國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will discuss definition of motivation, second language motivational theory, motivational components, previous research concerning second language motivational construct and the relationship among motivational components. A proposed model of motivational construct will also be presented in this chapter.
Definition of Motivation
Although the significance of motivation on language learning has been widely recognized, there has been little agreement on the exact meaning of motivation, and researchers from different psychological perspectives defined it differently. In this section, definitions of motivation in Behaviorism will discussed first, followed by the definitions of motivation in Cognitivism. Definitions in other fields will be finally given.
Definition of Motivation in Behaviorism
Behaviorism focus completely on what can be directly observed from a person’s behaviors, and the distinction between the inner drive of a person and his outward behaviors that express the drive was minimized. Therefore, motivation was
considered nearly the same as the behaviors that reflect motivation by Behaviorists.
The most common version of behavioral perspective on motivation is the theory of operant conditioning proposed by B. F. Skinner (1938). From this perspective, motivation was defined as an anticipation of reinforcement (Brown, 1994). For example, if a teacher praises a student each time he answers a question, and the likelihood of the student’s answering questions is increasing, we may say that the student was motivated to answer the question (a behavior) because he anticipate the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9
teacher’s praise (the reinforcement). Withdrawing the reinforcement from the learner may decrease the behaviors previously learned by reinforcement. Though
Behaviorism was frequently used in shaping behaviors, it was not without flaws. The theory was mainly criticized because there are still distinctions between outward behaviors and inner motives, for example, the same outward behavior may be considered as an expression of a number of different inner motives (DeGrandpre, 2000).
Definitions of Motivation in Cognitivism
Cognitive psychologists considered motivation as a function of an individual’s thoughts, the activation of behavior or action. In a Cognitivist perspective, an individual is motivated by the result of his active analysis and processing of information available, rather than a mechanical process. Therefore, reinforcement does not always leads to desired behaviors.
Motivation was defined differently in different cognitive theories of motivation according to their different emphasis. For example, Expectancy-value theory, which focus on an individual’s expectations for completing a task successfully, and
motivation was therefore defined as one’s expectation of doing certain action successfully times the value he places on success (Eggen, Kauchack, 2004). For example, if a person thinks the possibility that he pass an examination is high, and passing the examination is also important to him, he will be motivated to take the examination. In self-determination theory, motivation was defined as doing something because it is inherently interesting or because it leads to external rewards (Dornyei, 1998). For instance, if a person works because his job is interesting to him, he is intrinsically motivated; if he works for being paid, he is extrinsically motivated. In self-efficacy theory, one’s motivation is determined by his capability of completing certain tasks (Eggen, Kauchack, 2004). A person may not be persevering or willing to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
doing something if he considered himself as incapable of doing it.
Other Definitions of Motivation
Some other researchers define motivation by describing its features or elements.
Crookes and Schmidt (1991) suggested that language learning motivation
incorporates four internal and three external features. The internal factors are: interest in the target language, relevance involving the perception that personal needs are being met by learning the language, expectancy of success and failure, and outcomes (i.e., the extrinsic rewards). The external behavior characteristics includes the fact that a learner decides to choose and engage in language learning, persists in the process of learning, and maintains a high activity level.
From the perspective of social psychology, Gardner (1985) proposed that motivation is composed of four elements: a goal (to interact with the target language group or utilitarian purposes), a desire to attain the goal, positive attitudes toward learning the language, and effortful behavior. In his later work, motivation was suggested as generated from three elements: attitudes toward the learning situation, integrative orientation, and instrumental orientation (Gardner, 2001).
Dornyei (1998) conceptualized motivation as including three components:
motivational intensity, desire to learn the language, and an attitude toward the act of learning.
Drawing from these definitions, it could be concluded that language learning motivation generally composes the following elements:
1. Motivational behaviors such as intensity, desire to learn, and attitude toward learning.
2. The reasons or purposes of learning. (In social-psychological theory, the reasons can be integrating into the target language culture or pragmatic benefits, namely, integrativeness and instrumentality. In self-determination
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
theory, the reasons include inside and outside rewards, namely, intrinsic orientation and extrinsic orientation.)
