This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
C. Michael Sturgeon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Aptitude........................................................................................................................... 4 Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................................... 5 Motivation & Attitude..................................................................................................... 7 Foreign Language Learning Motivation / Attitude / Aptitude ...................................... 14 Synthesis………………………………………………………………………………16 References ..................................................................................................................... 18
Introduction “People who are too concerned with how well they are doing will be less successful and feel less competent than those who focus on the task itself... Some psychologists call it a conflict between ego-orientation, or between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation... but in all cases, what counts is whether attention is turned away from the task at hand and focused on the self and its future rewards, or whether it is instead trained on the task itself. The latter attitude seems the more fruitful.” Author unknown
“How can I motivate my students to work harder?” is a question posed by most teachers at most teaching levels on a daily basis. When teachers see students who have few obvious differences other than their motivation for learning new information, questions concerning their students’ sources of motivation emerge. Educators accept that students have individual learning styles and vary in their attitudes toward learning in general. (Deci & Flaste, 1995; Dornyei, 2005; Skehan, 1989) Attitude affects levels of motivation and can make a difference in a student’s academic career. For example, compulsory readings and memorization of terms versus classroom involvement and social interaction can influence a learner’s attitude. One area of learning that is unique, when compared to other types of learning, is foreign language learning. When learning a foreign language, students must take something that is initially unknown and make it a part of who they are. Techniques in the field of teaching foreign language differ and can be unique learning experiences. Students experience diverse emotions, as well as various levels of success, while learning a foreign language. The difference could be a matter of motivation. Is there more to this puzzling picture than motivation and attitude? Does the individual difference of aptitude hold a
Sturgeon 4 position in this matrix? Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret (1997) have researched numerous variables concerning success in foreign language learning. Some researchers (Skehan, 1989) consider aptitude as the number one indicator of success in foreign language learning. Other researchers see self-efficacy as the true indicator (Dörnyei, 2005). Aptitude Language aptitude has been suggested as “… one of the central individual differences in language learning.” (Skehan, 1989, pp. 25, 38 as cited by Harley & Hart, p. 379). It has also been declared to be the most consistent predictor of one’s success in learning a foreign language (Skehan, 1989 as cited by Harley & Hart, p. 379 and Dörnyei, p. 61, 2005). Due to the conceptual issues involved, the matter of differentiating among ability, aptitude, and intelligence must be considered. These terms are commonly used interchangeably in everyday parlance, and the scientific definition is lost because of the popular use (Dörnyei, 2005). Ability typically applies in psychology to various traits which involve thinking, reasoning and the processing of information. Scholars have distinguished a difference between ability and aptitude but in practical terms, and for the purpose of language learning, these terms are synonymous in meaning and pedagogical application (Dörnyei, 2005; Skehan, 1998). Whereas aptitude is commonly used in reference to a specific area of performance, intelligence carries a broader meaning; it is not specific to a discipline, but rather entails all areas of learning. The meaning is also synonymous, to a degree, with abilities. Noticeably, the differences in meaning are minor in detail (Dörnyei, 2005). The research on language learning aptitude has primarily focused on the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), but researchers are now considering other factors;
Sturgeon 5 therefore, the emphasis has lessened, especially since the early 1990’s (Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner, 2001; Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L., 1995). Very few specialists in language learning can discard a tool that is distinctively designed for the purpose of measuring one’s aptitude, or ability, to learn a second or foreign language (Ehman, M.E., 1996; Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. 1995). Research reveals that though aptitude is well established as a general measure, its equivalent determiner in language learning ability is motivation. This body of emerging research continues to strengthen as more scholars take this into consideration (Dörnyei, 2001a; 2005; Gardner, 2001). The controversy of aptitude versus attitude continues even when scholars are proclaiming motivation to be at least equivalent, instead of superior, to aptitude as a predictor of success in foreign language learning (Ehrman, M.E. 1996; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000). Self-Efficacy According to Alderman (1999), motivation can be influenced by self-perception (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-perception can destroy one’s motivation to accomplish a given task based on the belief that the ability to do the task is lacking; or the motivation is suppressed because of the belief that the task lacks challenging components (Alderman, 1999; Bandura, 1997; Calder & Staw, 1975). Research indicates that students perceive themselves as more, the more challenging the goals they pursue will be (Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992). According to Zimmerman (2000), research during the past two decades has revealed that self-efficacy is a highly successful predictor of a student’s motivation and learning. Self-efficacy is a performance-based measure of one’s perceived ability and therefore differs theoretically from motivational constructs such as outcome expectations
