Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No.

1, 71-85
ISSN: 2215-8421

Motivation and The Concept of Self-Regulation:

Theory and Implications for English Language
Teaching and Learning in Colombia

Beatriz Peña Dix

Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia (bpena@uniandes.edu.co)

Recibido: 15 marzo 2013 | Aceptado: 23 abril 2013 | Publicado: 28 junio 2013

Autonomous language learners are by definition

motivated learners (Ushioda, 1996, p. 2).

The term “motivation” is not easy to define. Indeed, there has been no general agreement
on the definitions of motivation and attitudes or of their relation to one another (Ellis, 1985).
McDonough (1981, p. 143) has defined motivation as “a general cover term – a dustbin – to include
a number of possibly distinct concepts, each of which may have different origins and different
effects and require different classroom treatment.” Similarly, as Eccles et al. (1998, p. 1074) have
said, “The view of motivation has changed dramatically over the last half of the 20th century,
going from a biological based drive perspective to a behavioural-mechanistic perspective, and
then to a cognitive-meditational/constructivist perspective.” For this reason, the concept has
led to significant disagreement about its exact definition and nature. Pintrich and Shunk (2002,
p. 5) have offered a developmental definition, where “Motivation is the process whereby goal-
directed activity is instigated and sustained.” This definition sets up three important principles of
motivation. Firstly, it is a process rather than a product; secondly, it involves goals that provide
direction to action, which involves physical or mental activity and finally, motivated action is
volitional and needs to be sustained to achieve short- and long-term goals.

If motivation is already an intricate concept, when it comes to learning a second or foreign

language, the idea becomes inevitably more complex (Dörnyei, 2001). First of all, the mastery of
a foreign language (L2) embraces interwoven elements of mainstream psychology motivation
(e.g. will, goals, motives, attributions, efficacy, self-esteem and self-regulation, among others).
In addition, language is socially and culturally bound, and serves as the primary channel of social
organisation in society. In other words, the mastery of an L2 goes beyond learning a simple school
subject. For this reason, L2 motivation is a major issue in education that has generated notable
interest among language teachers and researchers, and has become a primary concern of social
 72 B. Peña

and cognitive approaches to motivational theories related to classroom learning. In this context,
Artículos de investigación

the main aim of this paper is to critically examine the theory and implications of motivation and
the concept of self-regulation in foreign language teaching and learning, specifically of English
as a Foreign Language (EFL). A foundational theory of L2 motivation, i.e. Gardner’s social
psychological approach, will first be revised in order to understand the epistemological shift
leading up to cognitive approaches embracing autonomy. A special focus will be made on self-
determination theory, as it embraces the ideas of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation in L2
learning, which are major foci for the development of this paper.

In their attempt to define L2 motivation, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998, p. 65) described it as “The
dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies,
terminates and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are
selected, prioritised, operationalised and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out.” As a result,
“Motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate second or foreign language (L2) learning and
later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process” (Guilloteaux & Dörnyei,
2008, pp. 55-56). From these definitions, the dynamic and mutable nature of motivation is evident, as
well as the self-regulation and self-empowerment that are implicit in the whole process. In this way,
encouraging L2 motivation in the classroom would not necessarily assure that motivated behaviour
would be observed. Therefore, motivation might become unpredictable, especially if self-regulation is
conceptualised as a continuum where individuals can self-regulate according to particular stimuli and
behaviours (Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996). Some of the efforts mentioned above to define motivation
have led to hotly contested debates that aim to overcome the growing gap between L2 motivation
theories and the myriad of new concepts in mainstream motivational psychology that are enriched
by a varied background of contributions, each of which show new directions and possibilities to
further understand how motivation in foreign language learning works (See: Crookes & Schmidt,
1991; Dörnyei, 1994a; Dörnyei, 1994b; Gardner & Tembley, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Oxford &
Shearin, 1996). Most of these proposals have looked for theoretical flaws and inconsistencies that
not only make research in the field grow and reflect on itself, but also lead to more questions than
answers. Overall, it is generally agreed that the existing socio-psychological motivational construct
is not applicable to all areas of L2 motivation, and that the “educational-friendly” approaches fail to
completely provide all the answers in terms of L2 teaching and learning.

