The Complicated Answer to Why

Running head: The Complicated Answer to Why

The Complicated Answer to Why Students Study Language

Isaac Stough (80350)
Wheaton College Graduate School

The Complicated Answer to Why

Abstract
The following is a study of motivation: Why people behave as they do (Celce-Murcia, 2001,
pg. 519). I first consider the historical schools of thought within Second Language Acquisition
(SLA). Then I discuss the various forms of motivation that emerged from these schools of
thought and how they have been historically applied in the classroom. After this, I synthesize
these various forms into motivational categories and show their classroom relevance.

The Complicated Answer to Why

The Complicate Answer to Why Students Study Language

When I first started teaching, I immediately began investigating how I could motivate my
students to love learning. The thought of a class that slowly dragged on in which the only
contributions from students were yawns terrified me. So from day one, I started observing
students, seeking to discover their motivations.
Preliminarily, I realized that there were trends in student motivation. One of these trends
was that those who wanted to learn learned best. They found a satisfaction in simply learning
and did not need to be charismatically motivated by me or anyone else. This trend was also
affirmed by my experience as a language learner. I was motivated to learn Spanish because I had
a deep seeded desire to understand and speak it. However, I could not help but notice that this
trend had exceptions. My motivations were different in kind and degree to others who were
learning just as well as I was. The motivations of my students were different in these ways too.
This confused me. I wondered: Is there more to motivation than just wanting to learn? Is there
anything that I can do as a teacher to effectively motivate students?
It was this curiosity that drove me to search for a more robust answer to why [students]
behave as they do (Celce-Murcia, 2001, pg. 519). As I started searching, I immediately found
that the topic of motivation has been widely discussed and disagreed upon for perhaps as long as
the question has existed. However, I believe that there are trends and principles worth
mentioning that will inform the complicated answer to why students study language.
The following is what was discovered as I researched motivation. In this paper, I first
consider the historical schools of thought within Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Then I
discuss the various forms of motivation that emerged from these schools of thought and how

The Complicated Answer to Why

they have been historically applied in the classroom. After this, I synthesize these various forms
into motivational categories and show their classroom relevance.
Historical Schools of Thought:
There are three historical schools of thought within SLA. Each of these schools have
different perspectives on motivation. These perspectives are summarized in Principles of
Language Learning and Teaching by H. Douglas Brown on page 159:
1. From a behavioral perspective, motivation is quite simply the anticipation of reward.
Driven to acquire positive reinforcement and by previous experiences of reward,
[language students] act to achieve further reinforcement.
2. In cognitive terms, motivation emphasizes the individuals decisions, the choices
[students] make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid, and the
degree of effort they will exert in that respect (Keller, 1983, pg. 389). Some cognitive
psychologists see underlying needs or drives as the compelling force behind [student]
decisions
3. A constructivist view of motivation places prime emphasis on social context as well as
individual personal choices (Williams & Burden, 1997). [Student] choices to expend
effort are always carried out within a cultural and social milieu.
As they relate to motivation, these three historical schools of thought are extremely
important to consider before understanding the types of motivation they emphasize. In summary,
the behavioral perspective emphasizes an external, individual force (Brown, 2014, pg. 160) that
drives students to learn (called anticipation of reward). The cognitive perspective highlights an
internal, individual force (motivation driven by basic human needs). The constructivist
perspective emphasizes internal, interactive forces that control motivation (social motivation).

