Motivation to Learn a Foreign/Second Language: A Historical Overview PDF

Chapter 3 Motivation to learn a foreign/ second language: a historical overview This chapter will... trace the historical evolution of theories of L2 motivation from the 1960s to the turn of the century; set the context for current developments and directions in L2 motiv- ation theory. Having considered theories of motivation in general, we turn now to our main focus in this book, the motivation to learn a second or foreign language. Although one might imagine language learning motivation to be easily subsumed within, and explained by, the mainstream the- ories of learning motivation reviewed in Chapter 2, it is important to state at the outset that the study of L2 motivation has evolved as a rich and largely independent research ﬁeld, originating in a concern to address the unique social, psychological, behavioural and cultural com- plexities that acquiring a new communication code entails. In essence, the history of L2 motivation theory could be described as moving through phases reﬂecting increasing degrees of integration with main- stream theoretical perspectives and developments, while retaining a sharp focus on aspects of motivation unique to language learning. Dörnyei (2005) has identiﬁed the following three distinct phases: 1. The social psychological period (1959–1990) – characterised by the work of Robert Gardner and his associates in Canada. 2. The cognitive-situated period (during the 1990s) – characterised by work drawing on cognitive theories in educational psychology. 39 40 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? 3. The process-oriented period (the turn of the century) – characterised by an interest in motivational change. Our purpose in this chapter is to give a historical overview of these three phases. As we will explain at the end of this chapter, we now see the third phase – the process-oriented period – developing into (or perhaps merging with) a new phase which we will call the socio-dynamic period of L2 motivation theory. This new and exciting phase reﬂecting current thinking in the ﬁeld will be the focus of Chapter 4. 3.1 The social psychological period The modern ﬁeld of L2 motivation research owes its origins to two social psychologists, Wallace Lambert and Robert Gardner, working in the bilingual social context of Canada. They saw second languages as mediating factors between different ethnolinguistic communities, and considered motivation to learn the language of the other community to be a primary force responsible for enhancing or hindering intercultural communication and afﬁliation. A key tenet of this approach is that indi- viduals’ attitudes towards the L2 and the L2 community, as well as their ethnocentric orientation in general, exert a directive inﬂuence on their L2 learning behaviour. These attitudinal dimensions distinguish lan- guage learning motivation from other types of learning motivation, since learners are expected not simply to acquire knowledge of the lan- guage (as they might acquire knowledge of history or biology), but to be willing ‘to identify with members of another ethnolinguistic group and to take on very subtle aspects of their behaviour, including their distinctive style of speech and their language’ (Gardner and Lambert, 1972: 135). Thus the study of L2 motivation was shaped from the begin- ning by a pioneering social psychological perspective implicating the social context of learning as well as attitudes and relations between different linguistic communities, which sharply differentiated this line of enquiry from mainstream individual-cognitive theories of motivation at the time. As we saw in Chapter 2, it was only much later that socio-contextual perspectives began to inform mainstream motivational psychology. Within the ﬁeld of SLA itself, Gardner and Lambert’s work was also pioneering for highlighting non-cognitive (in their terminology, ‘affective’) factors – speciﬁcally motivation – as a signiﬁcant cause of vari- ability in language learning success. Hitherto the research focus had been A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 41 on cognitive factors such as ability or aptitude. Gardner and Lambert (1972) reasoned that cognitive factors and the availability of learning opportunities were insufﬁcient explanations for individual variability in L2 achievement, and speculated that motivation had a signiﬁcant causal role. Dating back to 1959, they published a series of studies investi- gating attitudes and motivation in L2 learning and their impact on L2 achievement, culminating in a seminal publication in 1972 that was to shape L2 motivation theory and research for the next two decades. 3.1.1 Key concepts of Gardner’s theory of L2 motivation According to Gardner (1985), L2 motivation comprises three components: motivational intensity or effort, desire to learn the language, attitudes towards learning the language. In his view, ‘motivation’ refers to a kind of central mental ‘engine’ or ‘energy-centre’ that subsumes effort, want/will (cognition) and task- enjoyment (affect). Gardner argues that these three components belong together because the truly motivated individual displays all three. A key issue in Gardner’s (1985) motivation theory is the relationship between motivation and orientation (which is Gardner’s term for a ‘goal’). The role of orientations is to help arouse motivation and direct it towards a set of goals. Although orientations are strictly speaking not part of ‘motivation’ but function merely as motivational antecedents, ironic- ally it is two orientations labelled integrative and instrumental that have become the most widely known concepts associated with Gardner’s work in the ﬁeld (see Concept 3.1). Concept 3.1 Integrative and instrumental orientation Integrative orientation concerns a positive disposition toward the L2 group and the desire to interact with and even become similar to valued members of that community; it was deﬁned in Gardner and Lambert’s (1959: 271) pioneering study as the ‘willingness to be like valued members of the language community’. Instrumental orientation is the utilitarian counterpart of integrative ori- entation in Gardner’s theory, pertaining to the potential pragmatic gains of L2 proﬁciency, such as getting a better job or a higher salary. 42 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? Integrative Interest in Attitudes towards orientation foreign languages L2 community Desire to learn the L2 INTEGRATIVENESS Motivational MOTIVATION intensity (ettort) ATTITUDES TOWARDSTHE LEARNING Attitudes towards SITUATION learning the L2 Evaluation of Evaluation of the L2 teacher the L2 course Figure 3.1 Gardner’s conceptualisation of the integrative motive Perhaps the most elaborate and researched aspect of Gardner’s motiv- ation theory has been the concept of the integrative motive, which is deﬁned as a ‘motivation to learn a second language because of positive feelings towards the community that speaks the language’ (Gardner, 1985: 82–3). The integrative motive is a composite construct made up of three main components (see Figure 3.1 for a schematic representa- tion; see also Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993a): 1. Integrativeness, which subsumes integrative orientation, interest in foreign languages, and attitudes towards the L2 community, reﬂect- ing the ‘individual’s willingness and interest in social interaction with members of other groups’ (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993b: 159). 