In spite of the many debates in the field of L2 motivation, Robert Gardner’s proposal is generally
acknowledged as the most influential motivation theory in L2 teaching and learning. Even though
Gardner’s initial proposal had no intention to directly deal with second or foreign language learning,
he is considered the founder of the field, and his socio-educational model tenets have been broadly
studied (MacIntyre, 2002). This socio-psychological approach sees motivation as coming from an
interest in interacting and self-identification with the target language community (Crookes & Schmidt,
1991, pp. 470-471). In this respect, Gardner proposes four elements that characterise a motivated
student: a goal, the desire to achieve the goal, positive attitudes and effort, which constitute the
“affective variables” that differ from the more cognitive factors associated with language learning
such as intelligence and aptitude. Gardner also establishes a clear relation between motivation and
emotion, which is an essential link that has frequently been omitted in earlier motivational constructs.
Due to the fact that Gardner’s contributions are a capstone to the discussion of L2 motivation theory,
some elements of his work will be briefly examined next.
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 73

First of all, the integrative motive is defined as “a motivation to learn a second language

Artículos de investigación
because of positive feelings toward the community that speaks that language” (Gardner,
1985, pp. 82-83). The integrative motive is composed of three major variables: integrativeness,
attitudes toward the learning situation and motivation (Gardner, 1985). The first two work as
correlated variables that support the individual’s motivation to learn an L2. Integrativeness
then reflects the individual’s level of interest in social interaction with the target language
group while attitudes toward the learning situation (MacIntyre, 2002; Gardner & Masgoret,
2003) embraces a willingness to identify with another language community and implies “an
openness to, and respect for, other cultural groups and ways of life” (Dörnyei, 2003, p. 5).
In other words, individuals who want (or are willing) to identify with the other language
group would be more motivated to learn the language than individuals who do not have this
desire (Gardner & Masgoret, 2003). According to Gardner’s theory, motivation refers to goal-
directed behaviour – effort, desire and attitude towards learning. In this way, the motivated
indi­vidual displays behaviour, feelings, cognitions, etc. that the unmotivated individual does
not (Gardner & Masgoret, 2003). Of course, when the aim is to examine motivation in an
EFL environment, implying a non-bilingual or multilingual language learning situation, some
reservations come to mind with respect to Gardner’s integrative motivation. To illustrate
this, in Colombian public schools, EFL students whose L1 is Spanish may not have many
possibilities to acquire the English language through integrative motivation, as they are
deprived of a real L2 context that would inspire positive feelings toward the L2 community. In
fact, I have experienced that these learning environments are mainly driven by instrumental
motivation, whjch puts a practical value on learning the foreign language. Nevertheless,
due to an increase in private bilingual schools (with full L2 immersion), national policies and
the recent awareness of the importance of intercultural competencies in English Language
Teaching (ELT), the Colombian example will probably experience important changes soon,
and integrative motivation might become more realistic.

As a consequence of the “cognitive revolution” that took place in psychological

research, several influential cognitive and achievement motivation theories from
mainstream psychology extended into the educational field for a better understanding of
L2 motivation (e.g. Noels et al., 2000; Noels et al., 2001). Firstly, Gardner and Trembley (1995)
“renewed” Gardner’s initial socio-psychological construct by incorporating elements from
expectancy values and goal theory into the education-friendly approaches to motivation 1
(Dörnyei, 2001, pp. 53, 107). Aspects like goal salience (goals and the frequency of goal-
setting strategies), valence (desire to learn and attitudes toward the L2) and self-efficacy
(anxiety and performance expectancy) together form a strong version of self-regulation
that can be applied to L2 teaching and learning (Dörnyei, 2001, pp. 53-54). By the same token,
Richard Clément (1986) championed that self-regulation and L2 motivation depend greatly
on the desire for intercultural communication. He introduced linguistic self-confidence,
which permits the use of the L2 with low anxiety and high perceptions of competence.
In this sense, Bandura’s (1993) self-efficacy theory can be taken as complementary to

1 “Education-friendly” approaches in motivation are the education-specific aspects of L2 motivation research that
came from a major shift in thinking at the beginning of the 1990s, when researchers decided to pay more attention
to the motivational processes underlying classroom learning (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 104).
 74 B. Peña

Clément’s self-confidence theory (1983), granted that efficacy beliefs have a strong
Artículos de investigación

decisive influence on people’s behaviour, feelings, ways of thinking and motivation.

In the same way, Clément’s self-confidence theory may have common grounds with
Krashen’s (1982) concept of the affective filter, which embraces affective variables such as
motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. He claims that successful language learners are
those with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image and a low level of anxiety.
From this perspective, in spite of his many detractors and abundant critics (e.g. Gregg,
1984; McLaughlin, 1987), Krashen’s proposals have been important foundational ideas for
L2 teaching and learning. Together, these examples show how the educational field took
advantage of cognitive research experience and amalgamated concepts and approaches
that were applicable to foreign language education for a better understanding of the L2
motivational process.

