Student motivation during foreign language instruction what factors affect student motivation

STUDENT MOTIVATION DURING FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION:
WHAT FACTORS AFFECT STUDENT MOTIVATION AND HOW?
by
Claire M. Hicks
A Dissertation Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In Urban Education
at
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
May 2008

UMI Number: 3314422
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3314422
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT STUDENT'S MOTIVATION AND HOW?
by
Claire M. Hicks
A Dissertation Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In Urban Education
at
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
May 2008
Gradual
11

ABSTRACT
WHAT FACTORS AFFECT STUDENT MOTIVATION AND HOW?
by
Claire M. Hicks
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2008
Under the Supervision of Dr. Randall Ryder
Most foreign language (FL) teachers identify the ability to motivate students as
their main challenge. Second language (L2) scholars claim that motivation is a key factor
in language learning. Second language motivation research offers numerous theoretical
constructs that conceptualize and correlate motivation and achievement. Recent studies
have applied the theoretical framework of self-determination theory (SDT) to address the
relationship between FL teachers' communicative teaching approach and their students'
degree of motivation, engagement, and subsequent learning revealing valuable and
promising findings. Moreover, L2 scholars have raised the issue of the limitations of the
traditional quantitative research paradigm and the need to conduct classroom research in
the classroom rather than about the classroom (van Lier, 1988).
The present interpretive and descriptive qualitative study seeks: 1) to understand
and describe students' motivation during FL instruction namely, students' engagement as
it underlies motivation as defined by Connell and Wellborn (1991), from both the
students' and the researcher's perspectives, 2) to examine how students themselves
describe their learning experience in the FL classroom, and 3) to examine learning
iii

outcomes, expressed in quantitative measures by teachers and in qualitative accounts by
students gathered through individual interviews and focus groups.
Findings identify the teacher as the key element affecting students' levels of
interest, enthusiasm, engagement, and motivation. Participants reveal specifics about the
second language instructional setting which are seldom available to teachers such as:
salient characteristics of what engages and motivates students and perceptions of what the
teacher does and says and what actually shapes students' behaviors. The interpretation of
the findings through the lens of Connell and Wellborn's (1991) motivational model
provides detailed and constructive pedagogical practices of utmost importance for FL
teachers. Additionally, this interpretation results in establishing links between
participants' learning and their motivation within the research context.
5-y-ZocQ
Major Professor Date
IV

/Acknowledgment
j his manuscript brings to an end an eventful and memorable journey, which
includes countless hours of work, and has been the source of personal satisfaction as
well as periods of serious doubt. M o s t importantly, this project would not have seen
the light of day without the involvement and the participation of numerous persons
who have in so many different ways played a part in its accomplishment. | cannot quite
find the right words, in L_nglish or in french, to express my sincere gratitude and
appreciation to my committee members, my student-and teacher-participants, my
friends, and my family.
O i n c e
the beginning, ] have claimed that j had the best committee on campus.
fj)r. Fyder, ]J)r. O'ccone, D r
- ELckman, fj)r. 5 w a m
' n a
t h a n , and Y)r. Jang, all of these
quality professors have shared with me their talent, their knowledge, and their time,
which contributed to mu success. ~]~heu have openly challenged me to become a
critical thinker, an educated learner in mu field, an experienced field researcher, and a
better writer.
j his journey could not have happened without the special friendship of
Joanne, [aige, j ammu, and Jen as well as the kind words of encouragement of mu
loyal students. ] express a very sincere thank uou to Jvathleen who demonstrated the
most kindness and generosity while sharing her expertise and experience all through
the writing of the 500 pages.
f r o m the other side of the /tlantic to here at home, the unconditional love and
support of my parents, my brother, mu sons, and my husband were key in remaining
focused, determined, and strong in overcoming the challenges and going the distance.
Jason allowed me to keep mu sense of humor while not taking things too seriously and
Spenser kindly played along with my unusual requests; merci lesgarcons. | inally,
from the bottom of my heart, | thank my very supportive and understanding husband,
I hi!, who embraced without question the spoa and the bad of this journey; after all,
this is our dissertation.
(x louXe& eX d kau&, ie -touA 3ia twv <^tcwo3 m&vci, LXaixe.
VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13
Motivation Research in the Field of Second Language 15
The Social Psychological Approach 16
The Cognitive-situated Approach 20
The Process-oriented Approach 24
The SDT-L2 Motivation Movement 28
Discussion about Limitations of Research Paradigm 30
Self-determination Theory and Student Engagement 33
Overview of Self-determination Theory 34
Motivational Model of Engagement 38
Promoting Self-determined Learning 41
Student Engagement Gains 41
High Quality Learning 42
Performance Gains 44
Autonomy-Supportive Teaching Style 46
Dynamics of the Language Classroom 48
Learner Identities 49
Affective Variables 51
Anxiety 51
Willingness to communicate 53
Students' personality 54
vii

Emotion 55
Learning Styles 55
Learning Strategies 56
Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning 57
Approaches, Methods, Principles 60
Overview of Language Teaching 60
Communicative Language Teaching Method: Definitions and Principles 65
Teacher Identities 68
Teacher's Beliefs about Language, Language Learning, and Language Teaching
69
L2 scholars' Perspectives on the Teacher's Role 71
Rationale and Research Questions 74
A Different Motivational Framework for L2 Motivation 75
Relationship between Student Learning and Motivation 78
Choice of a Research Paradigm 80
Research Questions 81
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 82
Goals of the Study and Approach 82
Profile of the researcher 84
Research Questions 88
Interpretive and Descriptive Approach 88
Research Setting 91
Sampling and Participants 93
Process of Selection 94
viii

Backgrounds of Participants 97
Teacher participants 98
Student participants 99
Data Collection 101
Observations 103
Individual Interviews 105
Focus Groups 108
Students Grades 110
Data Management Ill
Data Analysis 113
Quality Control 116
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 118
Factors Affecting Student Level of Motivation during Instruction 119
Teacher Personal Characteristics as Perceived by the Students 121
Teaching Style and Teacher's Approach 124
Classroom Atmosphere 126
Classroom Set-up 128
Delivery of the Instruction 130
Teacher's Reported Instructional Approaches 137
Pair Activities 139
Formation of Working Pairs 140
Matching of Working Partners 144
Teacher's Behaviors during Pair Activity 147
ix

Warm-up Activities 156
Teacher-Centered Activities 160
Typical Whole Class Activities 161
French 104 161
French 203 168
French 204 172
Whole Class Discussions 176
Narrative accounts 177
Participants comments 185
Participants Preferred Activities 208
French 104 209
French 203 211
French 204 213
Language of Instruction and Participation 215
Student Learning 224
Quantitative Aspect of Participants Learning Outcomes 225
Qualitative Aspect of Participants Learning Outcomes 233
Class 104 234
Marguerite 234
Marie 236
Ladislas 238
Charlotte 240
Class 203 241
x

Cecile 241
Sybille 243
Jacques 246
Amelie 247
Class 204 250
Elaine 250
Claire 252
Napoleon 255
Pierre 257
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 264
Role Played by the Foreign Language Teacher 265
FL Students' Motivation and the Motivational Model of Engagement 269
Autonomy Support 271
Structure 275
Involvement 279
Motivation and Learning 284
Implications for FL teachers 290
Directions for Future Research 296
Limitations of the study 301
REFERENCES 303
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE 319
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 321
APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES //104. 323
XI

APPENDIX D: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES // 203..324
APPENDIX E: INDIVIDUAL CHART RECORDING FALL 2006 GRADES // 204. 325
CURRICULUM VITAE 326
xn

FIGURES
Figure 1. Gardner's conceptualization of the integrative motive as
represented in Dornyei (2001) 18
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the socio-educational model
(Gardner, 1985) 19
Figure 3. Conceptualization of Dornyei & Otto's (1998)
process model of L2 motivation 25
Figure 4. Ten commandments for motivating language learners
(Dornyei & Csizer, 1998, p. 215) 27
Figure 5. A Motivational model of Context, Self, Action, and Outcomes
by Connell and Wellborn (1991) 39
Figure 6. Student demographics 92
Figure 7. Student-participants' profiles as French learners 100
Figure 8. Timeline of the study 103
Figure 9. Lists of codes for data analysis 114
Figure 10. Factors affecting students' level of motivation, interest,
enthusiasm, and engagement during instruction 120
Figure 11. Distribution of French 104 grade (2nd semester) 226
Figure 12. 104 Participants' individual grades 226
Figure 13. Distribution of French 203 grade (3rd semester) 227
Figure 15. Distribution of French 204 grade (4th semester) 228
Figure 17. Participants' grades by types of assessment 230
Figure 18. Participants learning goals, qualitative description of participants' learning,
and semester grades 263
xiii

by Connell and Wellborn (1991) 269
Figure 20. Model connecting the teacher, the student, and student motivation
during FL instruction 297
xiv

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Imagine 24 to 28 quiet and docile students trying to listen and concentrate while
focusing on the teacher who reads mostly from a boring textbook and gives ongoing
explanations about grammar structures, conjugations, and other linguistic aspects of the
language. When not lectured, these students work individually to complete numerous
grammar exercises involving recall of memorized rules, lists of nouns with their genders,
declensions, and meanings, or lists of irregular verbs conjugated in different tenses. After
these exercises comes correction, which is very stressful for these students. Anxious, they
wait their turn to be called on. They hope to answer correctly and wish secretly not to be
asked to stand by the teacher's desk, which happens on occasion. The discourse used in
this class is mainly an unexciting and unappealing monologue delivered in a tiresome
manner offering very limited interactions between teacher and students and between
students. In fact, students' impromptu participation is neither expected nor encouraged by
the teacher. She diligently and rigorously follows her lesson plan leaving no room for
unforeseen interruptions or surprising interventions by spontaneous and enthusiastic
students. As a student in this class, my main objective was to be a good and compliant
student and earn a good grade. Constantly feeling tense and at times apprehensive, my
only concern was homework, memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary words,
listening and following the teacher's directions, and most of all, providing correct
answers when asked. Within this learning environment, it never occurred to me (at the
time) that this class could have been different, neither stressful, nor boring but, in fact,
fun.