2. Attitudes towards the learning situation, which comprises attitudes towards the language teacher and the L2 course. 3. Motivation, that is, effort, desire, and attitude towards learning. Factor analytical studies examining data from samples in various parts of the world have again and again produced a factor made up of all, or many of, the above components, attesting to the fact that L2 motivation is generally associated with a positive outlook towards the L2 group and the values the L2 is linked with, regardless of the nature of the actual learning context. For example, in a large-scale nationwide A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 43 study in Hungary, a language-learning environment that is strikingly different from Canada in that it is largely monolingual and mono- cultural, and where foreign languages are taught primarily as a school subject with limited contact with L2 speakers, Dörnyei and Clément (2001) found integrativeness to be the most powerful general com- ponent of participants’ generalised language-related disposition, deter- mining language choice and the general level of effort students intended to invest in the learning process. However, the ‘integrative’ notion has also generated considerable critical debate over the years revolving around its conceptual deﬁnition and terminological confu- sion (e.g. Dörnyei, 1994b), and more recently as we will see later, its applicability to the learning of English in a globalised world. 3.1.2 Other social psychological concepts and theories While it is the work of Gardner and his associates that centrally deﬁnes the ‘social psychological’ period of L2 motivation research, the period was also characterised by other strands of social psychological enquiry in contexts of contact between ethnolinguistic communities where L2 motivation plays a key role. Clément’s concept of linguistic self-conﬁdence (Clément, 1980, 1986; Clément et al., 1977) is theorised to be a powerful mediating process in multi-ethnic settings that affects a person’s motivation to learn and use the language of the other speech community. Clément and his asso- ciates provided evidence that in contexts where different language communities live together, the quality and quantity of contact between the members will be a major motivational factor in learning the other community’s language, determining future desire for intercultural communication and the extent of identiﬁcation with the L2 group. Thus, linguistic self-conﬁdence in Clément’s view is primarily a socially deﬁned construct (in contrast to the cognitive nature of ‘self-efﬁcacy’ in motivational psychology – Section 2.1.1), although self-conﬁdence also has a cognitive component, the ‘perceived L2 proﬁciency’. Clément et al. (1994) extended the applicability of the self-conﬁdence construct by showing that it is also a signiﬁcant motivational subsystem in foreign language learning situations where there is little direct con- tact with members of the L2 community, but considerable indirect contact with the L2 culture through the media. Giles and Byrne’s (1982) intergroup model offers a social psycholo- gical framework for examining the conditions under which members of minority ethnic groups in a multicultural setting successfully acquire and use the dominant language. Giles and Byrne adopted social 44 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? identiﬁcation theory as their guiding framework, going back to Tajfel’s conceptualisation of the social identity of an individual as ‘consisting of those aspects of his self-image, positively or negatively valued, which derive from his membership of various social groups to which he belongs’ (Tajfel, 1978: 443). According to Giles and Byrne’s intergroup model, the extent to which members identify with their own ethnic in-group and perceive it to have strong ethnolinguistic vitality and hard in-group boundaries may determine the degree to which they acquire and exhibit target-like features of the majority language (see Concept 3.2). Ethnolinguistic vitality is determined by demographic representation, social status and institutional representation (e.g. in the media, government, education), while group boundaries refer to the relative ease or difﬁculty of individual mobility across different groups. Where in-group identiﬁcation, ethnolinguistic vitality and boundaries are strong, members are likely to develop and adopt a second language code that diverges from the standard variety, characterised by, for example, non-standard accent and simpliﬁed grammar. On the other hand, where in-group identiﬁcation, vitality and boundaries are weak, members are more likely to assimilate to the majority culture or group and develop a more target-like linguistic code. Concept 3.2 Conditions under which minority group members will be most likely to acquire nativelike proficiency in the dominant group’s language (Giles and Byrne, 1982) 1. Ingroup identiﬁcation is weak and/or the L1 is not a salient dimen- sion of the individual’s ethnic group membership (i.e. the individual does not deﬁne himself or herself strongly as a member of a commu- nity with a prominent linguistic marker). 2. Quiescent interethnic comparisons exist (i.e. the individual does not suffer from an ethnic ‘inferiority complex’). 3. Perceived ingroup vitality is low (i.e. the ethnic group is not seen as having a high social status, is not too numerous, and has not obtained a high institutional proﬁle). 4. Perceived ingroup boundaries are soft and open (i.e. the ethnic group is seen as culturally and linguistically related to the dominant group, and mobility between the ingroup and the outgroup is easy). 