Sturgeon 6 or self-concept (Zimmerman, 2000). Frequently, the terms self-efficacy and self concept are misunderstood to have the same meaning. Self-efficacy pertains to one’s perceived abilities to accomplish a specific task; whereas, self concept is a composite look at oneself believed to have been formed from one’s experiences and accepted evaluations from family and / or friends. Self-concept and self-efficacy may both be used outside the context of learning (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). The role self-efficacy plays in one’s motivation and attitude toward language learning is an important one having influence on one’s performance (Bandura, 1997; Dörnyei, 2001a; Ehrman, 1996). When looking at language learning many learners feel they have to be risk-takers because their self is put before others to perform. Those with low self-efficacy perceive tasks of difficulty as threats; these are people that dwell on their deficiencies and remember the obstacles they encounter when pursuing challenging tasks (Dörnyei, 2001a). There is a reason for connecting the concept of self-efficacy with the motivation to learn an additional language. For students to be able to focus on the task of learning with all their might and determination, they must have a healthy view of themselves as learners (Dörnyei, 2001). Although prior successes combined with other general measures of one’s ability are considered exemplary predictors of achievement, (Zimmerman, 2000) many studies suggest that self-efficacy beliefs add to the predictability of these measures. One such study was that of students’ self-monitoring. The findings pointed to the fact that the efficacious students monitored their working time more effectively and were more persistent. The study also indicated the more efficacious students to be better at solving problems than inefficacious students of equal aptitude (Zimmerman, 2000).
Sturgeon 7 Zimmerman & Bandura (1994) did a path analytic study for writing and found that self-efficacy for writing was a considerable predictor of college students’ standards for the quality of writing measured as self-satisfying. The self-efficacy beliefs also motivated the students’ use of learning strategies. According to Zimmerman & MartinezPons (1992), there was a substantial relation between efficacy beliefs and strategy use across the grade levels being studied. The greater the motivation and self-regulation of learning in students with a high self-efficacy “…the higher the academic achievement according to a range of measures.” (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 88) Another study Zimmerman (2000) notes illustrates a finding of an overall effect size of .38 which this indicates that self-efficacy accounts for approximately 14% of the variance in students’ academic outcome across various sets of student samples and criterion measures. Concerning the effects of perceived self-efficacy on persistence, research has shown that it influences the learner’s skill acquisition by increasing persistence (Schunk, 1981; 2003; Zimmerman, 2000). Observably, self-efficacy plays a mediational role in motivation, persistence and academic achievement. The findings signify evidence of the validity of self-efficacy beliefs and their influence on a student’s method of learning and motivational process (Zimmerman, 2000). Motivation & Attitude Educators continue to have concerns about student success and the motivation that is required to accomplish the academic goals set before their learners. They voice concerns about how to make classes more inspiring, how to encourage students to be more diligent and how to provide appropriate incentives; the list continues, as it has for decades (Ames & Ames, 1984; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dörnyei, 2000; 2001; 2005;
Sturgeon 8 Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Numerous motivational concepts have emerged over the years designed to motivate the learner and ultimately produce the types of student behavior desired by instructors. Motivation is referred to by Dörnyei (2005, p. 1) as “...an abstract, hypothetical concept that we use to explain why people think and behave as they do.” The meaning of the term, motivation, is vague but we use it because it is the best way known to describe the abstract concept (Dörnyei, 2005). The understanding of the term motivation is quite broad in that it includes an endless range of meanings. The range of meanings for motivation go from financial incentives such as a raise, which would bringing about a new level of life-style, to what some may perceive as a freedom that is seemingly idealistic, (i.e. release from prison) which one could possibly be driven to attain (Dörnyei, 2005). Though these two examples have little in common, they have an influence on behavior. Because of the seemingly limitless ways of interpreting motivation, is seen as a broad umbrella term that covers a number of meanings (Alderman, 1999; Calder, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Motivation theory started with Sigmund Freud, well known within psychoanalytic psychology. In 1914 and 1915 he postulated that behavior can be reduced to a number of drives; otherwise known by Freud as instinct theory. In empirical psychology it is suggested that motivation theory started with Hull’s drive theory in 1943 (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The drives on which Hull based his theory were hunger, thirst, sex and avoidance of pain. Today we have a much more complex world and, therefore, a more complex understanding of motivation and motivational behavior. The motivation seen in people, as presently practiced, appears to be primarily to avoid punishment or receive rewards
Sturgeon 9 (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dornyei, 2001; 2001a; 2005; Weiner, 1979; 1990). Deci & Ryan (2004) have suggested that human needs are quite different. They remark that the needs are relatedness to others, competence, and autonomy. Frequently, a distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The understanding of extrinsic motivation is that the goal providing satisfaction is independent of the activity, whereas intrinsic motivation finds the satisfaction within the activity itself (Calder & Staw, 1975; Covington & Dray, 2002; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J., 2000). The assumption commonly accepted is that extrinsic rewards such as money fulfill a basic human need. Obviously this societal based motivation system is effective in accomplishing the set goals of bringing about desired behaviors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Ryan; 1985). Many researchers are considering not only behaviors based on external rewards, but also behaviors that are acted out based on the activity or behavior itself. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; 1991; 1997; 2000; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). One of the more prominent paradigms in motivational psychology has been presented by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand, 1997 as cited in Dörnyei, 2001). Self-determination theory places the types of regulations on a continuum between self-determined (intrinsic) and controlled (extrinsic) forms (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2004; Dörnyei, 2001). For the purposes of this literature review, the terms selfdetermination and intrinsic motivation will be used interchangeably.
