The Dynamic Nature of Motivation During Language Tasks

7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\><DQJXDV,QLJR@
2Q0DUFK
$FFHVVGHWDLOV$FFHVV'HWDLOV>VXEVFULSWLRQQXPEHU@
3XEOLVKHU5RXWOHGJH
,QIRUPD/WG5HJLVWHUHGLQ(QJODQGDQG:DOHV5HJLVWHUHG1XPEHU5HJLVWHUHGRIILFH0RUWLPHU+RXVH
0RUWLPHU6WUHHW/RQGRQ:7-+8.
,QQRYDWLRQLQ/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJDQG7HDFKLQJ
3XEOLFDWLRQGHWDLOVLQFOXGLQJLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUDXWKRUVDQGVXEVFULSWLRQLQIRUPDWLRQ
KWWSZZZLQIRUPDZRUOGFRPVPSSWLWOHaFRQWHQW W
7KHG\QDPLFQDWXUHRIPRWLYDWLRQGXULQJWKHWDVNFDQLWEHFDSWXUHG"
³LJR<DQJXDVD
D
'HSDUWPHQWRI6SDQLVKDQG3RUWXJXHVH6DQ'LHJR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\6DQ'LHJR&$86$
)LUVWSXEOLVKHGRQ1RYHPEHU
7RFLWHWKLV$UWLFOH<DQJXDV³LJR
7KHG\QDPLFQDWXUHRIPRWLYDWLRQGXULQJWKHWDVNFDQLWEHFDSWXUHG"

,QQRYDWLRQLQ/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJDQG7HDFKLQJ٢)LUVWSXEOLVKHGRQ1RYHPEHUL)LUVW
7ROLQNWRWKLV$UWLFOH'2,
85/KWWSG[GRLRUJ
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2011, 35!61
The dynamic nature of motivation during the task: can it be captured?

Íñigo Yanguas*
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San
Diego, CA 92182, USA
(Received 24 October 2009; final version received 23 August 2010)
As part of a larger longitudinal research study that investigated Spanish heritage

language speakers’ motivation in relation to the Spanish course they were
enrolled in, the present study explores task motivation with a focus on (a) the
occurrence of motivational processes and (b) motivational fluctuation throughout
task performance. To investigate these issues, this study employed an innovative
Downloaded By: [Yanguas, Inigo] At: 19:31 7 March 2011
qualitative approach to task motivation based on Dörnyei’s process model of

motivation that included the use of think-aloud protocols. Twenty Spanish
heritage language speakers completed a semi-guided writing task during which
they had to think aloud. Qualitative analysis of the verbalizations revealed that
appraisal and action control processes did indeed take place during the actional
phase, as posed by the process model, and showed how participants cope with the
task and the environment. As a result, these analyses exposed the motivational
paths followed by participants in the task writing process and confirmed the
dynamic nature of participants’ motivation in relation to the task. These results
confirm the validity of think-aloud procedures in the investigation of task
motivation, the soundness of the process model, and the value of investigating the
individual in context, all of which could be of use in both the second language
and heritage language fields.
Keywords: task motivation; process model; think aloud; writing task; qualitative
analyses
It is generally agreed that motivation plays an important role in the second

language (L2) learning process, but there seems to be little agreement as to how to
integrate motivational variables into the process. As Dörnyei (2005) reported, there
have been different periods in the study of L2 motivation in which diverse aspects
have been emphasized. First, in the socio-psychological period, socio-contextual
factors were underscored. Motivation was studied as a trait and (this trait/state
distinction) was first introduced in the L2 field by Tremblay, Goldberg, and
Gardner (1995) as a part of learners’ personality that was influenced by the social
context (Julkunen 2001). Second, in the cognitive-situated period, motivation was
investigated in relation to the situational context in which L2 learning takes place,
that is, the classroom. In this context, motivation was seen as a state, subject to
change depending on the immediate context; tasks were used as units around which
motivation was investigated (Dörnyei 2002; Dörnyei and Kormos 2000; Kormos
and Dörnyei 2004). Third, Dörnyei (2005) suggested the process-oriented period,
*Email: iyanguas@mail.sdsu.edu
ISSN 1750-1229 print/ISSN 1750-1237 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2010.519771
http://www.informaworld.com
36 Í. Yanguas
which emphasized motivational change over time. In this framework, motivation

was perceived as a dynamic variable subject to external influences derived from
the general or specific learning context. Outside these three periods and outside
the scope of the present paper, Dörnyei (2005) championed a new turn in the
L2 motivation field that culminated in an edited volume (Dörnyei and Ushioda
2009), which marks a shift toward ‘contemporary notions of self and identity’
(Ushioda and Dörnyei 2009, 1). Notions such as the ideal self (i.e. the attributes one
would like to possess) and the building of one’s identity are now emphasized
(Dörnyei 2009).
The present study draws from some of this research to propose an inclusive
approach ! cognitive, situated, process-oriented, and student-centered ! in order to
explore a previous issue in an innovative manner: the dynamic nature of task
motivation. In particular, this study analyzes learners’ motivational processes and
dynamicity along a semi-guided writing task through think-aloud protocols. Among
the several motivational models available in the literature (for reviews, see Dörnyei
2001, 2005), the process model (Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó 1998) was selected
because it is based on a process definition of motivation that allows for this type of
analysis.
Review of the literature

Second language (L2) motivation
The scientific study of motivation, dating back to the 1930s, has witnessed a process
parallel to that undergone by general psychology. On the one hand, there has been a
shift from broad theories to those focusing on specific aspects of motivation, and
there has also been a shift in the type of theories and principles proposed, from
mechanism to cognitive views of behavior. This is not only true of general
motivation, but also of academic motivation research (Graham and Weiner 1996).
Researchers with a cognitive approach to motivation (Boekaert 1991; Dweck 1986,
1989; Weiner 1985) placed greater emphasis on the learners’ internal thought
processes, often disregarding any contextual factors (Bong 1996). Since the early
1990s, however, when most researchers came to agree on the importance of
contextual factors (Manolopoulou-Sergi 2004), several social!cognitive approaches
to educational motivation (Ames 1992; Ames and Archer 1988; Pintrich and
Schrauben 1992) have emerged. Within second language acquisition (SLA) motiva-
tion research, a similar process has taken place. Dörnyei (2005) illustrated this in his
historical account of the study of motivation in SLA. He viewed the historical
development of L2 motivation in three phases or periods: the social psychological
period; the cognitive-situated period; and the process-oriented period.
In the first period, there was a clear emphasis on socio-contextual factors. These
factors were believed to shape learners’ attitudes toward the language and the
community who speaks it. Learners’ attitudes were thus the most important element
in models with a socio-contextual emphasis (e.g. Gardner 1985, 2001), since they
were primarily related to motivation to learn an L2. The cognitive-situated period
began in the early 1990s and extended for at least 10 years. It started with the
influential article by Crookes and Schmidt (1991), followed by several other articles
that marked the beginning of the so-called educational shift. The arguments for the
change of focus were several. The two most important ones, perhaps, were the
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 37
disregard for the instructed SLA context (Crookes and Schmidt 1991) and that for
the area of educational psychology that, in their opinion, could guide the efforts of
L2 motivation scholars. This period is especially relevant for our present purposes,
since researchers (Dörnyei 2002; Dörnyei and Kormos 2000; Kormos and Dörnyei
2004) considered, as we do, that tasks and activities are units of investigation that
‘break down the complex and prolonged L2 learning process into discrete segments
creating researchable behavioral units’ (Dörnyei 2005, 80). We fully concur with the
focus of these studies (i.e. the task). However, by being cross-sectional, quantitative,
and based on non-concurrent self-reporting techniques, we contend, following
Ushioda (2009 and elsewhere), that they lacked the methodological tools to fully
analyze the dynamic processes that take place along task completion. This
observation was key in prompting us to examine the next period distinguished by
Dörnyei (2005), the process-oriented period, to find the theoretical and methodo-
logical bases that would enable us to carry out an in-depth analysis of the
motivational processes occurring along the task.
The emphasis during the process-oriented period was on motivation’s dynamicity
and temporal variation: the traditional trait/state dichotomy (Tremblay, Goldberg,

and Gardner 1995) is too simplistic to capture how motivation develops and,
thereby, changes during the learning process, be it a learning task, a whole course, or
a longer period of time. Two different trends could be discussed in this context: first,
Ushioda (1996, 1998, 2001) underscored the internal cognitive nature of motivation
and, as such, she set out to investigate it under a qualitative research paradigm
utilizing interviews as the main data gathering technique. More recently and along
these same qualitative research lines, Ushioda (2009) argued for a focus on people
that did not depersonalize learners sitting in our classrooms. Second, Dörnyei and
associates (Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó 1998) were interested in theoretically
framing and conceptualizing the dynamic nature of motivation. To that end, they
developed the process model based on the work of motivational psychologists. Both
of these lines of work are extremely important for the present study’s goals: the
former stressed the focus on qualitatively assessing ‘the dynamic complexity of
personal meaning-making in social context’ (Ushioda 2007, 2009), whereas the latter
provided a theoretical model that specifically pinpoints motivational forces and
processes that occur during task completion and which is perfectly suited to being
looked into from a qualitative perspective.
In the following, we focus on the process model (Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó
1998) and on the motivational forces that it proposes for the task completion phase,
which will be investigated in this study.
The process model

