IntroductionMotivationis a psychological feature that arouses an organism to acttowards a desired goal and elicits, controls, and sustainscertain goal directed behaviors. It can be considered adriving force; a psychological one that compels orreinforces an action toward a desired goal. Forexample, hunger is a motivation that elicits a desire toeat.
Aim To hypothesize MotivationProcess through incorporatinga number of early andcontemporary Motivationaltheories.andfrom generally describing thephenomenon of motivation tospecifically analyzing thistheory in educational field.
SequencePart 1 What is Motivation? Early Motivational Theoriesa. Maslow‟s Need Hierarchy TheoryPart 2b. McGregor‟s Theory X Theory Xc. Herzberg‟s Two-Factor Theory
SequencePart 3 Contemporary Motivational TheoriesExpectancy Theory Motivation in Learning L2 The Integrative MotivationPart 4 The Instrumental Motivation The Resultative Motivation The Intrinsic Motivation
Definitions of Motivation“Motivation is the process of arousing the actionsustaining the activity in process and regulating the patternof activity.”Younge“Motivation refers to states within a person or animal thatdrives behaviour towards some goal.”Morgan and King
Nature of MotivationBased onMotivesAffected bymotivatingGoal directedbehaviourRelated tosatisfactionPerson ismotivated intotalityComplexprocess
Needs and DrivesMotivation may be defined in terms of someoutward behavior.It is thewillingness to do somethingand is conditioned by this action’s ability to satisfysome need for the individual.
Needs & DrivesAn unsatisfied needcreates tension, whichstimulates driveswithin the individual.These drives generateasearch for particulargoalsthat, if attained, willsatisfy the need andlead to the reductionof tension.
The Motivation Mind MapThere are a number of keytheories in relation tomotivation.The Motivation Mind Mapidentifies the main ones.Before we look in moredetail at these, lets look alittle further into the natureof motivation.
Early Theories of MotivationMaslow’s hierarchy of needs theory1943 paper "A Theory ofHuman Motivation"Theory X andTheoryY1960s at MIT Sloan School ofManagementTwo FactorTheory1959 bookThe Motivation to Work.
Maslow‟s Need Hierarchy Theory Maslows hierarchy of needsis a theory in psychology proposed byAbraham Maslowin his 1943 paperA Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow subsequently extended theidea to include his observations ofhumans Innate curiosity. His theories parallel many othertheories of human developmentalpsychology, some of which focuson describing the stages of growthin humans.
Model of Maslow‟s Need HierarchyPHYSIOLOGICAL OR SURVIVAL NEEDSSAFETY NEEDSSocial NeedsESTEEM NEEDSSELF-ACTUALIZATION
Key Notes of Maslow‟s Theory As each is satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. A substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lowerorders.
Appreciation and Criticism on Maslow’sTheory Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition,particularly among practicing managers. This acceptance is due to the logic and ease with whichthe theory is intuitively understood. However, research does not generally validate thetheory. There is little support for the pre-diction that needstructures are organized along the dimensions proposed. Nor does the prediction that the substantial satisfactionof a given need leads to the activation of the next higherneed seem true.
Theory X Theory YTheory X andTheoryYare two extremes introduced byHarvard ProfessorDouglas McGregorin his bookThe Human Side of Enterprise.It was published over 50 yearsago. Still, you can find boththeories in practice today.THE CRITICAL PATH BY DEREK HUETHER
Criticism & Implications of McGregor’sAnalysis Though the theory of x and y are not absolute inhow human nature plays out in our places of work,there will always be those among us who arepolarizing and think of life as a side of a coin. Theory X assumes that lower-order needsdominate individuals. TheoryY assumes that higher-order needsdominate individuals. Unfortunately, no evidence confirms that either set ofassumptions is valid.
Two-Factor Theory Frederick Herzberg (1959),a behavioural scientist proposeda two-factor theory or the motivator-hygiene theory. According to Herzberg, there aresome job factors that result insatisfaction while there are other jobfactors that prevent dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg, the oppositeof “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction”and the opposite of “Dissatisfaction”is“No Dissatisfaction”.
Criticism on Two-Factor Theory The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables. Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfactionand productivity. But the research conducted byHerzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignoredproductivity. No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used.An employee may find his job acceptable despite thefact that he may hate/object part of his job. The theory ignores blue-collar workers. Despite theselimitations, Herzberg‟s Two-Factor theory isacceptable broadly.
Contemporary Theories of MotivationMcClelland’sTheory of NeedsGoal-SettingTheoryReinforcementTheoryJob DesignTheoryEquityTheoryExpectancyTheory
Expectancy Theory In 1964, Vroom developed theExpectancy theorythrough his study of themotivationsbehind decision making.His theory is relevant to the studyof management.