Now, imagine 15 to 20 students sitting close together, forming three rows directly
facing the teacher's desk, keeping their eyes constantly on the teacher. They carefully
listen and follow the teacher's instructions in order to provide answers recited out loud as
a group. The well-orchestrated lesson consists of a series of drills based on the repetition
of single words, short sentences, and questions followed by short answers. For example,
one by one, the teacher shows several index cards with drawings of a single object on
each. She then pronounces its name and gives the signal for students to repeat the word in
unison several times. It is easy and most of the students participate with loud voices and
enthusiasm. However, the students' challenge is to follow the pace of the group and make
sure not to be singled out by poor pronunciation. In that case, the 'spotted' student would
have to repeat the word by himself until the teacher is satisfied with the pronunciation.
Early in the academic year, these drills were somewhat fun and amusing because there
were easy and little work was required. However, this process quickly became repetitive,
unchallenging and even annoying. Furthermore, teacher-student interactions as well as
student-student interactions were in general non-existent, emphasizing the control of the
teacher over students who, like me, felt transformed into a pawn acting as an automaton.
These brief narratives respectively illustrate two different language learning
situations: 9l
grade German class (4th
year German) carefully taught following the
principles of the Grammar-Translation method1
and 9th
grade English class (2nd
year
English) conducted by a teacher who employed the Audio-Lingual method . Time has
passed since these experiences and memories have faded. However, having chosen to
become a language teacher myself, I have often looked back and reflected on these
1
This method is described in Chapter 2/ section 3.
2
This method is described in Chapter 2/ section 3.

3
language learning environments to realize the strong impact they had at the time on my
interest, my curiosity, and my enjoyment or rather the lack thereof. I am also aware of
their influence on my teaching. Ever since my very first steps as a French teacher, I have
been interested in understanding student motivation, especially during instruction and its
influence on student learning.
Foreign language (FL) instruction presents numerous challenges to teachers, not
the least of which are learners' linguistics backgrounds, preferred learning styles, and the
wide variety of available teaching approaches. Yet the most salient challenge commonly
identified by teachers is the need to motivate the learner. Since "it is universally accepted
that motivation plays a vital role in academic learning in general" (Dornyei, 2006, p. 50),
Ellis (1994) noted that FL teachers recognize the importance of motivation "both with
regard to the motivation that students bring to the language classroom ... and the
motivation that is generated inside the classroom through the choice of instructional
activities" (p.536). Foreign language teachers believe that motivation plays an essential
role in determining success or failure in language learning (Dornyei, 2001a, 2001b;
Dornyei & Csizer, 1998; van Lier, 1996) since it seems "only sensible to assume that
learning is most likely to occur when we want to learn" (Williams & Burden, 1997,
p. 111). In addition to this extreme importance given to motivation for learning a
language, the source of motivation is also seen as "very important in a practical sense to
teachers who want to stimulate students' motivation. Without knowing where the roots of
motivation lie, how can teachers water these roots" (Oxford & Shearin, 1994, p. 15). So,
it is no coincidence that there is an abundance of literature about language learning
motivation.

4
Prior to pursuing this discussion about language learning and motivation, it is
necessary to clarify two matters specific to language learning both of which are pertinent
to this study: (1) the difference between learning a language and learning other subjects
and (2) several key terms commonly used in the field of language learning.
It is commonly recognized that languages are "unlike any other subject taught in a
classroom" (Gardner, 1985, p. 146). Indeed, subjects like mathematics, science, history,
or music are "generally all part of the student's culture or cultural perspective at least"
(Gardner, 1985, p. 146). Conversely, a second language is a "salient characteristic of
another culture" (Gardner, 1985, p. 146), which explains that language learning "involves
far more than simply skills, or a system of rules, or a grammar; it involves .. .the adoption
of new social and cultural behaviours and ways of being" (Williams, 1994, p. 77). Thus,
language learning is "ultimately learning to be another social person" (Crookall &
Oxford, 1988, p. 136). Furthermore, in addition to the fact that language learning is
socially and culturally bound, language classrooms are different in many ways from any
other kinds of classrooms "in part, because language is both the object and the medium of
instruction" (Allwright & Bailey, 1991, p. 74). As a result, more than one language is
often spoken during instruction based on the situation. Chambers (1999), who examined
students' motivational perspectives on FL learning identified some issues unique to
foreign languages as a school subject. For example, the nature of FL instruction is skill-
oriented and involves many activities which focus on practice, training, and repetitions,
all of which can promote stress and anxiety in students. The complexity of a new coding
system and new terminology add to the challenge of memorization for learners.
Moreover, the rewards of language learning are generally long term and often difficult for

5
students to recognize during the early stages of their FL learning experiences. Given all
these facts, learning a language is different from learning any other subject, which gives
grounds to make "the distinction between problems of motivation relating to language
learning and those relating to learning in general" (Chambers, 1999, p. 7).
In the rich and varied field of second language (L2) learning, scholars employ
terms differently. For example, some make the distinction between 'second' and 'foreign'
language. In this study, I adopt the terminology common in the field of second language
(L2) as presented by Oxford (1990) and Gass and Selinker (2001). The native language
(NL) or (LI) refers to the first language learned as a child and known as the primary
language or mother tongue. The second language (L2) refers to any language learned
after learning the LI. The L2 is learned "in a classroom situation, as well as in more
'natural' exposure situations" (Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 5), such as in multilingual
countries or immigrants learning the language of their adopted country. The foreign
language (FL) refers to a nonnative language learned in the environment of one's native
language (e.g., French speakers learning English in France, Spanish speakers learning
French in Spain), most often within the context of the classroom (Gass & Selinker, 2001).
This "second versus foreign" distinction, often considered as confusing, is "usually
viewed in terms of where the language is learned and what social and communicative
functions the language serves there" (Oxford, 1990, p. 6). Thus, within the context of the
present study, FL instruction refers to the teaching of a foreign language in a classroom
and corresponds to a particular learning context of second language. Furthermore, the
term L2 is used in reference to second language in general (e. g., L2 scholars, L2 field,
L2 motivation).

6
For several decades now, motivation in language learning has been the focal point
of L2 scholars. Given that 'motivation to learn' is seen as a multifaceted and complex
concept and that language learning is socially and culturally bound, the concept of
'motivation to learn a language' becomes even more complex (Dornyei, 2001b). Through
the study of motivational determinants of second language acquisition and use, L2
researchers have developed a variety of theories and constructs. A review of this
literature reveals many powerful and compelling statements that illustrate and underline
the extreme importance of L2 motivation in terms of learning as Chambers (2001) stated:
"At the end, it is a question of motivation" (p. 1). As early as the mid-twentieth century,
Albert Markwardt (1948), a scholar in linguistics, was interested in understanding "the
motives impelling the individual, the class, and the nation to the study of modern
languages" (p. 161). More importantly, he thought that understanding these motives had
to be dealt with before the questions about aims and objectives of teaching itself. Corder
(1973) declared that "given motivation, it is inevitable that a human being will learn a
second language if he is exposed to the language data" (p. 8). Since Corder, this
forthright claim has been employed by other L2 scholars (Skehan, 1989; van Lier, 1996)
to support their argument that motivation is "a very important, if not the most important,
factor in language learning" (van Lier, 1996, p. 98) and that "achievement and motivation
are closely related" (p. 121). Discussing this connection between motivation and the
language learning process, Chomsky (1988) emphasized the importance of activating
students' motivation: "The truth of the matter is that about 99 percent of teaching is
making the students feel interested in the material. Then the other 1 percent has to do
with your methods" (p. 181). He further claimed that:

Learning does not achieve lasting results when you don't see any point to it.
Learning has to come from the inside; you have to want to learn. If you want to
learn; you'll learn no matter how bad the methods are. (p. 182)
Sir Christopher Ball (1995) embraced this viewpoint by asserting that "there are only
three things of importance to successful learning; motivation, motivation, and motivation
... any fool can teach students who want to learn" (p. 5). Otherwise simply stated by
Scarcella and Oxford (1992), "motivation decides the extent of active personal
engagement in learning" (p. 52). Given these aforementioned remarks and statements, it
leaves no doubt that "motivation is without question, the most complex and challenging
issue facing teachers today" (Scheidecker & Freeman, 1999, p. 116).
Though motivation, combined with appropriate curricula and good teaching is
collectively recognized as an essential element in student learning, it is often perceived as
indefinable and intangible. Dornyei (2001a), for example, questions the existence of
motivation itself suggesting it "is an abstract, hypothetical concept that we use to explain
why people think and behave as they do" (p. 1). From this perspective, a 'motivated'
student is enthusiastic and dedicated, demonstrates effort and determination, studies with
intensity, and has good reasons for learning. Conversely, an 'unmotivated' student shows
none of these signs but rather seems disconnected, not involved, not committed to the
class or to learning. As straightforward as these profiles of motivated and unmotivated
students are, the concept of motivation itself is not so simple and straightforward. Rather,
this concept is "composed of many different and overlapping factors .... These in turn will
differ in different situations and circumstances and also be subject to various external
3
Sir Christopher Ball made this claim in a paper presented at the North of England Education Conference
in 1995.