Sturgeon 10 Where one is placed on this continuum is dependent on how ‘internalized’ the form of motivation is and “…how much the regulation has been transferred from outside to inside the individual” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 47). According to Dörnyei (2001) there are five categories which have been identified on this continuum. They are identified as: 1. external regulation, meaning that the motivation comes strictly from outside sources, from rewards to avoidance of punishment; 2. introjected regulation, which is following imposed rules in order to avoid feeling guilty; 3. identified regulation; an example of this would be where one engages in an activity because of a perceived usefulness; 4. integrated regulation which involves choice made behavior(s) based on the individual’s values, needs and identity; 5. intrinsic motivation where the individual is involved in the activity for the sake of the activity and nothing more. Observably, motivation is a complex concept. For this writing, the term will be defined as a drive that influences behavior, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as other constructs based on motivational theory. A substantive amount of research regarding motivation for language learning has been conducted over previous decades, especially in how it is related to perceived locus of control, attitude, self-efficacy and anxiety (Atkinson, 1957; Dörnyei, 2001; Gabillon, 2005; Gardner & Tremblay, 1994; Weiner, 1972). The years of research have brought about data allowing language instructors to have an understanding of the learner; therefore, potentially improving the language learner’s outcomes (Hsieh, 2004).
Sturgeon 11 Motivation by itself appears to be understood, but language learning is quite different compared to other areas of study, in the matter that learners will potentially face anxiety and social distress (Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999). According to Saito, Horwitz and Garza (1999), the learner’s experience of anxiety can have a debilitating impact on their ability to learn to communicate in the second language. Moreover, the anxiety experienced in the classroom environment has been suggested to have a negative impact on the motivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Kitano, 2001). Because anxiety is an unpleasant experience, behaviors associated with anxiety reduction would be reinforced since the avoidance of pain or unpleasantness is one of the primary drives according to drive theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The problem Deci & Ryan (1985) note in this theory is that typically, exploratory behaviors are associated with excitement not fear and anxiety. The avoidance of anxiety does not appear to be a motivator for exploration or curiosity driven behaviors (Deci & Ryan 1985). Collectively, there are at least two factors that can either eliminate or diminish motivation. These are anxiety and self-efficacy. Interestingly, anxiety is not as commonly found in learners that have a high self-efficacy as in those who do not (Bandura, 1997). When a learner experiences diminished motivation, academic success is impacted. The thought of past failures brings about anxiety and, in turn, the self-efficacy is affected (Atkinson, 1974; 1983; Bandura, 1997; Ehrman, 1996). Ehrman (1996) and Bandura (1997) reiterate the reality that emotions play an important role in the learners’ lives. These concepts are interrelated in a learner and have potential to enhance a learner’s motivation and performance, as well as the reverse.