5. Strong identiﬁcation exists with many other social categories, each of which provides adequate group identities and a satisfactory intragroup status (i.e. alternative group membership – professional, political, or religious – can compensate for the weakening of the ethnic belonging). A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 45 Schumann’s (1978, 1986) acculturation theory similarly examines multi-ethnic settings from a minority perspective but focuses on the process of individual acculturation, that is, the ‘social and psycholo- gical integration of the learner with the target language group’ (1978: 29). The main tenet of his theory is that social and psychological distance between the language learner and target language speakers is detri- mental to the attainment of the target language, since the learner will acquire the L2 only to the degree that he or she establishes social and psychological contact with the dominant group. As Gardner (1985: 137) points out, acculturation theory is essentially a model of ‘language non-acquisition’ in that it describes a number of factors that affect social and psychological distance and inhibit language acquisition. Such factors include patterns of dominance, cultural congruence and integration between minority and majority ethnic groups (social factors), and culture shock, intended length of residence and, of course, motiv- ation (individual factors). More recently, this line of enquiry focusing on acculturation, ethno- linguistic identity and language behaviours in multicultural settings has been further developed by Richard Clément, Kim Noels and their col- leagues in Canada (e.g. Clément and Noels, 1992; Clément et al., 2001; Noels et al., 1996). Their objective was to create the foundations of a situated identity theory, highlighting the possibility that complex situ- ational factors may mediate the effects of macro-processes at the societal level (i.e. linguistic assimilation/integration), and promote (if only temporarily) membership in groups deﬁned along dimensions other than language. Situational contingencies may include, for example, the perception of ethnic threat, the relative minority/majority status of the speaker in the immediate communication setting, the private versus public facet of language use, strong normative pressures within the ethnic group, or the quality and quantity of contact with members of another ethnic group. This increased focus on situational factors affect- ing motivation and language learning and use reﬂected a general tran- sition to more situated perspectives on L2 motivation during the 1990s, and it is to this next phase that we now turn. Quote 3.1 Clément and Noels on the situational character of social identification The link between vitality and identification is... co-determined by a num- ber of additional factors. Among others, it is entirely possible that situ- ational factors may override the effects of social factors and promote, if 46 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? only momentarily, membership in groups defined along dimensions other than language.... ethnolinguistic identity may thus best be seen as situ- ationally bound, such that individuals slip in and out of particular group memberships as required by immediate contextual demands. Clément and Noels (1992: 205) 3.2 The cognitive-situated period As we have seen, the social psychological period of L2 motivation research generated a wealth of literature through the 1970s and 1980s, shaped by a view of motivation conceived in the context of a cluster of social psychological variables implicated in language learning such as attitudes towards target language speakers and their culture, or feelings of identiﬁcation with one’s own ethnolinguistic community. In effect, as Skehan (1989) concluded in his review of this period, most writing on L2 motivation seemed to constitute a commentary on the agenda established by Gardner. At the same time, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was also a sense that the social psychological line of enquiry had perhaps run its course and that new and alternative research perspectives were needed to revitalise and refocus the L2 motivation ﬁeld. This view was voiced independently by a number of scholars at the turn of the decade (e.g. Brown, 1990; Julkunen, 1989; Skehan, 1989), and led to the publication in 1991 of a seminal article by Crookes and Schmidt critiquing the social psychological tradition and calling for the motivation research agenda to be reopened. These voices heralded a shift in the 1990s towards what Dörnyei (2005) has subsequently called the cognitive-situated period of L2 motivation research. This period was characterised by two interrelated trends: 1. The need to bring language motivation research in line with the cognitive revolution in mainstream motivational psychology. 2. The desire to move from the broad perspective of ethnolinguistic communities and learners’ general disposition and attitudes to lan- guage learning, and sharpen the focus on a more situated analysis of motivation in speciﬁc learning contexts. In essence, these twin perspectives served to direct attention more closely to motivation in the classroom setting and to the concerns and needs of teachers for whom social psychological research on motivation A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 47 had little practical relevance. This latter argument was central to Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) trenchant critique of the Gardnerian tradition and their call for a more practitioner-validated concept of motivation shaped by insights from motivation research in education. Quote 3.2 Crookes and Schmidt’s call for a practitioner-validated concept of L2 motivation Discussion of the topic of motivation in second-language (SL) learning contexts has been limited by the understanding the field of applied lin- guistics has attached to it. In that view, primary emphasis is placed on attitudes and other social psychological aspects of SL learning. This does not do full justice to the way SL teachers have used the term motivation. Their use is more congruent with definitions common outside social psy- chology, specifically in education. Crookes and Schmidt (1991: 469) However, it is important to note that the shift to more cognitive- situated perspectives through the 1990s was characterised more in terms of broadening the existing theoretical framework through inte- grating cognitive motivation concepts, rather than in terms of discard- ing social psychological perspectives altogether. This mood for expansion and integration is captured in a series of vibrant discussion papers and response articles published in The Modern Language Journal in 1994 embracing new directions and broader theoretical frameworks, with key contributions also from those working in the social psycho- logical tradition (e.g. Dörnyei, 1994a, 1994b; Gardner and Tremblay, 1994a, 1994b; Oxford, 1994; Oxford and Shearin, 1994). In short, the cognitive-situated period represented a shift in focus rather than a rejection of the important social psychological dimension of language learning, which continues to engage attention today (see Concept 3.3). Concept 3.3 The educational shift in L2 motivation research The common theme underlying the new emerging educational orienta- tion in the ﬁrst half of the 1990s was the belief that motivational sources closely related to the learners’ immediate classroom environment have a stronger impact on the overall L2 motivation complex than had been expected. Thus, there was a growing perception of the need to elaborate and extend motivation constructs not only to account for these situation- speciﬁc motives but also to render them more suitable for immediate 48 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? classroom application. In order to achieve this, scholars typically devi- ated from the traditional