This model is based on the work of mainstream educational psychologists (see
Heckhausen 1991; Kuhl 1984), who devised the Action Control Theory (see Dörnyei
and Ottó 1998 for a summary of main tenets). These authors proposed a difference
between two kinds of processing: predecisional and postdecisional. The former
makes reference to the cognitive processing involved in the setting of goals, whereas
the latter involves those cognitive activities subsequent to goal setting. In this
manner, those activities at the predecisional stage are motivational in nature while
those at the postdecisional stage are volitional (Pintrich and Schunk 2002). These
two stages suggest a temporal continuum that allows for the sequences of events to
38 Í. Yanguas
be separated (Heckhausen 1991). This model represented then an attempt to capture

more specific aspects of the learning situation, in which the tasks involved have
special relevance, as well as to look at the ‘dynamic motivational processes that take
place during task completion’ (Dörnyei 2002, 139).
The premise behind the model is that three different types of motivational forces
are at play throughout the different stages: first, motivation has to be generated in
the preactional phase (choice motivation); second, the generated motivation has to
be actively maintained and protected in the actional phase, that is, as long as the
action lasts (executive motivation); and finally, in the postactional phase that follows
the completion of the action, retrospective evaluation of the action must be carried
out through motivational retrospection (Dörnyei 2005).
Research using this process model of L2 motivation does not abound; the elusive
nature of motivation and the difficulty of capturing this internal process as
conceptualized in this model seem to have prevented researchers from attempting
its investigation. MacIntyre and associates (MacIntyre, MacMaster, and Baker 2001)
tested for overlap between motivation concepts coming from different models, one of
which is the Action Control Theory proposed by Kuhl and associates on which
Dörnyei’s process model is based. MacIntyre, MacMaster, and Baker (2001) ran
factor analyses and concluded that the factor Action Motivation could be separated
as an independent factor, validating, in their view, the process model of motivation.
Chen, Warden, and Chang (2005) utilized the process model as theoretical
conceptualization to investigate the motivation of Taiwanese learners of English as
an L2 in Taiwan. Arguing that the motivations to learn an L2 such as English
probably vary depending on the cultural context, these authors used factor analy-
sis and structural equation modeling to explore relationships among different
variables they framed in the process model and self-evaluated skill in different
language areas. This study’s results showed that integrative orientation was not a
significant factor in this cultural context. In these authors’ views, success require-
ments may play an important role in understanding the motivators of this particular
population. These authors did not investigate motivation evolution, disregarding the
true dynamic nature of the process model. However, this study shows the validity of
the model to investigate the cultural context and non-dynamic aspects of motivation.
In a very recent study, Hiromori (2009) has assessed the relationship between
predecisional and postdecisional variables using a process model of motivation. This
study’s research design included self-report questionnaires for both predecisional and
postdecisional variables that were administered after participants had carried out the
task; in addition, only quantitative analyses were carried out. Results from this study
prove that the process model of motivation is a valid tool to investigate motivational
processes of L2 learners from a static standpoint (i.e. using questionnaires
administered once, right after the task).
The present study therefore represents the first attempt to analyze the dynamic
motivational processes that occur during task completion utilizing the process model
(Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó 1998). The focus, therefore, is on the actional stage
where, according to Dörnyei (2002), learners generate subtasks, and appraisal and
action control processes take place to cope with the immediate learning context, such
as quality of learning experience, external influences, or class structure. Figure 1
displays the actional phase of the process model (adapted from Dörnyei 2001).
According to this model, the actional phase begins when the individual is ready
to begin the learning action, when the process of choosing a course of action to be
Figure 1. The actional phase of the process mode (adapted from Dörnyei 2001).
carried out is over (preactional phase). As Figure 1 shows, three basic processes come
into action here: subtask generation and implementation; appraisal processes; and
action control mechanisms. First, the learner starts implementing the subtasks that
were planned (in the preactional phase) and during the course of action continuously
creates more. Then, during the course of action the individual constantly evaluates
the stimuli coming from the environment and the progress toward the task (appraisal
processes). Closely linked to these appraisal processes, action control mechanisms
‘enhance, scaffold or protect learning-specific action’ (Dörnyei 2001, 89). In other
words, motivation is maintained and protected so that the action can be carried out
(‘actional outcome’ in Figure 1).
The force with which the individual carries out the action during this phase is
affected by a set of executive motives. Dörnyei (2001) argues that the largest group of
these executive influences is related to the appraisal system. The rest of the
components, according to him, concern the action control processes, the impact of
external influences, and the factors inherent to the action itself. All these processes
and forces shape the actional outcome, which can be either achievement of the goal
or termination of the action. The optimal scenario is of course that the actor achieves
his or her goal (Dörnyei 2001).
The present study investigates the occurrence of the three processes shown in
Figure 1: subtask generation and implementation; appraisal processes; and action
control processes. A writing task was used to assess the frequency and type of action-
related processes. Two types of data gathering techniques were available in the
literature to capture these processes: concurrent and stimulated retrospective verbal
protocols. Given the nature of the processes under scrutiny and their constant
dependence on the immediate context of occurrence, concurrent verbal protocols
were deemed the most appropriate tool to be utilized. Furthermore, memory decay
40 Í. Yanguas
(Gass and Mackey 2000), one of the major criticisms that supporters of retrospective
verbal protocols have to face, was thus avoided.
Think-aloud protocols
Several scholars, both in mainstream academic motivation and L2 motivation
literature, have previously argued for the use of concurrent verbal protocols as a
possible means to gain insight into what is happening in learners’ minds as they
perform any academic task (Ames 1986; Crookes and Schmidt 1991; Julkunen 2001;
Pintrich and Schunk 2002). Learners are asked to verbalize their thoughts, which are
recorded, while carrying out a learning task. Stimulated recalls, by contrast, take
place a short time after the task: participants are exposed to the recording of their
task performance and prompted by the researcher to recall their thought processes at
specific points of their performance.
Which verbal protocol to use is not without controversy. Think-aloud proto-
cols have been widely utilized in several fields since the 1980s (for a summary, see
Bowles 2010). It was not until the early 1990s, however, that a very important
distinction was made concerning the use of verbal protocols to investigate cognitive
processes. Ericsson and Simon (1993) categorized verbalizations as either concurrent
or retrospective. The former would imply subjects verbalizing their thoughts while
carrying out the task, whereas the latter would make participants recall their
thoughts shortly after completing the task.
There are limitations to both methods. On the one hand, concurrent verbal
protocols have been argued to be reactive; that is, several researchers contend that
demanding subjects to think aloud while carrying out a certain task places an
additional burden on participants’ cognitive load so that final performance is most
certainly affected (Ellis 2001; Jourdenais 2001). On the other hand, retrospective
verbalizations are obviously ‘subject to confounds such as memory decay’ (Bowles
2005, 21). It is therefore possible to question the validity and accuracy of the
information gathered through the use of this technique. Additionally, one has to
acknowledge the fact that there are certain internal processes that cannot be verbalized.
Verbalizations have not been commonly used in L2 motivation literature, even if
the use of techniques that allow the researcher to gather introspective data has been
advocated in this strand of research (Crookes and Schmidt 1991). Furthermore,
Julkunen (2001), showing support for the research of motivation before, during, and
after the learning task, considered verbal reports as a possible technique to probe
motivational processes at work during task completion. In the academic motivation
literature, however, verbalizations have been used to collect data while young learners
worked at a task.
Diener and Dweck (1978) reported on two studies that investigated differences in
performance between helpless and mastery-oriented children. The two studies only
differed in the use of think-aloud protocols. The first study examined the nature of the
differences during failure between helpless and non-helpless children using stimulated
recall. The second study utilized non-metalinguistic verbalization protocols to
investigate significant cognitive!motivational differences during failure between
helpless and non-helpless children. Results of these investigations revealed that these
groups of children used different cognitive strategies during task performance.
Furthermore, authors argued that the occurrence and type of cognitive processes
that take place might be a critical individual difference between subjects. More
importantly, however, these results show that concurrent verbal protocols can be of use
when investigating cognitive!motivational processes as the learning task is performed.
Summing up, ‘there is no one, best type of self-report measurement, the choice of
the instrument must match the purpose for the assessment and the research problem’
(Pintrich and Schunk 1996, 19). Both concurrent and retrospective verbalization
techniques have been supported and criticized in the literature, both techniques have
their pros and cons; it is therefore the researcher who should make an informed
decision as to which one to use depending on the research problem, the research
design, and the tasks utilized in the study. It thus seems logical that for the purposes
of the present investigation concurrent verbalizations are used, since their utilization
matches both the purpose of the assessment and the research problem. Furthermore,
not only will this study be the first to tap into the process model’s actional phase
(Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó 1998) using concurrent verbalization techniques,
but it will also pioneer their use in the motivational strand of research. In this
manner, insights from the present investigation could be significant methodologically
and furthermore be of use for other types of motivational research.
Purpose of the present study

