1.

Propensities involve personal preference and consequently are more fluid (de thay doi)

MOTIVATION

– affective factor/ adaptable/ accounting for less of the variance in learner’s achievement scores

_ teachers recognize the importance of motivations both extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation.

- 1st serious study of motivation:

Lambert and Gardner’s work on the social psychology of language learning in the bilingual
context of Canada. (Gardner, 1985). This work suggested that integrate motivation correlated
most strongly with measures of L2 achievement but subsequent research has shown that in
some teaching contexts (Philippines/ India) an instrumental motivation was more important.
In his later publications: both motivations are important and can co-exist in the same learner
population.
Orientation: long-range goals that learners have for learning a language.
Motivation: “motivational intensity” (i.e. the effort learners were prepared to make to learn a
language and their persistence in learning)
- Further research in Canada : francophone learners display a number of different orientations
On using a sample drawn from the same population,
(Kruidenier and Clement, 1986): different orientations: travel/ friendship/ prestige/
knowledge.these orientations change over time, reflecting both shifting societal patterns and
technological development.
- Belmechri and Hummel )1988): same orientations ( travel/ friendship…) + some new ones (e.g.
self understanding and instrumental)
- Other studies: some learners: lack of any orientation at the beginning/ develop orientations
during it.
->> learners’ orientations are varied, depending on the situational and temporal context, and
also dynamic.
The extent to which learners are prepared to pursue their learning goals (motivational
intensity and perseverance) is much more important than what orientation this or that learner
has.

-1990s

he sociopsychological perspective on motivation was challenged due to

+ failing to acknowledge the resultative dimension of motivation.

Gardner viewed motivation as causative (i.e. it led to L2 achievement) >< a number of studies indicated
that in some learners, motivation resulted from success in learning)
+ presenting motivation in too static a way, failing to acknowledge that motivation was dynamic, shifting
all the time as a result of learners’ learning experiences ( countless other purely personal factors)

+ (from a pedagogic perspective): the sociopsychological perspective was seen as too deterministic –
motivation was treated as something that learners brought to the task of learning an L2 that determined
their success. It did not allow for the possibility that learners could develop intrinsic interest in the
process of their attempt to learn.  the theory was seen as lacking in pedagogic relevance( Crookes
&Schmidt, 1991).

Subsequent developments in the study of motivation have attempted to address these criticisms.

General trend in applied linguistics: the confines of SLA itself to consider theories of motivation from
general psychology.  enrich our understanding of the role that motivations plays in language learning
& led to a bewildering array of theoretical positions.

Dornyei (2001): identifies 10 “contemporary motivation theories) of potential relevance to L2 learning ,

noting that “the list is far from complete). His point is that classrooms are such complex places that no
single motivational principle can account for what goes on in them  in order to understand why
students behave as they do, we need a detailed & most likely eclectic construct that presents multiple
perspective  danger: the construct will lack of clarity and coherence. Little to be gained by simply
listing motivational principles.

Recent developments in theories of L2 motivation :

+ the first concerns an attempt to build a theory that acknowledge the dynamic, multidimentional
nature of motivation. Dornyei’s (2001) process of model learning motivation for the L2 classroom
distinguishes a “ preactional stage” involving “choice motivation” which related closely to the idea of
orientation, an “actional stage”involving “executive motivation”, which concerns the effort of learner is
prepared to invest to achieve the overall goal and heavily influenced by the quality of learning
experience; and a “postactional stage” involving “motivational retrospection” where learners form
attributions out of the learning experience which influence the preparedness to continue.  account for
how motivation changes over time and is far superior to the static models of motivation that have
dominated research to date.

+ the second: concerns the important distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

Noels et al.(2000) provide a detailed model for these two types of motivation.

- “ extrinsic motivation: those actions carried out to achieve some instrumental end”

3 types:

+ external regulation: behavior motivated by sources external to the learner such as

tangible benefits and costs
 + introjected regulation: behavior that results from some kinds of pressure that
individuals have incorporated into the self

+ identified regulation: behavior that stems from personally relevant reasons.

Intrinsic motivation: “ motivation to engage in an activity because it is enjoyable and satisfying to do

so”

3 types:

+ knowledge ( the motivation derived from exploring new ideas and knowledge)

+accomplishment ( the pleasant sensation aroused by trying to achieve a task or goal)

+ stimulation: ( the fun and excitement generated by actually performing a task)

Amotivation: the absence of any motivation to learn.