Another influential cognitive approach, which is a major focus of this paper, is Deci and
Ryan’s theory of self-determination (SDT). It comprises the construct of self-regulation (Deci,
1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2002), whose major constructs have
been incorporated into L2 education. SDT, which is characterised by the concepts of competence,
autonomy and relatedness, supports the idea that intrinsic motivation is sustained by satisfying
the basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009, pp. 135).
It has become a compulsory focus for the discussion of foreign language teaching and learning,
since the concept of self-regulation matches well with several of the central pedagogical
preoccupations in L2, such as learner centredness, strategy training, critical thinking skills
development and motivation related to the accepted view that language learning requires active
learner involvement (Brookes & Grundy, 1988; Dam, 1988; Dickinson, 1987; Dickinson & Wenden,
1995; Holec, 1981; Little, 1991). As a result, self-regulation in foreign language learning must be
analysed within its whole articulated framework as part of SDT and together with the concept of
intrinsic motivation, as the three of them constitute an indivisible triad for the understanding of
L2 motivation and autonomy.

The origins of self-determination can be traced back to the views of White (1959),
Rotter (1966), de Charms (1968) and Harter (1978), who stressed that motivation is founded
on the belief that “individuals can exert control over their environment” (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002, p. 257). Continuing with that view, Deci defined self-determination as “the process
of utilizing one’s will” to fulfill a specific goal (Deci, 1980, p. 26), in this case to achieve
language learning. One of SDT’s central hypotheses is that students who are regulated by
autonomous motivations experience positive consequences when they are learning. These
outcomes can be behavioural (persistence and achievement), cognitive (learning, challenge
seeking and creativity) and affective outcomes (satisfaction) (Guay et al., 2008, pp. 234-
235). Under self-determination, people accept their strengths and limitations, make choices
and determine ways to satisfy their needs (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p. 257). It helps foreign
language learners to recognise the varied and mutable causes of learning that are deeply
rooted in themselves, and the will, conscious mastery and persistence that they use to learn.
This is opposed to learners who believe that success or failure in L2 learning results from
“fixed” and external causes such as ability and task difficulty as proposed by the attribution
theory (Weiner, 1992).
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 75

Intrinsic motivation (IM) is defined as the human need to be competent and self-determining

Artículos de investigación
in relation to the environment (Deci, 1980).2 Research has demonstrated that learners who
are intrinsically motivated tend to orchestrate strategies that demand more effort and help
them to process information more deeply (Lepper, 1988; Lepper & Hoddel, 1989). Condry and
Chambers (1978) found that, when confronted with complex intellectual endeavours, intrinsically
motivated learners use high complexity strategies, cope with research more effectively and
make better choices than extrinsically motivated learners. L2 IM helps learners to enjoy the tasks
(Wu, 2003) and expect no other reward than personal satisfaction. At the same time, they show
engagement and participative behaviour, a sense of self-efficacy and strategies to manage stress,
anxiety, boredom or failure (Schunk et al., 2008). It may not be unrealistic to think that intrinsic
motivational processes might encourage integrative motivation (Gardner, 1983) in L2 learning. If
learners are intrinsically motivated, they would be able to self-regulate their L2 acquisition; in this
way, self-directed individuals would be willing to identify with the English language community
through further exploration of the L2 culture such as travelling to English-speaking destinations,
and developing intercultural competencies autonomously. Some newer developments in IM
relate to mindfulness, energy and vitality (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 2008), which are
relevant to L2 education since they display inner basic principles of self-regulation as evidenced by
the use of conscious language learning strategies and the manifestation of intrinsic motivation.3

The previous overview of SDT and IM within foreign language teaching and learning
contributes to a better understanding of the concept of self-regulation in L2, which is the second
major focus of this paper. As mentioned previously, the idea of self-regulation is inextricably
interwoven with self-determination and IM, such that they are an indivisible triad when it comes to
a learner’s motivation to learn a foreign language. According to Deci and Ryan’s views (1985), this
dynamic occurs because self-determination, or freedom from control, is a necessary condition for
IM to be operative, and intrinsically motivated activity is based on the need for self-determination
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Spratt et al., 2002).

Self-regulation or “the need to be self-determined” (Miserandino, 1996, p. 203) is considered

to be the highest form of cognitive engagement a student can use to learn in classrooms and
obtain a strong sense of personal responsibility (Corno & Rohrkemper, 1989). It is an intentional
(volitional) effort on the part of the student to deepen and manipulate a particular content
area, by monitoring his/her processes continuously (Corno & Rohrkemper, 1989, p. 68). Some

2 The systematic study of IM comes from Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), derived from self-determination theory
(see Deci & Ryan 1985; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1989). CET consists of three basic propositions which are present
in the environment influencing IM. The first proposition is the experience of autonomy or agency as vital to IM.
Secondly, the mastery component is proposed as an essential feature of intrinsically motivated behaviour. The
last proposition embraces the idea of the functional significance of events, depending on the nature of inter and
intrapersonal contexts (Ryan, Connell & Deci, 1989, pp. 16-18).
3 Although it is beyond the scope of this article to provide an in-depth view of IM, it would be relevant to mention
that, far from being just “another concept” in the motivational psychology arena, some researchers have gone
further and have provided detailed insights about IM conceptualisation. Vallerand (1997), for example, proposed
a tripartite model of IM: IM-Knowledge, IM-Accomplishment and IM-Stimulation. IM-Knowledge is the motivation
associated with exploring new ideas and developing knowledge. IM-Accomplishment refers to the sensations
embraced in attempting to master a task or achieve a goal. IM-Stimulation relates to motivation based simply on
the sensations stimulated by performing the task, such as aesthetic appreciation or fun and excitement (Vallerand,
1997; Noels, 2000, p. 38).
 76 B. Peña

