A major feature of all mainstream motivation theories lies in a lack of synthesis; that is, a “lack of comprehensiveness” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 11), while every theory has been anchored by a few motivational perspectives but largely ignores the multifaceted features of human behavior. Weiner (1984) has suggested that “any theory based on a single concept, ... will be insufficient to deal with the complexity of classroom activities” (p. 18). Traditional motivational psychology has shown an emphasis on individualistic perspective in that it attempts to explain why an individual behaves the
62
way he or she does. It is comprehensible because it is the individual who takes the actions and the initial drives for the intended behavior are seen as personal motivation.
However, although it can be a fact that people may pursue very limited types of selected behavior, various factors, including both external and internal ones, may be interwoven to affect the intention and the behavior. In line with this, Gardner (1996) acknowledged that motivation consisted of two distinct characteristics: an internal attribute and an external attribute. The motivation becomes an integrative perspective that assumed motivation can be an internal attribute that results in an external force (Gardner, 1996, cited in MacIntyre, MacMaster, & Baker, 2001). The external force is viewed as a stimulus that drives motivation. In other words, both social and personal motivations should be taken into account (Weiner, 1994, p. 557) since human behaviors are directly or indirectly socially shaped. Weiner (1984) has made a similar statement that a theory of student motivation should include many concepts and be able to show their inter-relationships to account for the complexity of classroom activities. Learning is a series of ongoing activities situated in social practice and in social interaction with others. In this respect, learning is socially oriented. Though the importance of social and cultural contexts in learning has been emphasized in terms of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1999), studies concerning the construction of L2 learning models rarely pay sufficient attention to the impact of social contexts, particularly the influence of students’
immediate learning environment, including perceptions of and interactions with their significant others. Research methodology using this approach favors experiments and qualitative studies in an attempt to examine the importance of society and culture as an integral part of the language learning process.
63
The constructs of the current model are in line with previous studies that have postulated that existing critical constructs, such as attitudes, self-confidence, goal-oriented motivation, and language achievement, would form the basis of the structural model. However, the current model would also contrast with previous studies in four aspects. First, in line with previous review that concluded that other research areas should be taken into consideration (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1994, Oxford & Shearin, 1994), this current model is grounded on the theoretical framework of Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior from social psychology. Second, with the basis of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior, the current structural model will further gain in strength by adopting Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of implementation intention, and two constructs, the tactics of L2 learning behavior and mastery of L2 learning, from Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model into second language learning motivation. Third, despite the existing measures in L2 motivation research and the adopted TPB model, the measures of two new constructs, social norms and implementation intention, will be developed and tested under a theoretical framework to see whether they meet the psychometric characteristics in that no validated scales in L2 motivation research are available regarding these two constructs. Finally, the whole structural model will be distinguished with three language learning phases, based on Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon model.
The adoption of several motivation theories echoes the view that there is no single theory suited to interpreting the factors involved in the dynamic process of L2 learning motivational behavior (Landy & Becker, 1987; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995).
In addition to Ajzen’s TPB model and the Heckhausen and Gollwitzer (1987) Rubicon model, other theoretical frameworks associated with this current study include
64
Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) Sociocultural Theory and Bandura’s (1986, 1999) Social Cognitive Theory. The operational model will also be grounded on Ajzen’s model of the theory of planned behavior, which has not been widely used in the field of educational research and particularly rarely in language learning involving long volitional processes. Cronbach and Meehl (1955) make the point that a theoretical construct needs an elaboration of the associated network in respect of the theoretical concept. In line with this view, Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior was adopted because it encompasses not only the significant factors but also the two important dimensions, social norms and behavioral intention, which have not been thoroughly studied in L2 learning motivation. Furthermore, the current model will be elaborated with Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) Implementation Intention, which highlights the psychological processes concerning how learners develop particular plans with respect to goal attainment and can therefore increase the commitment to engaging in a specific behavior, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and mastery, which are another two powerful factors in a temporal-processed model. The elaborated network will be shown in a diagram which would be better understood on one hand and which would display the causal relationships among variables to interpret a concept and a sequential process.
According to Tremblay and Gardner (1995), the motivational antecedents were defined as factors that “cannot be readily perceived by an external observer” (p.507), but still have a certain effect on behavior in terms of an individual’s cognitive or affective anticipation perspectives. With respect to the action phases in the Rubicon model, in this study, the constructs of learners Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social
Norms and Self-Confidence will be categorized in the predecisional phase. One
common characteristic of the three factors, according to Tremblay and Gardner (1995),65
lies in an individual’s readily-perceived attitudes toward L2 learning, readily perceived expectations of their significant others, and readily-perceived capability of performing a language act. According to the Rubicon model, people assess the feasibility of a potential goal. Thus, an individual evaluates his personal competence of whether or not to achieve a selected goal.In this study, self-confidence is viewed as an intentional antecedent because it is a readily-perceived factor that an individual has evaluated their linguistic competence to whether or not they can reach a generally recognized level at the time the survey was conducted. Further, in this phase people are affected by their immediate environment to choose among the wishes and desires they possess in order to commit themselves to certain selected goals. Self-confidence emerges if the contacts were pleasant, as a learner directly or indirectly interacts with the L2 group or culture, which reveals progressive quantitative and qualitative L2 competence (Clément, Dörnyei, Noels, 1994). Students in language learning in this phase would weigh language competence and estimate whether or not they are capable of doing what is needed to attain the goal.
In the preactional phase, two types of intention, Goal Intention and
Implementation Intention, are the major factors that are determined by the three
previous antecedents. L2 learners weigh their relative desirability and feasibility in terms of their capability to set their attainable goals. In addition to the set goals, in the end of this preactional phase, implementation intention associated with planned task to cope with goal striving would be enacted. Once the appropriate opportunities arise, the individual would initiate goal-directed behavior. Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) argued that intention formation (in the end of the predecisional phase) and intention enactment (in the end of the preactional phase) should be equally weighted in that intention enactment is associated with skill planning used in various situations with66
effective and strategic responses, which will affect the magnitude and quality of success in reaching the goal. In contrast to the behaviorist approach, the action phase is deemed to be an individual’s learning behavior that corresponds with Max Weber’s (1921) concept of “meaning” or “sense”. In agreement of this perspective, L2 learning actions can be defined as execution behavior and activities directed to attaining the
“intended goal.” In line with the Rubicon model, volitional strength is the determinant whether an action can be sustained in order to pursue the goal. In the current model, an individual’s self-regulatory capacity and the tactics of various learning behaviors will be categorized in the actional phase. These two factors in the motivation process place an emphasis on the translation of previous set goals into action. The self-regulatory capacity plays a critical role in determining whether or not the learning act will succeed, whereas the tactics of L2 learning behaviors play another key in exerting efforts to polish the learners’ linguistic proficiency as well as to overcome encountered situational difficulties. Accordingly, the last two factors, mastery of L2 learning and L2 achievement, symbolize the results of the three phases. Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) emphasized that mastery of strategy use was a stronger factor than frequency of strategy use in causal relationship with vocabulary knowledge.