3. Attitudes toward the learning situation.
4. An individual’s judgment of his/her capability to reach a certain level of achievement (self-efficacy).
5. The value associated with a particular outcome (valence).
Specifically, the present study focused on the first three elements, which include five motivational components: motivational behaviors, integrativeness,
instrumentality, intrinsic orientation and extrinsic orientation.
In conclusion, although motivation can be defined in various ways from different theoretical perspectives, and there is still no agreement on the exact definition of motivation, it seemed that cognitive ways of definitions have been adopted by many studies, and describing the components of motivation may help constructing a complete motivational model. In the field of second language,
motivation was thought of as an important factor that influences success of language learning. In the following session, theories of second language motivation will be discussed.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
Second Language Motivational Theories
Second language motivational theories mainly seek to explain how learners learn a second language and what kinds of factors drive and direct their learning (Dornyei, 1998). Because of the importance of motivation in the success of language learning, the motivation to learn a second language has drawn much attention. Theories of second language learning motivation are varied, and each attempts to draw a clear picture of second language learning motivation. Some of the most important theories will be presented chronologically and discussed in this section.
Motivation Theory before the 1990s
In the past few decades, researchers have developed various theoretical constructs of second language motivation. The most influential construct that
dominated this field since the 1950s is the social psychological approach proposed by Gardner and his associates (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1998, 2001, 2003).
The rationale of this approach is that second language acquisition is a
social-psychological phenomenon incorporating alternating self-image and adapting new social behaviors and cultural norms (Au, 1988; Gardner, 1985; Williams, 1994).
Therefore, this approach suggested that students’ attitude toward the target language community will influence the success of learning the language (Gardner, 1985). The emphasis on the significance of an integrative social dimension led Gardner and Lambert (1972) to conceptualize integrative/instrumental dichotomy in their motivational model.
Before discussing the dichotomy, a distinction between motivation and orientation has to be clarified. While motivation refers to “the extent to which an individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity” (Gardner 1985, p.10), orientation refers to the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
goal for learning the language (Dornyei, 1998) which serves as motivational antecedents arousing and directing motivation. The integrative and instrumental orientations are two orientations that received most empirical attention (Noels, 2003).
The integrative orientation refers to learning a language for facilitating
communication or interaction with a valued target language community (Gardner, Smythe, Clement, & Gliksman, 1976).
The instrumental orientation, however, is learning for utilitarian or pragmatic benefits of language proficiency, such as getting a better job, improving social status, passing an examination, and other academic- or career-related benefits (Brown, 1994;
Dornyei, 1990). In their theory, integrative orientation is believed to be more important for successful language learning than instrumental orientation, because it was found to accompany with higher scores on foreign language proficiency tests (Brown, 2000; Dornyei, 1990).
The dichotomy has been commented as a milestone in the history of second language motivation research in that it is more elaborate and advanced than many other contemporary mainstream psychological models of motivation and that it is empirically testable and can explain a considerable amount of variance in motivation and achievement (Dorneyi, 1994). A large number of researchers have centered their studies on the dichotomy (Belmechri & Hummel, 1998; Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Gardner & Tremblay, 1994, etc.), however, the results of these studies were conflicting. Researchers with accumulated evidences began to challenge their theory by suggesting the existence of other kinds of orientation, presenting how the definitions of orientations may shift according to contextual factors, and questioning the conclusion that integrative orientation is more important than instrumental orientation. Some researchers also suggested that EFL contexts can hardly benefit from Gardner’s social-psychological approach because
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
this approach was grounded in a social milieu rather than an EFL classroom setting.
For instance, the results of Warden and Lin’s (2000) study showed the absence of integrative orientation within a sample of EFL learners in Taiwan.
Expansion of Motivational Construct
During the 1990s, a number of researchers in different parts of the world advocated a shift to expand the theoretical scope of motivation (e.g. Crookes &
Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Their avocations shared three underlying themes: (a) complimenting the social psychological approach with concepts from mainstream psychology such as need theories, expectancy-value theories, and self-efficacy theories, (b) conceptualizing situation- or task-specific motivation, (c) calling for a more pragmatic approach to motivation for classroom application (Dornyei, 1998).
