Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

Lindsey Shannon Olson

Second Language Acquisition


Research Project
30 November, 2008

The topic I have chosen to research is, ‘How do different types of motivation
affect second language learners? Also, do male and female language learners have
different types of motivation?’ I have worked with learners of all ages and from many
different countries. In my time working with these students, I have witnessed very
motivated and unmotivated people. I have always wondered where their motivation or
lack thereof comes from and how it affects their learning.

A note about terminology-many researchers use different names for the same
types of motivation. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the following terms in my
discussion of motivation: Integrative Motivation, Instrumental Motivation, and
amotivation.
Integrative motivation has been identified as motivation that comes from the
desire to learn for the joy of learning a language. Students that have this type of
motivation often have a high opinion of the culture of the language and wish to identify
with it.
Instrumental motivation comes from the desire to benefit socially or financially
from learning the target language. Students study the language because they feel it will be
beneficial to their future. They may have no feelings or negative feelings about the
culture

Students with Amotivation do not desire to learn a foreign language. Amotivated


people either do not perform at all or act without purpose.

A study done by Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) was done to answer these research
questions: Are there distinct learner motivational profiles? If so, how do these distinct
patterns affect motivated learning behaviors? Do different dispositions toward different
target languages affect overall motivation?
The study by Csizér and Dörnyei was huge. It is an example of repeated cross-
sectional design that is longitudinal in nature. An enormous group of students—4,765
(2,377 males, 2,305 females, 83 that did not give gender information) were tested in
1993. In 1999, 3,828 students (1, 847 males; 1, 907 females; 74 missing gender
information) were tested again. In both parts of the tests, the students were 8th graders
(ages 13 to 14). The students came from each main region and type of settlement within
Hungary. Researchers used the same areas in 1993 and 1999.
Csizér and Dörnyei’s research was meant to determine the different motivational
profiles of the participants. Students were given an exhaustive survey which rated
students on their reasons for learning a language, attitude toward the language, intended
effort, and parent’s language proficiency. They were also asked about their attitudes
toward that L2 community, their contact with the L2 language and it’s speakers, attitudes

1
toward L2 learning at school, self-confidence in L2 learning and use, parents’ support of
L2 learning, and gender.
From this survey, Csizér and Dörnyei used cluster analysis to identify
homogenous subgroups with distinct motivational profiles within the sample. Cluster
analysis is traditionally done in two ways: first hierarchal clustering is used and then non
hierarchal clustering follows. This traditional method was followed by the researchers.
The hierarchal method is as follows: first, three percent of the sample was randomly
chosen. From this group individual clusters are found and then steps are taken to merge
the closest clusters until data is provided showing what motivational subgroups can be
defined. Second, researchers applied the non hierarchal method: the remaining students
were placed closest to the sample members they identified with. As new members join
the subgroups, centers are redefined and members were regrouped according to the new
centers. This happens until the centers become stable.
From this clustering, four groups were found. Group one was identified as having
the least motivated students. Group four was identified as having the highest motivated
students. Groups two and three were considered in the middle of the road, but showed
intriguing differences in motivation.
While group three showed lower overall motivation, they scored higher on
instrumental motivation. In contrast group two had higher overall motivation of group
three, but their motivation was based on integrative types of motivation-namely attitudes
toward L2 speakers and cultural interest.
Csizér and Dörnyei found that all but the least motivated group was dominated by
girls. They related this to a Hungarian cultural idea that language learning is “girly”.
A study by Shaikholeslami and Khayyer (2006) was done to answer this research
questions: What are the relationships of amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic
motivation with learning the English language?
The study consisted of two hundred and thirty Iranian students at Shiraz
University. The students were randomly selected and were tested using the Language
Learning Orientations Scales—a twenty one item survey that allowed students to self-
report their feelings of motivation- to measure amotivation, extrinsic motivation
(instrumental motivation) , and intrinsic motivation (integrative motivation) as the
variables that explain achievement differences. Researchers used grade point average in
English exams to measure English learning achievement.
The study showed that learning achievement can be predicted by scores on the
Language Learning Orientation Scale. First, students who self-identified as extrinsically
motivated (instrumental motivation) were the largest group. These students had higher
grades than the amotivated students. However, researchers noted a high level of anxiety
among the extrinsically motivated students and related this to high pressure tasks within
the university. Finally, a very few students who scored high on intrinsic motivation
(integrative motivation) scale had a negative relationship between grades and motivation.
The negative relationship between integrative motivation and grades surprised the
researchers, as it is universally assumed that students who rank high in integrative
motivation are the most likely to achieve high scores. Researchers related this to Iranian
culture, and an overwhelming tendency to achieve high grades, rather than explore ideas
or quest for personal knowledge. Moreover, researchers stated that “Performance goals