social psychological approach both in their goals and emphases, yet the signiﬁcance of the broad sociocultural ori- entations and language attitudes advocated by Gardner and his Canadian associates was never questioned. In general terms, expanding the theoretical framework entailed incorporating additional variables derived from cognitive theories of motivation. A prime example of this shift in thinking was offered by Tremblay and Gardner (1995): In response to calls for the ‘adoption of a wider vision of motivation’ (p. 505), the authors incorporated three concepts from expectancy-value (Section 2.1.1) and goal theories (Section 2.1.2) as mediating variables between attitudes and behaviour on the language attitudes → motivational behaviour → achievement sequence (Figure 3.2): Language Goal salience aHitudes Goal specificity Attitudes Goal frequency towards l2 speakers Integrative Valence Motivational orientation behaviour Desire to learn L2 Interest in Attention Attitude towards foreign Motivational learning l2 languages intensity Attitude Persistence towards the L2 course Self-efficacy A Instrumental Performance C orientation expectancy H l2 use anxiety I l2 dass anxiety E V E M Adaptive E French aHributions N language dominance T Motivation Figure 3.2 Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) model of L2 motivation A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 49 Goal salience, referring to the speciﬁcity of the learner’s goals and the frequency of goal-setting strategies used. Valence, subsuming the traditional scales of the ‘desire to learn the L2’ and ‘attitudes towards learning the L2’, thus denoting an L2- learning-related value component. Self-efﬁcacy, comprising anxiety and ‘performance expectancy’ (the latter referring to the expectancy to be able to perform various language activities by the end of the course). Thus, the cognitive-situated period saw the development of more complex and extended theoretical frameworks through the 1990s, many of them explicitly grounded in the classroom setting. At the same time, the cognitive-situated period saw developments in relation to particular theoretical perspectives (e.g. attribution theory, self- determination theory, autonomy theory) or learning situations (e.g. task motivation). In the subsections that follow, we will brieﬂy review the development of these broader frameworks as well as the main areas of enquiry in this period. 3.2.1 Expanding the theoretical framework of L2 motivation Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) position paper certainly set the agenda for broadening the theoretical framework of L2 motivation. It included a well-researched review of both the L2 and mainstream psychological literature of motivation with over 140 references, introducing the work of several prominent motivational psychologists for the ﬁrst time in the L2 ﬁeld. It rose to the challenge of addressing the eclectic and multi- faceted nature of L2 motivation by distinguishing between various levels of motivation and motivated learning (micro, classroom, syllabus/ curriculum, and extracurricular levels), and thus highlighted several paths along which subsequent research could proceed. Drawing on Keller’s (1983) comprehensive education-oriented theory of motivation and instructional design, the authors presented a parsimonious motiv- ation framework made up of four components: interest, relevance, expectancy and satisfaction/outcomes (see Concept 3.4). Concept 3.4 Keller’s motivation system adopted by Crookes and Schmidt Keller’s (1983) four-component system that was adopted by Crookes and Schmidt is a prime example of a successful educational construct. It 50 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? draws together some of the most important lines of research in motiv- ational psychology and synthesises them in a way that the outcome is relevant to and accessible for classroom application. The framework has four components: 1. Interest is related to intrinsic motivation and is centred around the individual’s inherent curiosity and desire to know more about himself or herself and his or her environment. 2. Relevance refers to the extent to which the student feels that the instruction is connected to important personal needs, values, or goals. At a macro level, this component coincides with instrumentality; at the level of the learning situation, it refers to the extent to which the classroom instruction and course content are seen to be conducive to achieving the goal, that is, to mastering the L2. 3. Expectancy refers to the perceived likelihood of success and is related to the learner’s self-conﬁdence and self-efﬁcacy at a general level; at the level of the learning situation, it concerns perceived task difﬁculty, the amount of effort required, the amount of available assistance and guidance, the teacher’s presentation of the task, and familiarity with the task type. 4. Satisfaction concerns the outcome of an activity, referring to the com- bination of extrinsic rewards such as praise or good marks and to intrinsic rewards such as enjoyment and pride. Among the discussion papers published in 1994 in The Modern Language Journal, Rebecca Oxford and Jill Shearin’s article (originally published in 1994 and extended in 1996) highlighted the growing gap between L2 motivation theories and the variety of emerging new con- cepts in mainstream motivational psychology, and called explicitly for an expansion of the social psychological approach. In a real ‘paradigm- seeking’ effort, the authors surveyed a wide array of motivation con- structs in several branches of psychology (general, industrial, educational, cognitive developmental and sociocultural) in order to draw on them in developing L2 models that would have increased explanatory power in diverse contexts. The new perspective they pres- ented was very broad and encompassed the following: need theories (personal needs, job satisfaction needs, need for achievement), expectancy-value theories, equity theories, A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 51 reinforcement theories, social cognition theories, achievement goal theory, Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. Two inﬂuential theoretical frameworks of L2 motivation – by Dörnyei (1994a) and Williams and Burden (1997) – were developed during the 1990s that attempted to draw on some of these perspectives and concepts from mainstream psychology and relate them to the lan- guage learning setting. Dörnyei’s (1994a) three-level framework of L2 motivation Crookes and Schmidt’s approach of examining motivation at various conceptual levels was taken up by Dörnyei (1994a), who conceptualised L2 motivation within a framework of three relatively distinct levels (see Table 3.1): language level learner level learning situation level. Dörnyei’s intention was to design a comprehensive construct to syn- thesise various lines of research by offering an extensive list of motiv- ational components categorised into main dimensions or clusters. For the ﬁrst two levels, the