Motivation Literature Review

Dear classmates,

To prepare for Tuesday's class discussion, please read the chapter in Dr. Ortega's book thoroughly. Here's some literature review by an anonymous author, which, hopefully, will help you enjoy the chapter better.

See you in class,

Ben, Masaki, & Ky

Literature review of motivation

in second and foreign language acquisition

by Anonymous

I. Introduction

Motivation is not at all a new topic of concern in second and foreign language (L2) teaching and learning, yet it still draws much attention from the many parties who are involved in the profession, including researchers, curriculum developers, teacher trainers, and teachers themselves. After decades of research and discussion (Gardner & Lambert, 1959 & 1972; Lukmani, 1972; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Brown, 2000; Dornyei, 2001; and McGroarty, 2001, just to name a few), it has been concluded that motivation is undeniably an essential component that decides successful acquisition of an L2. As Dornyei (2001) pointed out, “'teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness”, which means motivation now lies at the heart of L2 teaching and learning activities. Consequently, theorists have been trying nonstop to find out the most effective ways to motivate learners with a view to achieving a long-desired methodology which could be the most productive in the L2 classroom.

Unfortunately, as Dornyei (2001) observed, in reality, motivation still has a very limited place in the curriculum of L2 teacher education programs worldwide. It seems paradoxical that teachers are still not equipped with enough necessary skills to motivate their students while motivation’s central role in L2 acquisition has long been recognized and much research has been done in recent decades. As such, it is necessary that this issue be brought up over again so as to keep reminding teachers and teacher trainers of the benefit they can and should gain from available scholarship and findings in the field. The purpose of this report is therefore first of all to review current literature concerning motivation in L2 teaching and learning, then proposing several prerequisites for further research into one possible source of effective motivation in the language classroom which is the test preparation process.

II. The history of motivation research in L2 teaching and learning

As mentioned earlier, research into motivation in the field of L2 teaching and learning has taken place over the past 4 decades or so. During that course of development, the topic of motivation has been addressed from a wide variety of angles and perspectives and has undergone significant changes in terms of both approaches and findings. After years of intensive study and observation, Dornyei (2005) summarized the history of motivation research into three stages namely the social psychological, the cognitive-situated, and the process-oriented periods.

According to Dornyei (2005, pp.66-67), the first period lasted from 1959 to 1990 and was most active in Canada with researches done by Robert Gardner and his associates whose approach was formed through a doctrine that “students’ attitudes toward the specific language group are bound to influence how successful they will be in incorporating aspects of that language” (Gardner, 1985, quoted by Dornyei, 2005), which means that there was an integration of individual focuses and social psychology in the study of motivation in language learning. Beside distinguishing motivation in L2 teaching and learning from that in other school subjects, Gardner greatly contributed to the development of motivation research by introducing the instrumental and integrative motivation concepts and providing the attitude/motivation test battery (AMTB) which helps to define motivational factors (Gardner, 2001).

Next came the cognitive-situated period in the 1990s with the prevalence of research drawing on cognitive theories in educational psychology which encompassed two popular trends namely “the desire to catch up with advances in motivational psychology and to extend our understanding of L2 motivation by importing some of the most influential concepts of the 1980s” and “the desire to narrow down the macroperspective of L2 motivation… to a more fine-tuned and situated analysis of motivation as it operates in actual learning situations” (Dornyei, 2005, pp.74-75). Graham Crookes and Richard Schmidt (1991) were deservedly given credit for bringing up new research atmosphere in the field through their article “Motivation: Reopening the research agenda”, which incited much study into the various aspects of L2 classroom motivation components including the teacher, the curriculum, and the learner group (Williams & Burden, 1997). Still drawing on theories previously developed by Gardner, researchers in this period started to examine a broader spectrum of contextual factors that supposedly have to do with motivation, among which were multiculturalism, language globalization, and intercultural communication, etc. The three most important landmarks introduced in this period were the self-determination theory, the attribution theory, and task motivation. The first theory laid stress on the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motives and was vigorously discussed and supported by works of Douglas Brown (1994), Deci and Ryan (2002), and Kim Noels (2001), among others. The second theory gained predominance in the 1980s as “it successfully linked people’s past experiences with their future achievement efforts” (Dornyei, 2005, p. 79). Research into task motivation, whose focus, according to Dornyei (2005), was on a task processing system consisting of task execution, appraisal, and action control, hinged around the question of “how to operationalize the dynamic interface between motivational attributes and specific language behaviors” (p. 81).

The process-oriented period in L2 learning motivation has strongly emerged in the past few years with considerable acclaim as it looks into various motivational phases which have long drawn attention from L2 acquisition researchers. This period is most clearly marked with efforts by Dornyei and his associates. Particularly, Dornyei and Otto (1998) successfully introduced a process model that explores the multi-faceted motivational evolution in L2 research, which distinguishes the three different phases in L2 motivation, namely the Preactional Stage in which motivation is generated, the Actional Stage where motivation is maintained and protected, and the Postactional Stage that focuses on the learners’ retrospective evaluation of what happened in the previous stages. However, as Dornyei (2005, p.87) admitted, because of its novelty, the process-oriented conception of L2 motivation is still in controversy and needs further testing.

III. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation

As the term itself suggests, intrinsic motivation is motivation from within the students (Lumsden, 1994), and they learn simply because learning gives them a sense of satisfaction and self-concept. In other words, intrinsic motivation is what people will do without external inducement. Among other notable findings in intrinsic motivation research, Marlone and Lepper (1987) have succeeded in introducing a synthetic way to design intrinsically motivating learning environments which is shown through individual factors and interpersonal factors. While the former attaches importance to the situation where the student works a lone, the latter emphasizes the interaction between the student and other people. Factors usually listed as promoters of intrinsic motivation include challenge, curiosity, control, fantasy, competition, cooperation, and recognition (Vockell, 2001).

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end. Individuals who are extrinsically motivated work on tasks because they believe that participation will result in desirable outcomes such as a reward, teacher praise, or avoidance of punishment. Usually, the students learn the language because they feel they have to do so and not because they want to do so, which means the learning process takes place somewhat reluctantly. This kind of motivation is especially emphasized by behavioral psychologists who seek to explain motivation as reinforcement theory.

Many a researcher has asserted the prevalence of intrinsic over extrinsic motivation on the ground that the former is more sustainable and voluntary while the latter can easily be eradicated once there is no more reward to be earned or the students do not feel obligated to learn any more. They say intrinsic motivation brings the learner more potential benefits and that students who are intrinsically motivated tend to try harder and think more deeply in their learning process. However, it is also widely believed that extrinsic motivation is especially important where there is no intrinsically motivated aspect within the learners because it will push them into learning even if they feel reluctant to do so.

IV. Noted Models of Motivation

IV.1. The Socio-Educational Model

This model of motivation was closely linked with studies conducted by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972), in which they summarized that the learner’s attitude toward the L2 and its community’s culture are very important in L2 learning motivation. As mentioned earlier, a central contribution of Gardner and Lambert (1972) is that they successfully brought the concepts of instrumental and integrative motivation into life.

According to Gardner, instrumental motivation, which is closely related to extrinsic motivation, is “the desire to learn a language because it would fulfill certain utilitarian goals, such as getting a job, passing an examination, etc.” Integrative motivation, on the contrary, is defined as “the desire to learn a language in order to communicate with people from another culture that speak that language” and “the desire to identify closely with the target language group”.

Since the appearance of these two concepts of motivation, there have been numerous research and discussions that try to explain their roles in L2 acquisition. Many of the researchers have so far been of the opinion that integrative motivation has a more important role than its instrumental counterpart (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972; Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000) because it represents the perception of language skills as an integral part in participating in the social groups that use the L2. Some researchers (e.g. Falk, 1978) strongly believed that the admiration of the culture and the people who speak the target language, and the possession of a desire to get familiar with or even become integrated into the target language community can bring great success to the L2 learner. Others asserted that integrative motivation has a more influential role to play in the success of L2 acquisition (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). McDonough (1981) even divided integrative motivation into two types: assimilative motivation, which shows a strong motivation to assimilate into the L2 group, and affiliative motivation, which simply indicates a weak motivation and wish to have greater contact with L2 speakers.

However, in recent years, further research into instrumental motivation (Dornyei 1990, 1998; Brown, 2000) has disclaimed the (falsely) notorious superiority of integrative motivation in L2 teaching and learning. Dornyei (1998) claimed that instrumental dimensions are important (extrinsic) constituents of motivation. This is especially true in situations where the target language is a foreign language. When L2 learners do not have the opportunity to integrate into the target language group, that is, they do not feel the need to learn the L2 in order to become a member of that community, instrumental motivation has the vital role in that it makes language learning happen and puts pressure on the learners to maintain their course of learning. In fact, even in countries like India where English is widely used as an official language, instrumental purposes still serve as the main reason for successful English language acquisition among a large group of people in the Indian society.

Much as they have been distinguished through decades, instrumental and integrative motivation in fact mutually benefits from each other. This viewpoint is strongly supported by Brown (2000) who believes that the two types of motivation are “not necessarily mutually exclusive”. He argues that, more often than not, L2 learners tend to choose both forms of motivation instead of just one. These learners usually learn the L2 not only to fulfill their required tasks but also with the hope that they can become an integrative part of the L2 community. Some researchers even denied the possibility to practically distinguish between instrumental and integrative motivation. Again, it is important to note that integrative motivation has been attracting much more research in L2 acquisition than its counterpart, which means there could be impartiality and subjectiveness if we compare the two on the mere ground of literature available in the field.