The present study investigates Spanish heritage language speakers’ task motivation
following an inclusive and innovative approach where task motivation is operatio-
nalized according to the process model (Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó 1998). In
particular, we are interested in (a) the internal motivational processes that the process
model proposes for the task’s actional phase (i.e. generation of subtasks, appraisal,
and action control processes) and (b) motivational evolution during the task. To tap
into these processes, concurrent verbal protocols were utilized and qualitatively
analyzed. In particular, answers for the following research questions were sought:
Research question 1 (RQ1). Is there any evidence of the executive motivational
processes that occur during the actional phase in the verbal protocols gathered?
Research question 2 (RQ2). Is there any evidence of motivation evolving
throughout the task in the verbal protocols gathered?
Method
Participants
The participants that took part in this study were enrolled in one section of ‘Review of
oral and written Spanish for native speakers educated in the United States’ (N "20) at
a major public research university located along the Baltimore!Washington, DC
high-tech corridor. As could be expected, these participants’ origins were mostly
Hispanic (see Appendix 1). The origins of these participants were diverse: seven
participants were from Central America; four from a Caribbean country; and the rest
were from different Spanish-speaking countries. There is one participant who
reported being from Romania. Most participants were born in the USA and only
two subjects had had any significant schooling abroad experience. As far as language
preference is concerned, no participant claimed to prefer Spanish to English; they
preferred English or chose both. More than 80% of participants claimed to speak
Spanish at home on a regular basis whereas only half reported using Spanish with
42 Í. Yanguas
friends regularly. To be included in the study sample, participants had to be enrolled in

these classes. Neither extra credit nor any other type of incentive was offered for
participating.
Procedure
Participants met once in the language lab at their regular class time in the third week
of November. Both the instructor of the class and the researcher were present at this
time; participants were familiar with the researcher, given that this study was part of
a larger longitudinal project that investigated general and specific motivation
throughout the semester. As such, the researcher had known learners in this class
from the beginning of the semester. This longitudinal project involved interviews at
the beginning and at the end of the semester to tap into participants’ motivations to
take Spanish in college and their attitudes toward Spanish and their community. In
addition, participants’ task motivation was investigated in relation to different tasks
and activities along the semester. The present study reports on the investigation of
dynamic aspects of task motivation during a writing activity.

On the day in question, participants were instructed on how to think aloud and
what the process of recording their thoughts was going to be. Previously, they had
agreed on the consent form to having their thoughts digitally recorded. This form
explicitly stated that they needed to speak aloud whatever came to their mind while
they were carrying out the task so that possible motivational fluctuations could
be assessed. Before starting the writing task, the researcher clearly explained the
procedure to participants. As suggested by Bowles (2010), these instructions
reiterated the reason why participants were being asked to think aloud and they
also included specific instructions about how they should think aloud as well as a
warm-up activity. Participants were thus reminded that these verbal protocols were
being recorded to analyze and assess task motivational processes during their
performance. The message was also conveyed in plain and simple language: the focus
of the investigation was on exploring how motivated they were to carry out the task
and how they felt about it.
Specific instructions on how to think aloud then followed. Participants were told
that they should verbalize their thoughts as they wrote their story; they should say
out loud anything they would say to themselves while they thought. Since this is the
main difference between linguistic and metalinguistic concurrent verbal protocols, it
was emphasized that they should not try to explain or justify their thoughts. The
decision about which of these types of verbalizations to use is based on their ability
to answer the research questions (Bowles 2010); in the present case, linguistic
protocols, as proven in the pilot study, provided enough detail to investigate the
process model motivational processes.
Finally, as a warm-up, the researcher played part of a think-aloud protocol so
that learners would be familiar with the type of verbalization required. The
researcher selected this sample from the think alouds that were carried out in the
pilot study because it was a very clear exemplification of the type of verbalization
that participants were being asked to carry out. Following the SLA tradition,
participants were allowed to think aloud in their L1, their L2, or a combination of
the two, as they desired.
When this procedure was clear to participants, they were provided with the
instructions on how to complete the writing task and the task itself (see Appendix 2).
The researcher went through the instructions with learners, making sure they were
clear. On the blank page they were given to write on, participants were reminded to
always think aloud. Additionally, the researcher reminded participants to think
aloud while circulating in the language lab. After 25 minutes, the researcher gathered
all the writing samples. This time was set after the pilot study, in which all
participants finished the task within this time frame.
Materials
Semi-guided writing task
In this writing task, participants were instructed to create their own story based on
three comic strips. Baldo comic strips (by Hector D. Cantu and Carlos Castellanos),
which feature Latino characters and themes, were used for this activity. On the strips
used in the present study, we can see Baldo and his father interacting in different
ways. Participants were asked to chronologically follow the strips and to tell the story
in the past tense. They were encouraged to describe participants and to include some
of the things they said. Emphasis was made on the use of connectors so that the story
flowed well. This free writing activity was used to practice and reinforce the patterns
they had previously developed in class for narrative writing (Appendix 2).
Analysis
Think-aloud protocols were transcribed using NVivo 8.0; this qualitative data
analysis software produced by QSR International allows researchers to easily
organize and analyze complex non-numerical data. All 20 protocols were transcribed
at word level using this software. As is common in the SLA literature that has
implemented concurrent verbalization procedures, a mixed-method approach was
utilized to code the transcriptions: instances of motivational processes were
quantified and excerpts of the think alouds themselves were used as examples
(Bowles 2010).
Since RQ1 looked for evidence in the verbal protocols of the motivational
processes proposed by the process model for the actional phase, the verbalizations
were analyzed according to this predetermined set of processes. As discussed above,
these processes include the generation and implementation of subtasks, the appraisal
of one’s achievement, and self-regulatory strategies. The type of evidence to account
for these processes, however, was left open so that the verbal protocols could be used
to uncover them. Following Rosa and O’Neill (1999), these categories or processes
were first operationalized so that two raters could independently analyze the
protocols. In this fashion, raters received the following working definitions of each
process, based on Dörnyei (2001):
(1) Generation and implementation of subtasks: evidence in the think alouds of

learners generating subtasks and subgoals during the course of the action (i.e.
the task) that help them toward task completion.
(2) Appraisal processes: evidence in the think alouds of learners evaluating the
stimuli coming from the environment and the progress they make in relation
to the task.
44 Í. Yanguas
(3) Self-regulatory strategies: evidence in the think alouds of learners putting