conceptualisation of the components drew heavily on Gardner and Clément’s theories, supplemented with the ﬁndings of Dörnyei (1990), whereas the third and most elaborate dimension was largely based on ﬁndings reported in educational psy- chology. More speciﬁcally: The language level encompasses various components related to aspects of the L2, such as the culture and the community, as well as the intellectual and pragmatic values and beneﬁts associated with it. The learner level involves individual characteristics that the learner brings to the learning process. The learning situation level is associated with situation-speciﬁc motives rooted in various aspects of language learning within a class- room setting: 52 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? Table 3.1 Dörnyei’s framework of L2 motivation (Dörnyei, 1994a: 280) language level Integrative motivational subsystem Instrumental motivational subsystem learner level Need for achievement Self-confidence Language use anxiety Perceived L2 competence Causal attributions Self-efficacy learning situation level Course-specific motivational Interest (in the course) components Relevance (of the course to one’s needs) Expectancy (of success) Satisfaction (one has in the outcome) Teacher-specific motivational Affiliative motive (to please the teacher) components Authority type (controlling vs. autonomy- supporting) Direct socialisation of motivation Modelling Task Presentation Feedback Group-specific motivational Goal-orientedness components Norm and reward system Group cohesiveness Classroom goal structure (cooperative, competitive or individualistic) Course-speciﬁc motivational components are related to the syllabus, the teaching materials, the teaching method and the learning tasks, and can be well described with the framework of four motiv- ational conditions proposed by Keller (1983) and subsequently by Crookes and Schmidt (1991) (interest, relevance, expectancy and satisfaction/outcome). Teacher-speciﬁc motivational components concern the motivational impact of the teacher’s personality, behaviour and teaching style/ practice. Group-speciﬁc motivational components are related to the group dynamics of the learner group. The rationale for separating the three motivational levels was that they seem to have a vital effect on overall motivation independently of A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 53 each other; that is, by changing the parameters at one level and keep- ing the other two dimensions constant, the overall motivation might completely change. For example, the same learner in the same learn- ing situation might show a strikingly different degree of motivation depending on what the target language is. Similarly, when the target language is the same, the same learner’s motivation can show vast dif- ferences as a function of the learning situation (consider, for example, the effect of a good or a bad teacher). In other words, each of the three levels of motivation exerts its inﬂuence independently of the others and has sufﬁcient power to nullify the effects of the motives associated with the other two levels. Williams and Burden’s social constructivist model Another comprehensive attempt to summarise motivational compon- ents relevant to L2 learning in the classroom setting was developed by Marion Williams and Bob Burden (1997) as part of a larger overview of psychology for language teachers. The authors’ general approach taken in the whole book was rooted in a social constructivist tradition, and in terms of motivation, their emphasis on contextual inﬂuences is very much in accordance with the arguments in Section 2.2. Quote 3.3 Williams and Burden on the social constructivist conception of motivation A constructivist view of motivation centres around the premise that each individual is motivated differently.... However, an individual’s motivation is also subject to social and contextual influences. These will include the whole culture and context and the social situation, as well as significant other people and the individual’s interaction with these people. Thus, the approach we are taking, in keeping with the rest of this book, is social constructivist. Williams and Burden (1997: 121) In the conclusion to their discussion of L2 motivation, the authors presented a detailed framework of motivational factors, categorised in terms of learner-internal and external factors (Table 3.2). These were all distilled from a review of mainstream rather than the L2 motivation literature, which placed Williams and Burden’s framework very much in line with the ‘paradigm-seeking spirit’ of the reform movement in the 1990s. 54 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? Table 3.2 Williams and Burden’s framework of L2 motivation (Williams and Burden, 1997) internal factors external factors Intrinsic interest of activity: Significant others: arousal of curiosity parents optimal degree of challenge teachers peers Perceived value of activity: personal relevance The nature of interaction anticipated value of outcomes with significant others: intrinsic value attributed to the activity mediated learning experiences Sense of agency: the nature and amount of locus of causality feedback locus of control RE process and outcomes rewards ability to set appropriate goals the nature and amount of Mastery: appropriate praise feelings of competence punishments, sanctions awareness of developing skills and The learning environment: mastery in a chosen area comfort self-efficacy resources Self-concept: time of day, week, year realistic awareness of personal strengths size of class and school and weaknesses in skills required class and school ethos personal definitions and judgements The broader context: of success and failure wider family networks self-worth concern the local education system learned helplessness conflicting interests Attitudes: cultural norms to language learning in general societal expectations and to the target language attitudes to the target language community and culture Other affective states: confidence anxiety, fear Developmental age and stage Gender 3.2.2 Key areas of enquiry The expanded theoretical frameworks developed by Dörnyei and by Williams and Burden were useful in describing and classifying the array of factors potentially shaping language learning motivation in the class- room setting, and in pointing to possible areas of research enquiry. We A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 55 will brieﬂy describe the main areas of enquiry that began to draw atten- tion during the cognitive-situated period. It should be noted that research in these areas has continued to evolve and develop to the pres- ent day, responding to the changing theoretical perspectives now shaping L2 motivation. We will return to consider current develop- ments in these areas in later chapters. Attributional processes Given that, for most people, an inescapable difference between L1 and L2 learning is the degree of success ultimately achieved, the role of attributional processes