2
are focused on the demonstration of competence relative to others rather than
development of competence through task mastery.”
A study done by Shaaban and Ghaith (2000) was done to answer the following
questions. To what extent are the determinants of learners’ motivation to acquire a
foreign language internally related? Is there a difference between male and female
learners in their motivation to learn EFL?
The study consisted of one hundred and eight students enrolled in the intensive
English classes at American University of Beirut. All of the participants were native
speakers of Arabic. The group consisted of 108 males and 72 females.
The participants’ level of motivation to study EFL was measured by a Wen Scale,
which included questions about demographics, factors of integrative motivation,
instrumental motivation, effort, valence (attraction towards the target language),
expectancy, and ability. Students ranked the intensity of their feelings about each area on
a scale that ranked from zero percent agreement to 100 percent agreement.
Results were analyzed by computing each individual’s score by adding the scores
given on a subscale that measured the variables of the study. Besides quantifying each
variable, researchers also computed an overall motivational score.
From this study, Shaaban and Ghaith found a high correlation between integrative
motivation and all of the other variables: instrumental motivation, effort, expectancy,
valence, and to a lesser degree, perception off ability. They also found that instrumental
motivation only correlated with integrative motivation and valence. In other words,
instrumental motivation does not mean that students will give more effort of develop high
expectations about EFL learning. However, as instrumental motivation relates to
integrative motivation the other variables may develop over time.
In regards to gender correlation to motivation, the researchers found no significant
differences in gender and integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, expectancy,
and estimation of ability. However, the researchers stated that they did find a large
difference in effort and valence. In both cases females scored higher.
The study done by Littlejohn (2008) was developed to answer the following
questions: Is the job of the teacher to avoid de-motivation? How does control, a sense of
value and purpose, self-esteem, and feelings of success interact in the classroom?
The method of this study was far simpler than the previous three. In this instance,
Littlejohn simply interviewed several secondary school learners and chose a section of an
interview that he felt was representative of his many interviews with secondary students
around the world. The interview used in this article was done with a boy and a girl in
Italy. He asked the students general questions about the going-ons in their English class.
From the interview, Littlejohn found that the students were both amotivated
despite good grades in the class. Littlejohn attributes this to loss of control, no sense of
purpose, or feelings of success, or self-esteem.
One of the concerns about the study done by Csizér and Dörnyei was the sheer
size of the study. It did not allow researchers to look into situation-specific variables, but
only to focus on more generalized ones.
Also, in the case of and Shaikholeslami and Khayyer, Csizér and Dörnyei, and
Shaaban and Ghaith the studies focused on culturally specific groups either college-aged
Iranian students, thirteen to fourteen year old Hungarian students, or college aged

3
Lebanese students. All of these groups may be bringing culturally specific traits to the
study that that do not apply universally.
Finally, in the case of Littlejohn, the major concern I had about the study was the
small size of the interview group. Although Littlejohn states that he feels that his
interview snippet was representative of students from all over the world, I think the
article would have been better for including interviews from all over.
The main thing that I have learned from my research is that motivation is an
extremely complicated phenomenon. When I first began my research, I thought I would
find a few simples factors that caused people to wish to learn a language, mainly for
instrumental purposes. Indeed, the concept of integrative motivation was quite surprising
to me.
Integrative motivation was defined by Shaaban and Ghaith (2000) as interest in
foreign language, culture, and people; the desire to broaden one’s view and avoid
provincialism, and the desire for new stimuli and challenges. Even more interestingly, the
two researchers cited research that found integrative motivation seems to exist regardless
of aptitude and that most students who move beyond an intermediate level of proficiency
have aspects of integrative motivation.
Shaikholeslami and Khayyer (2006) also increased my knowledge of integrative
motivation by stating that this type of motivation is “the most autonomous form of
motivation.” Moreover, they explained that this occurs when the image of language
learner has become fully assimilated with the self.
I was also intrigued to learn from Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) that integrative
motivation is not always associated with the students that are the most motivated. In most
of my research, the concept of integrative motivation was portrayed as being most
valuable motivation available to a student, and a language teacher’s dream. However,
these researchers showed that a certain group of students have many characteristics of
integrative motivation but still do not top the scale of student motivation.
The idea of instrumental knowledge was not foreign to me. As an ESL teacher, I
have mainly worked with students that are learning English to increase their employment
prospects. However, I learned from Shaikholeslami and Khayyer (2006) that a form of
instrumental motivation may very well arise from grade-based pressure. According to
their research, they found that many instrumental motivation habits arise from “an
external demand (to) obtain an externally imposed contingency.”
Moreover, as may be inferred from my discussion of integrative motivation,
instrumental motivation has been associated with students reaching an intermediate level
of language proficiency. Therefore, it may be assumed that while instrumental
motivational tactics in lower level language classes are appropriate for the needs of the
students, this form of motivation will no longer be enough for many, more advanced
students.
Of all the things I learned about motivation in the course of my research,
amotivation was definitely the most interesting. While I have worked with unmotivated
students in the past, I always assumed that students just didn’t care enough to make an
effort. However, Shaikholeslami and Khayyer (2006) broadened that category to include
students who “act without intentionality or personal causation.”
I also learned from the researchers that amotivation may arise from the learning
environment in the language classroom. They stated, “Language instruction in Iranian