of the premises that try to link motivation, autonomy and foreign language learning underpin
Artículos de investigación

much of the work on language learning strategies, which include the conceptual framework of
metacognition when learning an L2 (McLaughlin, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). The synergistic
relation between self-determination, IM and self-regulation is well supported by Noels and
colleagues (Noels, 2001; Noels et al., 2001), who have advocated that IM is enhanced when teachers
allow more autonomy, are perceived to be less controlling by learners and provide encouraging
feedback in L2 classrooms to increase student motivation. Serious discussions (Dickinson, 1995;
Ushioda, 1996) have provided evidence that L2 motivation and learner self-regulation “go hand
in hand” because learners who display autonomous behaviour are necessarily motivated. This
construct, when applied to L2 learning, has been the emphasis of promoting learner autonomy4
and demonstrating their motivation to perform tasks (Ushioda, 1996). By the same token, learner
self-regulation is frequently related to success in language learning (Gan, 2004; Wenden, 1991;
Winne, 1995). Consequently, learners can formulate and change their goals to suit their own
learning, thus developing their ability to critically reflect and make decisions (Dickinson, 1987;
Dickinson, 1992; Dickinson, 1995; Littlewood, 1996; Wang & Peverly, 1986).

A more recent view on L2 motivation comes from Dörnyei’s tripartite model of the ideal
L2 self, the ought-to L2 self and L2 learning experience (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009).
The “ideal L2 self” represents an ideal image of the kind of L2 user one aspires to be in the future
(Dörnyei, 2005; Papi, 2010). Papi enriches this definition by stating that “If one wants to be a fluent
L2 user who interacts with international friends, for instance, the imaginary picture of one’s self
as a fluent L2 user might act as a powerful motivator […]” (Papi, 2010, pp. 468-469). It might be
inferred that Dörnyei’s “ideal L2 self” further elaborates on L2 self-regulation, as it suggests that
there are autonomous attitudes and abilities to recognise and evaluate one’s own current state
in the L2 learning process, and discusses the steps one should follow to attain a higher level of
competence within a specific period of time. In this way, there is an “intended effort” to reach
the specific goal of becoming a competent foreign language user.

Although it is true that self-directed learning has been one of the most widely studied topics
within the field of L2 motivation, it is still far from being a perfect framework within second and
foreign language acquisition approaches (Brocket et al., 2001; Caffarella, 1993). Self-regulated
language learning has ranged from an appealing “innovation” for learner motivation to an empty
buzz-word in course syllabi. Little (1990, p. 7) stresses that autonomy “is not something that
teachers do to learners; that is, it is not another teaching method,” as it is frequently interpreted.
Accordingly, self-regulation in L2 contains many “omissions and oversimplifications” (Gremmo &
Riley, 1995, p. 154), as well as gaps or breaches that have not been properly addressed or tackled.
Some of the major points of contention will be briefly examined in the next section.

4 Here, a short clarifying note about terminology might be necessary to briefly mention that self-regulated L2 learning
(Bandura, 1981; Baumeister, 1993; Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2005; Pintrich, 2005; Zimmerman, 2005; Zimmerman,
2008) is frequently addressed as autonomy (Brookes & Grundy, 1988; Cotterall, 1995a; Cotterall, 1995b; Dam, 1988;
Dickinson, 1993; Holec, 1981 ), self-directed L2 learning (Hammond & Collins, 1991; Knowles, 1975; Little, 1991), self-
instruction or self-instructed learning (Dickinson, 1987; Wang & Peverly, 1986) and even self-access (Dickinson &
Wenden, 1995). These correlated terms might be slightly different and sometimes attend to different theoretical
trends, contexts or audiences. For the purpose of this paper, self-regulated L2 learning, autonomy and self-directed
learning will be used interchangeably with the same meaning.
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 77

A first claim states that foreign language autonomous learning has mainly been a focus of

Artículos de investigación
adult education. It was initially believed that while adults could improve their foreign language
learning skills through self-directed behaviour, children could not self-regulate their initial
L2 language training (Gremmo & Riley, 1995). Increasingly, children have demonstrated that
they can take advantage of the “learning to learn approach” by capitalising on their intrinsic,
detached interest for discovery (Dam, 1982), but research on the topic is unrefined. According to
Nor and Saeednia (2008, p. 559), “there is not any scale measuring self-directed learning among
children.” This suggests that future inquiry and research should design or adapt new tools to
gather information from children, if further knowledge about this topic is sought (Merriam &
Caffarella, 1999; Hiemstra, 2007). Results from research could allow instructors to make informed
decisions on the principles of consciously self-regulated foreign language learning to include in
their lessons from an early age so that teenagers and adults would be more intrinsically motivated
from long-lasting autonomy training.