Dornyei (1994) synthesized various motivational components and developed a framework consisting of three levels: the language level (which was further divided into instrumental and integrative subsystems), the learner level (including dimension of need for achievement and self-confidence), and the learning situation level
(containing course-, teacher-, and group-specific motivational components). Dornyei (1998) suggested that although this detailed kind of framework is “useful in
emphasizing the multidimentional nature of second language motivation” (p. 26), it lacks the relationship among components, and the components are diverse in nature, causing difficulties in submitting it to empirical testing. Also, the
integrative/instrumental motivational dichotomy at the language level may mislead people into simplifying social dimension of second language motivation (Dorneyi, 1998).
In addition, based on Gardner’s social psychological construct, Tremblay and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
Gardner (1995) conducted a study to examine the relationship between a number of new measures of motivation and the existing measures of attitude and motivation.
Based on the research, they proposed an extended model in which new elements from expectancy-value and goal theories were incorporated into the original social
psychological construct of second language motivation, as a response to calls for adoption of a wider vision of motivation in the 1990s. In this model, a distinction between motivational behavior (variables which can be observed externally, such as attention, effort, and persistence) and motivational antecedents (factors which cannot be perceived by an external observer but influence motivational behaviors) was made, and the motivational antecedents, including goal salience, valence, and self-efficacy, mediated the relationship between language attitudes and motivational behaviors.
Adaptive attributions, derived from expectancy-value theory, mediated the
relationship between French language dominance and motivational behavior. This empirically grounded model demonstrates how cognitive motivational theories and Gardner’s earlier motivational construct can be synthesized into one framework (Dornyei, 1998).
Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory in L2 Research
Deci and Ryan (1985) introduced the self-determination theory as an elaboration of the theory of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, which is one of the most general and widely explored distinctions in motivation theories (Dornyei, 1998).
According to self-determination theory, there are two types of motivation, intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM), which are locate on a continuum of self-determination (Noels Pelletier, Clement, & Vellerand, 2000), and vary depending on how much a learner engages in an activity “with a full sense of wanting, choosing, and personal endorsement” (Deci, 1992, p.44).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
Intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to engage in an activity in anticipation of internally rewarding consequences such as pleasure, satisfaction, and feelings of competence. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to the desire to engage in an activity in anticipation of reward which is external to the activity per se, from outside and beyond the self. Extrinsic motivation, the motivation for achieving some instrumental end, has been categorized into three levels according to the extent to which performing an activity is self-determined. They are external regulation,
introjected regulation, and identified regulation, from the lowest to the highest level of self-determination (Noels, 2003; Vallerand, 1997).
The potential utility of the self-determination theory for understanding language learning motivation has been demonstrated by several studies (Noels, 2003). In addition, it offers several advantages. First, the intrinsic/extrinsic motivational construct has been validated by a number of studies in various cultural contexts. For example, researchers have found support among Anglophone learners of French and Spanish, and learners in Taiwan (e.g. Chang & Huang, 1999; Liao, 2000; Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2000). Second, it organized a large number of second language learning orientation into a systematic framework. Third, the continuum of self-determination suggests a process by which orientations may change. Fourth, there are empirical evidences supporting that the subtypes of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation can be used to describe language learning motivation (Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2000). Although the self-determination theory may be useful, Noels (2003) noted that it does not incorporate the issue of intergroup contact and ethnic identification subsumed by the integrative orientation in Gardner’s construct.
As mentioned above, the development of motivational theories has been influenced by two main theories, Gardner’s (1985) social psychological approach, which led to the expansion of motivational construct, and Self-determination theory
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985). By conceptualizing motivation in different ways, the researchers proposing these theories had explored various components of language learning motivation. And some of the components will be discussed in the following section.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
Components of Motivation
From the discussion of definitions of motivation, we may conclude that it mainly incorporates five components, motivational behaviors, integrativeness, and
instrumentality, intrinsic orientation and extrinsic orientation. The nature of these components and the relationship among them will be discussed as follows.
Motivational Behavior
Motivational behavior has been defined by Gardner as a combination of efforts, desire to achieve the goal of learning the language, and positive attitude toward learning the language (Gardner, 1985; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997). It was currently assessed by three scales in AMTB: attitudes toward learning the language, desire to learn the language, and motivational intensity (Gardner, Tremblay &
Masgoret, 1997). It has been found to be affected by attitudes toward the learning situation, instrumental orientation, and integrative orientation, valence, and self-efficacy expectancy, and perceived ability (Chen & Sheu, 2005; Csizer &
Dornyei, 2005; Gardner, 2001; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Gardner, Tremblay &
Masgoret, 1997).