4
universities is based upon grades and often the goal of the students is to attain high
grades, rather than to explore ideas or personal knowledge…Thus, university students
who try to obtain high grades may show lower motivation for knowledge development.”
This cause of amotivation definitely needs more research, as it is now important for
researchers to figure out if this pressure for high grades and resulting lack of motivation
is culturally based or a universal problem.
Littlejohn (2008) attributed amotivation to classes that consist solely of exercises
and free of any memorable content. His most intriguing idea about stopping amotivation
was to give students “the locus of control.” I was surprised to see his idea that allowing
students to take control of decision making in the classroom would help to eradicate
amotivation. I have found the idea of a student controlled classroom to be very foreign to
many of my students. Indeed, when I have asked them to help make decisions about our
activities, they essentially told me that as the teacher, I had to decide that!
I was also interested to learn that Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) found some evidence
that amotivation may arise from the specific target language being learned. In particular,
they studied students who were interested in a particular language (in this case German)
were not interested to learn English. They attributed this to interference between the two
languages. I wonder if this can be linked to instrumental motivation; in particular, do
students see German as being useful to them and English to be unnecessary? Or, does
integrative motivation play into it? Do students like German culture but dislike either UK
or USA culture? Regardless, it is clear that more research is needed into the causes of
amotivation.
Finally, I was surprised by my learning about gender and motivation. When I
began my research, I expected women to be far more motivated than men. However, my
research showed me that the subject is still open for debate. Csizér and Dörnyei (2005)
found that all but the least motivated group of students they studied were dominated by
women. However, Shaaban and Ghaith (2000) found that there was no difference in
motivation, integrative or instrumental between men and women. However, they did find
that women exert significantly more effort than men. I would like to know if this
difference resulted in a difference of age between the two groups in the study. Or, again,
is the difference cultural?
I have learned a lot from my research that I can apply in the classroom. First, as I
found that integrative motivation is a mark of higher levels of achievement in the
classroom, I know that I will have to do different motivational tactics for my more
advanced students. In my higher level classes, I will have to emphasize target culture, the
joy of learning for self-fulfillment, and connections with native speakers. Doing these
things may encourage students to maintain their studies.
I also know that my students that are in lower to intermediate level classes may
benefit more from motivational tactics that focus on the usefulness of the language. In the
case of lower level students, I may need to bring in guest speakers to discuss how they
use the target language at their job. Or, I may wish to have students research how much
their income or social prestige would rise by becoming competent in the target language.
I also have better ideas about how to help my students that are currently
amotivated. Instead of emphasizing grades in my classroom, I need to emphasize the fun
of learning or learning for self-fulfillment. Basically, I need to push both integrative and
instrumental forms of motivation in hopes that students will connect with one of them.

5
Also, I need to give students a sense of control over what happens in the classroom, let
them know that their learning is valuable, and allow them to have a lot of success in the
room. All of these factors will influence their self-esteem and hopefully, wash away that
amotivation.
As amotivation has been linked to males in the language classroom, I also need to
make sure that I am finding a way to bring the joy of language learning to men. While not
wishing to be stereotypical, I would like to observe that my own language learning
experiences often relate to using the target language to discuss how you feel about
something. I think that this is not be the way to connect to male language learners.
Instead, as a teacher, I may have to take some pains to bring in activities that are
considered to be more masculine, i.e. playing more active games, discussing sports, or
doing more hands on projects. Also, I’d like to venture a guess that most women would
enjoy those activities as well!
Finally, I think that within my classroom I have to be careful to not label a student
with a motivation label. I believe that motivation is fluid. One day, a student may wish to
learn a certain grammatical form because they need it for work. This however, does not
mean that the student may in the future be interested in learning about the target culture.
Therefore, while I try to emphasize the motivation that I feel would be the most useful, I
need to be careful not to emphasize it to the neglect of the other types of motivation.
Also, I need to ensure that my knowledge about gender and motivation does not affect
my treatment of my students.
My plan to research the different types of motivation and their effects was
extremely interesting. Moreover, I was very interested to learn that the gender differences
in motivation were not as clearly defined as I had previously believed. This new
knowledge will benefit my students greatly, as I now know how to better suit their
motivational needs.

Bibliography

Csizer, Kata, and Zoltan Dornyei. "Language Learners Motivational Profiles and Their
Motivated Learning Behavior." Language Learning 55.4 (2005): 613-659.

Littlejohn, Andrew. "The Tip of the Iceberg: Factors Affecting Learner Motivation."
RELC Journal 39.2 (2008): 214-225.

Shaaban, Shaaban, K. A. "Student motivation to learn English as a foreign language.."


Foreign Language Annals 33.6 (2000): 189-202.

Shaikholeslami, Razieh, and Mohammad Khayyer. ""Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic


motivation, and learning English as a foreign language.." Psychological Reports
99.3 (2006): 813-819.

Potrebbero piacerti anche