A second assertion is that self-regulation in foreign language education was first developed
within the EFL framework (Gremmo & Riley, 1995). As a result, a false belief arose that learners
were easily induced into self-regulated learning because English itself was easy to learn. Evidence
suggests, however, that “The degree of difficulty in teaching a foreign language is unrelated to
the degree of difficulty in learning it” (Gremmo & Riley 1995, p. 155). Gremmo and Riley (1995, p.
155) illustrated this idea using the example of the Linguistics Institute of Ireland, which developed
a self-directed approach to Gaelic, and the University of Pamplona, which did the same with
Basque. Both languages have been reputed as “difficult-to-learn languages.” This example is
interesting because it shows how self-regulated language learning is not dependent on task
difficulty, which on the contrary might be inspiring and challenging.

An important aspect to reflect on within self-regulation in L2 teaching and learning is that of

affect. Despite its importance in self-regulated learning, it is sometimes neglected or shadowed by,
for example, strategies. According to Brown and White, “Certainly research attention has focused
predominantly on cognitive rather than affective pathways in language learning, or on the interplay
between the two” (2010, p. 435). Their research (2010) showed three qualitative case studies based
on three Russian learners, and threw light on how positive emotions such as enjoyment, hope and
pride were intertwined with more negative emotions such as frustration, shame, anxiety and despair.
As a result, students worked hard to “prevent and to mitigate the effects of negative emotions as a
way of protecting their motivation and desire to continue learning” (Brown & White, 2010, p. 441). In
Colombia, personal experience has demonstrated that learners’ socio-affective and personal factors
are neglected issues that are often taken as “weakness,” or lack of rigour when teaching a foreign
language. In this way, a great ambiguity arises because through teacher-centred instruction (vertical
power) – where learning arrangements are dictated by teachers, curriculum and institutions –
motivation and autonomy (horizontal power) are still desired characteristics of the EFL environment.
Generally speaking, if EFL teachers want their students to develop their inherent potential to learn,
socio-affective factors such as anxiety, motivation, self-esteem, beliefs and attitudes can no longer be
ignored (Fandiño, 2009).

Another important question is whether the idea of self-regulated L2 learning is ethnocentric

(Brookfield, 2000; Palfreyman, 2003). In other words, since learner self-regulation has mainly
 78 B. Peña

been promoted by Western teachers and academics, attempts to implement it further have
Artículos de investigación

sometimes been problematic often because of cultural differences between the West and other
communities (Palfreyman, 2003). Therefore, one of the major questions when reflecting on L2
motivation and self-regulation is whether autonomy is a universal construct, or whether it is not
as valid for some cultures (Palfreyman, 2003). With respect to Chinese culture, which might have
some similar characteristics as collective Colombian culture, Ho and Crookall (1995) suggest that
the learner’s national and cultural background is sometimes viewed as an obstruction to autonomy
in general. Although local research on the topic is scarce, Lagos and Ruiz (2007) have found that
there is a strong correlation between national cultural identity and autonomy in Colombia. In this
regard, learners “act autonomously” depending on the conception of self-regulated, motivated
learning within their communities, where dependency on parents until an old age is expected.
With the dangers of stereotyping cultures in mind and the need to be wary of rampant assertions
about self-regulation and motivation within different national cultures, recurrent episodes from
personal experience seem to validate both findings that specific cultural characteristics hinder
self-regulation in language learning (Ho & Crookall, 1995; Lagos & Ruíz, 2007).

In the specific case of Colombian EFL students, whose experience might be

representative of Latin American countries, L2 self-regulated learning is a desirable part of
their IM, and is pursued and strongly encouraged by teachers. Contrary to this expectation,
classroom instruction tends to be teacher-centred, where the teacher is regarded as “someone
who makes learning happen” (Chan, 2001, p. 509), the sole source of power, authority and
control, and a protective provider who brings most resources to the classroom, manages
them and tells learners what they do or do not have to do. In this way, the teacher significantly
limits learners’ freedom, creativity and initiative to infer about and further explore L2 inside
and beyond the classroom. Fernandes et al. (1990, p. 101) suggest that, in some cultures,
“language learners in the classroom often tend to revert to the traditional role of pupil,
who expects to be told what to do […] As a result, some learners have become teacher-
dependent and often feel that it is the teacher alone who is responsible for any learning and
progress that takes place.” Lagos and Ruiz (2007, p. 42) found that Colombian EFL learners
frequently lack self-promotion of autonomy, motivation and will to assume responsibility for
learning outcomes because the absence of learning goals and language learning strategies
contributes to their negative perceptions towards autonomy training programs.