A factor analytic study based on responses to a questionnaire by Anglophone learners of L2 French in

Canada largely confirmed this model of motivation, clearly distinguished the extrinsic and the intrinsic
motivations.

Amotivation was negatively correlated with measures of perceived competence and intention to
continue study.The measures of intrinsic motivation were more strongly correlated with the criterion
measures than the measures of extrinsic motivation.

Noel interpret the results in terms of self-determination theory. (the more self-determined a learner’s
motivation is, the greater the achievement.

 general claim that “ intrinsic motivation contributes strongly to L2 learning”

 Promise for language pedagogy.

+ provide the conditions that promote intrinsic motivation.
+ how teacher can motivate their students.
 Dornyei(2001) proposes 35 strategies for the language classroom.
+ developing the basic motivational conditions
+ generating initial motivation
+ maintaining and protecting motivation
+ encouraging positive self-evaluation
“although the efficacy of many of these strategies remains to be confirmed, “ there is no
doubt that student motivation can be consciously increased by using creative techniques”
MOTIVATION: REOPENING THE RESEARCH AGENDA

Aims: - review the limitations in what the SL research community has general termed “motivation”

- Note the difference between the way the term has been used by SL researchers and how it is
used by teachers.
- Review the educational and psychological research on the topic that should influence SL studies.
- Set out an agenda for research that might improve the current understanding of this topic in the
SL field.

THE TRADITIONAL SL APPROACH TO MOTIVATION

All the approaches to describing the role of motivation in SL learning share 2 limiting features

- Social-psychological. Motivation has been consistently linked with attitudes toward the
community of speakers of the target language. (Gardner &Lambert and their associates in
Canada)
+Other models of the relationship between motivation and SL learning, all of which have
been heavily influenced by the work of Gardner and Lambert and which maintain the social-
psychological (Schumman, Giles and his associates, Krashen)
- Despite the traditional tripartite distinction between cognition, motivation/ and affect (Isen
1984)  SL research have tended to group affect (attitudes + motivation) . There is no general
agreement on definitions of motivation and attitudes or of their relation to one another. (Ellis,
1985)
- GARDNER’S APPROACH TO MOTIVATION

Gardner & Lambert (1959) first made the distinction between integrative motivation and
instrumental motivation

+ integrative motivation: positive attitudes toward the target language group and the potential for
integrating into that group, or at the very least at interest in meeting and interacting with members
of the target language group..  superior support for language learning

+ instrumental motivation refers to more functional reasons for learning a language: to get a better
job or a promotion, or to pass the required examination.

Gardner (1979) suggested a link between integrative motivation and additive bilingualism/
instrumental motivation and subtractive bilingualism.

In a number of studies, Gardner found that success or failure in learning French in Canada was
associated with whether students wanted to be a part of French culture, as opposed to learning
French for only instrumental reasons..
 The development of a battery of testing instruments, The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
( Gardner, 1979,1985)  stimulated a number of empirical studies  socioeducational model
( gardner, 1979,1980,1985,1988)
Socioeducational model:
+ stress that language are unlike other school subjects in that they involve learning aspects of
behavior typical of another cultural group  attitudes toward the target language community
will at least partially determine success in language learning.
+ differentiate among
Cultural beliefs arising from social milieu.
Motivation as a source of individual differences in language learning.
Formal and informal learning situations
Linguistic and nonlinguistic outcomes.
*Au (1988), the socioeducational model can be summarized in terms of 5 hypotheses
+ the integrative motive hypothesis: an integrative motive will be positively associated
with SL achievement.
+ the cultural belief hypothesis: cultural beliefs influence the development of the
integrative motive and the degree to which integrativeness and achievement are related.
+ the active learner hypothesis: integratively motivated learners are successful because
they are active learners.
+ the causality hypothesis: integrative motivation is a cause, SL achievement: the effect
+ the two-process hypothesis: aptitude and integrative motivation are independent
factors in 2nd language learning
(3 empirical studies have been made to synthesize research findings ( oller (1981), Au (1988) and
Gardner (1985).
(___________________) are the two that got a lot of criticism.

critism Gardner’s addressing