influences such as parents, teachers and exams" (Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 111).
Nonetheless, there is a consensus among most researchers that motivation, by definition,
is understood as the processes that give human behavior its energy and direction. That is,
the choice of a particular activity, the effort expended on it, and thepersistence with it. In
other words, motivation explains why people decide to do something, how hard they are
going to pursue it, and how long they are willing to sustain the activity. The driving force
underlying these processes has been the focal point of researchers who have expressed a
broad range of viewpoints on this matter while generating a variety of models and
theories of motivation. Given this fact, it is necessary to provide a well-defined and
informed description of motivation that fits the context and the purposes of the present
study, which will be provided in chapter two. The present section introduces a few
definitions developed by researchers who have greatly influenced the study of motivation
in general and language learning motivation in particular.
Within the field of psychology, the meaning of motivation depends mostly on the
particular theory of human nature chosen. For instance, Deci and Ryan (1985) grounded
their self-determination theory (SDT) in organismic theories, which "tend to view the
organism as active, that is, as being volitional and initiating behaviors" (p. 4). They
described motivation as an organism's response to a certain need, and, specifically, to
certain basic psychological needs which are innate to the human being. Thus, in order to
be motivated, individuals need to fulfill their psychological needs of autonomy (or self-
determination), competence, and relatedness4
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). Within the field of
L2 motivation, Gardner (1985), defined motivation in terms of language learning process:
Motivation ... refers to the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal
4
The three psychological needs and SDT are described and explained in detail in chapter 2.

9
of learning the language plus favourable attitudes towards learning the language.
That is, motivation to learn a second language is seen as referring to the extent
to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire
to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity, (p. 10)
He further underlined the necessity to have all three components -desire, want, and
effort— in order to experience motivation because "the individual may want to learn the
language and may enjoy the activity, but, if this is not linked with a striving to do so, then
it is not truly motivation" (Gardner, 1985, p. 11). The key tenet of this approach is that
the individual's attitudes towards the language and the community of speakers of that
language are of great importance "(primarily) as support for motivation" (Gardner, 1985,
p. 14). Breaking away from this explicit perspective, Scarcella and Oxford (1992) defined
motivation in terms of three external and behavioral characteristics (i.e., decision,
persistence, activity level) and an internal structure that includes four attitudinal factors
(i. e., interest, relevance, expectancy, and outcomes). Dornyei (1990,1994) viewed L2
motivation as an eclectic, multifaceted construct that includes components specific to
language learning, situational factors, and individual characteristics brought by the
learner to the learning task. He further defined motivation, in a general sense, as " the
dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates,
amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial
wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalised and (successfully or
unsuccessfully) acted out" (Dornyei & Otto, 1998, p. 65). Given these aforementioned
definitions and descriptions of motivation and claims about the importance of L2

10
motivation in terms of learning, it would be compelling to examine motivation as it
manifests itself in the FL classroom.
The aim of the present study is not to generate a new model of language learning
motivation but rather to seek a better understanding of student motivation as it is
manifested during FL5
instruction. To this end, student motivation is examined as it is
lived out in a 'real' language classroom, defined as "the gathering, for a given period of
time, of two or more persons (one of whom generally assumes the role of instructor) for
the purposes of language learning" (Van Lier, 1988, p. 47). Traditionally viewed as a
controlled learning environment under the leadership of the teacher, the language
classroom can now be seen as 'a place of communication' for students to practice
communicative skills needed to use outside the classroom in real interactive situations
(Tudor, 2001). Allwright and Bailey (1991) employed Gaies' metaphor comparing the
language classroom to a crucible and explained how the classroom is the "place where
teachers and learners come together and language learning, we hope, happens. It happens,
when it happens, as a result of the reactions among the elements that go into the crucible
- the teachers and the learners" (p. 18). Too often neglected as a place to conduct
research, the language classroom merits special attention. Van Lier (1988) highlighted
the "importance of'going into classrooms'" (p. xvi), which is a "contextually defined
setting" (p. 1) because there are "many unanswered questions about L2 classrooms" (p.
xvii). Sharing this viewpoint, Williams and Burden (1997) pointed out the need for
language teachers and learners to understand "the immediate physical environment of the
classroom and the nature of the personal interactions which occurs within it" (p. 198) as
this environment has "a profound influence upon whether, what and how any individual
5
The term FL was previously defined in this chapter.

11
learns a language" (p. 189). Indeed, the classroom comprises many varied factors needed
during instruction and embodies the day-to-day reality of teaching, which "reflects the
multifaceted interaction of students and teachers with one another, with methodology and
materials, and ... emerges from this meeting of different actors and different perceptions
of the nature and goals of learning and teaching" (Tudor, 2001, p. 30). Thus, given this
perspective of understanding language teaching as it is lived out in real classrooms, the
purpose of the present study is to explore student motivation during FL instruction.
Because motivation is an internal state, it is not easily observable in educational
settings. Motivated behavior, however, can be examined through engagement, which
refers to the behavioral intensity and emotional quality of students' involvement during
learning. It develops from experiences in which individuals' psychological needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner &
Belmont, 1993). To this end, engaged students express high effort, attention, and
persistence, as well as positive emotions such as interest, enthusiasm, and enjoyment.
Thus, engagement illustrates the observable manifestation of the quality of a student's
motivation and represents a useful concept for teachers (Reeve, 2002). Since engagement
has been clearly linked to motivation, studying engaged behavior represents a pertinent
and compelling way to examine students' motivation and students' learning outcomes in
the language learning context.
The inquiry of this study addresses three separate but complementary aspects of
student motivation pertinent to FL instruction and FL learning. First, the study examines
how students describe their learning experience in the FL classroom, including their
response to instructional approach as well as to the teacher's use of the textbooks and

12
other teaching aids that engage and motivate them during instruction. Second, the study
seeks to understand and describe, from the perspective of the researcher, how teachers
motivate and foster student engagement6
during FL instruction. Finally, the study
examines the students' learning outcomes that emerge from FL instruction. The students'
learning outcomes comprise the quantitative measures (i.e., written & oral tests, grades)
determined by teachers and the qualitative aspect representing what students perceive and
describe as learning. Thus, from these three lines of inquiry, connections between what
students have to say about their learning and their motivation, what takes place during
instruction in terms of student motivation and engagement, and the results of
conventional learning outcomes may be made evident.
6
As defined by Connell & Wellborn (1991).

13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This study examined student motivation in the foreign language (FL) classroom
manifested as student engagement and student learning outcomes. Students learning
outcomes were determined by teachers' quantitative measures (i.e., written & oral tests,
grades) and students' qualitative responses in interviews and focus groups. This chapter
is designed to address the different aspects and issues involved in students' motivation
when learning a FL. It explores three bodies of research: (1) motivation in the field of
second language (L2); (2) a theory of motivation called self-determination theory (SDT);
and (3) the dynamics of the language classroom, that is, the interaction of teacher and
learner identity along with the instructional approach.
The first section introduces L2 motivation research by describing four conceptual
areas of scholarship: (a) Gardner's seminal work that conceptualized L2 motivation
through a socio-psychological framework; (b) several motivational models developed by
L2 scholars (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Dornyei, 1994;
Dornyei & Otto, 1998) in an attempt to broaden Gardner's approach to include other
constructs; (c) the SDT motivational framework in FL context; and (d) the issue of
limitations of the traditional quantitative research paradigm raised by some L2 scholars
(Syed, 2001; Ushioda, 2001; William et al., 2001).
The second section reports on the salient points of SDT and explains how in
educational settings this theoretical framework is linked to students' engagement and
positive learning outcomes (e.g., conceptual learning, intrinsic motivation, academic
achievement). In addition, Connell and Wellborn's (1991) motivational model, grounded
in one of the main assumptions of SDT, is used as a conceptual framework to interpret

14
findings of this study. This conceptualization of students' engagement, defined as the
observable manifestation of the quality of a student's motivation (Reeve, 2002) will
allow for an explicit examination of the distinct elements that play a role during formal
FL instruction.
The third section describes how students' L2 motivation should be linked to other
variables present in the language learning context. Language teaching is a complex and
dynamic activity in which the participants interact in the learning process. Tudor (2001)
argued that this "complexity of language teaching as it is lived out in the classroom"
(p. 1) is often underestimated and recommended exploring the dynamics of teaching
situations. Linked to the understanding of student's motivation during FL instruction,
these dynamics are affected by three crucial variables, namely learner identities,
communicative teaching approach, and teacher identities. Consequently, gleaned from
Tudor's (2001) vision of the language teaching-learning process, this section reports on
the dynamics of the language classroom by examining: (1) learner identities characterized
by learner individual differences and learner beliefs about language learning experiences
and achievements, (2) the communicative teaching approach (CLT) that represents the
dominant paradigm in language teaching and in particular, in the language classrooms
being observed in this study, and (3) teacher identities corresponding to teachers' beliefs,
attitudes and perceptions of the teaching situations.
The fourth and final section of this chapter provides the rationale of this study by
reviewing three concerns emerging from the literature about student motivation and
engagement in the FL classroom. First, L2 motivation research has by and large
combined '"attitudes and motivation' as a unit without either distinguishing between