The Complicated Answer to Why

It is important to mention that these schools of thought developed linearly and, at times,
simultaneously. Because of this, there is overlap between the kinds of motivation I discuss in the
next section. Additionally, I only consider six kinds of motivation. In my research, I discovered
over different 20 kinds (a testimony to how complicated this really topic is). I have chosen six
that I think best represent the wide birth of motivational kinds, while also summarize the
historical schools of thought that developed them.
Six Kinds of Motivation:
1. Behaviorist Perspective: Extrinsic Motivation
One kind of motivation emphasized from a behaviorist perspective is extrinsic
motivation: motivation that comes from outside the learner (Snow, 2001, pg. 97). This kind of
motivation can range from very immediate benefits such as good test scores to longer-term
rewards such as enhanced prospects for educational advancement or better jobs (Snow, 2001,
pg. 97). A student driven to get the A or be the top of the class is motivated extrinsically.
I had a friend during my undergraduate studies that was motivated to study French
because of academic requirements. It was mandatory at the liberal arts college we attended to
take several courses in a foreign language. This was extrinsic motivation. He was also a
contender for being the top of our graduating class, so he worked all the more to get good grades
for the recognition that he would receive from faculty and students at the end of the year. Lastly,
he was a pre-medical student, so he needed to get good grades in order to build a good academic
resume to get into medical school. All of these are examples of extrinsic motivation.
Pros and Cons:
The negative aspect of extrinsic motivation is that it only works temporarily. When the
reward has been received and the requirement has been fulfilled, motivation to continue ceases.

The Complicated Answer to Why

Snow puts it this way: The usefulness of extrinsic rewards in motivating students of English is
diminished somewhat by the tendency of their motivating force to dissipate quickly once the
immediate goal is achieved (Snow, 2001, pg. 97). This was the case with my friend. He never
practiced or picked up a French book after he finished college. The positive aspect of extrinsic
motivation is that it is tangible. Language learning is a long and tedious process. Many times it is
difficult to see progress in the intermediate to advanced levels. A student sometimes needs a
quantifiable reward (such as an A) to keep moving forward. I will discuss more benefits of
extrinsic motivation in relation to intrinsic motivation in the next section.
2. Behaviorist Perspective: Intrinsic Motivation
Another kind of motivation emphasized from a behaviorist perspective is intrinsic
motivation. In Browns book Teaching By Principles, he summarizes and claims that: Human
beings are universally driven to act, or behave, in anticipation of a reward. The most powerful
rewards are those that are intrinsically motivated: The behavior stems from needs, wants, or
desires within oneself and is self-rewarding. (Brown, 2015, pg. 73, emphasis mine). Restated,
students that learn best have a desire to learn because of a motivation that stems from inside
them: there is a sense of self-satisfaction in language study (Snow, 2001, pg. 98).
In his book, Brown sites an example of the power of intrinsic motivation. Kohn - a
psychologist in the 1990s - conducted an experiment in which two girls were to teach games to
two groups of younger children. One group [of teacher and children]was simply given the
teaching task, with no mention of a reward to be given. The other group [of teacher and children]
was told that they would receive a free ticket to the latest hot movie for successfully completing
the task. (Brown, 2015, 72). The first group was motivated intrinsically: their reward was the
learning. The second group was motived extrinsically: their reward was a movie ticket. In the

The Complicated Answer to Why

end, the first group did their task faster, with greater success, and said they had more pleasure in
doing so than the second group. (Brown, 2015, pg. 72).
Pros and Cons:
On the one hand, intrinsic motivation seems far superior to extrinsic motivation. The
power of motivation is in the hands of the student, not necessarily the teacher. Students learn
because they want to. Additionally, the fulfillment of an intrinsic need is far superior to an
extrinsic need. Maslow showed this in his study of the hierarchy of needs:
Motivation is dependent on the satisfaction first of fundamental physical
necessities then of community, security, identity, and self-esteem, the
fulfillment of which finally leads to self-actualization, or, to use a common
phrase, being all that you can be (Brown, 2014, pg. 160).
In the fulfilling of an intrinsic need, self-actualization is built. In turn, self-actualization builds
positive self-perspective that results in a long-term desire to learn. Therefore, intrinsic motivation
is more preferable to extrinsic motivation.
But one must ask, what role can the teacher play in motivating intrinsically motivated
students? Or does the existence of intrinsic motivation mean that the teacher has no role? In
response, Snow mentions: In many school systems the world over, students have been trained
for years to view high test scores as the main goal of their English study, and are therefore
accustomed to relying on external rewards as the force behind their study efforts (Snow, 2001,
pg. 98). While intrinsic motivation seems to be the better motivator, most students have never
been trained to be motivated intrinsically. So how does a teacher integrate both forms of
motivation in the classroom?