Integrativeness and Instrumentality
Integrativeness and instrumentality are two components drawn from social psychological approach proposed by Gardner (1985), which is the most influential construct that has dominated this field since the 1950s (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991;
Dornyei, 1998, 2001, 2003).
Integrativeness
Integrativeness, a key component in Gardner and Lamberts’ (1959, 1972; Gardner, 1985) influential conceptualization, was among the most often research concepts and a principle building block of several theoretical constructs of L2 motivation (Dornyei, 2003). It reflects a positive outlook on the target language and its culture, to the extent
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
that learners may want to integrate themselves into the target language culture and become similar to the target language group (Csizer & Dornyei, 2005).
Integrativeness is currently assessed by three measures in the AMTB: attitude toward the target language group, interest in the foreign languages, and integrative orientation.
Although integrativeness has been adopted in abundant of research, it is not without criticism. Some researchers argued that EFL contexts can hardly benefit from this concept, contending that Gardner’s social-psychological approach was grounded in a social milieu distinct from EFL classroom settings. For instance, the results of Warden and Lin’s (2000) study showed the absence of integrative orientation within a sample of EFL learners in Taiwan. Still other researchers proposed that the concept of
integrativeness should be altered according contexts. For example, Dornyei (1991) proposed that in EFL settings where learners have little opportunity to interact with the target language community, integrative orientation can be generalized from identifying with the target language group to identifying the cultural and intellectual values attached to the language, and even the language itself. Noneless,
integrativeness has been incorporated into many motivational models to examine its relationship with other motivational variables and numerous studies have associated integrativeness with motivation and other variables in different motivational
constructs (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). For example, Csizer and Dornyei (2005) found that integrativeness was influenced by instrumentality and attitude toward L2 speakers directly and self-confidence indirectly. Chen and Sheu (2005) reported that valence and instrumental orientation influencd integrative orientation. Noels (2003) found that integrative orientation was associated with more self-determined
motivations in self-determine theory.
Intrumentality
Intrumentality has been the other most frequently highlighted variable in
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
motivational research (Csizer & Dornyei, 2005; Dornyei, 1990; Gardner, 1985;
Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Tremblay& Gardner, 1995; Warden & Lin, 2000; Wen, 1997). It generally refers to the pragmatic benefits of L2 proficiency perceived by the learner, such as getting a better job or passing an examination, and it reflects that the usefulness of L2 proficiency provides the greatest driving force for many language learners. Although the definition of instrumental dimension seemed to be
straightforward, empirical studies suggested that it can be conceptualized ambiguously. For instance, in Csizer and Dornyei (2005)’s conceptualization of instrumentality, the importance of the L2 in the world and the contribution of its proficiency in becoming educated were included. Their study also showed that instrumentality was one of the antecedents of integrativeness, and it was influenced by variables such as learners’ immediate environment and the perceived importance of the L2 community. Chen and Sheu (2005), in their study on EFL college students’
motivation, found that instrumental orientation was influenced by valence, and it influenced integrative orientation and motivation. MacIntyre and his colleagues (2001) found that instrumentality correlated significantly with integrateveness.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientations
Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations are two core components in self-determination theory proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985), which is one of the most general and widely explored distinctions in motivation theories (Dornyei, 1998). According to Self-Determination Theory, there are two types of motivation, intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM), which are locate on a continuum of
self-determination (Noels Pelletier, Clement, & Vellerand, 2000), and vary depending on how much a learner engages in an activity “with a full sense of wanting, choosing, and personal endorsement” (Deci, 1992, p.44).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
21
Intrinsic Orientation
Intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to engage in an activity in anticipation of internally rewarding consequences or for learning something new, taking challenges, satisfying curiosity, and developing expertise (Dornyei, 1998; MacIntyre, MacMaster,
Intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to engage in an activity in anticipation of internally rewarding consequences or for learning something new, taking challenges, satisfying curiosity, and developing expertise (Dornyei, 1998; MacIntyre, MacMaster,