15
them, or showing how they interrelate" (van Lier, 1996, p. 104). This fact incites to
consider "alternative ideas to motivation" (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991) and to employing
other motivational frameworks. Thus, given the purposes of the present study and the
valuable findings of recent studies applying self-determination theory in FL context, it is
necessary to expand its application in the FL classroom. Second, the relationship between
student learning and motivation has been strongly influenced by the integrative
orientation. This approach offers a limited view of how L2 motivation and language
learning are linked and justifies broadening this approach by employing, for example, the
theoretical framework of SDT. Third, the dominance of the quantitative research
paradigm used to conduct L2 motivation studies has raised issues of limitations among
several L2 scholars. Finally, the analysis of these three concerns logically leads to the
formulation of three research questions for the present study.
In summary, this review of literature is broken down into four sections: (1) an
overview of motivation research in the L2 field, (2) a description of SDT including
Connell & Wellborn's motivational model selected as conceptual framework to analyze
the data, (3) the dynamics in the language classroom with in particular learner identities,
communicative teaching approach, and teacher identities, and (4) rationale and research
questions.
Motivation Research in the Field of Second Language
For decades, language learning motivation has been the center of interest for
numerous L2 scholars. The inherent complexity of language and the language learning
process has generated a myriad of diverse theories and approaches by L2 scholars in
order to identify and study the motivational determinants of second language acquisition

16
(SLA). Robert Gardner established a theory of motivation considered to be the most
influential in the L2 field (Dornyei, 2001b). Gardner (1985) proposed that language
learning is a social psychological phenomenon. He focused on the role of learners'
attitudes and motivation in developing L2 achievement. Therefore, this description of L2
motivation research begins with an examination of Gardner's social psychological
approach. Following are reviews of two essential approaches by L2 scholars, namely the
cognitive-situated approach and the process-oriented approach that expanded and
furthered Gardner's work. Ending this examination (of L2 motivation research), reports
on recent studies applying SDT in the language learning context will demonstrate the
need for this motivational framework in understanding students' motivation during FL
instruction. Lastly, this section closes with a discussion that outlines the limitations found
within the traditional quantitative research paradigm. It will thus provide the rationale as
to the purpose of this study.
In sum, this review of L2 motivation research is organized into five conceptual
areas of scholarship: (1) the social psychological approach, (2) the cognitive-situated
approach, (3) the process-oriented approach, (4) the SDT-L2 motivation movement, and
(5) a discussion about the limitations within the quantitative research paradigm.
The Social Psychological Approach
Up until the late 1950s, it was accepted that learning a language involved only
intelligence and verbal ability. Concepts such as attitude, motivation, and anxiety were
ignored. This attitude about language learning was followed by a period of time during
which most research on L2 motivation focused on how students' perceptions of the L2, of
the L2 speakers, and of the L2 culture affected their desire to learn the language (Gardner

17
& Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997). For the
purposes of this study, the review of Gardner's motivation theory is limited to two
distinct areas: (1) the construct of integrative motive and (2) a general model of SLA
named the socio-educational model in which motivation plays the central concept.
One fundamental area of Gardner's work has been the construct of the integrative
motive, which developed from the concepts of orientation and motivation. Namely, he
established a distinction as well as a relationship between motivation and orientation.
Acting as the motivational agent, orientation "refers to a class of reasons for learning a
second language" (Gardner, 1985, p. 54) and materializes under two different forms:
integrative orientation, which represents a positive disposition toward the L2 group and a
desire to interact with members of the L2 community; and instrumental orientation,
which represents the learner's interest in learning a foreign language for its pragmatic and
utilitarian benefits. Motivation, unlike orientation, requires the learner to display a
combination of effort, desire to learn the language, and affect or attitude towards learning
the language. Gardner further stated that, defined in these terms, motivation has "a clear
link with the language learning process" (Gardner, 1985, p. 10). At an earlier stage of
inquiry, Gardner & Lambert (1972) claimed that L2 learners with integrative motivation
would expend greater motivational effort in learning, which would result in greater L2
competence. The integrative motive is an attitudinal/motivational configuration defined
by Gardner (1985) as a "motivation to learn a second language because of positive
feelings toward the community that speaks that language" (pp 82-83) and represents a
key element in L2 achievement. Consequently, integrative motive is made up of three
critical components: (1) integrativeness— that is, the integrative orientation—, (2) attitudes

18
towards the learning situation, and (3) motivation. Refer to Figure 1, which illustrates the
conceptualization of the integrative motive and further details the different elements of
the social psychological approach.
Integrative
orientation
Interest in
Foreign language
INTEGRATWENESS
ATTITUDES TOWARDS
THE LEARNING
Evaluation of the
L2 teacher
Evaluation of the
L2 course
Attitudes towards
L2 community
MOTIVATION
Desire to learn the
L2
Motivational
intensity (effort)
Attitudes towards
Learning the L2
Figure 1. Gardner's conceptualization of the integrative motive
as represented in Dornyei (2001)
Based on the conceptualization that the acquisition of a second language is a
social psychological phenomenon rather than an educational one, Gardner has developed
a socio-educational model of SLA in which motivation- in the form of integrative
motive -is the cornerstone. This model focused on four categories of variables: (1) the
social milieu, (2) individual difference, (3) second language acquisition contexts, and (4)
outcomes. Cognitive and affective variables, (i.e., intelligence, language aptitude,
situational anxiety, and motivation) directly influence the learner's achievement in formal
and informal learning contexts. Gardner described his model, presented schematically in
Figure 2, as a "dynamic causal interplay of individual differences variables interacting
with environmental and acquisition contexts resulting in both linguistics and non-

19
linguistics outcomes" (1985, p. 165). In other words, this model embodies the
interactions of the cognitive and affective individual variables as they influence learners'
behaviors in the language learning environment.
SOCIAL
MILIEU
Cultural
beliefs
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Intelligence
Language aptitude
LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
CONTEXTS
Motivation
Situational anxiety
Formal
language
training
Informal
^ language
experience
OUTCOMES
Linguistic
Non-
linguistic
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the socio-educational model
(Gardner, 1985).
The work of Gardner and colleagues (Gardner & Maclntyre, 1993; Gardner et al.,
1997; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) has had a significant influence in the L2 motivation
field, although a number of limitations to this model have been raised by L2 scholars. Au
(1988), for example, questioned whether the data was adequately related to the dimension
being investigated (e.g., the integrative motive viewed by Gardner) and whether it was
clearly defined (e.g., the cultural belief). According to Au, the reported data may have led
to inaccurate and inexact results which make Gardner's hypotheses difficult to evaluate.
For instance, L2 researchers have examined the relationship between integrative motive
and language learning and concluded that the causal link between integrative motive and

20
L2 achievement received no confirmation of empirical evidence. It is also unclear from
many of Gardner's studies whether motivation is the result or the cause of successful
learning (Au, 1988). Furthermore, many L2 scholars identified two crucial limitations
in/within the socio-psychological approach: (1) the integrative-instrumental construct, by
its simplicity, does not "capture everything .. .about motivation" (Brown, 1990, p. 384);
and (2) the distinction between attitudes and motivation is "far from clear" based on the
fact that the difference between 'effort', 'desire', and 'interest' "is hardly transparent"
(Oiler, 1981,23).
To conclude, the social psychological approach proposed by Gardner
demonstrated the role of attitudes and motivation when learning a second language and
produced the socio-educational model. Still drawing considerable interest today, this
model has been the starting point from which L2 scholars have initiated their research.
The Cognitive-situated Approach
In the early 1990s, the emergence of new cognitive approaches in cognitive
psychology influenced L2 scholars to reassess motivation in SLA. As a result, researchers
focused on the motivational processes underlying classroom learning, thus "making
motivation research more 'education-friendly'" (Dornyei, 2001b, p. 104).
Amongst the first to react to this educational shift were Crookes and Schmidt
(1991) who wrote a position paper that asked for the "reopening of the research agenda"
(p. 469) in L2 motivation. This "reopening" would allow for a consideration of
alternative ideas to motivation. They argued that "work to date .. .has been almost
exclusively social psychological in approach, and it has failed to distinguish between
concepts of attitude, especially attitude toward the target language culture, and

21
motivation" (p. 501). Crookes and Schmidt's critique and analysis of Gardner's work
signified the need to address motivation, per se, and to establish connections between
approaches of motivation from the perspectives of psychology, mainstream education,
and L2 learning. To illustrate their argument, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) proposed a
review of the current conceptualizations of motivation by analyzing the connections
between motivation and L2 learning. They examined motivation at four different levels
(micro, classroom, syllabus/curriculum, and extracurricular) while providing empirical
evidence for each to be further developed in future research. For instance, at the
classroom level, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) claimed that the different stages of a lesson
(i.e. preliminaries, activities, teacher feedback, students' expectations of self and self-
evaluations, and instructional materials) are linked to students' 'interest' and have
important motivational effects. In particular, these scholars reported empirical findings
claiming greater motivational effects of certain practices during classroom activities: (1)
using of group work characterizing 'communicative approaches' allowing students to
interact with each other and preventing competitive and challenging environment; (2)
avoiding regular pattern of classroom routine by introducing changes, developing
curiosity and encouraging students to express their curiosity; and (3) offering activities
that match students' level of language ability to develop and maintain their interest.
Crookes and Schmidt (1991) closed their discussion by posing a series of research
questions (developed from Bunge, 1967, ppl93-194) which addressed general and
specific areas of L2 motivation.
Following this attempt to expand the examination of L2 motivation, Oxford and
Shearin (1994) claimed that "other psychological perspectives may yield fresh insights