The Complicated Answer to Why

From the behaviorist point of view, the role of the teacher in motivating students is to use
both extrinsic and intrinsic methods. Brown, in quoting Drnyei, says that,
the research shows that one type of extrinsic reward can indeed have an effect on
intrinsic motivation: the positive feedback that learners perceive as a boost to their
feelings of competence and self-determination (Drnyei, 2009). No other externally
administered set of rewards has a lasting effect (Brown, 2015, pg. 92-93).
Drnyei is suggesting that teachers have a role in extrinsically motivating students to be
intrinsically motivated.
However, doing what Drnyei suggests is easier said than done. What does it look like
use extrinsic motivation to motivate students intrinsically? One example is giving positive
feedback in the classroom that is seen by other students, building a sense of intrinsic motivation
within students because it meets the need of self-actualization. Still, as previously mentioned, not
every student is motivated in the same way. In this example, one student might be self-actualized
while another might be embarrassed by the attention. This demonstrates that one motivational
technique is not universally applicable to all situations. I would even say that motivation is much
bigger than the two forms that the behaviorist perspective proposes. Conveniently, the other
schools of thought pick up where the behaviorist perspective leaves off.
3. Cognitivist Perspective: Motivation Related to Agency (Bandura)
The cognitive perspective emphasizes an internal, individual force that drives one to do
what they do (i.e. motivation driven by basic human needs). Already, the overlap between the
behaviorist perspective and intrinsic motivation is apparent (See Behaviorist Perspective:
Intrinsic Motivation). An American psychologist, Albert Bandura, conducted experiments that

The Complicated Answer to Why

showed the correlation between ones internal drive and motivation by focusing on something
called agency.
Agency is the act of making choices with self-determination (Bandura, 2001). It can also be
described as the intentionality behind the use of capabilities. Bandura examined agency by
looking at self-efficacy: the understanding of ones capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997, pg. 3). Brown
describes self-efficacy as an individuals perception of ones own abilities to accomplish what
they want (Brown, 2015, pg. 90).
The implications of agency and self-efficacy for SLA can be demonstrated by in the
following example. A language student can produce the present tense. They have practiced it.
They have performed it in class. The teacher has full confidence in the students abilities.
However, this student still does not believe they can use the present tense. In their mind, they
perceive that they have some language deficiency that prevents them from using it (selfefficacy). Maybe they think they do not know their conjugations well enough. Maybe they think
their accent is not quite right. Whatever the reason, it hinders them from using the present tense.
Bandura would say that because this student has a low self-efficacy, it hinders them from acting
as an agent. Therefore, Bandura would conclude that low self-efficacy affects agency, which in
this case, results in a lack of motivation to participate in class.
Depth and Complication:
Bandura adds depth to the behaviorist perspective on motivation, but also complicates it.
On the one hand, the pro of motivation related to agency is that it reinforces Drnyeis
suggestion that teachers should extrinsically motivate students to be intrinsically motivated. The
teacher educates and creates a learning environment so as to increase student self-efficacy.

The Complicated Answer to Why 10

Somehow, the teacher helps students believe in themselves. An example of this would be how a
teacher gives feedback in order to lower a students affective filter to show them that while
mistakes will always be made, it is not a reflection of stupidity. Hopefully, this students selfefficacy would be built up and would have greater motivation to act as an agent.
Clearly, motivation related to agency heavily emphasizes the role of the teacher in
motivating students. In fact, agency significantly complicates it. On the one side, if the teacher
can do things to motivate, they can also do things to demotivate. The pressure on the teacher
begins to mount. On the other side, self-efficacy seems to portray students as fragile and
fatalistically determined by their self-perceptions. Taken to its extreme, motivation related to
agency can either overly emphasize the role of the teacher or take the teacher out of the equation
altogether.
The question we are left with is, does motivation related to agency explain everyones
desire or lack of desire to learn language? Is there more to motivation than self-efficacy, selfperception? Other theorists would say so.
4. Cognitivist Perspective: Instrumental and Integrative Motivation (Gardner and Lambert)
Proposed by Gardner and Lambert, instrumental and integrative motivation have been
widely used to explain why students learn a foreign language. An instrumental motive is
driven by more practical value and advantages gained from learning the target language
(Brown, 2015, pg. 92). Integrative motivation is derived from a desire to know about the people
and culture of a target language (Brown , 2015, pg. 92). Each were later criticized and revised
by Gardner (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1991) and more accurately considered orientations or
attitudes towards language learning as opposed to motivations.