The notion of learners’ autonomy can exist anywhere on the “teacher-centred” to

“learner-centred” continuum, but the “almighty” teacher’s role might “drown” the self-
regulation process of students and their resultant IM. Based on classroom experience,
very few students feel the will to explore a foreign language on their own, display interest
in seeking extracurricular L2 learning opportunities or are aware of how to orchestrate
learning strategies to succeed in foreign language learning (Fandiño, 2007). Consequently,
for learners to become autonomous and for teachers to understand the importance of
developing learners’ self-regulatory processes, both parties must redefine their views about
their roles both inside and outside the classroom. In Colombia, for example, the foreign
language teacher is mainly seen as the “resource person” (Chan, 2001, p. 510) with multiple
duties to raise motivation and language awareness. Frequently, learners assume that it is
the teacher’s task to motivate them, as if motivation were an external learning condition
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 79

that is independent from them. On the other hand, language teachers often take for granted

Artículos de investigación
that learners’ self-regulation only focuses on out-of-class learning (homework, research,
etc.) and disregard their involvement as guides and advisors (Benson, 2001; Holec, 1981).
On the contrary, language teachers have a crucial role in encouraging IM and modelling
learner autonomy by taking both out-of-class and classroom perspectives for the sake of
consistent motivational attitudes towards L2 learning (Balçıkanlı, 2010). According to
Dörnyei (2001), p. 116) “teachers’ skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to
teaching effectiveness.” Within SDT, guidance for learners to become autonomous implies
that their pursuit of personal goals would be fostered and classroom behaviour supported
(Assor at al., 2002). All in all, studies have indicated that autonomy-supportive teaching can
be translated into educational benefits, which become evident in learners’ higher IM and
higher performance (Katz & Assor, 2007; Sierens et al., 2009).

As teachers’ and learners’ roles are culturally bound and help us understand self-directed
learning perspectives in L2 teaching and learning, pedagogies engaging L2 motivation for self-
regulation cannot be overlooked within a specific cultural framework. L2 motivation and self-
regulation might have important variables depending on the different environments, settings
and stakeholders involved. The Colombian educational environment is mostly teacher-controlled,
so that self-regulated learning is seen as “a capacity which students currently lack and so need
‘training’ towards,” rather than the idea of “co-creating with the students’ optimal conditions
for the exercise of their own autonomy” (Smith, 2003a, pp. 130-131). The underlying assumption
is that there are “good language learners” that could be imitated. In this way, some students
may lack the ability to learn autonomously and, accordingly, would not attain language goals
as successfully. In these settings, the presentation and practice of learning strategies are part
of the syllabus; however, these strategies are not derived from the learners’ actual needs but
from teachers’ assumptions of what is ideally needed to learn an L2 successfully. As Smith puts it,
“Instruction tends to be based on a deficit model of students’ present capacities, while autonomy
is seen as a deferred goal and as a product of instruction rather than as something students are
currently ready to exercise directly” (2003a, p. 131).

Fortunately, more and more new generations of Colombian EFL educational programs
are aware of the need to apply learner-centred approaches to L2 teaching, which embrace
philosophies of active self-regulation and the assumption that it would be unrealistic to expect
teachers to develop a sense of autonomy unless they have themselves experienced it in their
teacher training (Balçıkanlı, 2010, p. 91). Balçıkanlı (2010, p. 91) also claims that “The earlier
language teachers who are in support of the principles of autonomous learning are made aware
of the importance and necessity of learner autonomy in their initial teacher training, the more
easily they will be able to implement this approach in their own future classrooms.” In order to
promote student autonomous learning, and thus enhance IM in the classroom, teacher autonomy
needs to be evident as a capacity for self-directed professional action and development, as well
as freedom from control by others (Little, 2000; Smith, 2003b).

Overall, motivation and motivating in the L2 language classroom are not easy endeavours.
Conscious motivational strategies are necessary to stimulate and sustain IM and self-regulation
(Dörnyei, 2001). To attain this major aim, language learning strategy training is not the only
 80 B. Peña

important approach (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Scharle & Szabó, 2000). Teachers should
Artículos de investigación

manage the classroom as an effective learning environment, where a supportive and inclusive
atmosphere encourages all types of learning efforts (Good & Brophy, 1994). Moreover, fostering
self-regulation and IM in the classroom “entails some deviation from traditional teacher role
[…] the teacher needs to take the role of facilitator or counselor in an increasing number
(and type) of classroom situations” (Scharle & Szabó, 2000, p. 5). Goal setting for realistic L2
outcomes according to proficiency levels should be clear and challenging enough to engage
the learners’ interest and sustained learning that is endorsed by continuous positive feedback
(Pintrick & Schunk, 2002). In addition, promoting learner self-evaluation would enrich feelings of
responsibility and empowerment in the learner, and foster their growth and maturity towards
language critical awareness and intrinsic motivated L2 learning. Indeed, as Dörnyei and Csizér
(1998) have advocated, the list of L2 motivational strategies is enormous with around 100
elements, which might be overwhelming for classroom practice. Instead, their research supports
previous experiential suggestions on motivating L2 learners through a relaxed atmosphere, proper
task presentation, a good relationship with learners, an increase in linguistic self-confidence and
familiarity with the target language culture, among others (Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998).