into practice mechanisms called into force in order to enhance, scaffold, or
protect task-related action.
After all the transcriptions of the verbal protocols had been independently analyzed
and coded for instances of the above processes by both raters, all cases were discussed
until 100% agreement was reached.
It is essential to bear in mind that the think-aloud protocols inevitably revealed
two types of motivational evidence: verbal and behavioral. The former was
instantiated through words whereas the latter could be inferred indirectly through
what participants said, how they acted, or the attitudes they showed. Behaviors are
critical, since motivation is considered to be an antecedent of behavior (Csizer
and Dörnyei 2005). This analysis goes in line with previous literature in which it is
argued that motivation can only be inferred from verbalizations and behaviors
(Pintrich and Schunk 2002). However, it is also critical to acknowledge that there
might be certain aspects of motivation that cannot be captured by concurrent verbal
protocols.
All cases in the protocols, both verbal and behavioral, were coded and discussed
if coders considered they were indicative of any of the processes operationalized
above: (1) generation and implementation of subtasks; (2) appraisal processes;
and (3) self-regulatory strategies. There were no preset coding units; coders agreed
to mark evidence, be it verbal or behavioral, for any of the above processes.
For example, in lines 1!8 from John’s think-aloud protocol, underlined text shows
what coders considered as behaviors whereas bolded text represents coded verbal
evidence:
[Unintelligible, reading the instructions]. . .OK, good, comenzamos, let’s go! [. . .] pues es
una historia sobre Baldo que le está hablando a su papá de que quiere tener un carro y
cuando camina Baldo ve un carro que dice for sale un rótulo. . .y luego. . .um. . .su carro
y. . .también. . .
(Ok this is a story about Baldo who is telling his dad about how he needs a car and when he
is walking down the street he sees a car for sale).
On the one hand, both reading the instructions and summarizing the story are
actions that were considered by coders to represent the implementation of subtasks
within the writing process. On the other hand, these words ‘OK, good, comen-
zamos, let’s go!’ were thought to represent verbal evidence of this participant’s
self-regulation.
The analysis carried out for RQ2, which explored motivational fluctuation in the
think alouds, did not involve any predetermined categories. Rather, coders explored
the data to discover meaningful motivational patterns, as suggested in the literature
for qualitative analyses (Dörnyei 2001). These patterns were then discussed between
the raters until total agreement was reached. It was then possible to analyze and
discuss these patterns in terms of the motivational processes in RQ1. In this manner,
light could be shed on the type of motivational process that can take place in a
certain motivational pattern.
Results
RQ1. Is there any evidence of the executive motivational processes that occur during the
actional phase in the verbal protocols gathered?
To find an answer to this research question, coders used the working definitions of
each motivational process that the process model proposes (see above) to code the
data. The protocols seemed to reveal behaviors or statements referring to the quality
of the learning experience, perceived progress/success, performance appraisal,
distracting influences, boredom, and self-regulatory strategies. According to the
process model, these are instances of action control and appraisal processes that
occur during the actional phase. Table 1 shows numbers of pieces of verbal evidence
and behaviors coded per participant (real names are not used).
As can be seen in Table 1, 14 participants’ protocols seemed to show some kind of
appraisal process having to do with the quality of the learning experience, statements
of perceived progress/success, or performance appraisal. In addition, raters
considered that 16 participants’ think alouds displayed tokens of action control
processes. These results would lead us to believe that the motivational functions and
processes that Dörnyei and Ottó proposed take place during the actional phase.
Most participants’ verbal protocols seemed to show some kind of appraisal process
having to do with the quality of the learning experience or with perceived progress/
success in relation to the task. In addition, the majority of participants’ think alouds
were considered to display tokens of action control processes, such as coping with
distracting influences, boredom, or instances of self-regulatory strategies. As
discussed above, this evidence in the protocols was either verbal or could be inferred
from their behavior.
Due to the lack of space not permitting detailed results for every participant to be
shown, John’s verbal protocol is used below to illustrate the motivational processes
being discussed. In order for the reader to be able to contextualize every instance, the
whole think aloud is provided in Appendix 3. Other participants’ protocols are used
if further evidence is needed.
As far as the generation and carrying out of subtasks are concerned, there is the
need to emphasize the difficulty of distinguishing action control processes as
operationalized here and processes related to the writing task itself (see for example
lines 18 and 22 in John’s think-aloud protocol. These were not coded as subtasks !
coders considered these as writing strategies integral to the process of writing).
A special effort was made by coders to isolate the former from the latter but we need
to acknowledge that it might not have always been possible to do so successfully.
These results, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution.
It seems that John began the task by creating two subtasks. First, after instructions
had been given, he chose to read the instructions again (line 1) and then decided to
give a summary of what his story was going to be about (line 5). The generation of
these two actions to start the writing task would mark the beginning of the actional
phase and would prepare John to carry out the activity. Besides momentarily pausing
to think (i.e. lines 11, 15, and 16), and reviewing the last sentence he wrote (i.e. lines 18
and 22), John continued to write until he was halfway through his story. It was then
when he decided to stop and review his whole writing (line 35). The implementation of
this subtask seemed to help this participant to maintain his focus and assess how the
story line was developing. John then continued to write with minimal stops until he
46
Table 1. Motivational functions during the actional phase.
Subtasks Ongoing appraisal Action control
Í. Yanguas
Motivational Subtask Quality Task Appraisal Self- Coping with Coping
pattern Participant generation/ learning progress/ of task regulatory distracting with
groupa (#) implement experience success perform strategy influence boredom
1 John (1) 4 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0
1 Natalia (2) 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0
2 Mario (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1
3 Tomás (4) 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 2 0
1 Andrés (5) 3 0 0 2 1 2 0 3 0 0
1 Chris (6) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
1 Rico (7) 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 3 0
2 Darı́o (8) 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 7 0
1 Micaél (9) 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 0
1 Mónica (10) 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 Ofelia (11) 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1
2 Anne (12) 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 4 3
3 Carlota (13) 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
3 Noelia (14) 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
2 James (15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 José (16) 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
1 Rosana (17) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Mireya (18) 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 Jairo (19) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
1 Lorena (20) 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
a
For motivational pattern group see Table 3.
finished in line 56 and proceeded to reread his story and review his writing for the final
time. This subtask could be considered the last phase of the writing process and the
last subtask in the actional phase for John; he read the writing he produced and made
final changes and corrections.
The postactional phase was deemed to begin in line 61 when John evaluated both
his writing and the activity itself. This phase is not the focus of the present
investigation but, as has been discussed above, this stage begins when the goal has
been achieved or the action has been terminated. The former would be the case for
John who assessed here the difficulty of the task and his success.
The evidence for the generation and implementation of subtasks in John’s
actional phase was thought to be mainly behavioral. In other words, raters found no
explicit verbal report that this participant was going to generate or implement a
subtask. Rather, John’s think aloud contains verbal data that would indicate the
implementation of subtasks such as the ones discussed above. This participant did
not announce that he was going to start with a summary of his story as part of the
writing process, he just did. Lines 5!7 illustrate this point:
alright, so. . . um. . .pues es una historia sobre Baldo que le está hablando a su papá de
que quiere tener un carro y cuando camina Baldo ve un carro que dice for sale un
rótulo. . .y luego. . .um. . .su carro y. . .también. . .
(Ok this is a story about Baldo who is telling his dad about how he needs a car and when he
is walking down the street he sees a car for sale).
This is not always the case; some participants did announce what they were going to
do as part of the writing process, therefore creating a subtask. For example, Tomás
said after he finished with the first comic strip:
. . .yyy vi un nuevo dent, un nuevo dent al fffffrente. . .[laughter can be heard but he
continues to write and think aloud] por laaa izzz. . .quier. . .da [he laughs with classmates
but he doesn’t seem to lose focus]
OK lo voy a leer [he reads what he has so far for the first comic strip] terminé el
primero. . .wassup pop le dijo Baldo a su papá. . .
(. . .and I saw a new dent on the front on the left hand side. OK I’m going to read it, I
finished the first comic strip.)
Tomás stated that he was going to read what he had so far for the first comic strip
and then he read it. He therefore explicitly created a subtask within the whole writing
process that seemed to help him manage the task.
As far as ongoing appraisal is concerned, John’s verbal protocol provides good
examples of the types of verbalizations that have been coded and analyzed for this
category. In this case, all cases were verbal instances (and not behaviors); participants
seemed to assess and evaluate the task, their progress, and the learning experience in
relation to the task. As could be expected, this evaluation could only take place
through explicit verbal statements. In lines 21!22 in John’s verbal protocol, we find a
very good example of what raters considered to be signs of this participant evaluating
the writing experience: ‘this gonna take long!’ As we can see in Appendix 3, this
exclamation took place very shortly after John began to actually write, when he
realized that it was going to be a long process. We could find another type of appraisal
48 Í. Yanguas
in lines 42!43: ‘there, there you go.’ This instance would not have to do with the task
in general but with this participant’s success in finding the right word to express what
he wanted to say at that precise moment. As such, this type of assessment would have
to do with task progress. Finally, in line 42 we find two different types of appraisal: on
the one hand, one that seems to be related to the process, ‘me gusta’ (I like how this is
going); this expression seems to indicate that this participant was happy about how his
story was progressing. On the other hand, the expression ‘creo que voy bien’ (I think
I’m doing good) could be related to his perceived success in performing the task.
As can be seen in Table 1, there seem to be no instances of appraisal of task
performance in John’s think-aloud protocol. However, we can turn to Darı́o’s verbal
protocol to illustrate this type of process. Darı́o was very much distracted by his
classmate from the very beginning. In addition, raters considered that he was not
very focused on the task. However, we could find an example (underlined text) of
appraisal of task performance when he is writing about the second comic strip:
[singing] pasame la botella [laughing]. . .lo regaña porque blado le sigue, le sigue
jodiendo [talking to classmate] digamos, vamos a poner, ey ¿cómo se dice, fastidiar, no