The Complicated Answer to Why 11

Still, these forms of motivation (or orientations) are worth adding to the complicated
answer of why students learn language. Each are ground breaking in their own respect.
Instrumental motivation explains why, all over the world, there are English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) classes in which students are highly motivated because they want to further their education
or learn the language surrounding a specific topic. Integrative motivation explains why there are
language students who desire to learn because they want to fit in with the people and culture
around them.
Added Dimension, but a Dichotomy?:
Instrumental and integrative motivation put names to students needs. They add
dimension to ones understanding of motivation. Discovering that students are instrumentally
motivated can help teachers zero in on what to teach. Furthermore, integrative motivation
lends itself to a holistic kind of class in which students talk about not only the target language,
but also the culture in which it is embedded.
Moreover, integrative motivation is a groundbreaking consideration contributed by
Gardner (1985), who was one of the first to articulate that there are social factors that affect
motivation. Social context is one of the foundational principles of the constructivist perspective
(See Historical Schools of Thought). I am convinced that Gardner was one of the first theorists
that brought it to the forefront1. Gardners contribution cannot be overlooked.
But there are also negatives to instrumental and integrative motivation. One of the problems
with examining instrumental and integrative orientations [is] that they [do] not constitute a
dichotomy. One could quite easily be both instrumentally and integratively inclined (Brown,
2014, pg. 162). Brown submits that, while these motivations create helpful categories -- adding
1EvidenceforthisstartswiththethousandsuponthousandsoftimesthatGardnersarticlesarereferencedbyother
languagetheorists.

The Complicated Answer to Why 12

dimension to ones understanding of motivation -- they do not represent a big enough dichotomy
to have a specific application. For example, in an ESP class that revolves around preparing
students for further education, many of the same students could also be motivated to integrate
with the people with whom they might study. Someone learning English in order to earn a degree
from Oxford might, at the same time, also want to have tea with a professor. Both of these
situations require different English skills. Overly emphasizing one skill over another may mean
that there is an overemphasis on instrumental or integrative motivation. In which case, a teacher
might only be motivating a part of their class.
The same issues that agency, integrative and instrumental motivation have are the same
issues that the cognitivist perspective has. While the cognitivist perspective has contributed
greatly to the modern understanding of motivation, it like the behaviorist perspective breaks
down as it is particularized. Brown (2014, pg. 164-165) summarizes the contributions of both
perspectives well:
The intrinsic/extrinsic contrast tells us that the more we can encourage autonomy and
self-determination among learners, the higher will be their drive and usually the greater
their success. While integrative/instrumental orientations are difficult to pin down, they
remind us, along with the aforementioned other possible orientations, of how many
different possible motives lurk in the mind of a learner the beauty of the diversity of
learners!
Truly, many different possible motives lurk in the mind of the learner. Does the cognitivist
perspective accurately summarize the many different possible motives? Is there more to
motivation than rewards (behaviorist) and underlying needs (cognitivist)? This question is what
drove the development of the constructivist perspective on motivation.

The Complicated Answer to Why 13

5. Constructivist Perspective: Person-in-Context Relational View of Motivation (Ushioda)
A constructivist view of motivation places prime emphasis on social context as well as
[the] individual (Brown, 2014, pg. 159). It was because the behaviorist and cognitivist
perspective were not specific enough that the constructivist perspective developed. Because
specificity was emphasized, the constructivist perspective developed many kinds of motivations
to make sense of very particularized contexts and students. The Person-in-Context Relational
View of motivation is a good summary of the constructivist perspective.
Ushioda developed the Person-in-Context Relational View of motivation. She defines it
as a view of motivation as emergent from relations between real persons, with particular social
identities, and the unfolding cultural context of activity (Ushioda, 2009, pg. 215, emphasis
mine). This is a highly particularized version of motivation and seeks to address why, in one
context, a student is motivated and in another they are/are not.
The example that Ushioda (2009, pg. 219) uses is of a French student that she had. He
was learning French because of his girlfriend. Later in the semester, she found out that he and his
girlfriend had broken up. Much to Ushiodas surprise, this had not demotivated him at all. It had
actually motivated him to learn French to prove to himself that he could do it. In another context,
normally a break up would have caused a different learner to quit. But the motivation to learn
French was particular to this one student. His motivation was contrary to what was expected.
Ushiodas point is that motivation has to be contextualized and particularized to specific
students. To assume that one particular motivation will work in every context is incorrect.
Robust, but not Practical:
Ushiodas Person-in-Context Relational View of motivation opens the door to a robust
view of motivation. The other kinds of motivations have so many exceptions that one can begin