IV.2. Some other popular theories and models until the early 1980s

After the much acclaimed introduction of Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) Socio-Educational Model of motivation in L2 learning, other researchers began to work hard on the topic, making considerable contribution to the development of L2 motivation research arena. Schumann (1978, 1986) came to the scene with his Acculturation Model, which sought to look into the effects of personal variables including relative status, attitude, integration, amount of time in the culture, size of the learning group, and cohesiveness of the group. Schumann especially paid attention to adult learners of L2 and suggested three strategies for successful L2 acquisition: assimilation, rejection of target culture, and acculturation. He also believes that the more acculturated the learners are, the more successfully they will acquire the target language.

In 1985, Gardner revisited his earlier model and brought up four important motivational orientations: reason for learning, desire to attain the learning goal, positive attitude toward the learning situation, and effortful behavior. He asserts the three fundamental characteristics of L2 learning motivation which include affect, i.e. the attitudes towards learning a language, want, or the desire to learn the language, and effort, or motivational intensity. This time, he carefully described a highly motivated individual:

"An integratively oriented learner would likely have a stronger desire to learn the language, have more positive attitudes towards the learning situation, and be more likely to expend more effort in learning the language” (Gardner, 1985).

IV.3. Dornyei and his motivation research

Dornyei is one of the first researchers to argue that instrumental motivation even has a more important role in L2 acquisition in foreign language contexts than integrative motivation (1990). He first focused his studies on the Instrumental Motivational Subsystem, the Integrative Motivational Subsystem, the Need for Achievement, and the Attribution about past failures. In 1994, Dornyei introduced his famous taxonomy of motivation which included three levels: the Language Level, the Learner Level, and the Learning Situation Level. According to Dornyei (1994), the Language Level focuses on "orientations and motives related to various aspects of the L2” which determine the language studied and the most basic learning goals. The Learner Level, which has to do with the learner’s internal characteristics, affects motivation through the learner’s need for achievement and self-confidence. The Learning Situation Level emphasizes the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motives including course specific (interest, relevance, expectancy, satisfaction), teacher specific (affiliative motive, authority type – controlling vs. autonomy, supporting, modeling, task presentation, feedback), and group specific (goal-orientedness, reward system, group cohesiveness, classroom goal structure). Later on, Dornyei suggested seven main motivational dimensions (1998) namely the Affective/ Integrative Dimension (which includes the concepts of integrative motives, affective motives, language attitudes, intrinsic motives/ attitudes towards L2, and learning/ enjoyment/ interest), the Instrumental/Pragmatic Dimension, the Macro-Context-Related Dimension (multi-cultural/ intergroup/ ethnolinguistic relations), the Self-Concept-Related Dimension (generalized/ trait-like personality factors), the Goal-Related Dimension, The Educational Context-Related Dimension (learning/ classroom/ school environment), and the Others-Related Dimension (parents, family, friends). Up until now, Dornyei has continued to make valuable contributions to the development of research in L2 acquisition (see, for example, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, among others).

IV.4. A new turn in L2 motivation research

Following Crookes & Schmidt’s (1991) critique of traditional theory and call for a new research agenda in L2 motivation, “the climate of research interest in language learning motivation has changed quite dramatically (Ushioda, 2001). The topic interest was significantly revived in 1994 with a series of articles by Dornyei, Gardner & Tremblay, Oxford, and Oxford & Shearin on The Modern Language Journal, following which were numerous new theoretical approaches and new research agendas (see Dornyei, 1998). Before that, for about three decades, most L2 acquisition motivation research hinged around the socio-psychological theories and the quantitative research paradigm. However, contemporary researchers believe that there needs to be a more qualitative approach in order to complement the long-standing quantitative tradition (Ushioda, 1994), which means that the two approaches should mutually support – not exclude - each other.

In an effort to change the research atmosphere, Noels (2001) tried to generate a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative motivation, in which she once again distinguishes the concepts of orientations and motivation. She starts off by discussing the relations between intrinsic and extrinsic orientations and relevant language learning variables, then the relations between intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations. The role of significant others and the language learning context are also analyzed in great details before a conclusion towards an integrated model of motivation is made (2001, pp. 60-61).

Other researchers in the field have also tried to approach the topic in several new directions (see, for example, Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Dornyei, 2005). Although there has been considerable initial success, much remains to be done in order to bring theories and models of motivation into real life practice and make L2 acquisition a less burdensome task for mankind.

.......

(This is too long already, I think I should just cut it off here :))

References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching (4^th ed.). New York: Longman.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning, Language Learning, 40, 46-78.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.
Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 78, 117-135.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dornyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
Falk, J. (1978). Linguistics and language : A survey of basic concepts and implications (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The roles of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivations in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Luckmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language learning, 22, 261-274.
Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest No. 92. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 200.
MacIntyre, P. D., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. C. (2001). The convergence of multiple models of motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, Kuhl, and
McCroskey. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Marlone, T. W., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun. In A. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction. Vol. 3. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDonough, S.H. (1981). Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: George Allen & Unwin.
McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Toward a contextual model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R. & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In Gingras, R. C. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp.27-50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379–92.
Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga, 14, 76-84.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.69-90). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Vockell, E. L. (2001). Educational Psychology: A Practical Approach (Online Ed.). http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.