22
for rethinking L2 learning motivation" (p. 12). They explored several theories in
mainstream motivational psychology (e. g., goal-setting theory, Piaget and Vygotsky's
theories) and issued, for each one, practical instructional techniques for L2 teachers to
implement in the language classroom. For example, they recommended that teachers
"make the L2 classroom a welcoming, positive place where psychological needs are met
and language anxiety is kept to a minimum" (Oxford & Shearin, 1994, p. 24).
Furthermore, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) and Oxford and Shearin (1994) pointed out
how researchers and teachers approached the term and concept of "motivation"
differently. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) called for a program of research that "will
develop from, and be congruent with the concept of motivation that teachers are
convinced is critical for SL success" (p. 502) while Oxford and Shearin (1994) stated that
"the source of motivation is very important in a practical sense to teachers who want to
stimulate students' motivation. Without knowing where the roots of motivation lie, how
can teachers water those roots" (p. 15)? These comments reinforce the need for the L2
motivation research agenda to change direction and become "well-grounded in the real
world domain of SL classroom" (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991, p. 470).
Opening Gardner's social psychological approach further, Dornyei (1994)
proposed that L2 motivation be viewed as "an eclectic, multifaceted construct" (Dornyei,
1994, p. 279) and established three levels of motivation to conceptualize a general
framework of L2 motivation: the language level, the learner level, and the learning
situation level. This framework can be briefly summarized as follows. First, the language
level encompasses various components of the integrative and instrumental motivational
subsystems. Second, the learner level comprises the learners characteristics involved in

23
the learning process. Third, the learning situation level includes the course-specific, the
teacher-specific , and the group-specific motivational components within the classroom
setting. Dornyei chose to separate the three motivational levels as they "seem to have a
vital effect on the overall motivation independently of each other" (Dornyei, 2001b,
p. 112). Consequently, the change of one parameter at one level while keeping the other
two dimensions constant might completely modify the overall motivation of the learner.
Furthermore, Dornyei (1994) drew on his own experience, as an educator and researcher,
findings in educational psychological research, and Oxford and Shearin's (1991) work to
establish an extensive list of strategies "not rock-solid golden rules, but rather
suggestions that may work with one teacher or group better than another" (1994, p. 280).
These strategies directly affect the three levels of Dornyei's L2 motivation framework
and most of them concern the learning situation level introduced above.
Completing this description of the cognitive-situated approach, Marion Williams
(1994) argued the need to focus on the learners themselves and to include "the factors
that are inside the learner: self-esteem, feelings of worth, self-efficacy, control, interest"
(p. 80). Taking a social constructivist view of motivation, Williams claimed that while
"each individual is motivated differently.... an individual's motivation is also subject to
social and contextual influences" (1994, p. 121). Consequently, she proposed a
comprehensive view of motivation that combines (1) factors outside the individual (e.g.,
teachers, feedback, context, situation, peers, learning situation) and (2) factors inside the
learner (e.g., self-esteem, perceived value of the activity, curiosity and interest, feelings
of mastery). As a result, this interactive perspective places the choice to act at the center
7
These motivational components will be further developed in the section on teacher identities of this
review of literature.

24
of a complex dynamic interplay between internal and external factors. Williams further
claimed that the significance of the factors that influence motivation "will differ between
subject areas ... for example, foreign language learning is affected more by external
factors" (1994, p. 83). Williams' approach to motivation highlighted how a multitude of
internal and external factors influence and mediate learners' choices while at the same
time they affect each other.
In summary, the cognitive-situated approach represents a critical stage in the
research agenda of L2 motivation. It contributed to a renewed interest in the role of
motivation in L2 learning through the examination of several motivational constructs in
different branches of psychology. Consequently, this period became a forum for a
scholarly debate described by Oxford (1994) as a "'multilogue' that helps shape the
evolving theory of language learning motivation" (p. 514). Thus, motivational strategies,
based on a synthesis of motivation theories, have been offered by some L2 scholars for
FL teachers to implement during language instruction.
The Process-oriented Approach
Originated in the late 1990s, this period is led by Dornyei and colleagues who
offered more empirical evidence about the complexity of L2 motivation. Dornyei & Otto
(1998) argued for a dynamic view of motivation and the need to account for the changes
of motivation over time as they used the process-oriented approach. This approach can be
simply defined as a succession of stages and concrete subtasks taken by the individual
when motivated.
Effectively, Dornyei and Otto (1998) believed that "motivation is not so much a
relatively constant state but rather a more dynamic entity that changes over time, with the

level of effort invested in the pursuit of a particular goal oscillating between regular ups
and downs" (p. 4). Responding to this view of motivation, they constructed a model
based on the synthesis of the most important motivational conceptualizations to date and
included two main dimensions. Figure 3 is a simple illustration of Dornyei and Otto's
complex visualization of motivation.
MOTIVATIONAL
INFLUENCES
Energy sources
&
Motivational forces:
- cognitive,
- affective
- situational
factors or conditions.
ACTION SEQUENCE
Preactional Phase
'choice of motivation'
Actional Phase
'executive motivation'
Postactional Phase
Retrospection evaluation
Figure 3. Conceptualization of Dornyei & Otto's (1998)
process model of L2 motivation.
The first dimension or action sequence represents a continuum divided into three
main phases. First, thepreactional phase corresponds to the choice motivation that leads
to the selection of the goal or the task to be engaged in. Second, the actional phase
corresponds to the executive motivation that maintains the initial generated motivation
and protects the learner from all possible distractions. Third, thepostactional phase
entails the motivational retrospection allowing the learners to conduct a retrospective

26
evaluation of how the events went. On the other hand, the second dimension or
motivational influences comprises energy sources and motivational forces that underlie
and stimulate the action sequence, that is, the success or failure of the goal set by the
learner. These motivational influences encompass different major motivational concepts
and theories issued from the L2 field and mainstream psychology. In sum, through this
model, Dornyei and Otto illustrated the complexity of the motivational process, which
they described as a "broad array of mental processes and motivational conditions" that
"play essential roles in determining why students behave as they do" (1998, p. 25).
As the ultimate aim for L2 researchers is to understand why students behave the
way they do, Dornyei & Otto (1998) reaffirmed that their goal was to "construct a
framework which is based on sound theoretical foundations and which is at the same time
useful for practitioners" (p. 24). In fact, Dornyei (2001a), a long-time language teacher,
teacher trainer and researcher, implemented his process model of L2 motivation as a
theoretical basis for methodological applications and wrote a 'what-to-do' book on
motivation. First of its kind in the field of L2 language, this book exclusively discussed
motivational strategies that is, "methods and techniques to generate and maintain the
learners' motivation. Although a great deal has been written in the past about what
motivation is ..., very little has been said about how this theoretical knowledge can be
applied in the actual classroom" (Dornyei, 2001a, p. 2). In particular, 'appropriate teacher
behaviors and a good relationship with the students' are recognized as a necessary
condition to generate student's motivation. In fact, Dornyei and Csizer (1998)
specifically focused on the question of how to motivate language learners. They asked
200 Hungarian teachers of English to examine a selection of motivational strategies taken

27
from Domyei (1994). As part of the data analysis, the researchers ranked these strategies
according to the importance attached to them by the teachers and established a list often
motivational macrostrategies or "commandments for motivating language learners",
shown in Figure 5.
1. Set a personal example of your own behavior.
2. Create a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere in the classroom.
3. Present tasks properly.
4. Develop a good relationship with the learners.
5. Increase the learners' linguistic self-confidence.
6. Make the language classes interesting.
7. Promote learner autonomy.
8. Personalize the learning process.
9. Increase the learners' goal-orientedness.
10. Familiarize learners with the target language culture.
Figure 4. Ten commandments for motivating language learners
(Dornyei & Csizer, 1998, p. 215).
Dornyei and Csizer further interpreted these commandments in light of Dornyei' s (1994)
motivational framework and realized that most of them corresponded to the 'teacher-
specific' motivational components within the Learning situation level. These findings
highlighted the "teacher's own behavior as the most important and, at the same time,
extremely underutilized, motivational factor in the classroom" (Dornyei, 2001b, p.120).
In summary, this process-oriented period has shed more light on different
motivational dimensions and has established new connections between variables already
identified in the L2 motivation field. Dornyei's and Gardner's research teams actively
extended their own agenda. Dornyei created the process model of L2 motivation,
developed motivational strategies, and engaged in ongoing review of emerging new
motivational themes (Dornyei, 2001a, 2001b; Dornyei & Otto, 1998; Cohen & Dornyei,

28
2002). Gardner expanded and reformulated his socio-educational model through the
examination of correlations among the attitude/motivation variables and the question of
how to conceptualize instrumental motivation within his socio-educational model
(Gardner, 2001; Gardner & Masgoret, 2003; Gardner et al., 1997).
The SDT-L2 Motivation Movement
This fourth period draws upon the cognitive-situated approach characterized by
the need to adopt new cognitive variables in the L2 motivation models and constructs. As
mentioned above, several L2 scholars have examined a variety of motivational constructs
to move away from the traditional social psychological approach. In a similar manner,
Noels and his colleagues specifically turned to the theoretical framework of SDT to
conduct empirical research into the L2 application of this motivation theory. In the line of
the cognitive-situated approach, these researchers pursued two main objectives: (1) to
relate the intrinsic/extrinsic motivation subtypes as outlined by Deci & Ryan (1985) to
the orientations developed in L2 research, and (2) to examine how the learners' level of
self-determination is affected by various classroom practices (Noels, Clement & Pelletier,
1999; Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000; Noels, 2001).
Both studies (Noels et al., 1999, 2000) used an extensive and well-defined
questionnaire relying on multiple scales to report on the four orientations - travel,
friends, knowledge of the language, and instrumental orientation - (Gardner & Lambert,
1972; Gardner, 1985), to assess different types of motivation, and to measure several
psychological variables. The participants were English native speakers learning French at
different level of language proficiency. They filled out the questionnaire during regular
class time in a no-time limit and no-pressure context with a guaranty for anonymity.
8
The SDT framework will be introduced in the following section of this review of literature.