The Complicated Answer to Why 14

to think that they have little more than a hypothetical use. Ushiodas suggestion is so
groundbreaking because it says that the exceptions are the rule. Because context is constantly
changing, motivations are constantly changing. Therefore, methods of motivation should be
constantly changing too.
Ushiodas addition to the broader conversation on motivation is significant because it
does not elevate any one view of motivation over another. She affirms that there are many
different kinds of motivation but that, depending on the context, one will be more effective than
another. The practical result of this Person-in-Context Relational View is a knowledgeable
teacher who knows and can use many kinds of motivations in many different contexts.
However, there are two particular negatives with this view on motivation. If Ushioda is
correct, then teachers are going to have to work far more on their pedagogy. Teachers spend
hours developing curriculum, lesson plans and activities. If Ushiodas suggestion is to be taken
seriously, it would mean that once a lesson is taught, it cannot be taught the same way again. If
context and motivation are always changing, then curriculum, lesson plans and activities have to
change too. The first year of teaching a course, which is notorious for being the most difficult
year, will not be unique in its difficulty. While groundwork is finished by the end of the first
year, everything will have to be adapted for the next year. The next year will have different
students with different motivations.
Additionally, like many of the other kinds of motivation, Person-in-Context suffers from
a lack of direct applicability. Teachers can change the way they think about individual students
and classes, but how does that change what they do in the classroom? The next kind of
motivation takes Ushiodas suggestion, along with others, and makes them practical.
6. Constructivist Perspective: L2 Motivational Self System (Drnyei)

The Complicated Answer to Why 15

Drnyei has already been mentioned several times in this review of motivation types.
This is because he is one of the leading language theorists in the world on motivation. Along
with modifying certain kinds of motivation (See Pros and Cons: Extrinsic and Intrinsic
motivation), he has also proposed a theory of motivation called L2 Motivational Self System.
He describes it as such:
[This approach] attempts to integrate a number of influential SLA theories with the
findings of self research in psychology. This new initiative was rooted in the important
psychological concepts of possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), which represents
peoples ideas of what they might become, what they would like to become, and what
they are afraid of becoming (Celce-Murcia, 2011, pg. 520-521).
Drnyeis integration of the might-be self, the like-to-be self, and the afraid-of-becoming
self led him to propose three main components that influence motivation: 1.) the ideal L2 self, 2.)
the ought-to L2 self and 3.) the L2 learning experience. Working together, these three
components are what make up the motivations that one has to learn a language.
Drnyei elaborates on these three components. The ideal self is of particular relevance
because it involves the characteristics that someone would ideally like to possess (i.e., it
concerns hopes, aspirations, and wishes) (Celce-Murcia, 2011, pg. 521). Drnyei uses the
example of a student who sees himself or herself as a successful business person this selfimage can act as a potent future self-guide with considerable motivational power (CelceMurcia, 2011, pg. 521). The ought-to self involves the attributes that someone believes they
ought to possess. While generally applicable, Drnyei recognizes that this is a particularly potent
motivator in contexts in which family obligation and honor play an important role2. Lastly, the
learning experience concerns the learners situation-specific motives related to the immediate
2Snow(2011,pg.100)alsoaffirmsthis