se puede decir. . .iba a decir, fastidiar, verdad? Sı́, sı́, de las cosas que quiere. . .[he goes
back to writing]. . .my story’s good!
([singing] pass me the bottle [laughing]. . .he is mad at him because he keeps on bugging
him [talking to classmate] say, let’s say, hey how do you say bug someone, you can’t say. . .I
was going to say. . ., bug, right? Yes, yes, about the things he wants [he goes back to
writing]. . .my story’s good!)
Action control processes are those mechanisms ‘that are called into force in order to
enhance, scaffold, or protect learning-specific action’ (Dörnyei 2001, 89). As
proposed by the process model, these types of processes come into action during
the actional phase and not only mainly serve to protect the action from influences
that might negatively influence it, but also to simply maintain an appropriate
motivation level. Line 1 in John’s verbal protocol was interpreted by coders as an
instance of this participant trying to protect whatever motivation he had created in
the preactional phase; he seemed to pump himself up to begin the task: ‘OK, good,
comenzamos (let’s start), let’s go!’ In line 11, we could find evidence for a different
type of self-regulation process, one that seems to allow John to deal with a
distracting influence (‘man, it’s noisy here!’) and go right back to the task, as we see
in the following lines.
Table 2 displays a summary of the types of motivational processes coded in the
transcription of John’s think-aloud protocol.
As Table 1 shows, some participants were considered to deal with boredom
during the actional phase of the task. It was not so in the case of John, but Mario
clearly stated that he thought that the task was boring:
A ver, let’s see [to classmate] man, this is so boring! [He goes back to writing]
Después. . .después de que venga, después de. . .,después de. . .de hablar con él
comenzaron a. . .ca minar y Baldo ve un carro que. . .[to classmate] how do you say
for sale?
(Let’s see [to classmate] man, this is so boring! After. . .after he comes, after talking to
him, they began to walk and Baldo sees a car that. . .[to classmate] how do you say for
sale?)
Table 2. Summary of processes in John’s verbal protocol.
Process Example
Generation/carrying out Line 1: reading instructions
subtasks Lines 5!14: summarizing his story
Lines 35!36: reviewing his writing
Lines 59!60: reading his story and reviewing his writing
Ongoing appraisal (of one’s Line 18: ‘lo que va a costar aquı́ es poner los. . .the accent
achievement) marks’ (quality of learning experience)
Lines 21!22: ‘This gonna take long!’ (quality of learning
experience)
Line 42: ‘me gusta. . .creo que voy bien’ (task progress/success)
Lines 44!45: ‘There, there you go. . .’ (task progress/success)
Lines 53!54: ‘what? no!’ (task progress/success)
Action control Line 1: ‘. . .let’s go’ (self-regulatory strategy)
(self-regulation) Line 11: ‘It’s noisy here’ (distracting influence)
Line 15: ‘. . .Bueno comencemos a escribir’ (OK, let’s start
writing) (self-regulatory strategy)
Line 28: ‘. . .OK, a ver cómo va.’ (OK, let’s see how this is going)
(self-regulatory strategy)
The underlined statement would indicate that this participant coped with boredom
during the task. He seemed to be successful at dealing with this influence because he
managed to keep on writing after he stated that the task was boring. Furthermore, he
showed proof that he was thinking ahead in his story by asking his classmate for
some word he needed.
In summary, the above results might show evidence of some executive
motivational functions in the form of strategies to manage cognitive processes,
appraisals of performance, and generation of subtasks. Furthermore, they could
provide examples of the abundant number of factors that learners have to cope with
when performing a writing task of this sort. The process model seems capable of
explaining some of these processes: on the one hand, action control processes that
allow participants to deal with the immediate learning context; on the other,
appraisal processes that have to do with participants’ perceived quality and value of
the task as well as their perceived progress. As discussed above, however, some
motivational processes might not be captured through concurrent verbalizations.
RQ2. Is there any evidence of motivation evolving throughout the task in the verbal
protocols gathered?
RQ1 provided what we considered examples of how participants could actively
maintain and protect during the actional phase whatever motivation they had
generated in the preactional stage. In order to find an answer to RQ2 and assess
whether their motivation might have evolved during the task, motivational patterns
were distinguished for each verbal protocol.
The in-depth analysis of the think-aloud procedures produced by participants
seemed to reveal two types of motivational patterns. On the one hand, there were
those participants whose motivational level raters considered not to change during
the task: high and low levels could be distinguished here. On the other hand, there
were those think-aloud protocols that could be said to show some indication of
50 Í. Yanguas
Table 3. Motivational functions per motivational pattern group.
Motivational patterna
Motivational
change
Same motivational level (N"15) (N "5)
HIGH Increasing
(N"10) LOW (N "5) (N "5)
Subtask generation 30 3 11
# ! # ! # !
Quality learning 9 3 0 4 5 3
experience
Task progress/success 10 3 0 3 7 4
Appraisal of task 6 2 4 1 3 2
performance
Self-regulatory 17 2 4
strategy
Distracting influence 8 18 3
Boredom 0 5 2
a
1 " high; 2 " low; 3 " increasing.
motivational change. Table 3 displays the number and type of motivational functions
per pattern group; most participants were reckoned to remain constant in their
motivational level, only five were considered to vary their motivation during the task.
Participants in this group (HIGH) seemed to start the actional phase very much
focused on the task. From the very beginning they would show signs of being
engaged in the process of writing. John’s think-aloud protocol would be a good
example of this type of pattern where no sign of change could be found. This
participant’s think aloud shows how his involvement in the task might not have
decreased at any point during the actional stage, even when he had to cope with
external distracting influences, such as noise (line 11). Coders could not find any
explicit indication that there was a variation in his willingness to sustain his effort to
complete the task. Contrastingly, raters coded strategies that were considered to be
meant to maintain that effort by refocusing after a distraction (line 12) and
appraising positively his performance (line 42).
As shown in Table 3, participants in this group seemed to create and implement
more tasks than both of the other two groups. In addition, they tended to evaluate
the task and their progress in positive terms. Finally, they were considered to use
more self-regulatory strategies than either of the other two groups. A possible
interpretation for these results is that these highly motivated participants used
subtask generation and self-regulatory strategies as a way to maintain their focus to
successfully carry out the task.
At the other end of the spectrum, the LOW group seemed not to be ready to cross
the threshold between the instructions to carry out the task, where motivation should
have been initiated, and the actual beginning of the writing task, where motivation
has to be maintained and protected. In other words, it appears as if they did not
create the motivational impulse necessary to initiate the task at hand. These
participants carried out the task, but at no time was there an indication of them
being more motivated than at the beginning of the task; in other words, they would
display the same low motivational levels all through the task. Anne, for example,
started the task in the following manner:
[Laughing out loud] [She talks to classmate]. . .you are a douche, you were? I think I’ve
seen these comics before. . .¿pasado? (Past?) ohhh a story about what’s going on? Still it’s
complicated [humming] I don’t know what’s going on through my mind. . .lots of things
going on through my mind. . .definitely not Spanish though [Laughing with classmate]
According to the process model, the immediate antecedent of action is intention.

Anne did not seem to have created this intention; she did not look ready to enter the
actional phase. This participant struggled all along the task; she often talked to her
classmate, not showing signs of being more focused or motivated than when she
began the task. She finished the writing assignment in the following fashion:
[She goes back to writing] que estaba incorrecto, el fue [Laughing with classmate] a la
librerı́a OK I can’t spell! Li bre rı́a y agarró un libro para. . .how to be a teacher, para un
libro que enseña. . .que en se ña como hacer un profesor, le enseñó a su pa. . .pá, le en se
ñó a su papá y. . .um el li bro y su buena in ten ción es su pa. . .pá se alegró, a le gró, a le
gró, su hijo tratando, tra tan do de mejorar, me jo rar, pero Baldo dijo que to da vı́a no
que rı́a un tra ba jo y su pa. . .pá se [to classmate] how do you spell disillusioned? de si
oo. . .llu. . .a do OK this is so wrong! I know the word!, su papá. . .se disuuu. . .ado ok
that’s wrong but whatever! se disu. . .no. . .pen san do que su hijo. . .que su hijo [laughing
with classmate] nunca va a aprender como ser responsable. . .res pon sable, ok the end or
fin, yeiiiiiiiiiiii, i am officially done! [to classmate] can we pause this? Yeiiii
([She goes back to writing] that he was wrong [Laughing with classmate] to the bookstore
OK I can’t spell! And he picked a book. . .how to be a teacher, and he showed his dad a book
to be a teacher and his dad was happy that Baldo wanted to improve, but Baldo said that he
still wanted a job [to classmate] how do you spell disillusioned? de si oo. . .llu. . .a do OK
this is so wrong! I know the word!, his dad. . .ok that’s wrong but whatever! was
disillusioned that his son [laughing with classmate] was never going to learn how to be
responsible, ok the end or fin, yeiiiiiiiiiiii, i am officially done! [to classmate] can we pause
this? Yeiiii
Table 3 reveals that participants such as Anna that seemed to begin the actional
phase with a low level of motivation and did not seem to increase this level or to be
more focused did not seem to create many subtasks and got very distracted during
the task. These are signs that might indicate that these subjects were not involved in
the task. Furthermore, they evaluated the task and their progress in rather negative
terms.
Finally, the analysis of the verbal protocols distinguished a third type of
motivational pattern: those participants that seemed to actually increase their
motivational levels during the task. Tomás’s think-aloud protocols would be a good
example of increasing motivational patterns. He started the activity seemingly out of
focus, distracted, and talking to one of his peers, but he seemed to use subtask
generation (underlined text) and self-regulatory strategies (bolded text) as strategies
to focus. Due to space limitations, a summary of the relevant parts of Tomás’ think-
aloud is used to illustrate this point: [Reading instructions carefully, gets distracted,
talks to classmate, laughing, goes back to instructions] ‘a ver, Baldo y su papá. . .’
(Let’s see, Baldo and his dad) [Laughing, talking to classmate, goes back to
instructions]. ‘. . .OK, a ver vamos a empezar con la primera tira, Baldo y su papá. . .’
52 Í. Yanguas
(OK, let’s see, let’s start with the first comic strip, Baldo and his dad. . .) ‘. . .pucha, no sé
qué decir. . .’ (Darn! I don’t know what to say) ‘. . .a ver (let’s see). . .’ [Writes a few
sentences about the first comic strip] ‘. . .OK terminé la primera tira’ (OK I finished the
first comic strip) ‘a ver, voy a releerlo’ (let’s see, I’m going to read it again) [reading it
all].
As he became more involved in the task, he showed deep involvement in it with
signs of really wanting to do the task well. For example, see the following quote:
[writing] Baldo le pre. . .gun. . .taaa por fa. . .vor com. . .pre. . .me lo pa. . .pá. . .dijo
es. . .tás lo. . .co hi. . .jo es. . .tás loco, es. . .tás loco, hijo estás loco, no puedo, no
ten. . .gooo. . .no tengo dinero pa. . .ra. . .ese ca. . .rroo. . .sa. . .sa u. . .no más, más, más,
más barato. . .mi. . .en. . .tras di. . .ce eso mientras dice esooo. . .[he makes some correc-
tion to his writing]. . .or should I say. . .? I think this turn in the story would be better. . .’
([writing] Baldo asks his dad, please buy me the car, his dad said you are crazy son, I don’t
have the money for that car, a cheaper one, while he said that. . .[he makes corrections])
This quote would show what Tomás’s involvement in the task was at this point; he
really questioned what turn his story should take, which seems to signal an in-depth
involvement in the writing process. From then on, he wrote the whole time with no
distractions until he finished. According to the coders, Tomás’s verbal protocols
would show how he forced himself to focus by means of self-regulatory strategies and
generation of subtasks that helped him to focus. In addition, the assessment of his
progress can be interpreted as learners internally monitoring their progress and going
through processing mechanisms that could potentially shape their motivation toward
the task, as the process model proposes. As shown in Table 3, participants such as
Tomás who actually seemed to increase their motivation toward the task created
more subtasks and got distracted significantly less than the LOW group. In addition,
they used double the self-regulatory strategies. Finally, they tended to value
positively the task and the task progress.
To sum up, results from this research question show different motivational
patterns, which in turn reveal distinct sets of motivational processes. These are very
interesting results that should be further investigated. We have to be aware,
nonetheless, that there might be several other factors in this socially situated context
that could have a bearing on students’ involvement and motivation toward the task,
which probably lie outside of what can be captured through concurrent verbal
protocols.
Discussion
The present study investigates task motivation using the process model conceptua-
lization (Dörnyei 2000; Dörnyei and Ottó 1998). Specifically, it focuses on the
actional phase that this model proposed, when the motivation that has been
generated in the preactional phase has to be maintained and protected. Answers to
two specific questions were sought: on the one hand, this study looked into the
phase-specific motivational functions posed by the model; on the other, evidence for
motivational evolution along the task was investigated. Concurrent verbal protocols
were utilized to seek an answer to these questions.
Before beginning to discuss the results of this study, there are several issues
surrounding the use of concurrent verbal procedures that have to be considered. As
mentioned above, the type of verbalization used and the type of task both seem to
have a bearing on participants carrying out the task. Since the type that has been
used in this study involves just the verbalization of encodings (Ericsson and Simon
1993), which has been shown to be mainly non-reactive, there appears to be no
reactivity issue involved. As far as the type of task is involved, there is a need for
more research in the area of L2 writing and the use of concurrent verbal protocols
(Bowles 2010). Therefore, this study’s results might be of use in this strand of
research and shed light on some of the processes involved.
Another issue, however, is far more important for our present purposes and for
the motivational strand of research: what aspects of motivation can be captured by
concurrent think-aloud protocols? This is a critical question that researchers have
not yet set out to investigate. As aforementioned, there are several researchers (e.g.
Crookes and Schmidt 1991; Pintrich and Schunk 2002) that have argued for the use
of think-alouds as a means to capture motivational processes, although only one
study (Diener and Dweck 1978) has actually used them to investigate motivation-
related aspects of learning. These authors successfully used concurrent verbalizations
to investigate children’s motivational processes during failure using card game