Expectancy Theory The most comprehensive explanation of motivation isexpectancy theory. Expectancy theory argues that thestrength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends onthe strength of an expectation that the act will be followedby a given outcome and on the attractiveness of thatoutcome to the individual. Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theorywhich are valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentality(I). The three elements are important behind choosing oneelement over another because they are clearly defined:effort-performance expectancy (E>P expectancy),performance-outcome expectancy (P>O expectancy).
Model of Expectancy Theoryhttp://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/NC/B0/B66/057MB66.html
Motivation in Learning a Language Language teachers readily acknowledge the importance oflearner‟s motivation. Like “Language Aptitude” the discussion of “Motivation”occurs in Second rather than First Language Learning. SLA research views motivation as a key factor in L2 learning. If to satisfy our needs, to influence the actions and thoughts ofothers, to pursue our occupation and our recreation, it isnecessary to use foreign language, then we will learn thatforeign language more rapidly and more effectively than underany other condition. However, there have been differences in the way in whichteachers and researchers have conceptualized motivation ( seeCrookes and Schmidt 1990)The Study of Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Skehan’s HypothesesSkehan (1989) puts forward four hypotheses:These hypotheses have their associates in the study ofmotivation in SLA research, but the Internal CauseHypothesis has gained a great deal of researchersattention.The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Skehan’s Hypotheses1. The Intrinsic Hypothesis:motivation derives from an inherent interest in the learning tasks thelearner is asked to perform.2. The Resultative Hypothesis:learners who do well will persevere, those who do not do well willbe discouraged and try less hard.3. The Internal Cause Hypothesis:the learner brings to learning situation a certain quantity ofmotivation as given.4. The Carrot and Stick Hypothesis: externalinfluences and incentives will affect the strength of the learner‟smotivation.The Study of Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Integrated Motivation Howard Earl Gardneris an Americandevelopmental psychologist atHarvard University.He is best known for histheory of multiple intelligences,as outlined in his bookFrames of Mind:TheTheory ofMultiple Intelligences (1983).
Integrative Motivation According to Gardner‟s socio-educational model, anintegrative orientation involves an interest in learning L2because of a sincere and personal interest in people andculture represented by other language group‟ (Lambert1974: 98). Gardner has become increasingly critical of research thatfocuses narrowly on the role of orientation in L2 learning,arguing that effects of learners‟ orientation are meditatedby their motivation- that is , whereas orientation and L2achievement are only indirectly related, motivation andachievement are directly related.The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
What is Integrative Motivation As Gardner has given differentoperational definitions of this concept inhis studies, the answer to this question isnot that clear (Crookes and Schmidt(1989). Gardner‟s research rests on the use ofself-report questionnaires. Questions related to a number ofOrientation and Motivational variablesare included and learner‟s response arefactor-analysed in order to study generalfactors. One of the factors that has emerged fromthis procedure is Integrative Motivation.The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Integrative MotivationThe following table includes the variable “integrativeorientation” together with a number of other variablesthat are concerned with the learners‟ interest, attitude anddesire regarding the learning of French.
Variable Questionnaire Item ExampleAttitude towardsFrench CanadiansFive positively wordedand five negativelyworded items“If Canada should losethe French culture ofQuebec, it couldindeed be a great loss.”Interest in ForeignLanguageFive items expressingpositive interest andfive relative disinterest“I enjoy meeting andlistening to people whospeak otherlanguages.”Integrative orientation Four items expressingthe importance oflearning French forintegrative reasons.“Studying French canbe important as itallows people toparticipate more freelyin the activities of othercultural groups.”Desire to learn French Three positive andthree negative items“I wish I were fluent inFrench.”
Gardner asserts that whereas instrumental motivationemerges as an important factor in some studies, theintegrative motivation has been found perpetuallyrelevant to L2 achievement. According to him learners can have both instrumental andintegrative motivation. Muchnick and Wolfe (1982) found that 337 students ofSpanish in high school in the United States could notpossibly separate the integrated and instrumentalmotivation.The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Instrumental Motivation The carrot and stick hypothesis sees externalincentives and influences as determinants oflearner‟s motivational strength. It is useful to distinguish “orientation” and“motivation”. Gardner and Macintyre (1991) measure“orientation” by means of self-reportquestionnaire. They equate “instrumental motivation” withgiving students a financial reward forperforming a task successfully.
Machiavellian MotivationEly (1986b) investigated the types of motivations in first-year university students of Spanish in the USA. He foundthat both types of motivation, though emerging as separatefactors, were present in the same students.
The studies of Oller, Beca and Vigil (1977) have failed tolocate a correlation between the integrative motivation andL2 achievement. Their research found out that women in California whorated Anglo people negatively were more successful inlearning English than those who rated them positively. Oller and Perkins (1978) suggest that some learners maybe motivated to excel because of the negative attitudetowards the target language community.
Gardner‟s defenseGardner (1980) has vigoroulsy defended his findings bypointing out a big number of studies which have reporteda significant effect for integrative motivation, andattacking the self report questionnaires used in the studiesof Oller and associates.