The Complicated Answer to Why 16

learning environment and experience (Celce-Murcia, 2011, pg. 521). All three, symbiotically
work together to encapsulate student motivation.
Implications:
L2 Motivational Self System is both theoretically sound and classroom applicable. It is unlike
any of the other kinds of motivation in that it explains much of the phenomena in motivation and
integrates the wealth of knowledge within the field of SLA. It does not negate that motivations
such as intrinsic and integrative exist, but that to start with such motivations would be like
starting a puzzle from the inside out. In order to start to understand motivation, you have to start
with the edge pieces or the frame of the puzzle. L2 Motivational Self System frames the topic
of motivation and, therefore, can make sense of the specific motivational kinds such as intrinsic
and integrative motivation. The applicability of this motivational theory will be the topic the
Synthesis and Classroom Relevance section.
Summary:
The historical schools of thought within SLA suggest various kinds of motivation. Each
has significant impact on what it means to understand and motivate language students. The
behaviorist perspective (extrinsic and intrinsic motivation) puts things in black and white and
gives teachers a sense of confidence in how to motivate their students. However, it lacks
universal applicability and has extensive exceptions. The cognitivist perspective (agency,
instrumental and integrative) brings depth and dimension to the individual and the context that
helps change the way teachers think about motivation. But it lacks direct applicability. The
constructivist perspective begins with sound theory but, at times, can lose classroom applicability
(e.g. Person-in-Context). In the Drnyei model one finds both sound theory (it can synthesize the

The Complicated Answer to Why 17

previous kinds of motivation) and classroom applicability. Its classroom relevance will be
discussed next.
Synthesis and Classroom Relevance:
Synthesis:
Drnyei motivation theory can synthesize all the forms of motivation previously
discussed. He begins by calling for a shift in identifying individual motives in isolation (as has
been the typical practice in motivation research in the past) [and] to focus on motivational
conglomerates of motivational, cognitive and emotional variables that form coherent patterns or
amalgams that act as wholes (Celce-Murcia, 2011, pg. 520). Drnyei is saying that to begin by
defining motivation by its individual parts (e.g. agency, Person-in-context) is the wrong place to
start. To use the puzzle example again, do not start with the center, start with the edge pieces.
L2 Motivational Self System frames motivation by making sense of it in the form of a
conglomerate comprised of motivational, cognitive and emotional variables.
Drnyei, admits that:
While this may sound very abstract, well-known concrete examples of conglomerates
indicate that such patterns/amalgams do exist and have traditionally been seen as
significant motivational factors (Celce-Murcia, 2011, pg. 520).
Motivational conglomerates sound abstract, but (sometimes without noticing it) we already
think this way about motivation. We already know that motivation is more complicated than just
the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy or simply motivation related to agency. This is why Drnyei
wants to move the topic of motivation from focusing and defining motivation in terms of
intrinsic vs. extrinsic, agency, etc. to a recognition that all of kinds of motivation exist all at once
in a motivational conglomerate.

The Complicated Answer to Why 18

Drnyei considers his theory of motivation a motivational conglomerate (Celce-Murcia,
2001, pg. 520). This is important to understand because it explains why Drnyeis motivational
theory is so comprehensive. He is fitting together all the historic and present kinds of motivation
into one theory. In this way, Drnyei synthesizes all the past, isolated explanations of motivation.
His theory takes into account the differences in motivation that each person feels (each person
has a different emphasis on the ideal self, the ought-to self, and the learning experience.) Not
only that, his theory accounts for different intensities in motivation too (Masgoret & Gardner,
2003).
Take for example Tom (name changed). A student of mine that was very motivated to
learn English. He was the most motivated in his class. In his twenties, he had just moved to the
U.S. as a refugee with his family (See ought-to self, motivated by approval from others, extrinsic
motivation). He was fluent in 3 languages (See learning experience, motivated by positive past
experiences). He was given the opportunity to learn English whereas his family was not (parents
and sisters) (See ought-to self, motivated by approval from others, extrinsic motivation). He had
hopes of getting a good job someday and, maybe, going back to school (See ideal self, ought-to
self, motivated by a future version of self, pressure from his family, intrinsic motivation,
instrumental motivation). He loved talking with the students in English and my colleagues (See
learning experiences, motivated by positive past experiences, integrative motivation). Toms
example demonstrates that each person has an abundance of motivations working together all at
once in varying kinds and degrees. It takes a motivational conglomerate, like Drnyeis L2
motivational self system, to understand them all.