activities. This is only one study and, therefore, few researchers would disagree that
more investigations are needed to provide insight on the use of this technique to
capture aspects of motivation so far unexplored.
The present study is a step ahead in this direction but the limitations of this
introspective method have to be acknowledged because there are aspects of
motivation that cannot be verbalized or behaviors and/or verbalizations that are
misleading as far as motivation is concerned. Lacking stimulated recall protocols
with which to triangulate data, we analyzed the information gathered in the think
alouds; this information was inevitably encoded in words and behaviors. On the one
hand, words, that is, verbalizations, were taken to be accurate depictions of
participants’ motivational state. On the other, behaviors were interpreted to uncover
certain motivational states, since we consider motivation to be an antecedent of
behavior (Csizer and Dörnyei 2005).
Keeping in mind all these issues, think alouds were used here as a tool to test the
process model in its actional phase. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) put it clearly; the
measuring tool has to match the goal of the investigation. Acknowledging their
limitations, concurrent verbal protocols do match our goal because they provide a
direct probe (though not perfect) into students’ minds during the task actional phase.
The data gathered through the think-aloud protocols revealed that participants
made use of processes that evaluated and controlled their actions to get through the
activity during its development as well as to deal with contextual factors surrounding
the task. These results not only support the claims made by the process model, but
also the views of motivation held by other influential researchers in both the
academic motivation and L2 fields. In this fashion, Ames (1986) discussed how
motivation should be investigated in terms of task engagement and not successful
achievement. This author envisioned motivation as motivated cognitions, a qualita-
tive construct along the lines set by Corno and Mandinach (1983) that focused on
learners’ involvement in the task. Along the same lines, Pintrich and Schunk (2002)
claimed that motivation is the process through which goal-directed activity is
instigated and sustained. In their terms, motivation cannot be observed directly but
has to be inferred from behaviors and verbalizations. In the L2 field, Dörnyei and
54 Í. Yanguas
colleagues theoretically developed these concepts and the present study is the
pragmatic culmination of these endeavors.
As discussed above, think-aloud protocols let us look at participants’ evolution
along the task in terms of concentration and effort, which might be the result of
motivation (Dörnyei 1998). Thus, the analyses of the concurrent verbal protocols
allowed us to discover patterns of behavior that might be indicative of certain levels
of motivation at different stages along the task. In this manner, two different
motivational patterns were found in the verbal protocols analyzed: one with no signs
of fluctuation and the other with behaviors or statements that could be interpreted as
signaling motivational change. Within the former, high and low patterns were
distinguished whereas only an increasing pattern was found in the latter.
Very interestingly, each one of these three groups was clearly differentiated
from each other in terms of the processes analyzed for RQ1. It appears that the
group of participants that stayed motivated throughout the task created and
implemented a higher number of subtasks, got distracted less, and appraised the
task and their progress in positive terms. It seems that this set of participants
were successful in nurturing and protecting their motivation during the actional
phase. These results contrast with what was found for the LOW group, which
appeared to get easily distracted and did not create as many subtasks. They also
negatively assessed the task. The protocols reveal that this group never became
more motivated and did not manage to produce enough motivation as their
writing developed. Finally, the increasing motivation group seemed to become
more involved in the task by implementing more subtasks and getting less
distracted. The analyses of the verbal protocols led us to believe that the group
that increased their motivation toward the task generated their motivation at
some point during the actional phase.
It appears that both the low and the increasing motivation groups did not
properly create the necessary motivation to start the task in the preactional phase.
Dörnyei (2005) has claimed that executive motivation, the dimension responsible
for the maintenance and protection of the motivation created in the previous
phase, is especially important in classroom settings where learners are exposed to a
great deal of external influences such as off-task thoughts, external interruptions,
or physical conditions. Our results seem to corroborate these claims. No other
study has attempted to qualitatively analyze motivational fluctuation along the
task using think alouds and this theoretical framework but, according to these
results, it appears that if learners are able to set their goals and form their
intentions in the preactional phase, they tend to be able to maintain them over the
relatively short period of time the task lasts. If learners, nonetheless, are not ready
to launch the action at the onset of the actional stage, it seems that their
motivation will depend on their ability to use action control and appraisal
processes.
Summing up, this study provides the field with new insights into some of the
motivational processes that occur during task completion. Under the process model
perspective, we have shown for the first time how learners control and appraise
their actions so that they can successfully carry out this writing task. In addition,
this work is also the first investigation to assess motivational evolution along the
task under these premises; we have shown how participants’ motivation evolves
during the task and how they deal with contextual influences. Concurrent verbal
protocols have been key in uncovering these processes because they have allowed us
to directly probe into participants’ task involvement. However, there are intrinsic
limitations to think alouds due to the fact that certain motivational aspects cannot
be verbalized.
Conclusion and future directions

As a conclusion, several points should be emphasized in relation to this paper’s
research design and results. First, this study’s qualitative process-oriented approach
to investigating task motivation complements the quantitative tradition in this strand
of research (Ushioda 2001) and goes in accordance with some of the latest
developments in L2 motivation, which argue that it is more revealing to interpret
relevant features of the learners’ immediate context than any objective measure
(Ushioda 2009). We have thus utilized the process model to analyze and interpret, as
argued in the literature (Pintrich and Schunk 2002), the verbalizations of participants
interacting with a writing task, which has proven very fruitful to uncover how
motivation is shaped by several internal and external forces in an interactive and
ongoing manner (Dörnyei 2002).