In conclusion, foreign language learning and teaching have generally been assumed to be
complex processes in which motivation and autonomy play a major role. In the same way, when
examining L2 motivation and self-regulation, it might be difficult to arrive at a general consensus on
how these concepts interact together without appreciating the myriad of research contributions
from mainstream, cognitive and social psychology, as well as the approaches from the educational
field and further proposals from sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and neurological theories. As
Dörnyei (1996) asserts, it is not the lack of constructs, but the abundance of approaches, theories
and models in the field which makes reflection of language learning motivation and classroom
practices particularly hard. Similarly, no single word or principle can define the motivational
complexity of L2 classroom dynamics (Graham, 1994). For this reason, a critical appraisal of
the synergistic relation between self-determination, IM and self-regulation might provide
enlightening insights when studying motivation and self-regulation in L2 education. Last but not
least, self-regulation as the need to be self-determined is one of the highest forms of cognitive
engagement a student can use to learn in classrooms, a major evidence of intrinsic motivation
and an effective tool to gain academic competence, personal responsibility and empowerment.

REFERENCES

Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support: Five important ways to undermine
student’s experience of autonomy in learning. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends
and prospects in motivation research (pp. 101-120). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Balçıkanlı, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 35(1), 90-101.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 81

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Artículos de investigación
Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation
theories. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 195-200.
Brookes, A., & Grundy, P. (1988). Individualization, autonomy and English for academic purposes. In A.
Brookes & P. Grundy (Eds.), Individualization and autonomy in language learning (Vol. 131). London:
Modem English Publications and British Council.
Brookfield, S. (2000). Self-directed learning as a political idea. In G. A. Straka (ed.), Conceptions of self-
directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual considerations (pp. 9-22). New York: Waxmann.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, J., & White, C. (2010). Affect in self-regulatory framework in language learning. System, 38(3), 432-443.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
Caffarella, R. (1993). Self-directed learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), An update on adult learning theory: New
directions for adult and continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education,
6(4), 505-519.
Clément, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation of the effects of language
status and individual characteristics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5(4), 271-290.
Condry, J., & Chambers, J. (1978). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning. In M. R. Lepper & D.
Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward (pp. 61-84), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Corno, L., & Rohrkemper, M. M. (1989) The intrinsic motivation to learn in classrooms. In C. Ames & R.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 53- 90). London:
Academic Press.
Cotterall, S. (1995a). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195-205.
Cotterall, S. (1995b). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 49(3), 219-227.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning,
41(4), 469-512.
Dam, L. (1982). Beginning English: An experiment in learning and teaching pupils in 5th year Karlslunde Skole.
Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererhoskole.
Dam, L. (1988). Developing autonomy in schools: Why and how. Language Teacher, 1, 22-33.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York:
Academic Press.
de Charms, R. (1984). Motivation enhancement in educational settings. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),
Motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 275-310). New York, NY: New York Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D. C., Health and
Company.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behaviour. New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237-288). Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press.
 82 B. Peña

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination. Rochester, NY: University of
Artículos de investigación

Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation,
development and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165-183.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner training for language learning. Dublin: Authentik.
Dickinson, L. (1993). Talking shop: aspects of autonomous learning. ELTJournal, 147(4), 330-336.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23(2), 165-174.
Dickinson, L., & Wenden, A. (Eds.). (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self-access in language teaching
and learning: The history of an idea. System, 23(2), 149-282.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learn­ing. Language Learning, 40(1),
45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal,
78(3), 273-284.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994a). Understanding L2 motivation: On with the challenge! Modern Language Journal, 78(4),
515-523.
Dörnyei, Z. (1996) Moving language learning motivation to a larger platform for theory and practice. In R.
L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 89-101). Honolulu:
HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation, Longman, Essesx: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientation, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory,
research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3-32.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language
acquisition. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998) Ten commandments for motivating language learning: Results of an empirical
study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203-229.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied
Linguistics, 4, 43-69. Retrieved from http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/39/0/Motivation_in_action.pdf
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: future research directions.
In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 350-356). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, A. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Daimon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: 5th edn, vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 1017-1095). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fandiño, Y. (2009). A pathway to teacher and learner autonomy: A study on socioaffective language learning
strategies. In M. L. Cárdenas (Ed.), Investigación en el aula en L1 y L2: Estudios, experiencias y reflexiones
(pp. 131-145). Biblioteca abierta, Colección general Lenguas Extranjeras, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia. Bogotá: Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras.
Fernandes, J., Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1990). Learner training: Learning how to learn. In D. Crookall & R.
Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming and language learning (pp. 101-108). Boston, MA: Newbury House
& Heinle and Heinle.
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 83

Gan, Z. (2004). Attitudes and strategies as predictors of self-directed language learning in an EFL context.