Sturgeon 12 Attitudes and motivation in language learning materialized as an area of research in the late 1950’s, and continues to be a topic of research into the 21st century (Dörnyei, 2001). Gardner & Lambert (1972) began research on the topic during his doctoral studies in 1957. Aptitude had been accepted as the answer for why some individuals seemed to be better at language learning than others. Yet, when a culture wants to keep an original language alive, they learn it and pass it on to the children to know it as well as the spoken language (Dörnyei, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The question Gardner and Lambert approached was that of attitude toward a culture and if it had an impact on the learner’s motivation to learn the new culture’s language. He later termed this motivation construct as integrative motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005). Gardner has continued research in this direction as other researchers strongly suggest the motivational framework to be expanded (Gardner & Tremblay, 1994; Noels, Clément & Pelletier, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Dörnyei (1994) remarks that Gardner’s works are of great value to linguists and instructors of language; yet, there is a need to go beyond the social psychology of motivation and language learning. Gardner saw that there was more than aptitude involved in the success of learning a foreign language; therefore, he positioned most of his research in the direction of discovering other factors (Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner, 1960; 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). “To say that one has to have ‘an ear for languages’ is to give an excuse rather than an answer, since it is too easy to transfer mysteries to biology, either as the source of one’s linguistic difficulties or as the source of one’s linguistic genius” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Based on the years of research, Gardner was accurate on this matter; yet, there still appears to be more questions than answers as to the source of one’s abilities, or the lack of it, in learning a
Sturgeon 13 foreign language (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 1994; 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2000; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Dörnyei (1994) notes that Gardner & Lambert’s works (1972) are a necessary contribution to the academy, yet the motivational construct of Gardner’s excludes cogitative aspects of motivation to learn. From the time of Gardner’s founding of the Gardnerian motivational theory for second-language learning till now, focus has changed from behaviorist to more cognitive concepts (Dörnyei, 1994; 2001; 2001a). A variety of new approaches toward motivation and second-language acquisition came about in the 1990’s. Gardner educated many international scholars from his in-depth research (Dörnyei, 1994). Gardner & Tremblay (as cited in Dörnyei, 1994) called the 1990’s a ‘motivational renaissance’. The first three decades of research in the field of motivation and second-language learning was inspired by the three Canadian psychologists, Robert Gardner, Wallace Lambert, and Richard Clement. With their accomplishments, scholars had a solid foundation from which to work (Dörnyei, 1994; 2001; Gardner, 1994). Research bodies established motivation as the principle determinant of second language acquisition. Motivation and how it impacts the learner’s aptitude is also considered well researched since the 1990’s (Gardner, 1994). Approaching the new millennium the boundaries of second language (L2) motivation were pushed even further with researchers adopting complex perspectives (Dörnyei, 2001a). Studies in motivation would include: motivation from a process-oriented perspective; task motivation; self-determination theory and the neurobiological basis of motivation (Dörnyei, 2001a). Dörnyei (2001) suggests that L2 motivation as a situated construct will be one of the primary research areas of the future and that there is a need to focus research on temporal motivation. The study of temporal
Sturgeon 14 motivation will be particularly useful because “…it allows researchers to discuss both preactional ‘choice motivation’ (i.e., the motives leading to selecting goals and forming intentions) and volitional/executive factors during the actional phase (i.e., motives affecting ongoing learning behaviors) in a unified framework.” (Dörnyei, 2000; 2001) To focus on intrinsic motivation allows for a detailed review and the inclusion of various points of view. In the book “why we do what we do”, Deci & Flaste (1995) stated that we often either experience or see others experience extrinsic motivation controlling and forcing the focus to be on the outcomes, and that can ultimately lead to shortcuts that may be undesirable. It is difficult to compete with extrinsic motivation, for human behavior leads us to naturally seek gratification which is frequently offered as a reward for the display or performance of an attained skill (Atkinson, 1974; Deci & Ryan, 1985). The growing interest in cognitive processes since the early 1930s has had an influence on the field of motivation. All of the cognitive theories from the 1930s till now direct our attention to the concept of choice, which is directly related to motivation and even more so to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J., 2000). Foreign Language Learning Motivation / Attitude / Aptitude Language learning research continues to view the learner, the learning, and the instructing from a plethora of angles that include a multitude of factors (Dörnyei, 2005; Ehrman, 1996). This paper will focus on the factors; motivation, attitude, and aptitude. The theories specific to motivation and language learning and/or motivation for learning a foreign language are plentiful. There is one that is of interest for this particular literature review and that is attitude and motivation for language learning (Gardner &
Sturgeon 15 Lambert, 1972). However, there are gaps within Gardner’s theory, as it is focused primarily on the social psychological underpinnings (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 1994; 2001b; 2003; 2005; Dörnyei & Csizér 1998; Gardner, 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Oxford, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). According to Dörnyei (1994; 2005) there is a need to research outside the realm of social psychology and second language learning. The situation Gardner’s theory is based on is quite unique in the sense that the community observed spoke, and continues to speak, two different languages (Dörnyei, 1994; 2005). Some community members speak French, some speak English, and some speak both; therefore his study was on the social aspects of how people were motivated, or not motivated, to learn French if they were native English speakers (Gardner, 1960; Dörnyei, 1994, 2005; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Oxford & Shearin (1994) reiterated the need to expand the framework of motivation and language learning. The attitude aspect that Gardner included was specific to the learners’ attitude toward the French speaking culture (Dörnyei, 1994; Gardner, 1960; 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Seeing the narrowness of Gardner’s research, other researchers took on the tasks of expanding the focus of research on motivation for language learning; considering factors of attribution, self-determination, locus of control, self-efficacy and many more (Dörnyei, 2001b; 2003; 2005; Ehrman, 1996; Oxford & Shearin 1994). The L2 research needs seemingly continue to grow in the area of motivation and attitude, while at the same time there is continuous research occurring on the matter of aptitude for language learning (Dörnyei, 2005; Skehan, 1989). Skehan (1998) makes reference to Carroll’s writing’s of the ‘60s, at the time the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) was being designed by Carroll, suggesting that under moderate quality instruction and conditions of