Second, concurrent verbal protocols have proven to be a very effective tool to
gather evidence of cognitive engagement and effort on the part of the learner that in
turn might be an indication of their motivation toward the task (Crookes and
Schmidt 1991). These protocols have not been commonly used in the L2
motivational strand, even though several scholars have argued for their validity,
given the depth and quality of analysis they provide (Ames 1986; Crookes and
Schmidt 1991; Julkunen 2001; Pintrich and Schunk 2002). In the present case, these
concurrent data could not have been collected through any other data gathering
technique.
Third, we believe it is critical to emphasize the investigation of task involvement
because it is a prerequisite for any language processing to take place (Crookes and
Schmidt 1991; Dörnyei and Kormos 2000), be it an L2 or a heritage language.
Hence, motivation in relation to the task should be investigated, since it might have
effects on language processing. Following a situated, dynamic, and qualitative
approach focused on the individual in context (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2009) would
certainly provide a richer insight on the motivational factors involved in the
process.
The qualitative design used here, however, could be improved by adding
stimulated recall protocols a short time after the task has ended. In this manner,
these data could be contrasted with the coders’ analyses of the think alouds so that
a more accurate picture of the processes involved could be achieved and access to
aspects of motivation that cannot be concurrently verbalized could be gained.
Furthermore, due to this analysis’ emphasis on the interaction between the learner
and the task, different types of tasks should be investigated in different learning
contexts with learners of diverse proficiency so that the present results can be
corroborated.
Notes on contributor
Íñigo Yanguas is an assistant professor and director of the Undergraduate Spanish Language
Program. His research interests include computer assisted language learning (CALL) and
instruction, heritage language acquisition, and second language acquisition. Currently, he is
56 Í. Yanguas
investigating computer mediated interaction and motivational variables in SLA. In addition,

he is experimenting with blogs, YouTube, and wikis as means to foster student involvement
and L2 production.
References
Ames, C. 1986. Effective motivation: The contribution of the learning environment. In The
social psychology of education: Current research and theory, ed. R. Feldman, 235!56.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: Goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology 84, no. 3: 261!71.
Ames, C., and J. Archer. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, no. 3: 260!7.
Boekaert, M. 1991. Subjective competence, appraisals and self-assessment. Learning and
Instruction 1, no. 1: 1!17.
Bong, M. 1996. Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages
of their solution. Contemporary Education Psychology 21, no. 2: 149!65.
Bowles, M. 2005. Effect of verbalization condition and type of feedback on L2 development in
a call task. PhD diss., Georgetown University.
Bowles, M. 2010. The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Abingdon:

Routledge.
Chen, J., C. Warden, and H. Chang. 2005. Motivators that do not motivate: The case of
Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly 39,
no. 4: 609!33.
Corno, L., and E. Mandinach. 1983. The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning
and motivation. Educational Psychologist 18, no. 2: 88!108.
Crookes, G., and R.W. Schmidt. 1991. Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning 41, no. 4: 469!512.
Csizer, K., and Z. Dörnyei. 2005. The internal structure of language learning motivation and
its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal
89, no. 1: 19!36.
Diener, C., and C. Dweck. 1978. An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in
performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Personality and Social
Psychology 36, no. 5: 451!62.
Dweck, C.S. 1986. Motivational process affecting learning. American Psychologist 41, no. 10:
1040!8.
Dweck, C.S. 1989. Motivation. In Foundations for a psychology of education, ed. A. Lesgold
and R. Glaser, 87!136. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching 31,
no. 3: 117!35.
Dörnyei, Z. 2000. Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of
student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, no. 4: 519!38.
Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z. 2002. The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Individual differences
in second language acquisition, ed. P. Robinson, 137!58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. 2009. The L2 motivational self system. In Motivation, language identity and the L2
self, ed. Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda, 9!42. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., and J. Kormos. 2000. The role of individual and social variables in oral task
performance. Language Teaching Research 4, no. 3: 275!300.
Dörnyei, Z., and I. Ottó. 1998. Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation.
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4: 43!69.
Dörnyei, Z., and E. Ushioda, eds. 2009. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. 2001. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51, Suppl. 1: 1!46.
Ericsson, K.A., and H.A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Rev. ed.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Gardner, R.C. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C. 2001. Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Motivation
and second language acquisition, ed. Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt, 1!21. Manoa, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
Gass, S., and A. Mackey. 2000. Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graham, S., and B. Weiner. 1996. Theories and principles of motivation. In Handbook of
educational psychology, ed. D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee, 63!84. New York: Simon and
Schuster Macmillan.
Heckhausen, H. 1991. Motivation and action. Trans. P.K. Leppmann. Berlin/New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Hiromori, T. 2009. A process model of L2 learners’ motivation: From the perspectives of
general tendency and individual differences. System 37, no. 2: 313!21.
Jourdenais, R., ed., 2001. Cognition, instruction, and protocol analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Julkunen, K. 2001. Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. In
Motivation and second language acquisition, ed. Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt, 28!41.
Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Kormos, J., and Z. Dörnyei. 2004. The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in
second language task performance. Zeitschrift fur Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht
9, no. 2: 1!15. http://www.ualberta.ca/!german/ejournal/kormos2.htm (accessed April 15,
2007).
Kuhl, J. 1984. Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward
a comprehensive theory of action control. In Progress in experimental personality research,
Vol. 12, ed. B.A. Maher, 99!170. New York: Academic Press.
MacIntyre, P.D., K. MacMaster, and S.C. Baker. 2001. The convergence of multiple models of
motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, Kuhl, and McCroskey. In
Motivation and second language acquisition, ed. Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt, 461!92.
Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.
Manolopoulou-Sergi, E. 2004. Motivation within the information processing model of foreign
language learning. System 32, no. 3: 427!42.
Pintrich, P.R., and B. Schrauben. 1992. Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive
engagement in classroom academic tasks. In Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes
and consequences, ed. D.H. Schunk and J.L. Meece, 149!83. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P.R., and D.H. Schunk. 1996. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Pintrich, P.R., and D.H. Schunk. 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Rosa, E., and M.D. O’Neill. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 21, no. 4: 511!56.
Tremblay, P.F., M.P. Goldberg, and R.C. Gardner. 1995. Trait and state motivation and
the acquisition of Hebrew vocabulary. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 27, no. 3:
356!70.
Ushioda, E. 1996. Developing a dynamic concept of L2 motivation. In Language, education
and society in a changing world, ed. T. Hickey and J. Williams, 23!5. Dublin/Clevedon:
IRAAL/Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. 1998. Effective motivational thinking: A cognitive theoretical approach to the
study of language learning motivation. In Current issues in English language methodology,
ed. E. Alcon and V. Codina, 77!89. Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume.
Ushioda, E. 2001. Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational
thinking. In Motivation and second language, ed. Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt, 93!127.
Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
58 Í. Yanguas
Ushioda, E. 2007. Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In Learner autonomy 8:

Teacher and learner perspectives, ed. P. Benson, 5!24. Dublin: Authentik.
Ushioda, E. 2009. A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and
identity. In Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, ed. Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda,
215!29. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E., and Z. Dörnyei. 2009. Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: A
theoretical overview. In Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, ed. Z. Dörnyei and
E. Ushioda, 1!9. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Weiner, B. 1985. An attributional theory of academic motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review 92, no. 4: 548!73.
Appendix 1. Participants
Born/schooling Language Spanish at Spanish with
Family from abroad preference home friends
1 El Salvador USA/no Both Very often Often
2 Dominican DR/5 years English Often Never

Republic
3 Peru/Argentina Venezuela/8 years Both Very often Often
4 El Salvador El Salvador/no English Very rarely Very rarely
5 El Salvador/ USA/no English Always Very often
Ethiopia
6 Uruguay Israel/no English Often Very rarely
7 Guatemala/Peru USA/no Both Very often Very often
8 El Salvador El Salvador/yes Both Very often Very often
9 Honduras/USA USA/no Both Often Very rarely
10 Puerto Rico/USA USA/no English Rarely Always
11 Colombia Colombia/no English Rarely Never
12 Bolivia/El USA/no English Often Often
Salvador
13 Chile/Jamaica USA/no Both Very often Often
14 Romania Romania/11 years Both Often Often
15 Ecuador USA/no Both Very often Rarely
16 Colombia/Peru USA/no English Often Rarely
17 Dominican DR/no English/both Often Never
Republic
18 Costa Rica/ USA/no Both Always Often
Nicaragua
19 Puerto Rico USA/no English Very rarely Never
20 El Salvador USA/no English Rarely Never
Appendix 2. Semi-guided writing activity

INSTRUCCIONES: Escribe una historia en el pasado basándote en las tiras cómicas que
puedes ver abajo. Narra lo que crees que pasó, describe a los personajes, e incluye diálogo entre
Baldo y su padre. Por ejemplo, cuenta qué estaban haciendo, cuándo lo estaban haciendo, la
ropa que llevaban, lo que hablaban. Sigue el orden de las tiras e incluye diálogo, pero no
escribas en las tiras. Usa conectores y todos los elementos que creas necesarios para que la
historia fluya bien. Tu historia debe ser aproximadamente una página de larga, INTENTA SER
CREATIVO, GRACIAS!!!!!!!
BALDO # 2006 Baldo Partnership. Used by permission of Universal Uclick. All rights
reserved.
60 Í. Yanguas
Appendix 3. John’s think-aloud protocol