29
Results showed that the SDT paradigm is useful to understand L2 motivation as extrinsic
and intrinsic subtypes can validly assess learner motivation. More specifically, it
suggested that the more students perceived their teachers as controlling and as failing to
provide instructive feedback, the less they were intrinsically motivated. Further
examining the environmental influences on learner self-determination, Noels (2001)
proposed several hypotheses to find out how the communicative style of the language
teacher might be associated with intrinsic and extrinsic orientations of English-speaking
university students learning Spanish. Findings emerging from the analysis of
questionnaires revealed a consistent pattern with the aforementioned studies as well as
with Deci and Ryan's (1985) theoretical formulation. Students clearly expressed that the
less they 'felt they had choices about learning, the less they felt they were learning the
language because it was fun or because it was valuable to them" (Noels, 2001, p. 135).
Also, the more students perceived their teacher as actively involved in their learning that
is, giving informative praise and encouragement to their efforts, the more students felt
competent in learning Spanish. Noels (2001) further noted that from students' perspective
it is crucial for teachers to show a personal commitment to students' learning progress.
This particular line of research, though rather new in its development, will be re-
examined, later in this chapter, in the light of the description of the SDT framework and
its relevance to the issues of a better understanding of students' motivation during FL
instruction. In addition, an extensive description of SDT will allow for a rationale of a
specific model, branching from this theory of motivation, to be used as a theoretical
framework for the data analysis of this study.

Discussion about Limitations of Research Paradigm
As mentioned at the outset, several L2 scholars (Syed, 2001; Ushioda, 2001;
William et al., 2001) took the opportunity, within the field of L2 motivation research, to
challenge the dominant quantitative research paradigm. Adopting Crookes and Schmidt's
(1991) viewpoint, they engaged in a dialogue about the need for new methodologies to
move "away from exclusive reliance on self-report questionnaires and correlational
studies" and move "toward a research program that uses survey instruments along with
observational measures, ethnographic work" (p. 502). In strong agreement with these
recommendations, van Lier (1996) suggested breaking away from the traditional
paradigm and including ethnographic research, case studies, and action research, that is,
different research designs employed in qualitative inquiry.
For example, Syed (2001) determined to reach "beyond the surface level answers
given on questionnaires" (p. 134) used as instruments in quantitative studies, conducted a
qualitative study in an effort to examine why students engage in foreign and/or heritage
learning. His findings showed the importance that students placed on the teaching style
which directly impacts the learners' motivation and interest as illustrated in the
following:
The students liked the 'small group' feel of the class and how "I don't feel the
competitiveness" of the 'regular class'. They did not perceive the instructor as
particularly tough or demanding. All of them felt their needs were being
addressed in a very personal way and that they were getting a lot out of the class.
For some the progress was beyond expectation (Syed, 2001, p. 139).

31
Ushioda (2001) believed in the value of qualitative approach to provide the opportunity
to "cast a different light on the phenomena ... and to raise a different set of issues" (p.
96) and explored "aspects of motivation that are not easily accommodated within the
dominant research paradigm" (p. 96). The purpose of her study was to explore the
qualitative content of the learners' motivational thinking via "(a) the learners' own
working conceptions of their motivation, and (b) their perspectives in relation to aspects
of motivational evolution and experience over time" (Ushioda, 2001, p. 93). Ushioda
chose to approach motivation as a qualitative variable which is not viewed in terms of
"observable and measurable activity" (p. 96) but is viewed, in terms of "what patterns of
thinking and belief underlie such activity and shape students' engagement in the learning
process" (p. 96). Data from interviews of twenty young Irish adult learners of French
revealed definite changes in the temporal frame of reference that shaped the students'
thinking, particularly with regard to the evolving nature of goal-orientation in the
learners' motivational experience. Furthermore, Ushioda (2001) claimed that the "impact
of learning experience on motivation is thus mediated by selective patterns of thinking
and belief that focus learners' attention on the positive rather than the negative" (p. 119).
Another illustration of qualitative research of L2 motivation is Chambers' (1999)
four year project with secondary schools learners of German in the United Kingdom and
learners of English and French in Germany. Chambers employed a mixed method that
combined surveys and follow-up individual interviews to bring in-depth data to "get
inside the pupils' heads to access their views on what switches them on and off in the
language classroom" (1999, p. 54). He specifically focused on two central issues of L2
motivation: the perceived usefulness and the perceived enjoyment of a foreign language

32
course from the students' point of view. The findings described students' likes and
dislikes and confirmed that students learn when the subject of learning is useful and
enjoyable. Findings also revealed that the teacher represents the most influential factor of
students' language learning experiences as it "permeates almost every issue investigated
in this study relating to pupils' feelings about learning foreign languages and issues
relating to the 'in-school' foreign language learning experience" (Chambers, 1999,
p. 152). From these findings, Chambers offered suggestions and tools for FL teachers to
enhance the learning experience of their students. He recommended giving students a
more positive view of the utilitarian value of foreign languages and amending the
standard approaches to foreign language teaching. To this end, Chambers (1999)
explored activities, not viewed as the 'norm' in modern language classrooms, while
acknowledging their significance to bored and disengaged students.
As a final point on L2 motivation research, Gardner took the opportunity to
address criticism from teachers and other L2 scholars by recognizing that the teacher had
been ignored in his research on motivation in SLA. For the first time, Gardner (2001)
considered motivation from three perspectives: the student, the teacher, and the
researcher. Findings reported "that the major contributor to language learning motivation
is first and foremost the student, and secondarily the student's background and other
external factors such as the teacher" (p. 19). However, findings from the aforementioned
studies suggested that the teacher and the teaching style represent an important factor in
L2 motivation.
In conclusion, this literature review of L2 motivation closed with a discussion
about the importance of considering different research paradigms. Several L2 scholars

33
have approached the study of L2 motivation from an interpretive and contextual point of
view rather than an experimental and causal one, in agreement with van Lier's (1988).
Moreover, these qualitative studies provided an overall rich source of insights from the
FL learners' perspectives, which encourage the pursuit of their practice on a larger scale
to examine specific areas of L2 motivation.
To review, the first section of this chapter introduced five conceptual areas of
scholarship that outline L2 motivation research while focusing on the following: (a) the
social psychological approach proposed by Gardner and his associates to conceptualize
L2 motivation, (b) the cognitive-situated approach proposed by L2 scholars to expand
Gardner's approach and shed more light on motivational dimensions, (c) the process-
oriented approach offered by Dornyei to define L2 motivation in the form of dynamic,
changing, and cumulative processes (d) the recent attempt to incorporate the theoretical
framework of SDT to the language learning context to examine teachers' communicative
style from learners' perspective and assess academic motivation using the intrinsic and
extrinsic subtypes as outlined by Deci & Ryan (1985), and (e) the discussion about
including qualitative research to the dominant quantitative paradigm when exploring the
different aspects of L2 motivation.
Self-determination Theory and Student Engagement
The present study focuses on: (1) students' motivation and engagement in the FL
classroom; and (2) students' learning outcomes measured by course grades and students'
self-reported learning. These two central issues are examined from the perspective of
self-determination theory (SDT), the choice of which has been prompted by the existence
of two critical notions derived from this motivational theoretical framework.