Sturgeon 16 time pressure, that aptitude would be a good predictor of L2 success. Later Skehan (1998) suggests there are L2 learners that are “less gifted” therefore need more time to put into their learning and more effort. A number of researchers of language learning have made apparently changed their ways of thinking about aptitude and are deciding that motivation with aptitude is a predictor of success in learning a second language (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Skehan, 1998). At this time Skehan (2002 as cited by Erlam, 2005) is suggesting that the determiner of one’s success at foreign/L2 language learning is the individual’s general learning mechanisms. Moreover he (Skehan, 2002 as cited by Erlam, 2005) suggests that language learning aptitude is modular in that one’s aptitude for L1 learning is different from L2 language learning in the perception, analysis, storage and retrieval of information. Synthesis In the foreign language learning context, learner’s motivation and attitude have been suggested to have an influence on the student’s success in L2 learning (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dornyei, 2003; 2005; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Gardner, 1960; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Self-efficacy is a belief that one has about one’s capabilities to complete a task and at what level of success in doing so. It has been suggested that a learner’s self-efficacy influences his or her learning motivation (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Horwitz, 1988; Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999). Although many studies have looked into the students’ attitude and there have been studies conducted evaluating the position of motivation in language learning, and even studies into language learning and selfefficacy, there has not been a study that makes the connections between the three and compares their strengths to aptitude. Because these various aspects are important to
Sturgeon 17 success in language learning, understanding students’ various perceptions, motivations and attitudes can offer a path to understanding the reasoning of their successes and failures. By studying and further elucidating the attitudes, perceptions and motivations of the learners, my hope is that this study will contribute to the research in language learning as well as educational psychology in a significant manner; therefore helping instructors identify destructive beliefs and attitudes that students may have. This recognition would make it possible for instructors of language to help sustain the learners’ motivation.
References Alderman, M. K. (2003). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and Learning: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Goal structures and motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 38-52. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359-372. Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston & Sons. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control: WH Freeman New York. Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 599-605. Covington, M. V. & Dray, E. (2002). The development of course of achievement motivation: A need-based approch. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (First ed., pp. 33-56). Ann Arbor: Academic Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sturgeon 19 Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners' motivational profiles and their motivated learning behaviour. Language Learning, 55(4), 613-659. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115. Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Penguin Books. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research: University of Rochester Press. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. England: Pearson Education. Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom: Cambridge University Press New York. Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications: Blackwell Synergy. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition: L. Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203-229.
Sturgeon 20 Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning Success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89. Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147-172. Gardner, R. C. (1960). Motivational Variables in Second-Language Acquisition. Unpublished dissertation, Graduate Studies and Research of McGill University. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers. Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation, research agendas, and theoretical frameworks. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 359-368. Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 344-362. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 119). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2000). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(03), 379-400. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University Foreign Language Students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.
Sturgeon 21 Hsieh, P.-H. (2004). How college students explain their grades in a foreign language course: The interrelationship of attributions, self-efficacy, language learning beliefs, and achievement. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Lepper, M. R., Green, D. & Nisbett, R. E., (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the" overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137. Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 424-442. Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57-85. Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 202-218. Schunk, D. (1981). Modeling and attributional feedback on children’s perceived selfefficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93-105. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
Sturgeon 22 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Great Britain: Chapman and Hall, Inc. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning: Oxford University Press New York. Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. Achievement, stress and anxiety, 93-125. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 616-622. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for Academic Attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: L. Erlbaum Associates Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: L. Erlbaum Associates.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.