for success and failure outcomes in shaping motivation seems potentially signiﬁcant. Skehan (1989) was perhaps one of the ﬁrst scholars to call for more research on applying attri- bution theory (Section 2.1.1) to language learning, a call echoed by several others (e.g. Dörnyei, 1990; Julkunen, 1989; Schmidt et al., 1996; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995). Causal attributions were included in the learner level in Dörnyei’s (1994a) framework, and also subsumed in Williams and Burden’s (1997) framework within the learner-internal factors of self-concept and sense of agency. Yet despite recognition of their importance, little actual research has been conducted on attributional processes in L2 learning and motiv- ation. One reason for this may be related to the traditionally quantitative nature of L2 motivation research: the effects of causal attributions are complex, varying as a function of the type of attributions made and the attributional style and biases of the learners, and therefore questionnaire- based studies focusing on linear relationships of broad categories may not be adequate to do this intricate process justice. This claim is under- scored by the fact that two relatively small-scale qualitative studies by Williams and Burden (1999) and Ushioda (1996a, 1998) have provided a rich source of insights into the causal attributional processes of L2 learners (see Concept 3.5; see also Williams et al., 2001 for a small-scale qualitative study of cultural perspectives in learner attributions). As we will see later, work on attributional processes has largely evolved since then in the context of autonomy theory and motivational self-regulation. Concept 3.5 Attributional findings in two qualitative studies 1. In a two-stage interview study of Irish learners of French, Ushioda (1996a, 1998) found that maintaining a positive self-concept and a 56 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? belief in personal potential in the face of negative experiences hinged on two attributional patterns: attributing positive L2 outcomes to personal ability or other inter- nal factors (e.g. effort, perfectionist approach); attributing negative L2 outcomes or lack of success to temporary (i.e. unstable) shortcomings that might be overcome (e.g. lack of effort, lack of opportunity to spend time in the L2 environment). These two patterns coincide almost exactly with the recommenda- tions made in educational psychology concerning the promotion of motivation-enhancing attributions. 2. Williams and Burden (1999) were concerned with the developmental aspects of learner attributions in L2 studies. Their interview study revealed clear differences between the different age groups studied in terms of the learners’ construction of success and in the range of attri- butions provided for success and failure: 10–12 year olds saw the main reasons for success as listening and concentrating; older children provided a wider range of attributions, including ability, level of work, circumstances and the inﬂuence of others. A noteworthy ﬁnding was that there was hardly any mention of the application of appropriate learning strategies when explaining successes, indicating a lack of awareness of the importance of strategy use. Self-determination theory In view of the widespread inﬂuence of Deci and Ryan’s (1985) theory of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self-determination in mainstream educational psychology (Section 2.1.3), it is not surprising that the importance of intrinsic motivation in the language classroom has also long been recognised (e.g. Brown 1981, 1990). In Dörnyei’s (1994a) framework of L2 motivation, interest in the course was a key compon- ent at the learning situation level, and intrinsic interest was listed ﬁrst among the internal factors in Williams and Burden’s (1997) framework (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2 above). The extensive development of self-determination theory (SDT) per- spectives in language learning owes much to the work of Kim Noels and her colleagues (Noels, 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2009; Noels et al., 1999, 2000, 2001). Noels et al. (2000) set out to develop a new L2 speciﬁc instrument for assessing L2 learners’ orientations from a self- determination perspective (i.e. a questionnaire that measures various A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 57 types of intrinsic and extrinsic orientations in L2 learning), and to relate the obtained measures to: various antecedent and consequence measures (perceptions of com- petence, freedom of choice, anxiety, and the intention to continue L2 studies – all assessed by scales well established in educational psychology) to serve as criterion measures; Clément and Kruidenier’s (1983) inﬂuential system of four types of orientations: instrumental, knowledge, travel, friendship. The researchers found that instrumental orientation corresponded closely to external extrinsic regulation (for the taxonomy of different types of extrinsic motive, see Section 2.1.3), whereas the other three orientations were associated with more self-determined and intrinsic types of motive. In addition, an interesting ﬁnding was that, contrary to expectation, the identiﬁed regulation scale (representing personally valued internalised goals and motives) had a stronger relation with the criterion variables than the intrinsic motivation subscales. Noels et al. speculate that intrinsic motivation factors such as enjoyment and inter- est may not be sufﬁcient in themselves to foster sustained learning, and that the personal value and importance of learning the language may be more signiﬁcant in this regard. The work of Noels and her colleagues has been helpful in offering a theoretical framework for classifying and organising language learning goals or orientations in terms of a self-determination continuum. Moreover, their situated classroom-focused research has highlighted features of the social learning setting (speciﬁcally, the teachers’ com- munication or instructional style and the degree to which this is per- ceived as controlling or autonomy supportive) which may inﬂuence the development of students’ intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. SDT perspectives on L2 motivation continue to be a strong research area and we will return to consider current developments in later chapters. Autonomy theory The shift to cognitive-situated perspectives on L2 motivation in the 1990s coincided with a period when there was rising interest in learner autonomy in language education (e.g. Allwright, 1990; Dam, 1995; Gremmo and Riley, 1995; Little, 1991) as well as in language learning strategies (e.g. Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991), with the widespread establishment of self-access centres through the 1990s and the devel- opment of new technologies promoting independent learning (for a 58 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? recent overview, see White, 2008). Not surprisingly, perhaps, a small body of literature developed during this period that began to explore the theoretical interface between autonomy and motivation, and the relationship between motivation and learner strategies. Dickinson (1995) published an important review of the literature on autonomy and motivation, drawing on cognitive theories and concepts of motivation in education (e.g. intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, attri- bution theory, mastery/performance goals) to analyse links with auton- omy and develop justiﬁcation for its promotion in language learning. A key argument in linking autonomy and motivation is that both are centrally concerned with the learner’s active engagement with and involvement in the learning process. As Ushioda (1996b) summarised, while autonomy implies being involved in and taking responsibility for one’s learning in all its aspects, self-motivation implies taking charge of the affective dimension of the learning process. This intimate connec- tion between the affective component of motivation (willingness) and the metacognitive component of knowledge and skills (ability) for learning was similarly reﬂected in Littlewood’s (1996) framework of autonomy, and mirrored the integration of ‘will and skill’ in theories of self-regulated learning (McCombs and Marzano, 1990; see also Section 2.2.2). In an empirical study, Okada et al. (1996) found strong relation- ships between motivation and students’ use of metacognitive strategies, leading the researchers to speculate that metacognition (which has been shown to distinguish successful from unsuccessful learners and is central to learner autonomy) is strongly tied to motivation (see also Vandergrift, 2005). Quote 3.4 Dickinson on autonomy and motivation This review of a selection of the literature on motivation seeks a justifica- tion for the promotion of learner autonomy among language learners. It has been shown that there is substantial evidence from cognitive motiva- tional studies that learning success and enhanced motivation is condi- tional on learners taking responsibility for their own learning, being able to control their own learning and perceiving that their learning successes and failures are to be attributed to their own efforts and strategies rather than to factors outside their control. Each of these conditions is a characteristic of learner autonomy as it is described in applied linguistics. Dickinson (1995: 173–4) A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 59 In effect, the study of the relationship between motivation and autonomy or strategy use focused attention on the role of motivation in a person’s metacognitive engagement in learning, and on processes of self-motivation or motivational self-regulation as learners strive to manage the affective dimension of their learning experience over time. As we will see later, the study of the motivation/autonomy interface has continued to generate much attention, evolving through the process- oriented period of L2 motivation research with its focus on motivational self-regulation, and moving into the current socio-dynamic period. Task motivation The shift to cognitive-situated perspectives on L2 motivation also coincided with a period when there was a rapidly growing literature on task-based research and task-based instruction in the L2 learning ﬁeld (e.g. Crookes and Gass, 1993a, 1993b; Long, 1989; Long and Crookes, 1992; Willis, 1996; for recent overviews see Samuda and Bygate, 2008; Van den Branden et al., 2009). From a research perspective, focusing on tasks as the unit of analysis makes it possible to break down the lan- guage learning process into clearly deﬁnable segments, and facilitates analysis of the cognitive processing mechanisms involved. As Dörnyei (2002) notes, taking language tasks as the basic level of analysis was also a logical step for cognitive-situated approaches to motivation, since motivation can hardly be examined in a more situated manner than within a task-based framework. Among the ﬁrst to focus on task-related motivation in the L2 ﬁeld was Kyösti Julkunen, who published a series of studies in Finland (reported in Julkunen, 1989, 2001). Drawing particularly on the work of Boekaerts (1987, 1988) and the distinction she makes between trait motivation (a learner’s general motivational orientation) and state motivation (a learner’s situation-speciﬁc motivation), Julkunen (2001) developed a motivation model that attempted to capture situation- speciﬁc motivation and relate it to general motivational orientation, and proposed a construct of task motivation that combined generalised and situation-speciﬁc motives. In an empirical study that explored the motivational characteristics of language learning tasks, however, Dörnyei (2002) offered a rather more complex view of task motivation than the state/trait dichotomy. As he argued, a weakness of the state/trait approach is that it suggests a fairly static conception of motivation, whereas the process of engag- ing in and executing a language learning task clearly spans a period 60 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? of time during which it is unlikely that motivation will remain stable. In Dörnyei’s view, an individual’s task motivation is likely to be the composite dynamic outcome of a complex range of contextual inﬂuences as well as learner-internal factors and the intrinsic properties of the task, and likely to vary in relation to different stages of task engagement, learners’ ongoing appraisal or monitoring of the task engagement process, and their efforts to control or regulate this pro- cess (cf. Dörnyei and Tseng, 2009; for a more detailed account, see the part on ‘Motivational task processing’ in Section 4.3.2). As with the study of motivation in relation to autonomy, the study of task motivation thus also focused attention on the notion of motivation as process over time. In this sense, the shift to cognitive-situated perspec- tives through the 1990s led to a more explicit concern with the dynamic nature of motivation and its temporal dimension, and to the development of more process-oriented theoretical approaches, to which we now turn. 3.3 The process-oriented period As we observed in Section 1.1.2, a major challenge for motivation the- ories in general is to describe the temporal organisation of motivation, that is, to portray motivational processes as they happen in time. This is of particular importance when the target of our interest is a sustained learning process, such as the mastery of a second language, which may take several years to accomplish. Although most practitioners with sufﬁcient classroom experience know too well that student motivation does not remain constant during the course of learning, it is only within the last decade or so that efforts have been made to analyse the dynamics of L2 motivational change at either the micro level (e.g. task motivation) or the more macro level (e.g. during a course of study, over a person’s learning history or across the lifespan). In this section, we will ﬁrst