34
First, extensive empirical evidence has linked the motivational processes as
identified in SDT to positive outcomes that individuals experience in a learning setting.
That is, student's motivation has been shown to increase academic outcomes, such as
high engagement and persistence (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997), conceptual learning
(Benware & Deci, 1984; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), intrinsic motivation (Deci, Schwartz,
Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981), and academic achievement (Miserandino, 1996). Second, the
concept of engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991), grounded from the dialectic
relationship assumption of SDT, is useful in educational settings since it "provides
teachers with an observable manifestation of the quality of a student's motivation"
(Reeve, 2002, p. 194). Consequently, this engagement model was chosen to interpret the
findings emerging from the data.
In order to understand how SDT informs student motivation and student learning
outcomes, this section offers an overview of SDT theoretical framework first, and a
detailed description of the motivational model of engagement (Connell and Wellborn,
1991) nested from self-determination theory. This model explains how the relationships
between the dimensions offered by the social context and the individual directly influence
outcomes (e.g., learning, achievement, and well-being). Lastly, this section gives an
account of empirical evidence that illustrates how SDT framework has proven to be
linked to student positive learning outcomes while explaining why this motivational
framework should be implemented to examine students' motivation in the FL classroom.
Overview of Self-determination Theory
Self-determination theory is a major theory of motivation and is built upon a set
of three assumptions about the nature of people and the factors that give impetus to action

35
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Moreover, those researchers working within SDT consider
environmental factors that enhance or undermine the natural processes of self-motivation
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). This section presents an overview of SDT by providing a brief
description of the three assumptions underlying SDT and the three motivational agents
directly linked to social contexts.
The first assumption of SDT proposes that the basic psychological needs of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential for facilitating individuals' optimal
functioning in terms of motivation, growth, integrity, and well-being. According to SDT,
in order to be motivated, individuals need to fulfill their psychological needs, and each of
these needs is of equal importance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The following briefly describes
these three needs, which represent key notions in understanding SDT.
• Autonomy or self-determination represents the need for the individual alone to
decide what, when, where, and how to take part in an activity. When autonomous,
people decide their own behavior, select their desired outcomes and choose how
to achieve them (Deci & Ryan, 1987).
• Competence represents the need for the individual to seek out and put forth the
effort necessary to master optimal challenge9
. Deci and Ryan (1985) described the
need for competence of an individual as his/her engagement in a task with a level
of difficulty and complexity that is exactly right for his/her current skills.
Therefore, competence is not an attained skill or capability, but rather a felt sense
of confidence and "effectance"10
in action.
9
As defined by Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura (1989).
10
As defined by White (1959).

• Relatedness represents the individual's need to belong and to establish close
emotional connections with others. It reflects the emotional desire to be connected
and to be involved in warm relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
These psychological needs have been identified as the source of every individual's self-
autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). That is, the extent to which individuals
fulfill their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness explains how proactive and
engaged or alternatively, passive and aliened they are.
Second, SDT states that the relationship between a person and his or her
environment is dialectic. That is, individuals act upon the environment out of a need to
seek out and affect changes as the environment supports individuals' interests or hinders
their needs to be fulfilled (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Consequently, this proactive exchange
and mutual influence between the person (e.g., students) and the environment (e.g.,
educational settings, FL classroom), known as the dialectic relationship, underlie the
important distinction between self-determined and controlled intentional behaviors.
Namely, self-determined or motivated behaviors are initiated and regulated through
choice as an expression of oneself whereas, controlled actions or behaviors result from
pressure and coercion imposed by the environment and do not represent true choice by
the individual (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Within the framework of SDT, the three psychological needs— autonomy,
competence, and relatedness—represent sources of motivation and are directly linked to
social contexts (e.g., the environment, external events, and relationships). The dialectic
relationship, in the form of proactive exchange and mutual influence between the person
and the environment, explains how the environment offers prescriptions (e.g., instruction,

37
recommendations), proscriptions (e.g., interdiction), and aspirations (e.g., hope) to well-
being (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Ryan and Deci (2000) claimed that social contexts
"supportive of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were to foster greater
internalization11
and integration12
than contexts that thwart satisfaction of these needs" (p.
76). Thus, in the case of the present study, the FL classroom has to support students'
being competent, related, and autonomous during learning activities in order to promote
their motivated actions and behaviors.
As a final point on social environments, empirical work has focused on school
context and social determinants of school motivation in connection with student
motivation, academic achievement, and school performance (Guay & Vallerand, 1997;
Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995; Vallerand et al., 1997). Such studies revealed that
students' perceptions of the social context had an influence on their sense of competence
and autonomy. For example, Guay and Vallerand's (1997) claim that "motivating
students starts with an understanding of the social context that fulfills students' needs for
competence and autonomy" (pp. 227-228) illustrates the indirect impact the social
context has on motivation. Consequently, this understanding would assist the promotion
of students' motivation and their subsequent achievement.
The third assumption of SDT recognizes different types of motivation, which are
grounded in different reasons or goals set by individuals and are responsible for initiating
behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsically motivated individuals engage in an activity
for the fun and enjoyment of it whereas extrinsically motivated individuals engage in an
activity for something other than the activity itself, such as the promise of a reward or an
11
Third assumption of SDT.
12
Third assumption of SDT.

38
external pressure. Furthermore, there is a link between being autonomous and
experiencing intrinsic motivation given that intrinsically motivated behaviors are self-
determined13
or autonomous as individuals follow their interests, seek challenges, and
make choices (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Motivational Model of Engagement
In reference to social contexts and their influence in motivating individuals,
Connell and Wellborn (1991) proposed a motivational model of engagement nested from
SDT, which is employed as a conceptual framework to interpret the findings of this
study. Because motivation is an internal state, it is in and of itself not an observable
phenomenon in educational settings. Motivated behavior, however, can be examined by
one's engagement, which expresses the manifestation of the quality of a student's
motivation (Reeve, 2002).
Connell (1990) and Connell and Wellborn (1991) introduced a general
motivational model of relations among context, self, action, and outcomes. This model
explains relationships among individuals' experience in the social context, their self-
system processes (as explained below), their patterns of actions, and the actual outcomes
of performance (e.g., grades and achievement test scores). For a visual representation of
this model, see Figure 5.
First assumption of SDT.

39
CONTEXT -• SELF -> ACTION -> OUTCOMES
( Autonomy
V Support Engagement
vs.
Disaffection
- cognitive
- behavioral
- emotional
Skills &
Abilities
Personal
Adjustment
by Connell and Wellborn (1991).
As the individual seeks to meet the needs for competence, autonomy, and
relatedness as identified by SDT, self-system processes develop out of the interactions
between the psychological needs and social context. According to this model, self-system
processes refer to appraisalprocesses defined by Connell and Wellborn (1991) as "of
how competent, autonomous, and related the individual feels within and across particular
contexts" (p. 52). Moreover, structure, autonomy support, and involvement represent the
three dimensions or aspects of the social surrounding, thought to be central to the
development of self-system processes. Thus, within the classroom context, structure,
autonomy support, and involvement represent the dimensions of teacher behavior
underlying the patterns of actions by students during learning activities. These
dimensions are outlined below to report on specific teacher behaviors known to foster the
fulfillment of each psychological need (Connell, 1990; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

40
• Autonomy-support refers to the communication of choice, room for initiative;
recognition of feelings and a sense that activities are connected to personal goals
and values.
• Structure refers to the amount and the clarity of information communicated, the
offering of skill-building, and the provision of optimal challenges and
information-rich performance feedback.
• Involvement refers to the quality of the interpersonal relationship with teachers
and peers and the person's willingness to dedicate psychological resources such
as time, interest, and attention to others.
Furthermore, this model addresses the connection between the self and action through the
constructs of engagement and disaffection. Indeed, these concepts are qualities of
motivated action that individuals show when they initiate and carry out activities, such as
learning in school, and comprise behavioral, cognitive, and emotional components
(Connell & Wellborn, 1991). As such, when the environment meets students' needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, students show engagement; they are active,
constructive, persistent, and focused. In contrast, when students' needs are not met,
students are much more likely to experience disaffection; they are passive and express
negative emotions (e.g., anger, boredom, discouragement).
In sum, within the classroom context, the main issue is for teachers to create an
engagement-facilitating classroom climate that nurtures students' psychological needs
and provides three specific dimensions: (1) structure to satisfy the need for competence,
(2) autonomy support to satisfy the need for self-determination, and (3) interpersonal
involvement to satisfy the need for relatedness (Reeve, 2002).

41
Promoting Self-determined Learning
Numerous studies have shown that SDT is a solid theoretical approach to explain
the motivational process underlying student motivation, engagement, and learning (Deci
& Ryan, 1994; Miserandino, 1996). In particular, empirical evidence supports that
autonomous-motivated students thrive in educational settings and students benefit when
teachers support their autonomy (Reeve, 2002).
To illustrate how motivation, as defined by SDT, affects students' positive
functioning in school and its relation with the elements present during instruction in an
autonomy-supportive environment, this section presents a selection of important studies
that examined: (1) student engagement gains, (2) high-quality learning, (3) performance
gains, and (4) autonomy-supportive teaching style
Student Engagement Gains
As the benefits of highly-engaged students are recognized (Connell & Wellborn,
1991; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, and
Barch (2004) demonstrated how students' engagement can be enhanced when teachers
increase their autonomy support. They tested if teachers could incorporate the concept of
autonomy support into their motivating style as a way to promote their students'
engagement during instruction. Once they received a specific training, high school
teachers, with an average of 14.8 years of experience, were observed in their classroom
as they applied the newly-learned autonomy-supportive behaviors. During these
observations, students' engagement was assessed on five dependent measures, including
teachers' autonomy support, two measures of students' engagement (i.e., task
involvement and influence attempts), teachers' provision of structure and teachers'

42
provision of involvement. Findings reported that teachers were able to teach and motivate
their students in more autonomy-supportive ways as students reacted accordingly: the
more teachers used autonomy-supportive behaviors, the more students were engaged.
This result led to the conclusion "that student's engagement is sensitive to changes in
their teacher's motivating style" (Reeve & al., 2004, p. 165). These findings have
implications for educators dealing with the vital question: How can I motivate others?
Testing the linkages in Connell and Wellborn's model, Klem and Connell (2004)
specifically examined the connection between teacher support and engagement in relation
to academic success. Measuring teacher support and student engagement from the
perspectives of teachers and students, the researchers were able to provide "support for an
indirect link between student experience of support and academic performance through
student engagement" (Klem & Connell, 2004, p. 270). Findings further revealed several
patterns in terms of high and low levels of teacher support as a resource or a liability for
student engagement. For instance, elementary students reporting low levels of support
were twice as likely as the average student to be disaffected while middle school students
were almost three times more likely to report engagement if they experienced highly
supportive teachers. Finally, based on the overall results educational environments should
be more personalized allowing for students increased experiences of teacher support
(Klem & Connell, 2004).
High Quality Learning
Focusing on the quality of learning, Benware and Deci (1984) tested college
students to determine how much they could learn based on their positive or negative
orientation towards the reading requested of them. The active involvement group of

43
students read the material with the expectation of teaching it to another student (active
orientation), while thepassive-involvement group read the same material with the
expectation to be tested on it (passive orientation). Three dependent measures were
assessed: intrinsic motivation, active/passive dimension, and learning. A series of
questions, categorized as "rote" or "conceptual", assessed learning. It included true/false,
fill in blanks, definitions, multiple choice, identifications, and explanations. Students in
the active-involvement condition expressed greater intrinsic motivation, had higher
conceptual learning scores, and perceived themselves to be more actively engaged in
their learning than students in the passive-involvement condition. Furthermore, students
expected to engage in active orientation perceived themselves to be active in the teaching
paradigm and very passive in the examination paradigm. Based on this appealing finding,
Benware and Deci argued that "given the fact that the aim of most educators is to
promote conceptual learning, educational climates and procedures that facilitate
motivated learning would seem of central importance" (1984, p. 764).
Using an experimental paradigm with fifth-grade students, Grolnick and Ryan
(1987) divided children into three different learning sets to read a preliminary grade-level
text. Two directed learning conditions: (1) one controlling that used control learning
through external incentive or pressure and (2) one non-controlling that afforded
autonomy with no pressure or external contingencies were contrasted with each other and
with a third non-directed, (3) spontaneous-learning context in which children were not
given an instruction to learn the reading material. In this particular group, the possible
learning taking place was incidental, that is, it was function of the subject's interest rather
than of external directions. Twofold, results showed that both intentional learning sets

44
were better at rote recall even though, a week later when retested children in the
controlling situation did not perform better than their counterparts. In contrast, both the
non-controlling and non-directed groups demonstrated better conceptual learning than the
controlling group. However, there were two limitations in this study. First, the
participants were only one age group; and secondly, only a single measure of conceptual
integration was used. Given these limitations, Grolnick and Ryan (1987) concluded that
conceptual learning may be optimized under conditions that facilitate active and
autonomous involvement on the part of the learner, which would explain how "forced
feeding" of material promotes short-term recall at the expense of conceptual learning.
Addressing the issue of external pressure on teachers and its impact on students'
achievement, Flink, Boggiano, and Barrett (1990) conducted a field experiment in fourth-
grade classrooms and hypothesized that pressured teachers exhibit more controlling
behaviors toward their students. Randomly assigned to pressure and non-pressure
conditions, pressured teachers were made responsible for students' performance on tests
whereas, teachers in the autonomous conditions had to help students learn how to solve
the problems. The results revealed performance impairment for children taught by
pressured teachers who used controlling strategies and failed to provide choice options.
On the other hand, students taught by autonomy-supportive teachers displayed higher
levels of competence and intrinsic motivation.
Performance Gains
Miserando (1996) selected third and fourth graders identified as above average in
ability, to examine the impact of perceived competence and autonomy on engagement
and performance in school. Once children self-reported these three dimensions, using a

45
composite of questionnaire measures, the researcher identified children uncertain of their
ability and children externally motivated. The researchers performed predictions of each
perceived action and emotion, and tallied grades. Consistent with Connell and Wellborn's
(1991) model, results suggested that "when either competence or autonomy is perceived
as unfulfilled, children report negative affect and withdrawal behaviors and ultimately
show a decline in performance" (Miserandino, 1996, p. 208). Furthermore, perceived
competence and autonomy predicted changes in grades from the beginning to the end of
the semester. Finally, it is also important to point out that children's perceptions of lack
of ability were in disagreement with their achievement scores. As a result, this study
uncovered the paradox of "how is it that otherwise capable child are uncertain of their
ability" (p. 210)?
Furrer and Skinner (2003) specifically examined the sense of relatedness as a self-
system resource in children's academic engagement and performance. This inquiry was
guided by four main goals, each connecting relatedness to a different variable namely,
classroom engagement and performance, unique contribution of relatedness to specific
social partners, age and gender, and profiles of relatedness to specific social partners. As
part of a longitudinal project, the study was: (1) conducted with students from third to
sixth-grade; (2) used self-report questionnaires from students and questionnaires for
teachers to report on students for data collection; and (3) recorded grade scores
combining verbal and math performance to be used as academic performance. In accord
with previous work on relationship representations (Connell & Wellborn, 1991), the
findings suggested that children's sense of relatedness plays an important role in their
academic motivation and performance. Indeed, children reporting a higher sense of

46
relatedness showed greater emotional and behavioral engagement in school and improved
more over time than children reporting a low sense of relatedness.
Autonomy-Supportive Teaching Style
When it comes to how autonomy-supportive teachers teach and motivate students
compared to their controlling counterparts, Reeve, Bolt, and Cai (1999) confirmed that
the former listen more, show a tendency to verbalize fewer directives, resist giving
solutions, and support the students' intrinsic motivation and internalization. These
teachers display a student-centered conversational approach and a flexible interpersonal
style offering students choices in an autonomous-supportive environment. Pursuing this
research agenda, Jang & Reeve (2001) built on previously identified teachers' behaviors,
established and validated by Reeve et al. (1999) and Flink et al. (1990) to identify
specifically what teachers do (instructional behaviors) and say (communication
statement). College students were randomly assigned to become a teacher or a student
and had to either 'teach' or 'be taught' how to solve a three-dimensional manipulative
puzzle. These newly 'educated' teachers were "to help the students learn 'in whatever
way (s)he saw fit" while students were "to learn how the puzzle worked and solve its
solutions" (Jang & Reeve, 2001, p.2). Intrinsic motivation and students' performance
were both assessed. The former was scored from the students' post-session questionnaires
whereas, the later was independently assessed by two raters scoring the number of
solutions participants successfully solved without the assistance of the teacher. Results
showed that instructional behaviors such as, listening and making time for independent
work, and providing opportunities to talk were more important than communication
statements. When students performed well, they most often felt competent. Furthermore,

47
teachers' behaviors directly underlie how students' perceived self-determination and
perceived competence were nurtured.
Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, and Barch (2004) demonstrated how veteran teachers,
after receiving proper training, could expand on their teaching's motivating style to teach
and motivate their students in more autonomy-supportive ways which, in return, resulted
in having their students more engaged. The authors of this study concluded "that
student's engagement is sensitive to changes in their teacher's motivating style" (Reeve
et al., 2004, p. 165). These findings have implications for educators willing to change
their teaching styles as they face the vital question: How can I motivate my students
during instruction? This particular issue is at the core of the present study seeking to
examine what FL teachers do and say during instruction and how it impacts students'
behaviors—especially, student engagement and motivation.
In summary, this section about SDT introduced its assumptions and motivational
agents autonomy, competence, and relatedness and explained how the educational
environment can and should support each of these dimensions proven to be important and
necessary for students to become engaged and motivated. Empirical evidence
demonstrated how motivation affects students' positive functioning in school by
reporting on engagement gains, high-quality learning, and performance gains. Taken
together, the empirical results from these studies coupled with the purposes of the present
study resulted in the choice to apply the engagement model proposed by Connell and
Wellborn (1991) as a conceptual framework to interpret the findings emerging from the
data of this study. Historically, this model was validated within elementary school
programs using cross-sectional data. As an extension to this application, this model will

48
be implemented within foreign language classrooms at the post-secondary level.
Additional details regarding this application will be specified in the section addressing
the rationale of the present study.
Dynamics of the Language Classroom
The purposes of this study are to examine students' learning outcomes and to
better understand foreign language (FL) learner motivation during language instruction.
To this end, it is necessary to address the various factors directly involved in the language
learning process as it takes place in the language classroom. Therefore, understanding
language learning begins by focusing on the participants involved in the teaching-
learning process, as well as on the different elements of the language classroom.
Language teaching is a complex and dynamic activity in which the participants
interact with one another and bring a variety of perceptions, beliefs, expectations, and
attitudes to the language classroom (Ehrman & Dornyei, 1998; Naiman & al., 1978;
Nunan, 1999; Scarcella & Oxford, 1991; Tudor, 2001). The interactions and relationships
between the participants as well as other elements of language teaching embody the
dynamics of the language classroom. Scarcella and Oxford (1991) proposed the Tapestry
Approach to language learning claiming that just as the weaver creates the tapestry, the
learner creates the second language. Within this approach, teaching is viewed as a
"dynamic, interactional process in which instructors constantly shape their teaching to the
developing needs of their students, and the learners actively negotiate the instruction"
(Scarcella & Oxford, 1991, p. viii). Furthermore, Nunan's (1999) statement that "no two
classes are ever the same" (p 156), frequently affirmed by FL teachers, can be explained
14
Learning outcomes are: (1) determined by teachers' quantitative measures and (2) expressed by students
in qualitative terms.

Student motivation during foreign language instruction what factors affect student motivation

Student motivation during foreign language instruction what factors affect student motivation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Similar to Student motivation during foreign language instruction what factors affect student motivation

Similar to Student motivation during foreign language instruction what factors affect student motivation (20)

More from faridnazman

More from faridnazman (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Student motivation during foreign language instruction what factors affect student motivation