The Complicated Answer to Why 19

Classroom Relevance:
Understanding motivation and applying it to class are two different things. Motivation is
responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the
activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it (Celce-Murcia, 2001, pg. 519). Any
motivational technique used in the classroom has to strengthen why people decide to do
something and fortify the tenacity and determination of a student. Unfortunately, there is no list
of sure-fire techniques that motivate students 100% of the time. In fact, there are hundreds of
techniques that could be effective in any given classroom (Drnyeis article (Celce-Murcia,
2001) only lists 20 motivational techniques). So how is a teacher to discerning which technique
to use in a given context?
Applying Drnyeis theory helps us to discern which technique to use. He encourages
thinking through motivational techniques that promote the ideal self, ought-to self and learning
experience. Drnyei reminds the teacher: It is the quality (not the quantity) of the motivational
strategies that we use that counts (Celce-Murcia, 2001, pg. 523). After thinking through this, he
suggests categorizing motivational techniques. These categories have the potential to make
motivational techniques more effective (Celce-Murcia, 2001, pg. 524). I have listed these
categories below with corresponding techniques below.
1. Techniques related to creating the basic motivational conditions:
a. Appropriate teacher behaviors (like a positive, encouraging attitude)
b. A supportive classroom ambiance
2. Techniques related to generating initial motivation:
a. Increasing the learners expectancy of success
b. Increasing the learners goal orientedness

The Complicated Answer to Why 20

c. Making the teaching materials relevant for the learners
3. Techniques related to maintaining and protecting motivation:
a. Making learning stimulating and enjoyable
b. Protecting the learners self-esteem and increasing their self-confidence
c. Creating learner autonomy
4. Techniques related to encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation:
a. Promoting motivational feedback (like emphasizing student progress)
b. Offering rewards and grades in a motivating manner
There is certainly room from more techniques under each category. In the planning stages of a
curriculum or lesson plan, a teacher can think through the context in which they are teaching.
What sorts of things will motivate students? Maybe students are driven by their families to get
good grades. This lends itself to extrinsic motivation the teacher might give a final grade in the
course to appease students and family (e.g. Category 4). The teacher might also give progress
reports as well to show how the students are doing (e.g. Category 3). But extrinsic motivation
only last so long. Maybe make the lesson topics about something the students like (e.g. Category
2), or generate topics with the students in class (e.g. Category 1). Working with students in class
can also create learner autonomy as they take control of their learning progress (e.g. Category 3).
Using the four categories can provide a framework to help teachers think though the use of
motivation in class.
Conclusion:

Language theorists have attempted to answer the question of why do people behave
the way they do? for as long as the question has been around. Various schools of thought

The Complicated Answer to Why 21

(the behaviorist, cognitive and constructivist perspectives) have developed different kinds of
motivation in order to answer this question. Only a few have been mentioned in the
following: extrinsic, intrinsic, motivation related to agency, instrumental, integrative, personin-context and L2 motivational self-system. The closest examined motivation that seems to
encapsulate the complexity of motivation is Drnyeis motivational conglomerate: the L2
motivational self system. Not only is it theoretically sound, it is also applicable in the
classroom. By understanding students ideal self, ought-to self and past and previous
learning experiences, teachers can choose motivational techniques that are specifically
tailored to their students. In the future, I am sure that the field of motivation will evolve. But
I think that Drnyeis motivational theory is sound enough for the time being to change the
way I teach in the classroom. I certainly will be more aware of the motivational techniques I
use, especially now that I know motivation is as complex as the students we teach.

The Complicated Answer to Why?

22

Bibliography:
Bandura, A (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second
language acquisition.
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Drnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds). (2009). Motivation, language identity, and the L2 self. Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Drnyei, Z., (2009b). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R., & MacIntyre, P. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it
isnt effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 57-72.
Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. (2003). Attitudes, motivation , and second language learning: A
meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53,
123-163.

The Complicated Answer to Why?

22

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Snow, D. B. (2001). English teaching as Christian mission: An applied theology. Scottdale, Pa:
Herald Press.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity.
In Z. Drnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.
215-228). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matter