Artículos de investigación
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 389-411.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation.
London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation, and second lan­guage acquisition. Canadian
Psychology, 41(1), 10-24.
Gardner, R. C., & Masgoret, A. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis
of studies conducted by Gardner and Associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 167-210.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Graham, S. (1994). Classroom motivation from an attributional perspective. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings
(Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 31-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 79-100.
Gremmo, M. J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction, and self-access in language teaching and
learning: The history of an idea. System, 24(4), 151-164.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C., & Chanal, J. (2008) Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination
in education. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 233-240.
Guilloteaux, M., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008) Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of
the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 57-77.
Hammond, M. & Collins, R. (1991). Self-directed learning: Critical practice. London: Kogan Page.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Towards a developmental model. Human
Development, 21(1), 34-64.
Hiemstra, R. (2007). Self-directed learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international
encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ho, J., & Crookall, D. (1995) Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language
teaching. System, 23(2), 235-243.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: some elementary concepts. In P. Riley (Ed.), Discourse and learning (pp.
173-190). London: Longman.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review,
19(4), 429-442.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Association Press.
Lagos Bejarano, J., & Ruíz Granados, Y. (2007). La autonomía en el aprendizaje y en la enseñanza de Lenguas
Extranjeras: una mirada desde el contexto de la educación superior. Revista electrónica Matices en
Lenguas Extranjeras, 1. Retrieved from: http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/matar02f.html
Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction,
5(4), 289-309.
Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research
on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 73-105). New York: Academic Press.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (2000). Paper from Autonomy 2000: We’re All In It Together: Exploring the Interdependence of
Teacher and Learner Autonomy. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Language Centre.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2002) Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed), Individual
differences and instructed language learning (pp. 45-69). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
 84 B. Peña

McClelland, D. C. (1972). What is the effect of achievement motivation training in schools? Teachers College
Artículos de investigación

Record, 74(2), 129-145.

McDonough, S. H. (1981) Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: Allen and Unwin.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed,). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence
and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203-214.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying
self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language?
Motivation orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57-85.
Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001) Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French
Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 424-442.
Nor, M., & Saeednia, Y. (2008) Exploring self-directed learning among children. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 46, 559-564.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework.
Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Culture and learning autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner
Autonomy across Cultures. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation
modeling approach. System, 38, 467-479.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerst, P. R. Pintrich,
& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Shunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education. Theory, research and applications (2nd ed.).
New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.
Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Jang, H. (2007). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-
regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds), Motivation
and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and application (pp. 223-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80(609).
Ryan, R., Connell, J., & Deci, E. (1989). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in
education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. Goals and cognitions
(Vol. 3, pp. 13-51). London: Academic Press.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 58-68.
Scharle, A., & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy. A guide to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schumann, J., & Wood, L. A. (2004) The neurobiology of motivation. In J. Schumann, S. Crowell, N. Jones,
N. Lee, S. Schuchert, & L. A. Wood (Eds.), The neurobiology of learning. Perspectives from second
language acquisition (pp. 21-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71-85 85

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008) Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications

Artículos de investigación
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill.
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, R. (2009). The synergistic relationship
of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57-68.
Smith, R. C. (2003a). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-) appropriate methodology. In D. Palfreyman &
R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 129-146). Palgrave: Macmillan.
Smith, R. C. (2003b). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. In J. Gollin, G. Ferguson, & H.
Trappes-Lomax (Eds.), Symposium for Language Teacher Educators: Papers from Three IALS Symposia
(CD-ROM). Edinburgh: Institute of Applied Language Studies, University of Edinburgh. Available at
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf [June, 2013]
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chang, V. (2002) Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language
Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266.
Stipek, D. J. (1996) Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 83-113). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Stipek, D. J. (2002) Motivation to learn. Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Torrano, F., & González, M. C. (2004). Self-regulated learning: Current and future directions. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 1-34.
Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senécal, C., & Vallières, E. F. (1992) The academic
motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017.
Wang, M. C., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Teaching students to assume an active role in their learning. In M. C.
Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 71-84). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Wang, M. C., & Peverly, S. T. (1986). The self-instructive process in classroom learning contexts. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 11(4), 370-404.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333.
Williams, M. (1994). Motivation in foreign and second language learning. An interactive perspective.
Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 77-84.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 173-187.
Wu, X. (2003). Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the classroom environment.
System, 31, 501-517.