review the work of Williams and Burden (1997), Ushioda (1994, 1996a, 1998), and Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), which paved the way for process-oriented approaches to L2 motiv- ation, and then brieﬂy summarise key lines of enquiry in this area. 3.3.1 Focus on time by Williams and Burden A basic ﬁrst step in analysing motivation from a temporal perspective is to clarify the conceptual distinction between motivation for A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 61 engagement (choices, reasons, wishes, intentions, decisions), and motiv- ation during engagement (how one feels, behaves and responds during the course of learning). Among the ﬁrst to highlight this simple but important conceptual distinction in relation to L2 motivation were Williams and Burden (1997). In addition to developing an extensive theoretical framework of L2 motivation (Section 3.2.1), they analysed the successive stages of the motivational process along a continuum: Reasons for doing something → Deciding to do something → Sustaining the effort, or persisting. As the authors argue, the ﬁrst two stages may be seen as more con- cerned with initiating motivation, while the last stage involves sustaining motivation. They emphasise that these two aspects of motivation should be clearly differentiated, not just from a theoretical perspective but also from a pedagogical perspective. This conceptualisation bears a close resemblance to Heckhausen’s (1991; see also Heckhausen and Heckhausen, 2008) motivational dichotomy of ‘intention formation’ (or choice motivation) and ‘intention implementation’ (or executive motivation), and accords with the approach developed by Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) in their process model of L2 motivation (Section 3.3.3). Quote 3.5 Williams and Burden on the need to separate the generation and maintenance of motivation It is important to emphasise here that motivation is more than simply arousing interest. It also involves sustaining interest and investing time and energy into putting the necessary effort to achieve certain goals. We make this point because so often, from a teacher’s point of view, motiv- ation is seen as simply sparking an initial interest, for example, presenting an interesting language activity. However, motivating learners entails far more than this. Williams and Burden (1997: 121) 3.3.2 Focus on time by Ushioda One reason why the L2 motivation ﬁeld has been slow to address tem- poral aspects may have been the predominance of a quantitative research paradigm, characteristic not only of the Gardnerian social 62 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? psychological tradition within SLA but also of the psychometric tradi- tion of mainstream cognitive approaches to motivation which came to inﬂuence our ﬁeld in the 1990s. As we will see in more detail later in Chapters 8 and 9, quantitative research approaches seek to represent the bigger picture, using measurement instruments such as test batter- ies or questionnaires to examine generalisable patterns and relation- ships across a large dataset. Such approaches do not lend themselves easily to investigating the dynamic processes of motivational evolution within an individual person’s learning experience (though as we will see in Section 3.3.4, they can be used to measure motivational change at a more global level). Quote 3.6 Ushioda on the need for new research approaches to explore the dynamic nature of L2 motivation Within the context of institutionalised learning especially, the common experience would seem to be motivational flux rather than stability.... Yet, the potential for developing a dynamic theory of L2 motivation would seem to extend beyond the phenomenon of motivational loss or growth alone. In this respect, a more introspective type of research approach is needed to explore qualitative developments in motivational experience over time, as well as to identify the contextual factors perceived to be in dynamic interplay with motivation. Ushioda (1996a: 240–1) Not surprisingly then, a focus on the temporal dimension of motiv- ation heralded also a call for qualitative research approaches that would be more sensitive to exploring and representing the dynamic nature of motivational processes, as voiced in particular by Ushioda (1994, 1996a). In a longitudinal interview study with Irish learners of French (Ushioda, 1998, 2001; for an overview of the study, see Study 9.11 in Chapter 9), she identiﬁed inter-individual and intra-individual vari- ation in the temporal frame of reference shaping students’ motivation. Sixteen of the 20 participants deﬁned their L2 motivation principally in terms of the impact of a positive learning history, rather than in terms of future goals. With respect to future goal-orientation, her data sug- gested that this was ‘more appropriately conceived as a potentially evolving dimension of language learning motivation, rather than its necessary rationale’ (Ushioda, 1998: 81–2), since deﬁnitive goal structures A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 63 Motivation deriving from experience Positive L2-learning experiences Intrinsic affective rewards Positive L2-related experience Other experience Learner B Learner A Personal goals Short-term goals/incentives Language-intrinsic goals Other goals/priorities Motivation directed towards future goals L2 development over time Figure 3.3 Ushioda’s (1998: 82) theoretical framework of motivation from a temporal perspective may take considerable time to crystallise. In the meantime, the motiv- ational mainspring sustaining engagement in L2 learning may well be the learners’ L2-learning and L2-related experience, especially in the case of successful language learners; that is, ‘they may feel motivated to pursue language study because they perceive that this is what they are good at or what they enjoy most, and where therefore their future potential must lie’ (p. 82). Figure 3.3 offers a schematic representation of Ushioda’s conception of L2 motivation from a temporal perspective. Learner A in the ﬁgure is motivated by positive experiences, with goal-directed patterns play- ing a minor role. In contrast, Learner B’s motivational thought struc- ture is primarily goal-directed. As Ushioda (1998, 2001) emphasises, the motivational pattern of Learner B may represent a potential later stage in the evolution of Learner A’s motivational thinking, as future goals assume greater importance or clarity. Thus, she concludes: ‘In this respect, the notion of a temporal frame of reference shaping motiv- ational thinking integrates the phenomenon of evolution over time, which seems central to the learners’ experience of and thus conception of language learning motivation’ (1998: 82–3). 64 WHAT IS MOTIVATION? Motivationa. influences Action sequence Wishes and hopes Motivational Goal influences on Desires opportunities setting goal setting -J

Motivation to Learn a Foreign/Second Language: A Historical Overview PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue