocrati c and autocrati c groups. In these respects d emocrati c groups
si gni fi cantly exceed ed autocrati c groups: the former were characteri zed by fri end li er
communi cati on, more group-ori ented ness, and better member lead er relati onshi ps,
whereas the level of hosti li ty observed i n the autocrati c groups was 30 ti mes as great
as i n d emocrati c groups, and aggressi veness was also consi d erably ( ei ght ti mes)
hi gher i n them.
Although lead ershi p stud i es have moved a long way si nce t hi s pi oneeri ng
research, the mai n conclusi on that a d emocrati c lead ershi p style offers the best
potenti al for school learni ng i s sti ll wi d ely end orsed . In ed ucati onal psychology,
therefore, an i mportant research d i recti on has been to operati onali ze thi s general
style characteri sti c. Several mod els for the "d emocratic" lead er/teacher have been
offered in the past; the most i nfluenti al metaphor used in contemporary ed ucati onal
research and method ology is the humanistic notion of the group lead er as a facilitator.
A Situated Approach to Facilitation
The concept of the teacher as the faci li tator hi ghli ghts the i mportant role the learner
is to take in the learni ng process, whi le restri cti ng the teacher's role to faci li tati ng
learni ng, that is, provi d i ng an appropri ate cli mate and resources to support the
stud ent. Thus, the teachers are not so much "d rill sergeants" or "lecturers of
knowled ge" as partners i n the learni ng process. How should they behave to achi eve
thi s? It d epend s largely on the d evelopmental phase of the learner group, that is, on
how far the class has progressed toward becomi ng a mature and cohesi ve social uni t.
In The Complete Facilitator's Handbook, John Heron (1999) offers a relati vely
strai ghtforward si tuated system of operati on and control concerni ng the behavi or of
faci li tators.
Heron (1999) argues thatcontrary to beli efsa good faci li tator is not
characteri zed by a "soft touch" or a "free for all" mentali ty. He d i sti ngui shes three
d i fferent mod es of faci li tati on:
1. Hierarchical mod e, whereby the faci li tator exerci ses the power to d i rect the
learni ng process for the group, thi nki ng and acting on behalf of Has, group,
and maki ng all the major d eci si ons. In thi s mod e, therefore, the faci li tator
takes full responsi bi li ty for d esi gni ng the syllabus and provi d i ng structures
for learni ng.
2. Cooperative mod e, whereby the faci li tator shares the power and responsi bi -
li ti es wi th the group, prompti ng members to be more self-d i recti ng in the
vari ous forms of learni ng. In thi s mod e the faci li tator collaborates wi th the
members in d evi si ng the learni ng process, and outcomes are negoti ated .
3. Autonomous mod e, whereby the faci li tator respects the autonomy of the
group in fi nd i ng thei r own way and exercising thei r own jud gment. The
task of the faci li tator in thi s mod e is to create the cond i ti ons wi thi n whi ch
stud ents' self-d etermi nati on can flouri sh.
Heron has found that the id eal proporti on of the three mod es changes wi th the
level of d evelopment of the group. He d i sti ngui shes three stages:
1. At the outset of group d evelopment, the opti mal mod e is pred omi nantly
hierarchical, offeri ng a clear and strai ghtforward framework wi thi n whi ch
early d evelopment of cooperati on and autonomy can safely occur. Parti ci -
pants at thi s stage may be lacki ng the necessary knowled ge and ski lls to
orientate themselves, and they rely on the lead er for guid ance. Wi thi n the
hi erarchi cal mod e there should be, however, cooperati ve exchanges wi th
the teacher and autonomous practi ce on thei r own. Also, even i n thi s mod e
726
Dfirnyei
the stud ents' consent should be sought for the major lead er-owned d eci -
si ons.
2. Later, i n the mi d d le phase, more cooperation wi th group members may be
appropri ate i n managi ng the learni ng process. The faci li tator can negoti ate
the curriculum with the students and cooperatively guid e their learning acti-
vi ti es. The stud ents' acqui red confi d ence wi ll allow them to take an i ncrea-
sing part in making the decisions about how their learning should proceed.
3. Fi nally, when the group has reached maturi ty and is thus read y for the
autonomous mod e, more power need s to be d elegated to the members so
that they can achi eve full self-d i recti on in thei r learni ng. Learni ng cont-
racts, self-evaluati on, and peer assessment may "i nsti tuti onali ze" thei r i nd e-
pend ence.
Thus, to synthesi ze Heron's (1999) system wi th the Lewin, Lippitt, and White
( 1939) stud y, a group-sensi ti ve teachi ng practi ce begi ns more autocrati cally to give
direction, security, and impetus to the group. Then as the students begin performing,
teachers i ni ti ate more d emocrati c control of the processes, i ncreasi ngly relyi ng on
the group's self-regulatory resources. When the group further matures and begins to
show i ts i ni ti ati ve, a more autonomy-i nvi ti ng, almost lai ssez-fai re, lead ershi p style
mi ght be the most cond uci ve to encouraging student i nd epend encebut of course,
this is a well-prepared wi thd rawal of the scaffold i ng rather than an aband onment of
leadership responsibilities.
ADOPTING A MOTIVATIONAL TEACHING PRACTICE
Although the ti tle of thi s chapter i d enti fi es the moti vati ng aspect of the classroom
environment as the focal issue, the term motivation has hard ly been mentioned in the
previ ous secti ons. The mai n reason for thi s is that so far we have looked at the
characteristics of the whole learner group rather than the ind ivid ual learner.
However, the term motivation has usually been associated wi th an i nd i vi d uali sti c
perspecti ve, focusi ng on the i nd i vi d ual's values, atti tud es, goals, and i ntenti ons. If
we want to talk about the moti vati on of a whole learner group, it is necessary to also
use group-level counterparts of the concept, such as group cohesi veness, group
norms, and group lead ershi p. After all, these latter factors all play an i mportant role
in d etermi ni ng the behavi or of the learner group, and therefore they can be seen as
valid motivational antecedents. In other words, when we discuss the learning
behavi or of groups of learners, moti vati onal psychology and group d ynami cs
converge. Having covered the most important group features, the rest of this chapter
wi ll d raw on fi nd i ngs from more trad i ti onally concei ved moti vati on research.
What makes the classroom cli mate moti vati ng and how can we increase thi s
characteri sti c? To start wi th, let me propose that the moti vati onal character of the
classroom is largely a functi on of the teacher's moti vati onal teachi ng practi ce, and is
therefore wi thi n our expli ci t control. Therefore, the emphasis i n the followi ng
analysi s wi ll be on proacti ve and consci ous strategi es that can be used to promote
classroom moti vati on.
After the i ni ti al moti vati onal cond i ti ons have been successfully created that is,
the class is characterized by a safe climate, cohesiveness, and a good student-teacher
relati onshi pthe moti vati onal teachi ng practi ce need s to be establi shed . Thi s
Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment 727
process compri ses three phases: ( a) generati ng i ni t i al mot i vat i on; ( b) mai nt ai ni ng
and protecti ng moti vati on; and ( c) encouragi ng posi ti ve retrospecti ve self-
evaluation.
Generating Initial Motivation
Although many psychologists believe that children are inherently eager to expand
thei r knowled ge about the world and , therefore, the learni ng experi ence i s by
d efi ni ti on a source of i ntri nsi c pleasure for them, classroom teachers tend to have
percepti ons that are i n sharp contrast wi th thi s i d ylli c vi ew. Instead of all those keen
pupi ls, all they can often see is rather reluctant youngsters who are totally unaware
of the fact that there should be an i nnate curi osi ty i n them, let alone a d esire to learn.
And even if we are fortunate to have a class of stud ents wi th a hi gh d egree of
academic motivation, we cannot expect all the students to favor the L2 course over
all the other subjects they stud y. Thus, unless we are si ngularly fortunate wi th the
composition of our class group, student motivation wi ll not be automatically there,
and we wi ll need to try to acti vely generate posi ti ve stud ent atti tud es toward L2
learning.
There are several facets of creati ng i ni ti al stud ent moti vati on. Dornyei ( 200la)
has d ivid ed these into fi ve broad groups:
1. Enhanci ng the learners' language-related values and atti tud es: Our basi c
value system greatly d etermi nes our preferences and approaches to
acti vi ti es. We can d i sti ngui sh three types of language-related values: ( a)
intrinsic value, related to the interest in and anticipated enjoyment of the
actual process of learni ng; ( b) integrative value, related to our atti tud es
toward the L2, its speakers, and the culture it conveys; and (c) instrumental
value, related to the percei ved practi cal, pragmati c benefi ts that the mastery
of the L2 might bring about.
2. Increasing the learners' expectancy of success: We do thi ngs best i f we
expect to succeed , and , to turn thi s statement round , we are unlikely to be
moti vated to ai m for somethi ng if we feel we wi ll never get there.
3. Increasing the learners' goal-ori ented ness: In a typi cal class, too many
stud ents d o not really und erstand or accept why they are d oing a learni ng
acti vi ty. Moreover, the offi ci al class goal (that is, mastering the course
content) may well not be the class group's only goal and in extreme cases
may not be a group goal at all!
4. Making the teaching materials relevant for the learners: The core of thi s
i ssue has been succi nctly summari zed by McCombs and Whi sler ( 1997) :
"Educators thi nk students do not care, while the students tell us they do
care about learni ng but are not getti ng what they need " ( p. 38) .
5. Creating realistic learner beli efs: It is a peculiar fact of li fe that most
learners wi ll have certain beli efs about language learni ng, and most of these
beli efs are li kely to be (at least partly) i ncorrect. Such false beli efs can then
functi on li ke ti me "bombs" at the begi nni ng of a language course because
of the i nevi table d i sappoi ntment that is to follow, or can clash wi th the
course method ology and thus hi nd er progress.
728 Dfirnyei
Once the mai n aspects of creati ng i ni t i al stud ent moti vati on have been i d enti fi ed ,
i t is possi ble to generate or select a vari ety of speci fi c classroom techni ques to
promote the parti cular d i mensi on ( for practi cal i d eas, see Brophy, 1998; Dornyei ,
200 la) .
Maintaining and Protecting Motivation
It is one thing to initially whet the students' appetite wi th appropriate motivational
techni ques, but unless moti vati on is acti vely mai ntai ned and protected , the natural
tend ency to lose si ght of the goal, to get ti red or bored of the acti vi ty, and to give
way to attractive distractions wi ll result in the initial motivation gradually petering
out. Therefore, moti vati on need s to be acti vely nurtured . The spectrum of
moti vati onal strategi es relevant to this phase is rather broad ( si nce ongoi ng human
behavi or can be mod ified in so many d i fferent ways), and the following six areas
appear to be parti cularly relevant for classroom appli cati on:
making learning stimulating and enjoyable;
presenti ng tasks in a moti vati ng way;
setti ng speci fi c learner goals;.
protecting the learners' self-esteem and increasing their self-confid ence;
creati ng learner autonomy;
promoti ng self-moti vati ng learner strategi es.
These moti vati onal d i mensi ons, except for the last one, are more strai ghtforward
than the facets of i ni ti al moti vati on d escri bed above, and d ue to space li mi tati ons I
wi ll not elaborate on them here ( for a theoreti cal and method ologi cal d iscussion, see
Dornyei , 200la, 200Ib) . Self-moti vati ng strategies, however, are a relati vely
unknown and und eruti li zed area, so let us look at them in more d etai l.
Self-motivating strategies can be characterized , using Corno's (1993) word s, "as
a d ynami c system of psychologi cal control processes that protect concentrati on and
d i rected effort i n the face of personal and /or envi ronmental d i stracti ons, and so aid
learning and performance" (p. 16). That is, they i nvolve ways for the learners to
moti vate themselves and thereby sustai n the acti on when the i ni ti al moti vati on is
flaggi ng. These strategi es are parti cularly i mportant i n second language learni ng
because d ue to the longlasting nature of the process, L2 learners need to mai ntai n
thei r commi tment and effort over a long peri od , often in the face of ad versity. Let us
not forget that fai lure i n language learni ng is regrettably a very frequent
phenomenon world wid e.
Based on the pi oneeri ng work of Corno (1993), Corno and Kanfer ( 1993) , and
Kuhl ( 1987) , Dornyei ( 200la) has d i vi d ed self-moti vati ng strategies into fi ve mai n
classes:
Commitment control strategies for helpi ng to preserve or i ncrease the
learners' original goal commi tment (e.g., keepi ng in mi nd favorable expec-
tati ons or posi ti ve i ncenti ves and reward s; focusi ng on what would happen
if the ori gi nal i ntenti on fai led )
Metacognitive control strategies for moni tori ng and controlli ng concentra-
ti on, and for curtai li ng unnecessary procrasti nati on (e.g., i d enti fyi ng recur-
Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment 729
ri ng d i stracti ons and d evelopi ng d efensi ve routi nes; focusi ng on the fi rst
steps to take when getti ng d own to an acti vi ty)
Satiation control strategies for eli mi nati ng bored om and ad d i ng extra
attraction or i nterest to the task (e.g., ad d i ng a twi st to the task; usi ng one's
fantasy to liven up the task)
Emotion control strategies for managi ng d i srupti ve emoti onal states or
mood s, and for generati ng emoti ons that wi ll be cond uci ve to i mplementi ng
one's i ntenti ons (e.g., self-encouragement; usi ng relaxati on and med i tati on
techni ques)
Environmental control strategies for eli mi nati ng negati ve envi ronmental
i nfluences and exploi ti ng posi ti ve envi ronmental i nfluences by maki ng the
envi ronment an ally in the pursui t of a d i ffi cult goal (e.g., eli mi nati ng
d i stracti ons; asking fri end s to help and not to allow one to d o somethi ng)
An i mportant part of a moti vati onal teachi ng practi ce that has a consi d erable
empoweri ng effect is to raise stud ent awareness of relevant strategies and to remi nd
them at appropri ate ti mes of thei r usefulness.
Encouraging Positive Retrospective Self-Evaluation
A large bod y of research has shown that the way learners feel about thei r past
accompli shments and the amount of sati sfacti on they experi ence after successful
task completi on wi ll si gni fi cantly d etermi ne how they approach subsequent learni ng
tasks. Strangely enough, the stud ents' appraisal of thei r past performance d epend s
not only on the absolute, objecti ve level of the success they have achi eved but also
on how they subjecti vely i nterpret thei r achi evement ( whi ch is why, for example, we
fi nd so many people bei ng regularly d i ssati sfi ed d espi te thei r hi gh-quali ty work) .
However, by usi ng appropri ate strategi es, teachers can help learners to evaluate thei r
past performance i n a more "posi ti ve light," take more sati sfacti on i n thei r successes
and progress, and explai n thei r past fai lures in a constructi ve way. This latter area is
related to the role attri buti ons, whi ch is an issue practi ci ng teachers are usually
unfami li ar wi th even though i t has been a central topi c i n ed ucati onal psychology.
The term attribution has been used in moti vati onal psychology to refer to the
explanati on people offer about why they were successful or, more i mportantly, why
they fai led in the past. Past research had i d enti fi ed a certai n hi erarchy of the types of
attri buti ons people make i n terms of thei r moti vati ng nature. Fai lure that is ascri bed
to stable and uncontrollable factors such as low abi li ty has been found to hi nd er
future achi evement behavi or, whereas fai lure that is attri buted to unstable and
controllable factors such as effort is less d etri mental in that it can be remed i ed . Thus,
the general recommend ati on in the li terature is to try and promote effort attri buti ons
and prevent abi li ty attri buti ons i n the stud ents as much as possi ble. In fai lure
situations, thi s can be achi eved by emphasi zi ng the low effort exerted as bei ng a
strong reason for und erachi evement, and if fai lure occurs in spi te of hard work, we
should hi ghli ght the i nad equacy of the strategies employed .
Fi nally, no account of classroom moti vati on would be complete wi thout
d i scussi ng the controversi al but very sali ent effects of vari ous forms of feed back,
reward s, and grad es d i spensed by the teacher. As these are all forms of external
evaluati on by authori ty fi gures, they have a parti cularly strong i mpact on the
stud ents' self-apprai sal. Feed back has at least three functi ons:
730 Dornyei
1. Appropri ate moti vati onal feed back can have a grati fyi ng functi on, that i s,
by offeri ng prai se i t can i ncrease learner sati sfacti on and li ft the learni ng
spi ri t.
2. By communi cati ng trust and encouragement, moti vati onal feed back can
promote a posi ti ve self-concept and self-confi d ence in the stud ent.
3. Moti vati onal feed back should be i nformati ve, prompti ng the learner to
reflect constructi vely on areas that need i mprovement.
However, we should note that one common feature of ed ucati onal feed backi ts
controlli ng and jud gmental nature ( that is, compari ng stud ents against peer
achi evement or external standards)is considered very harmful (Good & Brophy,
2002) .
Whi le feed back is generally consi d ered a useful moti vati onal tool when appli ed
sensi ti vely, reward s and grad es (the latter bei ng a form of reward s) are usually
d i sapproved of by ed ucati onal psychologi sts. Thi s is all the more surpri si ng because
most teachers feel that reward s are posi ti ve thi ngs and d i spense them li berally for
good behavi or and prai seworthy efforts or accompli shments. So what's wrong wi th
reward s?
The problem wi th reward s and wi th grad es i n parti cular is that they are very
si mpli sti c d evi ces and they can d o a great d eal of d amage. Reward s in themselves do
not increase the inherent value of the learning task or task outcome, and neither do
they concern other i mportant learni ng aspects such as the learni ng process, the
learni ng envi ronment, or the learner's self-concept. Instead , all they do is si mply
attach a piece of "carrot or stick" to the task. By doing so, they divert the students'
attenti on away from the real task and the real poi nt of learni ng. When people start
concentrati ng on the reward rather than on the task i tself, they can easily succumb to
the "mi ni -max pri nci ple" ( Covi ngton & Teel, 1996), whereby they attempt to
maxi mi ze reward s wi th a mi ni mum of effort. Ind eed , we fi nd that many stud ents
become grad e d ri ven, if not "grade grubbi ng," surpri si ngly early i n thei r school
career ( Covi ngton, 1999). Also, d ue to thei r ulti mate i mportance in every facet of
the ed ucati on system, grad es frequently become equated i n the mi nd s of school
chi ld ren wi th a sense of self-worth; that is, they consi d er themselves only as worthy
as thei r school-related achi evements, regard less of thei r personal characteri sti cs such
as being loving, good, or courageous. This is obviously a complex issue ( for a more
d etai led d i scussi on, see Dornyei , 200la; Good & Brophy, 2002; Pi ntri ch & Schunk,
2001) , but it is clear that we need to be cauti ous wi th reward s and grad es and should
try and rely on other forms of motivational practices as much as possible.
CONCLUSIONS
This overvi ew has d emonstrated that the quali ty of the classroom envi ronment is
mad e up of a number of vari ed i ngred i ents. And just as i n cooking, achi evi ng an
opti mal, moti vati ng outcome can be d one usi ng d i fferent combi nati ons of spices:
whi le some chefs rely on papri ka and bui ld the reci pe around it, others prefer pepper
and the herbs that go wi th i t. The si tuati on is exactly the same in d evelopi ng a
moti vati ng teachi ng practi ce. As long as we are aware of the vast repertoi re of
techni ques that are at our d i sposal, i t i s up to us to choose the speci fi c ones that we
wi ll apply, based on the speci fi c need s that ari se i n our concrete ci rcumstances.
There i s only one t hi ng we should not attempt: to try and apply all the techni ques we
Creating a Motivating ('leissmom Environment 731
know at the same ti me. Thi s would be the perfect reci pe for teacher burnout. What
we need i s quali t y rather than quanti ty; some of the most mot i vat i ng teachers often
rely on a few well-selected basi c techni ques.
REFERENCES
Brophy, J. E. ( 1998) . Motivating students to learn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hi ll.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork ( 2
nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Corno, L. ( 1993) . The best-lai d plans: Mod ern concepti ons of voli ti on and ed ucati onal research.
Educational Researcher, 22, 14-22.
Corno, L., & Kanfer, R. ( 1993) . The role of voli ti on i n learni ng and performance. Review of Research in
Education, 79,301-341.
Covi ngton, M. ( 1999) . Cari ng about learni ng: The nature and nurturi ng of subject-matter appreci ati on.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 127-136.
Covi ngton, M., & Teel, K. ( 1996) . Overcoming student failure: Changing motives and incentives for
learning. Washi ngton, DC: Ameri can Psychologi cal Associ ati on.
Dornyei , Z. ( 200la) . Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambri d ge: Cambri d ge
Uni versi ty Press.
Dornyei , Z. ( 2001b) . Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dornyei , Z. & Mald erez, A. (1997). Group d ynami cs and forei gn language teachi ng. System, 25, 65-81.
Dornyei , Z., & Mald erez, A. ( 1999) . Group d ynami cs i n forei gn language learni ng and teachi ng. In
J. Arnold (Ed .), Affective language learning ( pp. 155-169). Cambri d ge: Cambri d ge Uni versi ty Press.
Domyei , Z., & Murphey, T. ( 2003) . Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambri d ge: Cambri d ge
Uni versi ty Press.
Ehrman, M., & Dornyei , Z. ( 1998) . Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible
and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forsyth, D. ( 1999) . Group dynamics ( 3
rd
ed .) . Paci fi c Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fraser, B., & Walberg, H. ( Ed s.) . ( 1991) . Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents mid
consequences. Oxford : Pergamon.
Good , T., & Brophy, J. ( 2002) . Looking in classrooms ( 9
th
Ed .) . Need ham Hei ghts, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Heron, J. ( 1999) . The complete facilitator's handbook. Lond on: Kogan Page.
Hook, P., & Vass, A. ( 2000) . Confident classroom leadership. Lond on: Davi d Fulton.
Jones, F., & Jones, L. ( 2000) . Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support
and solving problems ( 6
th
ed .). Need ham Hei ghts, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kuhl, J. ( 1987) . Acti on control: The mai ntenance of moti vati onal states. In F. Hali sh & J. Kuh l ( li d s.) ,
Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279-291). Berli n: Spri nger.
Lewi n, K., Li ppi tt, R., & Whi te, R. ( 1939) . Patterns of aggressi ve behavi or i n experi mentally created
'soci al cli mate.' Journal of Psychology, 10, 271-299.
McCombs, B., & Whi sler, J. ( 1997) . The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for
increasing student motivation and achievement. San Franci sco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pi ntri ch, P., & Schunk, D. ( 2002) . Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications ( 2
nd
ed .).
Englewood Cli ffs, NJ: Prenti ce Hall.
Rogers, C. ( 1983) . Freedom to learn for the 80 's. Columbus, OH: Merri ll.
Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. ( 2001) . Group processes in the classroom ( 8
th
ed .) . Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hi ll.
Seni or, R. ( 1997) . Transformi ng language classes i nto bond ed groups. ELT Journal, 51, 3-11.
Seni or, R. ( 2002) . A class-centred approach to language teachi ng. ELT Journal, 56, 397^103.
Wlod kowski , R. ( 1986) . Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Franci sco, CA: Jossey-Bass.