Line 1 [Unintelligible, reading the instructions]. . .OK, good, comenzamos, let’s go!
alright, so we got Baldo y su padre, um, what to do here? Like they’re
arguing, then he’s looking for a car, pulls out a book about being a teacher,
let me see, ¿dónde empezamos?. . .en español. . .[Pause] [He appears to be
Line 5 thinking] alright, so. . .um. . .pues es una historia sobre Baldo que le está
hablando a su papá de que quiere tener un carro y cuando camina Baldo ve
un carro que dice for sale un rótulo. . .y luego. . .um. . .su carro
y. . .también. . .[Pause] [He appears to be thinking]
OK, good, let’s start, let’s go, alright, so we got Baldo and his dad, what to
do here? Like they’re arguing, then he’s looking for a car, pulls out a book
about being a teacher, let me see, where should we start? In Spanish, ok
this is a story about Baldo who is telling his dad about how he needs a car
and when he is walking down the street he sees a car for sale.
Line 9 . . .Al papá le gusta el carro también pero. . .no lo quiere comprar para
Baldo porque está muy joven. . .muy joven para estar manejando un
carro. . .[Pause] [He appears to be thinking] man, it’s kind of noisy here!
[goes back to task]. . .después digamos que. . .um. . .um. . .en la casa. . .Baldo
se pone a leer y dice que va a ser un profesor para pagar su carro, está
Line 14 convenciendo a su papá.
His dad likes the car too but he doesn’t want to buy it for Baldo because he
is very young to drive. It’s kind of noisy here. Then let’s say that when they
are at home, Baldo starts reading and says that he is going to be a teacher
to pay for his car, he is trying to convince his dad.
Line 15 . . .bueno comencemos a escribir, see where we start, ummm. . .[Pause] [He
appears to be thinking]. . .[He starts writing] hey pa. . .pá me puee. . .de
com. . .prar un ca. . .rro pa. . .ra mi cum. . .ple. . .a. . .ños, [He stops
writing]. . .lo que va a costar aquı́ es poner los. . .the accent marks, [He
reviews last sentence]. . .pa. . .pá me. . .pue. . .de com. . .prar un ca. . .rro
Line 20 pa. . .ra mi cum. . .ple. . .a. . .ños.
OK, let’s start, see where we start, Hey dad can you buy me a car for my
birthday? The hardest part is going to be the accent marks. (Syllable by
syllable) Dad can you buy me a car for my birthday?
Line 21 [He starts writing]. . .di. . .ce Bal. . .do, [He stops writing]. . .This gonna take
long! [Pause] [He reviews last sentence]. . .eh pa. . .pá me pue. . .de
com. . .prar un ca. . .rro para mi cum. . .plea. . .ños di. . .ce Bal. . .do, su
pa. . .pá le di. . .ce que es. . .tá muy jo. . .ven pa. . .ra com. . .prar un ca. . .rro
[He starts writing]. . .le di. . .ce que tie. . .ne que con. . .se. . .guir un
Line 26 tra. . .ba. . .jo pa. . .ra com. . .prar su pro. . .pia carro, su pro. . .pio ca. . .rro,
mmmm. . .le di. . .ce que tiene. . .ummm. . .que ir a a la univer. . .si. . .dad
pa. . .ra ser pro. . .fe. . .sio. . .nal mmmm. . .[Pause] OK, a ver cómo
va. . .[Pause] [He appears to be thinking]. . .
Baldo says. . .this is going to take long! (syllable by syllable) Hey dad can
you get me a car for my birthday? Says Baldo, his dad tells him that he is
very young for him to buy him a car. He tells him that he has to get a job to
buy his own car, he says that he has to go to college to get a good job. . .OK
let?s see how this is going.
Line 30 A la mis. . .ma vez, Bal. . .do no pu. . .so a. . .ten. . .ción a su pa. . .pá,
atención, a. . .ten. . .ción con. . .a. . .te. . .atencioón, su papá. . ., um cuan. . .do
ca. . .mi. . .na. . .ba so. . .bre la ca. . .lle Bal. . .do vio un ca. . .rroo. . .tan
ele. . .gan. . .te. . .con en. . .tu. . .si. . .as. . .mo, entu. . .siasmo, con entusiasmo mmm
[writing] ffffffffue a ver el ca. . .rro y qui. . .so, qui. . .so
Line 35 con. . .ven. . .cer su pa. . .pá so. . .bre el ca. . .rro [incomprehensible while he reviews
his writing]
(syllable by syllable) At the same time, Baldo does not pay attention to his
dad. When he was walking down the street, he saw a beautiful car that he
enthusiastically went to check out from up close. He wanted to convince
his dad.
Ese dı́a su pa pá, no, [Pause] [He appears to be thinking]. . .[He starts
writing]. . .ese dı́a el pa. . .pá de Bal. . .do, el papá de Baldo, ese dı́a el papá
de Baldo no le hi. . .zo ca. . .so por. . .queee sa. . .bı́a que si Bal. . .do
Line 40 com. . .para. . .ba un ca. . .rro, compraba un ca. . .rro, no iii. . ., no iba
ir. . .a. . .la. . .es. . .cue. . .la, a la es. . .cue. . .laaaa, si no haaaa cia. . .[Pause]
[He appears to be thinking]. . .mmm. . .me gusta. . .
That day his dad (syllable by syllable) did not pay attention to Baldo
because he knew that if he bought him the car he would not go to class.
[He asks his classmate], how do you say mall in Spanish? no, that’s a store,
metro centro. . ., centro comercial. . .[to himself] there, there you
Line 45 go. . .[Pause] [He starts writing]. . .iba a ir a la escuela. . .no. . ., al cen. . .tro
co. . .mer. . .cial [Pause].
(Asking his classmate) how do you say ‘mall’ in Spanish? (after listening
to his classmate’s answer) No, that’s a store, ‘centro comercial’, there you
go (syllable by syllable) he was going to go to school, no, to the mall.
Bal. . .do nun. . .ca pa. . .ró de con. . .ven. . .cer. . .a su pa. . .pá, él le de. . .cı́a
que él i. . .ba. . .a iiir. . .a la universidad [pause] [He reviews last
sentence]. . .él dice que iba a ir a la universidad. . .[Pause] [He starts
Line 50 writing] siiii com. . .pra. . .ba. . .el ca. . .rro que vió, el ca. . .rro. . .que vió. . .
(syllable by syllable) Baldo never convinced his dad, he told him that he
was going to go to college if he bought him the car he saw.
Um. . .el paa. . .pá. . .es. . .ta. . .ba. . ., estaba. . .en. . .tu. . .si, en. . .tu. . .siado,
what? no!
Entusia. . .entusiasmado. . .en. . .tu. . .si. . .as. . .ma. . .do. . .mmmm. . .que
Bal. . .do que. . .rı́a, querı́a. . .iir a la uni. . .ver. . .si. . .dad peeee. . .ro, pero, la
Line 55 mis. . .ma vez. . .sa. . .bı́a. . .que, sabı́a que. . .no. . .eee. . .ra. . .um tiempo mmm
pa. . .ra él ir. . .a la uni. . .ver. . .ir a la. . ., [erasing]. . .no, no. . .[He starts
writing] no era el tiempo para para comprar su carro no. . .e. . .ra. . .el
tieeem. . .poo. . .pa. . .ra. . .com. . .prar su ca. . .rrooo [Pause]
Line 60 [incomprehensible while he reads his story and reviews his writing].
(syllable by syllable) His dad was thrilled that Baldo wanted to go to
college but at the same time he knew that it wasn’t the right time for Baldo
to go to college, (he corrects himself). . .to get a car.
Line 61 Bueno, esa era mi historia, um. . .creo que está bien. . .lo que creo que más
Post- cuesta es. . .um. . .um. . .encontrar los. . .um. . .los dashes um. . .¿cómo se
actional dice. . .? acento marks. . .
Phase
Well, that’s my story, I think it’s good. . .I think finding. . .what do you call
them? Dashes, accents, is the hardest part.

The Dynamic Nature of Motivation During Language Tasks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Dynamic Nature of Motivation During Language Tasks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\><DQJXDV,QLJR@

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

The dynamic nature of motivation during the task: can it be captured?

As part of a larger longitudinal research study that investigated Spanish heritage

qualitative approach to task motivation based on Dörnyei’s process model of

It is generally agreed that motivation plays an important role in the second

ISSN 1750-1229 print/ISSN 1750-1237 online

which emphasized motivational change over time. In this framework, motivation

Review of the literature

and temporal variation: the traditional trait/state dichotomy (Tremblay, Goldberg,

The process model

be separated (Heckhausen 1991). This model represented then an attempt to capture

Purpose of the present study

friends regularly. To be included in the study sample, participants had to be enrolled in

dynamic aspects of task motivation during a writing activity.

(1) Generation and implementation of subtasks: evidence in the think alouds of

(3) Self-regulatory strategies: evidence in the think alouds of learners putting

Subtasks Ongoing appraisal Action control

jodiendo [talking to classmate] digamos, vamos a poner, ey ¿cómo se dice, fastidiar, no

Table 2. Summary of processes in John’s verbal protocol.

Table 3. Motivational functions per motivational pattern group.

According to the process model, the immediate antecedent of action is intention.

to investigate children’s motivational processes during failure using card game

Conclusion and future directions

ongoing manner (Dörnyei 2002).

investigating computer mediated interaction and motivational variables in SLA. In addition,

Bowles, M. 2010. The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Abingdon:

Ushioda, E. 2007. Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In Learner autonomy 8:

2 Dominican DR/5 years English Often Never

Appendix 2. Semi-guided writing activity

Appendix 3. John’s think-aloud protocol

You might also like

7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\><DQJXDV,QLJR@