Research on instrumental motivation Much of the research whereas shows instrumentalmotivation as a weak predictor of a foreign languageachievement in several Canadian studies, (see Gardner andLambert 1972), it seems to be much more influential inother contexts where learners have little or no interest inthe target language culture and few or no opportunities tocommunicate with its members. The social situation determines both what type oforientation learners have and what kind is most importantfor language learning.The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Conclusion of Integrative Motivation Integrative motivation has been shown to be stronglyrelated to L2 achievement. It combines with instrumental motivation to serve as apowerful predictor of success in formal contexts. Learners with integrative motivation are more active inclass and are less likely to drop out. However, integrativeness is not always the mainmotivational factor in L2 learning. Learners living in bilingual areas, may be more influencedby other factors like self-confidence or friendship.
Criticism There also have been a number of limitationsto the research model that has been used tostudy integrative motivation. It takes no cognizance of the latent effect thatlearning experiences can have on learners‟motivation, as opposed to the effect thatmotivation has on learning.
Financial rewards There have been few researches that have investigated thedirect effect of instrumental motivation . Dunkel (1948) (cited in Gardner and Macintyre 1992)awarded financial rewards to students learning Farsi. He found out that although there was not a significantlybetter performance on the Grammar test, there wastendency in this direction.
Gardner and Macintyre1991) report a study in which 46university psychology students were rewarded $10 if theysucceeded in doing a vocabulary task, while the samenumber was told to do their best. The students offered the reward did significantly better,but they did not perform better on the last part trial, whenthe possibility of reward no longer existed.The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Conclusion and Criticism This lead Gardner and Macintyre to theconclusion that once any chance of getting areward is eliminated, learns may stop applyingextra effort. They see this as a major limitation ofinstrumental motivation.
Resultative Motivation Gardner (1985) asserts that motivation constitutes acausative variable, although he is flexible in accepting thatsome variations in learners‟ attitudes can result frompositive learning experiences, particularly in courses of ashort duration.
Research on Resultative Motivation Spolsky (1989) reviews a number of studies whichsuggest that “while greater motivation and attitudes lead tobetter learning, the converse is not true” (1989: 153). Other studies, however, demonstate that learners‟motivation is strongly affected by their achievement. Hermann (1980) also suggested that success plays aessential role in motivation.
Hermann advanced the „ResultativeHypothesis‟ which asserts that learners whoperform well develop strong motivation andare much more active in the classroom. The Resulative Hypothesis may be applicableonly to those contexts where learners havevery low initial motivation.
Conclusion The relationship between motivationand achievement is an interactive one. A high level of motivation stirslearning, but perceived success inachieving L2 goals can help tomaintain existing motivation andeven creates new types.Viciouscircle oflowmotivationLowmotivationLowachievementLowermotivation
Motivation as Intrinsic Interest As Finnocchiaro (1981) puts in:Motivation is the feeling nurtured primarily by theclassroom teacher in the learning situation. Themoment of truth- the enhancement of motivation-occurs when the teacher closes the classroom door,greets his students with a warm, welcoming smile andproceeds to interact with various individuals bymaking comments or asking questions which indicatepersonal concern.
The notion of „intrinsic motivation‟ is an old one inpsychology. It was developed as a substitute to goal- directed theoriesof motivation that highlight the role of extrinsic rewardsand punishments. Keller (1984) (cited in Crooks and Schmidt 1989)identifies “interest” as one of the main elements ofmotivation defining it as a positive response to stimulibased on existing cognitive structures in such a way thatlearners‟ curiosity is aroused and sustained.
Research on Intrinsic Method One way in which intrinsic interest in L2 learning can beachieved is by providing opportunities for communication. McNamara (1973) claims that ‘ the really important partof motivation lies in the act of communication.’ Rossier (1975) also emphasizes the importance of a desireto communicate, arguing that without this an integrativemotivation may not be effective.
One possibility supported by a strong pedagogic literatureis that interest is engendered if learners become self-directed (i.e are able to determine their own learningobjectives, choose their own way of achieving these, andevaluate their own progress). Dickinson refers to the study of Bachman (1964) whichsuggested that engaging students in decision-makingtended to lead to increased motivation, and thereby, toincreased productivity.
Conclusion Motivation in L2 learning constitutes one of the most fullyresearched areas of individual differences. The bulk of the research, however has rested rathernarrowly on integrative and instrumental motivation,relying exclusively on self-report questionnaire andcorrelation designs. Little work on motivation as intrinsic interest has takenplace. Also little attention has been paid to the effect ofmotivation on the process of learning.
Crookes and Schimdt (1989)argue that research that correlatesteachers‟ and learners‟ actionsto „persistence‟ and „effort‟ inlanguage learning would have amore „real-world- impact. Skehan (1989; 1991) argues formore research on motivation innaturalistic as opposed toclassroom settings.